https://en.prolewiki.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=RedCustodian&feedformat=atomProleWiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T19:55:00ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.41.0https://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:How_to_Be_a_Good_Communist&diff=64534Library:How to Be a Good Communist2024-03-24T17:24:26Z<p>RedCustodian: /* Attitudes Towards Wrong Ideology in the Party and Towards Inner-Party Struggle */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Library work|title=How to Be a Good Communist|author=Liu Shaoqi|written in=1939}}<br />
<br />
Comrades,<br />
<br />
The question I shall discuss us how members of the [[Communist Party of China|Communist Party]] should cultivate and temper themselves. It may not be unprofitable to the building and consolidation of the Party to take up this question at this present time.<br />
<br />
== Why Communists Must Undertake Self-Cultivation ==<br />
Why must Communists undertake to cultivate themselves?<br />
<br />
In order to live, person must wage a struggle against nature and make use of nature to produce [[Materialism|material]] values. At all times and under all conditions, his [[production]] of material things is social in character. It follows that when men engage in production at any [[Mode of production|stage of social development]], they have to enter into certain [[relations of production]] with one another. In their ceaseless struggle against nature, men ceaselessly change nature and simultaneously change themselves and their mutual relations. Men themselves, their social relations, their form of social organization and consciousness were all different from what they are today, and in the future they will again be different.<br />
<br />
Humanity and human society are in process of [[Historical materialism|historical development]]. When human society reached a certain historical stage, [[Social class|classes]] and [[class struggle]] emerged. Every member of a [[class society]] exists as a member of a given class and lives in given conditions of class struggle. Man’s social being determines his consciousness. In class society the ideology of the members of each class reflects a different position and different class interests. The class struggle constantly goes on among these classes with their different positions, interests and ideologies. Thus it is not only in the struggle against nature but in the struggle of social classes that men change nature, change society and at the same time change themselves.<br />
<br />
[[Karl Marx|Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]] said:<blockquote>Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary, an alteration that can only take place in a practical movement, a ''[[Proletarian revolution|revolution]]''; the revolution is necessary, therefore, not only the [[Bourgeoisie|ruling class]] cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because [[Proletariat|the class ''overthrowing'' it]] can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>That is to say, the proletariat must conscientiously go through long periods of social revolutionary struggles and, in such struggles change society and change itself.<br />
<br />
We should therefore see ourselves as in need of change and capable of being changed. We should not look upon ourselves as immutable, perfect and sacrosanct, as persons who need not and cannot be changed. When we pose the task of remoulding ourselves in social struggle, we are not demeaning ourselves; the objective laws of social development demand it. Unless we do so, we cannot make progress, or fulfill the task of changing society.<br />
<br />
We Communists are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history; to day the changing of society and the world rests upon us and we are the driving force in this change. It is by unremitting struggle against [[Counterrevolution|counter-revolutionaries]]<sup>3</sup> that we Communists change society and the world, and at the same time ourselves.<br />
<br />
When we say Communists must remould themselves by waging struggles in every sphere against the counter-revolutionaries,<sup>3</sup> we mean that it is through such struggles that they must seek to make progress and must enhance their revolutionary quality and ability. An immature revolutionary has to go through a long process of revolutionary tempering and self-cultivation, a long process of remoulding, before he can become a mature and seasoned revolutionary who can grasp and skillfully apply the laws of revolution. For in the first place, a comparatively immature revolutionary, born and bred in the old society, carries with him the remnants of the various ideologies of that society (including its prejudices, habits and traditions), and in the second he has not been through a long period of revolutionary activity. Therefore he does not yet have a really thorough understanding of the enemy, of the people or of the laws of social development and revolutionary struggle. In order to change this state of affairs, besides learning from past revolutionary experience (the practice of our predecessors), he must themself participate in contemporary revolutionary practice, and in this revolutionary practice and struggle against all kinds of counter revolutionaries,<sup>3</sup> he must bring his conscious activity into full play and work hard at study and self-cultivation. Only so can he acquire deeper experience and understanding of the laws of social development and revolutionary struggle, acquire a really thorough understanding of the enemy and the people, discover his wrong ideas, habits and prejudices and correct them, and thus raise the level of his political consciousness, cultivate his revolutionary qualities and improve his revolutionary methods. Hence, in order to remould themself and raise his owl level, a revolutionary must take part in revolutionary practice from which he must on no account isolate themself. Moreover, he must strive to conduct self-cultivation and study in the course of practice. Otherwise, it will still be impossible for him to make progress.<br />
<br />
For example, several Communists take part in a revolutionary mass struggle together and engage in revolutionary practice under roughly the same circumstances and conditions. It is possible that the effect of the struggle on these Party members will not be at all uniform. Some will make very rapid progress and some who used to lag behind will even forge ahead of others. Other Party members will advance very slowly. Still others will waver in the struggle and, instead of being pushed forward by revolutionary practice, will fall behind. Why?<br />
<br />
Or take another example. Many members of our Party were on the [[Long March]]; it was a severe process of tempering for them, and the overwhelming majority made very great progress indeed. But the Long March had the opposite effect on certain individuals in the Party. After having been on the Long March they began to shrink before arduous struggles, and some of them even planned to back out or to run away and later, succumbing to outside allurements, actually deserted the revolutionary ranks. Many Party members took part in the Long March together, and yet its impact and results varied very greatly. Again, why?<br />
<br />
Basically speaking, these phenomena are reflections of our revolutionary ranks of the class struggle in society. Our Party members differ in quality because they differ in social background and have come under different social influences. They differ in their attitude, stand and comprehension in relation to the revolutionary practice, and consequently they develop in different directions in the course of revolutionary practice. This can clearly be seen in your institute as well. You all receive the same education and training here, and yet because you differ in quality and experience, in degree of effort and self-cultivation, you may obtain different of even contrary results. Hence, subjective effort and self-cultivation in the course of revolutionary struggle are absolutely essential, indeed, indispensable for a revolutionary in remoulding themself and raising his own level.<br />
<br />
Whether he joined the revolution long ago or just recently, every Communist who wants to become a good politically mature revolutionary must undergo a long period of tempering in revolutionary struggle, must steel themself in mass revolutionary struggles and all kinds of difficulties and hardships, must sum up the experience gained through practice, make great efforts in self-cultivation, raise his ideological level, heighten his ability and never loose sense of what is new. For only thus can he turn themself into a politically staunch revolutionary of high quality.<br />
<br />
[[Confucius]] said “At fifteen, my mind was bent on learning. At thirty, I could think for myself. At forty, I was no longer perplexed. At fifty, I knew the decree of Heaven. At sixty, my ear was attuned to the truth. At seventy, I can follow my heart’s desire without transgressing what is right.”<sup>4</sup> Here the [[Feudalism|feudal]] philosopher was referring to his own process of self-cultivation; he did not consider themself to have been born a “sage”.<br />
<br />
[[Mencius]], another feudal philosopher, said that no one had fulfilled a “great mission” and played a role in history without first undergoing a hard process of tempering, a process which “exercises his mind with suffering and toughens his sinews and bones with toil, exposes his body to hunger, subjects him to extreme poverty, thwarts his under-takings and thereby stimulates his mind, tempers his character and adds to his capacities”.<sup>5</sup> Still more so must Communists give attention to tempering and cultivating themselves in revolutionary struggles, since they have the historically unprecedented “great mission” of changing the world.<br />
<br />
Our Communist self-cultivation is the kind essential to proletarian revolutionaries. It must not be divorced from revolutionary practice or from the actual revolutionary movements of the labouring masses, and especially of the proletarian masses.<br />
<br />
Comrade [[Mao Zedong]] has said:<blockquote>Discover the truth through practice, and again through practice verify and develop the truth. Start from perceptual knowledge and actively develop it into rational knowledge; then start from rational knowledge and actively guide revolutionary practice to change both the subjective and the objective world. Practice, knowledge, again practice and again knowledge. This form repeats itself in endless cycles, and with each cycle the content the content of practice and knowledge rises to a higher level. Such is the whole of the dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge, and such is the dialectical-materialist theory of the unity of knowing and doing.<sup>6</sup></blockquote>Our Party members should temper themselves and intensify their self-cultivation not only in the hardships, difficulties and reverses of revolutionary practice, but also in the course of smooth, successful and victorious revolutionary practice. Some members of our Party cannot stand the plaudits of success and victory; they let victories turn their heads, become brazen, arrogant, and bureaucratic and may even vacillate, degenerate and become corrupted, completely loosing their original revolutionary quality. Individual instances of this kind are not uncommon among our Party members. The existence of such a phenomenon in the Party calls for our comrades’ sharp attention.<br />
<br />
In past ages, before the proletarian revolutionaries appeared on the scene, practically all [[Revolution|revolutionaries]] became corrupted and degenerated with the achievement of victory. They lost their original revolutionary spirit and became obstacles to the further development of the revolution. [[Republic of China|China]]’s [[History of China|history]] over the past century, or to speak of more recent times, over the past fifty years, has shown us that many bourgeois and [[Petty bourgeoisie|petty-bourgeois]] revolutionaries in the past and by the nature of earlier revolutions. Before the [[Russian revolution of 1917|Great October Socialist Revolution]] in [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1991)|Russia]], all revolutions throughout history invariably ended in the suppression of the rule of one [[Exploitation|exploiting]] class by that of another. Thus, once they themselves became the ruling class, these revolutionaries lost their revolutionary quality and turned round to [[Oppression|oppress]] the exploited masses; this was the inexorable law.<br />
<br />
But such can never be the case with the proletarian revolution and with the Communist Party. The proletarian revolution is a revolution to abolish all exploitation, oppression and classes. The Communist Party represents the proletariat which is itself exploited but does not exploit others and which can therefore carry the revolution through to the end finally abolish all exploitation and sweep away all the corruption and rottenness in human society. The proletariat is able to build a strictly organized and disciplined party and set up a centralized and at the same time democratic state apparatus, and through the Party and this state apparatus, it is able to lead the masses of the people in waging unrelenting struggle against all corruption and rottenness and in ceaselessly weeding out of the Party and the state organs all those elements that have become [[Corruption|corrupt]] and degenerate (whatever high office they may hold), thereby preserving the purity of the Party and the state apparatus. This outstanding feature of the proletarian revolution and of the [[Vanguard party|proletarian revolutionary party]] did not and could not exist in earlier revolutions and revolutionary parties. Members of our Party must be clear on this point, and—particularly when the revolution is successful and victorious and when they themselves enjoy the ever greater confidence and support of the masses—they must sharpen their vigilance, intensify their self-cultivation in proletarian ideology and always preserve their pure proletarian revolutionary character so that they will not fall into the rut of earlier revolutionaries who degenerated in the hour of success.<br />
<br />
Tempering and self-cultivation in revolutionary practice and tempering and self-cultivation in proletarian ideology are important for every Communist, especially after the seizure of political power. The Communist Party did not drop from heaven but was born out of the Chinese society. Every member of the Communist party has come from this society, is living in it today and is constantly exposed to its seamy side. It is not surprising then that Communists, whether they are of proletarian or non-proletarian origin and whether they are old or new members of the Party, should carry with them to a greater or lesser the thinking and habits of the old society. In order to preserve our purity as vanguard fighters of the proletariat and to enhance our revolutionary quality and working ability that is essential for every Communist to work hard to temper and cultivate themself in every respect.<br />
<br />
These are the reasons why Communists must undertake self-cultivation. I shall now discuss the criteria for Communist self-cultivation.<br />
<br />
== Be Worthy Pupils of Marx and Lenin ==<br />
The constitution of the party stipulates that membership is open to any member who accepts the Programme and [[Library:Constitution of the Communist Party of China (2022)|Constitution of the Party]]<ref group="ProleWiki 2.">At the time of writing, this would have been the [[Constitution of the Communist Party of China (1928)|1928 Constitution]].</ref> organizations, pays membership dues and works in one of the Party organizations. No one can be a Party member unless he fulfills these requirements. But no Communist should rest content with being a Party member who merely fulfills the minimum requirements; as laid down in the Party Constitution, he should strive to make progress ceaselessly raise the level of his political consciousness and diligently study [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxism-Leninism]], as manifested throughout their lives.<br />
<br />
Engels said of Marx:<blockquote>...Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being, to contribute to the liberation of the modern proletariat, which he was the first to make conscious of its own position and of its needs, conscious of the needs of its emancipation. Fighting was his element. And he fought with a passion, a tenacity and a success such as few could rival.<sup>1</sup></blockquote>Engels also said of Marx:<blockquote>None of us has the breadth of vision with which he, whenever it was necessary to act quickly, did the right thing and tackled the decisive issue.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>[[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] said concerning the necessity of our learning from the example of [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]]:<blockquote>Remember, love and study Ilyich, our teacher, our leader. Fight and defeat our enemies, home and foreign—in the way that Ilyich taught us. Build the new society, the new way of life, the new culture in the way that Ilyich taught us. Never refuse to do the little things, for from the little things are built the big things—that is one of Ilyich's important behests.<sup>3</sup></blockquote>On another occasion Stalin said:<blockquote>The electors, the people, must demand that their deputies should remain equal to their tasks, that in their work they should not sink to the level of political philistines, that in their posts definite as Lenin was, that they should be as fearless in battle and as merciless towards the complicated and some danger or other looms on the horizon, that they should be as free from all requiring a comprehensive orientation and a comprehensive weighing of all the pros and cons as Lenin did.<sup>4</sup></blockquote>These are the concise characterizations of Marx by Engels and of Lenin by Stalin. That is how all members of our Party should learn from the thinking and qualities of Marx and Lenin and strive to be their worthy pupils.<br />
<br />
Some say that the that the thinking and qualities of such great revolutionary geniuses as the founders of Marxism-Leninism cannot be acquired and that it is impossible to raise one's thinking and qualities to their high level. They regard the founders of Marxism-Leninism as born geniuses , as mysterious beings. Is such a view correct? I think not.<br />
<br />
True enough, the average Party comrade is far from possessing the great gifts and profound scientific knowledge of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, and most of our comrades cannot attain to their deep and broad erudition in the theory of proletarian revolution. But it is perfectly possible for our comrades to grasp the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism, cultivate the style of Marx and Lenin in work and in struggle, constantly heighten their revolutionary quality and become statesmen of the type of Marx and Lenin, if they really have the will. Take a really conscious and consistent stand as vanguard fighters of the proletariat, really acquire the communist world outlook, never isolate themselves from the current deep and great revolutionary movement of the proletariat and all the labouring masses, and exert themselves in study, self-tempering and self-cultivation.<br />
<br />
There is a saying of Mencius: "Everybody can be a [[History of China#Sage kings Yao and Shun|Yao or a Shun]]."<sup>5</sup> I think that was well said. Every Communist should keep his feet on the ground, seek the truth from the facts, work hard at tempering themself, work conscientiously at self-cultivation and do his best to improve his own thinking and quality. He should not regard the thinking and qualities of such great revolutionaries as the founders of Marxism-Leninism as beyond his reach, give up and be afraid to advance. For if he does so, he will become a "political philistine", a piece of "rotten wood that cannot be carved".<br />
<br />
We should of course adopt a correct attitude towards learning from the qualities of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and towards the learning of Marxism-Leninism itself. Otherwise it is impossible to learn anything, let alone to learn it well. In fact, there are different kinds of people in our ranks with different attitudes towards such learning.<br />
<br />
These are people who, when studying Marx and Lenin, fail to get to the essence of Marxism-Leninism, but only learn its terms and phrases superficially. Although they read Marxist-Leninist literature, they are unable to use its principles and conclusions as a guide to action and apply them to concrete, practical problems in real life. They are content to learn isolated principles and conclusions by rote, and even to style themselves as "[[Dogmatism|the genuine]]" Marxist-Leninists; but they are certainly not genuine Marxist-Leninists and their actions and methods are diametrically opposed to Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
We have had not a few people of this type in the Communist Party of China. We had certain representatives of dogmatism at one time who were even worse. These people knew absolutely nothing about Marxism-Leninism and could only babble Marxist-Leninist phraseology, and yet they regarded themselves as China's Marx or China's Lenin, posed as such in the Party and had the impudence to require that our Party members should revere them as Marx and Lenin are revered, support them as "the leaders" and accord them loyalty and devotion. They went so far as to appoint themselves "the leaders" without being chosen, climbed into positions of authority, issued orders to the Party like [[Patriarchy|patriarchs]], tried to lecture our Party, abused everything in the Party, wilfully attacked and punished our Party members and pushed them around. Those people had no sincere desire to study Marxism-Leninism or fight for the realization of communism—they were just careerists in the Party, termites in the communist movement. Such people were bound to be opposed and eventually unmasked and discarded by the rank and file. And indeed they were discarded by our Party members. But can we say with full confidence that no such people will reappear in our Party? No, we cannot yet say so.<br />
<br />
Then there are people of exactly the opposite kind. They see themselves above all as pupils of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, they conscientiously studyi the theory of Marxism-Leninism and strive to grasp its essence and spirit. They look up to the noble character and proletarian revolutionary qualities of the founders, and in the course of revolutionary struggles they conscientiously carry on self-cultivation and examine themselves to see if their handling of affairs, their dealings with people and their own behaviour conform to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism. They are well-read in Marxism-Leninism but at the same time they make a special effort to investigate and analyse living reality, to study the characteristics of their own time and all aspects of the situation facing the proletariat of their own country, and to integrate the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the revolution in their own country. They do not content themselves with memorizing Marxist-Leninist principles and conclusions, but take a firm Marxist-Leninist stand learn the Marxist-Leninist method and act accordingly, giving spirited guidance in every revolutionary struggle, and thus they transform reality and at the same time transform themselves. Every one of their actions without exception is guided by the general principles of Marxism-Leninism and is devoted to the victory of the proletarian cause, the liberation of the nation and all humanity, and the triumph of Communism.<br />
<br />
The attitude of these people is the only correct one. It is the one attitude towards studying Marxism-Leninism and learning from the qualities of its founders that will enable us to become communist proletarian revolutionaries of the Marx and Lenin type.<br />
<br />
A person who really takes pain to cultivate themselves and to be a faithful pupil of the founders of Marxism-Leninism will lay special stress on maintaining the Marxist-Leninist stand and using the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint and method to solve the problems arising in the revolutionary movement lead by the proletariat, as the founders of Marxism-Leninism did. He will give no thought whatsoever to his own position or fame in the Party, nor will he ever claim to be a Marx or a Lenin, nor require nor expect others to have the same high respect for him as for Marx or Lenin, for he does not think he has any right to do so. Yet such a person will enjoy the considered respect and support of the mass of the Party members just because he acts in this way, because he is always honest and loyal, brave and firm, and shows great ability in the revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
Of course it is not easy to model ourselves on the founders of Marxism-Leninism and to be their faithful and worthy pupils. But we can become their faithful and worthy pupils if we are strong-willed and determined to fight hard for the cause of communism, if we diligently study Marxism-Leninism amid the great revolutionary struggles of the masses and are good at summing up experience and if we temper and cultivate ourselves in every respect and devote our whole lives to the proletarian communist cause.<br />
<br />
=== ProleWiki annotations ===<br />
<references group="ProleWiki 2." /><br />
<br />
== The Self-Cultivation of Communists and the Revolutionary Practice of the Masses ==<br />
In order to become faithful and worthy pupils of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, we must engage in all round self-cultivation in the course of the great and protracted revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and the masses. We must engage in self-cultivation in the Marxist-Leninist theory; self cultivation in applying the Marxist-Leninist stand, view point and method to the study and handling of all problems; self-cultivation in proletarian ideology and morality; self-cultivation in upholding unity in the Party, practicing criticism and self-criticism and observing discipline; self-cultivation in developing the style of hard work and persistent struggle; self-cultivation in building close ties with the masses; self cultivation in various branches of scientific knowledge, etc. We are all members of the Communist Party and therefore we must all without exception carry on self-cultivation in these respects. However, since Party members differ from one another in political consciousness, experience of struggle, field of work, cultural level and in the conditions in which they work, it is natural that comrades should differ to some extent in the various aspects of self-cultivation to which they must pay special attention of which they must stress.<br />
<br />
When Zeng Zi, in ancient times, said, "I reflect on myself three times a day,"<sup>1</sup> he was discussing self-examination. The ''Book of Odes'' in the famous lines, "As knife and file make smooth the bone, as jade is wrought by chisel and stone", <sup>2</sup> referred to the need for help and criticism among friends. What all this shows is that very hard work and very earnest self-cultivation are essential if one is to make progress. But the "self-cultivation" perused by many people in the past was generally [[Idealism|idealistic]], formalistic, abstract and divorced from social practice. They exaggerated the role of subjective intentions, thinking that so long as they had "good will" in the abstract, they could transform reality, society and themselves. Of course this is absurd. Our self-cultivation cannot be done that way. We are revolutionary materialists; our self-cultivation cannot be separated from the revolutionary practices of the masses.<br />
<br />
For us it is most important to never divorce ourselves from the current revolutionary struggle of the masses, but to identify ourselves with it, in order to study, sum up and apply the revolutionary experience of the past. This means that we must cultivate and temper ourselves in revolutionary practice and that in turn our self-cultivation and tempering are undertaken solely for the sake of the people and of revolutionary practice. It means that we must modestly learn the Marxist-Leninist stand, viewpoint and method, learn from the noble proletarian quality of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and apply all this in our practice, in our words and deeds, our daily life and work, constantly correcting or eliminating anything in our ideology contrary to it and strengthening our own proletarian communist ideology and character. It means that we should listen modestly to the opinions and criticisms of our Party comrades and of the masses, make a careful study of the practical problems in our life and work, carefully sum up and draw lessons from our experience in work, and that, in the light of all this, we should ascertain whether our understanding of Marxism-Leninism and our use of the Marxist-Leninist method are correct and check up on our shortcomings and mistakes so as to overcome them and improve our work. Furthermore, on the basis of new experience we should ascertain whether there are any individual conclusions or aspects of Marxism-Leninism that need supplementing, enriching and developing. In short, we must integrate the universal truth of Marxism- Leninism with the concrete practice of the revolution.<br />
<br />
This is the method of self-cultivation for us communists. It is entirely different from those methods of self-cultivation which are idealistic and divorced from the revolutionary practice of the masses.<br />
<br />
In order to persevere in this Marxist-Leninist method of cultivation, we must resolutely oppose and thoroughly eradicate one of the worst vices bequeathed to us by the old society in the field of education and study, namely, the separation of theory from practice. In the old society many people who studied thought it unnecessary, or even impossible to act upon what they had learned, and though they wrote and spoke abundantly of justice and morality, in fact they were out and out scoundrels. Although the [[Kuomintang]] [[Reactionary|reactionaries]] memorize the "Three People's Principles"<sup>3</sup> and recite [[Sun Yat-sen]]'s Testament,<sup>4</sup> in actual fact they bleed the people white with [[Tax|taxes]], practice corruption and slaughter, oppress the masses, are opposed to "[[Anti-imperialism|those nations who treat us as equals]]", and go as far as to compromise with or surrender to the [[Empire of Japan (1868–1947)|national enemy]]. An old ixucai<sup>5</sup> once told me that of all the teachings of Confucius he was able to observe only this one, "For him no food can ever be too dainty and no minced meat too fine"<sup>5</sup> and that he could not observe the rest and had never intended to. Since that is what these people are like, why do they run schools and study the "teachings of the sages"? They are after advancement and money, use the "teachings of the sages" to oppress the exploited, and deceive the people by paying lip service to justice and morality. This is typical of the attitude of the exploiting classes of the old society towards the sages they "worship". Needless to say, when we Communists study Marxism-Leninism an all that is best in our national heritage, we must never adopt such an attitude. What we learn we must practice. Being proletarian revolutionaries who are honest and pure in purpose, we cannot be untrue to ourselves, to the people, or to those who went before us. This is an outstanding characteristic as well as a great merit of Communists.<br />
<br />
Is it possible that the old society's separation of theory from practice can have no influence on us? No, it is not! It is true that none of you students are studying Marxism-Leninism for the sake of advancement and money and or oppressing the exploited. Yet is it possible to maintain that none of you ever entertains the idea that your thoughts, words, deeds and life do not necessarily have to be guided by Marxist-Leninist principles or that you do not intend to put all the principles that you have learned into practice? Is it possible that none of you ever thinks of studying Marxism-Leninism or going deeper into the theory as a means of getting ahead in life, of showing off and becoming famous? I cannot guarantee that none of you thinks along these lines. That kind of thinking runs counter to Marxism-Leninism and to the basic Marxist-Leninist principle of the integration of theory and practice. Certainly we must study theory, but we must also practice what we learn. And it is for the sake of practice, of the Party, of the people, and of the victory of the revolution that we study theory.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<blockquote>The great strength of Marxism-Leninism lies precisely in its integration with the concrete revolutionary practice of all countries. For the Communist Party of China, it is a matter of learning to apply the theory of Marxism-Leninism to the specific circumstances of China. For the Chinese Communists who are part of the great Chinese nation, flesh of its flesh and blood of its blood, any talk about Marxism in isolation from China's characteristics is merely Marxism in the abstract, Marxism in a vacuum. Hence to apply Marxism concretely in China so that its every manifestation has an indubitable Chinese character, i.e., to apply Marxism in the light of China's specific characteristics, becomes a problem which it is urgent for the whole Party to understand and solve. Foreign stereotypes must be abolished, there must be less singing of empty, abstract tunes, and dogmatism must be laid to rest; they must be replaced by the fresh, lively Chinese style and spirit which the common people of China love.<sup>6</sup></blockquote>Our comrades must study the theory of Marxism-Leninism by following the method Comrade Mao Zedong speaks of here.<br />
<br />
== The Unity of Theoretical Study and Ideological Self-Cultivation ==<br />
We Communists must not separate our study of theory from our ideological self-cultivation. We must remould ourselves and temper our proletarian ideology not only in the practice of revolution but in the study of Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
The view is current among some members of our Party that a firm and purely proletarian stand is irrelevant to a Party member's understanding a and mastery of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism. They believe that one can thoroughly understand and genuinely master the Marxist-Leninist theory and method even though one's proletarian stand may not be very firm and one's ideology not very pure (i.e., it may be tainted with the remnants of non-proletarian ideas). They believe that the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism can be mastered merely through book learning. This view is wrong.<br />
<br />
Marxism-Leninism is the science of proletarian revolution, the science by which the working class builds socialism and communism. It can be thoroughly understood and mastered only by those who have a firm proletarian stand and who have made the ideals of the proletariat their own. Without a firm proletarian stand and pure proletarian ideals it is impossible for anyone to thoroughly understand or master the science of Marxism-Leninism. The science of Marxism-Leninism is of little of no use to anyone who is not a genuine revolutionary, who is not a proletarian revolutionary to the core, who does not want to bring about socialism and communism throughout the world and emancipate all humanity, to anyone who does not want revolution or is unwilling to carry it through to the end and wants to stop half-way.<br />
<br />
We often come across very fine Party members from the working class who are not well grounded in Marxist-Leninist theory and who may not do so well as others in an examination in which Marxist-Leninist works and formulations have to be quoted from memory. Yet in studying Marxism-Leninism, provided it is explained to them in language they understand, they generally show much keener interest and far greater comprehension than some Party members from the [[intelligentsia]]. For example, the section in Capital concerning surplus value is difficult for some Party members, but not for those from the working class. The reason is that in the process of production and of struggle against the capitalists, the workers come to know all too well how the capitalists calculate wages and working hours, exploit the workers for profit and oppress them. Therefore, they generally understand Marx's theory of surplus value more profoundly than do some Party members from other classes. When we say that many Party members from the working class are readier to accept Marxism-Leninism, we do not, of course mean that their class-background makes them born Marxist-Leninists. We mean that provided they study Marxist-Leninist theory modestly and diligently and have a real grasp of the method of seeking the truth from the facts, those comrades who have a firm and purely proletarian stand and are free from personal prejudice of other blemishes are certain to be keener and more correct than the others in their observation and handling of practical problems. In the struggle, too, these comrades will prove more able to discern the truth and will uphold it more courageously and unhesitatingly.<br />
<br />
Also, we come across many Party members of non-proletarian origin who differ in their development owing to their differing attitudes towards the relation between Marxist-Leninist study and ideological self-cultivation. Generally speaking, when they join the revolution such people do not have a firm and clear-cut proletarian stand, are not very correct or pure in their ideology, and to a greater of lesser extent carry over various non-proletarian ideas from the old society. Obviously these ideas come into direct conflict with the principles of Marxism-Leninism, and since the people take different attitudes, the results of the conflict differ. In studying Marxism-Leninism, some people correctly combine theoretical study with their ideological self-cultivation, using Marxist-Leninist principles to fight and overcome whatever is backward in their thinking. In this way thy achieve a more truly proletarian stand and a more undiluted proletarian ideology, and learn how to apply Marxist-Leninist principles to the solution of practical problems. We have many such Party members. Others, however, go the opposite way; they have a lot of old junk accumulated in their heads and many stubborn habits, prejudices and selfish desires, but the lack of determination to remould themselves. In studying Marxism-Leninism they do not make use of its principles to criticize and repudiate whatever is backward in their own ideology, but employ it as a weapon to further their own private ends, and this is carried to the point where the principles of Marxism-Leninism are so distorted by their old prejudices that these people can neither reach a correct understanding of these principles nor grasp the spirit and essence of Marxism-Leninism. When they handle practical problems in the course of revolutionary struggle, the habits and prejudices which they have brought with them from the old society and their individualistic calculations led them to think in terms of personal gain or loss, to be hesitant and vacillating and incapable of going deeply into things in a free untrammelled way or of courageously upholding the truth , and they conceal or distort the truth unintentionally, or even deliberately.<br />
<br />
These people are absolutely incapable of guiding their lives by the principals of Marxism-Leninism, and hence incapable of dealing with practical problems promptly, correctly and realistically according to these principles; sometimes they even adopt a negative attitude when practical problems have already been correctly solved according to these principals by the Party organization, or by comrades other than themselves. Such things are neither rare nor unusual, but are quite common.<br />
<br />
Thus we can say that it is impossible for a Party member who lacks a clear-cut firm proletarian stand and a correct, purely proletarian ideology to achieve a thorough understanding and real mastery of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism as a weapon in the revolutionary struggle. In other words a Party member must have the noble stand of the proletariat in order to become versed in Marxist-Leninist theory.<br />
<br />
At the same time, we should add that no Party member can maintain a proletarian stand and express a proletarian ideology concretely in every revolutionary struggle unless he studies the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism diligently and guides his thinking and action accordingly.<br />
<br />
There are some Party members who think it quite enough to have revolutionary firmness and to fight bravely, and that it does not matter much whether they study and undertake self-cultivation in Marxist-Leninist theory. Some comrades even think that a good class origin or a good personal class status is all that is needed to make them vanguard proletarian fighters, thus obviating the need to study Marxism-Leninism. There are other comrades who never study it earnestly in the course of work or struggle, though they generally admit the importance of theory. All such attitudes are obviously wrong.<br />
<br />
The theory of Marxism-Leninism is our weapon for studying every phenomenon and dealing with every question, and especially for studying all social phenomena and dealing with all social questions.. If we do not know how to wield the weapon of Marxist-Leninist theory, we shall be unable correctly to understand and deal with the problems confronting us in the revolutionary struggle and shall be in danger of loosing our bearings and departing from the revolutionary proletarian stand, or even, whether consciously or unconsciously, of becoming opportunists of one kind or another, captives and yes-men of the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Revolutionary firmness and courage in the struggle are precious qualities which every Communist must possess. Besides these qualities, Communists must have the ability to find the right way to conduct the revolution and carry on the struggle in different historical periods and under different conditions of struggle, if they are to win the victory for the revolution and realize the highest ideal of communism. Only by applying Marxism-Leninism can we correctly solve such important questions in the revolutionary struggle as the question of whom to rely upon, whom to unite with and whom to overthrow, the question of who are our direct allies, who is the main enemy and who are the secondary enemies, the question of rallying all possible allies, including even secondary enemies under certain conditions, to defeat the main enemy, and the question of making timely changes in strategy and tactics to meet changing situations. Without mastering the weapon of Marxism-Leninism and attaining a high degree of self-cultivation in Marxist-Leninist theory, we cannot possibly maintain a firm, correct proletarian stand on every important question in the revolutionary struggle, or formulate the policies which are most advantageous to the cause of the proletarian revolution or champion the overall, long term interests of the proletarian revolutionary struggle amid the complex situations and sharp changes, when it is necessary for us to make detours and turns.<br />
<br />
Consider, for instance, our Party's experience in carrying out the policy of the national [[united front]] against Japan. Before the Incident of July 7. 1937,<sup>1</sup> certain comrades did not understand that the [[contradiction]] between the Chinese nation and Japanese [[imperialism]] had become the principal one while the contradictions among the different classes and political groups within the country had become secondary. As a result, they opposed the Party's policy of forming a national united front against Japan. of uniting all [[Patriotism|patriotic]] classes, strata, political parties and social groupings for joint resistance, and especially of uniting with the Kuomintang to fight Japan. Although these comrades thought they were taking a firm proletarian stand in opposing the Party's correct policy, they actually departed from it and plunged into "closed-doorism" and [[sectarianism]]. Had we acted in accordance with their wrong views, the proletariat and its political party would have been unable to unite and lead all the patriotic classes, strata, parties and social groupings for the purpose of defeating Japanese imperialism; instead, the forces of the Anti-Japanese National United Front would have been weakened and the proletariat and its political party would have been isolated to the detriment of the struggle to resist Japan and save China. After the July 7th Incident, when our Party had formed the Anti-Japanese National United front with the Kuomintang, certain comrades went to the other extreme, maintaining that since the Kuomintang had joined in the resistance to Japan, there was hardly any distinction between it and the Communist Party. They adopted a policy of capitulation by appeasing the big [[landlord]] and big bourgeois classes and the Kuomintang. and opposed the Party's policy of upholding its independence within the united front. While they over estimated the strength of and placed undue trust in the Kuomintang, on which they pinned all their hopes for resisting Japan and saving China, they had no confidence in the strength of the Communist Party and the people, did not place their hopes on the Communist Party and therefore did not dare freely to expand the Party and the anti-Japanese people's revolutionary forces and to resolutely fight against the Kuomintang's policy of opposing and restricting the Communist Party. The comrades with this approach styled themselves as the true representatives of the proletariat, but in essence their policy would have made the proletariat a vassal or an appendage of the bourgeoisie, and would have caused the proletariat to loose the leadership of the Anti-Japanese National United Front. These "Left" and Right mistakes are both striking examples of the failure to take a firm proletarian stand and to identify the correct path for advancing the revolutionary cause when major changes are occurring in the political situation.<br />
<br />
The proletariat cannot just emancipate itself alone; it must fight for the emancipation of [[The people|all the working people]], the emancipation of the nation and of all humanity, for only thus can it fully emancipate itself. The proletariat must rid the whole of human society of exploitation, oppression and class struggle once and for all, for only thus can it genuinely and finally emancipate itself. Hence a firm proletarian stand must be sharply differentiated from "closed-doorism' and sectarianism. In waging struggles the proletariat and its political party must establish close ties with the masses of working people, form revolutionary alliances with other revolutionary classes and parties and lead the working masses and all their allies forward together; they must represent the interests of more than ninety per cent of the population of the country. To have a firm proletarian stand is to represent at all times and in all circumstances the highest interests of the overwhelming majority of the people, which, we must understand, are also the highest class interests of the proletariat. On the other hand, a firm proletarian stand must be sharply differentiated from all appeasement and capitulation. In waging revolutionary struggles the proletariat and its political party must draw clear lines of distinction not only between themselves and the landlord class and the bourgeoisie but also between themselves and the revolutionary democrats of the petty bourgeoisie, and must even make some distinction between themselves and the masses of working people. In the revolutionary struggle they must at all times firmly maintain their independence and be free from any bourgeois or other non-proletarian class influence. In every stage of the development of the revolutionary struggle they must combine the interests of the part with the interests of the whole and immediate interests with ling-term interests. As Marx and Engels said of Communists:<blockquote>1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.<br />
<br />
2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>During his struggle to organize a political party of the proletariat at the end of the 19th century, Lenin said:<blockquote>The consciousness of the masses and of the workers cannot be genuine [[class consciousness]], unless the workers learn to observe from concrete, and above all from topical (current), political facts and events, every other social class and all manifestations of the intellectual, ethical and political life of these classes; unless they learn to apply in practice the materialist analysis and the materialist estimate of all aspects of the life and activity of all classes, strata and groups of the population.<sup>3</sup></blockquote>Further:<blockquote>The [[Russian Social Democratic Labor Party|Social-Democrat]]'s ideal should not be a [[Trade union|trade-union]] secretary, but a tribune of the people, able to react to every manifestation of tyranny and oppression, no matter where it takes place, no matter what stratum of class of people it affects; he must be able to generalize all these manifestations to produce a single picture of police violence and capitalist exploitation; he must be able to take advantage of every event, however small, in order to explain his [[Socialism|socialist]] convictions and [[Democracy|democratic]] demands to all and everyone the world-historic significance of the proletariat's struggle for emancipation.<sup>4</sup></blockquote>To fulfill the requirements cited by Lenin in these two passages, we Communists must of course unceasingly take part in the revolutionary practice and thus increase our perceptual knowledge and accumulate practical experience. But it must be pointed out, perceptual knowledge and practical experience alone are not sufficient. As Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<blockquote>Fully to reflect a thing in its totality, to reflect its essence, to reflect its inherit laws, it is necessary through the exercise of thought to reconstruct the rich data of sense perception, discarding the dross and selecting the essential, eliminating the false and retaining the true, proceeding from the one to the other and from the outside to the inside, in order to form a system of concepts and theories—it is necessary to make a leap from perceptual to rational knowledge.<sup>5</sup></blockquote>Therefore, while engaged in revolutionary practice, we must most conscientiously study the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism.<blockquote>The theory of Marxism-Leninism is the summing-up of the experience of the international working-class movement; it is a theory formulated in revolutionary practice and in turn serving revolutionary practice. If only we study this theory, apply it and master it in close conjunction with revolutionary practice, we shall be able to understand the inner connections of the changes taking place all around us and to know how and in what direction the various classes are now moving and will soon move, and we shall be able to determine our line of action and shall confidence in the future of the revolutionary movement.</blockquote>It is precisely because the theory of Marxism-Leninism plays such a great role that Lenin said, "The role of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory."<sup>6</sup> Members of the Communist Party must closely link their study of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism with their own ideological self-cultivation and self-tempering; they must never divorce one from the other.<br />
<br />
Time and again Comrade Mao Zedong has emphasised the tremendous importance of cultivating oneself in the theory of Marxism-Leninism. He has said:<blockquote>From the Marxist viewpoint, theory is important, and its importance is fully expressed in Lenin's statement, "Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." But Marxism emphasises the importance of theory precisely and only because it can guide action.<sup>5</sup></blockquote>Comrade Mao Zedong has constantly urged all Party members who have some capacity for study to study Marxist-Leninist theory, study the actual conditions of the movement, study Chinese and world history and learn to guide their actions by Marxist-Leninist theory and also help to educate comrades with a lower cultural and theoretical level. The whole Party should at times bear in mind this injunction of Comrade Mao Zedong's.<br />
<br />
== The Cause of Communism is the Greatest and Most Arduous Undertaking in Human History ==<br />
Now let us continue with our discussion of ideological self-cultivation by Communist Party members.<br />
<br />
What does ideological self-cultivation mean? Fundamentally, in my opinion, it means that every Party member should use proletarian ideology to combat whatever non-proletarian ideas he has, use the communist world outlook he has and use the principle of the supremacy of the interests of the proletariat, the people and the Party to combat his individualism.<br />
<br />
This struggle is one of conflicting ideologies, and it reflects the class struggle in society. For a Party member, the result of this struggle should be that the proletarian ideology overcomes and ultimately eliminates any non-communist world outlook and that ideas based on the general interests and aims of the Party, of the revolution and of the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity overcome and ultimately eliminate all individualism. If the opposite happens, that is, if the latter prevails over the former, the comrade concerned will retrogress and may even loose his qualifications as a member of the Communist Party. For a Communist that would be a terrible and dangerous thing to happen.<br />
<br />
We Communist Party members temper ourselves ideologically in struggles of all kinds inside and outside the Party, constantly sum up and learn from experience gained in revolutionary practice, and examine our own ideas to see whether they fully conform to Marxism-Leninism and the interests of the struggle for the emancipation of the proletariat. It is through such study, reflection and self-examination that we eliminate all remnants of incorrect ideas and nip in the bud any ideas inconsistent with the interests of communism.<br />
<br />
As you know, a man's words and actions are guided by his ideology. And a man's ideology is inseparable from his world outlook. The only world outlook for members of the Communist Party is the communist world outlook. This world outlook is the philosophical system of the proletariat and also our communist methodology.. All this has been abundantly discussed in Marxist-Leninist literature, and especially in the philosophical works of the founders. As you have studied it, I shall not go into it today. Here I shall only talk briefly of our communist cause, of what it is and how Party members should advance it.<br />
<br />
What is our most fundamental duty as Party members? It is to achieve communism. As far as the Communist Parties of different countries are concerned, in each country it is for the Communist Party and the people there to transform it by their own efforts, and in that way the whole world will be transformed step by step into a communist world. Will the communist world be good? We all know it will be. In that world there will be no exploiters of oppressors, no landlords and capitalists, no imperialists and fascists, nor will there be any oppressed and exploited people, or any of the darkness, ignorance and backwardness resulting from the system of exploitation. In such a society the production of both material and moral values will develop and flourish mightily and will meet the varied needs of all its members. By then all humanity will consist of unselfish, intelligent, highly cultured and skilled communist workers; mutual assistance and affection will prevail among men and there will be no such irrationalities as mutual suspicion and deception, mutual injury, mutual slaughter and war. It will of course be the best, the most beautiful and the most advanced society in human history. Who can deny that such a society is good? But can this good communist society be built? We say that it can and will be. Marxist-Leninist theory has explained this scientifically and beyond all doubt. A factual testimony has been provided by the victory of the Great October revolution and the successes in socialist construction in the Soviet Union. Our duty is constantly to advance the cause socialism and communism in accordance with the laws of development of human society, so as to make socialist and communist society a reality as soon as possible. This is our ideal.<br />
<br />
However, the cause of socialism and communism still faces powerful enemies who must be thoroughly and finally defeated in every field; only then will the socialist and communist society be brought into being. Victory for the communist cause can only be won through long and arduous struggle. Without it there can be no victory. This struggle, of course, is not an "accidental" social phenomenon or an invention of certain Communists as some people assert. It is inevitable in the development of class society; it is unavoidable class struggle. The birth of the Communist Party and the fact that Communists participate, organize and guide this struggle are also inevitable phenomena conforming with the laws of social development. The imperialists, [[Fascism|fascists]] and landlords—in short, all exploiters and oppressors—are oppressing and exploiting the overwhelming majority of the people of the world to such an extent that the people are hardly able to survive and have to unite and fight against this exploitation and oppression, because they cannot exist, much less make progress in any other way. This struggle, therefore, is natural and unavoidable.<br />
<br />
On the one hand, we must understand that communism is the greatest cause in human history, which will eliminate exploitation and classes once and for all, emancipate humanity and bring humanity into a world of happiness, radiating with beauty, such as it has never known before. But on the other hand, we must also understand that the cause of communism is the most arduous undertaking in all history; that only through protracted, bitter and torturous struggle will we be able to defeat all the exploiting classes; and that for a long time after our victory we shall patiently have to carry out social and economic, ideological and cultural transformation, for only thus will all the influences, conventions and habits of the exploiting classes be eliminated from among the people, and only thus will a new social and economic system, a new communist culture and code of social morality be built up.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party will defiantly win final victory by relying on the proletariat and the masses of the exploited and oppressed people and by using Marxism-Leninism to guide the revolutionary struggle of the masses and propel society towards the great goal of communism. The reason is that the historical laws of social development make the progress of human society towards communism inevitable; that latent in the proletariat and the other exploited and oppressed masses of the world lie extremely powerful revolutionary energies which, once mobilized, united and organized, can triumph over all the reactionary forces of the exploiting classes and imperialism; and that the Communist Party and the proletariat are the new and rising forces and whatever is new and rising is invincible. This has been fully demonstrated by the history of the world communist movement and the Communist Party of China. The present situation is as follows. Socialism has already won a great victory in the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]], or on one sixth of the earth's surface; militant Communist Parties armed with the theory of Marxism-Leninism have been organized in many countries; the world communist movement is rapidly growing and developing; and the forces of the proletariat and the other exploited and oppressed masses of the world are being rapidly mobilized and united in the course of incessant struggles. The communist movement is already organized as a mighty and invincible world force. Beyond all doubt the communist cause will continue to develop and advance, and will win final and complete victory. However, we should also realize that the international reaction and the exploiting classes are yet stronger than we are, that they are temporarily superior in many fields and that only by protracted, torturous and bitter struggles can we defeat them.<br />
<br />
In a society in which [[Private property|private ownership of the means of production]] has existed for thousands of years, the exploiting classes through their rule have built up great power in all fields and have grabbed everything under the sun. Their long rule has given rise to backwardness, ignorance, selfishness, mutual suspicion and deception, mutual injury and slaughter in human society, which have persisted down the ages. It has exerted a most pernicious influence on the exploited masses and on other members of society. This is the inevitable result of the efforts of the exploiting classes to preserve their class interests and rule. For they cannot maintain their ruling position unless they keep the exploited masses and the colonial peoples backward, unorganized and divided. Hence, in order to achieve victory we must not only conduct a stern struggle against the exploiting classes but also carry on a struggle against their long-standing influence among the masses and the backward ideas and other backward phenomena found among the masses, for only thus can we enhance their political consciousness and unite them to defeat the exploiting classes. Here is the difficulty in the course of achieving communism. Comrades! If the masses were all politically conscious, united, free from the influence of the exploiting classes and free from backwardness, as some people imagine them to be, what would be so difficult about the revolution?<br />
<br />
Not only does this influence of the exploiting classes exist before the victory of the revolution, but it survives for a very long time after when the exploiting classes have been ejected from their ruling position. Think how torturous is the process and how arduous are the work and struggle that are needed to vanquish the exploiting classes and their influence among the people once and for all, to emancipate and change all humanity, to transform myriads of small commodity producers, finally to abolish all classes and gradually to transform humanity that has lived in class society for thousands of years and been influenced by all kinds of old customs and conventions until it becomes communist humanity, intelligent and unselfish, and with a high level of culture and skill!<br />
<br />
Lenin said:<blockquote>The abolition of classes means not only driving out landlords and capitalists—that we accomplished with comparative ease—it also means abolishing the small commodity producers, and they cannot be driven out, or crushed; we must live in harmony with them; they can (and must) be remoulded and re-educated only by very prolonged, slow, cautious organizational work. They encircle the proletariat on every side with a petty-bourgeois atmosphere, which permeates and corrupts the proletariat and causes constant relapses among the proletariat into petty-bourgeois spinelessness, disunity, individualism, alternate moods of exaltation and dejection. The strictest centralization and discipline are required within the political party of the proletariat in order to counteract this, in order that the organizational role of the proletariat (and that is its principle role) may be exercised correctly, successfully, victoriously....The force of habit of millions and tens of millions is a most terrible force....It is a thousand times easier to vanquish the centralized big bourgeoisie than to "vanquish" the millions and millions of small owners; yet they, by their ordinary, everyday, imperceptible, elusive, demoralizing activity, achieve the very results which the bourgeoisie need and which tend to restore the bourgeoisie.<sup>1</sup></blockquote>He also said:<blockquote>...the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by its overthrow (even if only in one country), and whose power lies not only in the strength of international capital, in the strength and durability of the international connections of the bourgeoisie, but also in the force of habit, in the strength of small production. For all these reasons the dictatorship of the proletariat is essential, and victory over the bourgeoisie is impossible without a long, stubborn and war of life and death, a war demanding perseverance, discipline, firmness, indomitableness and unity of will.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>Hence the proletariat has a very difficult task to perform even after the victory of the revolution. The proletarian revolution differs from all other revolutions in history. Bourgeois revolutions, for example, are largely completed with the seizure of state power. But for the proletariat, victory and political emancipation are only the beginning of the revolution, and a tremendous amount of work remains to be done after the victory, after the seizure of state power.<br />
<br />
The cause of communism is needed a "hundred years' task", as the saying goes, and it definitely cannot be accomplished at one stroke. In different countries this undertaking has to go through different stages, and different enemies must be defeated, before a communist society can gradually be established. Take the case of our own country. China is still in the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and our enemies are imperialism, which perpetuates aggression against China, and the feudal and comprador forces, which are in collusion with imperialism. Only when we have defeated these enemies can we complete the bourgeois-democratic revolution in our country. Then, after the victory of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, it will still be necessary to make the socialist revolution and to carry on socialist transformation and socialist construction for a long period, and only so will the gradual transition to communist society be possible.<br />
<br />
Since the ultimate goal of our struggle is the achievement of communism, it is naturally our duty as Communists to overcomes all the difficulties arising in the process.<br />
<br />
Since the communist cause is so great and arduous an undertaking, some people who seek social progress are still sceptical and not convinced that communism can be realized. They do not believe that under the leadership of the proletariat and its party the human race can develop and transform itself into a communist humanity of the highest quality and that all the difficulties in the process of revolution and construction can be overcome. Either they do not forsee the difficulties or they become pessimistic and disappointed when confronted with them, and there are even Party members who waver and desert the communist ranks.<br />
<br />
We communists should be men of the boldest vision and revolutionary determination. Every Party member should gladly and solemnly shoulder the task of realizing communism, a task greater and more arduous than any in human history. We clearly see the difficulties in the process of realising communism, but at the same time we clearly understand that they can undoubtedly be overcome by arousing millions of people to the revolutionary action, and no difficulties will ever daunt us. We have the masses of the people to rely on, and we have full confidence that a substantial part of the work of building communism will be accomplished in our town time and that the whole of this magnificent undertaking will be triumphantly completed by the coming generations. The heroes of no other class in history could possibly have had this great communist ideal and boldness of vision. In this respect we have every reason for pride.<br />
<br />
I recall the instance of the western European bourgeois biographer<sup>3</sup> who interviewed Comrade Stalin during a visit to the Soviet Union and brought up the comparisons between historical personalities. Comrade Stalin told him that Lenin was like the ocean while Czar [[Peter I Romanov|Peter the Great]] was only a drop in the ocean. Such is the place in history a proletarian leader of the communist cause occupies, compared with that of a leader in the cause of the landlord and the rising mercantile classes. From this comparison we can see how truly great is a leader who fights for the triumph of communism and the cause of the emancipation of humanity and how paltry is one who fights for the cause of the exploiting classes.<br />
<br />
We Communist Party members must have the highest goals in our struggle and the highest ideals, while at the same time we must have a practical spirit and do real practical work. Such are the characteristics distinguishing us as Communists. If all a person has is great and lofty ideas without having a practical spirit or doing real practical work, he is not a good Party member but only a dreamer, a prattler or a pedant. On the other hand, whoever is interested only in practical work but lacks great and lofty communist ideals is not a good Communist either, but just a routine plodder. Only by combining the great and lofty ideals of communism with real practical work and practical spirit can one be a good Communist. This standard for a good Communist has often been stressed by Comrade Mao Zedong, the leader of our Party.<br />
<br />
The communist ideal is beautiful, while the reality of the existing capitalist world is ugly. This is precisely why the overwhelming majority of the people demand the changing of that reality and why it must be changed. In order to change the world we must not divorce ourselves from reality, disregard it or escape from it, nor must we surrender to ugly reality. We must face reality squarely, study and understand it, live and grow in it, fight against the ugly reality and transform it, so that we can gradually realize our ideal. Hence we members of the communist Party must initiate and press ahead with our great communist task of changing the world, beginning with our immediate surroundings, with the people immediately around us and such work as we can immediately undertake. Here we should criticize those young comrades who frequently make the mistake of wanting to escape from or disregarding reality. It is good that they have lofty ideals, but they often complain about their place of work and the kind of work they are given. They are always looking for some "ideal" place or job so that they can "change the world" with ease. But no such place and no such job exist, except in their dreams.<br />
<br />
The cause of communism is our life work. Throughout our lives, our every activity is exclusively devoted to it and to nothing else.<br />
<br />
== A Party Member's Personal Interests Must be Unconditionally Subordinated to the Interests of the Party ==<br />
Personal interests must be subordinated to the Party's interests, the interests of the local Party organization to those of the entire Party, the interests of the part to those of the whole, and temporary to long-term interests. This is a Marxist-Leninist principle which must be followed by every Communist.<br />
<br />
A Communist must be clear about the correct relationship between personal and Party interests.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party is the political party of the proletariat and has no interests of its own other than those of the emancipation of the proletariat. The final emancipation of the proletariat will also inevitably be the final emancipation of all humanity. Unless the proletariat emancipates all working people and all nations—unless it emancipates humanity as a whole—it cannot fully emancipate itself. The cause of the emancipation of the proletariat is identical with and inseparable from the cause of the emancipation of all working people, all oppressed nations and all humanity. Therefore, the interests of the Communist Party are the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity, are communism and social progress.. When a Party member<nowiki>''</nowiki>s personal interests are subordinated to those of the Party, they are subordinated to the interests of the emancipation of the class and the nation, and those of communism and social progress.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<br />
<br />
At no time and in no circumstances should a Communist place his personal interests first; he should subordinate to the interests of the nation and of the masses. Hence selfishness, slacking, corruption, seeking the limelight are most contemptible, while selflessness, working with all one's energy, whole hearted devotion to public duty, and quiet hard work will command respect.<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
The test of a Party member's loyalty to the Party, the revolution, the cause of communism is whether or not he can subordinate his personal interests absolutely and unconditionally to the interests of the Party whatever the circumstances.<br />
<br />
At all times and all questions a party member should give first consideration to the interests of the Party as a whole and put them in the foremost and place personal matters and interests second. The supremacy of the Party's interests is the highest principle that must govern the thinking and actions of the members of our Party. In accordance with this principle, every Party member must completely identify his personal interests with those of the Party both in his thinking and in his actions of the members of our Party both in his thinking and in his actions. He must be able o yield to the interests of the Party without any hesitations or reluctance and sacrifice his personal interests what ever of the two are at variance. Unhesitating readiness to sacrifice personal interests and even one's life, for the Party and for the proletariat and for the emancipation of the nation and of all humanity—this is one expression of what we usually describe as "Party spirit", "Party sense" or "sense of organization'. It is the highest expression of communist morality, of the principled nature of the party of the proletariat and of the purest proletarian class consciousness.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party should not have personal aims which are independent of the Party interests. Their personal aims must harmonize with the Party's interests. If the aim they set for themselves is to study Marxist-Leninist theory, to develop their ability in work, to establish revolutionary organizations and to lead the masses in successful revolutionary struggles—if their aim is more is to do more for the Party—then this personal aim harmonizes with the interests of the Party. The Party needs many such members and cadres. Apart from this aim, Party members should have no independent personal motives such as attaining position of fame, or playing the individual hero; otherwise they will depart from the interests of the Party and may even become careerists within the Party.<br />
<br />
If a Party member thinks only of the communist interests and aims of the Party, is really selfless and has no personal aims and considerations divorced from those of the Party, and he ceaselessly raises the level of his political consciousness through revolutionary practice and through the study of Marxism-Leninism, then the following ensues.<br />
<br />
First, he has a high communist morality. Taking a clear-cut, firm proletarian stand, he is able to show loyalty to and love for all comrades, all revolutionaries and working people, help them unreservedly and act towards them as equals, and he will never allow themself to hurt a single one of them for his own interests. He is able to feel for others, place themself in their position and be considerate of them. On the other hand, he is able to wage resolute struggle against the pernicious enemies of humanity and persevere in the fight for the interests of the Party, the proletariat and the emancipation of the nation and all humanity. "He is the first to worry and the last to enjoy themself".<sup>2</sup> Whether in the Party of among the people, he is the first to suffer hardship and the last to enjoy comfort; he compares themself with others not with respect to the material enjoyment but to the amount of work done for the revolution and the spirit of hard endurance in the struggle. In times of adversity he steps forward boldly, and in times of difficulty he does his duty to the full. He has such revolutionary firmness and integrity that "neither riches nor honours can corrupt him, neither [[poverty]] nor lowly condition can make him swerve from principle, neither threats nor force can bend him".<sup>3</sup><br />
<br />
Second, he has the greatest revolutionary courage. Having no selfish motives, he has nothing to fear. Having done nothing to give themself a guilty conscience, he can lay bare and courageously correct his mistakes and short comings, which are like "an eclipse of the sun or the moon".<sup>4</sup> Because he has the courage of righteous conviction, he never fears the truth, courageously upholds it, spreads it and fights for it. Even if it is temporarily to his disadvantage and if, in upholding the truth, he suffers blows of all kinds, is censured by most other people and so finds themself in temporary (and honourable) isolation, even to the point where he may give up his life, he will still breast the waves to uphold the truth and will never drift with the tide.<br />
<br />
Third, he learns how best to grasp the theory of Marxism-Leninism. He is able to apply them in keenly observing problems and in knowing and changing reality. Because he takes a clear-cut, firm proletarian stand and is tempered in Marxism-Leninism, he is free from personal apprehensions and self-interest, so that there is no impediment to his observation of things or distortion of his understanding of the truth. He seeks the truth from the facts, and he tests all theories and distinguishes what is true from what is false in revolutionary practice.<br />
<br />
Fourth, he is the most sincere, most candid and happiest of men. Because he has no private axe to grind, nothing to conceal from the Party and nothing he cannot tell others, he has no problems of personal gain or loss and no personal anxieties other than for the interests of the Party and the revolution. Even when he is working on his own without supervision and therefore has the opportunity to do something bad, he is just as "watchful over themself when he is alone"<sup>5</sup> and does not do anything harmful. His work bears examination and he is not afraid having it checked. He does not fear criticism and at the same time is able to criticize others with courage and sincerity.<br />
<br />
Fifth, he has the greatest self-respect and self-esteem. For the sake of the Party and the revolution he can be most forbearing and tolerant towards comrades and can suffer wrong in the general interest, even enduring misunderstanding and humiliation without bitterness if the occasion so demands. No personal aims lead him to flatter anyone or to desire flattery from others. When it comes to personal matters, he knows how to conduct themself and has no need to humble themself in order to get help from others. He knows how to take good care of themself in the interests of the Party and the revolution and how to strengthen both his grasp of theory and his practical effectiveness. But when it is necessary to swallow humiliations and bear a heavy load for some important purpose in the cause of the Party and the revolution, he can take on the most difficult and vital tasks without the slightest reluctance, never passing the difficulties to others.<br />
<br />
A member of the Communist Party should possess the finest and highest human virtues and take a clear-cut and firm Party and proletarian stand (that is, possess Party spirit and class spirit). Ours is a fine morality precisely because it is proletarian and communist. It is founded not on the protection of the interests of individuals or of the exploiting few, but on those of the great proletariat and the great mass of working people, of the cause of the final emancipation of all humanity, and the liberation of the whole world from the calamities of capitalism, and the building of a happy and beautiful communist world—it is a morality founded on the Marxist-Leninist theory of scientific communism. As we Communists see it, nothing can be more worthless or indefensible than to sacrifice oneself in the interests of an individual or a small minority. But it is the worthiest and most just thing in the world to sacrifice oneself for the Party, for the proletariat, for the emancipation of the nation and all humanity, for social progress and for the highest interests of the overwhelming majority of the people. Indeed, countless members of the Communist Party have looked death calmly in the face and made the ultimate sacrifice without the slightest hesitation. Most Communists consider it a matter of course to die for the sake of the cause, to lay down their lives for justice, when that is necessary. This does not stem from any revolutionary fanaticism or hunger for fame but from their scientific understanding of social development and their deep political consciousness. There is no morality in class society to compare with this high communist morality. The universal morality which supposedly transcends class is sheer deceptive nonsense and in fact a morality designed to protect the interests of the exploiting few. Such a concept of morality is always idealist. It is only we communists who build our morality on the scientific basis of historical materialism and proclaim its purpose to be the protection of the interests of the proletariat in the struggle for the emancipation of itself and all humanity.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party represents the general and long-range interests of the proletariat and all humanity in their struggle for emancipation; the Party's interests are the concentrated expression of this cause. One must never regard the communist Party as a narrow clique, like the guild perusing the interests of its members. Anyone who does so is no Communist.<br />
<br />
A Party member has interests of his own, which may be inconsistent with or even run counter to the interests of the Party in certain circumstances. Should this happen, it is incumbent on him to sacrifice his personal interests and unconditionally subordinate them to the interests of the Party; under no pretence or excuse may he sacrifice the Party's interests by clinging to his own. At all times and in all circumstances, he should fight heart and soul for the Party's interests and for the Party's development, regarding every success and victory won by the Party and the proletariat as his very own. Every Party member should strive to increase his effectiveness and ability in the service of the people. But this must be done in the fight for the advancement, success and victory of the Party's cause, and there must be no striving for individual development divorced from the fight to advance the Party's cause. The facts prove that only by complete devotion in the fight for the advancement, success and victory of the Party's cause can a Party member heighten his effectiveness and ability and that he cannot possibly make progress of heighten his ability in any other way. Hence a Party member can and must completely merge his personal interests with those of the Party.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party are no ordinary people but the awakened vanguard fighters of the proletariat. They must conscientiously represent the class interests and class ideology of the proletariat. Therefore, their personal interests must never project beyond those of the party and the proletariat. It is all the more necessary for each cadre and leader of the Party to be a living embodiment of the general interests of the Party and the proletariat and to merge his personal interests completely in their general interests and aims. In present-day China, it is the proletariat that best represents the interests of national liberation, and therefore our Party members must be worthy champions of the interests of the nation as a whole.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party must subordinate personal to Party interests and are required to sacrifice them to party interests if necessary. But this by no means implies that our Party does not recognise, or brushes aside, the personal interest of its members or that it wants to wipe out their individuality. Party members do have their personal problems to attend to, and, moreover, they should develop themselves according to their individual inclinations and aptitudes. Therefore, so long as the interests of the Party are not violated, a Party member can have his private and family life and develop his individual inclinations and aptitudes. At the same time, the Party will use every possibility to help members develop their individual inclinations and aptitudes in conformity with its interests, furnish them with suitable work and working conditions and commend and reward them. As far as possible, the Party will attend to and safeguard its members' essential interests; for example,, it will give them the opportunity to study and to acquire an education, it will help them cope with health and family problems and, when necessary, it will even give up some of its work in order to preserve comrades working under the rule of reaction. But all this has no other purpose than the overall interests of the Party. For the fulfillment of its tasks the Party must ensure that members have the conditions necessary for life, work and education so that they can perform their tasks with enthusiasm and without worry. Comrades in responsible Party positions must bear all this in mind when they deal with Party members' problems.<br />
<br />
To sum up, on his side, each Party member should completely submit themself to the interests of the Party and self-sacrificingly devote themself to the public duty. He should forego all personal aims and private considerations which conflict with the Party's interests. He should not think of themself all the time, make endless personal demands on the Party or blame the Party for not promoting or rewarding him. Whatever the circumstances, he should study hard, try to make progress, be courageous in struggle and make ceaseless efforts to raise the level of his political consciousness and his understanding of Marxism-Leninism, so as to be able to contribute more to the Party and the revolution. On their side all Party organizations and comrades in responsible positions, in dealing with the problems of Party members, should see how they work, live and study. and enable them to work better for the Party, ceaselessly develop themselves and raise their level in the course of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. In particular, attention should be paid to comrades who are really selfless and who serve the people well. Only so, through combined attention and effort by both sides can the interests of the Party be well served.<br />
<br />
== Examples of Wrong Ideology in the Party ==<br />
In the light of what has been said, we can see that if an understanding of communism and a correct correlation between personal and Party interests are taken as the standard for evaluating Party members and cadres, many measure up to it and can serve as models, but some do not yet measure up to this standard and still have various wrong ideas to some degree or other. It may not be amiss if I outline these wrong ideas for our comrades' attention.<br />
<br />
What are fundamentally the wrong ideas to be found among comrades in our Party?<br />
<br />
First. The people joining our Party not only differ in in class origin and personal class status but also carry with them aims and motives of every description. Many, of course, join the Party in order to bring about communism and attain the great goal of the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity, but some do so for other reasons and with other aims. For example, some comrades of peasant background used to think that communism meant "expropriation of local tyrants and distribution of the land". When they first joined, they had no understanding of the real meaning of communism. Today, quite a number of people join the Party chiefly because it is resolute in resisting Japan and advocates the Anti-Japanese National United Front. Others join our ranks because they admire the communist Party for its good reputation or because they realize in a vague way that it can save China. Still others are seeking a future for themselves, chiefly because they have no other way out—they have no fixed occupation, are out of work, lack the means of study, or want to escape from family bondage or forced marriage, etc. A few even join because they count on the Party to get their taxes reduced, or because they hope to "make their mark" some day, or because their relatives or friends have brought them in, etc. Naturally, such comrades do not have a clear-cut and stable communist world outlook, do not understand the greatness of the communist cause and the difficulties besetting it, and lack a firm proletarian stand point. Naturally too, some of them will waver or change somewhat in certain circumstances at certain critical turning points. Since they bring all sorts of ideas with them into the Party, it is most important that they should be educated and should train and temper themselves. Otherwise they cannot become revolutionary fighters of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, there is no terrible problem here. After all, it is not a bad thing that people turn to the Communist Party, enter it seeking a way out of their predicament and approve of its policy. They are not mistaken in coming to us. We welcome them—everyone except for enemy agents, traitors, careerists and ambitious climbers. Provided they accept and are ready to abide by the Party's Programme and Constitution, work in one of the Party's organizations and pay membership dues, they may be admitted into the Communist Party. As for deeping their study and understanding of communism and the Partys Programme and Constitution, they can do so after joining the Party and can temper and train themselves in revolutionary struggle on the basis of what they learn; in this way they have every possibility of becoming very good Communists. Indeed, for most people it is impossible to have a proufound understanding of communism and the Party's Programme and Constitution before joining the Party. That is why we can only prescribe acceptance, and not a thorough understanding of the Partys Programme and Constitution as a condition for admission. Although many people do not have a thorough understanding of communism before joining, it is possible for them to become active fighters in the communist and revolutionary movements of the time. They can become politically conscious Communists provided they study hard after joining the Party. Furthermore, our Party Constitution stipulates that members are free to withdraw form the Party (there is no freedom of admission). Any member is free to notify the Party that he is withdrawing from it if he lacks a profound belief in communism, or cannot live a strict Party life, or for any other reason, and the Party gives him the freedom to withdraw. It will do nothing against him unless he gives away Party secrets or engages in wrecking activities against the Party after he leaves. As for careerists and spies who have wormed their way into the Party, of course they have to be expelled. Only thus can we preserve the purity of our Party.<br />
<br />
Second. Fairly strong [[individualism]] and selfishness are still to be found in some members of our Party.<br />
<br />
The individualism expresses itself as follows. Some people habitually place their personal interests above those of the Party when it comes to practical matters; they are preoccupied with personal gain and loss and always calculate in terms of personal interests; they abuse the public trust, turning their Party work to private advantage of one kind or another; or they attack comrades they dislike and wreak private vengeance, on high-sounding pretexts of principle or Party interests. When it comes to status, material benefits and other questions affecting everyday life, they invariably try to get more than others, compare themselves with those at the top, diligently strive after greater personal benefits and crow when they get them. But when it comes to work, they like to compare themselves with those who are less capable. When there hard hardships to beat they make themselves scarce. In times of danger they want to run away. When it comes to orderlies they always want more. Their living quarters must be of the best, and they want to show off and bask in the Party's glory. They want to grab all the good things of life, but when it comes to the "unpleasant things", they think these are for others. The heads of such people are stuffed with the ideology of the exploiting classes. They believe that "every person is for themself or that Heaven and Earth will destroy him", person is a "selfish animal", and "no one in the world is genuinely unselfish, unless he is a simpleton or an idiot". They even use such exploiting class rubbish to justify their own selfishness and individualism. There are such people in our Party.<br />
<br />
This type of self-seeking individualism often manifests itself inside the Party in unprincipled quarrelling, factional struggle, sectarianism and departmentalism; it manifests itself in disrespect for and willful violation of Party discipline. Most unprincipled struggles originate in personal interests. Those who go in for factional struggle and are given to sectarianism usually place their own individual interests or the interests of a small minority, above those of the Party. Often, in their unprincipled factional struggles they deliberately undermine Party organization and discipline, making unprincipled and sometimes calculated attacks on certain people, while contracting unprincipled friendships to avoid giving offence, to cover up for one another, to sing each other's praises, etc.<br />
<br />
Departmentalism within the Party arises chiefly because some comrades only see the interest of the part, i.e., the work of their own department of locality, and fail to see the interests of the whole, i.e., the interests of the entire Party and the work of other departments and localities. Politically and ideologically, this resembles the guild outlook. Not all comrades who make the mistake of departmentalism are necessarily prompted by individualism, but people with an individualist ideology usually make the mistake of departmentalism.<br />
<br />
Third. Conceit, the idea of individualistic heroism, ostentatiousness, etc., are still to be found, to a greater or lesser extent, in the minds of quite a few Party comrades.<br />
<br />
The first consideration of people with such notions is their position in the Party. They like to show off and to have people sing their praises and flatter them. They are ambitious, they like to cut a dash, to claim credit for themselves and to get the limelight, and they like to keep everything in their own hands and lack a democratic style of work. They are extremely vain and unwilling to immerse themselves in hard work or do routine or technical jobs. They are arrogant, and whenever they accomplish something they throw their weight about, become overbearing and try to domineer, and they do not treat others as equals in a modest and friendly way. They are complacent, talk down to and lecture people and order others about, and they are always trying to tread on people's necks; they do not learn modestly from others, particularly from the masses, and do not accept even well-grounded opinions and criticisms. They can bear promotion but not demotion, they can bear fair weather but not foul, and they cannot bear being misunderstood or wronged. As their baleful yearning for fame has not yet been uprooted they try to dress themselves up as "great men" and "heroes" in the communist movement and stop at nothing to gratify their desire. When they fail to achieve this object, or when they are misunderstood or wronged there is a danger that they will vacillate. Quite a number of people have vacillated and left our Party for such reasons in the course of its history. Exploiting class ideas still linger in the minds of such people, who fail to understand the greatness of the cause of communism and who lack the communist breadth of vision.<br />
<br />
Communists must not be in the least complacent or arrogant. Granted that some comrades are very capable, have done some good work and have to their credit considerable achievements which may be reckoned "great" and on which they might well preen themselves (for example, our army comrades who have led thousands and tens of thousands of men in battle and won victories, or the leaders of our Party and mass work in various places who have brought about fairly significant changes in the situation). Yet after all, how great are these achievements compared with the communist cause as a whole?<br />
<br />
And for persons with a communist world outlook, what is there worth preening oneself about in these achievements?<br />
<br />
For a Communist to do his work properly and well is no more than his duty. He should guard against complacency and arrogance and do his best to make no mistakes, or as few as possible.<br />
<br />
What is there in personal position for a Communist to bother about? No one's position is higher than an emperor's, and yet what is an emperor compared with a fighter in the cause of communism? Is he not just "a drop in the ocean" as Comrade Stalin put it? So what is there in personal position worth bothering or bragging about?<br />
<br />
Yes, we need countless communist heroes and many mass leaders of great prestige in our Party and in the communist movement. At present we really have too few of them and have yet to train and temper large numbers of good communist revolutionary leaders and heroes in all fields. This is indeed very important for our cause and must not be neglected. Whoever takes it lightly is ignorant of how to advance the cause of communism. Its advancement requires that we should greatly enhance the revolutionary spirit of enterprise among our Party members and bring their vitality into full play. We have to admit that so far we have not done enough in this respect. This is shown, for instance, by the fact that some Party members do not study hard and have little interest in politics and theory. Therefore, while we are opposed to individualistic heroism and ostentatiousness , we are certainly not opposed to a spirit of enterprise in the Party members. The desire to make progress in the interests of the people is the most precious quality in a Communist. But the communist, proletarian spirit of enterprise is entirely different from the individualist "spirit of enterprise". The former means seeking truth, upholding it and fighting for it with the greatest effectiveness. It is progressive and opens up unlimited prospects of development, while the latter offers no prospects even for the individual, for people with an individualist ideology are usually driven by their personal interest into deliberately brushing aside, covering up or distorting the truth.<br />
<br />
Our comrades must understand that genuine leaders and heroes in the communist movement are never individualistic, nor are they ever self-styled or self-appointed. Anyone who styles themself a leader or reaches after leadership can never become a leader of the Party. The rank and file of our Party will not make leaders of people who are prone to conceit, individualistic heroism, ostentatiousness, personal ambition and vanity. No member of our Party has any right to demand that the rank and file should support or keep him as a leader. Only those who are entirely selfless and devoted to the Party, only those with an excellent communist morality and fine communist qualities, who have grasped the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism, who have considerable practical ability, who can direct Party work correctly and who study hard and make constant progress can win the trust of the Party and the confidence and support of the rank and file, and so become leaders and heroes in the communist movement.<br />
<br />
Our comrades must also understand that a member, or a leader and hero, whoever he may be, can only do part of the work, can only carry part of the responsibility, in the communist movement. The communist cause is an undertaking which requires the collective efforts of tens of millions of people over a long period of time and which cannot be encompassed by any one individual alone. Even such great men as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin could only perform part of the work needed by the communist cause. The cause for which they worked requires the joint effort and sustained labour of tens of millions of us. We ordinary Communists are also doing part of the work of the communist cause and carrying part of the responsibility. Of course, our part is much smaller than that of Marx, Engles, Lenin or Stalin. Nevertheless, we have a small part. Big or small, it is all part of the great cause. Therefore, if only we do our part of the work well, we can consider that we have done our duty. Naturally we should try our best to do more, but if we cannot and can only do a little, that is also useful and just as honourable. In any case, we should at least not hamper the progress of the communist cause, but should do our part, whether big of small, and perform our work well, be it heavy or light; that is the correct attitude for every member of our Party. Comrades who are unwilling to undertake technical work think that it stifles their talents, that it prevents them from becoming famous (actually it does not, as witness the technical worker [[Alexei Stakhanov|Stakhanov]]<sup>1</sup> and from giving full play to their abilities and that it kills some of the enterprising spirit which all Communists should have. This view is wrong. Technical work occupies a very important place in our Party work, and comrades engaged in it are doing their share in the communist cause no less than comrades engaged in other jobs. The proper attitude for a Communist is to do whatever work the Party requires of him and do it happily and well, whether it suits his inclinations of not.<br />
<br />
Naturally, in assigning work to members, the Party organization and the responsible Party comrades should, as far as possible, take their individual inclinations and aptitudes into consideration, develop their strong points and stimulate their zeal to go forward. However, no Communist must refuse a Party assignment on the grounds of personal preference.<br />
<br />
Fourth, A small number of comrades are deeply imbued with the ideology of the exploiting classes. They are usually unscrupulous in dealing with comrades and in handling problems inside the Party, and are utterly devoid of the great and sincere proletarian communist spirit of mutual help and solidarity.<br />
<br />
People with this ideology always want to climb over the heads of others in the Party and, to this end, resort to attacking others and doing them harm. They are jealous of those more capable than themselves. They always try to pull down those who are moving ahead of them. They cannot bear playing second fiddle and think only of themselves and never of others. When other comrades are suffering difficulties of setbacks, they gloat or secretly rejoice and have no comradely sympathy at all. They even scheme to injure comrades "drop on one who has fallen into a well", and take advantage of comrades' weaknesses and difficulties to attack and harm them. They "crawl through any crack" and exploit and exacerbate any weakness in Party organization and work for their personal advantage.. They love to stir up trouble in the Party, speak ill of others behind their backs and engage in intrigues in order to sow dissension between comrades. They love to join in any unprincipled dispute that may occur in the Party and take great interest in unprincipled quarrels. They are especially active in stirring up and aggravating such quarrels when the Party is in difficulties. In short, they are thoroughly crooked and lack all integrity. Would it not be absurd to describe such people as being able to grasp the Marxist-Leninist theory and method and give expression to proletarian ideology? It is only too clear that all they express is the ideology of the declining exploiting classes.<br />
<br />
All exploiters must do harm to other people in order to expand. To increase their wealth, or to avoid bankruptcy in an economic crisis, bigger capitalists must squeeze many smaller capitalists out of existence and drive countless workers to starvation. To enrich themselves, landlords must exploit peasants and deprive many of them of their land. In order to expand, fascist Germany, Italy and Japan must devastate other countries; they have subjugated Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Abyssinia<sup>2</sup> and are committing aggression against China. Exploiters always harm and ruin other people as a necessary precondition for their own expansion; their happiness is founded on the suffering of others. Among the exploiters, therefore, genuine firm unity, genuine mutual help, and genuine human sympathy are impossible; they inevitably engage in intrigues and underhand activities in order to ruin others. Yet they have to lie and pose as saints and pillars of justice before the people. Such are the distinguishing characteristics of all declining exploiting classes. These person be models of "fine" ethical conduct for the exploiters, but they are most criminal from the point of view of the proletariat and the masses.<br />
<br />
The proletariat is the complete antithesis of the exploiting classes. It does not exploit others but is itself exploited. There is no conflict of basic interests within its ranks or between it and the other oppressed and exploited working people. Far from needing to harm other working people or impede their development for the sake of its own development and emancipation, the proletariat most forge the closest unity with them in the common struggle. If the proletariat is to emancipate itself, it must at the same time emancipate all other working people and emancipate all humanity. There can be no such thing as the separate emancipation of a single worker or section of workers. The proletariat must carry the cause of the emancipation of humanity through to the end, fighting step by step for the liberation of all humanity, and there can be no giving up or compromising half-way.<br />
<br />
As a result of this objective position occupied by the proletariat, the ideology of the politically conscious workers is the diametrical opposite of that of the exploiters. Communists are vanguard fighters of the proletariat, who arm themselves with Marxism-Leninism and are ruthless towards the people's enemies but never towards the toilers, their class brothers and comrades. They differentiate clearly and sharply between the attitudes and methods to be adopted against the enemy and those to be adopted towards their comrades and friends. They cherish great and sincere friendship, warmth and sympathy for other members of their own class and for all oppressed and exploited working people, towards whom they show a fine spirit of mutual help, firm unity and genuine equality. They are absolutely opposed to privileges of any kind for anyone, consider it impermissible to think in terms of privilege for themselves, and would deem it unthinkable and even a disgrace, to occupy a privileged position among the people. If they themselves are to develop and improve status, they must develop others and improve the status of all the working people at the same time. They are anxious not to fall behind, whether ideologically or politically or in their work, and they have a sturdy spirit of enterprise, but at the same time they esteem, cherish and support those who are ahead of them in these respects and, without any jealousy, do their best to learn from them. They are deeply concerned with the sufferings and privations of their own class and of all working people, they are concerned with all the struggles of the working people for emancipation anywhere in the world, regarding every victory or defeat for the working people anywhere as their own victory of defeat, and therefore displaying the greatest solidarity. They consider it wrong to be indifferent to the struggle of the working and oppressed people for liberation and criminal to gloat over their set-backs They cherish their own comrades and brothers, whose weaknesses and mistakes they criticize frankly and sincerely (and this shows genuine affection); in matters of principle they never gloss over and accommodate, let alone encourage mistakes (to accommodate or even to encourage others' mistakes does not betoken genuine affection for one's comrades). They do everything possible to help comrades overcome weaknesses and correct mistakes and never exploit or aggravate these weaknesses and mistakes to get comrades into trouble, let alone cause the mistakes to develop beyond correction. Not harbouring any desire to settle old scores, they can return good for evil to their own comrades and brothers and help them straighten themselves out. They can be strict with themselves and lenient with others. The stand they take is firm, strict and principled, their attitude is frank, upright and responsible, they do not give way on matters of principle, they do not tolerate anyone who harms the Party, they do not permit anyone to insult them and are particularly contemptuous of adulation and flattery as contrary to all principle. They oppose all unprincipled struggles; they do not let themselves become involved in such struggles and are not swayed or affected by irresponsible or casual criticism made behind their backs as to depart from principle, become incapable of thinking calmly or lose their composure. Such are the proletarian qualities in the most concentrated, exemplary and concrete form. These qualities represent everything of integrity in present-day society. Indeed it is the Communist Party that represents human integrity. We must foster and enhance such proletarian integrity and overcome all that is crooked and evil.<br />
<br />
Fifth. Pettiness, fussing over trifles and ignoring the general interest are faults still prevalent among some Party members. These comrades lack the nature and breadth of vision of Communists and are blind to the bigger things; they relish only the immediate and petty. They do not take much interest in the great problems and events in the Party and the revolution, but are always fussing over the merest trifles about which they enter into ponderous and endless arguments and become highly disturbed. Such people are also easily led by the nose when they receive some small favour or kindness. They have the petty-mindedness characteristic of small rural producers.<br />
<br />
There are other people who do not seem to have a clear-cut and definite attitude in their Party life, people who shift and hedge. They are actually of two kinds; for one kind the question is one of understanding and for the other, of moral character. The latter are always opportunistic in their personal behaviour, curry favour with all sides and try to please everybody. They tailor their words to the person and the circumstances, tack with the wind and show no principle whatsoever. Such are their characteristics. Sometimes, they wait and see what will suit the occasion, like the bat in Aesop's Fables,<sup>3</sup> and then move over to the winning side. Such-double faced creatures, who are neither fish nor fowl, are not altogether unknown in our ranks. They have the traits of the old-fashioned merchant. In addition, there are some individuals who, unable to resist the lure of the old society's exploiting classes, with their glittering world, their money and their women, begin to waver, go wrong and eventually to betray the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
Finally, the ideology of some of our Party comrades often reflects the impetuosity and vacillation of the petty-bourgeoisie and the destructiveness of the lumpen-proletariat and certain bankrupt peasants, but I shall not go into this question here.<br />
<br />
To sum up, our Party represents the great and powerful proletarian communist ideology, but it must be noted that all kinds of non-proletarian ideology—including even the ideology of the declining exploiting classes—are still reflected to a greater or lesser degree in the minds of certain comrades. At times such ideology is dormant in the Party, revealing itself only in insignificant matters of everyday life; but at other times it becomes active, systematically revealing itself in a whole variety of questions of Party principle, in major political questions and in problems of inner Party struggle. Certain sections of links in the Party organization may come to be dominated and corroded by such erroneous ideology, and in extreme cases in may even temporarily dominate key links in the Party leadership, as in the periods when people like [[Chen Duxiu]]<sup>4</sup> and [[Zhang Guotao]]<sup>5</sup> were in control. In normal periods, however, it is held in check by the correct proletarian ideology. These are all manifestations within the Party of the struggle between the proletarian and non-proletarian ideology. Similarly with some individual Party members. At times what is wrong in their ideology lies dormant and under control, but at other times it may grow and even dominate their actions. This is a manifestation among individual Party members of the contradiction and struggle between proletarian and non-proletarian ideology. For our Party members, ideological self-cultivation means that they must conscientiously use the proletarian ideology and the communist world outlook to overcome and eliminate all the various kinds of incorrect, non-proletarian ideology.<br />
<br />
== The Source of Wrong Ideology in Our Party ==<br />
The Communist Party, representing the brightest and most progressive aspects of contempory human society, is the bearer and disseminator of Marxism-Leninism, the acme of human thought. The most politically conscious, progressive and developed people in the world, people with the highest sense of morality and justice, are gathered in the communist Parties, fighting unswervingly against all the forces of darkness and for the bright future and final emancipation of humanity. The Communist Party of China is one of the best Communist Parties in the world. Guided by our leader Comrade Mao Zedong, our Party is armed with the powerful weapon of Marxist-Leninist theory and, at the same time, is carrying forward the fine traditions of progressive thinkers and revolutionaries in Chinese history. It represents the most progressive and brightest aspects of Chinese society, and the finest sons and daughters of the Chinese nation are gathered within its organized ranks. It has been fighting the forces of darkness in Chinese society for a long time, has gone through an arduous process of tempering and has accumulate rich experience in revolutionary struggle. In all this we Communists can justly take pride. There is every ground for absolute confidence that we shall finally be successful and victorious. However, we cannot say yet that everything in our organization is perfect, or that there are no shortcomings and faults. Nor can we say that our ranks are free from unsound and even bad elements, who might be quite capable of any sort of nastiness. In other words, our glorious Party contains some undesirable phenomena, some dark spots which I have already enumerated.<br />
<br />
Now when a family acquires an ugly son-in-law or daughter-in-law, it can not always keep him or her away from the guests. Even if we wanted to do so by taking the attitude of trying to "conceal the family shame", it would be impossible to hide such unpleasantness. The masses of the people are in constant contact with our Party, sympathisers come here to visit us and people who look up to us including many young men and women, come here to study or to join our Party. When they arrive, besides the progressive, fine and attractive things and "members of the family", they will naturally see the ugly sons- or daughters-in-law who might publicly say or do something unpleasant or make a spectacle of themselves, to the perplexity or our guests and new Party members. The newcomers may ask, "Does not the Communist Party stand for all that is just? Are Communists not the finest people? Why are there still such bad people and ugly things in the Communist Party? How strange!" Before joining the Party, some young comrades were bitterly dissatisfied with existing society, saw no way out and turned to the Communist Party as to a beacon of light. They thought that everything would be satisfactory and would work out well once they joined. Yet after doing so, or after arriving in our revolutionary base area, they find there are shortcomings and mistakes in the Party, too, and in real life not everything is satisfactory (much that would satisfy them would not be in the interests of the revolution and the Party), and so they feel reality is not entirely as they pictured it, and some begin to have doubts and feel puzzled. They ask, "Why are such things to be found in the Communist Party as well?" Before coming to Yan'an or before enrolling in the Anti-Japanese Military and Political College, some people imagined Yan'an and the College would live up to their dreams, but after their arrival and enrollment they do not find everything to their satisfaction and are perplexed. They ask, "How can such things happen even in Yan'an and the Anti-Japanese College?" And failing to find answers, some even become pessimistic and disheartened.<br />
<br />
Their questions should alert our Party members and cadres and be a lesson to them so that they will give serious attention to guiding and taking care of all new Party members and all who are moving in our direction and to ensuring they are not adversely affected. But, quite apart from this, we should explain things clearly to comrades inside and outside the Party.<br />
<br />
Why are there still such undesirable things in our splendid Party? The reason, I think, is rather simple. Our Party has not fallen from the skies, but has grown out of Chinese society. In general, our Party consists of the finest sons and daughters of our country, the vanguard of the Chinese proletariat, but they come from all strata of the old society, and in China today there still exists exploiting classes and the influence of these classes—selfishness, intrigue, bureaucracy and various types of filth. We have many excellent Party members who are not easily affected by such influences. But it is so strange that certain members bring some of the filth of the old society with them into our Party of reflect it there? Is it so strange that a person that has just crawled out of the mud is covered with slime? Of course not. It is only to be expected. It would be strange and indeed incredible, if the ranks of the Communist Party were absolutely free from such filth. It may be said that so long as such filth exists in society, so long as classes and exploiting class influences exist in society, there is bound to be some filth in the Communist Party. It is precisely because there is such filth in society, and in the Party, that it is the duty of the communist Party to change existing society, and it is necessary for Communists to remould, cultivate and temper themselves. In addition to carrying on a struggle in society at large against everything evil and backward,, it is imperative for us to carry on a struggle inside the Party against every social evil and backward influence as mirrored in the Party by vacillating and unsteady elements. This is the source of inner-Party contradiction and struggle. Through struggle, both inside and outside the Party, we seek to change society and gradually rid it of its evils and backwardness, and at the same time seek to perfect our Party and remould our Party members, and to resolve our inner-Party contradictions, so that our Party and its membership will become healthier and stronger.<br />
<br />
Stalin said:<blockquote>The source of the contradiction within the proletarian parties lies in two circumstances.</blockquote>What are these circumstances?<br />
<br />
They are firstly the pressure exerted by the bourgeoisie and bourgeois ideology on the proletariat and its party in the conditions of the class struggle—a pressure to which the least stable strata of the proletariat, and hence the least stable strata of the proletarian party, not infrequently succumb. It must not be thought that the proletariat is completely isolated from society, that it stands outside society. The proletariat is a part of society, connected with its diverse strata by numerous threads. But the party is a part of the proletariat Hence the Party cannot be exempt from connections with, and from the influence of, the diverse sections of the bourgeois society The pressure of the bourgeoisie and its ideology on the proletariat and its party finds expression in the fact that bourgeois ideas, manners, customs and sentiments not infrequently penetrate the proletariat and its party through definite strata of the proletariat that are in one way or another connected with bourgeois society.<br />
<br />
They are, secondly, the heterogeneity of the working class, the existence of a different strata within the working class....<br />
<br />
One stratum is the main mass of the proletariat, its core, its permanent part, the mass of "pure blooded" proletarians, who have long broken off connection with the capitalist class. This stratum of the proletariat is the most reliable bulwark of Marxism.<br />
<br />
The second stratum consists of new comers from non-proletarian classes—from the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie or the intelligencia. These are former members of other classes who have only recently merged with the proletariat and brought with them into the working class their customs, their habits, their waverings and their vacillations. This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for all sorts of anarchist, semi-anarchist and "ultra-Left" groups.<br />
<br />
The third stratum, lastly, consists of the labour aristocracy, the upper stratum of the working class, the most well-to-do portion of the proletariat, with its propensity for compromise with the bourgeoisie, its predominant inclination to adapt itself to the powers that be, and its anxiety go "get on in life". This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for outright reformists and opportunists.<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
Here we see the source of the various kinds of non-proletarian ideology and the various errors, shortcomings and undesirable phenomena that exist in our proletarian party. Here, indeed, is the source of the various contradictions that are present in our Party.<br />
<br />
== Attitudes Towards Wrong Ideology in the Party and Towards Inner-Party Struggle ==<br />
The influences exerted by the exploiting classes and the petty bourgeoisie, the existence of different strata within the working class and the differences in the class background of our Party members give rise to different ideas among them, to certain differences in viewpoints, habits and sentiments, in world outlook and moral values, and differences in the way they look at and think about things in general and the problems of the revolution in particular.<br />
<br />
Some people in our Party are able to view issues as developing and interrelated, but others habitually view them statistically and in isolation. The former are able to grasp matters comprehensively and objectively and hence to draw correct conclusions that can serve us as correct guide lines to action. As for the latter, some of them only see or over emphasize this side of a thing, while others only see and over emphasize the other side; both fail to view problems comprehensively and objectively in accordance with the laws of the development and interrelationship of objective phenomena, and both take a one-sided, subjective view of problems. Hence, they are unable to arrive at correct conclusions or chart the right course for our actions.<br />
<br />
The differences among Party members in their approach to problems lead to different ways of handling problems, to divergences and controversies are bound to become especially acute at turning points in the revolution, or when the struggle grows in intensity and hardship mount.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the crux of the matter is not whether there are differences of thought and opinion within the Party, since such differences always exist. The crux of the matter is how to resolve contradictions, settle differences and overcome all kinds of incorrect, non-proletarian thinking. Obviously, it is only through inner-Party struggle that such contradictions can be resolved, differences settled and incorrect thinking overcome. As Engels put it, “In the long run the contradictions are never slurred over, but always fought out.”<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
Different people hold different views and take different attitudes with regard to shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in our Party.<br />
<br />
People of one kind do not or will not see shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in our Party, but blindly believe that there is scarcely anything wrong in it; hence they relax their vigilance and slacken their struggle their struggle against these phenomena. People of another kind see nothing, or hardly anything, except these undesirable phenomena and fail to see how correct and glorious our Party is; hence they become pessimistic and loose confidence, or they become alarmed and bewildered in the face of such phenomena. The views of both are wrong and one-sided. Our view is different. On the one hand, we know we know that our Party is the political party of the proletariat, the most progressive and revolutionary party in China. On the other, we know clearly that there are still shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena, major and minor in our Party. Moreover, we clearly understand their source and how to correct and gradually eliminate them, and we are making constant efforts to temper ourselves, improve our work and wage the necessary struggles in order to promote the progress of the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
Since people differ in their class stand and their views, they take different attitudes towards what is undesirable in our Party. One attitude is that of alien class and hostile elements who have wormed their way into our Party. A second attitude is that of Party members who lack a firm proletarian stand and have a wrong way of thinking. A third is that of Party members who firmly uphold the principles of Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
The alien class and hostile elements who have worked their way into the Party are glad of its shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena. Gleefully seeking their opportunity, they use every possible means to exploit and magnify some of these undesirable phenomena for the purpose of wrecking our Party. Sometimes they even make a pretence of opposing certain mistakes and supporting the Party line in order to cause an opposite kind of mistake to be committed. People with the second type of attitude fall into the following distinct categories:<br />
<br />
1. Some Party members sympathize with and accept certain erroneous ideas, or follow the bad example of certain people in the Party, so as to further their personal ends and desires. They consider the existence of certain short comings and mistakes in the Party to be to their advantage and therefore, whether intentionally or unintentionally, aggravate these failings and exploit them. This is the attitude of careerists of bad characters in the Party.<br />
<br />
2. Some Party members do nothing about the shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party and allow them to grow. They just muddle along and are unwilling to fight these evils. They fear inner-Party struggle and self-criticism, considering them harmful to the Party, or they are insensitive or shut their eyes to the undesirable things, or they are perfunctory and compromising in the struggle against them. This is the attitude taken by Communists who have a weak sense of duty towards the Party, are extremely liberalistic, or are guilty of bureaucracy.<br />
<br />
3. The attitude of some Party members towards these shortcomings and mistakes and towards those comrades who have incorrect ideas is one of “bitter hatred and gall”. They lightly sever all relations with comrades who have committed some mistake and whom they attempt to expel from the Party outright. If they fail in this and need rebuffs, they give up and become pessimistic and down-hearted, or they keep aloof, “preserve their purity” and even put a great distance between themselves and the Party. This extreme attitude is also shown in some comrades mechanical conception of inner-Party struggle and self-criticism. People with this attitude believe that inner-Party struggle must be launched under any and all circumstances—the more frequently and bitterly, the better. They magnify every trifle into a matter of “principle” and brand every tiny fault with such labels as political opportunism. They do not carry on inner-Party struggle properly and specifically in accordance with the objective needs and objective laws of development, but instead “struggle” mechanically, subjectively and violently, regardless of the consequences. This is the attitude taken by Party members who do not understand the source of inner-Party contradictions, who lack skill in dealing with inner-Party differences and who have a mechanical conception of inner-Party struggle. For a time, this extreme attitude towards inner-Party struggle was exploited by the “Left” opportunists in the Party. They intensified mechanical and excessive struggles to the point of deliberately hunting for “targets of struggle” within the Party, deliberately creating inner-Party struggles, punishing comrades by abusing Party disciplinary measures and even employing against them measures applicable to struggles outside the Party; and it was by such “struggles” and “disciplinary measures” that they tried to push the work ahead.<br />
<br />
The attitude we should adopt is the proletarian Marxist-Leninist one. Contrary to the erroneous attitudes described above, we advocate the following.<br />
<br />
1. First of all, get to know the various phenomena, ideas, views and opinions in the Party and distinguish those which are correct and beneficial to the interests of the Party and the revolution from those which are not, or, in the case of a dispute in which both sides are wrong, perceive this and be able to point out the correct view or opinion. After sober analysis and consideration, decide on a clear-cut attitude and take a correct stand. Do not follow blindly or drift with the tide.<br />
<br />
2. Profit by every good example, promote and spread a spirit of integrity in the Party and vigorously support all correct views and opinions. Do not follow any bad examples or be influenced by any wrong ideas.<br />
<br />
3. Do not take a liberalistic attitude or flinch from any necessary inner-Party struggle. Carry on an irreconcilable struggle in the Party against ideas and views which are wrong in principle and against all other undesirable phenomena, so that we can constantly move to overcome them; they should never be allowed to develop unchecked to the detriment of the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
4. Do not take a mechanical and extreme attitude. Properly combine irreconcilability and clarity in matters of principle with flexibility and patient persuasion in methods of struggle; in thecourse of prolonged struggles, educate, criticize, temper and remould comrades who have committed errors but who are not incorrigible. Such inner-Party ideological struggles on matters of principle as are necessary at different periods should be waged in a concrete and proper way; inner-Party struggles should not be waged indiscriminatingly, subjectively, mechanically or on shadowy pretexts. Do not become “struggle addicts”.<br />
<br />
5. Strengthen the unity and discipline of the Party and enhance its prestige through inner-Party struggle. Organizational penalties, ranging all the way to expulsion, should be applied to the incorrigible elements of the Party. We should regard it as our supreme duty to safeguard the Party’s unity, preserve the purity of its ideology and consolidate its organization.<br />
<br />
Such is the attitude of all good Communists in the Party and indeed the only correct Marxist-Leninist attitude.<br />
<br />
It is not strange that our enemies should seek to make use of our every shortcoming and mistake to undermine our Party. Besides constantly sharpening our vigilance, we should do everything possible to give the enemy as little opportunity as possible to exploit shortcomings and mistakes in the Party whenever they occur; this is the duty of every comrade who cherishes the Party. If a Party member ignores this consideration in inner-Party struggle, if he only seeks to vent his feelings, or goes to the length of joining up with bad elements instead of rejecting their assistance, or even makes use of outside forces to help him attain some private ends within the Party, he will be making an unpardonable breach of discipline.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party should be the embodiment of correct ideology and should follow good examples in the Party; they should not follow but oppose wrong ideas and bad examples. But what actually happens is that some comrades that are generally correct in their ideology and follow good examples, sometimes reflect certain wrong ideas and follow certain bad examples. Other comrades seem to find it easy to learn from bad but hard to learn from good, and this merits our serious attention. When mistakes occur in the Party, they are apt to encourage or aggravate them, intentionally of unintentionally. In inner-Party struggles they are apt to take the wrong side or to go along with whichever side is currently in vogue, irrespective of right and wrong. These comrades will hardly make progress unless they receive strict criticism and rigorous tempering.<br />
<br />
Of course comrades who adopt a liberalistic or bureaucratic attitude towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomenon inside the Party are also wrong. This, I think should be quite clear to you as students of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism. For in the Party building course which you have studied, the necessity of self-criticism and ideological struggle within the Party is clearly and thoroughly discussed; you can go into it again, and I need not well on the matter further. However, I do want to point out that quite a few comrades have this liberalistic attitude. We often do not have enough really responsible and sincere criticism and self-criticism conducted in keeping with the Party’s organizational principles, for the purpose of exposing, correcting and eliminating the undesirable phenomena in the Party, and more particularly we do not have enough criticism from below and self-criticism, both of which would be greatly encouraged. On the other hand, there is quite a lot of criticism that is irresponsible and not in keeping with the Party’s organizational principles, of talking behind people's backs and gossip about this or that person or thing. Both are manifestations of liberalism in the Party. They show that some of the comrades are insufficiently mature politically and are not courageous enough in revolutionary struggle; they also indicate that inner-Party democracy has not been properly developed. Some comrades dare not dispense with face-saving, and fear to offend others lest they themselves incur complaints and counter-criticism. They would rather leave the shortcomings and mistakes alone, taking the attitude of “getting by” and “the less trouble the better”, but at the same time they talk about comrades behind their backs. All this harms the Party and does it no good. Irresponsible criticism and talk are not likely to overcome the shortcomings and mistakes in the party but will lead to unprincipled disputes and disunity. We stand for inner-Party criticism and self-criticism which is responsible and beneficial to the Party and is in keeping with its organizational principles.<br />
<br />
Shortcomings and mistakes exist in the Party and so do incorrect non-proletarian ideas. Any of these may at certain times develop into a trend, giving rise to differences of principle and impairing the Party's unity of action. Hence it is impossible to educate the Party, the proletariat and the masses correctly if we do not unfold criticism and self-criticism, constantly expose and correct short comings and mistakes, overcome wrong ideas and conduct inner-Party struggle to resolve inner-Party differences, but instead take a compromising attitude and follow a “middle” line, or try to muddle through in inner-Party struggle.<br />
<br />
Liberalism in inner-Party struggle is manifested in yet another way. Thus when a dispute breaks out in the Party, many comrades put aside their work and indulge in aimless debate for days and months on end or let themselves go without restraint; as a result, the unity of the Party becomes the looser, Party discipline is weakened, the Party’s prestige is impaired and our militant Party organizations turn into debating societies. Such things have occurred more than once in certain Party organizations. They have absolutely nothing in common with the kind of criticism and self-criticism we advocate. We need criticism and self-criticism, not in order to impair the Party’s prestige, undermine its discipline and weaken its leadership, but in order to promote the Party’s prestige, consolidate its discipline and strengthen its leadership.<br />
<br />
Hence, it is wrong to adopt a liberalistic or bureaucratic attitude towards the various shortcomings and mistakes in the Party. In order to fight against all undesirable phenomena and resolve differences, we must promote criticism and self-criticism and conduct inner-Party struggle correctly. Only then can the party be strengthened, grow and advance.<br />
<br />
Comrades who take an extreme attitude in inner-Party struggle are also wrong.<br />
<br />
The extreme attitude is the exact antithesis of the liberalistic attitude. It arises because these comrades fail to understand that wrong ideas in the Party have deep social roots and cannot possibly be eliminated at one stroke. At various times and in varying degrees, many of our Party comrades may reflect certain incorrect ideas existing in society and may commit some mistakes in their work under the influence of non-proletarian ideologies; no comrade can entirely avoid this. If the Party were to refuse to retain or tolerate all comrades who reflect non-proletarian ideologies in some degree, or who have committed some mistakes and yet are not incorrigible, and were to reject them categorically and even expel them, then the tasks of educating the comrades and consolidating the Party’s organization would be nonexistent. Were our Party to follow such an extreme policy, the comrades promoting such actions would eventually have to be expelled themselves. In particular, these comrades fail to understand that the achievement of communism involves the tremendous and difficult task of transforming all humanity into the selfless citizenry of a communist society, the task of converting men with their many weaknesses into communists with a high level of culture through a long process of tempering and education in the course of struggle. If they did understand this, then they would understand that our Party has the important and constant duty of educating and remoulding people who are already members but whose ideology is not wholly proletarian.<br />
<br />
Naturally, the education and remoulding of such Party members is a most arduous task requiring prolonged and patient effort. Yet if we are unwilling to tackle this difficult task and shrink from it, how can we talk about changing the world and all humanity? Since we are determined to undertake, and not to shrink from, the unprecedentedly arduous task of changing the world and all humanity, what other task in the world today can daunt us? Party members who have the communist world outlook are dauntless, fear no difficulty or hardship, and understand that the process of development is torturous. Comrades who take an extreme attitude do not understand that the achievement of communism is an arduous and torturous task, they fear difficulties and crave a straight road, they want to eliminate everything unpleasant at one stroke and leap immediately into the world of their ideals. Thinking and acting in this way, they inevitably run their heads against a brick wall. And after banging and bruising their heads, they quite often become disheartened and loose their confidence in the future of communism. Thus they swing between extremes, from “Left” to “Right”, thereby revealing the essence of their non-proletarian ideology. It is regrettable that this erroneous, extreme attitude towards inner-Party shortcomings and mistakes should still be found to a greater or lesser extent among quite a few comrades, although it is harmful to the Party, to other comrades and to themselves.<br />
<br />
Inner-Party struggle is necessary not because we are subjectively addicted to struggle or partial to dispute, but because inner-Party differences of principle do arise in the growth of the Party and in the proletarian struggle. When they occur, “contradictions can be overcome only by means of a struggle for definite principles, for definite aims of the struggle, for definite methods of waging the struggle leading to the desired aim.”<sup>2</sup> Compromise is of no avail here. This means that when a dispute has developed into one of principle which can only be resolved through struggle, we should unflinchingly wage inner-Party struggle in order to resolve it. It does not mean that we should make a big fuss over small matters, conduct inner-Party struggle with stony faces and never compromise even on routine and on questions of a purely practical nature. “One can, and one should agree to any compromise with dissenters in the party on questions of current policy,, on questions of a purely practical nature.”<sup>3</sup><br />
<br />
When opportunist ideas and differences of principle arise in the Party, we must, of course, wage struggles to overcome those ideas and errors of principle. This defiantly does not mean that when there are no differences of principles and no opportunist ideas in the Party, we should deliberately magnify into “differences of principle” divergences of opinion among comrades on questions of a purely practical nature.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said: “The Party must on the one hand wage a serious struggle against erroneous thinking, and on the other give the comrades who have committed errors ample opportunity to wake up. This being the case, excessive struggle is obviously inappropriate.”<sup>4</sup><br />
<br />
It is necessary to make severe criticism of, or even to apply organizational penalties to, those comrades who, after committing opportunist mistakes or other mistakes of principle, turn a deaf ear to persuasion and Party criticism, wilfully and obstinately cling to their errors and resist Party policy, or double-faced in their attitude. But if these comrades do not cling to their mistakes but are willing to correct them and give up their previous point of view after sober discussion, persuasion and criticism, or if they coolly ponder over their mistakes or soberly discuss them with other comrades, we should welcome every small sign of progress on their part and not subject them to penalties undiscriminatingly. In criticism and inner-Party struggle, it is not true that the more stony-faced we are the better, or that the more comrades we punish the better; our highest aim is to educate the erring comrades to the best effect, help them to correct their mistakes, educate the entire membership and consolidate the Party.<br />
<br />
The “Left” opportunists are clearly wrong in their attitude towards inner-Party struggle. According to these almost hysterical people, any peace in the Party was intolerable—even peace based on complete unanimity on matters of principle an on the Party line. Even in the absence of any differences of principle in the Party, they deliberately hunted out targets, dubbed some comrades “opportunist” and set them up as “straw men” to shoot at in inner-Party struggle. They thought that such erroneous struggle and such shooting at “straw men” were the magic formula for developing the Party and achieving victory in the revolutionary fight of the proletariat. They considered that to stir up trouble out of nothing or to deliberately concoct inner-Party struggle was the only “Bolshevik” way. Of course, this is not serious and earnest inner-Party struggle; rather it is a mockery of the Party and the perverting of inner-Party struggle, which is a most serious matter, into a frivolous game. The advocates of such action are not Bolsheviks at all but are either people who are well-nigh incorrigible or careerists exploiting the name “Bolshevik”.<br />
<br />
We have been discussing the attitude to be adopted towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party. It is by combating all that is bad inside and outside the Party that we change the world and humanity and at the same time perfect the Party and remould ourselves. Inner-Party struggle is a reflection within the Party of existing contradictions in society between classes and between old and new. The Party tempers, develops and consolidates itself in the class struggle outside the Party (i.e., in the revolutionary struggles of the masses of the people) and simultaneously becomes consolidated and united through struggle inside the Party, and is therefore able to give more systematic, correct and effective leadership to the revolutionary struggle of the masses. Hence it would be utterly wrong, advantageous to the enemy, contrary to the laws of development of the class struggle and incompatible with our basic thesis of transformation of the world and humanity through struggle, if we were to adopt a liberal attitude towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party by flossing over internal differences of principle, covering up inner-Party contradictions, evading inner-Party struggle and just muddling along. Similarly, it would be wrong to isolate the struggle inside the Party from the class struggle outside the Party or the revolutionary movement of the masses and thus turn inner-Party struggle into empty talk. In fact, it is impossible to temper, develop and consolidate the party in isolation from the revolutionary struggle of the masses. However, it would be equally wrong and contrary to the laws of development of the Party, if we were to carry matters to the other extreme and adopt an extreme attitude towards all comrades who have shortcomings or have committed errors but who are not irredeemable, or if we were to fail to distinguish between them and the enemy, conducting mechanical and excessive inner-Party struggles against them and wilfully fabricating such struggles. We should not break with comrades who have committed errors but who are nevertheless loyal. Rather, we should show concern and sympathy for them, persuade and educate them and help them temper and reform themselves in struggle. We should not castigate or expel them unless they persist in their mistakes and prove incorrigible.<br />
<br />
Although there are still some shortcomings and mistakes, some isolated minor evils in our Party, we are fully confident that with the advance of the working-class movement we can and will get rid of them through the great revolutionary struggles of the masses. The history of nearly two decades of struggle and glorious progress by the Communist Party of China and the worldwide development of the working-class movement, thoroughly convince us of this.<br />
<br />
Inner-Party struggle is an indispensable component of the revolutionary struggle as a whole. Our comrades should therefore temper and cultivate themselves both in struggles outside the Party and in the struggle on two fronts inside the Party. Among many Party comrades, however, there is still no genuinely profound appreciation of such inner-Party struggle, and there is insufficient tempering and self-cultivation. This is manifested not only in the frequent unprincipled struggles carried on by some comrades but also in the fact that certain comrades, including even some with a fairly long history of militant struggle, cannot stand being criticized of misjudged. When fighting the counter-revolution, they never waver, complain or feel dejected, however ruthless the struggle, however bitter the conditions and however vicious the enemy’s blows. Yet in inner-Party struggle they cannot stand being criticized, attacked, misjudged or wronged, or tolerate even a single unpleasant word. Or they suspect people of making pointed allusions to them, and so they complain and feel very dejected. We must really give this kind of thing our attention.<br />
<br />
It must be stated that on the whole these comrades are very good because they wage resolute struggle against the counter-revolutionaries and look upon the Party as a most affectionate mother. After going out to fight hard battles against the counter-revolutionaries they should receive encouragement, consolation and caresses, and not blows and wrongs, when they return to their great mother’s embrace. It is only natural for them to expect such treatment. However, they fail to take one point into account, or fully into account—that our Party still has shortcomings and faults and that there are inner-Party struggles which every comrade must take part in. Our Party criticises and combats shortcomings and faults not because it is unfeeling but because such action is unavoidable in the course of revolutionary struggle. It is necessary for comrades in the course of inner-Party struggle to receive well founded criticism, for it is helpful to them, to the other comrades and to the whole Party. On the other hand, it is also unavoidable that at times some comrades will receive unfounded criticisms or be attacked on certain matters, or will even be wrongly judged and disciplined. Failing to allow for this, they become shocked and feel most miserable and dejected when it occurs.<br />
<br />
In this connection, it is my opinion that every Party member should pay attention to uniting with his comrades, be sincere and open,, refrain from hurting others by thoughtless or sarcastic remarks and, in particular, refrain from irresponsibly criticizing comrades behind their backs. The proper attitude to any comrade’s mistakes is sincerely to remonstrate with him and criticize him to his face., out of concern for the comrade and a desire to be of help. All of us, and especially those in more responsible positions, must bear this in mind.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, it is my opinion that comrades should be mentally prepared for inner-Party struggle, should open-mindedly accept all well-grounded criticism and be able to endure misunderstandings or attacks, or even unfairness and injustice; in particular, they should not get upset or excited over irresponsible and unjustified criticism or rumours. As far as irresponsible misjudgement and criticism are concerned—that is, excluding properly conducted criticism among comrades or through the Party organization—one can try and clear the matter up or offer some explanation when necessary, but if that does not help, one might just as well let others say what they please, provided there is nothing wrong in one’s thinking and behaviour. Let us remember the Chinese sayings: “Who never gossips about others behind their backs or is never the subject of gossip?” and “Never mind the storm, just sit tight in the fishing boat.” No one in this world can entirely avoid being misunderstood, but misunderstandings can always be cleared up sooner or later. We should be able to endure misunderstandings and should never allow ourselves to be dragged into unprincipled struggle; at the same time, we should be always vigilant and keep watch over our own thoughts and actions.<br />
<br />
That is to say, we should take care not to use words that wound other comrades and should be able to stand injurious language from others.<br />
<br />
We are radically opposed to unprincipled disputes in the Party. Since they are unprincipled, they are useless and harmful to the Party, and there is generally little of right or wrong, or good or bad, about them. In such unprincipled struggles, therefore, there is no point in passing judgement as to who is right and who is wrong, or estimating who is better and who is worse, because that is impossible. All we can do is radically to oppose struggles of that kind and ask the comrades involved unconditionally to stop them and get back to principles. This is the policy we should adopt towards unprincipled disputes and struggles. But what is to be done if unprincipled disputes do arise and if many of them get tangled up with struggles over principle? What should be done if such disputes knock at our door and we get dragged into them? All we can do in that case is, again, to put the stress on the questions of principle and avoid stressing those not involving any principle. Basing ourselves on the policy outlined here, we should handle such unprincipled disputes strictly and ourselves stand firm on the principle from beginning to end, refusing to be dragged into the unprincipled disputes. When something does go wrong to you, do not throw back something wrong at him. Always stand by the right to oppose the wrong. Some of our comrades find it very difficult to act in this way, which shows why special attention to self-tempering and self-cultivation is necessary.<br />
<br />
Let me briefly sum up the points discussed.<br />
<br />
The aim of ideological self-cultivation by members of the Communist party is to temper themselves to become staunch and utterly devoted members and cadres of the Party who make constant progress and serve as examples for others. What is required of us is the following:<br />
<br />
1. To build up our communist world outlook and a firm Party and proletarian class standpoint through the study of Marxism-Leninism and participation in the revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
2. To examine our own thinking and behaviour, to correct all erroneous ideas and at the same time to judge questions and judge other comrades on the basis of our communist world outlook and our firm Party and proletarian class standpoint.<br />
<br />
3. Always to adopt a correct attitude and appropriate methods in the struggle against erroneous ideology in the Party, and especially against the erroneous ideology which affects the current revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
4. To keep a firm control over ourselves in thought, speech and action, especially to take a firm standpoint and adhere to correct principles with regard to political ideas, statements and activities which are related to the current revolutionary struggle. In addition, it is as well to be careful even over “trifles” (in one's personal life, attitude, etc.). But as for making demands on other comrades, apart from matters of principle and major political questions, we should not be too severe or fault finding over “trifles”.<br />
<br />
In my opinion, the above is what we mean, fundamentally, when we talk about ideological self-cultivation by members of the Communist Party.<br />
[[Category:Library works by Liu Shaoqi]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:How_to_Be_a_Good_Communist&diff=64533Library:How to Be a Good Communist2024-03-24T16:56:01Z<p>RedCustodian: /* Attitudes Towards Wrong Ideology in the Party and Towards Inner-Party Struggle */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Library work|title=How to Be a Good Communist|author=Liu Shaoqi|written in=1939}}<br />
<br />
Comrades,<br />
<br />
The question I shall discuss us how members of the [[Communist Party of China|Communist Party]] should cultivate and temper themselves. It may not be unprofitable to the building and consolidation of the Party to take up this question at this present time.<br />
<br />
== Why Communists Must Undertake Self-Cultivation ==<br />
Why must Communists undertake to cultivate themselves?<br />
<br />
In order to live, person must wage a struggle against nature and make use of nature to produce [[Materialism|material]] values. At all times and under all conditions, his [[production]] of material things is social in character. It follows that when men engage in production at any [[Mode of production|stage of social development]], they have to enter into certain [[relations of production]] with one another. In their ceaseless struggle against nature, men ceaselessly change nature and simultaneously change themselves and their mutual relations. Men themselves, their social relations, their form of social organization and consciousness were all different from what they are today, and in the future they will again be different.<br />
<br />
Humanity and human society are in process of [[Historical materialism|historical development]]. When human society reached a certain historical stage, [[Social class|classes]] and [[class struggle]] emerged. Every member of a [[class society]] exists as a member of a given class and lives in given conditions of class struggle. Man’s social being determines his consciousness. In class society the ideology of the members of each class reflects a different position and different class interests. The class struggle constantly goes on among these classes with their different positions, interests and ideologies. Thus it is not only in the struggle against nature but in the struggle of social classes that men change nature, change society and at the same time change themselves.<br />
<br />
[[Karl Marx|Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]] said:<blockquote>Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary, an alteration that can only take place in a practical movement, a ''[[Proletarian revolution|revolution]]''; the revolution is necessary, therefore, not only the [[Bourgeoisie|ruling class]] cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because [[Proletariat|the class ''overthrowing'' it]] can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>That is to say, the proletariat must conscientiously go through long periods of social revolutionary struggles and, in such struggles change society and change itself.<br />
<br />
We should therefore see ourselves as in need of change and capable of being changed. We should not look upon ourselves as immutable, perfect and sacrosanct, as persons who need not and cannot be changed. When we pose the task of remoulding ourselves in social struggle, we are not demeaning ourselves; the objective laws of social development demand it. Unless we do so, we cannot make progress, or fulfill the task of changing society.<br />
<br />
We Communists are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history; to day the changing of society and the world rests upon us and we are the driving force in this change. It is by unremitting struggle against [[Counterrevolution|counter-revolutionaries]]<sup>3</sup> that we Communists change society and the world, and at the same time ourselves.<br />
<br />
When we say Communists must remould themselves by waging struggles in every sphere against the counter-revolutionaries,<sup>3</sup> we mean that it is through such struggles that they must seek to make progress and must enhance their revolutionary quality and ability. An immature revolutionary has to go through a long process of revolutionary tempering and self-cultivation, a long process of remoulding, before he can become a mature and seasoned revolutionary who can grasp and skillfully apply the laws of revolution. For in the first place, a comparatively immature revolutionary, born and bred in the old society, carries with him the remnants of the various ideologies of that society (including its prejudices, habits and traditions), and in the second he has not been through a long period of revolutionary activity. Therefore he does not yet have a really thorough understanding of the enemy, of the people or of the laws of social development and revolutionary struggle. In order to change this state of affairs, besides learning from past revolutionary experience (the practice of our predecessors), he must themself participate in contemporary revolutionary practice, and in this revolutionary practice and struggle against all kinds of counter revolutionaries,<sup>3</sup> he must bring his conscious activity into full play and work hard at study and self-cultivation. Only so can he acquire deeper experience and understanding of the laws of social development and revolutionary struggle, acquire a really thorough understanding of the enemy and the people, discover his wrong ideas, habits and prejudices and correct them, and thus raise the level of his political consciousness, cultivate his revolutionary qualities and improve his revolutionary methods. Hence, in order to remould themself and raise his owl level, a revolutionary must take part in revolutionary practice from which he must on no account isolate themself. Moreover, he must strive to conduct self-cultivation and study in the course of practice. Otherwise, it will still be impossible for him to make progress.<br />
<br />
For example, several Communists take part in a revolutionary mass struggle together and engage in revolutionary practice under roughly the same circumstances and conditions. It is possible that the effect of the struggle on these Party members will not be at all uniform. Some will make very rapid progress and some who used to lag behind will even forge ahead of others. Other Party members will advance very slowly. Still others will waver in the struggle and, instead of being pushed forward by revolutionary practice, will fall behind. Why?<br />
<br />
Or take another example. Many members of our Party were on the [[Long March]]; it was a severe process of tempering for them, and the overwhelming majority made very great progress indeed. But the Long March had the opposite effect on certain individuals in the Party. After having been on the Long March they began to shrink before arduous struggles, and some of them even planned to back out or to run away and later, succumbing to outside allurements, actually deserted the revolutionary ranks. Many Party members took part in the Long March together, and yet its impact and results varied very greatly. Again, why?<br />
<br />
Basically speaking, these phenomena are reflections of our revolutionary ranks of the class struggle in society. Our Party members differ in quality because they differ in social background and have come under different social influences. They differ in their attitude, stand and comprehension in relation to the revolutionary practice, and consequently they develop in different directions in the course of revolutionary practice. This can clearly be seen in your institute as well. You all receive the same education and training here, and yet because you differ in quality and experience, in degree of effort and self-cultivation, you may obtain different of even contrary results. Hence, subjective effort and self-cultivation in the course of revolutionary struggle are absolutely essential, indeed, indispensable for a revolutionary in remoulding themself and raising his own level.<br />
<br />
Whether he joined the revolution long ago or just recently, every Communist who wants to become a good politically mature revolutionary must undergo a long period of tempering in revolutionary struggle, must steel themself in mass revolutionary struggles and all kinds of difficulties and hardships, must sum up the experience gained through practice, make great efforts in self-cultivation, raise his ideological level, heighten his ability and never loose sense of what is new. For only thus can he turn themself into a politically staunch revolutionary of high quality.<br />
<br />
[[Confucius]] said “At fifteen, my mind was bent on learning. At thirty, I could think for myself. At forty, I was no longer perplexed. At fifty, I knew the decree of Heaven. At sixty, my ear was attuned to the truth. At seventy, I can follow my heart’s desire without transgressing what is right.”<sup>4</sup> Here the [[Feudalism|feudal]] philosopher was referring to his own process of self-cultivation; he did not consider themself to have been born a “sage”.<br />
<br />
[[Mencius]], another feudal philosopher, said that no one had fulfilled a “great mission” and played a role in history without first undergoing a hard process of tempering, a process which “exercises his mind with suffering and toughens his sinews and bones with toil, exposes his body to hunger, subjects him to extreme poverty, thwarts his under-takings and thereby stimulates his mind, tempers his character and adds to his capacities”.<sup>5</sup> Still more so must Communists give attention to tempering and cultivating themselves in revolutionary struggles, since they have the historically unprecedented “great mission” of changing the world.<br />
<br />
Our Communist self-cultivation is the kind essential to proletarian revolutionaries. It must not be divorced from revolutionary practice or from the actual revolutionary movements of the labouring masses, and especially of the proletarian masses.<br />
<br />
Comrade [[Mao Zedong]] has said:<blockquote>Discover the truth through practice, and again through practice verify and develop the truth. Start from perceptual knowledge and actively develop it into rational knowledge; then start from rational knowledge and actively guide revolutionary practice to change both the subjective and the objective world. Practice, knowledge, again practice and again knowledge. This form repeats itself in endless cycles, and with each cycle the content the content of practice and knowledge rises to a higher level. Such is the whole of the dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge, and such is the dialectical-materialist theory of the unity of knowing and doing.<sup>6</sup></blockquote>Our Party members should temper themselves and intensify their self-cultivation not only in the hardships, difficulties and reverses of revolutionary practice, but also in the course of smooth, successful and victorious revolutionary practice. Some members of our Party cannot stand the plaudits of success and victory; they let victories turn their heads, become brazen, arrogant, and bureaucratic and may even vacillate, degenerate and become corrupted, completely loosing their original revolutionary quality. Individual instances of this kind are not uncommon among our Party members. The existence of such a phenomenon in the Party calls for our comrades’ sharp attention.<br />
<br />
In past ages, before the proletarian revolutionaries appeared on the scene, practically all [[Revolution|revolutionaries]] became corrupted and degenerated with the achievement of victory. They lost their original revolutionary spirit and became obstacles to the further development of the revolution. [[Republic of China|China]]’s [[History of China|history]] over the past century, or to speak of more recent times, over the past fifty years, has shown us that many bourgeois and [[Petty bourgeoisie|petty-bourgeois]] revolutionaries in the past and by the nature of earlier revolutions. Before the [[Russian revolution of 1917|Great October Socialist Revolution]] in [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1991)|Russia]], all revolutions throughout history invariably ended in the suppression of the rule of one [[Exploitation|exploiting]] class by that of another. Thus, once they themselves became the ruling class, these revolutionaries lost their revolutionary quality and turned round to [[Oppression|oppress]] the exploited masses; this was the inexorable law.<br />
<br />
But such can never be the case with the proletarian revolution and with the Communist Party. The proletarian revolution is a revolution to abolish all exploitation, oppression and classes. The Communist Party represents the proletariat which is itself exploited but does not exploit others and which can therefore carry the revolution through to the end finally abolish all exploitation and sweep away all the corruption and rottenness in human society. The proletariat is able to build a strictly organized and disciplined party and set up a centralized and at the same time democratic state apparatus, and through the Party and this state apparatus, it is able to lead the masses of the people in waging unrelenting struggle against all corruption and rottenness and in ceaselessly weeding out of the Party and the state organs all those elements that have become [[Corruption|corrupt]] and degenerate (whatever high office they may hold), thereby preserving the purity of the Party and the state apparatus. This outstanding feature of the proletarian revolution and of the [[Vanguard party|proletarian revolutionary party]] did not and could not exist in earlier revolutions and revolutionary parties. Members of our Party must be clear on this point, and—particularly when the revolution is successful and victorious and when they themselves enjoy the ever greater confidence and support of the masses—they must sharpen their vigilance, intensify their self-cultivation in proletarian ideology and always preserve their pure proletarian revolutionary character so that they will not fall into the rut of earlier revolutionaries who degenerated in the hour of success.<br />
<br />
Tempering and self-cultivation in revolutionary practice and tempering and self-cultivation in proletarian ideology are important for every Communist, especially after the seizure of political power. The Communist Party did not drop from heaven but was born out of the Chinese society. Every member of the Communist party has come from this society, is living in it today and is constantly exposed to its seamy side. It is not surprising then that Communists, whether they are of proletarian or non-proletarian origin and whether they are old or new members of the Party, should carry with them to a greater or lesser the thinking and habits of the old society. In order to preserve our purity as vanguard fighters of the proletariat and to enhance our revolutionary quality and working ability that is essential for every Communist to work hard to temper and cultivate themself in every respect.<br />
<br />
These are the reasons why Communists must undertake self-cultivation. I shall now discuss the criteria for Communist self-cultivation.<br />
<br />
== Be Worthy Pupils of Marx and Lenin ==<br />
The constitution of the party stipulates that membership is open to any member who accepts the Programme and [[Library:Constitution of the Communist Party of China (2022)|Constitution of the Party]]<ref group="ProleWiki 2.">At the time of writing, this would have been the [[Constitution of the Communist Party of China (1928)|1928 Constitution]].</ref> organizations, pays membership dues and works in one of the Party organizations. No one can be a Party member unless he fulfills these requirements. But no Communist should rest content with being a Party member who merely fulfills the minimum requirements; as laid down in the Party Constitution, he should strive to make progress ceaselessly raise the level of his political consciousness and diligently study [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxism-Leninism]], as manifested throughout their lives.<br />
<br />
Engels said of Marx:<blockquote>...Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being, to contribute to the liberation of the modern proletariat, which he was the first to make conscious of its own position and of its needs, conscious of the needs of its emancipation. Fighting was his element. And he fought with a passion, a tenacity and a success such as few could rival.<sup>1</sup></blockquote>Engels also said of Marx:<blockquote>None of us has the breadth of vision with which he, whenever it was necessary to act quickly, did the right thing and tackled the decisive issue.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>[[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] said concerning the necessity of our learning from the example of [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]]:<blockquote>Remember, love and study Ilyich, our teacher, our leader. Fight and defeat our enemies, home and foreign—in the way that Ilyich taught us. Build the new society, the new way of life, the new culture in the way that Ilyich taught us. Never refuse to do the little things, for from the little things are built the big things—that is one of Ilyich's important behests.<sup>3</sup></blockquote>On another occasion Stalin said:<blockquote>The electors, the people, must demand that their deputies should remain equal to their tasks, that in their work they should not sink to the level of political philistines, that in their posts definite as Lenin was, that they should be as fearless in battle and as merciless towards the complicated and some danger or other looms on the horizon, that they should be as free from all requiring a comprehensive orientation and a comprehensive weighing of all the pros and cons as Lenin did.<sup>4</sup></blockquote>These are the concise characterizations of Marx by Engels and of Lenin by Stalin. That is how all members of our Party should learn from the thinking and qualities of Marx and Lenin and strive to be their worthy pupils.<br />
<br />
Some say that the that the thinking and qualities of such great revolutionary geniuses as the founders of Marxism-Leninism cannot be acquired and that it is impossible to raise one's thinking and qualities to their high level. They regard the founders of Marxism-Leninism as born geniuses , as mysterious beings. Is such a view correct? I think not.<br />
<br />
True enough, the average Party comrade is far from possessing the great gifts and profound scientific knowledge of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, and most of our comrades cannot attain to their deep and broad erudition in the theory of proletarian revolution. But it is perfectly possible for our comrades to grasp the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism, cultivate the style of Marx and Lenin in work and in struggle, constantly heighten their revolutionary quality and become statesmen of the type of Marx and Lenin, if they really have the will. Take a really conscious and consistent stand as vanguard fighters of the proletariat, really acquire the communist world outlook, never isolate themselves from the current deep and great revolutionary movement of the proletariat and all the labouring masses, and exert themselves in study, self-tempering and self-cultivation.<br />
<br />
There is a saying of Mencius: "Everybody can be a [[History of China#Sage kings Yao and Shun|Yao or a Shun]]."<sup>5</sup> I think that was well said. Every Communist should keep his feet on the ground, seek the truth from the facts, work hard at tempering themself, work conscientiously at self-cultivation and do his best to improve his own thinking and quality. He should not regard the thinking and qualities of such great revolutionaries as the founders of Marxism-Leninism as beyond his reach, give up and be afraid to advance. For if he does so, he will become a "political philistine", a piece of "rotten wood that cannot be carved".<br />
<br />
We should of course adopt a correct attitude towards learning from the qualities of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and towards the learning of Marxism-Leninism itself. Otherwise it is impossible to learn anything, let alone to learn it well. In fact, there are different kinds of people in our ranks with different attitudes towards such learning.<br />
<br />
These are people who, when studying Marx and Lenin, fail to get to the essence of Marxism-Leninism, but only learn its terms and phrases superficially. Although they read Marxist-Leninist literature, they are unable to use its principles and conclusions as a guide to action and apply them to concrete, practical problems in real life. They are content to learn isolated principles and conclusions by rote, and even to style themselves as "[[Dogmatism|the genuine]]" Marxist-Leninists; but they are certainly not genuine Marxist-Leninists and their actions and methods are diametrically opposed to Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
We have had not a few people of this type in the Communist Party of China. We had certain representatives of dogmatism at one time who were even worse. These people knew absolutely nothing about Marxism-Leninism and could only babble Marxist-Leninist phraseology, and yet they regarded themselves as China's Marx or China's Lenin, posed as such in the Party and had the impudence to require that our Party members should revere them as Marx and Lenin are revered, support them as "the leaders" and accord them loyalty and devotion. They went so far as to appoint themselves "the leaders" without being chosen, climbed into positions of authority, issued orders to the Party like [[Patriarchy|patriarchs]], tried to lecture our Party, abused everything in the Party, wilfully attacked and punished our Party members and pushed them around. Those people had no sincere desire to study Marxism-Leninism or fight for the realization of communism—they were just careerists in the Party, termites in the communist movement. Such people were bound to be opposed and eventually unmasked and discarded by the rank and file. And indeed they were discarded by our Party members. But can we say with full confidence that no such people will reappear in our Party? No, we cannot yet say so.<br />
<br />
Then there are people of exactly the opposite kind. They see themselves above all as pupils of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, they conscientiously studyi the theory of Marxism-Leninism and strive to grasp its essence and spirit. They look up to the noble character and proletarian revolutionary qualities of the founders, and in the course of revolutionary struggles they conscientiously carry on self-cultivation and examine themselves to see if their handling of affairs, their dealings with people and their own behaviour conform to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism. They are well-read in Marxism-Leninism but at the same time they make a special effort to investigate and analyse living reality, to study the characteristics of their own time and all aspects of the situation facing the proletariat of their own country, and to integrate the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the revolution in their own country. They do not content themselves with memorizing Marxist-Leninist principles and conclusions, but take a firm Marxist-Leninist stand learn the Marxist-Leninist method and act accordingly, giving spirited guidance in every revolutionary struggle, and thus they transform reality and at the same time transform themselves. Every one of their actions without exception is guided by the general principles of Marxism-Leninism and is devoted to the victory of the proletarian cause, the liberation of the nation and all humanity, and the triumph of Communism.<br />
<br />
The attitude of these people is the only correct one. It is the one attitude towards studying Marxism-Leninism and learning from the qualities of its founders that will enable us to become communist proletarian revolutionaries of the Marx and Lenin type.<br />
<br />
A person who really takes pain to cultivate themselves and to be a faithful pupil of the founders of Marxism-Leninism will lay special stress on maintaining the Marxist-Leninist stand and using the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint and method to solve the problems arising in the revolutionary movement lead by the proletariat, as the founders of Marxism-Leninism did. He will give no thought whatsoever to his own position or fame in the Party, nor will he ever claim to be a Marx or a Lenin, nor require nor expect others to have the same high respect for him as for Marx or Lenin, for he does not think he has any right to do so. Yet such a person will enjoy the considered respect and support of the mass of the Party members just because he acts in this way, because he is always honest and loyal, brave and firm, and shows great ability in the revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
Of course it is not easy to model ourselves on the founders of Marxism-Leninism and to be their faithful and worthy pupils. But we can become their faithful and worthy pupils if we are strong-willed and determined to fight hard for the cause of communism, if we diligently study Marxism-Leninism amid the great revolutionary struggles of the masses and are good at summing up experience and if we temper and cultivate ourselves in every respect and devote our whole lives to the proletarian communist cause.<br />
<br />
=== ProleWiki annotations ===<br />
<references group="ProleWiki 2." /><br />
<br />
== The Self-Cultivation of Communists and the Revolutionary Practice of the Masses ==<br />
In order to become faithful and worthy pupils of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, we must engage in all round self-cultivation in the course of the great and protracted revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and the masses. We must engage in self-cultivation in the Marxist-Leninist theory; self cultivation in applying the Marxist-Leninist stand, view point and method to the study and handling of all problems; self-cultivation in proletarian ideology and morality; self-cultivation in upholding unity in the Party, practicing criticism and self-criticism and observing discipline; self-cultivation in developing the style of hard work and persistent struggle; self-cultivation in building close ties with the masses; self cultivation in various branches of scientific knowledge, etc. We are all members of the Communist Party and therefore we must all without exception carry on self-cultivation in these respects. However, since Party members differ from one another in political consciousness, experience of struggle, field of work, cultural level and in the conditions in which they work, it is natural that comrades should differ to some extent in the various aspects of self-cultivation to which they must pay special attention of which they must stress.<br />
<br />
When Zeng Zi, in ancient times, said, "I reflect on myself three times a day,"<sup>1</sup> he was discussing self-examination. The ''Book of Odes'' in the famous lines, "As knife and file make smooth the bone, as jade is wrought by chisel and stone", <sup>2</sup> referred to the need for help and criticism among friends. What all this shows is that very hard work and very earnest self-cultivation are essential if one is to make progress. But the "self-cultivation" perused by many people in the past was generally [[Idealism|idealistic]], formalistic, abstract and divorced from social practice. They exaggerated the role of subjective intentions, thinking that so long as they had "good will" in the abstract, they could transform reality, society and themselves. Of course this is absurd. Our self-cultivation cannot be done that way. We are revolutionary materialists; our self-cultivation cannot be separated from the revolutionary practices of the masses.<br />
<br />
For us it is most important to never divorce ourselves from the current revolutionary struggle of the masses, but to identify ourselves with it, in order to study, sum up and apply the revolutionary experience of the past. This means that we must cultivate and temper ourselves in revolutionary practice and that in turn our self-cultivation and tempering are undertaken solely for the sake of the people and of revolutionary practice. It means that we must modestly learn the Marxist-Leninist stand, viewpoint and method, learn from the noble proletarian quality of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and apply all this in our practice, in our words and deeds, our daily life and work, constantly correcting or eliminating anything in our ideology contrary to it and strengthening our own proletarian communist ideology and character. It means that we should listen modestly to the opinions and criticisms of our Party comrades and of the masses, make a careful study of the practical problems in our life and work, carefully sum up and draw lessons from our experience in work, and that, in the light of all this, we should ascertain whether our understanding of Marxism-Leninism and our use of the Marxist-Leninist method are correct and check up on our shortcomings and mistakes so as to overcome them and improve our work. Furthermore, on the basis of new experience we should ascertain whether there are any individual conclusions or aspects of Marxism-Leninism that need supplementing, enriching and developing. In short, we must integrate the universal truth of Marxism- Leninism with the concrete practice of the revolution.<br />
<br />
This is the method of self-cultivation for us communists. It is entirely different from those methods of self-cultivation which are idealistic and divorced from the revolutionary practice of the masses.<br />
<br />
In order to persevere in this Marxist-Leninist method of cultivation, we must resolutely oppose and thoroughly eradicate one of the worst vices bequeathed to us by the old society in the field of education and study, namely, the separation of theory from practice. In the old society many people who studied thought it unnecessary, or even impossible to act upon what they had learned, and though they wrote and spoke abundantly of justice and morality, in fact they were out and out scoundrels. Although the [[Kuomintang]] [[Reactionary|reactionaries]] memorize the "Three People's Principles"<sup>3</sup> and recite [[Sun Yat-sen]]'s Testament,<sup>4</sup> in actual fact they bleed the people white with [[Tax|taxes]], practice corruption and slaughter, oppress the masses, are opposed to "[[Anti-imperialism|those nations who treat us as equals]]", and go as far as to compromise with or surrender to the [[Empire of Japan (1868–1947)|national enemy]]. An old ixucai<sup>5</sup> once told me that of all the teachings of Confucius he was able to observe only this one, "For him no food can ever be too dainty and no minced meat too fine"<sup>5</sup> and that he could not observe the rest and had never intended to. Since that is what these people are like, why do they run schools and study the "teachings of the sages"? They are after advancement and money, use the "teachings of the sages" to oppress the exploited, and deceive the people by paying lip service to justice and morality. This is typical of the attitude of the exploiting classes of the old society towards the sages they "worship". Needless to say, when we Communists study Marxism-Leninism an all that is best in our national heritage, we must never adopt such an attitude. What we learn we must practice. Being proletarian revolutionaries who are honest and pure in purpose, we cannot be untrue to ourselves, to the people, or to those who went before us. This is an outstanding characteristic as well as a great merit of Communists.<br />
<br />
Is it possible that the old society's separation of theory from practice can have no influence on us? No, it is not! It is true that none of you students are studying Marxism-Leninism for the sake of advancement and money and or oppressing the exploited. Yet is it possible to maintain that none of you ever entertains the idea that your thoughts, words, deeds and life do not necessarily have to be guided by Marxist-Leninist principles or that you do not intend to put all the principles that you have learned into practice? Is it possible that none of you ever thinks of studying Marxism-Leninism or going deeper into the theory as a means of getting ahead in life, of showing off and becoming famous? I cannot guarantee that none of you thinks along these lines. That kind of thinking runs counter to Marxism-Leninism and to the basic Marxist-Leninist principle of the integration of theory and practice. Certainly we must study theory, but we must also practice what we learn. And it is for the sake of practice, of the Party, of the people, and of the victory of the revolution that we study theory.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<blockquote>The great strength of Marxism-Leninism lies precisely in its integration with the concrete revolutionary practice of all countries. For the Communist Party of China, it is a matter of learning to apply the theory of Marxism-Leninism to the specific circumstances of China. For the Chinese Communists who are part of the great Chinese nation, flesh of its flesh and blood of its blood, any talk about Marxism in isolation from China's characteristics is merely Marxism in the abstract, Marxism in a vacuum. Hence to apply Marxism concretely in China so that its every manifestation has an indubitable Chinese character, i.e., to apply Marxism in the light of China's specific characteristics, becomes a problem which it is urgent for the whole Party to understand and solve. Foreign stereotypes must be abolished, there must be less singing of empty, abstract tunes, and dogmatism must be laid to rest; they must be replaced by the fresh, lively Chinese style and spirit which the common people of China love.<sup>6</sup></blockquote>Our comrades must study the theory of Marxism-Leninism by following the method Comrade Mao Zedong speaks of here.<br />
<br />
== The Unity of Theoretical Study and Ideological Self-Cultivation ==<br />
We Communists must not separate our study of theory from our ideological self-cultivation. We must remould ourselves and temper our proletarian ideology not only in the practice of revolution but in the study of Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
The view is current among some members of our Party that a firm and purely proletarian stand is irrelevant to a Party member's understanding a and mastery of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism. They believe that one can thoroughly understand and genuinely master the Marxist-Leninist theory and method even though one's proletarian stand may not be very firm and one's ideology not very pure (i.e., it may be tainted with the remnants of non-proletarian ideas). They believe that the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism can be mastered merely through book learning. This view is wrong.<br />
<br />
Marxism-Leninism is the science of proletarian revolution, the science by which the working class builds socialism and communism. It can be thoroughly understood and mastered only by those who have a firm proletarian stand and who have made the ideals of the proletariat their own. Without a firm proletarian stand and pure proletarian ideals it is impossible for anyone to thoroughly understand or master the science of Marxism-Leninism. The science of Marxism-Leninism is of little of no use to anyone who is not a genuine revolutionary, who is not a proletarian revolutionary to the core, who does not want to bring about socialism and communism throughout the world and emancipate all humanity, to anyone who does not want revolution or is unwilling to carry it through to the end and wants to stop half-way.<br />
<br />
We often come across very fine Party members from the working class who are not well grounded in Marxist-Leninist theory and who may not do so well as others in an examination in which Marxist-Leninist works and formulations have to be quoted from memory. Yet in studying Marxism-Leninism, provided it is explained to them in language they understand, they generally show much keener interest and far greater comprehension than some Party members from the [[intelligentsia]]. For example, the section in Capital concerning surplus value is difficult for some Party members, but not for those from the working class. The reason is that in the process of production and of struggle against the capitalists, the workers come to know all too well how the capitalists calculate wages and working hours, exploit the workers for profit and oppress them. Therefore, they generally understand Marx's theory of surplus value more profoundly than do some Party members from other classes. When we say that many Party members from the working class are readier to accept Marxism-Leninism, we do not, of course mean that their class-background makes them born Marxist-Leninists. We mean that provided they study Marxist-Leninist theory modestly and diligently and have a real grasp of the method of seeking the truth from the facts, those comrades who have a firm and purely proletarian stand and are free from personal prejudice of other blemishes are certain to be keener and more correct than the others in their observation and handling of practical problems. In the struggle, too, these comrades will prove more able to discern the truth and will uphold it more courageously and unhesitatingly.<br />
<br />
Also, we come across many Party members of non-proletarian origin who differ in their development owing to their differing attitudes towards the relation between Marxist-Leninist study and ideological self-cultivation. Generally speaking, when they join the revolution such people do not have a firm and clear-cut proletarian stand, are not very correct or pure in their ideology, and to a greater of lesser extent carry over various non-proletarian ideas from the old society. Obviously these ideas come into direct conflict with the principles of Marxism-Leninism, and since the people take different attitudes, the results of the conflict differ. In studying Marxism-Leninism, some people correctly combine theoretical study with their ideological self-cultivation, using Marxist-Leninist principles to fight and overcome whatever is backward in their thinking. In this way thy achieve a more truly proletarian stand and a more undiluted proletarian ideology, and learn how to apply Marxist-Leninist principles to the solution of practical problems. We have many such Party members. Others, however, go the opposite way; they have a lot of old junk accumulated in their heads and many stubborn habits, prejudices and selfish desires, but the lack of determination to remould themselves. In studying Marxism-Leninism they do not make use of its principles to criticize and repudiate whatever is backward in their own ideology, but employ it as a weapon to further their own private ends, and this is carried to the point where the principles of Marxism-Leninism are so distorted by their old prejudices that these people can neither reach a correct understanding of these principles nor grasp the spirit and essence of Marxism-Leninism. When they handle practical problems in the course of revolutionary struggle, the habits and prejudices which they have brought with them from the old society and their individualistic calculations led them to think in terms of personal gain or loss, to be hesitant and vacillating and incapable of going deeply into things in a free untrammelled way or of courageously upholding the truth , and they conceal or distort the truth unintentionally, or even deliberately.<br />
<br />
These people are absolutely incapable of guiding their lives by the principals of Marxism-Leninism, and hence incapable of dealing with practical problems promptly, correctly and realistically according to these principles; sometimes they even adopt a negative attitude when practical problems have already been correctly solved according to these principals by the Party organization, or by comrades other than themselves. Such things are neither rare nor unusual, but are quite common.<br />
<br />
Thus we can say that it is impossible for a Party member who lacks a clear-cut firm proletarian stand and a correct, purely proletarian ideology to achieve a thorough understanding and real mastery of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism as a weapon in the revolutionary struggle. In other words a Party member must have the noble stand of the proletariat in order to become versed in Marxist-Leninist theory.<br />
<br />
At the same time, we should add that no Party member can maintain a proletarian stand and express a proletarian ideology concretely in every revolutionary struggle unless he studies the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism diligently and guides his thinking and action accordingly.<br />
<br />
There are some Party members who think it quite enough to have revolutionary firmness and to fight bravely, and that it does not matter much whether they study and undertake self-cultivation in Marxist-Leninist theory. Some comrades even think that a good class origin or a good personal class status is all that is needed to make them vanguard proletarian fighters, thus obviating the need to study Marxism-Leninism. There are other comrades who never study it earnestly in the course of work or struggle, though they generally admit the importance of theory. All such attitudes are obviously wrong.<br />
<br />
The theory of Marxism-Leninism is our weapon for studying every phenomenon and dealing with every question, and especially for studying all social phenomena and dealing with all social questions.. If we do not know how to wield the weapon of Marxist-Leninist theory, we shall be unable correctly to understand and deal with the problems confronting us in the revolutionary struggle and shall be in danger of loosing our bearings and departing from the revolutionary proletarian stand, or even, whether consciously or unconsciously, of becoming opportunists of one kind or another, captives and yes-men of the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Revolutionary firmness and courage in the struggle are precious qualities which every Communist must possess. Besides these qualities, Communists must have the ability to find the right way to conduct the revolution and carry on the struggle in different historical periods and under different conditions of struggle, if they are to win the victory for the revolution and realize the highest ideal of communism. Only by applying Marxism-Leninism can we correctly solve such important questions in the revolutionary struggle as the question of whom to rely upon, whom to unite with and whom to overthrow, the question of who are our direct allies, who is the main enemy and who are the secondary enemies, the question of rallying all possible allies, including even secondary enemies under certain conditions, to defeat the main enemy, and the question of making timely changes in strategy and tactics to meet changing situations. Without mastering the weapon of Marxism-Leninism and attaining a high degree of self-cultivation in Marxist-Leninist theory, we cannot possibly maintain a firm, correct proletarian stand on every important question in the revolutionary struggle, or formulate the policies which are most advantageous to the cause of the proletarian revolution or champion the overall, long term interests of the proletarian revolutionary struggle amid the complex situations and sharp changes, when it is necessary for us to make detours and turns.<br />
<br />
Consider, for instance, our Party's experience in carrying out the policy of the national [[united front]] against Japan. Before the Incident of July 7. 1937,<sup>1</sup> certain comrades did not understand that the [[contradiction]] between the Chinese nation and Japanese [[imperialism]] had become the principal one while the contradictions among the different classes and political groups within the country had become secondary. As a result, they opposed the Party's policy of forming a national united front against Japan. of uniting all [[Patriotism|patriotic]] classes, strata, political parties and social groupings for joint resistance, and especially of uniting with the Kuomintang to fight Japan. Although these comrades thought they were taking a firm proletarian stand in opposing the Party's correct policy, they actually departed from it and plunged into "closed-doorism" and [[sectarianism]]. Had we acted in accordance with their wrong views, the proletariat and its political party would have been unable to unite and lead all the patriotic classes, strata, parties and social groupings for the purpose of defeating Japanese imperialism; instead, the forces of the Anti-Japanese National United Front would have been weakened and the proletariat and its political party would have been isolated to the detriment of the struggle to resist Japan and save China. After the July 7th Incident, when our Party had formed the Anti-Japanese National United front with the Kuomintang, certain comrades went to the other extreme, maintaining that since the Kuomintang had joined in the resistance to Japan, there was hardly any distinction between it and the Communist Party. They adopted a policy of capitulation by appeasing the big [[landlord]] and big bourgeois classes and the Kuomintang. and opposed the Party's policy of upholding its independence within the united front. While they over estimated the strength of and placed undue trust in the Kuomintang, on which they pinned all their hopes for resisting Japan and saving China, they had no confidence in the strength of the Communist Party and the people, did not place their hopes on the Communist Party and therefore did not dare freely to expand the Party and the anti-Japanese people's revolutionary forces and to resolutely fight against the Kuomintang's policy of opposing and restricting the Communist Party. The comrades with this approach styled themselves as the true representatives of the proletariat, but in essence their policy would have made the proletariat a vassal or an appendage of the bourgeoisie, and would have caused the proletariat to loose the leadership of the Anti-Japanese National United Front. These "Left" and Right mistakes are both striking examples of the failure to take a firm proletarian stand and to identify the correct path for advancing the revolutionary cause when major changes are occurring in the political situation.<br />
<br />
The proletariat cannot just emancipate itself alone; it must fight for the emancipation of [[The people|all the working people]], the emancipation of the nation and of all humanity, for only thus can it fully emancipate itself. The proletariat must rid the whole of human society of exploitation, oppression and class struggle once and for all, for only thus can it genuinely and finally emancipate itself. Hence a firm proletarian stand must be sharply differentiated from "closed-doorism' and sectarianism. In waging struggles the proletariat and its political party must establish close ties with the masses of working people, form revolutionary alliances with other revolutionary classes and parties and lead the working masses and all their allies forward together; they must represent the interests of more than ninety per cent of the population of the country. To have a firm proletarian stand is to represent at all times and in all circumstances the highest interests of the overwhelming majority of the people, which, we must understand, are also the highest class interests of the proletariat. On the other hand, a firm proletarian stand must be sharply differentiated from all appeasement and capitulation. In waging revolutionary struggles the proletariat and its political party must draw clear lines of distinction not only between themselves and the landlord class and the bourgeoisie but also between themselves and the revolutionary democrats of the petty bourgeoisie, and must even make some distinction between themselves and the masses of working people. In the revolutionary struggle they must at all times firmly maintain their independence and be free from any bourgeois or other non-proletarian class influence. In every stage of the development of the revolutionary struggle they must combine the interests of the part with the interests of the whole and immediate interests with ling-term interests. As Marx and Engels said of Communists:<blockquote>1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.<br />
<br />
2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>During his struggle to organize a political party of the proletariat at the end of the 19th century, Lenin said:<blockquote>The consciousness of the masses and of the workers cannot be genuine [[class consciousness]], unless the workers learn to observe from concrete, and above all from topical (current), political facts and events, every other social class and all manifestations of the intellectual, ethical and political life of these classes; unless they learn to apply in practice the materialist analysis and the materialist estimate of all aspects of the life and activity of all classes, strata and groups of the population.<sup>3</sup></blockquote>Further:<blockquote>The [[Russian Social Democratic Labor Party|Social-Democrat]]'s ideal should not be a [[Trade union|trade-union]] secretary, but a tribune of the people, able to react to every manifestation of tyranny and oppression, no matter where it takes place, no matter what stratum of class of people it affects; he must be able to generalize all these manifestations to produce a single picture of police violence and capitalist exploitation; he must be able to take advantage of every event, however small, in order to explain his [[Socialism|socialist]] convictions and [[Democracy|democratic]] demands to all and everyone the world-historic significance of the proletariat's struggle for emancipation.<sup>4</sup></blockquote>To fulfill the requirements cited by Lenin in these two passages, we Communists must of course unceasingly take part in the revolutionary practice and thus increase our perceptual knowledge and accumulate practical experience. But it must be pointed out, perceptual knowledge and practical experience alone are not sufficient. As Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<blockquote>Fully to reflect a thing in its totality, to reflect its essence, to reflect its inherit laws, it is necessary through the exercise of thought to reconstruct the rich data of sense perception, discarding the dross and selecting the essential, eliminating the false and retaining the true, proceeding from the one to the other and from the outside to the inside, in order to form a system of concepts and theories—it is necessary to make a leap from perceptual to rational knowledge.<sup>5</sup></blockquote>Therefore, while engaged in revolutionary practice, we must most conscientiously study the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism.<blockquote>The theory of Marxism-Leninism is the summing-up of the experience of the international working-class movement; it is a theory formulated in revolutionary practice and in turn serving revolutionary practice. If only we study this theory, apply it and master it in close conjunction with revolutionary practice, we shall be able to understand the inner connections of the changes taking place all around us and to know how and in what direction the various classes are now moving and will soon move, and we shall be able to determine our line of action and shall confidence in the future of the revolutionary movement.</blockquote>It is precisely because the theory of Marxism-Leninism plays such a great role that Lenin said, "The role of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory."<sup>6</sup> Members of the Communist Party must closely link their study of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism with their own ideological self-cultivation and self-tempering; they must never divorce one from the other.<br />
<br />
Time and again Comrade Mao Zedong has emphasised the tremendous importance of cultivating oneself in the theory of Marxism-Leninism. He has said:<blockquote>From the Marxist viewpoint, theory is important, and its importance is fully expressed in Lenin's statement, "Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." But Marxism emphasises the importance of theory precisely and only because it can guide action.<sup>5</sup></blockquote>Comrade Mao Zedong has constantly urged all Party members who have some capacity for study to study Marxist-Leninist theory, study the actual conditions of the movement, study Chinese and world history and learn to guide their actions by Marxist-Leninist theory and also help to educate comrades with a lower cultural and theoretical level. The whole Party should at times bear in mind this injunction of Comrade Mao Zedong's.<br />
<br />
== The Cause of Communism is the Greatest and Most Arduous Undertaking in Human History ==<br />
Now let us continue with our discussion of ideological self-cultivation by Communist Party members.<br />
<br />
What does ideological self-cultivation mean? Fundamentally, in my opinion, it means that every Party member should use proletarian ideology to combat whatever non-proletarian ideas he has, use the communist world outlook he has and use the principle of the supremacy of the interests of the proletariat, the people and the Party to combat his individualism.<br />
<br />
This struggle is one of conflicting ideologies, and it reflects the class struggle in society. For a Party member, the result of this struggle should be that the proletarian ideology overcomes and ultimately eliminates any non-communist world outlook and that ideas based on the general interests and aims of the Party, of the revolution and of the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity overcome and ultimately eliminate all individualism. If the opposite happens, that is, if the latter prevails over the former, the comrade concerned will retrogress and may even loose his qualifications as a member of the Communist Party. For a Communist that would be a terrible and dangerous thing to happen.<br />
<br />
We Communist Party members temper ourselves ideologically in struggles of all kinds inside and outside the Party, constantly sum up and learn from experience gained in revolutionary practice, and examine our own ideas to see whether they fully conform to Marxism-Leninism and the interests of the struggle for the emancipation of the proletariat. It is through such study, reflection and self-examination that we eliminate all remnants of incorrect ideas and nip in the bud any ideas inconsistent with the interests of communism.<br />
<br />
As you know, a man's words and actions are guided by his ideology. And a man's ideology is inseparable from his world outlook. The only world outlook for members of the Communist Party is the communist world outlook. This world outlook is the philosophical system of the proletariat and also our communist methodology.. All this has been abundantly discussed in Marxist-Leninist literature, and especially in the philosophical works of the founders. As you have studied it, I shall not go into it today. Here I shall only talk briefly of our communist cause, of what it is and how Party members should advance it.<br />
<br />
What is our most fundamental duty as Party members? It is to achieve communism. As far as the Communist Parties of different countries are concerned, in each country it is for the Communist Party and the people there to transform it by their own efforts, and in that way the whole world will be transformed step by step into a communist world. Will the communist world be good? We all know it will be. In that world there will be no exploiters of oppressors, no landlords and capitalists, no imperialists and fascists, nor will there be any oppressed and exploited people, or any of the darkness, ignorance and backwardness resulting from the system of exploitation. In such a society the production of both material and moral values will develop and flourish mightily and will meet the varied needs of all its members. By then all humanity will consist of unselfish, intelligent, highly cultured and skilled communist workers; mutual assistance and affection will prevail among men and there will be no such irrationalities as mutual suspicion and deception, mutual injury, mutual slaughter and war. It will of course be the best, the most beautiful and the most advanced society in human history. Who can deny that such a society is good? But can this good communist society be built? We say that it can and will be. Marxist-Leninist theory has explained this scientifically and beyond all doubt. A factual testimony has been provided by the victory of the Great October revolution and the successes in socialist construction in the Soviet Union. Our duty is constantly to advance the cause socialism and communism in accordance with the laws of development of human society, so as to make socialist and communist society a reality as soon as possible. This is our ideal.<br />
<br />
However, the cause of socialism and communism still faces powerful enemies who must be thoroughly and finally defeated in every field; only then will the socialist and communist society be brought into being. Victory for the communist cause can only be won through long and arduous struggle. Without it there can be no victory. This struggle, of course, is not an "accidental" social phenomenon or an invention of certain Communists as some people assert. It is inevitable in the development of class society; it is unavoidable class struggle. The birth of the Communist Party and the fact that Communists participate, organize and guide this struggle are also inevitable phenomena conforming with the laws of social development. The imperialists, [[Fascism|fascists]] and landlords—in short, all exploiters and oppressors—are oppressing and exploiting the overwhelming majority of the people of the world to such an extent that the people are hardly able to survive and have to unite and fight against this exploitation and oppression, because they cannot exist, much less make progress in any other way. This struggle, therefore, is natural and unavoidable.<br />
<br />
On the one hand, we must understand that communism is the greatest cause in human history, which will eliminate exploitation and classes once and for all, emancipate humanity and bring humanity into a world of happiness, radiating with beauty, such as it has never known before. But on the other hand, we must also understand that the cause of communism is the most arduous undertaking in all history; that only through protracted, bitter and torturous struggle will we be able to defeat all the exploiting classes; and that for a long time after our victory we shall patiently have to carry out social and economic, ideological and cultural transformation, for only thus will all the influences, conventions and habits of the exploiting classes be eliminated from among the people, and only thus will a new social and economic system, a new communist culture and code of social morality be built up.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party will defiantly win final victory by relying on the proletariat and the masses of the exploited and oppressed people and by using Marxism-Leninism to guide the revolutionary struggle of the masses and propel society towards the great goal of communism. The reason is that the historical laws of social development make the progress of human society towards communism inevitable; that latent in the proletariat and the other exploited and oppressed masses of the world lie extremely powerful revolutionary energies which, once mobilized, united and organized, can triumph over all the reactionary forces of the exploiting classes and imperialism; and that the Communist Party and the proletariat are the new and rising forces and whatever is new and rising is invincible. This has been fully demonstrated by the history of the world communist movement and the Communist Party of China. The present situation is as follows. Socialism has already won a great victory in the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]], or on one sixth of the earth's surface; militant Communist Parties armed with the theory of Marxism-Leninism have been organized in many countries; the world communist movement is rapidly growing and developing; and the forces of the proletariat and the other exploited and oppressed masses of the world are being rapidly mobilized and united in the course of incessant struggles. The communist movement is already organized as a mighty and invincible world force. Beyond all doubt the communist cause will continue to develop and advance, and will win final and complete victory. However, we should also realize that the international reaction and the exploiting classes are yet stronger than we are, that they are temporarily superior in many fields and that only by protracted, torturous and bitter struggles can we defeat them.<br />
<br />
In a society in which [[Private property|private ownership of the means of production]] has existed for thousands of years, the exploiting classes through their rule have built up great power in all fields and have grabbed everything under the sun. Their long rule has given rise to backwardness, ignorance, selfishness, mutual suspicion and deception, mutual injury and slaughter in human society, which have persisted down the ages. It has exerted a most pernicious influence on the exploited masses and on other members of society. This is the inevitable result of the efforts of the exploiting classes to preserve their class interests and rule. For they cannot maintain their ruling position unless they keep the exploited masses and the colonial peoples backward, unorganized and divided. Hence, in order to achieve victory we must not only conduct a stern struggle against the exploiting classes but also carry on a struggle against their long-standing influence among the masses and the backward ideas and other backward phenomena found among the masses, for only thus can we enhance their political consciousness and unite them to defeat the exploiting classes. Here is the difficulty in the course of achieving communism. Comrades! If the masses were all politically conscious, united, free from the influence of the exploiting classes and free from backwardness, as some people imagine them to be, what would be so difficult about the revolution?<br />
<br />
Not only does this influence of the exploiting classes exist before the victory of the revolution, but it survives for a very long time after when the exploiting classes have been ejected from their ruling position. Think how torturous is the process and how arduous are the work and struggle that are needed to vanquish the exploiting classes and their influence among the people once and for all, to emancipate and change all humanity, to transform myriads of small commodity producers, finally to abolish all classes and gradually to transform humanity that has lived in class society for thousands of years and been influenced by all kinds of old customs and conventions until it becomes communist humanity, intelligent and unselfish, and with a high level of culture and skill!<br />
<br />
Lenin said:<blockquote>The abolition of classes means not only driving out landlords and capitalists—that we accomplished with comparative ease—it also means abolishing the small commodity producers, and they cannot be driven out, or crushed; we must live in harmony with them; they can (and must) be remoulded and re-educated only by very prolonged, slow, cautious organizational work. They encircle the proletariat on every side with a petty-bourgeois atmosphere, which permeates and corrupts the proletariat and causes constant relapses among the proletariat into petty-bourgeois spinelessness, disunity, individualism, alternate moods of exaltation and dejection. The strictest centralization and discipline are required within the political party of the proletariat in order to counteract this, in order that the organizational role of the proletariat (and that is its principle role) may be exercised correctly, successfully, victoriously....The force of habit of millions and tens of millions is a most terrible force....It is a thousand times easier to vanquish the centralized big bourgeoisie than to "vanquish" the millions and millions of small owners; yet they, by their ordinary, everyday, imperceptible, elusive, demoralizing activity, achieve the very results which the bourgeoisie need and which tend to restore the bourgeoisie.<sup>1</sup></blockquote>He also said:<blockquote>...the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by its overthrow (even if only in one country), and whose power lies not only in the strength of international capital, in the strength and durability of the international connections of the bourgeoisie, but also in the force of habit, in the strength of small production. For all these reasons the dictatorship of the proletariat is essential, and victory over the bourgeoisie is impossible without a long, stubborn and war of life and death, a war demanding perseverance, discipline, firmness, indomitableness and unity of will.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>Hence the proletariat has a very difficult task to perform even after the victory of the revolution. The proletarian revolution differs from all other revolutions in history. Bourgeois revolutions, for example, are largely completed with the seizure of state power. But for the proletariat, victory and political emancipation are only the beginning of the revolution, and a tremendous amount of work remains to be done after the victory, after the seizure of state power.<br />
<br />
The cause of communism is needed a "hundred years' task", as the saying goes, and it definitely cannot be accomplished at one stroke. In different countries this undertaking has to go through different stages, and different enemies must be defeated, before a communist society can gradually be established. Take the case of our own country. China is still in the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and our enemies are imperialism, which perpetuates aggression against China, and the feudal and comprador forces, which are in collusion with imperialism. Only when we have defeated these enemies can we complete the bourgeois-democratic revolution in our country. Then, after the victory of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, it will still be necessary to make the socialist revolution and to carry on socialist transformation and socialist construction for a long period, and only so will the gradual transition to communist society be possible.<br />
<br />
Since the ultimate goal of our struggle is the achievement of communism, it is naturally our duty as Communists to overcomes all the difficulties arising in the process.<br />
<br />
Since the communist cause is so great and arduous an undertaking, some people who seek social progress are still sceptical and not convinced that communism can be realized. They do not believe that under the leadership of the proletariat and its party the human race can develop and transform itself into a communist humanity of the highest quality and that all the difficulties in the process of revolution and construction can be overcome. Either they do not forsee the difficulties or they become pessimistic and disappointed when confronted with them, and there are even Party members who waver and desert the communist ranks.<br />
<br />
We communists should be men of the boldest vision and revolutionary determination. Every Party member should gladly and solemnly shoulder the task of realizing communism, a task greater and more arduous than any in human history. We clearly see the difficulties in the process of realising communism, but at the same time we clearly understand that they can undoubtedly be overcome by arousing millions of people to the revolutionary action, and no difficulties will ever daunt us. We have the masses of the people to rely on, and we have full confidence that a substantial part of the work of building communism will be accomplished in our town time and that the whole of this magnificent undertaking will be triumphantly completed by the coming generations. The heroes of no other class in history could possibly have had this great communist ideal and boldness of vision. In this respect we have every reason for pride.<br />
<br />
I recall the instance of the western European bourgeois biographer<sup>3</sup> who interviewed Comrade Stalin during a visit to the Soviet Union and brought up the comparisons between historical personalities. Comrade Stalin told him that Lenin was like the ocean while Czar [[Peter I Romanov|Peter the Great]] was only a drop in the ocean. Such is the place in history a proletarian leader of the communist cause occupies, compared with that of a leader in the cause of the landlord and the rising mercantile classes. From this comparison we can see how truly great is a leader who fights for the triumph of communism and the cause of the emancipation of humanity and how paltry is one who fights for the cause of the exploiting classes.<br />
<br />
We Communist Party members must have the highest goals in our struggle and the highest ideals, while at the same time we must have a practical spirit and do real practical work. Such are the characteristics distinguishing us as Communists. If all a person has is great and lofty ideas without having a practical spirit or doing real practical work, he is not a good Party member but only a dreamer, a prattler or a pedant. On the other hand, whoever is interested only in practical work but lacks great and lofty communist ideals is not a good Communist either, but just a routine plodder. Only by combining the great and lofty ideals of communism with real practical work and practical spirit can one be a good Communist. This standard for a good Communist has often been stressed by Comrade Mao Zedong, the leader of our Party.<br />
<br />
The communist ideal is beautiful, while the reality of the existing capitalist world is ugly. This is precisely why the overwhelming majority of the people demand the changing of that reality and why it must be changed. In order to change the world we must not divorce ourselves from reality, disregard it or escape from it, nor must we surrender to ugly reality. We must face reality squarely, study and understand it, live and grow in it, fight against the ugly reality and transform it, so that we can gradually realize our ideal. Hence we members of the communist Party must initiate and press ahead with our great communist task of changing the world, beginning with our immediate surroundings, with the people immediately around us and such work as we can immediately undertake. Here we should criticize those young comrades who frequently make the mistake of wanting to escape from or disregarding reality. It is good that they have lofty ideals, but they often complain about their place of work and the kind of work they are given. They are always looking for some "ideal" place or job so that they can "change the world" with ease. But no such place and no such job exist, except in their dreams.<br />
<br />
The cause of communism is our life work. Throughout our lives, our every activity is exclusively devoted to it and to nothing else.<br />
<br />
== A Party Member's Personal Interests Must be Unconditionally Subordinated to the Interests of the Party ==<br />
Personal interests must be subordinated to the Party's interests, the interests of the local Party organization to those of the entire Party, the interests of the part to those of the whole, and temporary to long-term interests. This is a Marxist-Leninist principle which must be followed by every Communist.<br />
<br />
A Communist must be clear about the correct relationship between personal and Party interests.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party is the political party of the proletariat and has no interests of its own other than those of the emancipation of the proletariat. The final emancipation of the proletariat will also inevitably be the final emancipation of all humanity. Unless the proletariat emancipates all working people and all nations—unless it emancipates humanity as a whole—it cannot fully emancipate itself. The cause of the emancipation of the proletariat is identical with and inseparable from the cause of the emancipation of all working people, all oppressed nations and all humanity. Therefore, the interests of the Communist Party are the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity, are communism and social progress.. When a Party member<nowiki>''</nowiki>s personal interests are subordinated to those of the Party, they are subordinated to the interests of the emancipation of the class and the nation, and those of communism and social progress.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<br />
<br />
At no time and in no circumstances should a Communist place his personal interests first; he should subordinate to the interests of the nation and of the masses. Hence selfishness, slacking, corruption, seeking the limelight are most contemptible, while selflessness, working with all one's energy, whole hearted devotion to public duty, and quiet hard work will command respect.<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
The test of a Party member's loyalty to the Party, the revolution, the cause of communism is whether or not he can subordinate his personal interests absolutely and unconditionally to the interests of the Party whatever the circumstances.<br />
<br />
At all times and all questions a party member should give first consideration to the interests of the Party as a whole and put them in the foremost and place personal matters and interests second. The supremacy of the Party's interests is the highest principle that must govern the thinking and actions of the members of our Party. In accordance with this principle, every Party member must completely identify his personal interests with those of the Party both in his thinking and in his actions of the members of our Party both in his thinking and in his actions. He must be able o yield to the interests of the Party without any hesitations or reluctance and sacrifice his personal interests what ever of the two are at variance. Unhesitating readiness to sacrifice personal interests and even one's life, for the Party and for the proletariat and for the emancipation of the nation and of all humanity—this is one expression of what we usually describe as "Party spirit", "Party sense" or "sense of organization'. It is the highest expression of communist morality, of the principled nature of the party of the proletariat and of the purest proletarian class consciousness.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party should not have personal aims which are independent of the Party interests. Their personal aims must harmonize with the Party's interests. If the aim they set for themselves is to study Marxist-Leninist theory, to develop their ability in work, to establish revolutionary organizations and to lead the masses in successful revolutionary struggles—if their aim is more is to do more for the Party—then this personal aim harmonizes with the interests of the Party. The Party needs many such members and cadres. Apart from this aim, Party members should have no independent personal motives such as attaining position of fame, or playing the individual hero; otherwise they will depart from the interests of the Party and may even become careerists within the Party.<br />
<br />
If a Party member thinks only of the communist interests and aims of the Party, is really selfless and has no personal aims and considerations divorced from those of the Party, and he ceaselessly raises the level of his political consciousness through revolutionary practice and through the study of Marxism-Leninism, then the following ensues.<br />
<br />
First, he has a high communist morality. Taking a clear-cut, firm proletarian stand, he is able to show loyalty to and love for all comrades, all revolutionaries and working people, help them unreservedly and act towards them as equals, and he will never allow themself to hurt a single one of them for his own interests. He is able to feel for others, place themself in their position and be considerate of them. On the other hand, he is able to wage resolute struggle against the pernicious enemies of humanity and persevere in the fight for the interests of the Party, the proletariat and the emancipation of the nation and all humanity. "He is the first to worry and the last to enjoy themself".<sup>2</sup> Whether in the Party of among the people, he is the first to suffer hardship and the last to enjoy comfort; he compares themself with others not with respect to the material enjoyment but to the amount of work done for the revolution and the spirit of hard endurance in the struggle. In times of adversity he steps forward boldly, and in times of difficulty he does his duty to the full. He has such revolutionary firmness and integrity that "neither riches nor honours can corrupt him, neither [[poverty]] nor lowly condition can make him swerve from principle, neither threats nor force can bend him".<sup>3</sup><br />
<br />
Second, he has the greatest revolutionary courage. Having no selfish motives, he has nothing to fear. Having done nothing to give themself a guilty conscience, he can lay bare and courageously correct his mistakes and short comings, which are like "an eclipse of the sun or the moon".<sup>4</sup> Because he has the courage of righteous conviction, he never fears the truth, courageously upholds it, spreads it and fights for it. Even if it is temporarily to his disadvantage and if, in upholding the truth, he suffers blows of all kinds, is censured by most other people and so finds themself in temporary (and honourable) isolation, even to the point where he may give up his life, he will still breast the waves to uphold the truth and will never drift with the tide.<br />
<br />
Third, he learns how best to grasp the theory of Marxism-Leninism. He is able to apply them in keenly observing problems and in knowing and changing reality. Because he takes a clear-cut, firm proletarian stand and is tempered in Marxism-Leninism, he is free from personal apprehensions and self-interest, so that there is no impediment to his observation of things or distortion of his understanding of the truth. He seeks the truth from the facts, and he tests all theories and distinguishes what is true from what is false in revolutionary practice.<br />
<br />
Fourth, he is the most sincere, most candid and happiest of men. Because he has no private axe to grind, nothing to conceal from the Party and nothing he cannot tell others, he has no problems of personal gain or loss and no personal anxieties other than for the interests of the Party and the revolution. Even when he is working on his own without supervision and therefore has the opportunity to do something bad, he is just as "watchful over themself when he is alone"<sup>5</sup> and does not do anything harmful. His work bears examination and he is not afraid having it checked. He does not fear criticism and at the same time is able to criticize others with courage and sincerity.<br />
<br />
Fifth, he has the greatest self-respect and self-esteem. For the sake of the Party and the revolution he can be most forbearing and tolerant towards comrades and can suffer wrong in the general interest, even enduring misunderstanding and humiliation without bitterness if the occasion so demands. No personal aims lead him to flatter anyone or to desire flattery from others. When it comes to personal matters, he knows how to conduct themself and has no need to humble themself in order to get help from others. He knows how to take good care of themself in the interests of the Party and the revolution and how to strengthen both his grasp of theory and his practical effectiveness. But when it is necessary to swallow humiliations and bear a heavy load for some important purpose in the cause of the Party and the revolution, he can take on the most difficult and vital tasks without the slightest reluctance, never passing the difficulties to others.<br />
<br />
A member of the Communist Party should possess the finest and highest human virtues and take a clear-cut and firm Party and proletarian stand (that is, possess Party spirit and class spirit). Ours is a fine morality precisely because it is proletarian and communist. It is founded not on the protection of the interests of individuals or of the exploiting few, but on those of the great proletariat and the great mass of working people, of the cause of the final emancipation of all humanity, and the liberation of the whole world from the calamities of capitalism, and the building of a happy and beautiful communist world—it is a morality founded on the Marxist-Leninist theory of scientific communism. As we Communists see it, nothing can be more worthless or indefensible than to sacrifice oneself in the interests of an individual or a small minority. But it is the worthiest and most just thing in the world to sacrifice oneself for the Party, for the proletariat, for the emancipation of the nation and all humanity, for social progress and for the highest interests of the overwhelming majority of the people. Indeed, countless members of the Communist Party have looked death calmly in the face and made the ultimate sacrifice without the slightest hesitation. Most Communists consider it a matter of course to die for the sake of the cause, to lay down their lives for justice, when that is necessary. This does not stem from any revolutionary fanaticism or hunger for fame but from their scientific understanding of social development and their deep political consciousness. There is no morality in class society to compare with this high communist morality. The universal morality which supposedly transcends class is sheer deceptive nonsense and in fact a morality designed to protect the interests of the exploiting few. Such a concept of morality is always idealist. It is only we communists who build our morality on the scientific basis of historical materialism and proclaim its purpose to be the protection of the interests of the proletariat in the struggle for the emancipation of itself and all humanity.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party represents the general and long-range interests of the proletariat and all humanity in their struggle for emancipation; the Party's interests are the concentrated expression of this cause. One must never regard the communist Party as a narrow clique, like the guild perusing the interests of its members. Anyone who does so is no Communist.<br />
<br />
A Party member has interests of his own, which may be inconsistent with or even run counter to the interests of the Party in certain circumstances. Should this happen, it is incumbent on him to sacrifice his personal interests and unconditionally subordinate them to the interests of the Party; under no pretence or excuse may he sacrifice the Party's interests by clinging to his own. At all times and in all circumstances, he should fight heart and soul for the Party's interests and for the Party's development, regarding every success and victory won by the Party and the proletariat as his very own. Every Party member should strive to increase his effectiveness and ability in the service of the people. But this must be done in the fight for the advancement, success and victory of the Party's cause, and there must be no striving for individual development divorced from the fight to advance the Party's cause. The facts prove that only by complete devotion in the fight for the advancement, success and victory of the Party's cause can a Party member heighten his effectiveness and ability and that he cannot possibly make progress of heighten his ability in any other way. Hence a Party member can and must completely merge his personal interests with those of the Party.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party are no ordinary people but the awakened vanguard fighters of the proletariat. They must conscientiously represent the class interests and class ideology of the proletariat. Therefore, their personal interests must never project beyond those of the party and the proletariat. It is all the more necessary for each cadre and leader of the Party to be a living embodiment of the general interests of the Party and the proletariat and to merge his personal interests completely in their general interests and aims. In present-day China, it is the proletariat that best represents the interests of national liberation, and therefore our Party members must be worthy champions of the interests of the nation as a whole.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party must subordinate personal to Party interests and are required to sacrifice them to party interests if necessary. But this by no means implies that our Party does not recognise, or brushes aside, the personal interest of its members or that it wants to wipe out their individuality. Party members do have their personal problems to attend to, and, moreover, they should develop themselves according to their individual inclinations and aptitudes. Therefore, so long as the interests of the Party are not violated, a Party member can have his private and family life and develop his individual inclinations and aptitudes. At the same time, the Party will use every possibility to help members develop their individual inclinations and aptitudes in conformity with its interests, furnish them with suitable work and working conditions and commend and reward them. As far as possible, the Party will attend to and safeguard its members' essential interests; for example,, it will give them the opportunity to study and to acquire an education, it will help them cope with health and family problems and, when necessary, it will even give up some of its work in order to preserve comrades working under the rule of reaction. But all this has no other purpose than the overall interests of the Party. For the fulfillment of its tasks the Party must ensure that members have the conditions necessary for life, work and education so that they can perform their tasks with enthusiasm and without worry. Comrades in responsible Party positions must bear all this in mind when they deal with Party members' problems.<br />
<br />
To sum up, on his side, each Party member should completely submit themself to the interests of the Party and self-sacrificingly devote themself to the public duty. He should forego all personal aims and private considerations which conflict with the Party's interests. He should not think of themself all the time, make endless personal demands on the Party or blame the Party for not promoting or rewarding him. Whatever the circumstances, he should study hard, try to make progress, be courageous in struggle and make ceaseless efforts to raise the level of his political consciousness and his understanding of Marxism-Leninism, so as to be able to contribute more to the Party and the revolution. On their side all Party organizations and comrades in responsible positions, in dealing with the problems of Party members, should see how they work, live and study. and enable them to work better for the Party, ceaselessly develop themselves and raise their level in the course of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. In particular, attention should be paid to comrades who are really selfless and who serve the people well. Only so, through combined attention and effort by both sides can the interests of the Party be well served.<br />
<br />
== Examples of Wrong Ideology in the Party ==<br />
In the light of what has been said, we can see that if an understanding of communism and a correct correlation between personal and Party interests are taken as the standard for evaluating Party members and cadres, many measure up to it and can serve as models, but some do not yet measure up to this standard and still have various wrong ideas to some degree or other. It may not be amiss if I outline these wrong ideas for our comrades' attention.<br />
<br />
What are fundamentally the wrong ideas to be found among comrades in our Party?<br />
<br />
First. The people joining our Party not only differ in in class origin and personal class status but also carry with them aims and motives of every description. Many, of course, join the Party in order to bring about communism and attain the great goal of the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity, but some do so for other reasons and with other aims. For example, some comrades of peasant background used to think that communism meant "expropriation of local tyrants and distribution of the land". When they first joined, they had no understanding of the real meaning of communism. Today, quite a number of people join the Party chiefly because it is resolute in resisting Japan and advocates the Anti-Japanese National United Front. Others join our ranks because they admire the communist Party for its good reputation or because they realize in a vague way that it can save China. Still others are seeking a future for themselves, chiefly because they have no other way out—they have no fixed occupation, are out of work, lack the means of study, or want to escape from family bondage or forced marriage, etc. A few even join because they count on the Party to get their taxes reduced, or because they hope to "make their mark" some day, or because their relatives or friends have brought them in, etc. Naturally, such comrades do not have a clear-cut and stable communist world outlook, do not understand the greatness of the communist cause and the difficulties besetting it, and lack a firm proletarian stand point. Naturally too, some of them will waver or change somewhat in certain circumstances at certain critical turning points. Since they bring all sorts of ideas with them into the Party, it is most important that they should be educated and should train and temper themselves. Otherwise they cannot become revolutionary fighters of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, there is no terrible problem here. After all, it is not a bad thing that people turn to the Communist Party, enter it seeking a way out of their predicament and approve of its policy. They are not mistaken in coming to us. We welcome them—everyone except for enemy agents, traitors, careerists and ambitious climbers. Provided they accept and are ready to abide by the Party's Programme and Constitution, work in one of the Party's organizations and pay membership dues, they may be admitted into the Communist Party. As for deeping their study and understanding of communism and the Partys Programme and Constitution, they can do so after joining the Party and can temper and train themselves in revolutionary struggle on the basis of what they learn; in this way they have every possibility of becoming very good Communists. Indeed, for most people it is impossible to have a proufound understanding of communism and the Party's Programme and Constitution before joining the Party. That is why we can only prescribe acceptance, and not a thorough understanding of the Partys Programme and Constitution as a condition for admission. Although many people do not have a thorough understanding of communism before joining, it is possible for them to become active fighters in the communist and revolutionary movements of the time. They can become politically conscious Communists provided they study hard after joining the Party. Furthermore, our Party Constitution stipulates that members are free to withdraw form the Party (there is no freedom of admission). Any member is free to notify the Party that he is withdrawing from it if he lacks a profound belief in communism, or cannot live a strict Party life, or for any other reason, and the Party gives him the freedom to withdraw. It will do nothing against him unless he gives away Party secrets or engages in wrecking activities against the Party after he leaves. As for careerists and spies who have wormed their way into the Party, of course they have to be expelled. Only thus can we preserve the purity of our Party.<br />
<br />
Second. Fairly strong [[individualism]] and selfishness are still to be found in some members of our Party.<br />
<br />
The individualism expresses itself as follows. Some people habitually place their personal interests above those of the Party when it comes to practical matters; they are preoccupied with personal gain and loss and always calculate in terms of personal interests; they abuse the public trust, turning their Party work to private advantage of one kind or another; or they attack comrades they dislike and wreak private vengeance, on high-sounding pretexts of principle or Party interests. When it comes to status, material benefits and other questions affecting everyday life, they invariably try to get more than others, compare themselves with those at the top, diligently strive after greater personal benefits and crow when they get them. But when it comes to work, they like to compare themselves with those who are less capable. When there hard hardships to beat they make themselves scarce. In times of danger they want to run away. When it comes to orderlies they always want more. Their living quarters must be of the best, and they want to show off and bask in the Party's glory. They want to grab all the good things of life, but when it comes to the "unpleasant things", they think these are for others. The heads of such people are stuffed with the ideology of the exploiting classes. They believe that "every person is for themself or that Heaven and Earth will destroy him", person is a "selfish animal", and "no one in the world is genuinely unselfish, unless he is a simpleton or an idiot". They even use such exploiting class rubbish to justify their own selfishness and individualism. There are such people in our Party.<br />
<br />
This type of self-seeking individualism often manifests itself inside the Party in unprincipled quarrelling, factional struggle, sectarianism and departmentalism; it manifests itself in disrespect for and willful violation of Party discipline. Most unprincipled struggles originate in personal interests. Those who go in for factional struggle and are given to sectarianism usually place their own individual interests or the interests of a small minority, above those of the Party. Often, in their unprincipled factional struggles they deliberately undermine Party organization and discipline, making unprincipled and sometimes calculated attacks on certain people, while contracting unprincipled friendships to avoid giving offence, to cover up for one another, to sing each other's praises, etc.<br />
<br />
Departmentalism within the Party arises chiefly because some comrades only see the interest of the part, i.e., the work of their own department of locality, and fail to see the interests of the whole, i.e., the interests of the entire Party and the work of other departments and localities. Politically and ideologically, this resembles the guild outlook. Not all comrades who make the mistake of departmentalism are necessarily prompted by individualism, but people with an individualist ideology usually make the mistake of departmentalism.<br />
<br />
Third. Conceit, the idea of individualistic heroism, ostentatiousness, etc., are still to be found, to a greater or lesser extent, in the minds of quite a few Party comrades.<br />
<br />
The first consideration of people with such notions is their position in the Party. They like to show off and to have people sing their praises and flatter them. They are ambitious, they like to cut a dash, to claim credit for themselves and to get the limelight, and they like to keep everything in their own hands and lack a democratic style of work. They are extremely vain and unwilling to immerse themselves in hard work or do routine or technical jobs. They are arrogant, and whenever they accomplish something they throw their weight about, become overbearing and try to domineer, and they do not treat others as equals in a modest and friendly way. They are complacent, talk down to and lecture people and order others about, and they are always trying to tread on people's necks; they do not learn modestly from others, particularly from the masses, and do not accept even well-grounded opinions and criticisms. They can bear promotion but not demotion, they can bear fair weather but not foul, and they cannot bear being misunderstood or wronged. As their baleful yearning for fame has not yet been uprooted they try to dress themselves up as "great men" and "heroes" in the communist movement and stop at nothing to gratify their desire. When they fail to achieve this object, or when they are misunderstood or wronged there is a danger that they will vacillate. Quite a number of people have vacillated and left our Party for such reasons in the course of its history. Exploiting class ideas still linger in the minds of such people, who fail to understand the greatness of the cause of communism and who lack the communist breadth of vision.<br />
<br />
Communists must not be in the least complacent or arrogant. Granted that some comrades are very capable, have done some good work and have to their credit considerable achievements which may be reckoned "great" and on which they might well preen themselves (for example, our army comrades who have led thousands and tens of thousands of men in battle and won victories, or the leaders of our Party and mass work in various places who have brought about fairly significant changes in the situation). Yet after all, how great are these achievements compared with the communist cause as a whole?<br />
<br />
And for persons with a communist world outlook, what is there worth preening oneself about in these achievements?<br />
<br />
For a Communist to do his work properly and well is no more than his duty. He should guard against complacency and arrogance and do his best to make no mistakes, or as few as possible.<br />
<br />
What is there in personal position for a Communist to bother about? No one's position is higher than an emperor's, and yet what is an emperor compared with a fighter in the cause of communism? Is he not just "a drop in the ocean" as Comrade Stalin put it? So what is there in personal position worth bothering or bragging about?<br />
<br />
Yes, we need countless communist heroes and many mass leaders of great prestige in our Party and in the communist movement. At present we really have too few of them and have yet to train and temper large numbers of good communist revolutionary leaders and heroes in all fields. This is indeed very important for our cause and must not be neglected. Whoever takes it lightly is ignorant of how to advance the cause of communism. Its advancement requires that we should greatly enhance the revolutionary spirit of enterprise among our Party members and bring their vitality into full play. We have to admit that so far we have not done enough in this respect. This is shown, for instance, by the fact that some Party members do not study hard and have little interest in politics and theory. Therefore, while we are opposed to individualistic heroism and ostentatiousness , we are certainly not opposed to a spirit of enterprise in the Party members. The desire to make progress in the interests of the people is the most precious quality in a Communist. But the communist, proletarian spirit of enterprise is entirely different from the individualist "spirit of enterprise". The former means seeking truth, upholding it and fighting for it with the greatest effectiveness. It is progressive and opens up unlimited prospects of development, while the latter offers no prospects even for the individual, for people with an individualist ideology are usually driven by their personal interest into deliberately brushing aside, covering up or distorting the truth.<br />
<br />
Our comrades must understand that genuine leaders and heroes in the communist movement are never individualistic, nor are they ever self-styled or self-appointed. Anyone who styles themself a leader or reaches after leadership can never become a leader of the Party. The rank and file of our Party will not make leaders of people who are prone to conceit, individualistic heroism, ostentatiousness, personal ambition and vanity. No member of our Party has any right to demand that the rank and file should support or keep him as a leader. Only those who are entirely selfless and devoted to the Party, only those with an excellent communist morality and fine communist qualities, who have grasped the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism, who have considerable practical ability, who can direct Party work correctly and who study hard and make constant progress can win the trust of the Party and the confidence and support of the rank and file, and so become leaders and heroes in the communist movement.<br />
<br />
Our comrades must also understand that a member, or a leader and hero, whoever he may be, can only do part of the work, can only carry part of the responsibility, in the communist movement. The communist cause is an undertaking which requires the collective efforts of tens of millions of people over a long period of time and which cannot be encompassed by any one individual alone. Even such great men as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin could only perform part of the work needed by the communist cause. The cause for which they worked requires the joint effort and sustained labour of tens of millions of us. We ordinary Communists are also doing part of the work of the communist cause and carrying part of the responsibility. Of course, our part is much smaller than that of Marx, Engles, Lenin or Stalin. Nevertheless, we have a small part. Big or small, it is all part of the great cause. Therefore, if only we do our part of the work well, we can consider that we have done our duty. Naturally we should try our best to do more, but if we cannot and can only do a little, that is also useful and just as honourable. In any case, we should at least not hamper the progress of the communist cause, but should do our part, whether big of small, and perform our work well, be it heavy or light; that is the correct attitude for every member of our Party. Comrades who are unwilling to undertake technical work think that it stifles their talents, that it prevents them from becoming famous (actually it does not, as witness the technical worker [[Alexei Stakhanov|Stakhanov]]<sup>1</sup> and from giving full play to their abilities and that it kills some of the enterprising spirit which all Communists should have. This view is wrong. Technical work occupies a very important place in our Party work, and comrades engaged in it are doing their share in the communist cause no less than comrades engaged in other jobs. The proper attitude for a Communist is to do whatever work the Party requires of him and do it happily and well, whether it suits his inclinations of not.<br />
<br />
Naturally, in assigning work to members, the Party organization and the responsible Party comrades should, as far as possible, take their individual inclinations and aptitudes into consideration, develop their strong points and stimulate their zeal to go forward. However, no Communist must refuse a Party assignment on the grounds of personal preference.<br />
<br />
Fourth, A small number of comrades are deeply imbued with the ideology of the exploiting classes. They are usually unscrupulous in dealing with comrades and in handling problems inside the Party, and are utterly devoid of the great and sincere proletarian communist spirit of mutual help and solidarity.<br />
<br />
People with this ideology always want to climb over the heads of others in the Party and, to this end, resort to attacking others and doing them harm. They are jealous of those more capable than themselves. They always try to pull down those who are moving ahead of them. They cannot bear playing second fiddle and think only of themselves and never of others. When other comrades are suffering difficulties of setbacks, they gloat or secretly rejoice and have no comradely sympathy at all. They even scheme to injure comrades "drop on one who has fallen into a well", and take advantage of comrades' weaknesses and difficulties to attack and harm them. They "crawl through any crack" and exploit and exacerbate any weakness in Party organization and work for their personal advantage.. They love to stir up trouble in the Party, speak ill of others behind their backs and engage in intrigues in order to sow dissension between comrades. They love to join in any unprincipled dispute that may occur in the Party and take great interest in unprincipled quarrels. They are especially active in stirring up and aggravating such quarrels when the Party is in difficulties. In short, they are thoroughly crooked and lack all integrity. Would it not be absurd to describe such people as being able to grasp the Marxist-Leninist theory and method and give expression to proletarian ideology? It is only too clear that all they express is the ideology of the declining exploiting classes.<br />
<br />
All exploiters must do harm to other people in order to expand. To increase their wealth, or to avoid bankruptcy in an economic crisis, bigger capitalists must squeeze many smaller capitalists out of existence and drive countless workers to starvation. To enrich themselves, landlords must exploit peasants and deprive many of them of their land. In order to expand, fascist Germany, Italy and Japan must devastate other countries; they have subjugated Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Abyssinia<sup>2</sup> and are committing aggression against China. Exploiters always harm and ruin other people as a necessary precondition for their own expansion; their happiness is founded on the suffering of others. Among the exploiters, therefore, genuine firm unity, genuine mutual help, and genuine human sympathy are impossible; they inevitably engage in intrigues and underhand activities in order to ruin others. Yet they have to lie and pose as saints and pillars of justice before the people. Such are the distinguishing characteristics of all declining exploiting classes. These person be models of "fine" ethical conduct for the exploiters, but they are most criminal from the point of view of the proletariat and the masses.<br />
<br />
The proletariat is the complete antithesis of the exploiting classes. It does not exploit others but is itself exploited. There is no conflict of basic interests within its ranks or between it and the other oppressed and exploited working people. Far from needing to harm other working people or impede their development for the sake of its own development and emancipation, the proletariat most forge the closest unity with them in the common struggle. If the proletariat is to emancipate itself, it must at the same time emancipate all other working people and emancipate all humanity. There can be no such thing as the separate emancipation of a single worker or section of workers. The proletariat must carry the cause of the emancipation of humanity through to the end, fighting step by step for the liberation of all humanity, and there can be no giving up or compromising half-way.<br />
<br />
As a result of this objective position occupied by the proletariat, the ideology of the politically conscious workers is the diametrical opposite of that of the exploiters. Communists are vanguard fighters of the proletariat, who arm themselves with Marxism-Leninism and are ruthless towards the people's enemies but never towards the toilers, their class brothers and comrades. They differentiate clearly and sharply between the attitudes and methods to be adopted against the enemy and those to be adopted towards their comrades and friends. They cherish great and sincere friendship, warmth and sympathy for other members of their own class and for all oppressed and exploited working people, towards whom they show a fine spirit of mutual help, firm unity and genuine equality. They are absolutely opposed to privileges of any kind for anyone, consider it impermissible to think in terms of privilege for themselves, and would deem it unthinkable and even a disgrace, to occupy a privileged position among the people. If they themselves are to develop and improve status, they must develop others and improve the status of all the working people at the same time. They are anxious not to fall behind, whether ideologically or politically or in their work, and they have a sturdy spirit of enterprise, but at the same time they esteem, cherish and support those who are ahead of them in these respects and, without any jealousy, do their best to learn from them. They are deeply concerned with the sufferings and privations of their own class and of all working people, they are concerned with all the struggles of the working people for emancipation anywhere in the world, regarding every victory or defeat for the working people anywhere as their own victory of defeat, and therefore displaying the greatest solidarity. They consider it wrong to be indifferent to the struggle of the working and oppressed people for liberation and criminal to gloat over their set-backs They cherish their own comrades and brothers, whose weaknesses and mistakes they criticize frankly and sincerely (and this shows genuine affection); in matters of principle they never gloss over and accommodate, let alone encourage mistakes (to accommodate or even to encourage others' mistakes does not betoken genuine affection for one's comrades). They do everything possible to help comrades overcome weaknesses and correct mistakes and never exploit or aggravate these weaknesses and mistakes to get comrades into trouble, let alone cause the mistakes to develop beyond correction. Not harbouring any desire to settle old scores, they can return good for evil to their own comrades and brothers and help them straighten themselves out. They can be strict with themselves and lenient with others. The stand they take is firm, strict and principled, their attitude is frank, upright and responsible, they do not give way on matters of principle, they do not tolerate anyone who harms the Party, they do not permit anyone to insult them and are particularly contemptuous of adulation and flattery as contrary to all principle. They oppose all unprincipled struggles; they do not let themselves become involved in such struggles and are not swayed or affected by irresponsible or casual criticism made behind their backs as to depart from principle, become incapable of thinking calmly or lose their composure. Such are the proletarian qualities in the most concentrated, exemplary and concrete form. These qualities represent everything of integrity in present-day society. Indeed it is the Communist Party that represents human integrity. We must foster and enhance such proletarian integrity and overcome all that is crooked and evil.<br />
<br />
Fifth. Pettiness, fussing over trifles and ignoring the general interest are faults still prevalent among some Party members. These comrades lack the nature and breadth of vision of Communists and are blind to the bigger things; they relish only the immediate and petty. They do not take much interest in the great problems and events in the Party and the revolution, but are always fussing over the merest trifles about which they enter into ponderous and endless arguments and become highly disturbed. Such people are also easily led by the nose when they receive some small favour or kindness. They have the petty-mindedness characteristic of small rural producers.<br />
<br />
There are other people who do not seem to have a clear-cut and definite attitude in their Party life, people who shift and hedge. They are actually of two kinds; for one kind the question is one of understanding and for the other, of moral character. The latter are always opportunistic in their personal behaviour, curry favour with all sides and try to please everybody. They tailor their words to the person and the circumstances, tack with the wind and show no principle whatsoever. Such are their characteristics. Sometimes, they wait and see what will suit the occasion, like the bat in Aesop's Fables,<sup>3</sup> and then move over to the winning side. Such-double faced creatures, who are neither fish nor fowl, are not altogether unknown in our ranks. They have the traits of the old-fashioned merchant. In addition, there are some individuals who, unable to resist the lure of the old society's exploiting classes, with their glittering world, their money and their women, begin to waver, go wrong and eventually to betray the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
Finally, the ideology of some of our Party comrades often reflects the impetuosity and vacillation of the petty-bourgeoisie and the destructiveness of the lumpen-proletariat and certain bankrupt peasants, but I shall not go into this question here.<br />
<br />
To sum up, our Party represents the great and powerful proletarian communist ideology, but it must be noted that all kinds of non-proletarian ideology—including even the ideology of the declining exploiting classes—are still reflected to a greater or lesser degree in the minds of certain comrades. At times such ideology is dormant in the Party, revealing itself only in insignificant matters of everyday life; but at other times it becomes active, systematically revealing itself in a whole variety of questions of Party principle, in major political questions and in problems of inner Party struggle. Certain sections of links in the Party organization may come to be dominated and corroded by such erroneous ideology, and in extreme cases in may even temporarily dominate key links in the Party leadership, as in the periods when people like [[Chen Duxiu]]<sup>4</sup> and [[Zhang Guotao]]<sup>5</sup> were in control. In normal periods, however, it is held in check by the correct proletarian ideology. These are all manifestations within the Party of the struggle between the proletarian and non-proletarian ideology. Similarly with some individual Party members. At times what is wrong in their ideology lies dormant and under control, but at other times it may grow and even dominate their actions. This is a manifestation among individual Party members of the contradiction and struggle between proletarian and non-proletarian ideology. For our Party members, ideological self-cultivation means that they must conscientiously use the proletarian ideology and the communist world outlook to overcome and eliminate all the various kinds of incorrect, non-proletarian ideology.<br />
<br />
== The Source of Wrong Ideology in Our Party ==<br />
The Communist Party, representing the brightest and most progressive aspects of contempory human society, is the bearer and disseminator of Marxism-Leninism, the acme of human thought. The most politically conscious, progressive and developed people in the world, people with the highest sense of morality and justice, are gathered in the communist Parties, fighting unswervingly against all the forces of darkness and for the bright future and final emancipation of humanity. The Communist Party of China is one of the best Communist Parties in the world. Guided by our leader Comrade Mao Zedong, our Party is armed with the powerful weapon of Marxist-Leninist theory and, at the same time, is carrying forward the fine traditions of progressive thinkers and revolutionaries in Chinese history. It represents the most progressive and brightest aspects of Chinese society, and the finest sons and daughters of the Chinese nation are gathered within its organized ranks. It has been fighting the forces of darkness in Chinese society for a long time, has gone through an arduous process of tempering and has accumulate rich experience in revolutionary struggle. In all this we Communists can justly take pride. There is every ground for absolute confidence that we shall finally be successful and victorious. However, we cannot say yet that everything in our organization is perfect, or that there are no shortcomings and faults. Nor can we say that our ranks are free from unsound and even bad elements, who might be quite capable of any sort of nastiness. In other words, our glorious Party contains some undesirable phenomena, some dark spots which I have already enumerated.<br />
<br />
Now when a family acquires an ugly son-in-law or daughter-in-law, it can not always keep him or her away from the guests. Even if we wanted to do so by taking the attitude of trying to "conceal the family shame", it would be impossible to hide such unpleasantness. The masses of the people are in constant contact with our Party, sympathisers come here to visit us and people who look up to us including many young men and women, come here to study or to join our Party. When they arrive, besides the progressive, fine and attractive things and "members of the family", they will naturally see the ugly sons- or daughters-in-law who might publicly say or do something unpleasant or make a spectacle of themselves, to the perplexity or our guests and new Party members. The newcomers may ask, "Does not the Communist Party stand for all that is just? Are Communists not the finest people? Why are there still such bad people and ugly things in the Communist Party? How strange!" Before joining the Party, some young comrades were bitterly dissatisfied with existing society, saw no way out and turned to the Communist Party as to a beacon of light. They thought that everything would be satisfactory and would work out well once they joined. Yet after doing so, or after arriving in our revolutionary base area, they find there are shortcomings and mistakes in the Party, too, and in real life not everything is satisfactory (much that would satisfy them would not be in the interests of the revolution and the Party), and so they feel reality is not entirely as they pictured it, and some begin to have doubts and feel puzzled. They ask, "Why are such things to be found in the Communist Party as well?" Before coming to Yan'an or before enrolling in the Anti-Japanese Military and Political College, some people imagined Yan'an and the College would live up to their dreams, but after their arrival and enrollment they do not find everything to their satisfaction and are perplexed. They ask, "How can such things happen even in Yan'an and the Anti-Japanese College?" And failing to find answers, some even become pessimistic and disheartened.<br />
<br />
Their questions should alert our Party members and cadres and be a lesson to them so that they will give serious attention to guiding and taking care of all new Party members and all who are moving in our direction and to ensuring they are not adversely affected. But, quite apart from this, we should explain things clearly to comrades inside and outside the Party.<br />
<br />
Why are there still such undesirable things in our splendid Party? The reason, I think, is rather simple. Our Party has not fallen from the skies, but has grown out of Chinese society. In general, our Party consists of the finest sons and daughters of our country, the vanguard of the Chinese proletariat, but they come from all strata of the old society, and in China today there still exists exploiting classes and the influence of these classes—selfishness, intrigue, bureaucracy and various types of filth. We have many excellent Party members who are not easily affected by such influences. But it is so strange that certain members bring some of the filth of the old society with them into our Party of reflect it there? Is it so strange that a person that has just crawled out of the mud is covered with slime? Of course not. It is only to be expected. It would be strange and indeed incredible, if the ranks of the Communist Party were absolutely free from such filth. It may be said that so long as such filth exists in society, so long as classes and exploiting class influences exist in society, there is bound to be some filth in the Communist Party. It is precisely because there is such filth in society, and in the Party, that it is the duty of the communist Party to change existing society, and it is necessary for Communists to remould, cultivate and temper themselves. In addition to carrying on a struggle in society at large against everything evil and backward,, it is imperative for us to carry on a struggle inside the Party against every social evil and backward influence as mirrored in the Party by vacillating and unsteady elements. This is the source of inner-Party contradiction and struggle. Through struggle, both inside and outside the Party, we seek to change society and gradually rid it of its evils and backwardness, and at the same time seek to perfect our Party and remould our Party members, and to resolve our inner-Party contradictions, so that our Party and its membership will become healthier and stronger.<br />
<br />
Stalin said:<blockquote>The source of the contradiction within the proletarian parties lies in two circumstances.</blockquote>What are these circumstances?<br />
<br />
They are firstly the pressure exerted by the bourgeoisie and bourgeois ideology on the proletariat and its party in the conditions of the class struggle—a pressure to which the least stable strata of the proletariat, and hence the least stable strata of the proletarian party, not infrequently succumb. It must not be thought that the proletariat is completely isolated from society, that it stands outside society. The proletariat is a part of society, connected with its diverse strata by numerous threads. But the party is a part of the proletariat Hence the Party cannot be exempt from connections with, and from the influence of, the diverse sections of the bourgeois society The pressure of the bourgeoisie and its ideology on the proletariat and its party finds expression in the fact that bourgeois ideas, manners, customs and sentiments not infrequently penetrate the proletariat and its party through definite strata of the proletariat that are in one way or another connected with bourgeois society.<br />
<br />
They are, secondly, the heterogeneity of the working class, the existence of a different strata within the working class....<br />
<br />
One stratum is the main mass of the proletariat, its core, its permanent part, the mass of "pure blooded" proletarians, who have long broken off connection with the capitalist class. This stratum of the proletariat is the most reliable bulwark of Marxism.<br />
<br />
The second stratum consists of new comers from non-proletarian classes—from the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie or the intelligencia. These are former members of other classes who have only recently merged with the proletariat and brought with them into the working class their customs, their habits, their waverings and their vacillations. This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for all sorts of anarchist, semi-anarchist and "ultra-Left" groups.<br />
<br />
The third stratum, lastly, consists of the labour aristocracy, the upper stratum of the working class, the most well-to-do portion of the proletariat, with its propensity for compromise with the bourgeoisie, its predominant inclination to adapt itself to the powers that be, and its anxiety go "get on in life". This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for outright reformists and opportunists.<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
Here we see the source of the various kinds of non-proletarian ideology and the various errors, shortcomings and undesirable phenomena that exist in our proletarian party. Here, indeed, is the source of the various contradictions that are present in our Party.<br />
<br />
== Attitudes Towards Wrong Ideology in the Party and Towards Inner-Party Struggle ==<br />
The influences exerted by the exploiting classes and the petty bourgeoisie, the existence of different strata within the working class and the differences in the class background of our Party members give rise to different ideas among them, to certain differences in viewpoints, habits and sentiments, in world outlook and moral values, and differences in the way they look at and think about things in general and the problems of the revolution in particular.<br />
<br />
Some people in our Party are able to view issues as developing and interrelated, but others habitually view them statistically and in isolation. The former are able to grasp matters comprehensively and objectively and hence to draw correct conclusions that can serve us as correct guide lines to action. As for the latter, some of them only see or over emphasize this side of a thing, while others only see and over emphasize the other side; both fail to view problems comprehensively and objectively in accordance with the laws of the development and interrelationship of objective phenomena, and both take a one-sided, subjective view of problems. Hence, they are unable to arrive at correct conclusions or chart the right course for our actions.<br />
<br />
The differences among Party members in their approach to problems lead to different ways of handling problems, to divergences and controversies are bound to become especially acute at turning points in the revolution, or when the struggle grows in intensity and hardship mount.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the crux of the matter is not whether there are differences of thought and opinion within the Party, since such differences always exist. The crux of the matter is how to resolve contradictions, settle differences and overcome all kinds of incorrect, non-proletarian thinking. Obviously, it is only through inner-Party struggle that such contradictions can be resolved, differences settled and incorrect thinking overcome. As Engels put it, “In the long run the contradictions are never slurred over, but always fought out.”<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
Different people hold different views and take different attitudes with regard to shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in our Party.<br />
<br />
People of one kind do not or will not see shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in our Party, but blindly believe that there is scarcely anything wrong in it; hence they relax their vigilance and slacken their struggle their struggle against these phenomena. People of another kind see nothing, or hardly anything, except these undesirable phenomena and fail to see how correct and glorious our Party is; hence they become pessimistic and loose confidence, or they become alarmed and bewildered in the face of such phenomena. The views of both are wrong and one-sided. Our view is different. On the one hand, we know we know that our Party is the political party of the proletariat, the most progressive and revolutionary party in China. On the other, we know clearly that there are still shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena, major and minor in our Party. Moreover, we clearly understand their source and how to correct and gradually eliminate them, and we are making constant efforts to temper ourselves, improve our work and wage the necessary struggles in order to promote the progress of the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
Since people differ in their class stand and their views, they take different attitudes towards what is undesirable in our Party. One attitude is that of alien class and hostile elements who have wormed their way into our Party. A second attitude is that of Party members who lack a firm proletarian stand and have a wrong way of thinking. A third is that of Party members who firmly uphold the principles of Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
The alien class and hostile elements who have worked their way into the Party are glad of its shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena. Gleefully seeking their opportunity, they use every possible means to exploit and magnify some of these undesirable phenomena for the purpose of wrecking our Party. Sometimes they even make a pretence of opposing certain mistakes and supporting the Party line in order to cause an opposite kind of mistake to be committed. People with the second type of attitude fall into the following distinct categories:<br />
<br />
1. Some Party members sympathize with and accept certain erroneous ideas, or follow the bad example of certain people in the Party, so as to further their personal ends and desires. They consider the existence of certain short comings and mistakes in the Party to be to their advantage and therefore, whether intentionally or unintentionally, aggravate these failings and exploit them. This is the attitude of careerists of bad characters in the Party.<br />
<br />
2. Some Party members do nothing about the shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party and allow them to grow. They just muddle along and are unwilling to fight these evils. They fear inner-Party struggle and self-criticism, considering them harmful to the Party, or they are insensitive or shut their eyes to the undesirable things, or they are perfunctory and compromising in the struggle against them. This is the attitude taken by Communists who have a weak sense of duty towards the Party, are extremely liberalistic, or are guilty of bureaucracy.<br />
<br />
3. The attitude of some Party members towards these shortcomings and mistakes and towards those comrades who have incorrect ideas is one of “bitter hatred and gall”. They lightly sever all relations with comrades who have committed some mistake and whom they attempt to expel from the Party outright. If they fail in this and need rebuffs, they give up and become pessimistic and down-hearted, or they keep aloof, “preserve their purity” and even put a great distance between themselves and the Party. This extreme attitude is also shown in some comrades mechanical conception of inner-Party struggle and self-criticism. People with this attitude believe that inner-Party struggle must be launched under any and all circumstances—the more frequently and bitterly, the better. They magnify every trifle into a matter of “principle” and brand every tiny fault with such labels as political opportunism. They do not carry on inner-Party struggle properly and specifically in accordance with the objective needs and objective laws of development, but instead “struggle” mechanically, subjectively and violently, regardless of the consequences. This is the attitude taken by Party members who do not understand the source of inner-Party contradictions, who lack skill in dealing with inner-Party differences and who have a mechanical conception of inner-Party struggle. For a time, this extreme attitude towards inner-Party struggle was exploited by the “Left” opportunists in the Party. They intensified mechanical and excessive struggles to the point of deliberately hunting for “targets of struggle” within the Party, deliberately creating inner-Party struggles, punishing comrades by abusing Party disciplinary measures and even employing against them measures applicable to struggles outside the Party; and it was by such “struggles” and “disciplinary measures” that they tried to push the work ahead.<br />
<br />
The attitude we should adopt is the proletarian Marxist-Leninist one. Contrary to the erroneous attitudes described above, we advocate the following.<br />
<br />
1. First of all, get to know the various phenomena, ideas, views and opinions in the Party and distinguish those which are correct and beneficial to the interests of the Party and the revolution from those which are not, or, in the case of a dispute in which both sides are wrong, perceive this and be able to point out the correct view or opinion. After sober analysis and consideration, decide on a clear-cut attitude and take a correct stand. Do not follow blindly or drift with the tide.<br />
<br />
2. Profit by every good example, promote and spread a spirit of integrity in the Party and vigorously support all correct views and opinions. Do not follow any bad examples or be influenced by any wrong ideas.<br />
<br />
3. Do not take a liberalistic attitude or flinch from any necessary inner-Party struggle. Carry on an irreconcilable struggle in the Party against ideas and views which are wrong in principle and against all other undesirable phenomena, so that we can constantly move to overcome them; they should never be allowed to develop unchecked to the detriment of the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
4. Do not take a mechanical and extreme attitude. Properly combine irreconcilability and clarity in matters of principle with flexibility and patient persuasion in methods of struggle; in thecourse of prolonged struggles, educate, criticize, temper and remould comrades who have committed errors but who are not incorrigible. Such inner-Party ideological struggles on matters of principle as are necessary at different periods should be waged in a concrete and proper way; inner-Party struggles should not be waged indiscriminatingly, subjectively,, mechanically or on shadowy pretexts. Do not become “struggle addicts”.<br />
<br />
5. Strengthen the unity and discipline of the Party and enhance its prestige through inner-Party struggle. Organizational penalties, ranging all the way to expulsion, should be applied to the incorrigible elements of the Party. We should regard it as our supreme duty to safeguard the Party’s unity, preserve the purity of its ideology and consolidate its organization.<br />
<br />
Such is the attitude of all good Communists in the Party and indeed the only correct Marxist-Leninist attitude.<br />
<br />
It is not strange that our enemies should seek to make use of our every shortcoming and mistake to undermine our Party. Besides constantly sharpening our vigilance, we should do everything possible to give the enemy as little opportunity as possible to exploit shortcomings and mistakes in the Party whenever they occur; this is the duty of every comrade who cherishes the Party. If a Party member ignores this consideration in inner-Party struggle, if he only seeks to vent his feelings, or goes to the length of joining up with bad elements instead of rejecting their assistance, or even makes use of outside forces to help him attain some private ends within the Party, he will be making an unpardonable breach of discipline.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party should be the embodiment of correct ideology and should follow good examples in the Party; they should not follow but oppose wrong ideas and bad examples. But what actually happens is that some comrades that are generally correct in their ideology and follow good examples, sometimes reflect certain wrong ideas and follow certain bad examples. Other comrades seem to find it easy to learn from bad but hard to learn from good, and this merits our serious attention. When mistakes occur in the Party, they are apt to encourage or aggravate them, intentionally of unintentionally. In inner-Party struggles they are apt to take the wrong side or to go along with whichever side is currently in vogue., irrespective of right and wrong. These comrades will hardly make progress unless they receive strict criticism and rigorous tempering.<br />
<br />
Of course comrades who adopt a liberalistic or bureaucratic attitude towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomenon inside the Party are also wrong. This, I think should be quite clear to you as students of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism. For in the Party building course which you have studied, the necessity of self-criticism and ideological struggle within the Party is clearly and thoroughly discussed; you can go into it again, and I need not well on the matter further. However, I do want to point out that quite a few comrades have this liberalistic attitude. We often do not have enough really responsible and sincere criticism and self-criticism conducted in keeping with the Party’s organizational principles, for the purpose of exposing, correcting and eliminating the undesirable phenomena in the Party, and more particularly we do not have enough criticism from below and self-criticism, both of which would be greatly encouraged. On the other hand, there is quite a lot of criticism that is irresponsible and not in keeping with the Party’s organizational principles, of talking behind peopleÕs backs and gossip about this or that person or thing. Both are manifestations of liberalism in the Party. They show that some of the comrades are insufficiently mature politically and are not courageous enough in revolutionary struggle; they also indicate that inner-Party democracy has not been properly developed. Some comrades dare not dispense with face-saving, and fear to offend others lest they themselves incur complaints and counter-criticism. They would rather leave the shortcomings and mistakes alone, taking the attitude of “getting by” and “the less trouble the better”, but at the same time they talk about comrades behind their backs. All this harms the Party and does it no good. Irresponsible criticism and talk are not likely to overcome the shortcomings and mistakes in the party but will lead to unprincipled disputes and disunity. We stand for inner-Party criticism and self-criticism which is responsible and beneficial to the Party and is in keeping with its organizational principles.<br />
<br />
Shortcomings and mistakes exist in the Party and so do incorrect non-proletarian ideas. Any of these may at certain times develop into a trend, giving rise to differences of principle and imparing the PartyÕs unity of action. Hence it is impossible to educate the Party, the proletariat and the masses correctly if we do not unfold criticism and self-criticism, constantly expose and correct short comings and mistakes, overcome wrong ideas and conduct inner-Party struggle to resolve inner-Party differences, but instead take a compromising attitude and follow a “middle” line, or try to muddle through in inner-Party struggle.<br />
<br />
Liberalism in inner-Party struggle is manifested in yet another way. Thus when a dispute breaks out in the Party, many comrades put aside their work and indulge in aimless debate for days and months on end or let themselves go without restraint; as a result, the unity of the Party becomes the looser, Party discipline is weakened, the Party’s prestige is impaired and our militant Party organizations turn into debating societies. Such things have occurred more than once in certain Party organizations. They have absolutely nothing in common with the kind of criticism and self-criticism we advocate. We need criticism and self-criticism, not in order to impair the Party’s prestige, undermine its discipline and weaken its leadership, but in order to promote the Party’s prestige, consolidate its discipline and strengthen its leadership.<br />
<br />
Hence, it is wrong to adopt a liberalistic or bureaucratic attitude towards the various shortcomings and mistakes in the Party. In order to fight against all undesirable phenomena and resolve differences, we must promote criticism and self-criticism and conduct inner-Party struggle correctly. Only then can the party be strengthened, grow and advance.<br />
<br />
Comrades who take an extreme attitude in inner-Party struggle are also wrong.<br />
<br />
The extreme attitude is the exact antithesis of the liberalistic attitude. It arises because these comrades fail to understand that wrong ideas in the Party have deep social roots and cannot possibly be eliminated at one stroke. At various times and in varying degrees, many of our Party comrades may reflect certain incorrect ideas existing in society and may commit some mistakes in their work under the influence of non-proletarian ideologies; no comrade can entirely avoid this. If the Party were to refuse to retain or tolerate all comrades who reflect non-proletarian ideologies in some degree, or who have committed some mistakes and yet are not incorrigible, and were to reject them categorically and even expel them, then the tasks of educating the comrades and consolidating the Party’s organization would be nonexistent. Were our Party to follow such an extreme policy, the comrades promoting such actions would eventually have to be expelled themselves. In particular, these comrades fail to understand that the achievement of communism involves the tremendous and difficult task of transforming all humanity into the selfless citizenry of a communist society, the task of converting men with their many weaknesses into communists with a high level of culture through a long process of tempering and education in the course of struggle. If they did understand this, then they would understand that our Party has the important and constant duty of educating and remoulding people who are already members but whose ideology is not wholly proletarian.<br />
<br />
Naturally, the education and remoulding of such Party members is a most arduous task requiring prolonged and patient effort. Yet if we are unwilling to tackle this difficult task and shrink from it, how can we talk about changing the world and all humanity? Since we are determined to undertake, and not to shrink from, the unprecedentedly arduous task of changing the world and all humanity, what other task in the world today can daunt us? Party members who have the communist world outlook are dauntless, fear no difficulty or hardship, and understand that the process of development is torturous. Comrades who take an extreme attitude do not understand that the achievement of communism is an arduous and torturous task, they fear difficulties and crave a straight road, they want to eliminate everything unpleasant at one stroke and leap immediately into the world of their ideals. Thinking and acting in this way, they inevitably run their heads against a brick wall. And after banging and bruising their heads, they quite often become disheartened and loose their confidence in the future of communism. Thus they swing between extremes, from “Left” to “Right”, thereby revealing the essence of their non-proletarian ideology. It is regrettable that this erroneous, extreme attitude towards inner-Party shortcomings and mistakes should still be found to a greater or lesser extent among quite a few comrades, although it is harmful to the Party, to other comrades and to themselves.<br />
<br />
Inner-Party struggle is necessary not because we are subjectively addicted to struggle or partial to dispute, but because inner-Party differences of principle do arise in the growth of the Party and in the proletarian struggle. When they occur, “contradictions can be overcome only by means of a struggle for definite principles, for definite aims of the struggle, for definite methods of waging the struggle leading to the desired aim.”<sup>2</sup> Compromise is of no avail here. This means that when a dispute has developed into one of principle which can only be resolved through struggle, we should unflinchingly wage inner-Party struggle in order to resolve it. It does not mean that we should make a big fuss over small matters, conduct inner-Party struggle with stony faces and never compromise even on routine and on questions of a purely practical nature. “One can, and one should agree to any compromise with dissenters in the party on questions of current policy,, on questions of a purely practical nature.”<sup>3</sup><br />
<br />
When opportunist ideas and differences of principle arise in the Party, we must, of course, wage struggles to overcome those ideas and errors of principle. This defiantly does not mean that when there are no differences of principles and no opportunist ideas in the Party, we should deliberately magnify into “differences of principle” divergences of opinion among comrades on questions of a purely practical nature.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said: “The Party must on the one hand wage a serious struggle against erroneous thinking, and on the other give the comrades who have committed errors ample opportunity to wake up. This being the case, excessive struggle is obviously inappropriate.”<sup>4</sup><br />
<br />
It is necessary to make severe criticism of, or even to apply organizational penalties to, those comrades who, after committing opportunist mistakes or other mistakes of principle, turn a deaf ear to persuasion and Party criticism, wilfully and obstinately cling to their errors and resist Party policy, or double-faced in their attitude. But if these comrades do not cling to their mistakes but are willing to correct them and give up their previous point of view after sober discussion, persuasion and criticism, or if they coolly ponder over their mistakes or soberly discuss them with other comrades, we should welcome every small sign of progress on their part and not subject them to penalties undiscriminatingly. In criticism and inner-Party struggle, it is not true that the more stony-faced we are the better, or that the more comrades we punish the better; our highest aim is to educate the erring comrades to the best effect, help them to correct their mistakes, educate the entire membership and consolidate the Party.<br />
<br />
The “Left” opportunists are clearly wrong in their attitude towards inner-Party struggle. According to these almost hysterical people, any peace in the Party was intolerable—even peace based on complete unanimity on matters of principle an on the Party line. Even in the absence of any differences of principle in the Party, they deliberately hunted out targets, dubbed some comrades “opportunist” and set them up as “straw men” to shoot at in inner-Party struggle. They thought that such erroneous struggle and such shooting at “straw men” were the magic formula for developing the Party and achieving victory in the revolutionary fight of the proletariat. They considered that to stir up trouble out of nothing or to deliberately concoct inner-Party struggle was the only “Bolshevik” way. Of course, this is not serious and earnest inner-Party struggle; rather it is a mockery of the Party and the perverting of inner-Party struggle, which is a most serious matter, into a frivolous game. The advocates of such action are not Bolsheviks at all but are either people who are well-nigh incorrigible or careerists exploiting the name “Bolshevik”.<br />
<br />
We have been discussing the attitude to be adopted towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party. It is by combating all that is bad inside and outside the Party that we change the world and humanity and at the same time perfect the Party and remould ourselves. Inner-Party struggle is a reflection within the Party of existing contradictions in society between classes and between old and new. The Party tempers, develops and consolidates itself in the class struggle outside the Party (i.e., in the revolutionary struggles of the masses of the people) and simultaneously becomes consolidated and united through struggle inside the Party, and is therefore able to give more systematic, correct and effective leadership to the revolutionary struggle of the masses. Hence it would be utterly wrong, advantageous to the enemy, contrary to the laws of development of the class struggle and incompatible with our basic thesis of transformation of the world and humanity through struggle, if we were to adopt a liberal attitude towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party by flossing over internal differences of principle, covering up inner-Party contradictions, evading inner-Party struggle and just muddling along. Similarly, it would be wrong to isolate the struggle inside the Party from the class struggle outside the Party or the revolutionary movement of the masses and thus turn inner-Party struggle into empty talk. In fact, it is impossible to temper, develop and consolidate the party in isolation from the revolutionary struggle of the masses. However, it would be equally wrong and contrary to the laws of development of the Party, if we were to carry matters to the other extreme and adopt an extreme attitude towards all comrades who have shortcomings or have committed errors but who are not irredeemable, or if we were to fail to distinguish between them and the enemy, conducting mechanical and excessive inner-Party struggles against them and wilfully fabricating such struggles. We should not break with comrades who have committed errors but who are nevertheless loyal. Rather, we should show concern and sympathy for them, persuade and educate them and help them temper and reform themselves in struggle. We should not castigate or expel them unless they persist in their mistakes and prove incorrigible.<br />
<br />
Although there are still some shortcomings and mistakes, some isolated minor evils in our Party, we are fully confident that with the advance of the working-class movement we can and will get rid of them through the great revolutionary struggles of the masses. The history of nearly two decades of struggle and glorious progress by the Communist Party of China and the worldwide development of the working-class movement, thoroughly convince us of this.<br />
<br />
Inner-Party struggle is an indispensable component of the revolutionary struggle as a whole. Our comrades should therefore temper and cultivate themselves both in struggles outside the Party and in the struggle on two fronts inside the Party. Among many Party comrades, however, there is still no genuinely profound appreciation of such inner-Party struggle, and there is insufficient tempering and self-cultivation. This is manifested not only in the frequent unprincipled struggles carried on by some comrades but also in the fact that certain comrades, including even some with a fairly long history of militant struggle, cannot stand being criticized of misjudged. When fighting the counter-revolution, they never waver, complain or feel dejected, however ruthless the struggle, however bitter the conditions and however vicious the enemy’s blows. Yet in inner-Party struggle they cannot stand being criticized, attacked, misjudged or wronged, or tolerate even a single unpleasant word. Or they suspect people of making pointed allusions to them, and so they complain and feel very dejected. We must really five this kind of thing our attention.<br />
<br />
It must be stated that on the whole these comrades are very good because they wage resolute struggle against the counter-revolutionaries and look upon the Party as a most affectionate mother. After going out to fight hard battles against the counter-revolutionaries they should receive encouragement, consolation and caresses, and not blows and wrongs, when they return to their great mother’s embrace. It is only natural for them to expect such treatment. However, they fail to take one point into account, or fully into account—that our Party still has shortcomings and faults and that there are inner-Party struggles which every comrade must take part in. Our Party criticises and combats shortcomings and faults not because it is unfeeling but because such action is unavoidable in the course of revolutionary struggle. It is necessary for comrades in the course of inner-Party struggle to receive well founded criticism, for it is helpful to them, to the other comrades and to the whole Party. On the other hand, it is also unavoidable that at times some comrades will receive unfounded criticisms or be attacked on certain matters, or will even be wrongly judged and disciplined. Failing to allow for this, they become shocked and feel most miserable and dejected when it occurs.<br />
<br />
In this connection, it is my opinion that every Party member should pay attention to uniting with his comrades, be sincere and open,, refrain from hurting others by thoughtless or sarcastic remarks and, in particular, refrain from irresponsibly criticizing comrades behind their backs. The proper attitude to any comrade’s mistakes is sincerely to remonstrate with him and criticize him to his face., out of concern for the comrade and a desire to be of help. All of us, and especially those in more responsible positions, must bear this in mind.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, it is my opinion that comrades should be mentally prepared for inner-Party struggle, should open-mindedly accept all well-grounded criticism and be able to endure misunderstandings or attacks, or even unfairness and injustice; in particular, they should not get upset or excited over irresponsible and unjustified criticism or rumours. As far as irresponsible misjudgement and criticism are concerned—that is, excluding properly conducted criticism among comrades or through the Party organization—one can try and clear the matter up or offer some explanation when necessary, but if that does not help, one might just as well let others say what they please, provided there is nothing wrong in one’s thinking and behaviour. Let us remember the Chinese sayings: “Who never gossips about others behind their backs or is never the subject of gossip?” and “Never mind the storm, just sit tight in the fishing boat.” No one in this world can entirely avoid being misunderstood, but misunderstandings can always be cleared up sooner or later. We should be able to endure misunderstandings and should never allow ourselves to be dragged into unprincipled struggle; at the same time, we should be always vigilant and keep watch over our own thoughts and actions.<br />
<br />
That is to say, we should take care not to use words that wound other comrades and should be able to stand injurious language from others.<br />
<br />
We are radically opposed to unprincipled disputes in the Party. Since they are unprincipled, they are useless and harmful to the Party, and there is generally little of right or wrong, or good or bad, about them. In such unprincipled struggles, therefore, there is no point in passing judgement as to who is right and who is wrong, or estimating who is better and who is worse, because that is impossible. All we can do is radically to oppose struggles of that kind and ask the comrades involved unconditionally to stop them and get back to principles. This is the policy we should adopt towards unprincipled disputes and struggles. But what is to be done if unprincipled disputes do arise and if many of them get tangled up with struggles over principle? What should be done if such disputes knock at our door and we get dragged into them? All we can do in that case is, again, to put the stress on the questions of principle and avoid stressing those not involving any principle. Basing ourselves on the policy outlined here, we should handle such unprincipled disputes strictly and ourselves stand firm on the principle from beginning to end, refusing to be dragged into the unprincipled disputes. When something does go wrong to you, do not throw back something wrong at him. Always stand by the right to oppose the wrong. Some of our comrades find it very difficult to act in this way, which shows why special attention to self-tempering and self-cultivation is necessary.<br />
<br />
Let me briefly sum up the points discussed.<br />
<br />
The aim of ideological self-cultivation by members of the Communist party is to temper themselves to become staunch and utterly devoted members and cadres of the Party who make constant progress and serve as examples for others. What is required of us is the following:<br />
<br />
1. To build up our communist world outlook and a firm Party and proletarian class standpoint through the study of Marxism-Leninism and participation in the revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
2. To examine our own thinking and behaviour, to correct all erroneous ideas and at the same time to judge questions and judge other comrades on the basis of our communist world outlook and our firm Party and proletarian class standpoint.<br />
<br />
3. Always to adopt a correct attitude and appropriate methods in the struggle against erroneous ideology in the Party, and especially against the erroneous ideology which affects the current revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
4. To keep a firm control over ourselves in thought, speech and action, especially to take a firm standpoint and adhere to correct principles with regard to political ideas, statements and activities which are related to the current revolutionary struggle. In addition, it is as well to be careful even over “trifles” (in one's personal life, attitude, etc.). But as for making demands on other comrades, apart from matters of principle and major political questions, we should not be too severe or fault finding over “trifles”.<br />
<br />
In my opinion, the above is what we mean, fundamentally, when we talk about ideological self-cultivation by members of the Communist Party.<br />
[[Category:Library works by Liu Shaoqi]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:How_to_Be_a_Good_Communist&diff=64303Library:How to Be a Good Communist2024-03-17T16:40:08Z<p>RedCustodian: /* A Party Member's Personal Interests Must be Unconditionally Subordinated to the Interests of the Party */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Library work|title=How to Be a Good Communist|author=Liu Shaoqi|written in=1939}}<br />
<br />
Comrades,<br />
<br />
The question I shall discuss us how members of the [[Communist Party of China|Communist Party]] should cultivate and temper themselves. It may not be unprofitable to the building and consolidation of the Party to take up this question at this present time.<br />
<br />
== Why Communists Must Undertake Self-Cultivation ==<br />
Why must Communists undertake to cultivate themselves?<br />
<br />
In order to live, person must wage a struggle against nature and make use of nature to produce [[Materialism|material]] values. At all times and under all conditions, his [[production]] of material things is social in character. It follows that when men engage in production at any [[Mode of production|stage of social development]], they have to enter into certain [[relations of production]] with one another. In their ceaseless struggle against nature, men ceaselessly change nature and simultaneously change themselves and their mutual relations. Men themselves, their social relations, their form of social organization and consciousness were all different from what they are today, and in the future they will again be different.<br />
<br />
Humanity and human society are in process of [[Historical materialism|historical development]]. When human society reached a certain historical stage, [[Social class|classes]] and [[class struggle]] emerged. Every member of a [[class society]] exists as a member of a given class and lives in given conditions of class struggle. Man’s social being determines his consciousness. In class society the ideology of the members of each class reflects a different position and different class interests. The class struggle constantly goes on among these classes with their different positions, interests and ideologies. Thus it is not only in the struggle against nature but in the struggle of social classes that men change nature, change society and at the same time change themselves.<br />
<br />
[[Karl Marx|Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]] said:<blockquote>Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary, an alteration that can only take place in a practical movement, a ''[[Proletarian revolution|revolution]]''; the revolution is necessary, therefore, not only the [[Bourgeoisie|ruling class]] cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because [[Proletariat|the class ''overthrowing'' it]] can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>That is to say, the proletariat must conscientiously go through long periods of social revolutionary struggles and, in such struggles change society and change itself.<br />
<br />
We should therefore see ourselves as in need of change and capable of being changed. We should not look upon ourselves as immutable, perfect and sacrosanct, as persons who need not and cannot be changed. When we pose the task of remoulding ourselves in social struggle, we are not demeaning ourselves; the objective laws of social development demand it. Unless we do so, we cannot make progress, or fulfill the task of changing society.<br />
<br />
We Communists are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history; to day the changing of society and the world rests upon us and we are the driving force in this change. It is by unremitting struggle against [[Counterrevolution|counter-revolutionaries]]<sup>3</sup> that we Communists change society and the world, and at the same time ourselves.<br />
<br />
When we say Communists must remould themselves by waging struggles in every sphere against the counter-revolutionaries,<sup>3</sup> we mean that it is through such struggles that they must seek to make progress and must enhance their revolutionary quality and ability. An immature revolutionary has to go through a long process of revolutionary tempering and self-cultivation, a long process of remoulding, before he can become a mature and seasoned revolutionary who can grasp and skillfully apply the laws of revolution. For in the first place, a comparatively immature revolutionary, born and bred in the old society, carries with him the remnants of the various ideologies of that society (including its prejudices, habits and traditions), and in the second he has not been through a long period of revolutionary activity. Therefore he does not yet have a really thorough understanding of the enemy, of the people or of the laws of social development and revolutionary struggle. In order to change this state of affairs, besides learning from past revolutionary experience (the practice of our predecessors), he must themself participate in contemporary revolutionary practice, and in this revolutionary practice and struggle against all kinds of counter revolutionaries,<sup>3</sup> he must bring his conscious activity into full play and work hard at study and self-cultivation. Only so can he acquire deeper experience and understanding of the laws of social development and revolutionary struggle, acquire a really thorough understanding of the enemy and the people, discover his wrong ideas, habits and prejudices and correct them, and thus raise the level of his political consciousness, cultivate his revolutionary qualities and improve his revolutionary methods. Hence, in order to remould themself and raise his owl level, a revolutionary must take part in revolutionary practice from which he must on no account isolate themself. Moreover, he must strive to conduct self-cultivation and study in the course of practice. Otherwise, it will still be impossible for him to make progress.<br />
<br />
For example, several Communists take part in a revolutionary mass struggle together and engage in revolutionary practice under roughly the same circumstances and conditions. It is possible that the effect of the struggle on these Party members will not be at all uniform. Some will make very rapid progress and some who used to lag behind will even forge ahead of others. Other Party members will advance very slowly. Still others will waver in the struggle and, instead of being pushed forward by revolutionary practice, will fall behind. Why?<br />
<br />
Or take another example. Many members of our Party were on the [[Long March]]; it was a severe process of tempering for them, and the overwhelming majority made very great progress indeed. But the Long March had the opposite effect on certain individuals in the Party. After having been on the Long March they began to shrink before arduous struggles, and some of them even planned to back out or to run away and later, succumbing to outside allurements, actually deserted the revolutionary ranks. Many Party members took part in the Long March together, and yet its impact and results varied very greatly. Again, why?<br />
<br />
Basically speaking, these phenomena are reflections of our revolutionary ranks of the class struggle in society. Our Party members differ in quality because they differ in social background and have come under different social influences. They differ in their attitude, stand and comprehension in relation to the revolutionary practice, and consequently they develop in different directions in the course of revolutionary practice. This can clearly be seen in your institute as well. You all receive the same education and training here, and yet because you differ in quality and experience, in degree of effort and self-cultivation, you may obtain different of even contrary results. Hence, subjective effort and self-cultivation in the course of revolutionary struggle are absolutely essential, indeed, indispensable for a revolutionary in remoulding themself and raising his own level.<br />
<br />
Whether he joined the revolution long ago or just recently, every Communist who wants to become a good politically mature revolutionary must undergo a long period of tempering in revolutionary struggle, must steel themself in mass revolutionary struggles and all kinds of difficulties and hardships, must sum up the experience gained through practice, make great efforts in self-cultivation, raise his ideological level, heighten his ability and never loose sense of what is new. For only thus can he turn themself into a politically staunch revolutionary of high quality.<br />
<br />
[[Confucius]] said “At fifteen, my mind was bent on learning. At thirty, I could think for myself. At forty, I was no longer perplexed. At fifty, I knew the decree of Heaven. At sixty, my ear was attuned to the truth. At seventy, I can follow my heart’s desire without transgressing what is right.”<sup>4</sup> Here the [[Feudalism|feudal]] philosopher was referring to his own process of self-cultivation; he did not consider themself to have been born a “sage”.<br />
<br />
[[Mencius]], another feudal philosopher, said that no one had fulfilled a “great mission” and played a role in history without first undergoing a hard process of tempering, a process which “exercises his mind with suffering and toughens his sinews and bones with toil, exposes his body to hunger, subjects him to extreme poverty, thwarts his under-takings and thereby stimulates his mind, tempers his character and adds to his capacities”.<sup>5</sup> Still more so must Communists give attention to tempering and cultivating themselves in revolutionary struggles, since they have the historically unprecedented “great mission” of changing the world.<br />
<br />
Our Communist self-cultivation is the kind essential to proletarian revolutionaries. It must not be divorced from revolutionary practice or from the actual revolutionary movements of the labouring masses, and especially of the proletarian masses.<br />
<br />
Comrade [[Mao Zedong]] has said:<blockquote>Discover the truth through practice, and again through practice verify and develop the truth. Start from perceptual knowledge and actively develop it into rational knowledge; then start from rational knowledge and actively guide revolutionary practice to change both the subjective and the objective world. Practice, knowledge, again practice and again knowledge. This form repeats itself in endless cycles, and with each cycle the content the content of practice and knowledge rises to a higher level. Such is the whole of the dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge, and such is the dialectical-materialist theory of the unity of knowing and doing.<sup>6</sup></blockquote>Our Party members should temper themselves and intensify their self-cultivation not only in the hardships, difficulties and reverses of revolutionary practice, but also in the course of smooth, successful and victorious revolutionary practice. Some members of our Party cannot stand the plaudits of success and victory; they let victories turn their heads, become brazen, arrogant, and bureaucratic and may even vacillate, degenerate and become corrupted, completely loosing their original revolutionary quality. Individual instances of this kind are not uncommon among our Party members. The existence of such a phenomenon in the Party calls for our comrades’ sharp attention.<br />
<br />
In past ages, before the proletarian revolutionaries appeared on the scene, practically all [[Revolution|revolutionaries]] became corrupted and degenerated with the achievement of victory. They lost their original revolutionary spirit and became obstacles to the further development of the revolution. [[Republic of China|China]]’s [[History of China|history]] over the past century, or to speak of more recent times, over the past fifty years, has shown us that many bourgeois and [[Petty bourgeoisie|petty-bourgeois]] revolutionaries in the past and by the nature of earlier revolutions. Before the [[Russian revolution of 1917|Great October Socialist Revolution]] in [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1991)|Russia]], all revolutions throughout history invariably ended in the suppression of the rule of one [[Exploitation|exploiting]] class by that of another. Thus, once they themselves became the ruling class, these revolutionaries lost their revolutionary quality and turned round to [[Oppression|oppress]] the exploited masses; this was the inexorable law.<br />
<br />
But such can never be the case with the proletarian revolution and with the Communist Party. The proletarian revolution is a revolution to abolish all exploitation, oppression and classes. The Communist Party represents the proletariat which is itself exploited but does not exploit others and which can therefore carry the revolution through to the end finally abolish all exploitation and sweep away all the corruption and rottenness in human society. The proletariat is able to build a strictly organized and disciplined party and set up a centralized and at the same time democratic state apparatus, and through the Party and this state apparatus, it is able to lead the masses of the people in waging unrelenting struggle against all corruption and rottenness and in ceaselessly weeding out of the Party and the state organs all those elements that have become [[Corruption|corrupt]] and degenerate (whatever high office they may hold), thereby preserving the purity of the Party and the state apparatus. This outstanding feature of the proletarian revolution and of the [[Vanguard party|proletarian revolutionary party]] did not and could not exist in earlier revolutions and revolutionary parties. Members of our Party must be clear on this point, and—particularly when the revolution is successful and victorious and when they themselves enjoy the ever greater confidence and support of the masses—they must sharpen their vigilance, intensify their self-cultivation in proletarian ideology and always preserve their pure proletarian revolutionary character so that they will not fall into the rut of earlier revolutionaries who degenerated in the hour of success.<br />
<br />
Tempering and self-cultivation in revolutionary practice and tempering and self-cultivation in proletarian ideology are important for every Communist, especially after the seizure of political power. The Communist Party did not drop from heaven but was born out of the Chinese society. Every member of the Communist party has come from this society, is living in it today and is constantly exposed to its seamy side. It is not surprising then that Communists, whether they are of proletarian or non-proletarian origin and whether they are old or new members of the Party, should carry with them to a greater or lesser the thinking and habits of the old society. In order to preserve our purity as vanguard fighters of the proletariat and to enhance our revolutionary quality and working ability that is essential for every Communist to work hard to temper and cultivate themself in every respect.<br />
<br />
These are the reasons why Communists must undertake self-cultivation. I shall now discuss the criteria for Communist self-cultivation.<br />
<br />
== Be Worthy Pupils of Marx and Lenin ==<br />
The constitution of the party stipulates that membership is open to any member who accepts the Programme and [[Library:Constitution of the Communist Party of China (2022)|Constitution of the Party]]<ref group="ProleWiki 2.">At the time of writing, this would have been the [[Constitution of the Communist Party of China (1928)|1928 Constitution]].</ref> organizations, pays membership dues and works in one of the Party organizations. No one can be a Party member unless he fulfills these requirements. But no Communist should rest content with being a Party member who merely fulfills the minimum requirements; as laid down in the Party Constitution, he should strive to make progress ceaselessly raise the level of his political consciousness and diligently study [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxism-Leninism]], as manifested throughout their lives.<br />
<br />
Engels said of Marx:<blockquote>...Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being, to contribute to the liberation of the modern proletariat, which he was the first to make conscious of its own position and of its needs, conscious of the needs of its emancipation. Fighting was his element. And he fought with a passion, a tenacity and a success such as few could rival.<sup>1</sup></blockquote>Engels also said of Marx:<blockquote>None of us has the breadth of vision with which he, whenever it was necessary to act quickly, did the right thing and tackled the decisive issue.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>[[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] said concerning the necessity of our learning from the example of [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]]:<blockquote>Remember, love and study Ilyich, our teacher, our leader. Fight and defeat our enemies, home and foreign—in the way that Ilyich taught us. Build the new society, the new way of life, the new culture in the way that Ilyich taught us. Never refuse to do the little things, for from the little things are built the big things—that is one of Ilyich's important behests.<sup>3</sup></blockquote>On another occasion Stalin said:<blockquote>The electors, the people, must demand that their deputies should remain equal to their tasks, that in their work they should not sink to the level of political philistines, that in their posts definite as Lenin was, that they should be as fearless in battle and as merciless towards the complicated and some danger or other looms on the horizon, that they should be as free from all requiring a comprehensive orientation and a comprehensive weighing of all the pros and cons as Lenin did.<sup>4</sup></blockquote>These are the concise characterizations of Marx by Engels and of Lenin by Stalin. That is how all members of our Party should learn from the thinking and qualities of Marx and Lenin and strive to be their worthy pupils.<br />
<br />
Some say that the that the thinking and qualities of such great revolutionary geniuses as the founders of Marxism-Leninism cannot be acquired and that it is impossible to raise one's thinking and qualities to their high level. They regard the founders of Marxism-Leninism as born geniuses , as mysterious beings. Is such a view correct? I think not.<br />
<br />
True enough, the average Party comrade is far from possessing the great gifts and profound scientific knowledge of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, and most of our comrades cannot attain to their deep and broad erudition in the theory of proletarian revolution. But it is perfectly possible for our comrades to grasp the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism, cultivate the style of Marx and Lenin in work and in struggle, constantly heighten their revolutionary quality and become statesmen of the type of Marx and Lenin, if they really have the will. Take a really conscious and consistent stand as vanguard fighters of the proletariat, really acquire the communist world outlook, never isolate themselves from the current deep and great revolutionary movement of the proletariat and all the labouring masses, and exert themselves in study, self-tempering and self-cultivation.<br />
<br />
There is a saying of Mencius: "Everybody can be a [[History of China#Sage kings Yao and Shun|Yao or a Shun]]."<sup>5</sup> I think that was well said. Every Communist should keep his feet on the ground, seek the truth from the facts, work hard at tempering themself, work conscientiously at self-cultivation and do his best to improve his own thinking and quality. He should not regard the thinking and qualities of such great revolutionaries as the founders of Marxism-Leninism as beyond his reach, give up and be afraid to advance. For if he does so, he will become a "political philistine", a piece of "rotten wood that cannot be carved".<br />
<br />
We should of course adopt a correct attitude towards learning from the qualities of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and towards the learning of Marxism-Leninism itself. Otherwise it is impossible to learn anything, let alone to learn it well. In fact, there are different kinds of people in our ranks with different attitudes towards such learning.<br />
<br />
These are people who, when studying Marx and Lenin, fail to get to the essence of Marxism-Leninism, but only learn its terms and phrases superficially. Although they read Marxist-Leninist literature, they are unable to use its principles and conclusions as a guide to action and apply them to concrete, practical problems in real life. They are content to learn isolated principles and conclusions by rote, and even to style themselves as "[[Dogmatism|the genuine]]" Marxist-Leninists; but they are certainly not genuine Marxist-Leninists and their actions and methods are diametrically opposed to Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
We have had not a few people of this type in the Communist Party of China. We had certain representatives of dogmatism at one time who were even worse. These people knew absolutely nothing about Marxism-Leninism and could only babble Marxist-Leninist phraseology, and yet they regarded themselves as China's Marx or China's Lenin, posed as such in the Party and had the impudence to require that our Party members should revere them as Marx and Lenin are revered, support them as "the leaders" and accord them loyalty and devotion. They went so far as to appoint themselves "the leaders" without being chosen, climbed into positions of authority, issued orders to the Party like [[Patriarchy|patriarchs]], tried to lecture our Party, abused everything in the Party, wilfully attacked and punished our Party members and pushed them around. Those people had no sincere desire to study Marxism-Leninism or fight for the realization of communism—they were just careerists in the Party, termites in the communist movement. Such people were bound to be opposed and eventually unmasked and discarded by the rank and file. And indeed they were discarded by our Party members. But can we say with full confidence that no such people will reappear in our Party? No, we cannot yet say so.<br />
<br />
Then there are people of exactly the opposite kind. They see themselves above all as pupils of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, they conscientiously studyi the theory of Marxism-Leninism and strive to grasp its essence and spirit. They look up to the noble character and proletarian revolutionary qualities of the founders, and in the course of revolutionary struggles they conscientiously carry on self-cultivation and examine themselves to see if their handling of affairs, their dealings with people and their own behaviour conform to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism. They are well-read in Marxism-Leninism but at the same time they make a special effort to investigate and analyse living reality, to study the characteristics of their own time and all aspects of the situation facing the proletariat of their own country, and to integrate the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the revolution in their own country. They do not content themselves with memorizing Marxist-Leninist principles and conclusions, but take a firm Marxist-Leninist stand learn the Marxist-Leninist method and act accordingly, giving spirited guidance in every revolutionary struggle, and thus they transform reality and at the same time transform themselves. Every one of their actions without exception is guided by the general principles of Marxism-Leninism and is devoted to the victory of the proletarian cause, the liberation of the nation and all humanity, and the triumph of Communism.<br />
<br />
The attitude of these people is the only correct one. It is the one attitude towards studying Marxism-Leninism and learning from the qualities of its founders that will enable us to become communist proletarian revolutionaries of the Marx and Lenin type.<br />
<br />
A person who really takes pain to cultivate themselves and to be a faithful pupil of the founders of Marxism-Leninism will lay special stress on maintaining the Marxist-Leninist stand and using the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint and method to solve the problems arising in the revolutionary movement lead by the proletariat, as the founders of Marxism-Leninism did. He will give no thought whatsoever to his own position or fame in the Party, nor will he ever claim to be a Marx or a Lenin, nor require nor expect others to have the same high respect for him as for Marx or Lenin, for he does not think he has any right to do so. Yet such a person will enjoy the considered respect and support of the mass of the Party members just because he acts in this way, because he is always honest and loyal, brave and firm, and shows great ability in the revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
Of course it is not easy to model ourselves on the founders of Marxism-Leninism and to be their faithful and worthy pupils. But we can become their faithful and worthy pupils if we are strong-willed and determined to fight hard for the cause of communism, if we diligently study Marxism-Leninism amid the great revolutionary struggles of the masses and are good at summing up experience and if we temper and cultivate ourselves in every respect and devote our whole lives to the proletarian communist cause.<br />
<br />
=== ProleWiki annotations ===<br />
<references group="ProleWiki 2." /><br />
<br />
== The Self-Cultivation of Communists and the Revolutionary Practice of the Masses ==<br />
In order to become faithful and worthy pupils of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, we must engage in all round self-cultivation in the course of the great and protracted revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and the masses. We must engage in self-cultivation in the Marxist-Leninist theory; self cultivation in applying the Marxist-Leninist stand, view point and method to the study and handling of all problems; self-cultivation in proletarian ideology and morality; self-cultivation in upholding unity in the Party, practicing criticism and self-criticism and observing discipline; self-cultivation in developing the style of hard work and persistent struggle; self-cultivation in building close ties with the masses; self cultivation in various branches of scientific knowledge, etc. We are all members of the Communist Party and therefore we must all without exception carry on self-cultivation in these respects. However, since Party members differ from one another in political consciousness, experience of struggle, field of work, cultural level and in the conditions in which they work, it is natural that comrades should differ to some extent in the various aspects of self-cultivation to which they must pay special attention of which they must stress.<br />
<br />
When Zeng Zi, in ancient times, said, "I reflect on myself three times a day,"<sup>1</sup> he was discussing self-examination. The ''Book of Odes'' in the famous lines, "As knife and file make smooth the bone, as jade is wrought by chisel and stone", <sup>2</sup> referred to the need for help and criticism among friends. What all this shows is that very hard work and very earnest self-cultivation are essential if one is to make progress. But the "self-cultivation" perused by many people in the past was generally [[Idealism|idealistic]], formalistic, abstract and divorced from social practice. They exaggerated the role of subjective intentions, thinking that so long as they had "good will" in the abstract, they could transform reality, society and themselves. Of course this is absurd. Our self-cultivation cannot be done that way. We are revolutionary materialists; our self-cultivation cannot be separated from the revolutionary practices of the masses.<br />
<br />
For us it is most important to never divorce ourselves from the current revolutionary struggle of the masses, but to identify ourselves with it, in order to study, sum up and apply the revolutionary experience of the past. This means that we must cultivate and temper ourselves in revolutionary practice and that in turn our self-cultivation and tempering are undertaken solely for the sake of the people and of revolutionary practice. It means that we must modestly learn the Marxist-Leninist stand, viewpoint and method, learn from the noble proletarian quality of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and apply all this in our practice, in our words and deeds, our daily life and work, constantly correcting or eliminating anything in our ideology contrary to it and strengthening our own proletarian communist ideology and character. It means that we should listen modestly to the opinions and criticisms of our Party comrades and of the masses, make a careful study of the practical problems in our life and work, carefully sum up and draw lessons from our experience in work, and that, in the light of all this, we should ascertain whether our understanding of Marxism-Leninism and our use of the Marxist-Leninist method are correct and check up on our shortcomings and mistakes so as to overcome them and improve our work. Furthermore, on the basis of new experience we should ascertain whether there are any individual conclusions or aspects of Marxism-Leninism that need supplementing, enriching and developing. In short, we must integrate the universal truth of Marxism- Leninism with the concrete practice of the revolution.<br />
<br />
This is the method of self-cultivation for us communists. It is entirely different from those methods of self-cultivation which are idealistic and divorced from the revolutionary practice of the masses.<br />
<br />
In order to persevere in this Marxist-Leninist method of cultivation, we must resolutely oppose and thoroughly eradicate one of the worst vices bequeathed to us by the old society in the field of education and study, namely, the separation of theory from practice. In the old society many people who studied thought it unnecessary, or even impossible to act upon what they had learned, and though they wrote and spoke abundantly of justice and morality, in fact they were out and out scoundrels. Although the [[Kuomintang]] [[Reactionary|reactionaries]] memorize the "Three People's Principles"<sup>3</sup> and recite [[Sun Yat-sen]]'s Testament,<sup>4</sup> in actual fact they bleed the people white with [[Tax|taxes]], practice corruption and slaughter, oppress the masses, are opposed to "[[Anti-imperialism|those nations who treat us as equals]]", and go as far as to compromise with or surrender to the [[Empire of Japan (1868–1947)|national enemy]]. An old ixucai<sup>5</sup> once told me that of all the teachings of Confucius he was able to observe only this one, "For him no food can ever be too dainty and no minced meat too fine"<sup>5</sup> and that he could not observe the rest and had never intended to. Since that is what these people are like, why do they run schools and study the "teachings of the sages"? They are after advancement and money, use the "teachings of the sages" to oppress the exploited, and deceive the people by paying lip service to justice and morality. This is typical of the attitude of the exploiting classes of the old society towards the sages they "worship". Needless to say, when we Communists study Marxism-Leninism an all that is best in our national heritage, we must never adopt such an attitude. What we learn we must practice. Being proletarian revolutionaries who are honest and pure in purpose, we cannot be untrue to ourselves, to the people, or to those who went before us. This is an outstanding characteristic as well as a great merit of Communists.<br />
<br />
Is it possible that the old society's separation of theory from practice can have no influence on us? No, it is not! It is true that none of you students are studying Marxism-Leninism for the sake of advancement and money and or oppressing the exploited. Yet is it possible to maintain that none of you ever entertains the idea that your thoughts, words, deeds and life do not necessarily have to be guided by Marxist-Leninist principles or that you do not intend to put all the principles that you have learned into practice? Is it possible that none of you ever thinks of studying Marxism-Leninism or going deeper into the theory as a means of getting ahead in life, of showing off and becoming famous? I cannot guarantee that none of you thinks along these lines. That kind of thinking runs counter to Marxism-Leninism and to the basic Marxist-Leninist principle of the integration of theory and practice. Certainly we must study theory, but we must also practice what we learn. And it is for the sake of practice, of the Party, of the people, and of the victory of the revolution that we study theory.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<blockquote>The great strength of Marxism-Leninism lies precisely in its integration with the concrete revolutionary practice of all countries. For the Communist Party of China, it is a matter of learning to apply the theory of Marxism-Leninism to the specific circumstances of China. For the Chinese Communists who are part of the great Chinese nation, flesh of its flesh and blood of its blood, any talk about Marxism in isolation from China's characteristics is merely Marxism in the abstract, Marxism in a vacuum. Hence to apply Marxism concretely in China so that its every manifestation has an indubitable Chinese character, i.e., to apply Marxism in the light of China's specific characteristics, becomes a problem which it is urgent for the whole Party to understand and solve. Foreign stereotypes must be abolished, there must be less singing of empty, abstract tunes, and dogmatism must be laid to rest; they must be replaced by the fresh, lively Chinese style and spirit which the common people of China love.<sup>6</sup></blockquote>Our comrades must study the theory of Marxism-Leninism by following the method Comrade Mao Zedong speaks of here.<br />
<br />
== The Unity of Theoretical Study and Ideological Self-Cultivation ==<br />
We Communists must not separate our study of theory from our ideological self-cultivation. We must remould ourselves and temper our proletarian ideology not only in the practice of revolution but in the study of Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
The view is current among some members of our Party that a firm and purely proletarian stand is irrelevant to a Party member's understanding a and mastery of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism. They believe that one can thoroughly understand and genuinely master the Marxist-Leninist theory and method even though one's proletarian stand may not be very firm and one's ideology not very pure (i.e., it may be tainted with the remnants of non-proletarian ideas). They believe that the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism can be mastered merely through book learning. This view is wrong.<br />
<br />
Marxism-Leninism is the science of proletarian revolution, the science by which the working class builds socialism and communism. It can be thoroughly understood and mastered only by those who have a firm proletarian stand and who have made the ideals of the proletariat their own. Without a firm proletarian stand and pure proletarian ideals it is impossible for anyone to thoroughly understand or master the science of Marxism-Leninism. The science of Marxism-Leninism is of little of no use to anyone who is not a genuine revolutionary, who is not a proletarian revolutionary to the core, who does not want to bring about socialism and communism throughout the world and emancipate all humanity, to anyone who does not want revolution or is unwilling to carry it through to the end and wants to stop half-way.<br />
<br />
We often come across very fine Party members from the working class who are not well grounded in Marxist-Leninist theory and who may not do so well as others in an examination in which Marxist-Leninist works and formulations have to be quoted from memory. Yet in studying Marxism-Leninism, provided it is explained to them in language they understand, they generally show much keener interest and far greater comprehension than some Party members from the [[intelligentsia]]. For example, the section in Capital concerning surplus value is difficult for some Party members, but not for those from the working class. The reason is that in the process of production and of struggle against the capitalists, the workers come to know all too well how the capitalists calculate wages and working hours, exploit the workers for profit and oppress them. Therefore, they generally understand Marx's theory of surplus value more profoundly than do some Party members from other classes. When we say that many Party members from the working class are readier to accept Marxism-Leninism, we do not, of course mean that their class-background makes them born Marxist-Leninists. We mean that provided they study Marxist-Leninist theory modestly and diligently and have a real grasp of the method of seeking the truth from the facts, those comrades who have a firm and purely proletarian stand and are free from personal prejudice of other blemishes are certain to be keener and more correct than the others in their observation and handling of practical problems. In the struggle, too, these comrades will prove more able to discern the truth and will uphold it more courageously and unhesitatingly.<br />
<br />
Also, we come across many Party members of non-proletarian origin who differ in their development owing to their differing attitudes towards the relation between Marxist-Leninist study and ideological self-cultivation. Generally speaking, when they join the revolution such people do not have a firm and clear-cut proletarian stand, are not very correct or pure in their ideology, and to a greater of lesser extent carry over various non-proletarian ideas from the old society. Obviously these ideas come into direct conflict with the principles of Marxism-Leninism, and since the people take different attitudes, the results of the conflict differ. In studying Marxism-Leninism, some people correctly combine theoretical study with their ideological self-cultivation, using Marxist-Leninist principles to fight and overcome whatever is backward in their thinking. In this way thy achieve a more truly proletarian stand and a more undiluted proletarian ideology, and learn how to apply Marxist-Leninist principles to the solution of practical problems. We have many such Party members. Others, however, go the opposite way; they have a lot of old junk accumulated in their heads and many stubborn habits, prejudices and selfish desires, but the lack of determination to remould themselves. In studying Marxism-Leninism they do not make use of its principles to criticize and repudiate whatever is backward in their own ideology, but employ it as a weapon to further their own private ends, and this is carried to the point where the principles of Marxism-Leninism are so distorted by their old prejudices that these people can neither reach a correct understanding of these principles nor grasp the spirit and essence of Marxism-Leninism. When they handle practical problems in the course of revolutionary struggle, the habits and prejudices which they have brought with them from the old society and their individualistic calculations led them to think in terms of personal gain or loss, to be hesitant and vacillating and incapable of going deeply into things in a free untrammelled way or of courageously upholding the truth , and they conceal or distort the truth unintentionally, or even deliberately.<br />
<br />
These people are absolutely incapable of guiding their lives by the principals of Marxism-Leninism, and hence incapable of dealing with practical problems promptly, correctly and realistically according to these principles; sometimes they even adopt a negative attitude when practical problems have already been correctly solved according to these principals by the Party organization, or by comrades other than themselves. Such things are neither rare nor unusual, but are quite common.<br />
<br />
Thus we can say that it is impossible for a Party member who lacks a clear-cut firm proletarian stand and a correct, purely proletarian ideology to achieve a thorough understanding and real mastery of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism as a weapon in the revolutionary struggle. In other words a Party member must have the noble stand of the proletariat in order to become versed in Marxist-Leninist theory.<br />
<br />
At the same time, we should add that no Party member can maintain a proletarian stand and express a proletarian ideology concretely in every revolutionary struggle unless he studies the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism diligently and guides his thinking and action accordingly.<br />
<br />
There are some Party members who think it quite enough to have revolutionary firmness and to fight bravely, and that it does not matter much whether they study and undertake self-cultivation in Marxist-Leninist theory. Some comrades even think that a good class origin or a good personal class status is all that is needed to make them vanguard proletarian fighters, thus obviating the need to study Marxism-Leninism. There are other comrades who never study it earnestly in the course of work or struggle, though they generally admit the importance of theory. All such attitudes are obviously wrong.<br />
<br />
The theory of Marxism-Leninism is our weapon for studying every phenomenon and dealing with every question, and especially for studying all social phenomena and dealing with all social questions.. If we do not know how to wield the weapon of Marxist-Leninist theory, we shall be unable correctly to understand and deal with the problems confronting us in the revolutionary struggle and shall be in danger of loosing our bearings and departing from the revolutionary proletarian stand, or even, whether consciously or unconsciously, of becoming opportunists of one kind or another, captives and yes-men of the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Revolutionary firmness and courage in the struggle are precious qualities which every Communist must possess. Besides these qualities, Communists must have the ability to find the right way to conduct the revolution and carry on the struggle in different historical periods and under different conditions of struggle, if they are to win the victory for the revolution and realize the highest ideal of communism. Only by applying Marxism-Leninism can we correctly solve such important questions in the revolutionary struggle as the question of whom to rely upon, whom to unite with and whom to overthrow, the question of who are our direct allies, who is the main enemy and who are the secondary enemies, the question of rallying all possible allies, including even secondary enemies under certain conditions, to defeat the main enemy, and the question of making timely changes in strategy and tactics to meet changing situations. Without mastering the weapon of Marxism-Leninism and attaining a high degree of self-cultivation in Marxist-Leninist theory, we cannot possibly maintain a firm, correct proletarian stand on every important question in the revolutionary struggle, or formulate the policies which are most advantageous to the cause of the proletarian revolution or champion the overall, long term interests of the proletarian revolutionary struggle amid the complex situations and sharp changes, when it is necessary for us to make detours and turns.<br />
<br />
Consider, for instance, our Party's experience in carrying out the policy of the national [[united front]] against Japan. Before the Incident of July 7. 1937,<sup>1</sup> certain comrades did not understand that the [[contradiction]] between the Chinese nation and Japanese [[imperialism]] had become the principal one while the contradictions among the different classes and political groups within the country had become secondary. As a result, they opposed the Party's policy of forming a national united front against Japan. of uniting all [[Patriotism|patriotic]] classes, strata, political parties and social groupings for joint resistance, and especially of uniting with the Kuomintang to fight Japan. Although these comrades thought they were taking a firm proletarian stand in opposing the Party's correct policy, they actually departed from it and plunged into "closed-doorism" and [[sectarianism]]. Had we acted in accordance with their wrong views, the proletariat and its political party would have been unable to unite and lead all the patriotic classes, strata, parties and social groupings for the purpose of defeating Japanese imperialism; instead, the forces of the Anti-Japanese National United Front would have been weakened and the proletariat and its political party would have been isolated to the detriment of the struggle to resist Japan and save China. After the July 7th Incident, when our Party had formed the Anti-Japanese National United front with the Kuomintang, certain comrades went to the other extreme, maintaining that since the Kuomintang had joined in the resistance to Japan, there was hardly any distinction between it and the Communist Party. They adopted a policy of capitulation by appeasing the big [[landlord]] and big bourgeois classes and the Kuomintang. and opposed the Party's policy of upholding its independence within the united front. While they over estimated the strength of and placed undue trust in the Kuomintang, on which they pinned all their hopes for resisting Japan and saving China, they had no confidence in the strength of the Communist Party and the people, did not place their hopes on the Communist Party and therefore did not dare freely to expand the Party and the anti-Japanese people's revolutionary forces and to resolutely fight against the Kuomintang's policy of opposing and restricting the Communist Party. The comrades with this approach styled themselves as the true representatives of the proletariat, but in essence their policy would have made the proletariat a vassal or an appendage of the bourgeoisie, and would have caused the proletariat to loose the leadership of the Anti-Japanese National United Front. These "Left" and Right mistakes are both striking examples of the failure to take a firm proletarian stand and to identify the correct path for advancing the revolutionary cause when major changes are occurring in the political situation.<br />
<br />
The proletariat cannot just emancipate itself alone; it must fight for the emancipation of [[The people|all the working people]], the emancipation of the nation and of all humanity, for only thus can it fully emancipate itself. The proletariat must rid the whole of human society of exploitation, oppression and class struggle once and for all, for only thus can it genuinely and finally emancipate itself. Hence a firm proletarian stand must be sharply differentiated from "closed-doorism' and sectarianism. In waging struggles the proletariat and its political party must establish close ties with the masses of working people, form revolutionary alliances with other revolutionary classes and parties and lead the working masses and all their allies forward together; they must represent the interests of more than ninety per cent of the population of the country. To have a firm proletarian stand is to represent at all times and in all circumstances the highest interests of the overwhelming majority of the people, which, we must understand, are also the highest class interests of the proletariat. On the other hand, a firm proletarian stand must be sharply differentiated from all appeasement and capitulation. In waging revolutionary struggles the proletariat and its political party must draw clear lines of distinction not only between themselves and the landlord class and the bourgeoisie but also between themselves and the revolutionary democrats of the petty bourgeoisie, and must even make some distinction between themselves and the masses of working people. In the revolutionary struggle they must at all times firmly maintain their independence and be free from any bourgeois or other non-proletarian class influence. In every stage of the development of the revolutionary struggle they must combine the interests of the part with the interests of the whole and immediate interests with ling-term interests. As Marx and Engels said of Communists:<blockquote>1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.<br />
<br />
2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>During his struggle to organize a political party of the proletariat at the end of the 19th century, Lenin said:<blockquote>The consciousness of the masses and of the workers cannot be genuine [[class consciousness]], unless the workers learn to observe from concrete, and above all from topical (current), political facts and events, every other social class and all manifestations of the intellectual, ethical and political life of these classes; unless they learn to apply in practice the materialist analysis and the materialist estimate of all aspects of the life and activity of all classes, strata and groups of the population.<sup>3</sup></blockquote>Further:<blockquote>The [[Russian Social Democratic Labor Party|Social-Democrat]]'s ideal should not be a [[Trade union|trade-union]] secretary, but a tribune of the people, able to react to every manifestation of tyranny and oppression, no matter where it takes place, no matter what stratum of class of people it affects; he must be able to generalize all these manifestations to produce a single picture of police violence and capitalist exploitation; he must be able to take advantage of every event, however small, in order to explain his [[Socialism|socialist]] convictions and [[Democracy|democratic]] demands to all and everyone the world-historic significance of the proletariat's struggle for emancipation.<sup>4</sup></blockquote>To fulfill the requirements cited by Lenin in these two passages, we Communists must of course unceasingly take part in the revolutionary practice and thus increase our perceptual knowledge and accumulate practical experience. But it must be pointed out, perceptual knowledge and practical experience alone are not sufficient. As Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<blockquote>Fully to reflect a thing in its totality, to reflect its essence, to reflect its inherit laws, it is necessary through the exercise of thought to reconstruct the rich data of sense perception, discarding the dross and selecting the essential, eliminating the false and retaining the true, proceeding from the one to the other and from the outside to the inside, in order to form a system of concepts and theories—it is necessary to make a leap from perceptual to rational knowledge.<sup>5</sup></blockquote>Therefore, while engaged in revolutionary practice, we must most conscientiously study the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism.<blockquote>The theory of Marxism-Leninism is the summing-up of the experience of the international working-class movement; it is a theory formulated in revolutionary practice and in turn serving revolutionary practice. If only we study this theory, apply it and master it in close conjunction with revolutionary practice, we shall be able to understand the inner connections of the changes taking place all around us and to know how and in what direction the various classes are now moving and will soon move, and we shall be able to determine our line of action and shall confidence in the future of the revolutionary movement.</blockquote>It is precisely because the theory of Marxism-Leninism plays such a great role that Lenin said, "The role of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory."<sup>6</sup> Members of the Communist Party must closely link their study of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism with their own ideological self-cultivation and self-tempering; they must never divorce one from the other.<br />
<br />
Time and again Comrade Mao Zedong has emphasised the tremendous importance of cultivating oneself in the theory of Marxism-Leninism. He has said:<blockquote>From the Marxist viewpoint, theory is important, and its importance is fully expressed in Lenin's statement, "Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." But Marxism emphasises the importance of theory precisely and only because it can guide action.<sup>5</sup></blockquote>Comrade Mao Zedong has constantly urged all Party members who have some capacity for study to study Marxist-Leninist theory, study the actual conditions of the movement, study Chinese and world history and learn to guide their actions by Marxist-Leninist theory and also help to educate comrades with a lower cultural and theoretical level. The whole Party should at times bear in mind this injunction of Comrade Mao Zedong's.<br />
<br />
== The Cause of Communism is the Greatest and Most Arduous Undertaking in Human History ==<br />
Now let us continue with our discussion of ideological self-cultivation by Communist Party members.<br />
<br />
What does ideological self-cultivation mean? Fundamentally, in my opinion, it means that every Party member should use proletarian ideology to combat whatever non-proletarian ideas he has, use the communist world outlook he has and use the principle of the supremacy of the interests of the proletariat, the people and the Party to combat his individualism.<br />
<br />
This struggle is one of conflicting ideologies, and it reflects the class struggle in society. For a Party member, the result of this struggle should be that the proletarian ideology overcomes and ultimately eliminates any non-communist world outlook and that ideas based on the general interests and aims of the Party, of the revolution and of the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity overcome and ultimately eliminate all individualism. If the opposite happens, that is, if the latter prevails over the former, the comrade concerned will retrogress and may even loose his qualifications as a member of the Communist Party. For a Communist that would be a terrible and dangerous thing to happen.<br />
<br />
We Communist Party members temper ourselves ideologically in struggles of all kinds inside and outside the Party, constantly sum up and learn from experience gained in revolutionary practice, and examine our own ideas to see whether they fully conform to Marxism-Leninism and the interests of the struggle for the emancipation of the proletariat. It is through such study, reflection and self-examination that we eliminate all remnants of incorrect ideas and nip in the bud any ideas inconsistent with the interests of communism.<br />
<br />
As you know, a man's words and actions are guided by his ideology. And a man's ideology is inseparable from his world outlook. The only world outlook for members of the Communist Party is the communist world outlook. This world outlook is the philosophical system of the proletariat and also our communist methodology.. All this has been abundantly discussed in Marxist-Leninist literature, and especially in the philosophical works of the founders. As you have studied it, I shall not go into it today. Here I shall only talk briefly of our communist cause, of what it is and how Party members should advance it.<br />
<br />
What is our most fundamental duty as Party members? It is to achieve communism. As far as the Communist Parties of different countries are concerned, in each country it is for the Communist Party and the people there to transform it by their own efforts, and in that way the whole world will be transformed step by step into a communist world. Will the communist world be good? We all know it will be. In that world there will be no exploiters of oppressors, no landlords and capitalists, no imperialists and fascists, nor will there be any oppressed and exploited people, or any of the darkness, ignorance and backwardness resulting from the system of exploitation. In such a society the production of both material and moral values will develop and flourish mightily and will meet the varied needs of all its members. By then all humanity will consist of unselfish, intelligent, highly cultured and skilled communist workers; mutual assistance and affection will prevail among men and there will be no such irrationalities as mutual suspicion and deception, mutual injury, mutual slaughter and war. It will of course be the best, the most beautiful and the most advanced society in human history. Who can deny that such a society is good? But can this good communist society be built? We say that it can and will be. Marxist-Leninist theory has explained this scientifically and beyond all doubt. A factual testimony has been provided by the victory of the Great October revolution and the successes in socialist construction in the Soviet Union. Our duty is constantly to advance the cause socialism and communism in accordance with the laws of development of human society, so as to make socialist and communist society a reality as soon as possible. This is our ideal.<br />
<br />
However, the cause of socialism and communism still faces powerful enemies who must be thoroughly and finally defeated in every field; only then will the socialist and communist society be brought into being. Victory for the communist cause can only be won through long and arduous struggle. Without it there can be no victory. This struggle, of course, is not an "accidental" social phenomenon or an invention of certain Communists as some people assert. It is inevitable in the development of class society; it is unavoidable class struggle. The birth of the Communist Party and the fact that Communists participate, organize and guide this struggle are also inevitable phenomena conforming with the laws of social development. The imperialists, [[Fascism|fascists]] and landlords—in short, all exploiters and oppressors—are oppressing and exploiting the overwhelming majority of the people of the world to such an extent that the people are hardly able to survive and have to unite and fight against this exploitation and oppression, because they cannot exist, much less make progress in any other way. This struggle, therefore, is natural and unavoidable.<br />
<br />
On the one hand, we must understand that communism is the greatest cause in human history, which will eliminate exploitation and classes once and for all, emancipate humanity and bring humanity into a world of happiness, radiating with beauty, such as it has never known before. But on the other hand, we must also understand that the cause of communism is the most arduous undertaking in all history; that only through protracted, bitter and torturous struggle will we be able to defeat all the exploiting classes; and that for a long time after our victory we shall patiently have to carry out social and economic, ideological and cultural transformation, for only thus will all the influences, conventions and habits of the exploiting classes be eliminated from among the people, and only thus will a new social and economic system, a new communist culture and code of social morality be built up.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party will defiantly win final victory by relying on the proletariat and the masses of the exploited and oppressed people and by using Marxism-Leninism to guide the revolutionary struggle of the masses and propel society towards the great goal of communism. The reason is that the historical laws of social development make the progress of human society towards communism inevitable; that latent in the proletariat and the other exploited and oppressed masses of the world lie extremely powerful revolutionary energies which, once mobilized, united and organized, can triumph over all the reactionary forces of the exploiting classes and imperialism; and that the Communist Party and the proletariat are the new and rising forces and whatever is new and rising is invincible. This has been fully demonstrated by the history of the world communist movement and the Communist Party of China. The present situation is as follows. Socialism has already won a great victory in the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]], or on one sixth of the earth's surface; militant Communist Parties armed with the theory of Marxism-Leninism have been organized in many countries; the world communist movement is rapidly growing and developing; and the forces of the proletariat and the other exploited and oppressed masses of the world are being rapidly mobilized and united in the course of incessant struggles. The communist movement is already organized as a mighty and invincible world force. Beyond all doubt the communist cause will continue to develop and advance, and will win final and complete victory. However, we should also realize that the international reaction and the exploiting classes are yet stronger than we are, that they are temporarily superior in many fields and that only by protracted, torturous and bitter struggles can we defeat them.<br />
<br />
In a society in which [[Private property|private ownership of the means of production]] has existed for thousands of years, the exploiting classes through their rule have built up great power in all fields and have grabbed everything under the sun. Their long rule has given rise to backwardness, ignorance, selfishness, mutual suspicion and deception, mutual injury and slaughter in human society, which have persisted down the ages. It has exerted a most pernicious influence on the exploited masses and on other members of society. This is the inevitable result of the efforts of the exploiting classes to preserve their class interests and rule. For they cannot maintain their ruling position unless they keep the exploited masses and the colonial peoples backward, unorganized and divided. Hence, in order to achieve victory we must not only conduct a stern struggle against the exploiting classes but also carry on a struggle against their long-standing influence among the masses and the backward ideas and other backward phenomena found among the masses, for only thus can we enhance their political consciousness and unite them to defeat the exploiting classes. Here is the difficulty in the course of achieving communism. Comrades! If the masses were all politically conscious, united, free from the influence of the exploiting classes and free from backwardness, as some people imagine them to be, what would be so difficult about the revolution?<br />
<br />
Not only does this influence of the exploiting classes exist before the victory of the revolution, but it survives for a very long time after when the exploiting classes have been ejected from their ruling position. Think how torturous is the process and how arduous are the work and struggle that are needed to vanquish the exploiting classes and their influence among the people once and for all, to emancipate and change all humanity, to transform myriads of small commodity producers, finally to abolish all classes and gradually to transform humanity that has lived in class society for thousands of years and been influenced by all kinds of old customs and conventions until it becomes communist humanity, intelligent and unselfish, and with a high level of culture and skill!<br />
<br />
Lenin said:<blockquote>The abolition of classes means not only driving out landlords and capitalists—that we accomplished with comparative ease—it also means abolishing the small commodity producers, and they cannot be driven out, or crushed; we must live in harmony with them; they can (and must) be remoulded and re-educated only by very prolonged, slow, cautious organizational work. They encircle the proletariat on every side with a petty-bourgeois atmosphere, which permeates and corrupts the proletariat and causes constant relapses among the proletariat into petty-bourgeois spinelessness, disunity, individualism, alternate moods of exaltation and dejection. The strictest centralization and discipline are required within the political party of the proletariat in order to counteract this, in order that the organizational role of the proletariat (and that is its principle role) may be exercised correctly, successfully, victoriously....The force of habit of millions and tens of millions is a most terrible force....It is a thousand times easier to vanquish the centralized big bourgeoisie than to "vanquish" the millions and millions of small owners; yet they, by their ordinary, everyday, imperceptible, elusive, demoralizing activity, achieve the very results which the bourgeoisie need and which tend to restore the bourgeoisie.<sup>1</sup></blockquote>He also said:<blockquote>...the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by its overthrow (even if only in one country), and whose power lies not only in the strength of international capital, in the strength and durability of the international connections of the bourgeoisie, but also in the force of habit, in the strength of small production. For all these reasons the dictatorship of the proletariat is essential, and victory over the bourgeoisie is impossible without a long, stubborn and war of life and death, a war demanding perseverance, discipline, firmness, indomitableness and unity of will.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>Hence the proletariat has a very difficult task to perform even after the victory of the revolution. The proletarian revolution differs from all other revolutions in history. Bourgeois revolutions, for example, are largely completed with the seizure of state power. But for the proletariat, victory and political emancipation are only the beginning of the revolution, and a tremendous amount of work remains to be done after the victory, after the seizure of state power.<br />
<br />
The cause of communism is needed a "hundred years' task", as the saying goes, and it definitely cannot be accomplished at one stroke. In different countries this undertaking has to go through different stages, and different enemies must be defeated, before a communist society can gradually be established. Take the case of our own country. China is still in the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and our enemies are imperialism, which perpetuates aggression against China, and the feudal and comprador forces, which are in collusion with imperialism. Only when we have defeated these enemies can we complete the bourgeois-democratic revolution in our country. Then, after the victory of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, it will still be necessary to make the socialist revolution and to carry on socialist transformation and socialist construction for a long period, and only so will the gradual transition to communist society be possible.<br />
<br />
Since the ultimate goal of our struggle is the achievement of communism, it is naturally our duty as Communists to overcomes all the difficulties arising in the process.<br />
<br />
Since the communist cause is so great and arduous an undertaking, some people who seek social progress are still sceptical and not convinced that communism can be realized. They do not believe that under the leadership of the proletariat and its party the human race can develop and transform itself into a communist humanity of the highest quality and that all the difficulties in the process of revolution and construction can be overcome. Either they do not forsee the difficulties or they become pessimistic and disappointed when confronted with them, and there are even Party members who waver and desert the communist ranks.<br />
<br />
We communists should be men of the boldest vision and revolutionary determination. Every Party member should gladly and solemnly shoulder the task of realizing communism, a task greater and more arduous than any in human history. We clearly see the difficulties in the process of realising communism, but at the same time we clearly understand that they can undoubtedly be overcome by arousing millions of people to the revolutionary action, and no difficulties will ever daunt us. We have the masses of the people to rely on, and we have full confidence that a substantial part of the work of building communism will be accomplished in our town time and that the whole of this magnificent undertaking will be triumphantly completed by the coming generations. The heroes of no other class in history could possibly have had this great communist ideal and boldness of vision. In this respect we have every reason for pride.<br />
<br />
I recall the instance of the western European bourgeois biographer<sup>3</sup> who interviewed Comrade Stalin during a visit to the Soviet Union and brought up the comparisons between historical personalities. Comrade Stalin told him that Lenin was like the ocean while Czar [[Peter I Romanov|Peter the Great]] was only a drop in the ocean. Such is the place in history a proletarian leader of the communist cause occupies, compared with that of a leader in the cause of the landlord and the rising mercantile classes. From this comparison we can see how truly great is a leader who fights for the triumph of communism and the cause of the emancipation of humanity and how paltry is one who fights for the cause of the exploiting classes.<br />
<br />
We Communist Party members must have the highest goals in our struggle and the highest ideals, while at the same time we must have a practical spirit and do real practical work. Such are the characteristics distinguishing us as Communists. If all a person has is great and lofty ideas without having a practical spirit or doing real practical work, he is not a good Party member but only a dreamer, a prattler or a pedant. On the other hand, whoever is interested only in practical work but lacks great and lofty communist ideals is not a good Communist either, but just a routine plodder. Only by combining the great and lofty ideals of communism with real practical work and practical spirit can one be a good Communist. This standard for a good Communist has often been stressed by Comrade Mao Zedong, the leader of our Party.<br />
<br />
The communist ideal is beautiful, while the reality of the existing capitalist world is ugly. This is precisely why the overwhelming majority of the people demand the changing of that reality and why it must be changed. In order to change the world we must not divorce ourselves from reality, disregard it or escape from it, nor must we surrender to ugly reality. We must face reality squarely, study and understand it, live and grow in it, fight against the ugly reality and transform it, so that we can gradually realize our ideal. Hence we members of the communist Party must initiate and press ahead with our great communist task of changing the world, beginning with our immediate surroundings, with the people immediately around us and such work as we can immediately undertake. Here we should criticize those young comrades who frequently make the mistake of wanting to escape from or disregarding reality. It is good that they have lofty ideals, but they often complain about their place of work and the kind of work they are given. They are always looking for some "ideal" place or job so that they can "change the world" with ease. But no such place and no such job exist, except in their dreams.<br />
<br />
The cause of communism is our life work. Throughout our lives, our every activity is exclusively devoted to it and to nothing else.<br />
<br />
== A Party Member's Personal Interests Must be Unconditionally Subordinated to the Interests of the Party ==<br />
Personal interests must be subordinated to the Party's interests, the interests of the local Party organization to those of the entire Party, the interests of the part to those of the whole, and temporary to long-term interests. This is a Marxist-Leninist principle which must be followed by every Communist.<br />
<br />
A Communist must be clear about the correct relationship between personal and Party interests.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party is the political party of the proletariat and has no interests of its own other than those of the emancipation of the proletariat. The final emancipation of the proletariat will also inevitably be the final emancipation of all humanity. Unless the proletariat emancipates all working people and all nations—unless it emancipates humanity as a whole—it cannot fully emancipate itself. The cause of the emancipation of the proletariat is identical with and inseparable from the cause of the emancipation of all working people, all oppressed nations and all humanity. Therefore, the interests of the Communist Party are the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity, are communism and social progress.. When a Party member<nowiki>''</nowiki>s personal interests are subordinated to those of the Party, they are subordinated to the interests of the emancipation of the class and the nation, and those of communism and social progress.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<br />
<br />
At no time and in no circumstances should a Communist place his personal interests first; he should subordinate to the interests of the nation and of the masses. Hence selfishness, slacking, corruption, seeking the limelight are most contemptible, while selflessness, working with all one's energy, whole hearted devotion to public duty, and quiet hard work will command respect.<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
The test of a Party member's loyalty to the Party, the revolution, the cause of communism is whether or not he can subordinate his personal interests absolutely and unconditionally to the interests of the Party whatever the circumstances.<br />
<br />
At all times and all questions a party member should give first consideration to the interests of the Party as a whole and put them in the foremost and place personal matters and interests second. The supremacy of the Party's interests is the highest principle that must govern the thinking and actions of the members of our Party. In accordance with this principle, every Party member must completely identify his personal interests with those of the Party both in his thinking and in his actions of the members of our Party both in his thinking and in his actions. He must be able o yield to the interests of the Party without any hesitations or reluctance and sacrifice his personal interests what ever of the two are at variance. Unhesitating readiness to sacrifice personal interests and even one's life, for the Party and for the proletariat and for the emancipation of the nation and of all humanity—this is one expression of what we usually describe as "Party spirit", "Party sense" or "sense of organization'. It is the highest expression of communist morality, of the principled nature of the party of the proletariat and of the purest proletarian class consciousness.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party should not have personal aims which are independent of the Party interests. Their personal aims must harmonize with the Party's interests. If the aim they set for themselves is to study Marxist-Leninist theory, to develop their ability in work, to establish revolutionary organizations and to lead the masses in successful revolutionary struggles—if their aim is more is to do more for the Party—then this personal aim harmonizes with the interests of the Party. The Party needs many such members and cadres. Apart from this aim, Party members should have no independent personal motives such as attaining position of fame, or playing the individual hero; otherwise they will depart from the interests of the Party and may even become careerists within the Party.<br />
<br />
If a Party member thinks only of the communist interests and aims of the Party, is really selfless and has no personal aims and considerations divorced from those of the Party, and he ceaselessly raises the level of his political consciousness through revolutionary practice and through the study of Marxism-Leninism, then the following ensues.<br />
<br />
First, he has a high communist morality. Taking a clear-cut, firm proletarian stand, he is able to show loyalty to and love for all comrades, all revolutionaries and working people, help them unreservedly and act towards them as equals, and he will never allow themself to hurt a single one of them for his own interests. He is able to feel for others, place themself in their position and be considerate of them. On the other hand, he is able to wage resolute struggle against the pernicious enemies of humanity and persevere in the fight for the interests of the Party, the proletariat and the emancipation of the nation and all humanity. "He is the first to worry and the last to enjoy themself".<sup>2</sup> Whether in the Party of among the people, he is the first to suffer hardship and the last to enjoy comfort; he compares themself with others not with respect to the material enjoyment but to the amount of work done for the revolution and the spirit of hard endurance in the struggle. In times of adversity he steps forward boldly, and in times of difficulty he does his duty to the full. He has such revolutionary firmness and integrity that "neither riches nor honours can corrupt him, neither [[poverty]] nor lowly condition can make him swerve from principle, neither threats nor force can bend him".<sup>3</sup><br />
<br />
Second, he has the greatest revolutionary courage. Having no selfish motives, he has nothing to fear. Having done nothing to give themself a guilty conscience, he can lay bare and courageously correct his mistakes and short comings, which are like "an eclipse of the sun or the moon".<sup>4</sup> Because he has the courage of righteous conviction, he never fears the truth, courageously upholds it, spreads it and fights for it. Even if it is temporarily to his disadvantage and if, in upholding the truth, he suffers blows of all kinds, is censured by most other people and so finds themself in temporary (and honourable) isolation, even to the point where he may give up his life, he will still breast the waves to uphold the truth and will never drift with the tide.<br />
<br />
Third, he learns how best to grasp the theory of Marxism-Leninism. He is able to apply them in keenly observing problems and in knowing and changing reality. Because he takes a clear-cut, firm proletarian stand and is tempered in Marxism-Leninism, he is free from personal apprehensions and self-interest, so that there is no impediment to his observation of things or distortion of his understanding of the truth. He seeks the truth from the facts, and he tests all theories and distinguishes what is true from what is false in revolutionary practice.<br />
<br />
Fourth, he is the most sincere, most candid and happiest of men. Because he has no private axe to grind, nothing to conceal from the Party and nothing he cannot tell others, he has no problems of personal gain or loss and no personal anxieties other than for the interests of the Party and the revolution. Even when he is working on his own without supervision and therefore has the opportunity to do something bad, he is just as "watchful over themself when he is alone"<sup>5</sup> and does not do anything harmful. His work bears examination and he is not afraid having it checked. He does not fear criticism and at the same time is able to criticize others with courage and sincerity.<br />
<br />
Fifth, he has the greatest self-respect and self-esteem. For the sake of the Party and the revolution he can be most forbearing and tolerant towards comrades and can suffer wrong in the general interest, even enduring misunderstanding and humiliation without bitterness if the occasion so demands. No personal aims lead him to flatter anyone or to desire flattery from others. When it comes to personal matters, he knows how to conduct themself and has no need to humble themself in order to get help from others. He knows how to take good care of themself in the interests of the Party and the revolution and how to strengthen both his grasp of theory and his practical effectiveness. But when it is necessary to swallow humiliations and bear a heavy load for some important purpose in the cause of the Party and the revolution, he can take on the most difficult and vital tasks without the slightest reluctance, never passing the difficulties to others.<br />
<br />
A member of the Communist Party should possess the finest and highest human virtues and take a clear-cut and firm Party and proletarian stand (that is, possess Party spirit and class spirit). Ours is a fine morality precisely because it is proletarian and communist. It is founded not on the protection of the interests of individuals or of the exploiting few, but on those of the great proletariat and the great mass of working people, of the cause of the final emancipation of all humanity, and the liberation of the whole world from the calamities of capitalism, and the building of a happy and beautiful communist world—it is a morality founded on the Marxist-Leninist theory of scientific communism. As we Communists see it, nothing can be more worthless or indefensible than to sacrifice oneself in the interests of an individual or a small minority. But it is the worthiest and most just thing in the world to sacrifice oneself for the Party, for the proletariat, for the emancipation of the nation and all humanity, for social progress and for the highest interests of the overwhelming majority of the people. Indeed, countless members of the Communist Party have looked death calmly in the face and made the ultimate sacrifice without the slightest hesitation. Most Communists consider it a matter of course to die for the sake of the cause, to lay down their lives for justice, when that is necessary. This does not stem from any revolutionary fanaticism or hunger for fame but from their scientific understanding of social development and their deep political consciousness. There is no morality in class society to compare with this high communist morality. The universal morality which supposedly transcends class is sheer deceptive nonsense and in fact a morality designed to protect the interests of the exploiting few. Such a concept of morality is always idealist. It is only we communists who build our morality on the scientific basis of historical materialism and proclaim its purpose to be the protection of the interests of the proletariat in the struggle for the emancipation of itself and all humanity.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party represents the general and long-range interests of the proletariat and all humanity in their struggle for emancipation; the Party's interests are the concentrated expression of this cause. One must never regard the communist Party as a narrow clique, like the guild perusing the interests of its members. Anyone who does so is no Communist.<br />
<br />
A Party member has interests of his own, which may be inconsistent with or even run counter to the interests of the Party in certain circumstances. Should this happen, it is incumbent on him to sacrifice his personal interests and unconditionally subordinate them to the interests of the Party; under no pretence or excuse may he sacrifice the Party's interests by clinging to his own. At all times and in all circumstances, he should fight heart and soul for the Party's interests and for the Party's development, regarding every success and victory won by the Party and the proletariat as his very own. Every Party member should strive to increase his effectiveness and ability in the service of the people. But this must be done in the fight for the advancement, success and victory of the Party's cause, and there must be no striving for individual development divorced from the fight to advance the Party's cause. The facts prove that only by complete devotion in the fight for the advancement, success and victory of the Party's cause can a Party member heighten his effectiveness and ability and that he cannot possibly make progress of heighten his ability in any other way. Hence a Party member can and must completely merge his personal interests with those of the Party.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party are no ordinary people but the awakened vanguard fighters of the proletariat. They must conscientiously represent the class interests and class ideology of the proletariat. Therefore, their personal interests must never project beyond those of the party and the proletariat. It is all the more necessary for each cadre and leader of the Party to be a living embodiment of the general interests of the Party and the proletariat and to merge his personal interests completely in their general interests and aims. In present-day China, it is the proletariat that best represents the interests of national liberation, and therefore our Party members must be worthy champions of the interests of the nation as a whole.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party must subordinate personal to Party interests and are required to sacrifice them to party interests if necessary. But this by no means implies that our Party does not recognise, or brushes aside, the personal interest of its members or that it wants to wipe out their individuality. Party members do have their personal problems to attend to, and, moreover, they should develop themselves according to their individual inclinations and aptitudes. Therefore, so long as the interests of the Party are not violated, a Party member can have his private and family life and develop his individual inclinations and aptitudes. At the same time, the Party will use every possibility to help members develop their individual inclinations and aptitudes in conformity with its interests, furnish them with suitable work and working conditions and commend and reward them. As far as possible, the Party will attend to and safeguard its members' essential interests; for example,, it will give them the opportunity to study and to acquire an education, it will help them cope with health and family problems and, when necessary, it will even give up some of its work in order to preserve comrades working under the rule of reaction. But all this has no other purpose than the overall interests of the Party. For the fulfillment of its tasks the Party must ensure that members have the conditions necessary for life, work and education so that they can perform their tasks with enthusiasm and without worry. Comrades in responsible Party positions must bear all this in mind when they deal with Party members' problems.<br />
<br />
To sum up, on his side, each Party member should completely submit themself to the interests of the Party and self-sacrificingly devote themself to the public duty. He should forego all personal aims and private considerations which conflict with the Party's interests. He should not think of themself all the time, make endless personal demands on the Party or blame the Party for not promoting or rewarding him. Whatever the circumstances, he should study hard, try to make progress, be courageous in struggle and make ceaseless efforts to raise the level of his political consciousness and his understanding of Marxism-Leninism, so as to be able to contribute more to the Party and the revolution. On their side all Party organizations and comrades in responsible positions, in dealing with the problems of Party members, should see how they work, live and study. and enable them to work better for the Party, ceaselessly develop themselves and raise their level in the course of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. In particular, attention should be paid to comrades who are really selfless and who serve the people well. Only so, through combined attention and effort by both sides can the interests of the Party be well served.<br />
<br />
== Examples of Wrong Ideology in the Party ==<br />
In the light of what has been said, we can see that if an understanding of communism and a correct correlation between personal and Party interests are taken as the standard for evaluating Party members and cadres, many measure up to it and can serve as models, but some do not yet measure up to this standard and still have various wrong ideas to some degree or other. It may not be amiss if I outline these wrong ideas for our comrades' attention.<br />
<br />
What are fundamentally the wrong ideas to be found among comrades in our Party?<br />
<br />
First. The people joining our Party not only differ in in class origin and personal class status but also carry with them aims and motives of every description. Many, of course, join the Party in order to bring about communism and attain the great goal of the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity, but some do so for other reasons and with other aims. For example, some comrades of peasant background used to think that communism meant "expropriation of local tyrants and distribution of the land". When they first joined, they had no understanding of the real meaning of communism. Today, quite a number of people join the Party chiefly because it is resolute in resisting Japan and advocates the Anti-Japanese National United Front. Others join our ranks because they admire the communist Party for its good reputation or because they realize in a vague way that it can save China. Still others are seeking a future for themselves, chiefly because they have no other way out—they have no fixed occupation, are out of work, lack the means of study, or want to escape from family bondage or forced marriage, etc. A few even join because they count on the Party to get their taxes reduced, or because they hope to "make their mark" some day, or because their relatives or friends have brought them in, etc. Naturally, such comrades do not have a clear-cut and stable communist world outlook, do not understand the greatness of the communist cause and the difficulties besetting it, and lack a firm proletarian stand point. Naturally too, some of them will waver or change somewhat in certain circumstances at certain critical turning points. Since they bring all sorts of ideas with them into the Party, it is most important that they should be educated and should train and temper themselves. Otherwise they cannot become revolutionary fighters of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, there is no terrible problem here. After all, it is not a bad thing that people turn to the Communist Party, enter it seeking a way out of their predicament and approve of its policy. They are not mistaken in coming to us. We welcome them—everyone except for enemy agents, traitors, careerists and ambitious climbers. Provided they accept and are ready to abide by the Party's Programme and Constitution, work in one of the Party's organizations and pay membership dues, they may be admitted into the Communist Party. As for deeping their study and understanding of communism and the Partys Programme and Constitution, they can do so after joining the Party and can temper and train themselves in revolutionary struggle on the basis of what they learn; in this way they have every possibility of becoming very good Communists. Indeed, for most people it is impossible to have a proufound understanding of communism and the Party's Programme and Constitution before joining the Party. That is why we can only prescribe acceptance, and not a thorough understanding of the Partys Programme and Constitution as a condition for admission. Although many people do not have a thorough understanding of communism before joining, it is possible for them to become active fighters in the communist and revolutionary movements of the time. They can become politically conscious Communists provided they study hard after joining the Party. Furthermore, our Party Constitution stipulates that members are free to withdraw form the Party (there is no freedom of admission). Any member is free to notify the Party that he is withdrawing from it if he lacks a profound belief in communism, or cannot live a strict Party life, or for any other reason, and the Party gives him the freedom to withdraw. It will do nothing against him unless he gives away Party secrets or engages in wrecking activities against the Party after he leaves. As for careerists and spies who have wormed their way into the Party, of course they have to be expelled. Only thus can we preserve the purity of our Party.<br />
<br />
Second. Fairly strong [[individualism]] and selfishness are still to be found in some members of our Party.<br />
<br />
The individualism expresses itself as follows. Some people habitually place their personal interests above those of the Party when it comes to practical matters; they are preoccupied with personal gain and loss and always calculate in terms of personal interests; they abuse the public trust, turning their Party work to private advantage of one kind or another; or they attack comrades they dislike and wreak private vengeance, on high-sounding pretexts of principle or Party interests. When it comes to status, material benefits and other questions affecting everyday life, they invariably try to get more than others, compare themselves with those at the top, diligently strive after greater personal benefits and crow when they get them. But when it comes to work, they like to compare themselves with those who are less capable. When there hard hardships to beat they make themselves scarce. In times of danger they want to run away. When it comes to orderlies they always want more. Their living quarters must be of the best, and they want to show off and bask in the Party's glory. They want to grab all the good things of life, but when it comes to the "unpleasant things", they think these are for others. The heads of such people are stuffed with the ideology of the exploiting classes. They believe that "every person is for themself or that Heaven and Earth will destroy him", person is a "selfish animal", and "no one in the world is genuinely unselfish, unless he is a simpleton or an idiot". They even use such exploiting class rubbish to justify their own selfishness and individualism. There are such people in our Party.<br />
<br />
This type of self-seeking individualism often manifests itself inside the Party in unprincipled quarrelling, factional struggle, sectarianism and departmentalism; it manifests itself in disrespect for and willful violation of Party discipline. Most unprincipled struggles originate in personal interests. Those who go in for factional struggle and are given to sectarianism usually place their own individual interests or the interests of a small minority, above those of the Party. Often, in their unprincipled factional struggles they deliberately undermine Party organization and discipline, making unprincipled and sometimes calculated attacks on certain people, while contracting unprincipled friendships to avoid giving offence, to cover up for one another, to sing each other's praises, etc.<br />
<br />
Departmentalism within the Party arises chiefly because some comrades only see the interest of the part, i.e., the work of their own department of locality, and fail to see the interests of the whole, i.e., the interests of the entire Party and the work of other departments and localities. Politically and ideologically, this resembles the guild outlook. Not all comrades who make the mistake of departmentalism are necessarily prompted by individualism, but people with an individualist ideology usually make the mistake of departmentalism.<br />
<br />
Third. Conceit, the idea of individualistic heroism, ostentatiousness, etc., are still to be found, to a greater or lesser extent, in the minds of quite a few Party comrades.<br />
<br />
The first consideration of people with such notions is their position in the Party. They like to show off and to have people sing their praises and flatter them. They are ambitious, they like to cut a dash, to claim credit for themselves and to get the limelight, and they like to keep everything in their own hands and lack a democratic style of work. They are extremely vain and unwilling to immerse themselves in hard work or do routine or technical jobs. They are arrogant, and whenever they accomplish something they throw their weight about, become overbearing and try to domineer, and they do not treat others as equals in a modest and friendly way. They are complacent, talk down to and lecture people and order others about, and they are always trying to tread on people's necks; they do not learn modestly from others, particularly from the masses, and do not accept even well-grounded opinions and criticisms. They can bear promotion but not demotion, they can bear fair weather but not foul, and they cannot bear being misunderstood or wronged. As their baleful yearning for fame has not yet been uprooted they try to dress themselves up as "great men" and "heroes" in the communist movement and stop at nothing to gratify their desire. When they fail to achieve this object, or when they are misunderstood or wronged there is a danger that they will vacillate. Quite a number of people have vacillated and left our Party for such reasons in the course of its history. Exploiting class ideas still linger in the minds of such people, who fail to understand the greatness of the cause of communism and who lack the communist breadth of vision.<br />
<br />
Communists must not be in the least complacent or arrogant. Granted that some comrades are very capable, have done some good work and have to their credit considerable achievements which may be reckoned "great" and on which they might well preen themselves (for example, our army comrades who have led thousands and tens of thousands of men in battle and won victories, or the leaders of our Party and mass work in various places who have brought about fairly significant changes in the situation). Yet after all, how great are these achievements compared with the communist cause as a whole?<br />
<br />
And for persons with a communist world outlook, what is there worth preening oneself about in these achievements?<br />
<br />
For a Communist to do his work properly and well is no more than his duty. He should guard against complacency and arrogance and do his best to make no mistakes, or as few as possible.<br />
<br />
What is there in personal position for a Communist to bother about? No one's position is higher than an emperor's, and yet what is an emperor compared with a fighter in the cause of communism? Is he not just "a drop in the ocean" as Comrade Stalin put it? So what is there in personal position worth bothering or bragging about?<br />
<br />
Yes, we need countless communist heroes and many mass leaders of great prestige in our Party and in the communist movement. At present we really have too few of them and have yet to train and temper large numbers of good communist revolutionary leaders and heroes in all fields. This is indeed very important for our cause and must not be neglected. Whoever takes it lightly is ignorant of how to advance the cause of communism. Its advancement requires that we should greatly enhance the revolutionary spirit of enterprise among our Party members and bring their vitality into full play. We have to admit that so far we have not done enough in this respect. This is shown, for instance, by the fact that some Party members do not study hard and have little interest in politics and theory. Therefore, while we are opposed to individualistic heroism and ostentatiousness , we are certainly not opposed to a spirit of enterprise in the Party members. The desire to make progress in the interests of the people is the most precious quality in a Communist. But the communist, proletarian spirit of enterprise is entirely different from the individualist "spirit of enterprise". The former means seeking truth, upholding it and fighting for it with the greatest effectiveness. It is progressive and opens up unlimited prospects of development, while the latter offers no prospects even for the individual, for people with an individualist ideology are usually driven by their personal interest into deliberately brushing aside, covering up or distorting the truth.<br />
<br />
Our comrades must understand that genuine leaders and heroes in the communist movement are never individualistic, nor are they ever self-styled or self-appointed. Anyone who styles themself a leader or reaches after leadership can never become a leader of the Party. The rank and file of our Party will not make leaders of people who are prone to conceit, individualistic heroism, ostentatiousness, personal ambition and vanity. No member of our Party has any right to demand that the rank and file should support or keep him as a leader. Only those who are entirely selfless and devoted to the Party, only those with an excellent communist morality and fine communist qualities, who have grasped the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism, who have considerable practical ability, who can direct Party work correctly and who study hard and make constant progress can win the trust of the Party and the confidence and support of the rank and file, and so become leaders and heroes in the communist movement.<br />
<br />
Our comrades must also understand that a member, or a leader and hero, whoever he may be, can only do part of the work, can only carry part of the responsibility, in the communist movement. The communist cause is an undertaking which requires the collective efforts of tens of millions of people over a long period of time and which cannot be encompassed by any one individual alone. Even such great men as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin could only perform part of the work needed by the communist cause. The cause for which they worked requires the joint effort and sustained labour of tens of millions of us. We ordinary Communists are also doing part of the work of the communist cause and carrying part of the responsibility. Of course, our part is much smaller than that of Marx, Engles, Lenin or Stalin. Nevertheless, we have a small part. Big or small, it is all part of the great cause. Therefore, if only we do our part of the work well, we can consider that we have done our duty. Naturally we should try our best to do more, but if we cannot and can only do a little, that is also useful and just as honourable. In any case, we should at least not hamper the progress of the communist cause, but should do our part, whether big of small, and perform our work well, be it heavy or light; that is the correct attitude for every member of our Party. Comrades who are unwilling to undertake technical work think that it stifles their talents, that it prevents them from becoming famous (actually it does not, as witness the technical worker [[Alexei Stakhanov|Stakhanov]]<sup>1</sup> and from giving full play to their abilities and that it kills some of the enterprising spirit which all Communists should have. This view is wrong. Technical work occupies a very important place in our Party work, and comrades engaged in it are doing their share in the communist cause no less than comrades engaged in other jobs. The proper attitude for a Communist is to do whatever work the Party requires of him and do it happily and well, whether it suits his inclinations of not.<br />
<br />
Naturally, in assigning work to members, the Party organization and the responsible Party comrades should, as far as possible, take their individual inclinations and aptitudes into consideration, develop their strong points and stimulate their zeal to go forward. However, no Communist must refuse a Party assignment on the grounds of personal preference.<br />
<br />
Fourth, A small number of comrades are deeply imbued with the ideology of the exploiting classes. They are usually unscrupulous in dealing with comrades and in handling problems inside the Party, and are utterly devoid of the great and sincere proletarian communist spirit of mutual help and solidarity.<br />
<br />
People with this ideology always want to climb over the heads of others in the Party and, to this end, resort to attacking others and doing them harm. They are jealous of those more capable than themselves. They always try to pull down those who are moving ahead of them. They cannot bear playing second fiddle and think only of themselves and never of others. When other comrades are suffering difficulties of setbacks, they gloat or secretly rejoice and have no comradely sympathy at all. They even scheme to injure comrades "drop on one who has fallen into a well", and take advantage of comrades' weaknesses and difficulties to attack and harm them. They "crawl through any crack" and exploit and exacerbate any weakness in Party organization and work for their personal advantage.. They love to stir up trouble in the Party, speak ill of others behind their backs and engage in intrigues in order to sow dissension between comrades. They love to join in any unprincipled dispute that may occur in the Party and take great interest in unprincipled quarrels. They are especially active in stirring up and aggravating such quarrels when the Party is in difficulties. In short, they are thoroughly crooked and lack all integrity. Would it not be absurd to describe such people as being able to grasp the Marxist-Leninist theory and method and give expression to proletarian ideology? It is only too clear that all they express is the ideology of the declining exploiting classes.<br />
<br />
All exploiters must do harm to other people in order to expand. To increase their wealth, or to avoid bankruptcy in an economic crisis, bigger capitalists must squeeze many smaller capitalists out of existence and drive countless workers to starvation. To enrich themselves, landlords must exploit peasants and deprive many of them of their land. In order to expand, fascist Germany, Italy and Japan must devastate other countries; they have subjugated Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Abyssinia<sup>2</sup> and are committing aggression against China. Exploiters always harm and ruin other people as a necessary precondition for their own expansion; their happiness is founded on the suffering of others. Among the exploiters, therefore, genuine firm unity, genuine mutual help, and genuine human sympathy are impossible; they inevitably engage in intrigues and underhand activities in order to ruin others. Yet they have to lie and pose as saints and pillars of justice before the people. Such are the distinguishing characteristics of all declining exploiting classes. These person be models of "fine" ethical conduct for the exploiters, but they are most criminal from the point of view of the proletariat and the masses.<br />
<br />
The proletariat is the complete antithesis of the exploiting classes. It does not exploit others but is itself exploited. There is no conflict of basic interests within its ranks or between it and the other oppressed and exploited working people. Far from needing to harm other working people or impede their development for the sake of its own development and emancipation, the proletariat most forge the closest unity with them in the common struggle. If the proletariat is to emancipate itself, it must at the same time emancipate all other working people and emancipate all humanity. There can be no such thing as the separate emancipation of a single worker or section of workers. The proletariat must carry the cause of the emancipation of humanity through to the end, fighting step by step for the liberation of all humanity, and there can be no giving up or compromising half-way.<br />
<br />
As a result of this objective position occupied by the proletariat, the ideology of the politically conscious workers is the diametrical opposite of that of the exploiters. Communists are vanguard fighters of the proletariat, who arm themselves with Marxism-Leninism and are ruthless towards the people's enemies but never towards the toilers, their class brothers and comrades. They differentiate clearly and sharply between the attitudes and methods to be adopted against the enemy and those to be adopted towards their comrades and friends. They cherish great and sincere friendship, warmth and sympathy for other members of their own class and for all oppressed and exploited working people, towards whom they show a fine spirit of mutual help, firm unity and genuine equality. They are absolutely opposed to privileges of any kind for anyone, consider it impermissible to think in terms of privilege for themselves, and would deem it unthinkable and even a disgrace, to occupy a privileged position among the people. If they themselves are to develop and improve status, they must develop others and improve the status of all the working people at the same time. They are anxious not to fall behind, whether ideologically or politically or in their work, and they have a sturdy spirit of enterprise, but at the same time they esteem, cherish and support those who are ahead of them in these respects and, without any jealousy, do their best to learn from them. They are deeply concerned with the sufferings and privations of their own class and of all working people, they are concerned with all the struggles of the working people for emancipation anywhere in the world, regarding every victory or defeat for the working people anywhere as their own victory of defeat, and therefore displaying the greatest solidarity. They consider it wrong to be indifferent to the struggle of the working and oppressed people for liberation and criminal to gloat over their set-backs They cherish their own comrades and brothers, whose weaknesses and mistakes they criticize frankly and sincerely (and this shows genuine affection); in matters of principle they never gloss over and accommodate, let alone encourage mistakes (to accommodate or even to encourage others' mistakes does not betoken genuine affection for one's comrades). They do everything possible to help comrades overcome weaknesses and correct mistakes and never exploit or aggravate these weaknesses and mistakes to get comrades into trouble, let alone cause the mistakes to develop beyond correction. Not harbouring any desire to settle old scores, they can return good for evil to their own comrades and brothers and help them straighten themselves out. They can be strict with themselves and lenient with others. The stand they take is firm, strict and principled, their attitude is frank, upright and responsible, they do not give way on matters of principle, they do not tolerate anyone who harms the Party, they do not permit anyone to insult them and are particularly contemptuous of adulation and flattery as contrary to all principle. They oppose all unprincipled struggles; they do not let themselves become involved in such struggles and are not swayed or affected by irresponsible or casual criticism made behind their backs as to depart from principle, become incapable of thinking calmly or lose their composure. Such are the proletarian qualities in the most concentrated, exemplary and concrete form. These qualities represent everything of integrity in present-day society. Indeed it is the Communist Party that represents human integrity. We must foster and enhance such proletarian integrity and overcome all that is crooked and evil.<br />
<br />
Fifth. Pettiness, fussing over trifles and ignoring the general interest are faults still prevalent among some Party members. These comrades lack the nature and breadth of vision of Communists and are blind to the bigger things; they relish only the immediate and petty. They do not take much interest in the great problems and events in the Party and the revolution, but are always fussing over the merest trifles about which they enter into ponderous and endless arguments and become highly disturbed. Such people are also easily led by the nose when they receive some small favour or kindness. They have the petty-mindedness characteristic of small rural producers.<br />
<br />
There are other people who do not seem to have a clear-cut and definite attitude in their Party life, people who shift and hedge. They are actually of two kinds; for one kind the question is one of understanding and for the other, of moral character. The latter are always opportunistic in their personal behaviour, curry favour with all sides and try to please everybody. They tailor their words to the person and the circumstances, tack with the wind and show no principle whatsoever. Such are their characteristics. Sometimes, they wait and see what will suit the occasion, like the bat in Aesop's Fables,<sup>3</sup> and then move over to the winning side. Such-double faced creatures, who are neither fish nor fowl, are not altogether unknown in our ranks. They have the traits of the old-fashioned merchant. In addition, there are some individuals who, unable to resist the lure of the old society's exploiting classes, with their glittering world, their money and their women, begin to waver, go wrong and eventually to betray the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
Finally, the ideology of some of our Party comrades often reflects the impetuosity and vacillation of the petty-bourgeoisie and the destructiveness of the lumpen-proletariat and certain bankrupt peasants, but I shall not go into this question here.<br />
<br />
To sum up, our Party represents the great and powerful proletarian communist ideology, but it must be noted that all kinds of non-proletarian ideology—including even the ideology of the declining exploiting classes—are still reflected to a greater or lesser degree in the minds of certain comrades. At times such ideology is dormant in the Party, revealing itself only in insignificant matters of everyday life; but at other times it becomes active, systematically revealing itself in a whole variety of questions of Party principle, in major political questions and in problems of inner Party struggle. Certain sections of links in the Party organization may come to be dominated and corroded by such erroneous ideology, and in extreme cases in may even temporarily dominate key links in the Party leadership, as in the periods when people like [[Chen Duxiu]]<sup>4</sup> and [[Zhang Guotao]]<sup>5</sup> were in control. In normal periods, however, it is held in check by the correct proletarian ideology. These are all manifestations within the Party of the struggle between the proletarian and non-proletarian ideology. Similarly with some individual Party members. At times what is wrong in their ideology lies dormant and under control, but at other times it may grow and even dominate their actions. This is a manifestation among individual Party members of the contradiction and struggle between proletarian and non-proletarian ideology. For our Party members, ideological self-cultivation means that they must conscientiously use the proletarian ideology and the communist world outlook to overcome and eliminate all the various kinds of incorrect, non-proletarian ideology.<br />
<br />
== The Source of Wrong Ideology in Our Party ==<br />
The Communist Party, representing the brightest and most progressive aspects of contempory human society, is the bearer and disseminator of Marxism-Leninism, the acme of human thought. The most politically conscious, progressive and developed people in the world, people with the highest sense of morality and justice, are gathered in the communist Parties, fighting unswervingly against all the forces of darkness and for the bright future and final emancipation of humanity. The Communist Party of China is one of the best Communist Parties in the world. Guided by our leader Comrade Mao Zedong, our Party is armed with the powerful weapon of Marxist-Leninist theory and, at the same time, is carrying forward the fine traditions of progressive thinkers and revolutionaries in Chinese history. It represents the most progressive and brightest aspects of Chinese society, and the finest sons and daughters of the Chinese nation are gathered within its organized ranks. It has been fighting the forces of darkness in Chinese society for a long time, has gone through an arduous process of tempering and has accumulate rich experience in revolutionary struggle. In all this we Communists can justly take pride. There is every ground for absolute confidence that we shall finally be successful and victorious. However, we cannot say yet that everything in our organization is perfect, or that there are no shortcomings and faults. Nor can we say that our ranks are free from unsound and even bad elements, who might be quite capable of any sort of nastiness. In other words, our glorious Party contains some undesirable phenomena, some dark spots which I have already enumerated.<br />
<br />
Now when a family acquires an ugly son-in-law or daughter-in-law, it can not always keep him or her away from the guests. Even if we wanted to do so by taking the attitude of trying to "conceal the family shame", it would be impossible to hide such unpleasantness. The masses of the people are in constant contact with our Party, sympathisers come here to visit us and people who look up to us including many young men and women, come here to study or to join our Party. When they arrive, besides the progressive, fine and attractive things and "members of the family", they will naturally see the ugly sons- or daughters-in-law who might publicly say or do something unpleasant or make a spectacle of themselves, to the perplexity or our guests and new Party members. The newcomers may ask, "Does not the Communist Party stand for all that is just? Are Communists not the finest people? Why are there still such bad people and ugly things in the Communist Party? How strange!" Before joining the Party, some young comrades were bitterly dissatisfied with existing society, saw no way out and turned to the Communist Party as to a beacon of light. They thought that everything would be satisfactory and would work out well once they joined. Yet after doing so, or after arriving in our revolutionary base area, they find there are shortcomings and mistakes in the Party, too, and in real life not everything is satisfactory (much that would satisfy them would not be in the interests of the revolution and the Party), and so they feel reality is not entirely as they pictured it, and some begin to have doubts and feel puzzled. They ask, "Why are such things to be found in the Communist Party as well?" Before coming to Yan'an or before enrolling in the Anti-Japanese Military and Political College, some people imagined Yan'an and the College would live up to their dreams, but after their arrival and enrollment they do not find everything to their satisfaction and are perplexed. They ask, "How can such things happen even in Yan'an and the Anti-Japanese College?" And failing to find answers, some even become pessimistic and disheartened.<br />
<br />
Their questions should alert our Party members and cadres and be a lesson to them so that they will give serious attention to guiding and taking care of all new Party members and all who are moving in our direction and to ensuring they are not adversely affected. But, quite apart from this, we should explain things clearly to comrades inside and outside the Party.<br />
<br />
Why are there still such undesirable things in our splendid Party? The reason, I think, is rather simple. Our Party has not fallen from the skies, but has grown out of Chinese society. In general, our Party consists of the finest sons and daughters of our country, the vanguard of the Chinese proletariat, but they come from all strata of the old society, and in China today there still exists exploiting classes and the influence of these classes—selfishness, intrigue, bureaucracy and various types of filth. We have many excellent Party members who are not easily affected by such influences. But it is so strange that certain members bring some of the filth of the old society with them into our Party of reflect it there? Is it so strange that a person that has just crawled out of the mud is covered with slime? Of course not. It is only to be expected. It would be strange and indeed incredible, if the ranks of the Communist Party were absolutely free from such filth. It may be said that so long as such filth exists in society, so long as classes and exploiting class influences exist in society, there is bound to be some filth in the Communist Party. It is precisely because there is such filth in society, and in the Party, that it is the duty of the communist Party to change existing society, and it is necessary for Communists to remould, cultivate and temper themselves. In addition to carrying on a struggle in society at large against everything evil and backward,, it is imperative for us to carry on a struggle inside the Party against every social evil and backward influence as mirrored in the Party by vacillating and unsteady elements. This is the source of inner-Party contradiction and struggle. Through struggle, both inside and outside the Party, we seek to change society and gradually rid it of its evils and backwardness, and at the same time seek to perfect our Party and remould our Party members, and to resolve our inner-Party contradictions, so that our Party and its membership will become healthier and stronger.<br />
<br />
Stalin said:<blockquote>The source of the contradiction within the proletarian parties lies in two circumstances.</blockquote>What are these circumstances?<br />
<br />
They are firstly the pressure exerted by the bourgeoisie and bourgeois ideology on the proletariat and its party in the conditions of the class struggle—a pressure to which the least stable strata of the proletariat, and hence the least stable strata of the proletarian party, not infrequently succumb. It must not be thought that the proletariat is completely isolated from society, that it stands outside society. The proletariat is a part of society, connected with its diverse strata by numerous threads. But the party is a part of the proletariat Hence the Party cannot be exempt from connections with, and from the influence of, the diverse sections of the bourgeois society The pressure of the bourgeoisie and its ideology on the proletariat and its party finds expression in the fact that bourgeois ideas, manners, customs and sentiments not infrequently penetrate the proletariat and its party through definite strata of the proletariat that are in one way or another connected with bourgeois society.<br />
<br />
They are, secondly, the heterogeneity of the working class, the existence of a different strata within the working class....<br />
<br />
One stratum is the main mass of the proletariat, its core, its permanent part, the mass of "pure blooded" proletarians, who have long broken off connection with the capitalist class. This stratum of the proletariat is the most reliable bulwark of Marxism.<br />
<br />
The second stratum consists of new comers from non-proletarian classes—from the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie or the intelligencia. These are former members of other classes who have only recently merged with the proletariat and brought with them into the working class their customs, their habits, their waverings and their vacillations. This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for all sorts of anarchist, semi-anarchist and "ultra-Left" groups.<br />
<br />
The third stratum, lastly, consists of the labour aristocracy, the upper stratum of the working class, the most well-to-do portion of the proletariat, with its propensity for compromise with the bourgeoisie, its predominant inclination to adapt itself to the powers that be, and its anxiety go "get on in life". This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for outright reformists and opportunists.<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
Here we see the source of the various kinds of non-proletarian ideology and the various errors, shortcomings and undesirable phenomena that exist in our proletarian party. Here, indeed, is the source of the various contradictions that are present in our Party.<br />
<br />
== Attitudes Towards Wrong Ideology in the Party and Towards Inner-Party Struggle ==<br />
The influences exerted by the exploiting classes and the petty bourgeoisie, the existence of different strata within the working class and the differences in the class background of our Party members give rise to different ideas among them, to certain differences in viewpoints, habits and sentiments, in world outlook and moral values, and differences in the way they look at and think about things in general and the problems of the revolution in particular.<br />
<br />
Some people in our Party are able to view issues as developing and interrelated, but others habitually view them statistically and in isolation. The former are able to grasp matters comprehensively and objectively and hence to draw correct conclusions that can serve us as correct guide lines to action. As for the latter, some of them only see or over emphasize this side of a thing, while others only see and over emphasize the other side; both fail to view problems comprehensively and objectively in accordance with the laws of the development and interrelationship of objective phenomena, and both take a one-sided, subjective view of problems. Hence, they are unable to arrive at correct conclusions or chart the right course for our actions.<br />
<br />
The differences among Party members in their approach to problems lead to different ways of handling problems, to divergences and controversies are bound to become especially acute at turning points in the revolution, or when the struggle grows in intensity and hardship mount.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the crux of the matter is not whether there are differences of thought and opinion within the Party, since such differences always exist. The crux of the matter is how to resolve contradictions, settle differences and overcome all kinds of incorrect, non-proletarian thinking. Obviously, it is only through inner-Party struggle that such contradictions can be resolved, differences settled and incorrect thinking overcome. As Engels put it, “In the long run the contradictions are never slurred over, but always fought out.”<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
Different people hold different views and take different attitudes with regard to shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in our Party.<br />
<br />
People of one kind do not or will not see shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in our Party, but blindly believe that there is scarcely anything wrong in it; hence they relax their vigilance and slacken their struggle their struggle against these phenomena. People of another kind see nothing, or hardly anything, except these undesirable phenomena and fail to see how correct and glorious our Party is; hence they become pessimistic and loose confidence, or they become alarmed and bewildered in the face of such phenomena. The views of both are wrong and one-sided. Our view is different.. On the one hand, we know we know that our Party is the political party of the proletariat, the most progressive and revolutionary party in China. On the other, we know clearly that there are still shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena, major and minor in our Party. Moreover, we clearly understand their source and how to correct and gradually eliminate them, and we are making constant efforts to temper ourselves, improve our work and wage the necessary struggles in order to promote the progress of the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
Since people differ in their class stand and their views, they take different attitudes towards what is undesirable in our Party. One attitude is that of alien class and hostile elements who have wormed their way into our Party. A second attitude is that of Party members who lack a firm proletarian stand and have a wrong way of thinking. A third is that of Party members who firmly uphold the principles of Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
The alien class and hostile elements who have worked their way into the Party are glad of its shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena. Gleefully seeking their opportunity, they use every possible means to exploit and magnify some of these undesirable phenomena for the purpose of wrecking our Party. Sometimes they even make a pretence of opposing certain mistakes and supporting the Party line in order to cause an opposite kind of mistake to be committed. People with the second type of attitude fall into the following distinct categories:<br />
<br />
1. Some Party members sympathize with and accept certain erroneous ideas, or follow the bad example of certain people in the Party, so as to further their personal ends and desires. They consider the existence of certain short comings and mistakes in the Party to be to their advantage and therefore, whether intentionally or unintentionally, aggravate these failings and exploit them. This is the attitude of careerists of bad characters in the Party.<br />
<br />
2. Some Party members do nothing about the shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party and allow them to grow. They just muddle along and are unwilling to fight these evils. They fear inner-Party struggle and self-criticism, considering them harmful to the Party, or they are insensitive or shut their eyes to the undesirable things, or they are perfunctory and compromising in the struggle against them. This is the attitude taken by Communists who have a weak sense of duty towards the Party, are extremely liberalistic, or are guilty of bureaucracy.<br />
<br />
3. The attitude of some Party members towards these shortcomings and mistakes and towards those comrades who have incorrect ideas is one of “bitter hatred and gall”. They lightly sever all relations with comrades who have committed some mistake and whom they attempt to expel from the Party outright. If they fail in this and need rebuffs, they give up and become pessimistic and down-hearted, or they keep aloof, “preserve their purity” and even put a great distance between themselves and the Party. This extreme attitude is also shown in some comradesÕ mechanical conception of inner-Party struggle and self-criticism. People with this attitude believe that inner-Party struggle must be launched under any and all circumstances—the more frequently and bitterly, the better. They magnify every trifle into a matter of “principle” and brand every tiny fault with such labels as political opportunism. They do not carry on inner-Party struggle properly and specifically in accordance with the objective needs and objective laws of development, but instead “struggle” mechanically, subjectively and violently, regardless of the consequences. This is the attitude taken by Party members who do not understand the source of inner-Party contradictions, who lack skill in dealing with inner-Party differences and who have a mechanical conception of inner-Party struggle. For a time, this extreme attitude towards inner-Party struggle was exploited by the “Left” opportunists in the Party. They intensified mechanical and excessive struggles to the point of deliberately hunting for “targets of struggle” within the Party, deliberately creating inner-Party struggles, punishing comrades by abusing Party disciplinary measures and even employing against them measures applicable to struggles outside the Party; and it was by such “struggles” and “disciplinary measures” that they tried to push the work ahead.<br />
<br />
The attitude we should adopt is the proletarian Marxist-Leninist one. Contrary to the erroneous attitudes described above, we advocate the following.<br />
<br />
1. First of all, get to know the various phenomena, ideas, views and opinions in the Party and distinguish those which are correct and beneficial to the interests of the Party and the revolution from those which are not, or, in the case of a dispute in which both sides are wrong, perceive this and be able to point out the correct view or opinion. After sober analysis and consideration, decide on a clear-cut attitude and take a correct stand. Do not follow blindly or drift with the tide.<br />
<br />
2. Profit by every good example, promote and spread a spirit of integrity in the Party and vigorously support all correct views and opinions. Do not follow any bad examples or be influenced by any wrong ideas.<br />
<br />
3. Do not take a liberalistic attitude or flinch from any necessary inner-Party struggle. Carry on an irreconcilable struggle in the Party against ideas and views which are wrong in principle and against all other undesirable phenomena, so that we can constantly move to overcome them; they should never be allowed to develop unchecked to the detriment of the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
4. Do not take a mechanical and extreme attitude. Properly combine irreconcilability and clarity in matters of principle with flexibility and patient persuasion in methods of struggle; in thecourse of prolonged struggles, educate, criticize, temper and remould comrades who have committed errors but who are not incorrigible. Such inner-Party ideological struggles on matters of principle as are necessary at different periods should be waged in a concrete and proper way; inner-Party struggles should not be waged indiscriminatingly, subjectively,, mechanically or on shadowy pretexts. Do not become “struggle addicts”.<br />
<br />
5. Strengthen the unity and discipline of the Party and enhance its prestige through inner-Party struggle. Organizational penalties, ranging all the way to expulsion, should be applied to the incorrigible elements of the Party. We should regard it as our supreme duty to safeguard the Party’s unity, preserve the purity of its ideology and consolidate its organization.<br />
<br />
Such is the attitude of all good Communists in the Party and indeed the only correct Marxist-Leninist attitude.<br />
<br />
It is not strange that our enemies should seek to make use of our every shortcoming and mistake to undermine our Party. Besides constantly sharpening our vigilance, we should do everything possible to give the enemy as little opportunity as possible to exploit shortcomings and mistakes in the Party whenever they occur; this is the duty of every comrade who cherishes the Party. If a Party member ignores this consideration in inner-Party struggle, if he only seeks to vent his feelings, or goes to the length of joining up with bad elements instead of rejecting their assistance, or even makes use of outside forces to help him attain some private ends within the Party, he will be making an unpardonable breach of discipline.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party should be the embodiment of correct ideology and should follow good examples in the Party; they should not follow but oppose wrong ideas and bad examples. But what actually happens is that some comrades that are generally correct in their ideology and follow good examples, sometimes reflect certain wrong ideas and follow certain bad examples. Other comrades seem to find it easy to learn from bad but hard to learn from good, and this merits our serious attention. When mistakes occur in the Party, they are apt to encourage or aggravate them, intentionally of unintentionally. In inner-Party struggles they are apt to take the wrong side or to go along with whichever side is currently in vogue., irrespective of right and wrong. These comrades will hardly make progress unless they receive strict criticism and rigorous tempering.<br />
<br />
Of course comrades who adopt a liberalistic or bureaucratic attitude towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomenon inside the Party are also wrong. This, I think should be quite clear to you as students of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism. For in the Party building course which you have studied, the necessity of self-criticism and ideological struggle within the Party is clearly and thoroughly discussed; you can go into it again, and I need not well on the matter further. However, I do want to point out that quite a few comrades have this liberalistic attitude. We often do not have enough really responsible and sincere criticism and self-criticism conducted in keeping with the Party’s organizational principles, for the purpose of exposing, correcting and eliminating the undesirable phenomena in the Party, and more particularly we do not have enough criticism from below and self-criticism, both of which would be greatly encouraged. On the other hand, there is quite a lot of criticism that is irresponsible and not in keeping with the Party’s organizational principles, of talking behind peopleÕs backs and gossip about this or that person or thing. Both are manifestations of liberalism in the Party. They show that some of the comrades are insufficiently mature politically and are not courageous enough in revolutionary struggle; they also indicate that inner-Party democracy has not been properly developed. Some comrades dare not dispense with face-saving, and fear to offend others lest they themselves incur complaints and counter-criticism. They would rather leave the shortcomings and mistakes alone, taking the attitude of “getting by” and “the less trouble the better”, but at the same time they talk about comrades behind their backs. All this harms the Party and does it no good. Irresponsible criticism and talk are not likely to overcome the shortcomings and mistakes in the party but will lead to unprincipled disputes and disunity. We stand for inner-Party criticism and self-criticism which is responsible and beneficial to the Party and is in keeping with its organizational principles.<br />
<br />
Shortcomings and mistakes exist in the Party and so do incorrect non-proletarian ideas. Any of these may at certain times develop into a trend, giving rise to differences of principle and imparing the PartyÕs unity of action. Hence it is impossible to educate the Party, the proletariat and the masses correctly if we do not unfold criticism and self-criticism, constantly expose and correct short comings and mistakes, overcome wrong ideas and conduct inner-Party struggle to resolve inner-Party differences, but instead take a compromising attitude and follow a “middle” line, or try to muddle through in inner-Party struggle.<br />
<br />
Liberalism in inner-Party struggle is manifested in yet another way. Thus when a dispute breaks out in the Party, many comrades put aside their work and indulge in aimless debate for days and months on end or let themselves go without restraint; as a result, the unity of the Party becomes the looser, Party discipline is weakened, the Party’s prestige is impaired and our militant Party organizations turn into debating societies. Such things have occurred more than once in certain Party organizations. They have absolutely nothing in common with the kind of criticism and self-criticism we advocate. We need criticism and self-criticism, not in order to impair the Party’s prestige, undermine its discipline and weaken its leadership, but in order to promote the Party’s prestige, consolidate its discipline and strengthen its leadership.<br />
<br />
Hence, it is wrong to adopt a liberalistic or bureaucratic attitude towards the various shortcomings and mistakes in the Party. In order to fight against all undesirable phenomena and resolve differences, we must promote criticism and self-criticism and conduct inner-Party struggle correctly. Only then can the party be strengthened, grow and advance.<br />
<br />
Comrades who take an extreme attitude in inner-Party struggle are also wrong.<br />
<br />
The extreme attitude is the exact antithesis of the liberalistic attitude. It arises because these comrades fail to understand that wrong ideas in the Party have deep social roots and cannot possibly be eliminated at one stroke. At various times and in varying degrees, many of our Party comrades may reflect certain incorrect ideas existing in society and may commit some mistakes in their work under the influence of non-proletarian ideologies; no comrade can entirely avoid this. If the Party were to refuse to retain or tolerate all comrades who reflect non-proletarian ideologies in some degree, or who have committed some mistakes and yet are not incorrigible, and were to reject them categorically and even expel them, then the tasks of educating the comrades and consolidating the Party’s organization would be nonexistent. Were our Party to follow such an extreme policy, the comrades promoting such actions would eventually have to be expelled themselves. In particular, these comrades fail to understand that the achievement of communism involves the tremendous and difficult task of transforming all humanity into the selfless citizenry of a communist society, the task of converting men with their many weaknesses into communists with a high level of culture through a long process of tempering and education in the course of struggle. If they did understand this, then they would understand that our Party has the important and constant duty of educating and remoulding people who are already members but whose ideology is not wholly proletarian.<br />
<br />
Naturally, the education and remoulding of such Party members is a most arduous task requiring prolonged and patient effort. Yet if we are unwilling to tackle this difficult task and shrink from it, how can we talk about changing the world and all humanity? Since we are determined to undertake, and not to shrink from, the unprecedentedly arduous task of changing the world and all humanity, what other task in the world today can daunt us? Party members who have the communist world outlook are dauntless, fear no difficulty or hardship, and understand that the process of development is torturous. Comrades who take an extreme attitude do not understand that the achievement of communism is an arduous and torturous task, they fear difficulties and crave a straight road, they want to eliminate everything unpleasant at one stroke and leap immediately into the world of their ideals. Thinking and acting in this way, they inevitably run their heads against a brick wall. And after banging and bruising their heads, they quite often become disheartened and loose their confidence in the future of communism. Thus they swing between extremes, from “Left” to “Right”, thereby revealing the essence of their non-proletarian ideology. It is regrettable that this erroneous, extreme attitude towards inner-Party shortcomings and mistakes should still be found to a greater or lesser extent among quite a few comrades, although it is harmful to the Party, to other comrades and to themselves.<br />
<br />
Inner-Party struggle is necessary not because we are subjectively addicted to struggle or partial to dispute, but because inner-Party differences of principle do arise in the growth of the Party and in the proletarian struggle. When they occur, “contradictions can be overcome only by means of a struggle for definite principles, for definite aims of the struggle, for definite methods of waging the struggle leading to the desired aim.”<sup>2</sup> Compromise is of no avail here. This means that when a dispute has developed into one of principle which can only be resolved through struggle, we should unflinchingly wage inner-Party struggle in order to resolve it. It does not mean that we should make a big fuss over small matters, conduct inner-Party struggle with stony faces and never compromise even on routine and on questions of a purely practical nature. “One can, and one should agree to any compromise with dissenters in the party on questions of current policy,, on questions of a purely practical nature.”<sup>3</sup><br />
<br />
When opportunist ideas and differences of principle arise in the Party, we must, of course, wage struggles to overcome those ideas and errors of principle. This defiantly does not mean that when there are no differences of principles and no opportunist ideas in the Party, we should deliberately magnify into “differences of principle” divergences of opinion among comrades on questions of a purely practical nature.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said: “The Party must on the one hand wage a serious struggle against erroneous thinking, and on the other give the comrades who have committed errors ample opportunity to wake up. This being the case, excessive struggle is obviously inappropriate.”<sup>4</sup><br />
<br />
It is necessary to make severe criticism of, or even to apply organizational penalties to, those comrades who, after committing opportunist mistakes or other mistakes of principle, turn a deaf ear to persuasion and Party criticism, wilfully and obstinately cling to their errors and resist Party policy, or double-faced in their attitude. But if these comrades do not cling to their mistakes but are willing to correct them and give up their previous point of view after sober discussion, persuasion and criticism, or if they coolly ponder over their mistakes or soberly discuss them with other comrades, we should welcome every small sign of progress on their part and not subject them to penalties undiscriminatingly. In criticism and inner-Party struggle, it is not true that the more stony-faced we are the better, or that the more comrades we punish the better; our highest aim is to educate the erring comrades to the best effect, help them to correct their mistakes, educate the entire membership and consolidate the Party.<br />
<br />
The “Left” opportunists are clearly wrong in their attitude towards inner-Party struggle. According to these almost hysterical people, any peace in the Party was intolerable—even peace based on complete unanimity on matters of principle an on the Party line. Even in the absence of any differences of principle in the Party, they deliberately hunted out targets, dubbed some comrades “opportunist” and set them up as “straw men” to shoot at in inner-Party struggle. They thought that such erroneous struggle and such shooting at “straw men” were the magic formula for developing the Party and achieving victory in the revolutionary fight of the proletariat. They considered that to stir up trouble out of nothing or to deliberately concoct inner-Party struggle was the only “Bolshevik” way. Of course, this is not serious and earnest inner-Party struggle; rather it is a mockery of the Party and the perverting of inner-Party struggle, which is a most serious matter, into a frivolous game. The advocates of such action are not Bolsheviks at all but are either people who are well-nigh incorrigible or careerists exploiting the name “Bolshevik”.<br />
<br />
We have been discussing the attitude to be adopted towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party. It is by combating all that is bad inside and outside the Party that we change the world and humanity and at the same time perfect the Party and remould ourselves. Inner-Party struggle is a reflection within the Party of existing contradictions in society between classes and between old and new. The Party tempers, develops and consolidates itself in the class struggle outside the Party (i.e., in the revolutionary struggles of the masses of the people) and simultaneously becomes consolidated and united through struggle inside the Party, and is therefore able to give more systematic, correct and effective leadership to the revolutionary struggle of the masses. Hence it would be utterly wrong, advantageous to the enemy, contrary to the laws of development of the class struggle and incompatible with our basic thesis of transformation of the world and humanity through struggle, if we were to adopt a liberal attitude towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party by flossing over internal differences of principle, covering up inner-Party contradictions, evading inner-Party struggle and just muddling along. Similarly, it would be wrong to isolate the struggle inside the Party from the class struggle outside the Party or the revolutionary movement of the masses and thus turn inner-Party struggle into empty talk. In fact, it is impossible to temper, develop and consolidate the party in isolation from the revolutionary struggle of the masses. However, it would be equally wrong and contrary to the laws of development of the Party, if we were to carry matters to the other extreme and adopt an extreme attitude towards all comrades who have shortcomings or have committed errors but who are not irredeemable, or if we were to fail to distinguish between them and the enemy, conducting mechanical and excessive inner-Party struggles against them and wilfully fabricating such struggles. We should not break with comrades who have committed errors but who are nevertheless loyal. Rather, we should show concern and sympathy for them, persuade and educate them and help them temper and reform themselves in struggle. We should not castigate or expel them unless they persist in their mistakes and prove incorrigible.<br />
<br />
Although there are still some shortcomings and mistakes, some isolated minor evils in our Party, we are fully confident that with the advance of the working-class movement we can and will get rid of them through the great revolutionary struggles of the masses. The history of nearly two decades of struggle and glorious progress by the Communist Party of China and the worldwide development of the working-class movement, thoroughly convince us of this.<br />
<br />
Inner-Party struggle is an indispensable component of the revolutionary struggle as a whole. Our comrades should therefore temper and cultivate themselves both in struggles outside the Party and in the struggle on two fronts inside the Party. Among many Party comrades, however, there is still no genuinely profound appreciation of such inner-Party struggle, and there is insufficient tempering and self-cultivation. This is manifested not only in the frequent unprincipled struggles carried on by some comrades but also in the fact that certain comrades, including even some with a fairly long history of militant struggle, cannot stand being criticized of misjudged. When fighting the counter-revolution, they never waver, complain or feel dejected, however ruthless the struggle, however bitter the conditions and however vicious the enemy’s blows. Yet in inner-Party struggle they cannot stand being criticized, attacked, misjudged or wronged, or tolerate even a single unpleasant word. Or they suspect people of making pointed allusions to them, and so they complain and feel very dejected. We must really five this kind of thing our attention.<br />
<br />
It must be stated that on the whole these comrades are very good because they wage resolute struggle against the counter-revolutionaries and look upon the Party as a most affectionate mother. After going out to fight hard battles against the counter-revolutionaries they should receive encouragement, consolation and caresses, and not blows and wrongs, when they return to their great mother’s embrace. It is only natural for them to expect such treatment. However, they fail to take one point into account, or fully into account—that our Party still has shortcomings and faults and that there are inner-Party struggles which every comrade must take part in. Our Party criticises and combats shortcomings and faults not because it is unfeeling but because such action is unavoidable in the course of revolutionary struggle. It is necessary for comrades in the course of inner-Party struggle to receive well founded criticism, for it is helpful to them, to the other comrades and to the whole Party. On the other hand, it is also unavoidable that at times some comrades will receive unfounded criticisms or be attacked on certain matters, or will even be wrongly judged and disciplined. Failing to allow for this, they become shocked and feel most miserable and dejected when it occurs.<br />
<br />
In this connection, it is my opinion that every Party member should pay attention to uniting with his comrades, be sincere and open,, refrain from hurting others by thoughtless or sarcastic remarks and, in particular, refrain from irresponsibly criticizing comrades behind their backs. The proper attitude to any comrade’s mistakes is sincerely to remonstrate with him and criticize him to his face., out of concern for the comrade and a desire to be of help. All of us, and especially those in more responsible positions, must bear this in mind.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, it is my opinion that comrades should be mentally prepared for inner-Party struggle, should open-mindedly accept all well-grounded criticism and be able to endure misunderstandings or attacks, or even unfairness and injustice; in particular, they should not get upset or excited over irresponsible and unjustified criticism or rumours. As far as irresponsible misjudgement and criticism are concerned—that is, excluding properly conducted criticism among comrades or through the Party organization—one can try and clear the matter up or offer some explanation when necessary, but if that does not help, one might just as well let others say what they please, provided there is nothing wrong in one’s thinking and behaviour. Let us remember the Chinese sayings: “Who never gossips about others behind their backs or is never the subject of gossip?” and “Never mind the storm, just sit tight in the fishing boat.” No one in this world can entirely avoid being misunderstood, but misunderstandings can always be cleared up sooner or later. We should be able to endure misunderstandings and should never allow ourselves to be dragged into unprincipled struggle; at the same time, we should be always vigilant and keep watch over our own thoughts and actions.<br />
<br />
That is to say, we should take care not to use words that wound other comrades and should be able to stand injurious language from others.<br />
<br />
We are radically opposed to unprincipled disputes in the Party. Since they are unprincipled, they are useless and harmful to the Party, and there is generally little of right or wrong, or good or bad, about them. In such unprincipled struggles, therefore, there is no point in passing judgement as to who is right and who is wrong, or estimating who is better and who is worse, because that is impossible. All we can do is radically to oppose struggles of that kind and ask the comrades involved unconditionally to stop them and get back to principles. This is the policy we should adopt towards unprincipled disputes and struggles. But what is to be done if unprincipled disputes do arise and if many of them get tangled up with struggles over principle? What should be done if such disputes knock at our door and we get dragged into them? All we can do in that case is, again, to put the stress on the questions of principle and avoid stressing those not involving any principle. Basing ourselves on the policy outlined here, we should handle such unprincipled disputes strictly and ourselves stand firm on the principle from beginning to end, refusing to be dragged into the unprincipled disputes. When something does go wrong to you, do not throw back something wrong at him. Always stand by the right to oppose the wrong. Some of our comrades find it very difficult to act in this way, which shows why special attention to self-tempering and self-cultivation is necessary.<br />
<br />
Let me briefly sum up the points discussed.<br />
<br />
The aim of ideological self-cultivation by members of the Communist party is to temper themselves to become staunch and utterly devoted members and cadres of the Party who make constant progress and serve as examples for others. What is required of us is the following:<br />
<br />
1. To build up our communist world outlook and a firm Party and proletarian class standpoint through the study of Marxism-Leninism and participation in the revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
2. To examine our own thinking and behaviour, to correct all erroneous ideas and at the same time to judge questions and judge other comrades on the basis of our communist world outlook and our firm Party and proletarian class standpoint.<br />
<br />
3. Always to adopt a correct attitude and appropriate methods in the struggle against erroneous ideology in the Party, and especially against the erroneous ideology which affects the current revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
4. To keep a firm control over ourselves in thought, speech and action, especially to take a firm standpoint and adhere to correct principles with regard to political ideas, statements and activities which are related to the current revolutionary struggle. In addition, it is as well to be careful even over “trifles” (in one's personal life, attitude, etc.). But as for making demands on other comrades, apart from matters of principle and major political questions, we should not be too severe or fault finding over “trifles”.<br />
<br />
In my opinion, the above is what we mean, fundamentally, when we talk about ideological self-cultivation by members of the Communist Party.<br />
[[Category:Library works by Liu Shaoqi]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:How_to_Be_a_Good_Communist&diff=64300Library:How to Be a Good Communist2024-03-17T16:25:04Z<p>RedCustodian: /* The Cause of Communism is the Greatest and Most Arduous Undertaking in Human History */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Library work|title=How to Be a Good Communist|author=Liu Shaoqi|written in=1939}}<br />
<br />
Comrades,<br />
<br />
The question I shall discuss us how members of the [[Communist Party of China|Communist Party]] should cultivate and temper themselves. It may not be unprofitable to the building and consolidation of the Party to take up this question at this present time.<br />
<br />
== Why Communists Must Undertake Self-Cultivation ==<br />
Why must Communists undertake to cultivate themselves?<br />
<br />
In order to live, person must wage a struggle against nature and make use of nature to produce [[Materialism|material]] values. At all times and under all conditions, his [[production]] of material things is social in character. It follows that when men engage in production at any [[Mode of production|stage of social development]], they have to enter into certain [[relations of production]] with one another. In their ceaseless struggle against nature, men ceaselessly change nature and simultaneously change themselves and their mutual relations. Men themselves, their social relations, their form of social organization and consciousness were all different from what they are today, and in the future they will again be different.<br />
<br />
Humanity and human society are in process of [[Historical materialism|historical development]]. When human society reached a certain historical stage, [[Social class|classes]] and [[class struggle]] emerged. Every member of a [[class society]] exists as a member of a given class and lives in given conditions of class struggle. Man’s social being determines his consciousness. In class society the ideology of the members of each class reflects a different position and different class interests. The class struggle constantly goes on among these classes with their different positions, interests and ideologies. Thus it is not only in the struggle against nature but in the struggle of social classes that men change nature, change society and at the same time change themselves.<br />
<br />
[[Karl Marx|Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]] said:<blockquote>Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary, an alteration that can only take place in a practical movement, a ''[[Proletarian revolution|revolution]]''; the revolution is necessary, therefore, not only the [[Bourgeoisie|ruling class]] cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because [[Proletariat|the class ''overthrowing'' it]] can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>That is to say, the proletariat must conscientiously go through long periods of social revolutionary struggles and, in such struggles change society and change itself.<br />
<br />
We should therefore see ourselves as in need of change and capable of being changed. We should not look upon ourselves as immutable, perfect and sacrosanct, as persons who need not and cannot be changed. When we pose the task of remoulding ourselves in social struggle, we are not demeaning ourselves; the objective laws of social development demand it. Unless we do so, we cannot make progress, or fulfill the task of changing society.<br />
<br />
We Communists are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history; to day the changing of society and the world rests upon us and we are the driving force in this change. It is by unremitting struggle against [[Counterrevolution|counter-revolutionaries]]<sup>3</sup> that we Communists change society and the world, and at the same time ourselves.<br />
<br />
When we say Communists must remould themselves by waging struggles in every sphere against the counter-revolutionaries,<sup>3</sup> we mean that it is through such struggles that they must seek to make progress and must enhance their revolutionary quality and ability. An immature revolutionary has to go through a long process of revolutionary tempering and self-cultivation, a long process of remoulding, before he can become a mature and seasoned revolutionary who can grasp and skillfully apply the laws of revolution. For in the first place, a comparatively immature revolutionary, born and bred in the old society, carries with him the remnants of the various ideologies of that society (including its prejudices, habits and traditions), and in the second he has not been through a long period of revolutionary activity. Therefore he does not yet have a really thorough understanding of the enemy, of the people or of the laws of social development and revolutionary struggle. In order to change this state of affairs, besides learning from past revolutionary experience (the practice of our predecessors), he must themself participate in contemporary revolutionary practice, and in this revolutionary practice and struggle against all kinds of counter revolutionaries,<sup>3</sup> he must bring his conscious activity into full play and work hard at study and self-cultivation. Only so can he acquire deeper experience and understanding of the laws of social development and revolutionary struggle, acquire a really thorough understanding of the enemy and the people, discover his wrong ideas, habits and prejudices and correct them, and thus raise the level of his political consciousness, cultivate his revolutionary qualities and improve his revolutionary methods. Hence, in order to remould themself and raise his owl level, a revolutionary must take part in revolutionary practice from which he must on no account isolate themself. Moreover, he must strive to conduct self-cultivation and study in the course of practice. Otherwise, it will still be impossible for him to make progress.<br />
<br />
For example, several Communists take part in a revolutionary mass struggle together and engage in revolutionary practice under roughly the same circumstances and conditions. It is possible that the effect of the struggle on these Party members will not be at all uniform. Some will make very rapid progress and some who used to lag behind will even forge ahead of others. Other Party members will advance very slowly. Still others will waver in the struggle and, instead of being pushed forward by revolutionary practice, will fall behind. Why?<br />
<br />
Or take another example. Many members of our Party were on the [[Long March]]; it was a severe process of tempering for them, and the overwhelming majority made very great progress indeed. But the Long March had the opposite effect on certain individuals in the Party. After having been on the Long March they began to shrink before arduous struggles, and some of them even planned to back out or to run away and later, succumbing to outside allurements, actually deserted the revolutionary ranks. Many Party members took part in the Long March together, and yet its impact and results varied very greatly. Again, why?<br />
<br />
Basically speaking, these phenomena are reflections of our revolutionary ranks of the class struggle in society. Our Party members differ in quality because they differ in social background and have come under different social influences. They differ in their attitude, stand and comprehension in relation to the revolutionary practice, and consequently they develop in different directions in the course of revolutionary practice. This can clearly be seen in your institute as well. You all receive the same education and training here, and yet because you differ in quality and experience, in degree of effort and self-cultivation, you may obtain different of even contrary results. Hence, subjective effort and self-cultivation in the course of revolutionary struggle are absolutely essential, indeed, indispensable for a revolutionary in remoulding themself and raising his own level.<br />
<br />
Whether he joined the revolution long ago or just recently, every Communist who wants to become a good politically mature revolutionary must undergo a long period of tempering in revolutionary struggle, must steel themself in mass revolutionary struggles and all kinds of difficulties and hardships, must sum up the experience gained through practice, make great efforts in self-cultivation, raise his ideological level, heighten his ability and never loose sense of what is new. For only thus can he turn themself into a politically staunch revolutionary of high quality.<br />
<br />
[[Confucius]] said “At fifteen, my mind was bent on learning. At thirty, I could think for myself. At forty, I was no longer perplexed. At fifty, I knew the decree of Heaven. At sixty, my ear was attuned to the truth. At seventy, I can follow my heart’s desire without transgressing what is right.”<sup>4</sup> Here the [[Feudalism|feudal]] philosopher was referring to his own process of self-cultivation; he did not consider themself to have been born a “sage”.<br />
<br />
[[Mencius]], another feudal philosopher, said that no one had fulfilled a “great mission” and played a role in history without first undergoing a hard process of tempering, a process which “exercises his mind with suffering and toughens his sinews and bones with toil, exposes his body to hunger, subjects him to extreme poverty, thwarts his under-takings and thereby stimulates his mind, tempers his character and adds to his capacities”.<sup>5</sup> Still more so must Communists give attention to tempering and cultivating themselves in revolutionary struggles, since they have the historically unprecedented “great mission” of changing the world.<br />
<br />
Our Communist self-cultivation is the kind essential to proletarian revolutionaries. It must not be divorced from revolutionary practice or from the actual revolutionary movements of the labouring masses, and especially of the proletarian masses.<br />
<br />
Comrade [[Mao Zedong]] has said:<blockquote>Discover the truth through practice, and again through practice verify and develop the truth. Start from perceptual knowledge and actively develop it into rational knowledge; then start from rational knowledge and actively guide revolutionary practice to change both the subjective and the objective world. Practice, knowledge, again practice and again knowledge. This form repeats itself in endless cycles, and with each cycle the content the content of practice and knowledge rises to a higher level. Such is the whole of the dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge, and such is the dialectical-materialist theory of the unity of knowing and doing.<sup>6</sup></blockquote>Our Party members should temper themselves and intensify their self-cultivation not only in the hardships, difficulties and reverses of revolutionary practice, but also in the course of smooth, successful and victorious revolutionary practice. Some members of our Party cannot stand the plaudits of success and victory; they let victories turn their heads, become brazen, arrogant, and bureaucratic and may even vacillate, degenerate and become corrupted, completely loosing their original revolutionary quality. Individual instances of this kind are not uncommon among our Party members. The existence of such a phenomenon in the Party calls for our comrades’ sharp attention.<br />
<br />
In past ages, before the proletarian revolutionaries appeared on the scene, practically all [[Revolution|revolutionaries]] became corrupted and degenerated with the achievement of victory. They lost their original revolutionary spirit and became obstacles to the further development of the revolution. [[Republic of China|China]]’s [[History of China|history]] over the past century, or to speak of more recent times, over the past fifty years, has shown us that many bourgeois and [[Petty bourgeoisie|petty-bourgeois]] revolutionaries in the past and by the nature of earlier revolutions. Before the [[Russian revolution of 1917|Great October Socialist Revolution]] in [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1991)|Russia]], all revolutions throughout history invariably ended in the suppression of the rule of one [[Exploitation|exploiting]] class by that of another. Thus, once they themselves became the ruling class, these revolutionaries lost their revolutionary quality and turned round to [[Oppression|oppress]] the exploited masses; this was the inexorable law.<br />
<br />
But such can never be the case with the proletarian revolution and with the Communist Party. The proletarian revolution is a revolution to abolish all exploitation, oppression and classes. The Communist Party represents the proletariat which is itself exploited but does not exploit others and which can therefore carry the revolution through to the end finally abolish all exploitation and sweep away all the corruption and rottenness in human society. The proletariat is able to build a strictly organized and disciplined party and set up a centralized and at the same time democratic state apparatus, and through the Party and this state apparatus, it is able to lead the masses of the people in waging unrelenting struggle against all corruption and rottenness and in ceaselessly weeding out of the Party and the state organs all those elements that have become [[Corruption|corrupt]] and degenerate (whatever high office they may hold), thereby preserving the purity of the Party and the state apparatus. This outstanding feature of the proletarian revolution and of the [[Vanguard party|proletarian revolutionary party]] did not and could not exist in earlier revolutions and revolutionary parties. Members of our Party must be clear on this point, and—particularly when the revolution is successful and victorious and when they themselves enjoy the ever greater confidence and support of the masses—they must sharpen their vigilance, intensify their self-cultivation in proletarian ideology and always preserve their pure proletarian revolutionary character so that they will not fall into the rut of earlier revolutionaries who degenerated in the hour of success.<br />
<br />
Tempering and self-cultivation in revolutionary practice and tempering and self-cultivation in proletarian ideology are important for every Communist, especially after the seizure of political power. The Communist Party did not drop from heaven but was born out of the Chinese society. Every member of the Communist party has come from this society, is living in it today and is constantly exposed to its seamy side. It is not surprising then that Communists, whether they are of proletarian or non-proletarian origin and whether they are old or new members of the Party, should carry with them to a greater or lesser the thinking and habits of the old society. In order to preserve our purity as vanguard fighters of the proletariat and to enhance our revolutionary quality and working ability that is essential for every Communist to work hard to temper and cultivate themself in every respect.<br />
<br />
These are the reasons why Communists must undertake self-cultivation. I shall now discuss the criteria for Communist self-cultivation.<br />
<br />
== Be Worthy Pupils of Marx and Lenin ==<br />
The constitution of the party stipulates that membership is open to any member who accepts the Programme and [[Library:Constitution of the Communist Party of China (2022)|Constitution of the Party]]<ref group="ProleWiki 2.">At the time of writing, this would have been the [[Constitution of the Communist Party of China (1928)|1928 Constitution]].</ref> organizations, pays membership dues and works in one of the Party organizations. No one can be a Party member unless he fulfills these requirements. But no Communist should rest content with being a Party member who merely fulfills the minimum requirements; as laid down in the Party Constitution, he should strive to make progress ceaselessly raise the level of his political consciousness and diligently study [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxism-Leninism]], as manifested throughout their lives.<br />
<br />
Engels said of Marx:<blockquote>...Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being, to contribute to the liberation of the modern proletariat, which he was the first to make conscious of its own position and of its needs, conscious of the needs of its emancipation. Fighting was his element. And he fought with a passion, a tenacity and a success such as few could rival.<sup>1</sup></blockquote>Engels also said of Marx:<blockquote>None of us has the breadth of vision with which he, whenever it was necessary to act quickly, did the right thing and tackled the decisive issue.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>[[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] said concerning the necessity of our learning from the example of [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]]:<blockquote>Remember, love and study Ilyich, our teacher, our leader. Fight and defeat our enemies, home and foreign—in the way that Ilyich taught us. Build the new society, the new way of life, the new culture in the way that Ilyich taught us. Never refuse to do the little things, for from the little things are built the big things—that is one of Ilyich's important behests.<sup>3</sup></blockquote>On another occasion Stalin said:<blockquote>The electors, the people, must demand that their deputies should remain equal to their tasks, that in their work they should not sink to the level of political philistines, that in their posts definite as Lenin was, that they should be as fearless in battle and as merciless towards the complicated and some danger or other looms on the horizon, that they should be as free from all requiring a comprehensive orientation and a comprehensive weighing of all the pros and cons as Lenin did.<sup>4</sup></blockquote>These are the concise characterizations of Marx by Engels and of Lenin by Stalin. That is how all members of our Party should learn from the thinking and qualities of Marx and Lenin and strive to be their worthy pupils.<br />
<br />
Some say that the that the thinking and qualities of such great revolutionary geniuses as the founders of Marxism-Leninism cannot be acquired and that it is impossible to raise one's thinking and qualities to their high level. They regard the founders of Marxism-Leninism as born geniuses , as mysterious beings. Is such a view correct? I think not.<br />
<br />
True enough, the average Party comrade is far from possessing the great gifts and profound scientific knowledge of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, and most of our comrades cannot attain to their deep and broad erudition in the theory of proletarian revolution. But it is perfectly possible for our comrades to grasp the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism, cultivate the style of Marx and Lenin in work and in struggle, constantly heighten their revolutionary quality and become statesmen of the type of Marx and Lenin, if they really have the will. Take a really conscious and consistent stand as vanguard fighters of the proletariat, really acquire the communist world outlook, never isolate themselves from the current deep and great revolutionary movement of the proletariat and all the labouring masses, and exert themselves in study, self-tempering and self-cultivation.<br />
<br />
There is a saying of Mencius: "Everybody can be a [[History of China#Sage kings Yao and Shun|Yao or a Shun]]."<sup>5</sup> I think that was well said. Every Communist should keep his feet on the ground, seek the truth from the facts, work hard at tempering themself, work conscientiously at self-cultivation and do his best to improve his own thinking and quality. He should not regard the thinking and qualities of such great revolutionaries as the founders of Marxism-Leninism as beyond his reach, give up and be afraid to advance. For if he does so, he will become a "political philistine", a piece of "rotten wood that cannot be carved".<br />
<br />
We should of course adopt a correct attitude towards learning from the qualities of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and towards the learning of Marxism-Leninism itself. Otherwise it is impossible to learn anything, let alone to learn it well. In fact, there are different kinds of people in our ranks with different attitudes towards such learning.<br />
<br />
These are people who, when studying Marx and Lenin, fail to get to the essence of Marxism-Leninism, but only learn its terms and phrases superficially. Although they read Marxist-Leninist literature, they are unable to use its principles and conclusions as a guide to action and apply them to concrete, practical problems in real life. They are content to learn isolated principles and conclusions by rote, and even to style themselves as "[[Dogmatism|the genuine]]" Marxist-Leninists; but they are certainly not genuine Marxist-Leninists and their actions and methods are diametrically opposed to Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
We have had not a few people of this type in the Communist Party of China. We had certain representatives of dogmatism at one time who were even worse. These people knew absolutely nothing about Marxism-Leninism and could only babble Marxist-Leninist phraseology, and yet they regarded themselves as China's Marx or China's Lenin, posed as such in the Party and had the impudence to require that our Party members should revere them as Marx and Lenin are revered, support them as "the leaders" and accord them loyalty and devotion. They went so far as to appoint themselves "the leaders" without being chosen, climbed into positions of authority, issued orders to the Party like [[Patriarchy|patriarchs]], tried to lecture our Party, abused everything in the Party, wilfully attacked and punished our Party members and pushed them around. Those people had no sincere desire to study Marxism-Leninism or fight for the realization of communism—they were just careerists in the Party, termites in the communist movement. Such people were bound to be opposed and eventually unmasked and discarded by the rank and file. And indeed they were discarded by our Party members. But can we say with full confidence that no such people will reappear in our Party? No, we cannot yet say so.<br />
<br />
Then there are people of exactly the opposite kind. They see themselves above all as pupils of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, they conscientiously studyi the theory of Marxism-Leninism and strive to grasp its essence and spirit. They look up to the noble character and proletarian revolutionary qualities of the founders, and in the course of revolutionary struggles they conscientiously carry on self-cultivation and examine themselves to see if their handling of affairs, their dealings with people and their own behaviour conform to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism. They are well-read in Marxism-Leninism but at the same time they make a special effort to investigate and analyse living reality, to study the characteristics of their own time and all aspects of the situation facing the proletariat of their own country, and to integrate the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the revolution in their own country. They do not content themselves with memorizing Marxist-Leninist principles and conclusions, but take a firm Marxist-Leninist stand learn the Marxist-Leninist method and act accordingly, giving spirited guidance in every revolutionary struggle, and thus they transform reality and at the same time transform themselves. Every one of their actions without exception is guided by the general principles of Marxism-Leninism and is devoted to the victory of the proletarian cause, the liberation of the nation and all humanity, and the triumph of Communism.<br />
<br />
The attitude of these people is the only correct one. It is the one attitude towards studying Marxism-Leninism and learning from the qualities of its founders that will enable us to become communist proletarian revolutionaries of the Marx and Lenin type.<br />
<br />
A person who really takes pain to cultivate themselves and to be a faithful pupil of the founders of Marxism-Leninism will lay special stress on maintaining the Marxist-Leninist stand and using the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint and method to solve the problems arising in the revolutionary movement lead by the proletariat, as the founders of Marxism-Leninism did. He will give no thought whatsoever to his own position or fame in the Party, nor will he ever claim to be a Marx or a Lenin, nor require nor expect others to have the same high respect for him as for Marx or Lenin, for he does not think he has any right to do so. Yet such a person will enjoy the considered respect and support of the mass of the Party members just because he acts in this way, because he is always honest and loyal, brave and firm, and shows great ability in the revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
Of course it is not easy to model ourselves on the founders of Marxism-Leninism and to be their faithful and worthy pupils. But we can become their faithful and worthy pupils if we are strong-willed and determined to fight hard for the cause of communism, if we diligently study Marxism-Leninism amid the great revolutionary struggles of the masses and are good at summing up experience and if we temper and cultivate ourselves in every respect and devote our whole lives to the proletarian communist cause.<br />
<br />
=== ProleWiki annotations ===<br />
<references group="ProleWiki 2." /><br />
<br />
== The Self-Cultivation of Communists and the Revolutionary Practice of the Masses ==<br />
In order to become faithful and worthy pupils of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, we must engage in all round self-cultivation in the course of the great and protracted revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and the masses. We must engage in self-cultivation in the Marxist-Leninist theory; self cultivation in applying the Marxist-Leninist stand, view point and method to the study and handling of all problems; self-cultivation in proletarian ideology and morality; self-cultivation in upholding unity in the Party, practicing criticism and self-criticism and observing discipline; self-cultivation in developing the style of hard work and persistent struggle; self-cultivation in building close ties with the masses; self cultivation in various branches of scientific knowledge, etc. We are all members of the Communist Party and therefore we must all without exception carry on self-cultivation in these respects. However, since Party members differ from one another in political consciousness, experience of struggle, field of work, cultural level and in the conditions in which they work, it is natural that comrades should differ to some extent in the various aspects of self-cultivation to which they must pay special attention of which they must stress.<br />
<br />
When Zeng Zi, in ancient times, said, "I reflect on myself three times a day,"<sup>1</sup> he was discussing self-examination. The ''Book of Odes'' in the famous lines, "As knife and file make smooth the bone, as jade is wrought by chisel and stone", <sup>2</sup> referred to the need for help and criticism among friends. What all this shows is that very hard work and very earnest self-cultivation are essential if one is to make progress. But the "self-cultivation" perused by many people in the past was generally [[Idealism|idealistic]], formalistic, abstract and divorced from social practice. They exaggerated the role of subjective intentions, thinking that so long as they had "good will" in the abstract, they could transform reality, society and themselves. Of course this is absurd. Our self-cultivation cannot be done that way. We are revolutionary materialists; our self-cultivation cannot be separated from the revolutionary practices of the masses.<br />
<br />
For us it is most important to never divorce ourselves from the current revolutionary struggle of the masses, but to identify ourselves with it, in order to study, sum up and apply the revolutionary experience of the past. This means that we must cultivate and temper ourselves in revolutionary practice and that in turn our self-cultivation and tempering are undertaken solely for the sake of the people and of revolutionary practice. It means that we must modestly learn the Marxist-Leninist stand, viewpoint and method, learn from the noble proletarian quality of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and apply all this in our practice, in our words and deeds, our daily life and work, constantly correcting or eliminating anything in our ideology contrary to it and strengthening our own proletarian communist ideology and character. It means that we should listen modestly to the opinions and criticisms of our Party comrades and of the masses, make a careful study of the practical problems in our life and work, carefully sum up and draw lessons from our experience in work, and that, in the light of all this, we should ascertain whether our understanding of Marxism-Leninism and our use of the Marxist-Leninist method are correct and check up on our shortcomings and mistakes so as to overcome them and improve our work. Furthermore, on the basis of new experience we should ascertain whether there are any individual conclusions or aspects of Marxism-Leninism that need supplementing, enriching and developing. In short, we must integrate the universal truth of Marxism- Leninism with the concrete practice of the revolution.<br />
<br />
This is the method of self-cultivation for us communists. It is entirely different from those methods of self-cultivation which are idealistic and divorced from the revolutionary practice of the masses.<br />
<br />
In order to persevere in this Marxist-Leninist method of cultivation, we must resolutely oppose and thoroughly eradicate one of the worst vices bequeathed to us by the old society in the field of education and study, namely, the separation of theory from practice. In the old society many people who studied thought it unnecessary, or even impossible to act upon what they had learned, and though they wrote and spoke abundantly of justice and morality, in fact they were out and out scoundrels. Although the [[Kuomintang]] [[Reactionary|reactionaries]] memorize the "Three People's Principles"<sup>3</sup> and recite [[Sun Yat-sen]]'s Testament,<sup>4</sup> in actual fact they bleed the people white with [[Tax|taxes]], practice corruption and slaughter, oppress the masses, are opposed to "[[Anti-imperialism|those nations who treat us as equals]]", and go as far as to compromise with or surrender to the [[Empire of Japan (1868–1947)|national enemy]]. An old ixucai<sup>5</sup> once told me that of all the teachings of Confucius he was able to observe only this one, "For him no food can ever be too dainty and no minced meat too fine"<sup>5</sup> and that he could not observe the rest and had never intended to. Since that is what these people are like, why do they run schools and study the "teachings of the sages"? They are after advancement and money, use the "teachings of the sages" to oppress the exploited, and deceive the people by paying lip service to justice and morality. This is typical of the attitude of the exploiting classes of the old society towards the sages they "worship". Needless to say, when we Communists study Marxism-Leninism an all that is best in our national heritage, we must never adopt such an attitude. What we learn we must practice. Being proletarian revolutionaries who are honest and pure in purpose, we cannot be untrue to ourselves, to the people, or to those who went before us. This is an outstanding characteristic as well as a great merit of Communists.<br />
<br />
Is it possible that the old society's separation of theory from practice can have no influence on us? No, it is not! It is true that none of you students are studying Marxism-Leninism for the sake of advancement and money and or oppressing the exploited. Yet is it possible to maintain that none of you ever entertains the idea that your thoughts, words, deeds and life do not necessarily have to be guided by Marxist-Leninist principles or that you do not intend to put all the principles that you have learned into practice? Is it possible that none of you ever thinks of studying Marxism-Leninism or going deeper into the theory as a means of getting ahead in life, of showing off and becoming famous? I cannot guarantee that none of you thinks along these lines. That kind of thinking runs counter to Marxism-Leninism and to the basic Marxist-Leninist principle of the integration of theory and practice. Certainly we must study theory, but we must also practice what we learn. And it is for the sake of practice, of the Party, of the people, and of the victory of the revolution that we study theory.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<blockquote>The great strength of Marxism-Leninism lies precisely in its integration with the concrete revolutionary practice of all countries. For the Communist Party of China, it is a matter of learning to apply the theory of Marxism-Leninism to the specific circumstances of China. For the Chinese Communists who are part of the great Chinese nation, flesh of its flesh and blood of its blood, any talk about Marxism in isolation from China's characteristics is merely Marxism in the abstract, Marxism in a vacuum. Hence to apply Marxism concretely in China so that its every manifestation has an indubitable Chinese character, i.e., to apply Marxism in the light of China's specific characteristics, becomes a problem which it is urgent for the whole Party to understand and solve. Foreign stereotypes must be abolished, there must be less singing of empty, abstract tunes, and dogmatism must be laid to rest; they must be replaced by the fresh, lively Chinese style and spirit which the common people of China love.<sup>6</sup></blockquote>Our comrades must study the theory of Marxism-Leninism by following the method Comrade Mao Zedong speaks of here.<br />
<br />
== The Unity of Theoretical Study and Ideological Self-Cultivation ==<br />
We Communists must not separate our study of theory from our ideological self-cultivation. We must remould ourselves and temper our proletarian ideology not only in the practice of revolution but in the study of Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
The view is current among some members of our Party that a firm and purely proletarian stand is irrelevant to a Party member's understanding a and mastery of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism. They believe that one can thoroughly understand and genuinely master the Marxist-Leninist theory and method even though one's proletarian stand may not be very firm and one's ideology not very pure (i.e., it may be tainted with the remnants of non-proletarian ideas). They believe that the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism can be mastered merely through book learning. This view is wrong.<br />
<br />
Marxism-Leninism is the science of proletarian revolution, the science by which the working class builds socialism and communism. It can be thoroughly understood and mastered only by those who have a firm proletarian stand and who have made the ideals of the proletariat their own. Without a firm proletarian stand and pure proletarian ideals it is impossible for anyone to thoroughly understand or master the science of Marxism-Leninism. The science of Marxism-Leninism is of little of no use to anyone who is not a genuine revolutionary, who is not a proletarian revolutionary to the core, who does not want to bring about socialism and communism throughout the world and emancipate all humanity, to anyone who does not want revolution or is unwilling to carry it through to the end and wants to stop half-way.<br />
<br />
We often come across very fine Party members from the working class who are not well grounded in Marxist-Leninist theory and who may not do so well as others in an examination in which Marxist-Leninist works and formulations have to be quoted from memory. Yet in studying Marxism-Leninism, provided it is explained to them in language they understand, they generally show much keener interest and far greater comprehension than some Party members from the [[intelligentsia]]. For example, the section in Capital concerning surplus value is difficult for some Party members, but not for those from the working class. The reason is that in the process of production and of struggle against the capitalists, the workers come to know all too well how the capitalists calculate wages and working hours, exploit the workers for profit and oppress them. Therefore, they generally understand Marx's theory of surplus value more profoundly than do some Party members from other classes. When we say that many Party members from the working class are readier to accept Marxism-Leninism, we do not, of course mean that their class-background makes them born Marxist-Leninists. We mean that provided they study Marxist-Leninist theory modestly and diligently and have a real grasp of the method of seeking the truth from the facts, those comrades who have a firm and purely proletarian stand and are free from personal prejudice of other blemishes are certain to be keener and more correct than the others in their observation and handling of practical problems. In the struggle, too, these comrades will prove more able to discern the truth and will uphold it more courageously and unhesitatingly.<br />
<br />
Also, we come across many Party members of non-proletarian origin who differ in their development owing to their differing attitudes towards the relation between Marxist-Leninist study and ideological self-cultivation. Generally speaking, when they join the revolution such people do not have a firm and clear-cut proletarian stand, are not very correct or pure in their ideology, and to a greater of lesser extent carry over various non-proletarian ideas from the old society. Obviously these ideas come into direct conflict with the principles of Marxism-Leninism, and since the people take different attitudes, the results of the conflict differ. In studying Marxism-Leninism, some people correctly combine theoretical study with their ideological self-cultivation, using Marxist-Leninist principles to fight and overcome whatever is backward in their thinking. In this way thy achieve a more truly proletarian stand and a more undiluted proletarian ideology, and learn how to apply Marxist-Leninist principles to the solution of practical problems. We have many such Party members. Others, however, go the opposite way; they have a lot of old junk accumulated in their heads and many stubborn habits, prejudices and selfish desires, but the lack of determination to remould themselves. In studying Marxism-Leninism they do not make use of its principles to criticize and repudiate whatever is backward in their own ideology, but employ it as a weapon to further their own private ends, and this is carried to the point where the principles of Marxism-Leninism are so distorted by their old prejudices that these people can neither reach a correct understanding of these principles nor grasp the spirit and essence of Marxism-Leninism. When they handle practical problems in the course of revolutionary struggle, the habits and prejudices which they have brought with them from the old society and their individualistic calculations led them to think in terms of personal gain or loss, to be hesitant and vacillating and incapable of going deeply into things in a free untrammelled way or of courageously upholding the truth , and they conceal or distort the truth unintentionally, or even deliberately.<br />
<br />
These people are absolutely incapable of guiding their lives by the principals of Marxism-Leninism, and hence incapable of dealing with practical problems promptly, correctly and realistically according to these principles; sometimes they even adopt a negative attitude when practical problems have already been correctly solved according to these principals by the Party organization, or by comrades other than themselves. Such things are neither rare nor unusual, but are quite common.<br />
<br />
Thus we can say that it is impossible for a Party member who lacks a clear-cut firm proletarian stand and a correct, purely proletarian ideology to achieve a thorough understanding and real mastery of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism as a weapon in the revolutionary struggle. In other words a Party member must have the noble stand of the proletariat in order to become versed in Marxist-Leninist theory.<br />
<br />
At the same time, we should add that no Party member can maintain a proletarian stand and express a proletarian ideology concretely in every revolutionary struggle unless he studies the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism diligently and guides his thinking and action accordingly.<br />
<br />
There are some Party members who think it quite enough to have revolutionary firmness and to fight bravely, and that it does not matter much whether they study and undertake self-cultivation in Marxist-Leninist theory. Some comrades even think that a good class origin or a good personal class status is all that is needed to make them vanguard proletarian fighters, thus obviating the need to study Marxism-Leninism. There are other comrades who never study it earnestly in the course of work or struggle, though they generally admit the importance of theory. All such attitudes are obviously wrong.<br />
<br />
The theory of Marxism-Leninism is our weapon for studying every phenomenon and dealing with every question, and especially for studying all social phenomena and dealing with all social questions.. If we do not know how to wield the weapon of Marxist-Leninist theory, we shall be unable correctly to understand and deal with the problems confronting us in the revolutionary struggle and shall be in danger of loosing our bearings and departing from the revolutionary proletarian stand, or even, whether consciously or unconsciously, of becoming opportunists of one kind or another, captives and yes-men of the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Revolutionary firmness and courage in the struggle are precious qualities which every Communist must possess. Besides these qualities, Communists must have the ability to find the right way to conduct the revolution and carry on the struggle in different historical periods and under different conditions of struggle, if they are to win the victory for the revolution and realize the highest ideal of communism. Only by applying Marxism-Leninism can we correctly solve such important questions in the revolutionary struggle as the question of whom to rely upon, whom to unite with and whom to overthrow, the question of who are our direct allies, who is the main enemy and who are the secondary enemies, the question of rallying all possible allies, including even secondary enemies under certain conditions, to defeat the main enemy, and the question of making timely changes in strategy and tactics to meet changing situations. Without mastering the weapon of Marxism-Leninism and attaining a high degree of self-cultivation in Marxist-Leninist theory, we cannot possibly maintain a firm, correct proletarian stand on every important question in the revolutionary struggle, or formulate the policies which are most advantageous to the cause of the proletarian revolution or champion the overall, long term interests of the proletarian revolutionary struggle amid the complex situations and sharp changes, when it is necessary for us to make detours and turns.<br />
<br />
Consider, for instance, our Party's experience in carrying out the policy of the national [[united front]] against Japan. Before the Incident of July 7. 1937,<sup>1</sup> certain comrades did not understand that the [[contradiction]] between the Chinese nation and Japanese [[imperialism]] had become the principal one while the contradictions among the different classes and political groups within the country had become secondary. As a result, they opposed the Party's policy of forming a national united front against Japan. of uniting all [[Patriotism|patriotic]] classes, strata, political parties and social groupings for joint resistance, and especially of uniting with the Kuomintang to fight Japan. Although these comrades thought they were taking a firm proletarian stand in opposing the Party's correct policy, they actually departed from it and plunged into "closed-doorism" and [[sectarianism]]. Had we acted in accordance with their wrong views, the proletariat and its political party would have been unable to unite and lead all the patriotic classes, strata, parties and social groupings for the purpose of defeating Japanese imperialism; instead, the forces of the Anti-Japanese National United Front would have been weakened and the proletariat and its political party would have been isolated to the detriment of the struggle to resist Japan and save China. After the July 7th Incident, when our Party had formed the Anti-Japanese National United front with the Kuomintang, certain comrades went to the other extreme, maintaining that since the Kuomintang had joined in the resistance to Japan, there was hardly any distinction between it and the Communist Party. They adopted a policy of capitulation by appeasing the big [[landlord]] and big bourgeois classes and the Kuomintang. and opposed the Party's policy of upholding its independence within the united front. While they over estimated the strength of and placed undue trust in the Kuomintang, on which they pinned all their hopes for resisting Japan and saving China, they had no confidence in the strength of the Communist Party and the people, did not place their hopes on the Communist Party and therefore did not dare freely to expand the Party and the anti-Japanese people's revolutionary forces and to resolutely fight against the Kuomintang's policy of opposing and restricting the Communist Party. The comrades with this approach styled themselves as the true representatives of the proletariat, but in essence their policy would have made the proletariat a vassal or an appendage of the bourgeoisie, and would have caused the proletariat to loose the leadership of the Anti-Japanese National United Front. These "Left" and Right mistakes are both striking examples of the failure to take a firm proletarian stand and to identify the correct path for advancing the revolutionary cause when major changes are occurring in the political situation.<br />
<br />
The proletariat cannot just emancipate itself alone; it must fight for the emancipation of [[The people|all the working people]], the emancipation of the nation and of all humanity, for only thus can it fully emancipate itself. The proletariat must rid the whole of human society of exploitation, oppression and class struggle once and for all, for only thus can it genuinely and finally emancipate itself. Hence a firm proletarian stand must be sharply differentiated from "closed-doorism' and sectarianism. In waging struggles the proletariat and its political party must establish close ties with the masses of working people, form revolutionary alliances with other revolutionary classes and parties and lead the working masses and all their allies forward together; they must represent the interests of more than ninety per cent of the population of the country. To have a firm proletarian stand is to represent at all times and in all circumstances the highest interests of the overwhelming majority of the people, which, we must understand, are also the highest class interests of the proletariat. On the other hand, a firm proletarian stand must be sharply differentiated from all appeasement and capitulation. In waging revolutionary struggles the proletariat and its political party must draw clear lines of distinction not only between themselves and the landlord class and the bourgeoisie but also between themselves and the revolutionary democrats of the petty bourgeoisie, and must even make some distinction between themselves and the masses of working people. In the revolutionary struggle they must at all times firmly maintain their independence and be free from any bourgeois or other non-proletarian class influence. In every stage of the development of the revolutionary struggle they must combine the interests of the part with the interests of the whole and immediate interests with ling-term interests. As Marx and Engels said of Communists:<blockquote>1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.<br />
<br />
2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>During his struggle to organize a political party of the proletariat at the end of the 19th century, Lenin said:<blockquote>The consciousness of the masses and of the workers cannot be genuine [[class consciousness]], unless the workers learn to observe from concrete, and above all from topical (current), political facts and events, every other social class and all manifestations of the intellectual, ethical and political life of these classes; unless they learn to apply in practice the materialist analysis and the materialist estimate of all aspects of the life and activity of all classes, strata and groups of the population.<sup>3</sup></blockquote>Further:<blockquote>The [[Russian Social Democratic Labor Party|Social-Democrat]]'s ideal should not be a [[Trade union|trade-union]] secretary, but a tribune of the people, able to react to every manifestation of tyranny and oppression, no matter where it takes place, no matter what stratum of class of people it affects; he must be able to generalize all these manifestations to produce a single picture of police violence and capitalist exploitation; he must be able to take advantage of every event, however small, in order to explain his [[Socialism|socialist]] convictions and [[Democracy|democratic]] demands to all and everyone the world-historic significance of the proletariat's struggle for emancipation.<sup>4</sup></blockquote>To fulfill the requirements cited by Lenin in these two passages, we Communists must of course unceasingly take part in the revolutionary practice and thus increase our perceptual knowledge and accumulate practical experience. But it must be pointed out, perceptual knowledge and practical experience alone are not sufficient. As Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<blockquote>Fully to reflect a thing in its totality, to reflect its essence, to reflect its inherit laws, it is necessary through the exercise of thought to reconstruct the rich data of sense perception, discarding the dross and selecting the essential, eliminating the false and retaining the true, proceeding from the one to the other and from the outside to the inside, in order to form a system of concepts and theories—it is necessary to make a leap from perceptual to rational knowledge.<sup>5</sup></blockquote>Therefore, while engaged in revolutionary practice, we must most conscientiously study the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism.<blockquote>The theory of Marxism-Leninism is the summing-up of the experience of the international working-class movement; it is a theory formulated in revolutionary practice and in turn serving revolutionary practice. If only we study this theory, apply it and master it in close conjunction with revolutionary practice, we shall be able to understand the inner connections of the changes taking place all around us and to know how and in what direction the various classes are now moving and will soon move, and we shall be able to determine our line of action and shall confidence in the future of the revolutionary movement.</blockquote>It is precisely because the theory of Marxism-Leninism plays such a great role that Lenin said, "The role of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory."<sup>6</sup> Members of the Communist Party must closely link their study of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism with their own ideological self-cultivation and self-tempering; they must never divorce one from the other.<br />
<br />
Time and again Comrade Mao Zedong has emphasised the tremendous importance of cultivating oneself in the theory of Marxism-Leninism. He has said:<blockquote>From the Marxist viewpoint, theory is important, and its importance is fully expressed in Lenin's statement, "Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." But Marxism emphasises the importance of theory precisely and only because it can guide action.<sup>5</sup></blockquote>Comrade Mao Zedong has constantly urged all Party members who have some capacity for study to study Marxist-Leninist theory, study the actual conditions of the movement, study Chinese and world history and learn to guide their actions by Marxist-Leninist theory and also help to educate comrades with a lower cultural and theoretical level. The whole Party should at times bear in mind this injunction of Comrade Mao Zedong's.<br />
<br />
== The Cause of Communism is the Greatest and Most Arduous Undertaking in Human History ==<br />
Now let us continue with our discussion of ideological self-cultivation by Communist Party members.<br />
<br />
What does ideological self-cultivation mean? Fundamentally, in my opinion, it means that every Party member should use proletarian ideology to combat whatever non-proletarian ideas he has, use the communist world outlook he has and use the principle of the supremacy of the interests of the proletariat, the people and the Party to combat his individualism.<br />
<br />
This struggle is one of conflicting ideologies, and it reflects the class struggle in society. For a Party member, the result of this struggle should be that the proletarian ideology overcomes and ultimately eliminates any non-communist world outlook and that ideas based on the general interests and aims of the Party, of the revolution and of the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity overcome and ultimately eliminate all individualism. If the opposite happens, that is, if the latter prevails over the former, the comrade concerned will retrogress and may even loose his qualifications as a member of the Communist Party. For a Communist that would be a terrible and dangerous thing to happen.<br />
<br />
We Communist Party members temper ourselves ideologically in struggles of all kinds inside and outside the Party, constantly sum up and learn from experience gained in revolutionary practice, and examine our own ideas to see whether they fully conform to Marxism-Leninism and the interests of the struggle for the emancipation of the proletariat. It is through such study, reflection and self-examination that we eliminate all remnants of incorrect ideas and nip in the bud any ideas inconsistent with the interests of communism.<br />
<br />
As you know, a man's words and actions are guided by his ideology. And a man's ideology is inseparable from his world outlook. The only world outlook for members of the Communist Party is the communist world outlook. This world outlook is the philosophical system of the proletariat and also our communist methodology.. All this has been abundantly discussed in Marxist-Leninist literature, and especially in the philosophical works of the founders. As you have studied it, I shall not go into it today. Here I shall only talk briefly of our communist cause, of what it is and how Party members should advance it.<br />
<br />
What is our most fundamental duty as Party members? It is to achieve communism. As far as the Communist Parties of different countries are concerned, in each country it is for the Communist Party and the people there to transform it by their own efforts, and in that way the whole world will be transformed step by step into a communist world. Will the communist world be good? We all know it will be. In that world there will be no exploiters of oppressors, no landlords and capitalists, no imperialists and fascists, nor will there be any oppressed and exploited people, or any of the darkness, ignorance and backwardness resulting from the system of exploitation. In such a society the production of both material and moral values will develop and flourish mightily and will meet the varied needs of all its members. By then all humanity will consist of unselfish, intelligent, highly cultured and skilled communist workers; mutual assistance and affection will prevail among men and there will be no such irrationalities as mutual suspicion and deception, mutual injury, mutual slaughter and war. It will of course be the best, the most beautiful and the most advanced society in human history. Who can deny that such a society is good? But can this good communist society be built? We say that it can and will be. Marxist-Leninist theory has explained this scientifically and beyond all doubt. A factual testimony has been provided by the victory of the Great October revolution and the successes in socialist construction in the Soviet Union. Our duty is constantly to advance the cause socialism and communism in accordance with the laws of development of human society, so as to make socialist and communist society a reality as soon as possible. This is our ideal.<br />
<br />
However, the cause of socialism and communism still faces powerful enemies who must be thoroughly and finally defeated in every field; only then will the socialist and communist society be brought into being. Victory for the communist cause can only be won through long and arduous struggle. Without it there can be no victory. This struggle, of course, is not an "accidental" social phenomenon or an invention of certain Communists as some people assert. It is inevitable in the development of class society; it is unavoidable class struggle. The birth of the Communist Party and the fact that Communists participate, organize and guide this struggle are also inevitable phenomena conforming with the laws of social development. The imperialists, [[Fascism|fascists]] and landlords—in short, all exploiters and oppressors—are oppressing and exploiting the overwhelming majority of the people of the world to such an extent that the people are hardly able to survive and have to unite and fight against this exploitation and oppression, because they cannot exist, much less make progress in any other way. This struggle, therefore, is natural and unavoidable.<br />
<br />
On the one hand, we must understand that communism is the greatest cause in human history, which will eliminate exploitation and classes once and for all, emancipate humanity and bring humanity into a world of happiness, radiating with beauty, such as it has never known before. But on the other hand, we must also understand that the cause of communism is the most arduous undertaking in all history; that only through protracted, bitter and torturous struggle will we be able to defeat all the exploiting classes; and that for a long time after our victory we shall patiently have to carry out social and economic, ideological and cultural transformation, for only thus will all the influences, conventions and habits of the exploiting classes be eliminated from among the people, and only thus will a new social and economic system, a new communist culture and code of social morality be built up.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party will defiantly win final victory by relying on the proletariat and the masses of the exploited and oppressed people and by using Marxism-Leninism to guide the revolutionary struggle of the masses and propel society towards the great goal of communism. The reason is that the historical laws of social development make the progress of human society towards communism inevitable; that latent in the proletariat and the other exploited and oppressed masses of the world lie extremely powerful revolutionary energies which, once mobilized, united and organized, can triumph over all the reactionary forces of the exploiting classes and imperialism; and that the Communist Party and the proletariat are the new and rising forces and whatever is new and rising is invincible. This has been fully demonstrated by the history of the world communist movement and the Communist Party of China. The present situation is as follows. Socialism has already won a great victory in the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]], or on one sixth of the earth's surface; militant Communist Parties armed with the theory of Marxism-Leninism have been organized in many countries; the world communist movement is rapidly growing and developing; and the forces of the proletariat and the other exploited and oppressed masses of the world are being rapidly mobilized and united in the course of incessant struggles. The communist movement is already organized as a mighty and invincible world force. Beyond all doubt the communist cause will continue to develop and advance, and will win final and complete victory. However, we should also realize that the international reaction and the exploiting classes are yet stronger than we are, that they are temporarily superior in many fields and that only by protracted, torturous and bitter struggles can we defeat them.<br />
<br />
In a society in which [[Private property|private ownership of the means of production]] has existed for thousands of years, the exploiting classes through their rule have built up great power in all fields and have grabbed everything under the sun. Their long rule has given rise to backwardness, ignorance, selfishness, mutual suspicion and deception, mutual injury and slaughter in human society, which have persisted down the ages. It has exerted a most pernicious influence on the exploited masses and on other members of society. This is the inevitable result of the efforts of the exploiting classes to preserve their class interests and rule. For they cannot maintain their ruling position unless they keep the exploited masses and the colonial peoples backward, unorganized and divided. Hence, in order to achieve victory we must not only conduct a stern struggle against the exploiting classes but also carry on a struggle against their long-standing influence among the masses and the backward ideas and other backward phenomena found among the masses, for only thus can we enhance their political consciousness and unite them to defeat the exploiting classes. Here is the difficulty in the course of achieving communism. Comrades! If the masses were all politically conscious, united, free from the influence of the exploiting classes and free from backwardness, as some people imagine them to be, what would be so difficult about the revolution?<br />
<br />
Not only does this influence of the exploiting classes exist before the victory of the revolution, but it survives for a very long time after when the exploiting classes have been ejected from their ruling position. Think how torturous is the process and how arduous are the work and struggle that are needed to vanquish the exploiting classes and their influence among the people once and for all, to emancipate and change all humanity, to transform myriads of small commodity producers, finally to abolish all classes and gradually to transform humanity that has lived in class society for thousands of years and been influenced by all kinds of old customs and conventions until it becomes communist humanity, intelligent and unselfish, and with a high level of culture and skill!<br />
<br />
Lenin said:<blockquote>The abolition of classes means not only driving out landlords and capitalists—that we accomplished with comparative ease—it also means abolishing the small commodity producers, and they cannot be driven out, or crushed; we must live in harmony with them; they can (and must) be remoulded and re-educated only by very prolonged, slow, cautious organizational work. They encircle the proletariat on every side with a petty-bourgeois atmosphere, which permeates and corrupts the proletariat and causes constant relapses among the proletariat into petty-bourgeois spinelessness, disunity, individualism, alternate moods of exaltation and dejection. The strictest centralization and discipline are required within the political party of the proletariat in order to counteract this, in order that the organizational role of the proletariat (and that is its principle role) may be exercised correctly, successfully, victoriously....The force of habit of millions and tens of millions is a most terrible force....It is a thousand times easier to vanquish the centralized big bourgeoisie than to "vanquish" the millions and millions of small owners; yet they, by their ordinary, everyday, imperceptible, elusive, demoralizing activity, achieve the very results which the bourgeoisie need and which tend to restore the bourgeoisie.<sup>1</sup></blockquote>He also said:<blockquote>...the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by its overthrow (even if only in one country), and whose power lies not only in the strength of international capital, in the strength and durability of the international connections of the bourgeoisie, but also in the force of habit, in the strength of small production. For all these reasons the dictatorship of the proletariat is essential, and victory over the bourgeoisie is impossible without a long, stubborn and war of life and death, a war demanding perseverance, discipline, firmness, indomitableness and unity of will.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>Hence the proletariat has a very difficult task to perform even after the victory of the revolution. The proletarian revolution differs from all other revolutions in history. Bourgeois revolutions, for example, are largely completed with the seizure of state power. But for the proletariat, victory and political emancipation are only the beginning of the revolution, and a tremendous amount of work remains to be done after the victory, after the seizure of state power.<br />
<br />
The cause of communism is needed a "hundred years' task", as the saying goes, and it definitely cannot be accomplished at one stroke. In different countries this undertaking has to go through different stages, and different enemies must be defeated, before a communist society can gradually be established. Take the case of our own country. China is still in the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and our enemies are imperialism, which perpetuates aggression against China, and the feudal and comprador forces, which are in collusion with imperialism. Only when we have defeated these enemies can we complete the bourgeois-democratic revolution in our country. Then, after the victory of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, it will still be necessary to make the socialist revolution and to carry on socialist transformation and socialist construction for a long period, and only so will the gradual transition to communist society be possible.<br />
<br />
Since the ultimate goal of our struggle is the achievement of communism, it is naturally our duty as Communists to overcomes all the difficulties arising in the process.<br />
<br />
Since the communist cause is so great and arduous an undertaking, some people who seek social progress are still sceptical and not convinced that communism can be realized. They do not believe that under the leadership of the proletariat and its party the human race can develop and transform itself into a communist humanity of the highest quality and that all the difficulties in the process of revolution and construction can be overcome. Either they do not forsee the difficulties or they become pessimistic and disappointed when confronted with them, and there are even Party members who waver and desert the communist ranks.<br />
<br />
We communists should be men of the boldest vision and revolutionary determination. Every Party member should gladly and solemnly shoulder the task of realizing communism, a task greater and more arduous than any in human history. We clearly see the difficulties in the process of realising communism, but at the same time we clearly understand that they can undoubtedly be overcome by arousing millions of people to the revolutionary action, and no difficulties will ever daunt us. We have the masses of the people to rely on, and we have full confidence that a substantial part of the work of building communism will be accomplished in our town time and that the whole of this magnificent undertaking will be triumphantly completed by the coming generations. The heroes of no other class in history could possibly have had this great communist ideal and boldness of vision. In this respect we have every reason for pride.<br />
<br />
I recall the instance of the western European bourgeois biographer<sup>3</sup> who interviewed Comrade Stalin during a visit to the Soviet Union and brought up the comparisons between historical personalities. Comrade Stalin told him that Lenin was like the ocean while Czar [[Peter I Romanov|Peter the Great]] was only a drop in the ocean. Such is the place in history a proletarian leader of the communist cause occupies, compared with that of a leader in the cause of the landlord and the rising mercantile classes. From this comparison we can see how truly great is a leader who fights for the triumph of communism and the cause of the emancipation of humanity and how paltry is one who fights for the cause of the exploiting classes.<br />
<br />
We Communist Party members must have the highest goals in our struggle and the highest ideals, while at the same time we must have a practical spirit and do real practical work. Such are the characteristics distinguishing us as Communists. If all a person has is great and lofty ideas without having a practical spirit or doing real practical work, he is not a good Party member but only a dreamer, a prattler or a pedant. On the other hand, whoever is interested only in practical work but lacks great and lofty communist ideals is not a good Communist either, but just a routine plodder. Only by combining the great and lofty ideals of communism with real practical work and practical spirit can one be a good Communist. This standard for a good Communist has often been stressed by Comrade Mao Zedong, the leader of our Party.<br />
<br />
The communist ideal is beautiful, while the reality of the existing capitalist world is ugly. This is precisely why the overwhelming majority of the people demand the changing of that reality and why it must be changed. In order to change the world we must not divorce ourselves from reality, disregard it or escape from it, nor must we surrender to ugly reality. We must face reality squarely, study and understand it, live and grow in it, fight against the ugly reality and transform it, so that we can gradually realize our ideal. Hence we members of the communist Party must initiate and press ahead with our great communist task of changing the world, beginning with our immediate surroundings, with the people immediately around us and such work as we can immediately undertake. Here we should criticize those young comrades who frequently make the mistake of wanting to escape from or disregarding reality. It is good that they have lofty ideals, but they often complain about their place of work and the kind of work they are given. They are always looking for some "ideal" place or job so that they can "change the world" with ease. But no such place and no such job exist, except in their dreams.<br />
<br />
The cause of communism is our life work. Throughout our lives, our every activity is exclusively devoted to it and to nothing else.<br />
<br />
== A Party Member's Personal Interests Must be Unconditionally Subordinated to the Interests of the Party ==<br />
Personal interests must be subordinated to the Party's interests, the interests of the local Party organization to those of the entire Party, the interests of the part to those of the whole, and temporary to long-term interests. This is a Marxist-Leninist principle which must be followed by every Communist.<br />
<br />
A Communist must be clear about the correct relationship between personal and Party interests.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party is the political party of the proletariat and has no interests of its own other than those of the emancipation of the proletariat. The final emancipation of the proletariat will also inevitably be the final emancipation of all humanity. Unless the proletariat emancipates all working people and all nations—unless it emancipates humanity as a whole—it cannot fully emancipate itself. The cause of the emancipation of the proletariat is identical with and inseparable from the cause of the emancipation of all working people, all oppressed nations and all humanity. Therefore, the interests of the Communist Party are the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity, are communism and social progress.. When a Party member<nowiki>''</nowiki>s personal interests are subordinated to those of the Party, they are subordinated to the interests of the emancipation of the class and the nation, and those of communism and social progress.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<br />
<br />
At no time and in no circumstances should a Communist place his personal interests first; he should subordinate to the interests of the nation and of the masses. Hence selfishness, slacking, corruption, seeking the limelight are most contemptible, while selflessness, working with all one's energy, whole hearted devotion to public duty, and quiet hard work will command respect.<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
The test of a Party member's loyalty to the Party, the revolution, the cause of communism is whether or not he can subordinate his personal interests absolutely and unconditionally to the interests of the Party whatever the circumstances.<br />
<br />
At all times and all questions a party member should give first consideration to the interests of the Party as a whole and put them in the foremost and place personal matters and interests second. The supremacy of the Party's interests is the highest principle that must govern the thinking and actions of the members of our Party. In accordance with this principle, every Party member must completely identify his personal interests with those of the Party both in his thinking and in his actions of the members of our Party both in his thinking and in his actions. He must be able o yield to the interests of the Party without any hesitations or reluctance and sacrifice his personal interests what ever of the two are at variance. Unhesitating readiness to sacrifice personal interests and even one's life, for the Party and for the proletariat and for the emancipation of the nation and of all humanity—this is one expression of what we usually describe as "Party spirit", "Party sense" or "sense of organization'. It is the highest expression of communist morality, of the principled nature of the party of the proletariat and of the purest proletarian class consciousness.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party should not have personal aims which are independent of the Party interests. Their personal aims must harmonize with the Party's interests. If the aim they set for themselves is to study Marxist-Leninist theory, to develop their ability in work, to establish revolutionary organizations and to lead the masses in successful revolutionary struggles—if their aim is more is to do more for the Party—then this personal aim harmonizes with the interests of the Party. The Party needs many such members and cadres. Apart from this aim, Party members should have no independent personal motives such as attaining position of fame, or playing the individual hero; otherwise they will depart from the interests of the Party and may even become careerists within the Party.<br />
<br />
If a Party member thinks only of the communist interests and aims of the Party, is really selfless and has no personal aims and considerations divorced from those of the Party, and he ceaselessly raises the level of his political consciousness through revolutionary practice and through the study of Marxism-Leninism, then the following ensues.<br />
<br />
First, he has a high communist morality. Taking a clear-cut, firm proletarian stand, he is able to show loyalty to and love for all comrades, all revolutionaries and working people, help them unreservedly and act towards them as equals, and he will never allow themself to hurt a single one of them for his own interests. He is able to feel for others, place themself in their position and be considerate of them. On the other hand, he is able to wage resolute struggle against the pernicious enemies of humanity and persevere in the fight for the interests of the Party, the proletariat and the emancipation of the nation and all humanity. "He is the first to worry and the last to enjoy themself".<sup>2</sup> Whether in the Party of among the people, he is the first to suffer hardship and the last to enjoy comfort; he compares themself with others not with respect to the material enjoyment but to the amount of work done for the revolution and the spirit of hard endurance in the struggle. In times of adversity he steps forward boldly, and in times of difficulty he does his duty to the full. He has such revolutionary firmness and integrity that "neither riches nor honours can corrupt him, neither [[poverty]] nor lowly condition can make him swerve from principle, neither threats nor force can bend him".<sup>3</sup><br />
<br />
Second, he has the greatest revolutionary courage. Having no selfish motives, he has nothing to fear. Having done nothing to give themself a guilty conscience, he can lay bare and courageously correct his mistakes and short comings, which are like "an eclipse of the sun or the moon".<sup>4</sup> Because he has the courage of righteous conviction, he never fears the truth, courageously upholds it, spreads it and fights for it. Even if it is temporarily to his disadvantage and if, in upholding the truth, he suffers blows of all kinds, is censured by most other people and so finds themself in temporary (and honourable) isolation, even to the point where he may give up his life, he will still breast the waves to uphold the truth and will never drift with the tide.<br />
<br />
Third, he learns how best to grasp the theory of Marxism-Leninism. He is able to apply them in keenly observing problems and in knowing and changing reality. Because he takes a clear-cut, firm proletarian stand and is tempered in Marxism-Leninism, he is free from personal apprehensions and self-interest, so that there is no impediment to his observation of things or distortion of his understanding of the truth. He seeks the truth from the facts, and he tests all theories and distinguishes what is true from what is false in revolutionary practice.<br />
<br />
Fourth, he is the most sincere, most candid and happiest of men. Because he has no private axe to grind, nothing to conceal from the Party and nothing he cannot tell others, he has no problems of personal gain or loss and no personal anxieties other than for the interests of the Party and the revolution. Even when he is working on his own without supervision and therefore has the opportunity to do something bad, he is just as "watchful over themself when he is alone"<sup>5</sup> and does not do anything harmful. His work bears examination and he is not afraid having it checked. He does not fear criticism and at the same time is able to criticize others with courage and sincerity.<br />
<br />
Fifth, he has the greatest self-respect and self-esteem. For the sake of the Party and the revolution he can be most forbearing and tolerant towards comrades and can suffer wrong in the general interest, even enduring misunderstanding and humiliation without bitterness if the occasion so demands. No personal aims lead him to flatter anyone or to desire flattery from others. When it comes to personal matters, he knows how to conduct themself and has no need to humble themself in order to get help from others. He knows how to take good care of themself in the interests of the Party and the revolution and how to strengthen both his grasp of theory and his practical effectiveness. But when it is necessary to swallow humiliations and bear a heavy load for some important purpose in the cause of the Party and the revolution, he can take on the most difficult and vital tasks without the slightest reluctance, never passing the difficulties to others.<br />
<br />
A member of the Communist Party should possess the finest and highest human virtues and take a clear-cut and firm Party and proletarian stand (that is, possess Party spirit and class spirit). Ours is a fine morality precisely because it is proletarian and communist. It is founded not on the protection of the interests of individuals or of the exploiting few, but on those of the great proletariat and the great mass of working people, of the cause of the final emancipation of all humanity, and the liberation of the whole world from the calamities of capitalism, and the building of a happy and beautiful communist world—t is a morality founded on the Marxist-Leninist theory of scientific communism. As we Communists see it, nothing can be more worthless or indefensible than to sacrifice oneself in the interests of an individual or a small minority. But it is the worthiest and most just thing in the world to sacrifice oneself for the Party, for the proletariat, for the emancipation of the nation and all humanity, for social progress and for the highest interests of the overwhelming majority of the people. Indeed, countless members of the Communist Party have looked death calmly in the face and made the ultimate sacrifice without the slightest hesitation. Most Communists consider it a matter of course to die for the sake of the cause, to lay down their lives for justice, when that is necessary. This does not stem from any revolutionary fanaticism or hunger for fame but from their scientific understanding of social development and their deep political consciousness. There is no morality in class society to compare with this high communist morality. The universal morality which supposedly transcends class is sheer deceptive nonsense and in fact a morality designed to protect the interests of the exploiting few. Such a concept of morality is always idealist. It is only we communists who build our morality on the scientific basis of historical materialism and proclaim its purpose to be the protection of the interests of the proletariat in the struggle for the emancipation of itself and all humanity.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party represents the general and long-range interests of the proletariat and all humanity in their struggle for emancipation; the Party's interests are the concentrated expression of this cause. One must never regard the communist Party as a narrow clique, like the guild perusing the interests of its members. Anyone who does so is no Communist.<br />
<br />
A Party member has interests of his own, which may be inconsistent with or even run counter to the interests of the Party in certain circumstances. Should this happen, it is incumbent on him to sacrifice his personal interests and unconditionally subordinate them to the interests of the Party; under no pretence or excuse may he sacrifice the Party's interests by clinging to his own. At all times and in all circumstances, he should fight heart and soul for the Party's interests and for the Party's development, regarding every success and victory won by the Party and the proletariat as his very own. Every Party member should strive to increase his effectiveness and ability in the service of the people. But this must be done in the fight for the advancement, success and victory of the Party's cause, and there must be no striving for individual development divorced from the fight to advance the Party's cause. The facts prove that only by complete devotion in the fight for the advancement, success and victory of the Party's cause can a Party member heighten his effectiveness and ability and that he cannot possibly make progress of heighten his ability in any other way. Hence a Party member can and must completely merge his personal interests with those of the Party.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party are no ordinary people but the awakened vanguard fighters of the proletariat. They must conscientiously represent the class interests and class ideology of the proletariat. Therefore, their personal interests must never project beyond those of the party and the proletariat. It is all the more necessary for each cadre and leader of the Party to be a living embodiment of the general interests of the Party and the proletariat and to merge his personal interests completely in their general interests and aims. In present-day China, it is the proletariat that best represents the interests of national liberation, and therefore our Party members must be worthy champions of the interests of the nation as a whole.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party must subordinate personal to Party interests and are required to sacrifice them to party interests if necessary. But this by no means implies that our Party does not recognise, or brushes aside, the personal interest of its members or that it wants to wipe out their individuality. Party members do have their personal problems to attend to, and, moreover, they should develop themselves according to their individual inclinations and aptitudes. Therefore, so long as the interests of the Party are not violated, a Party member can have his private and family life and develop his individual inclinations and aptitudes. At the same time, the Party will use every possibility to help members develop their individual inclinations and aptitudes in conformity with its interests, furnish them with suitable work and working conditions and commend and reward them. As far as possible, the Party will attend to and safeguard its members' essential interests; for example,, it will give them the opportunity to study and to acquire an education, it will help them cope with health and family problems and, when necessary, it will even give up some of its work in order to preserve comrades working under the rule of reaction. But all this has no other purpose than the overall interests of the Party. For the fulfillment of its tasks the Party must ensure that members have the conditions necessary for life, work and education so that they can perform their tasks with enthusiasm and without worry. Comrades in responsible Party positions must bear all this in mind when they deal with Party members' problems.<br />
<br />
To sum up, on his side, each Party member should completely submit themself to the interests of the Party and self-sacrificingly devote themself to the public duty. He should forego all personal aims and private considerations which conflict with the Party's interests. He should not think of themself all the time, make endless personal demands on the Party or blame the Party for not promoting or rewarding him. Whatever the circumstances, he should study hard, try to make progress, be courageous in struggle and make ceaseless efforts to raise the level of his political consciousness and his understanding of Marxism-Leninism, so as to be able to contribute more to the Party and the revolution. On their side all Party organizations and comrades in responsible positions, in dealing with the problems of Party members, should see how they work, live and study. and enable them to work better for the Party, ceaselessly develop themselves and raise their level in the course of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. In particular, attention should be paid to comrades who are really selfless and who serve the people well. Only so, through combined attention and effort by both sides can the interests of the Party be well served.<br />
<br />
== Examples of Wrong Ideology in the Party ==<br />
In the light of what has been said, we can see that if an understanding of communism and a correct correlation between personal and Party interests are taken as the standard for evaluating Party members and cadres, many measure up to it and can serve as models, but some do not yet measure up to this standard and still have various wrong ideas to some degree or other. It may not be amiss if I outline these wrong ideas for our comrades' attention.<br />
<br />
What are fundamentally the wrong ideas to be found among comrades in our Party?<br />
<br />
First. The people joining our Party not only differ in in class origin and personal class status but also carry with them aims and motives of every description. Many, of course, join the Party in order to bring about communism and attain the great goal of the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity, but some do so for other reasons and with other aims. For example, some comrades of peasant background used to think that communism meant "expropriation of local tyrants and distribution of the land". When they first joined, they had no understanding of the real meaning of communism. Today, quite a number of people join the Party chiefly because it is resolute in resisting Japan and advocates the Anti-Japanese National United Front. Others join our ranks because they admire the communist Party for its good reputation or because they realize in a vague way that it can save China. Still others are seeking a future for themselves, chiefly because they have no other way out—they have no fixed occupation, are out of work, lack the means of study, or want to escape from family bondage or forced marriage, etc. A few even join because they count on the Party to get their taxes reduced, or because they hope to "make their mark" some day, or because their relatives or friends have brought them in, etc. Naturally, such comrades do not have a clear-cut and stable communist world outlook, do not understand the greatness of the communist cause and the difficulties besetting it, and lack a firm proletarian stand point. Naturally too, some of them will waver or change somewhat in certain circumstances at certain critical turning points. Since they bring all sorts of ideas with them into the Party, it is most important that they should be educated and should train and temper themselves. Otherwise they cannot become revolutionary fighters of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, there is no terrible problem here. After all, it is not a bad thing that people turn to the Communist Party, enter it seeking a way out of their predicament and approve of its policy. They are not mistaken in coming to us. We welcome them—everyone except for enemy agents, traitors, careerists and ambitious climbers. Provided they accept and are ready to abide by the Party's Programme and Constitution, work in one of the Party's organizations and pay membership dues, they may be admitted into the Communist Party. As for deeping their study and understanding of communism and the Partys Programme and Constitution, they can do so after joining the Party and can temper and train themselves in revolutionary struggle on the basis of what they learn; in this way they have every possibility of becoming very good Communists. Indeed, for most people it is impossible to have a proufound understanding of communism and the Party's Programme and Constitution before joining the Party. That is why we can only prescribe acceptance, and not a thorough understanding of the Partys Programme and Constitution as a condition for admission. Although many people do not have a thorough understanding of communism before joining, it is possible for them to become active fighters in the communist and revolutionary movements of the time. They can become politically conscious Communists provided they study hard after joining the Party. Furthermore, our Party Constitution stipulates that members are free to withdraw form the Party (there is no freedom of admission). Any member is free to notify the Party that he is withdrawing from it if he lacks a profound belief in communism, or cannot live a strict Party life, or for any other reason, and the Party gives him the freedom to withdraw. It will do nothing against him unless he gives away Party secrets or engages in wrecking activities against the Party after he leaves. As for careerists and spies who have wormed their way into the Party, of course they have to be expelled. Only thus can we preserve the purity of our Party.<br />
<br />
Second. Fairly strong [[individualism]] and selfishness are still to be found in some members of our Party.<br />
<br />
The individualism expresses itself as follows. Some people habitually place their personal interests above those of the Party when it comes to practical matters; they are preoccupied with personal gain and loss and always calculate in terms of personal interests; they abuse the public trust, turning their Party work to private advantage of one kind or another; or they attack comrades they dislike and wreak private vengeance, on high-sounding pretexts of principle or Party interests. When it comes to status, material benefits and other questions affecting everyday life, they invariably try to get more than others, compare themselves with those at the top, diligently strive after greater personal benefits and crow when they get them. But when it comes to work, they like to compare themselves with those who are less capable. When there hard hardships to beat they make themselves scarce. In times of danger they want to run away. When it comes to orderlies they always want more. Their living quarters must be of the best, and they want to show off and bask in the Party's glory. They want to grab all the good things of life, but when it comes to the "unpleasant things", they think these are for others. The heads of such people are stuffed with the ideology of the exploiting classes. They believe that "every person is for themself or that Heaven and Earth will destroy him", person is a "selfish animal", and "no one in the world is genuinely unselfish, unless he is a simpleton or an idiot". They even use such exploiting class rubbish to justify their own selfishness and individualism. There are such people in our Party.<br />
<br />
This type of self-seeking individualism often manifests itself inside the Party in unprincipled quarrelling, factional struggle, sectarianism and departmentalism; it manifests itself in disrespect for and willful violation of Party discipline. Most unprincipled struggles originate in personal interests. Those who go in for factional struggle and are given to sectarianism usually place their own individual interests or the interests of a small minority, above those of the Party. Often, in their unprincipled factional struggles they deliberately undermine Party organization and discipline, making unprincipled and sometimes calculated attacks on certain people, while contracting unprincipled friendships to avoid giving offence, to cover up for one another, to sing each other's praises, etc.<br />
<br />
Departmentalism within the Party arises chiefly because some comrades only see the interest of the part, i.e., the work of their own department of locality, and fail to see the interests of the whole, i.e., the interests of the entire Party and the work of other departments and localities. Politically and ideologically, this resembles the guild outlook. Not all comrades who make the mistake of departmentalism are necessarily prompted by individualism, but people with an individualist ideology usually make the mistake of departmentalism.<br />
<br />
Third. Conceit, the idea of individualistic heroism, ostentatiousness, etc., are still to be found, to a greater or lesser extent, in the minds of quite a few Party comrades.<br />
<br />
The first consideration of people with such notions is their position in the Party. They like to show off and to have people sing their praises and flatter them. They are ambitious, they like to cut a dash, to claim credit for themselves and to get the limelight, and they like to keep everything in their own hands and lack a democratic style of work. They are extremely vain and unwilling to immerse themselves in hard work or do routine or technical jobs. They are arrogant, and whenever they accomplish something they throw their weight about, become overbearing and try to domineer, and they do not treat others as equals in a modest and friendly way. They are complacent, talk down to and lecture people and order others about, and they are always trying to tread on people's necks; they do not learn modestly from others, particularly from the masses, and do not accept even well-grounded opinions and criticisms. They can bear promotion but not demotion, they can bear fair weather but not foul, and they cannot bear being misunderstood or wronged. As their baleful yearning for fame has not yet been uprooted they try to dress themselves up as "great men" and "heroes" in the communist movement and stop at nothing to gratify their desire. When they fail to achieve this object, or when they are misunderstood or wronged there is a danger that they will vacillate. Quite a number of people have vacillated and left our Party for such reasons in the course of its history. Exploiting class ideas still linger in the minds of such people, who fail to understand the greatness of the cause of communism and who lack the communist breadth of vision.<br />
<br />
Communists must not be in the least complacent or arrogant. Granted that some comrades are very capable, have done some good work and have to their credit considerable achievements which may be reckoned "great" and on which they might well preen themselves (for example, our army comrades who have led thousands and tens of thousands of men in battle and won victories, or the leaders of our Party and mass work in various places who have brought about fairly significant changes in the situation). Yet after all, how great are these achievements compared with the communist cause as a whole?<br />
<br />
And for persons with a communist world outlook, what is there worth preening oneself about in these achievements?<br />
<br />
For a Communist to do his work properly and well is no more than his duty. He should guard against complacency and arrogance and do his best to make no mistakes, or as few as possible.<br />
<br />
What is there in personal position for a Communist to bother about? No one's position is higher than an emperor's, and yet what is an emperor compared with a fighter in the cause of communism? Is he not just "a drop in the ocean" as Comrade Stalin put it? So what is there in personal position worth bothering or bragging about?<br />
<br />
Yes, we need countless communist heroes and many mass leaders of great prestige in our Party and in the communist movement. At present we really have too few of them and have yet to train and temper large numbers of good communist revolutionary leaders and heroes in all fields. This is indeed very important for our cause and must not be neglected. Whoever takes it lightly is ignorant of how to advance the cause of communism. Its advancement requires that we should greatly enhance the revolutionary spirit of enterprise among our Party members and bring their vitality into full play. We have to admit that so far we have not done enough in this respect. This is shown, for instance, by the fact that some Party members do not study hard and have little interest in politics and theory. Therefore, while we are opposed to individualistic heroism and ostentatiousness , we are certainly not opposed to a spirit of enterprise in the Party members. The desire to make progress in the interests of the people is the most precious quality in a Communist. But the communist, proletarian spirit of enterprise is entirely different from the individualist "spirit of enterprise". The former means seeking truth, upholding it and fighting for it with the greatest effectiveness. It is progressive and opens up unlimited prospects of development, while the latter offers no prospects even for the individual, for people with an individualist ideology are usually driven by their personal interest into deliberately brushing aside, covering up or distorting the truth.<br />
<br />
Our comrades must understand that genuine leaders and heroes in the communist movement are never individualistic, nor are they ever self-styled or self-appointed. Anyone who styles themself a leader or reaches after leadership can never become a leader of the Party. The rank and file of our Party will not make leaders of people who are prone to conceit, individualistic heroism, ostentatiousness, personal ambition and vanity. No member of our Party has any right to demand that the rank and file should support or keep him as a leader. Only those who are entirely selfless and devoted to the Party, only those with an excellent communist morality and fine communist qualities, who have grasped the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism, who have considerable practical ability, who can direct Party work correctly and who study hard and make constant progress can win the trust of the Party and the confidence and support of the rank and file, and so become leaders and heroes in the communist movement.<br />
<br />
Our comrades must also understand that a member, or a leader and hero, whoever he may be, can only do part of the work, can only carry part of the responsibility, in the communist movement. The communist cause is an undertaking which requires the collective efforts of tens of millions of people over a long period of time and which cannot be encompassed by any one individual alone. Even such great men as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin could only perform part of the work needed by the communist cause. The cause for which they worked requires the joint effort and sustained labour of tens of millions of us. We ordinary Communists are also doing part of the work of the communist cause and carrying part of the responsibility. Of course, our part is much smaller than that of Marx, Engles, Lenin or Stalin. Nevertheless, we have a small part. Big or small, it is all part of the great cause. Therefore, if only we do our part of the work well, we can consider that we have done our duty. Naturally we should try our best to do more, but if we cannot and can only do a little, that is also useful and just as honourable. In any case, we should at least not hamper the progress of the communist cause, but should do our part, whether big of small, and perform our work well, be it heavy or light; that is the correct attitude for every member of our Party. Comrades who are unwilling to undertake technical work think that it stifles their talents, that it prevents them from becoming famous (actually it does not, as witness the technical worker [[Alexei Stakhanov|Stakhanov]]<sup>1</sup> and from giving full play to their abilities and that it kills some of the enterprising spirit which all Communists should have. This view is wrong. Technical work occupies a very important place in our Party work, and comrades engaged in it are doing their share in the communist cause no less than comrades engaged in other jobs. The proper attitude for a Communist is to do whatever work the Party requires of him and do it happily and well, whether it suits his inclinations of not.<br />
<br />
Naturally, in assigning work to members, the Party organization and the responsible Party comrades should, as far as possible, take their individual inclinations and aptitudes into consideration, develop their strong points and stimulate their zeal to go forward. However, no Communist must refuse a Party assignment on the grounds of personal preference.<br />
<br />
Fourth, A small number of comrades are deeply imbued with the ideology of the exploiting classes. They are usually unscrupulous in dealing with comrades and in handling problems inside the Party, and are utterly devoid of the great and sincere proletarian communist spirit of mutual help and solidarity.<br />
<br />
People with this ideology always want to climb over the heads of others in the Party and, to this end, resort to attacking others and doing them harm. They are jealous of those more capable than themselves. They always try to pull down those who are moving ahead of them. They cannot bear playing second fiddle and think only of themselves and never of others. When other comrades are suffering difficulties of setbacks, they gloat or secretly rejoice and have no comradely sympathy at all. They even scheme to injure comrades "drop on one who has fallen into a well", and take advantage of comrades' weaknesses and difficulties to attack and harm them. They "crawl through any crack" and exploit and exacerbate any weakness in Party organization and work for their personal advantage.. They love to stir up trouble in the Party, speak ill of others behind their backs and engage in intrigues in order to sow dissension between comrades. They love to join in any unprincipled dispute that may occur in the Party and take great interest in unprincipled quarrels. They are especially active in stirring up and aggravating such quarrels when the Party is in difficulties. In short, they are thoroughly crooked and lack all integrity. Would it not be absurd to describe such people as being able to grasp the Marxist-Leninist theory and method and give expression to proletarian ideology? It is only too clear that all they express is the ideology of the declining exploiting classes.<br />
<br />
All exploiters must do harm to other people in order to expand. To increase their wealth, or to avoid bankruptcy in an economic crisis, bigger capitalists must squeeze many smaller capitalists out of existence and drive countless workers to starvation. To enrich themselves, landlords must exploit peasants and deprive many of them of their land. In order to expand, fascist Germany, Italy and Japan must devastate other countries; they have subjugated Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Abyssinia<sup>2</sup> and are committing aggression against China. Exploiters always harm and ruin other people as a necessary precondition for their own expansion; their happiness is founded on the suffering of others. Among the exploiters, therefore, genuine firm unity, genuine mutual help, and genuine human sympathy are impossible; they inevitably engage in intrigues and underhand activities in order to ruin others. Yet they have to lie and pose as saints and pillars of justice before the people. Such are the distinguishing characteristics of all declining exploiting classes. These person be models of "fine" ethical conduct for the exploiters, but they are most criminal from the point of view of the proletariat and the masses.<br />
<br />
The proletariat is the complete antithesis of the exploiting classes. It does not exploit others but is itself exploited. There is no conflict of basic interests within its ranks or between it and the other oppressed and exploited working people. Far from needing to harm other working people or impede their development for the sake of its own development and emancipation, the proletariat most forge the closest unity with them in the common struggle. If the proletariat is to emancipate itself, it must at the same time emancipate all other working people and emancipate all humanity. There can be no such thing as the separate emancipation of a single worker or section of workers. The proletariat must carry the cause of the emancipation of humanity through to the end, fighting step by step for the liberation of all humanity, and there can be no giving up or compromising half-way.<br />
<br />
As a result of this objective position occupied by the proletariat, the ideology of the politically conscious workers is the diametrical opposite of that of the exploiters. Communists are vanguard fighters of the proletariat, who arm themselves with Marxism-Leninism and are ruthless towards the people's enemies but never towards the toilers, their class brothers and comrades. They differentiate clearly and sharply between the attitudes and methods to be adopted against the enemy and those to be adopted towards their comrades and friends. They cherish great and sincere friendship, warmth and sympathy for other members of their own class and for all oppressed and exploited working people, towards whom they show a fine spirit of mutual help, firm unity and genuine equality. They are absolutely opposed to privileges of any kind for anyone, consider it impermissible to think in terms of privilege for themselves, and would deem it unthinkable and even a disgrace, to occupy a privileged position among the people. If they themselves are to develop and improve status, they must develop others and improve the status of all the working people at the same time. They are anxious not to fall behind, whether ideologically or politically or in their work, and they have a sturdy spirit of enterprise, but at the same time they esteem, cherish and support those who are ahead of them in these respects and, without any jealousy, do their best to learn from them. They are deeply concerned with the sufferings and privations of their own class and of all working people, they are concerned with all the struggles of the working people for emancipation anywhere in the world, regarding every victory or defeat for the working people anywhere as their own victory of defeat, and therefore displaying the greatest solidarity. They consider it wrong to be indifferent to the struggle of the working and oppressed people for liberation and criminal to gloat over their set-backs They cherish their own comrades and brothers, whose weaknesses and mistakes they criticize frankly and sincerely (and this shows genuine affection); in matters of principle they never gloss over and accommodate, let alone encourage mistakes (to accommodate or even to encourage others' mistakes does not betoken genuine affection for one's comrades). They do everything possible to help comrades overcome weaknesses and correct mistakes and never exploit or aggravate these weaknesses and mistakes to get comrades into trouble, let alone cause the mistakes to develop beyond correction. Not harbouring any desire to settle old scores, they can return good for evil to their own comrades and brothers and help them straighten themselves out. They can be strict with themselves and lenient with others. The stand they take is firm, strict and principled, their attitude is frank, upright and responsible, they do not give way on matters of principle, they do not tolerate anyone who harms the Party, they do not permit anyone to insult them and are particularly contemptuous of adulation and flattery as contrary to all principle. They oppose all unprincipled struggles; they do not let themselves become involved in such struggles and are not swayed or affected by irresponsible or casual criticism made behind their backs as to depart from principle, become incapable of thinking calmly or lose their composure. Such are the proletarian qualities in the most concentrated, exemplary and concrete form. These qualities represent everything of integrity in present-day society. Indeed it is the Communist Party that represents human integrity. We must foster and enhance such proletarian integrity and overcome all that is crooked and evil.<br />
<br />
Fifth. Pettiness, fussing over trifles and ignoring the general interest are faults still prevalent among some Party members. These comrades lack the nature and breadth of vision of Communists and are blind to the bigger things; they relish only the immediate and petty. They do not take much interest in the great problems and events in the Party and the revolution, but are always fussing over the merest trifles about which they enter into ponderous and endless arguments and become highly disturbed. Such people are also easily led by the nose when they receive some small favour or kindness. They have the petty-mindedness characteristic of small rural producers.<br />
<br />
There are other people who do not seem to have a clear-cut and definite attitude in their Party life, people who shift and hedge. They are actually of two kinds; for one kind the question is one of understanding and for the other, of moral character. The latter are always opportunistic in their personal behaviour, curry favour with all sides and try to please everybody. They tailor their words to the person and the circumstances, tack with the wind and show no principle whatsoever. Such are their characteristics. Sometimes, they wait and see what will suit the occasion, like the bat in Aesop's Fables,<sup>3</sup> and then move over to the winning side. Such-double faced creatures, who are neither fish nor fowl, are not altogether unknown in our ranks. They have the traits of the old-fashioned merchant. In addition, there are some individuals who, unable to resist the lure of the old society's exploiting classes, with their glittering world, their money and their women, begin to waver, go wrong and eventually to betray the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
Finally, the ideology of some of our Party comrades often reflects the impetuosity and vacillation of the petty-bourgeoisie and the destructiveness of the lumpen-proletariat and certain bankrupt peasants, but I shall not go into this question here.<br />
<br />
To sum up, our Party represents the great and powerful proletarian communist ideology, but it must be noted that all kinds of non-proletarian ideology—including even the ideology of the declining exploiting classes—are still reflected to a greater or lesser degree in the minds of certain comrades. At times such ideology is dormant in the Party, revealing itself only in insignificant matters of everyday life; but at other times it becomes active, systematically revealing itself in a whole variety of questions of Party principle, in major political questions and in problems of inner Party struggle. Certain sections of links in the Party organization may come to be dominated and corroded by such erroneous ideology, and in extreme cases in may even temporarily dominate key links in the Party leadership, as in the periods when people like [[Chen Duxiu]]<sup>4</sup> and [[Zhang Guotao]]<sup>5</sup> were in control. In normal periods, however, it is held in check by the correct proletarian ideology. These are all manifestations within the Party of the struggle between the proletarian and non-proletarian ideology. Similarly with some individual Party members. At times what is wrong in their ideology lies dormant and under control, but at other times it may grow and even dominate their actions. This is a manifestation among individual Party members of the contradiction and struggle between proletarian and non-proletarian ideology. For our Party members, ideological self-cultivation means that they must conscientiously use the proletarian ideology and the communist world outlook to overcome and eliminate all the various kinds of incorrect, non-proletarian ideology.<br />
<br />
== The Source of Wrong Ideology in Our Party ==<br />
The Communist Party, representing the brightest and most progressive aspects of contempory human society, is the bearer and disseminator of Marxism-Leninism, the acme of human thought. The most politically conscious, progressive and developed people in the world, people with the highest sense of morality and justice, are gathered in the communist Parties, fighting unswervingly against all the forces of darkness and for the bright future and final emancipation of humanity. The Communist Party of China is one of the best Communist Parties in the world. Guided by our leader Comrade Mao Zedong, our Party is armed with the powerful weapon of Marxist-Leninist theory and, at the same time, is carrying forward the fine traditions of progressive thinkers and revolutionaries in Chinese history. It represents the most progressive and brightest aspects of Chinese society, and the finest sons and daughters of the Chinese nation are gathered within its organized ranks. It has been fighting the forces of darkness in Chinese society for a long time, has gone through an arduous process of tempering and has accumulate rich experience in revolutionary struggle. In all this we Communists can justly take pride. There is every ground for absolute confidence that we shall finally be successful and victorious. However, we cannot say yet that everything in our organization is perfect, or that there are no shortcomings and faults. Nor can we say that our ranks are free from unsound and even bad elements, who might be quite capable of any sort of nastiness. In other words, our glorious Party contains some undesirable phenomena, some dark spots which I have already enumerated.<br />
<br />
Now when a family acquires an ugly son-in-law or daughter-in-law, it can not always keep him or her away from the guests. Even if we wanted to do so by taking the attitude of trying to "conceal the family shame", it would be impossible to hide such unpleasantness. The masses of the people are in constant contact with our Party, sympathisers come here to visit us and people who look up to us including many young men and women, come here to study or to join our Party. When they arrive, besides the progressive, fine and attractive things and "members of the family", they will naturally see the ugly sons- or daughters-in-law who might publicly say or do something unpleasant or make a spectacle of themselves, to the perplexity or our guests and new Party members. The newcomers may ask, "Does not the Communist Party stand for all that is just? Are Communists not the finest people? Why are there still such bad people and ugly things in the Communist Party? How strange!" Before joining the Party, some young comrades were bitterly dissatisfied with existing society, saw no way out and turned to the Communist Party as to a beacon of light. They thought that everything would be satisfactory and would work out well once they joined. Yet after doing so, or after arriving in our revolutionary base area, they find there are shortcomings and mistakes in the Party, too, and in real life not everything is satisfactory (much that would satisfy them would not be in the interests of the revolution and the Party), and so they feel reality is not entirely as they pictured it, and some begin to have doubts and feel puzzled. They ask, "Why are such things to be found in the Communist Party as well?" Before coming to Yan'an or before enrolling in the Anti-Japanese Military and Political College, some people imagined Yan'an and the College would live up to their dreams, but after their arrival and enrollment they do not find everything to their satisfaction and are perplexed. They ask, "How can such things happen even in Yan'an and the Anti-Japanese College?" And failing to find answers, some even become pessimistic and disheartened.<br />
<br />
Their questions should alert our Party members and cadres and be a lesson to them so that they will give serious attention to guiding and taking care of all new Party members and all who are moving in our direction and to ensuring they are not adversely affected. But, quite apart from this, we should explain things clearly to comrades inside and outside the Party.<br />
<br />
Why are there still such undesirable things in our splendid Party? The reason, I think, is rather simple. Our Party has not fallen from the skies, but has grown out of Chinese society. In general, our Party consists of the finest sons and daughters of our country, the vanguard of the Chinese proletariat, but they come from all strata of the old society, and in China today there still exists exploiting classes and the influence of these classes—selfishness, intrigue, bureaucracy and various types of filth. We have many excellent Party members who are not easily affected by such influences. But it is so strange that certain members bring some of the filth of the old society with them into our Party of reflect it there? Is it so strange that a person that has just crawled out of the mud is covered with slime? Of course not. It is only to be expected. It would be strange and indeed incredible, if the ranks of the Communist Party were absolutely free from such filth. It may be said that so long as such filth exists in society, so long as classes and exploiting class influences exist in society, there is bound to be some filth in the Communist Party. It is precisely because there is such filth in society, and in the Party, that it is the duty of the communist Party to change existing society, and it is necessary for Communists to remould, cultivate and temper themselves. In addition to carrying on a struggle in society at large against everything evil and backward,, it is imperative for us to carry on a struggle inside the Party against every social evil and backward influence as mirrored in the Party by vacillating and unsteady elements. This is the source of inner-Party contradiction and struggle. Through struggle, both inside and outside the Party, we seek to change society and gradually rid it of its evils and backwardness, and at the same time seek to perfect our Party and remould our Party members, and to resolve our inner-Party contradictions, so that our Party and its membership will become healthier and stronger.<br />
<br />
Stalin said:<blockquote>The source of the contradiction within the proletarian parties lies in two circumstances.</blockquote>What are these circumstances?<br />
<br />
They are firstly the pressure exerted by the bourgeoisie and bourgeois ideology on the proletariat and its party in the conditions of the class struggle—a pressure to which the least stable strata of the proletariat, and hence the least stable strata of the proletarian party, not infrequently succumb. It must not be thought that the proletariat is completely isolated from society, that it stands outside society. The proletariat is a part of society, connected with its diverse strata by numerous threads. But the party is a part of the proletariat Hence the Party cannot be exempt from connections with, and from the influence of, the diverse sections of the bourgeois society The pressure of the bourgeoisie and its ideology on the proletariat and its party finds expression in the fact that bourgeois ideas, manners, customs and sentiments not infrequently penetrate the proletariat and its party through definite strata of the proletariat that are in one way or another connected with bourgeois society.<br />
<br />
They are, secondly, the heterogeneity of the working class, the existence of a different strata within the working class....<br />
<br />
One stratum is the main mass of the proletariat, its core, its permanent part, the mass of "pure blooded" proletarians, who have long broken off connection with the capitalist class. This stratum of the proletariat is the most reliable bulwark of Marxism.<br />
<br />
The second stratum consists of new comers from non-proletarian classes—from the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie or the intelligencia. These are former members of other classes who have only recently merged with the proletariat and brought with them into the working class their customs, their habits, their waverings and their vacillations. This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for all sorts of anarchist, semi-anarchist and "ultra-Left" groups.<br />
<br />
The third stratum, lastly, consists of the labour aristocracy, the upper stratum of the working class, the most well-to-do portion of the proletariat, with its propensity for compromise with the bourgeoisie, its predominant inclination to adapt itself to the powers that be, and its anxiety go "get on in life". This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for outright reformists and opportunists.<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
Here we see the source of the various kinds of non-proletarian ideology and the various errors, shortcomings and undesirable phenomena that exist in our proletarian party. Here, indeed, is the source of the various contradictions that are present in our Party.<br />
<br />
== Attitudes Towards Wrong Ideology in the Party and Towards Inner-Party Struggle ==<br />
The influences exerted by the exploiting classes and the petty bourgeoisie, the existence of different strata within the working class and the differences in the class background of our Party members give rise to different ideas among them, to certain differences in viewpoints, habits and sentiments, in world outlook and moral values, and differences in the way they look at and think about things in general and the problems of the revolution in particular.<br />
<br />
Some people in our Party are able to view issues as developing and interrelated, but others habitually view them statistically and in isolation. The former are able to grasp matters comprehensively and objectively and hence to draw correct conclusions that can serve us as correct guide lines to action. As for the latter, some of them only see or over emphasize this side of a thing, while others only see and over emphasize the other side; both fail to view problems comprehensively and objectively in accordance with the laws of the development and interrelationship of objective phenomena, and both take a one-sided, subjective view of problems. Hence, they are unable to arrive at correct conclusions or chart the right course for our actions.<br />
<br />
The differences among Party members in their approach to problems lead to different ways of handling problems, to divergences and controversies are bound to become especially acute at turning points in the revolution, or when the struggle grows in intensity and hardship mount.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the crux of the matter is not whether there are differences of thought and opinion within the Party, since such differences always exist. The crux of the matter is how to resolve contradictions, settle differences and overcome all kinds of incorrect, non-proletarian thinking. Obviously, it is only through inner-Party struggle that such contradictions can be resolved, differences settled and incorrect thinking overcome. As Engels put it, “In the long run the contradictions are never slurred over, but always fought out.”<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
Different people hold different views and take different attitudes with regard to shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in our Party.<br />
<br />
People of one kind do not or will not see shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in our Party, but blindly believe that there is scarcely anything wrong in it; hence they relax their vigilance and slacken their struggle their struggle against these phenomena. People of another kind see nothing, or hardly anything, except these undesirable phenomena and fail to see how correct and glorious our Party is; hence they become pessimistic and loose confidence, or they become alarmed and bewildered in the face of such phenomena. The views of both are wrong and one-sided. Our view is different.. On the one hand, we know we know that our Party is the political party of the proletariat, the most progressive and revolutionary party in China. On the other, we know clearly that there are still shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena, major and minor in our Party. Moreover, we clearly understand their source and how to correct and gradually eliminate them, and we are making constant efforts to temper ourselves, improve our work and wage the necessary struggles in order to promote the progress of the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
Since people differ in their class stand and their views, they take different attitudes towards what is undesirable in our Party. One attitude is that of alien class and hostile elements who have wormed their way into our Party. A second attitude is that of Party members who lack a firm proletarian stand and have a wrong way of thinking. A third is that of Party members who firmly uphold the principles of Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
The alien class and hostile elements who have worked their way into the Party are glad of its shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena. Gleefully seeking their opportunity, they use every possible means to exploit and magnify some of these undesirable phenomena for the purpose of wrecking our Party. Sometimes they even make a pretence of opposing certain mistakes and supporting the Party line in order to cause an opposite kind of mistake to be committed. People with the second type of attitude fall into the following distinct categories:<br />
<br />
1. Some Party members sympathize with and accept certain erroneous ideas, or follow the bad example of certain people in the Party, so as to further their personal ends and desires. They consider the existence of certain short comings and mistakes in the Party to be to their advantage and therefore, whether intentionally or unintentionally, aggravate these failings and exploit them. This is the attitude of careerists of bad characters in the Party.<br />
<br />
2. Some Party members do nothing about the shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party and allow them to grow. They just muddle along and are unwilling to fight these evils. They fear inner-Party struggle and self-criticism, considering them harmful to the Party, or they are insensitive or shut their eyes to the undesirable things, or they are perfunctory and compromising in the struggle against them. This is the attitude taken by Communists who have a weak sense of duty towards the Party, are extremely liberalistic, or are guilty of bureaucracy.<br />
<br />
3. The attitude of some Party members towards these shortcomings and mistakes and towards those comrades who have incorrect ideas is one of “bitter hatred and gall”. They lightly sever all relations with comrades who have committed some mistake and whom they attempt to expel from the Party outright. If they fail in this and need rebuffs, they give up and become pessimistic and down-hearted, or they keep aloof, “preserve their purity” and even put a great distance between themselves and the Party. This extreme attitude is also shown in some comradesÕ mechanical conception of inner-Party struggle and self-criticism. People with this attitude believe that inner-Party struggle must be launched under any and all circumstances—the more frequently and bitterly, the better. They magnify every trifle into a matter of “principle” and brand every tiny fault with such labels as political opportunism. They do not carry on inner-Party struggle properly and specifically in accordance with the objective needs and objective laws of development, but instead “struggle” mechanically, subjectively and violently, regardless of the consequences. This is the attitude taken by Party members who do not understand the source of inner-Party contradictions, who lack skill in dealing with inner-Party differences and who have a mechanical conception of inner-Party struggle. For a time, this extreme attitude towards inner-Party struggle was exploited by the “Left” opportunists in the Party. They intensified mechanical and excessive struggles to the point of deliberately hunting for “targets of struggle” within the Party, deliberately creating inner-Party struggles, punishing comrades by abusing Party disciplinary measures and even employing against them measures applicable to struggles outside the Party; and it was by such “struggles” and “disciplinary measures” that they tried to push the work ahead.<br />
<br />
The attitude we should adopt is the proletarian Marxist-Leninist one. Contrary to the erroneous attitudes described above, we advocate the following.<br />
<br />
1. First of all, get to know the various phenomena, ideas, views and opinions in the Party and distinguish those which are correct and beneficial to the interests of the Party and the revolution from those which are not, or, in the case of a dispute in which both sides are wrong, perceive this and be able to point out the correct view or opinion. After sober analysis and consideration, decide on a clear-cut attitude and take a correct stand. Do not follow blindly or drift with the tide.<br />
<br />
2. Profit by every good example, promote and spread a spirit of integrity in the Party and vigorously support all correct views and opinions. Do not follow any bad examples or be influenced by any wrong ideas.<br />
<br />
3. Do not take a liberalistic attitude or flinch from any necessary inner-Party struggle. Carry on an irreconcilable struggle in the Party against ideas and views which are wrong in principle and against all other undesirable phenomena, so that we can constantly move to overcome them; they should never be allowed to develop unchecked to the detriment of the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
4. Do not take a mechanical and extreme attitude. Properly combine irreconcilability and clarity in matters of principle with flexibility and patient persuasion in methods of struggle; in thecourse of prolonged struggles, educate, criticize, temper and remould comrades who have committed errors but who are not incorrigible. Such inner-Party ideological struggles on matters of principle as are necessary at different periods should be waged in a concrete and proper way; inner-Party struggles should not be waged indiscriminatingly, subjectively,, mechanically or on shadowy pretexts. Do not become “struggle addicts”.<br />
<br />
5. Strengthen the unity and discipline of the Party and enhance its prestige through inner-Party struggle. Organizational penalties, ranging all the way to expulsion, should be applied to the incorrigible elements of the Party. We should regard it as our supreme duty to safeguard the Party’s unity, preserve the purity of its ideology and consolidate its organization.<br />
<br />
Such is the attitude of all good Communists in the Party and indeed the only correct Marxist-Leninist attitude.<br />
<br />
It is not strange that our enemies should seek to make use of our every shortcoming and mistake to undermine our Party. Besides constantly sharpening our vigilance, we should do everything possible to give the enemy as little opportunity as possible to exploit shortcomings and mistakes in the Party whenever they occur; this is the duty of every comrade who cherishes the Party. If a Party member ignores this consideration in inner-Party struggle, if he only seeks to vent his feelings, or goes to the length of joining up with bad elements instead of rejecting their assistance, or even makes use of outside forces to help him attain some private ends within the Party, he will be making an unpardonable breach of discipline.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party should be the embodiment of correct ideology and should follow good examples in the Party; they should not follow but oppose wrong ideas and bad examples. But what actually happens is that some comrades that are generally correct in their ideology and follow good examples, sometimes reflect certain wrong ideas and follow certain bad examples. Other comrades seem to find it easy to learn from bad but hard to learn from good, and this merits our serious attention. When mistakes occur in the Party, they are apt to encourage or aggravate them, intentionally of unintentionally. In inner-Party struggles they are apt to take the wrong side or to go along with whichever side is currently in vogue., irrespective of right and wrong. These comrades will hardly make progress unless they receive strict criticism and rigorous tempering.<br />
<br />
Of course comrades who adopt a liberalistic or bureaucratic attitude towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomenon inside the Party are also wrong. This, I think should be quite clear to you as students of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism. For in the Party building course which you have studied, the necessity of self-criticism and ideological struggle within the Party is clearly and thoroughly discussed; you can go into it again, and I need not well on the matter further. However, I do want to point out that quite a few comrades have this liberalistic attitude. We often do not have enough really responsible and sincere criticism and self-criticism conducted in keeping with the Party’s organizational principles, for the purpose of exposing, correcting and eliminating the undesirable phenomena in the Party, and more particularly we do not have enough criticism from below and self-criticism, both of which would be greatly encouraged. On the other hand, there is quite a lot of criticism that is irresponsible and not in keeping with the Party’s organizational principles, of talking behind peopleÕs backs and gossip about this or that person or thing. Both are manifestations of liberalism in the Party. They show that some of the comrades are insufficiently mature politically and are not courageous enough in revolutionary struggle; they also indicate that inner-Party democracy has not been properly developed. Some comrades dare not dispense with face-saving, and fear to offend others lest they themselves incur complaints and counter-criticism. They would rather leave the shortcomings and mistakes alone, taking the attitude of “getting by” and “the less trouble the better”, but at the same time they talk about comrades behind their backs. All this harms the Party and does it no good. Irresponsible criticism and talk are not likely to overcome the shortcomings and mistakes in the party but will lead to unprincipled disputes and disunity. We stand for inner-Party criticism and self-criticism which is responsible and beneficial to the Party and is in keeping with its organizational principles.<br />
<br />
Shortcomings and mistakes exist in the Party and so do incorrect non-proletarian ideas. Any of these may at certain times develop into a trend, giving rise to differences of principle and imparing the PartyÕs unity of action. Hence it is impossible to educate the Party, the proletariat and the masses correctly if we do not unfold criticism and self-criticism, constantly expose and correct short comings and mistakes, overcome wrong ideas and conduct inner-Party struggle to resolve inner-Party differences, but instead take a compromising attitude and follow a “middle” line, or try to muddle through in inner-Party struggle.<br />
<br />
Liberalism in inner-Party struggle is manifested in yet another way. Thus when a dispute breaks out in the Party, many comrades put aside their work and indulge in aimless debate for days and months on end or let themselves go without restraint; as a result, the unity of the Party becomes the looser, Party discipline is weakened, the Party’s prestige is impaired and our militant Party organizations turn into debating societies. Such things have occurred more than once in certain Party organizations. They have absolutely nothing in common with the kind of criticism and self-criticism we advocate. We need criticism and self-criticism, not in order to impair the Party’s prestige, undermine its discipline and weaken its leadership, but in order to promote the Party’s prestige, consolidate its discipline and strengthen its leadership.<br />
<br />
Hence, it is wrong to adopt a liberalistic or bureaucratic attitude towards the various shortcomings and mistakes in the Party. In order to fight against all undesirable phenomena and resolve differences, we must promote criticism and self-criticism and conduct inner-Party struggle correctly. Only then can the party be strengthened, grow and advance.<br />
<br />
Comrades who take an extreme attitude in inner-Party struggle are also wrong.<br />
<br />
The extreme attitude is the exact antithesis of the liberalistic attitude. It arises because these comrades fail to understand that wrong ideas in the Party have deep social roots and cannot possibly be eliminated at one stroke. At various times and in varying degrees, many of our Party comrades may reflect certain incorrect ideas existing in society and may commit some mistakes in their work under the influence of non-proletarian ideologies; no comrade can entirely avoid this. If the Party were to refuse to retain or tolerate all comrades who reflect non-proletarian ideologies in some degree, or who have committed some mistakes and yet are not incorrigible, and were to reject them categorically and even expel them, then the tasks of educating the comrades and consolidating the Party’s organization would be nonexistent. Were our Party to follow such an extreme policy, the comrades promoting such actions would eventually have to be expelled themselves. In particular, these comrades fail to understand that the achievement of communism involves the tremendous and difficult task of transforming all humanity into the selfless citizenry of a communist society, the task of converting men with their many weaknesses into communists with a high level of culture through a long process of tempering and education in the course of struggle. If they did understand this, then they would understand that our Party has the important and constant duty of educating and remoulding people who are already members but whose ideology is not wholly proletarian.<br />
<br />
Naturally, the education and remoulding of such Party members is a most arduous task requiring prolonged and patient effort. Yet if we are unwilling to tackle this difficult task and shrink from it, how can we talk about changing the world and all humanity? Since we are determined to undertake, and not to shrink from, the unprecedentedly arduous task of changing the world and all humanity, what other task in the world today can daunt us? Party members who have the communist world outlook are dauntless, fear no difficulty or hardship, and understand that the process of development is torturous. Comrades who take an extreme attitude do not understand that the achievement of communism is an arduous and torturous task, they fear difficulties and crave a straight road, they want to eliminate everything unpleasant at one stroke and leap immediately into the world of their ideals. Thinking and acting in this way, they inevitably run their heads against a brick wall. And after banging and bruising their heads, they quite often become disheartened and loose their confidence in the future of communism. Thus they swing between extremes, from “Left” to “Right”, thereby revealing the essence of their non-proletarian ideology. It is regrettable that this erroneous, extreme attitude towards inner-Party shortcomings and mistakes should still be found to a greater or lesser extent among quite a few comrades, although it is harmful to the Party, to other comrades and to themselves.<br />
<br />
Inner-Party struggle is necessary not because we are subjectively addicted to struggle or partial to dispute, but because inner-Party differences of principle do arise in the growth of the Party and in the proletarian struggle. When they occur, “contradictions can be overcome only by means of a struggle for definite principles, for definite aims of the struggle, for definite methods of waging the struggle leading to the desired aim.”<sup>2</sup> Compromise is of no avail here. This means that when a dispute has developed into one of principle which can only be resolved through struggle, we should unflinchingly wage inner-Party struggle in order to resolve it. It does not mean that we should make a big fuss over small matters, conduct inner-Party struggle with stony faces and never compromise even on routine and on questions of a purely practical nature. “One can, and one should agree to any compromise with dissenters in the party on questions of current policy,, on questions of a purely practical nature.”<sup>3</sup><br />
<br />
When opportunist ideas and differences of principle arise in the Party, we must, of course, wage struggles to overcome those ideas and errors of principle. This defiantly does not mean that when there are no differences of principles and no opportunist ideas in the Party, we should deliberately magnify into “differences of principle” divergences of opinion among comrades on questions of a purely practical nature.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said: “The Party must on the one hand wage a serious struggle against erroneous thinking, and on the other give the comrades who have committed errors ample opportunity to wake up. This being the case, excessive struggle is obviously inappropriate.”<sup>4</sup><br />
<br />
It is necessary to make severe criticism of, or even to apply organizational penalties to, those comrades who, after committing opportunist mistakes or other mistakes of principle, turn a deaf ear to persuasion and Party criticism, wilfully and obstinately cling to their errors and resist Party policy, or double-faced in their attitude. But if these comrades do not cling to their mistakes but are willing to correct them and give up their previous point of view after sober discussion, persuasion and criticism, or if they coolly ponder over their mistakes or soberly discuss them with other comrades, we should welcome every small sign of progress on their part and not subject them to penalties undiscriminatingly. In criticism and inner-Party struggle, it is not true that the more stony-faced we are the better, or that the more comrades we punish the better; our highest aim is to educate the erring comrades to the best effect, help them to correct their mistakes, educate the entire membership and consolidate the Party.<br />
<br />
The “Left” opportunists are clearly wrong in their attitude towards inner-Party struggle. According to these almost hysterical people, any peace in the Party was intolerable—even peace based on complete unanimity on matters of principle an on the Party line. Even in the absence of any differences of principle in the Party, they deliberately hunted out targets, dubbed some comrades “opportunist” and set them up as “straw men” to shoot at in inner-Party struggle. They thought that such erroneous struggle and such shooting at “straw men” were the magic formula for developing the Party and achieving victory in the revolutionary fight of the proletariat. They considered that to stir up trouble out of nothing or to deliberately concoct inner-Party struggle was the only “Bolshevik” way. Of course, this is not serious and earnest inner-Party struggle; rather it is a mockery of the Party and the perverting of inner-Party struggle, which is a most serious matter, into a frivolous game. The advocates of such action are not Bolsheviks at all but are either people who are well-nigh incorrigible or careerists exploiting the name “Bolshevik”.<br />
<br />
We have been discussing the attitude to be adopted towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party. It is by combating all that is bad inside and outside the Party that we change the world and humanity and at the same time perfect the Party and remould ourselves. Inner-Party struggle is a reflection within the Party of existing contradictions in society between classes and between old and new. The Party tempers, develops and consolidates itself in the class struggle outside the Party (i.e., in the revolutionary struggles of the masses of the people) and simultaneously becomes consolidated and united through struggle inside the Party, and is therefore able to give more systematic, correct and effective leadership to the revolutionary struggle of the masses. Hence it would be utterly wrong, advantageous to the enemy, contrary to the laws of development of the class struggle and incompatible with our basic thesis of transformation of the world and humanity through struggle, if we were to adopt a liberal attitude towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party by flossing over internal differences of principle, covering up inner-Party contradictions, evading inner-Party struggle and just muddling along. Similarly, it would be wrong to isolate the struggle inside the Party from the class struggle outside the Party or the revolutionary movement of the masses and thus turn inner-Party struggle into empty talk. In fact, it is impossible to temper, develop and consolidate the party in isolation from the revolutionary struggle of the masses. However, it would be equally wrong and contrary to the laws of development of the Party, if we were to carry matters to the other extreme and adopt an extreme attitude towards all comrades who have shortcomings or have committed errors but who are not irredeemable, or if we were to fail to distinguish between them and the enemy, conducting mechanical and excessive inner-Party struggles against them and wilfully fabricating such struggles. We should not break with comrades who have committed errors but who are nevertheless loyal. Rather, we should show concern and sympathy for them, persuade and educate them and help them temper and reform themselves in struggle. We should not castigate or expel them unless they persist in their mistakes and prove incorrigible.<br />
<br />
Although there are still some shortcomings and mistakes, some isolated minor evils in our Party, we are fully confident that with the advance of the working-class movement we can and will get rid of them through the great revolutionary struggles of the masses. The history of nearly two decades of struggle and glorious progress by the Communist Party of China and the worldwide development of the working-class movement, thoroughly convince us of this.<br />
<br />
Inner-Party struggle is an indispensable component of the revolutionary struggle as a whole. Our comrades should therefore temper and cultivate themselves both in struggles outside the Party and in the struggle on two fronts inside the Party. Among many Party comrades, however, there is still no genuinely profound appreciation of such inner-Party struggle, and there is insufficient tempering and self-cultivation. This is manifested not only in the frequent unprincipled struggles carried on by some comrades but also in the fact that certain comrades, including even some with a fairly long history of militant struggle, cannot stand being criticized of misjudged. When fighting the counter-revolution, they never waver, complain or feel dejected, however ruthless the struggle, however bitter the conditions and however vicious the enemy’s blows. Yet in inner-Party struggle they cannot stand being criticized, attacked, misjudged or wronged, or tolerate even a single unpleasant word. Or they suspect people of making pointed allusions to them, and so they complain and feel very dejected. We must really five this kind of thing our attention.<br />
<br />
It must be stated that on the whole these comrades are very good because they wage resolute struggle against the counter-revolutionaries and look upon the Party as a most affectionate mother. After going out to fight hard battles against the counter-revolutionaries they should receive encouragement, consolation and caresses, and not blows and wrongs, when they return to their great mother’s embrace. It is only natural for them to expect such treatment. However, they fail to take one point into account, or fully into account—that our Party still has shortcomings and faults and that there are inner-Party struggles which every comrade must take part in. Our Party criticises and combats shortcomings and faults not because it is unfeeling but because such action is unavoidable in the course of revolutionary struggle. It is necessary for comrades in the course of inner-Party struggle to receive well founded criticism, for it is helpful to them, to the other comrades and to the whole Party. On the other hand, it is also unavoidable that at times some comrades will receive unfounded criticisms or be attacked on certain matters, or will even be wrongly judged and disciplined. Failing to allow for this, they become shocked and feel most miserable and dejected when it occurs.<br />
<br />
In this connection, it is my opinion that every Party member should pay attention to uniting with his comrades, be sincere and open,, refrain from hurting others by thoughtless or sarcastic remarks and, in particular, refrain from irresponsibly criticizing comrades behind their backs. The proper attitude to any comrade’s mistakes is sincerely to remonstrate with him and criticize him to his face., out of concern for the comrade and a desire to be of help. All of us, and especially those in more responsible positions, must bear this in mind.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, it is my opinion that comrades should be mentally prepared for inner-Party struggle, should open-mindedly accept all well-grounded criticism and be able to endure misunderstandings or attacks, or even unfairness and injustice; in particular, they should not get upset or excited over irresponsible and unjustified criticism or rumours. As far as irresponsible misjudgement and criticism are concerned—that is, excluding properly conducted criticism among comrades or through the Party organization—one can try and clear the matter up or offer some explanation when necessary, but if that does not help, one might just as well let others say what they please, provided there is nothing wrong in one’s thinking and behaviour. Let us remember the Chinese sayings: “Who never gossips about others behind their backs or is never the subject of gossip?” and “Never mind the storm, just sit tight in the fishing boat.” No one in this world can entirely avoid being misunderstood, but misunderstandings can always be cleared up sooner or later. We should be able to endure misunderstandings and should never allow ourselves to be dragged into unprincipled struggle; at the same time, we should be always vigilant and keep watch over our own thoughts and actions.<br />
<br />
That is to say, we should take care not to use words that wound other comrades and should be able to stand injurious language from others.<br />
<br />
We are radically opposed to unprincipled disputes in the Party. Since they are unprincipled, they are useless and harmful to the Party, and there is generally little of right or wrong, or good or bad, about them. In such unprincipled struggles, therefore, there is no point in passing judgement as to who is right and who is wrong, or estimating who is better and who is worse, because that is impossible. All we can do is radically to oppose struggles of that kind and ask the comrades involved unconditionally to stop them and get back to principles. This is the policy we should adopt towards unprincipled disputes and struggles. But what is to be done if unprincipled disputes do arise and if many of them get tangled up with struggles over principle? What should be done if such disputes knock at our door and we get dragged into them? All we can do in that case is, again, to put the stress on the questions of principle and avoid stressing those not involving any principle. Basing ourselves on the policy outlined here, we should handle such unprincipled disputes strictly and ourselves stand firm on the principle from beginning to end, refusing to be dragged into the unprincipled disputes. When something does go wrong to you, do not throw back something wrong at him. Always stand by the right to oppose the wrong. Some of our comrades find it very difficult to act in this way, which shows why special attention to self-tempering and self-cultivation is necessary.<br />
<br />
Let me briefly sum up the points discussed.<br />
<br />
The aim of ideological self-cultivation by members of the Communist party is to temper themselves to become staunch and utterly devoted members and cadres of the Party who make constant progress and serve as examples for others. What is required of us is the following:<br />
<br />
1. To build up our communist world outlook and a firm Party and proletarian class standpoint through the study of Marxism-Leninism and participation in the revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
2. To examine our own thinking and behaviour, to correct all erroneous ideas and at the same time to judge questions and judge other comrades on the basis of our communist world outlook and our firm Party and proletarian class standpoint.<br />
<br />
3. Always to adopt a correct attitude and appropriate methods in the struggle against erroneous ideology in the Party, and especially against the erroneous ideology which affects the current revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
4. To keep a firm control over ourselves in thought, speech and action, especially to take a firm standpoint and adhere to correct principles with regard to political ideas, statements and activities which are related to the current revolutionary struggle. In addition, it is as well to be careful even over “trifles” (in one's personal life, attitude, etc.). But as for making demands on other comrades, apart from matters of principle and major political questions, we should not be too severe or fault finding over “trifles”.<br />
<br />
In my opinion, the above is what we mean, fundamentally, when we talk about ideological self-cultivation by members of the Communist Party.<br />
[[Category:Library works by Liu Shaoqi]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:How_to_Be_a_Good_Communist&diff=64299Library:How to Be a Good Communist2024-03-17T16:21:50Z<p>RedCustodian: /* The Cause of Communism is the Greatest and Most Arduous Undertaking in Human History */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Library work|title=How to Be a Good Communist|author=Liu Shaoqi|written in=1939}}<br />
<br />
Comrades,<br />
<br />
The question I shall discuss us how members of the [[Communist Party of China|Communist Party]] should cultivate and temper themselves. It may not be unprofitable to the building and consolidation of the Party to take up this question at this present time.<br />
<br />
== Why Communists Must Undertake Self-Cultivation ==<br />
Why must Communists undertake to cultivate themselves?<br />
<br />
In order to live, person must wage a struggle against nature and make use of nature to produce [[Materialism|material]] values. At all times and under all conditions, his [[production]] of material things is social in character. It follows that when men engage in production at any [[Mode of production|stage of social development]], they have to enter into certain [[relations of production]] with one another. In their ceaseless struggle against nature, men ceaselessly change nature and simultaneously change themselves and their mutual relations. Men themselves, their social relations, their form of social organization and consciousness were all different from what they are today, and in the future they will again be different.<br />
<br />
Humanity and human society are in process of [[Historical materialism|historical development]]. When human society reached a certain historical stage, [[Social class|classes]] and [[class struggle]] emerged. Every member of a [[class society]] exists as a member of a given class and lives in given conditions of class struggle. Man’s social being determines his consciousness. In class society the ideology of the members of each class reflects a different position and different class interests. The class struggle constantly goes on among these classes with their different positions, interests and ideologies. Thus it is not only in the struggle against nature but in the struggle of social classes that men change nature, change society and at the same time change themselves.<br />
<br />
[[Karl Marx|Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]] said:<blockquote>Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary, an alteration that can only take place in a practical movement, a ''[[Proletarian revolution|revolution]]''; the revolution is necessary, therefore, not only the [[Bourgeoisie|ruling class]] cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because [[Proletariat|the class ''overthrowing'' it]] can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>That is to say, the proletariat must conscientiously go through long periods of social revolutionary struggles and, in such struggles change society and change itself.<br />
<br />
We should therefore see ourselves as in need of change and capable of being changed. We should not look upon ourselves as immutable, perfect and sacrosanct, as persons who need not and cannot be changed. When we pose the task of remoulding ourselves in social struggle, we are not demeaning ourselves; the objective laws of social development demand it. Unless we do so, we cannot make progress, or fulfill the task of changing society.<br />
<br />
We Communists are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history; to day the changing of society and the world rests upon us and we are the driving force in this change. It is by unremitting struggle against [[Counterrevolution|counter-revolutionaries]]<sup>3</sup> that we Communists change society and the world, and at the same time ourselves.<br />
<br />
When we say Communists must remould themselves by waging struggles in every sphere against the counter-revolutionaries,<sup>3</sup> we mean that it is through such struggles that they must seek to make progress and must enhance their revolutionary quality and ability. An immature revolutionary has to go through a long process of revolutionary tempering and self-cultivation, a long process of remoulding, before he cam become a mature and seasoned revolutionary who can grasp and skillfully apply the laws of revolution. For in the first place, a comparatively immature revolutionary, born and bred in the old society, carries with him the remnants of the various ideologies of that society (including its prejudices, habits and traditions), and in the second he has not been through a long period of revolutionary activity. Therefore he does not yet have a really thorough understanding of the enemy, of the people or of the laws of social development and revolutionary struggle. In order to change this state of affairs, besides learning from past revolutionary experience (the practice of our predecessors), he must themself participate in contemporary revolutionary practice, and in this revolutionary practice and struggle against all kinds of counter revolutionaries,<sup>3</sup> he must bring his conscious activity into full play and work hard at study and self-cultivation. Only so can he acquire deeper experience and understanding of the laws of social development and revolutionary struggle, acquire a really thorough understanding of the enemy and the people, discover his wrong ideas, habits and prejudices and correct them, and thus raise the level of his political consciousness, cultivate his revolutionary qualities and improve his revolutionary methods. Hence, in order to remould themself and raise his owl level, a revolutionary must take part in revolutionary practice from which he must on no account isolate themself. Moreover, he must strive to conduct self-cultivation and study in the course of practice. Otherwise, it will still be impossible for him to make progress.<br />
<br />
For example, several Communists take part in a revolutionary mass struggle together and engage in revolutionary practice under roughly the same circumstances and conditions. It is possible that the effect of the struggle on these Party members will not be at all uniform. Some will make very rapid progress and some who used to lag behind will even forge ahead of others. Other Party members will advance very slowly. Still others will waver in the struggle and, instead of being pushed forward by revolutionary practice, will fall behind. Why?<br />
<br />
Or take another example. Many members of our Party were on the [[Long March]]; it was a severe process of tempering for them, and the overwhelming majority made very great progress indeed. But the Long March had the opposite effect on certain individuals in the Party. After having been on the Long March they began to shrink before arduous struggles, and some of them even planned to back out or to run away and later, succumbing to outside allurements, actually deserted the revolutionary ranks. Many Party members took part in the Long March together, and yet its impact and results varied very greatly. Again, why?<br />
<br />
Basically speaking, these phenomena are reflections of our revolutionary ranks of the class struggle in society. Our Party members differ in quality because they differ in social background and have come under different social influences. They differ in their attitude, stand and comprehension in relation to the revolutionary practice, and consequently they develop in different directions in the course of revolutionary practice. This can clearly be seen in your institute as well. You all receive the same education and training here, and yet because you differ in quality and experience, in degree of effort and self-cultivation, you may obtain different of even contrary results. Hence, subjective effort and self-cultivation in the course of revolutionary struggle are absolutely essential, indeed, indispensable for a revolutionary in remoulding themself and raising his own level.<br />
<br />
Whether he joined the revolution long ago or just recently, every Communist who wants to become a good politically mature revolutionary must undergo a long period of tempering in revolutionary struggle, must steel themself in mass revolutionary struggles and all kinds of difficulties and hardships, must sum up the experience gained through practice, make great efforts in self-cultivation, raise his ideological level, heighten his ability and never loose sense of what is new. For only thus can he turn themself into a politically staunch revolutionary of high quality.<br />
<br />
[[Confucius]] said “At fifteen, my mind was bent on learning. At thirty, I could think for myself. At forty, I was no longer perplexed. At fifty, I knew the decree of Heaven. At sixty, my ear was attuned to the truth. At seventy, I can follow my heart’s desire without transgressing what is right.”<sup>4</sup> Here the [[Feudalism|feudal]] philosopher was referring to his own process of self-cultivation; he did not consider themself to have been born a “sage”.<br />
<br />
[[Mencius]], another feudal philosopher, said that no one had fulfilled a “great mission” and played a role in history without first undergoing a hard process of tempering, a process which “exercises his mind with suffering and toughens his sinews and bones with toil, exposes his body to hunger, subjects him to extreme poverty, thwarts his under-takings and thereby stimulates his mind, tempers his character and adds to his capacities”.<sup>5</sup> Still more so must Communists give attention to tempering and cultivating themselves in revolutionary struggles, since they have the historically unprecedented “great mission” of changing the world.<br />
<br />
Our Communist self-cultivation is the kind essential to proletarian revolutionaries. It must not be divorced from revolutionary practice or from the actual revolutionary movements of the labouring masses, and especially of the proletarian masses.<br />
<br />
Comrade [[Mao Zedong]] has said:<blockquote>Discover the truth through practice, and again through practice verify and develop the truth. Start from perceptual knowledge and actively develop it into rational knowledge; then start from rational knowledge and actively guide revolutionary practice to change both the subjective and the objective world. Practice, knowledge, again practice and again knowledge. This form repeats itself in endless cycles, and with each cycle the content the content of practice and knowledge rises to a higher level. Such is the whole of the dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge, and such is the dialectical-materialist theory of the unity of knowing and doing.<sup>6</sup></blockquote>Our Party members should temper themselves and intensify their self-cultivation not only in the hardships, difficulties and reverses of revolutionary practice, but also in the course of smooth, successful and victorious revolutionary practice. Some members of our Party cannot stand the plaudits of success and victory; they let victories turn their heads, become brazen, arrogant, and bureaucratic and may even vacillate, degenerate and become corrupted, completely loosing their original revolutionary quality. Individual instances of this kind are not uncommon among our Party members. The existence of such a phenomenon in the Party calls for our comrades’ sharp attention.<br />
<br />
In past ages, before the proletarian revolutionaries appeared on the scene, practically all [[Revolution|revolutionaries]] became corrupted and degenerated with the achievement of victory. They lost their original revolutionary spirit and became obstacles to the further development of the revolution. [[Republic of China|China]]’s [[History of China|history]] over the past century, or to speak of more recent times, over the past fifty years, has shown us that many bourgeois and [[Petty bourgeoisie|petty-bourgeois]] revolutionaries in the past and by the nature of earlier revolutions. Before the [[Russian revolution of 1917|Great October Socialist Revolution]] in [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1991)|Russia]], all revolutions throughout history invariably ended in the suppression of the rule of one [[Exploitation|exploiting]] class by that of another. Thus, once they themselves became the ruling class, these revolutionaries lost their revolutionary quality and turned round to [[Oppression|oppress]] the exploited masses; this was the inexorable law.<br />
<br />
But such can never be the case with the proletarian revolution and with the Communist Party. The proletarian revolution is a revolution to abolish all exploitation, oppression and classes. The Communist Party represents the proletariat which is itself exploited but does not exploit others and which can therefore carry the revolution through to the end finally abolish all exploitation and sweep away all the corruption and rottenness in human society. The proletariat is able to build a strictly organized and disciplined party and set up a centralized and at the same time democratic state apparatus, and through the Party and this state apparatus, it is able to lead the masses of the people in waging unrelenting struggle against all corruption and rottenness and in ceaselessly weeding out of the Party and the state organs all those elements that have become [[Corruption|corrupt]] and degenerate (whatever high office they may hold), thereby preserving the purity of the Party and the state apparatus. This outstanding feature of the proletarian revolution and of the [[Vanguard party|proletarian revolutionary party]] did not and could not exist in earlier revolutions and revolutionary parties. Members of our Party must be clear on this point, and—particularly when the revolution is successful and victorious and when they themselves enjoy the ever greater confidence and support of the masses—they must sharpen their vigilance, intensify their self-cultivation in proletarian ideology and always preserve their pure proletarian revolutionary character so that they will not fall into the rut of earlier revolutionaries who degenerated in the hour of success.<br />
<br />
Tempering and self-cultivation in revolutionary practice and tempering and self-cultivation in proletarian ideology are important for every Communist, especially after the seizure of political power. The Communist Party did not drop from heaven but was born out of the Chinese society. Every member of the Communist party has come from this society, is living in it today and is constantly exposed to its seamy side. It is not surprising then that Communists, whether they are of proletarian or non-proletarian origin and whether they are old or new members of the Party, should carry with them to a greater or lesser the thinking and habits of the old society. In order to preserve our purity as vanguard fighters of the proletariat and to enhance our revolutionary quality and working ability that is essential for every Communist to work hard to temper and cultivate themself in every respect.<br />
<br />
These are the reasons why Communists must undertake self-cultivation. I shall now discuss the criteria for Communist self-cultivation.<br />
<br />
== Be Worthy Pupils of Marx and Lenin ==<br />
The constitution of the party stipulates that membership is open to any member who accepts the Programme and [[Library:Constitution of the Communist Party of China (2022)|Constitution of the Party]]<ref group="ProleWiki 2.">At the time of writing, this would have been the [[Constitution of the Communist Party of China (1928)|1928 Constitution]].</ref> organizations, pays membership dues and works in one of the Party organizations. No one can be a Party member unless he fulfills these requirements. But no Communist should rest content with being a Party member who merely fulfills the minimum requirements; as laid down in the Party Constitution, he should strive to make progress ceaselessly raise the level of his political consciousness and diligently study [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxism-Leninism]], as manifested throughout their lives.<br />
<br />
Engels said of Marx:<blockquote>...Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being, to contribute to the liberation of the modern proletariat, which he was the first to make conscious of its own position and of its needs, conscious of the needs of its emancipation. Fighting was his element. And he fought with a passion, a tenacity and a success such as few could rival.<sup>1</sup></blockquote>Engels also said of Marx:<blockquote>None of us has the breadth of vision with which he, whenever it was necessary to act quickly, did the right thing and tackled the decisive issue.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>[[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] said concerning the necessity of our learning from the example of [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]]:<blockquote>Remember, love and study Ilyich, our teacher, our leader. Fight and defeat our enemies, home and foreign—in the way that Ilyich taught us. Build the new society, the new way of life, the new culture in the way that Ilyich taught us. Never refuse to do the little things, for from the little things are built the big things—that is one of Ilyich's important behests.<sup>3</sup></blockquote>On another occasion Stalin said:<blockquote>The electors, the people, must demand that their deputies should remain equal to their tasks, that in their work they should not sink to the level of political philistines, that in their posts definite as Lenin was, that they should be as fearless in battle and as merciless towards the complicated and some danger or other looms on the horizon, that they should be as free from all requiring a comprehensive orientation and a comprehensive weighing of all the pros and cons as Lenin did.<sup>4</sup></blockquote>These are the concise characterizations of Marx by Engels and of Lenin by Stalin. That is how all members of our Party should learn from the thinking and qualities of Marx and Lenin and strive to be their worthy pupils.<br />
<br />
Some say that the that the thinking and qualities of such great revolutionary geniuses as the founders of Marxism-Leninism cannot be acquired and that it is impossible to raise one's thinking and qualities to their high level. They regard the founders of Marxism-Leninism as born geniuses , as mysterious beings. Is such a view correct? I think not.<br />
<br />
True enough, the average Party comrade is far from possessing the great gifts and profound scientific knowledge of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, and most of our comrades cannot attain to their deep and broad erudition in the theory of proletarian revolution. But it is perfectly possible for our comrades to grasp the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism, cultivate the style of Marx and Lenin in work and in struggle, constantly heighten their revolutionary quality and become statesmen of the type of Marx and Lenin, if they really have the will. Take a really conscious and consistent stand as vanguard fighters of the proletariat, really acquire the communist world outlook, never isolate themselves from the current deep and great revolutionary movement of the proletariat and all the labouring masses, and exert themselves in study, self-tempering and self-cultivation.<br />
<br />
There is a saying of Mencius: "Everybody can be a [[History of China#Sage kings Yao and Shun|Yao or a Shun]]."<sup>5</sup> I think that was well said. Every Communist should keep his feet on the ground, seek the truth from the facts, work hard at tempering themself, work conscientiously at self-cultivation and do his best to improve his own thinking and quality. He should not regard the thinking and qualities of such great revolutionaries as the founders of Marxism-Leninism as beyond his reach, give up and be afraid to advance. For if he does so, he will become a "political philistine", a piece of "rotten wood that cannot be carved".<br />
<br />
We should of course adopt a correct attitude towards learning from the qualities of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and towards the learning of Marxism-Leninism itself. Otherwise it is impossible to learn anything, let alone to learn it well. In fact, there are different kinds of people in our ranks with different attitudes towards such learning.<br />
<br />
These are people who, when studying Marx and Lenin, fail to get to the essence of Marxism-Leninism, but only learn its terms and phrases superficially. Although they read Marxist-Leninist literature, they are unable to use its principles and conclusions as a guide to action and apply them to concrete, practical problems in real life. They are content to learn isolated principles and conclusions by rote, and even to style themselves as "[[Dogmatism|the genuine]]" Marxist-Leninists; but they are certainly not genuine Marxist-Leninists and their actions and methods are diametrically opposed to Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
We have had not a few people of this type in the Communist Party of China. We had certain representatives of dogmatism at one time who were even worse. These people knew absolutely nothing about Marxism-Leninism and could only babble Marxist-Leninist phraseology, and yet they regarded themselves as China's Marx or China's Lenin, posed as such in the Party and had the impudence to require that our Party members should revere them as Marx and Lenin are revered, support them as "the leaders" and accord them loyalty and devotion. They went so far as to appoint themselves "the leaders" without being chosen, climbed into positions of authority, issued orders to the Party like [[Patriarchy|patriarchs]], tried to lecture our Party, abused everything in the Party, wilfully attacked and punished our Party members and pushed them around. Those people had no sincere desire to study Marxism-Leninism or fight for the realization of communism—they were just careerists in the Party, termites in the communist movement. Such people were bound to be opposed and eventually unmasked and discarded by the rank and file. And indeed they were discarded by our Party members. But can we say with full confidence that no such people will reappear in our Party? No, we cannot yet say so.<br />
<br />
Then there are people of exactly the opposite kind. They see themselves above all as pupils of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, they conscientiously studyi the theory of Marxism-Leninism and strive to grasp its essence and spirit. They look up to the noble character and proletarian revolutionary qualities of the founders, and in the course of revolutionary struggles they conscientiously carry on self-cultivation and examine themselves to see if their handling of affairs, their dealings with people and their own behaviour conform to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism. They are well-read in Marxism-Leninism but at the same time they make a special effort to investigate and analyse living reality, to study the characteristics of their own time and all aspects of the situation facing the proletariat of their own country, and to integrate the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the revolution in their own country. They do not content themselves with memorizing Marxist-Leninist principles and conclusions, but take a firm Marxist-Leninist stand learn the Marxist-Leninist method and act accordingly, giving spirited guidance in every revolutionary struggle, and thus they transform reality and at the same time transform themselves. Every one of their actions without exception is guided by the general principles of Marxism-Leninism and is devoted to the victory of the proletarian cause, the liberation of the nation and all humanity, and the triumph of Communism.<br />
<br />
The attitude of these people is the only correct one. It is the one attitude towards studying Marxism-Leninism and learning from the qualities of its founders that will enable us to become communist proletarian revolutionaries of the Marx and Lenin type.<br />
<br />
A person who really takes pain to cultivate themselves and to be a faithful pupil of the founders of Marxism-Leninism will lay special stress on maintaining the Marxist-Leninist stand and using the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint and method to solve the problems arising in the revolutionary movement lead by the proletariat, as the founders of Marxism-Leninism did. He will give no thought whatsoever to his own position or fame in the Party, nor will he ever claim to be a Marx or a Lenin, nor require nor expect others to have the same high respect for him as for Marx or Lenin, for he does not think he has any right to do so. Yet such a person will enjoy the considered respect and support of the mass of the Party members just because he acts in this way, because he is always honest and loyal, brave and firm, and shows great ability in the revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
Of course it is not easy to model ourselves on the founders of Marxism-Leninism and to be their faithful and worthy pupils. But we can become their faithful and worthy pupils if we are strong-willed and determined to fight hard for the cause of communism, if we diligently study Marxism-Leninism amid the great revolutionary struggles of the masses and are good at summing up experience and if we temper and cultivate ourselves in every respect and devote our whole lives to the proletarian communist cause.<br />
<br />
=== ProleWiki annotations ===<br />
<references group="ProleWiki 2." /><br />
<br />
== The Self-Cultivation of Communists and the Revolutionary Practice of the Masses ==<br />
In order to become faithful and worthy pupils of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, we must engage in all round self-cultivation in the course of the great and protracted revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and the masses. We must engage in self-cultivation in the Marxist-Leninist theory; self cultivation in applying the Marxist-Leninist stand, view point and method to the study and handling of all problems; self-cultivation in proletarian ideology and morality; self-cultivation in upholding unity in the Party, practicing criticism and self-criticism and observing discipline; self-cultivation in developing the style of hard work and persistent struggle; self-cultivation in building close ties with the masses; self cultivation in various branches of scientific knowledge, etc. We are all members of the Communist Party and therefore we must all without exception carry on self-cultivation in these respects. However, since Party members differ from one another in political consciousness, experience of struggle, field of work, cultural level and in the conditions in which they work, it is natural that comrades should differ to some extent in the various aspects of self-cultivation to which they must pay special attention of which they must stress.<br />
<br />
When Zeng Zi, in ancient times, said, "I reflect on myself three times a day,"<sup>1</sup> he was discussing self-examination. The ''Book of Odes'' in the famous lines, "As knife and file make smooth the bone, as jade is wrought by chisel and stone", <sup>2</sup> referred to the need for help and criticism among friends. What all this shows is that very hard work and very earnest self-cultivation are essential if one is to make progress. But the "self-cultivation" perused by many people in the past was generally [[Idealism|idealistic]], formalistic, abstract and divorced from social practice. They exaggerated the role of subjective intentions, thinking that so long as they had "good will" in the abstract, they could transform reality, society and themselves. Of course this is absurd. Our self-cultivation cannot be done that way. We are revolutionary materialists; our self-cultivation cannot be separated from the revolutionary practices of the masses.<br />
<br />
For us it is most important to never divorce ourselves from the current revolutionary struggle of the masses, but to identify ourselves with it, in order to study, sum up and apply the revolutionary experience of the past. This means that we must cultivate and temper ourselves in revolutionary practice and that in turn our self-cultivation and tempering are undertaken solely for the sake of the people and of revolutionary practice. It means that we must modestly learn the Marxist-Leninist stand, viewpoint and method, learn from the noble proletarian quality of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and apply all this in our practice, in our words and deeds, our daily life and work, constantly correcting or eliminating anything in our ideology contrary to it and strengthening our own proletarian communist ideology and character. It means that we should listen modestly to the opinions and criticisms of our Party comrades and of the masses, make a careful study of the practical problems in our life and work, carefully sum up and draw lessons from our experience in work, and that, in the light of all this, we should ascertain whether our understanding of Marxism-Leninism and our use of the Marxist-Leninist method are correct and check up on our shortcomings and mistakes so as to overcome them and improve our work. Furthermore, on the basis of new experience we should ascertain whether there are any individual conclusions or aspects of Marxism-Leninism that need supplementing, enriching and developing. In short, we must integrate the universal truth of Marxism- Leninism with the concrete practice of the revolution.<br />
<br />
This is the method of self-cultivation for us communists. It is entirely different from those methods of self-cultivation which are idealistic and divorced from the revolutionary practice of the masses.<br />
<br />
In order to persevere in this Marxist-Leninist method of cultivation, we must resolutely oppose and thoroughly eradicate one of the worst vices bequeathed to us by the old society in the field of education and study, namely, the separation of theory from practice. In the old society many people who studied thought it unnecessary, or even impossible to act upon what they had learned, and though they wrote and spoke abundantly of justice and morality, in fact they were out and out scoundrels. Although the [[Kuomintang]] [[Reactionary|reactionaries]] memorize the "Three People's Principles"<sup>3</sup> and recite [[Sun Yat-sen]]'s Testament,<sup>4</sup> in actual fact they bleed the people white with [[Tax|taxes]], practice corruption and slaughter, oppress the masses, are opposed to "[[Anti-imperialism|those nations who treat us as equals]]", and go as far as to compromise with or surrender to the [[Empire of Japan (1868–1947)|national enemy]]. An old ixucai<sup>5</sup> once told me that of all the teachings of Confucius he was able to observe only this one, "For him no food can ever be too dainty and no minced meat too fine"<sup>5</sup> and that he could not observe the rest and had never intended to. Since that is what these people are like, why do they run schools and study the "teachings of the sages"? They are after advancement and money, use the "teachings of the sages" to oppress the exploited, and deceive the people by paying lip service to justice and morality. This is typical of the attitude of the exploiting classes of the old society towards the sages they "worship". Needless to say, when we Communists study Marxism-Leninism an all that is best in our national heritage, we must never adopt such an attitude. What we learn we must practice. Being proletarian revolutionaries who are honest and pure in purpose, we cannot be untrue to ourselves, to the people, or to those who went before us. This is an outstanding characteristic as well as a great merit of Communists.<br />
<br />
Is it possible that the old society's separation of theory from practice can have no influence on us? No, it is not! It is true that none of you students are studying Marxism-Leninism for the sake of advancement and money and or oppressing the exploited. Yet is it possible to maintain that none of you ever entertains the idea that your thoughts, words, deeds and life do not necessarily have to be guided by Marxist-Leninist principles or that you do not intend to put all the principles that you have learned into practice? Is it possible that none of you ever thinks of studying Marxism-Leninism or going deeper into the theory as a means of getting ahead in life, of showing off and becoming famous? I cannot guarantee that none of you thinks along these lines. That kind of thinking runs counter to Marxism-Leninism and to the basic Marxist-Leninist principle of the integration of theory and practice. Certainly we must study theory, but we must also practice what we learn. And it is for the sake of practice, of the Party, of the people, and of the victory of the revolution that we study theory.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<blockquote>The great strength of Marxism-Leninism lies precisely in its integration with the concrete revolutionary practice of all countries. For the Communist Party of China, it is a matter of learning to apply the theory of Marxism-Leninism to the specific circumstances of China. For the Chinese Communists who are part of the great Chinese nation, flesh of its flesh and blood of its blood, any talk about Marxism in isolation from China's characteristics is merely Marxism in the abstract, Marxism in a vacuum. Hence to apply Marxism concretely in China so that its every manifestation has an indubitable Chinese character, i.e., to apply Marxism in the light of China's specific characteristics, becomes a problem which it is urgent for the whole Party to understand and solve. Foreign stereotypes must be abolished, there must be less singing of empty, abstract tunes, and dogmatism must be laid to rest; they must be replaced by the fresh, lively Chinese style and spirit which the common people of China love.<sup>6</sup></blockquote>Our comrades must study the theory of Marxism-Leninism by following the method Comrade Mao Zedong speaks of here.<br />
<br />
== The Unity of Theoretical Study and Ideological Self-Cultivation ==<br />
We Communists must not separate our study of theory from our ideological self-cultivation. We must remould ourselves and temper our proletarian ideology not only in the practice of revolution but in the study of Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
The view is current among some members of our Party that a firm and purely proletarian stand is irrelevant to a Party member's understanding a and mastery of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism. They believe that one can thoroughly understand and genuinely master the Marxist-Leninist theory and method even though one's proletarian stand may not be very firm and one's ideology not very pure (i.e., it may be tainted with the remnants of non-proletarian ideas). They believe that the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism can be mastered merely through book learning. This view is wrong.<br />
<br />
Marxism-Leninism is the science of proletarian revolution, the science by which the working class builds socialism and communism. It can be thoroughly understood and mastered only by those who have a firm proletarian stand and who have made the ideals of the proletariat their own. Without a firm proletarian stand and pure proletarian ideals it is impossible for anyone to thoroughly understand or master the science of Marxism-Leninism. The science of Marxism-Leninism is of little of no use to anyone who is not a genuine revolutionary, who is not a proletarian revolutionary to the core, who does not want to bring about socialism and communism throughout the world and emancipate all humanity, to anyone who does not want revolution or is unwilling to carry it through to the end and wants to stop half-way.<br />
<br />
We often come across very fine Party members from the working class who are not well grounded in Marxist-Leninist theory and who may not do so well as others in an examination in which Marxist-Leninist works and formulations have to be quoted from memory. Yet in studying Marxism-Leninism, provided it is explained to them in language they understand, they generally show much keener interest and far greater comprehension than some Party members from the [[intelligentsia]]. For example, the section in Capital concerning surplus value is difficult for some Party members, but not for those from the working class. The reason is that in the process of production and of struggle against the capitalists, the workers come to know all too well how the capitalists calculate wages and working hours, exploit the workers for profit and oppress them. Therefore, they generally understand Marx's theory of surplus value more profoundly than do some Party members from other classes. When we say that many Party members from the working class are readier to accept Marxism-Leninism, we do not, of course mean that their class-background makes them born Marxist-Leninists. We mean that provided they study Marxist-Leninist theory modestly and diligently and have a real grasp of the method of seeking the truth from the facts, those comrades who have a firm and purely proletarian stand and are free from personal prejudice of other blemishes are certain to be keener and more correct than the others in their observation and handling of practical problems. In the struggle, too, these comrades will prove more able to discern the truth and will uphold it more courageously and unhesitatingly.<br />
<br />
Also, we come across many Party members of non-proletarian origin who differ in their development owing to their differing attitudes towards the relation between Marxist-Leninist study and ideological self-cultivation. Generally speaking, when they join the revolution such people do not have a firm and clear-cut proletarian stand, are not very correct or pure in their ideology, and to a greater of lesser extent carry over various non-proletarian ideas from the old society. Obviously these ideas come into direct conflict with the principles of Marxism-Leninism, and since the people take different attitudes, the results of the conflict differ. In studying Marxism-Leninism, some people correctly combine theoretical study with their ideological self-cultivation, using Marxist-Leninist principles to fight and overcome whatever is backward in their thinking. In this way thy achieve a more truly proletarian stand and a more undiluted proletarian ideology, and learn how to apply Marxist-Leninist principles to the solution of practical problems. We have many such Party members. Others, however, go the opposite way; they have a lot of old junk accumulated in their heads and many stubborn habits, prejudices and selfish desires, but the lack of determination to remould themselves. In studying Marxism-Leninism they do not make use of its principles to criticize and repudiate whatever is backward in their own ideology, but employ it as a weapon to further their own private ends, and this is carried to the point where the principles of Marxism-Leninism are so distorted by their old prejudices that these people can neither reach a correct understanding of these principles nor grasp the spirit and essence of Marxism-Leninism. When they handle practical problems in the course of revolutionary struggle, the habits and prejudices which they have brought with them from the old society and their individualistic calculations led them to think in terms of personal gain or loss, to be hesitant and vacillating and incapable of going deeply into things in a free untrammelled way or of courageously upholding the truth , and they conceal or distort the truth unintentionally, or even deliberately.<br />
<br />
These people are absolutely incapable of guiding their lives by the principals of Marxism-Leninism, and hence incapable of dealing with practical problems promptly, correctly and realistically according to these principles; sometimes they even adopt a negative attitude when practical problems have already been correctly solved according to these principals by the Party organization, or by comrades other than themselves. Such things are neither rare nor unusual, but are quite common.<br />
<br />
Thus we can say that it is impossible for a Party member who lacks a clear-cut firm proletarian stand and a correct, purely proletarian ideology to achieve a thorough understanding and real mastery of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism as a weapon in the revolutionary struggle. In other words a Party member must have the noble stand of the proletariat in order to become versed in Marxist-Leninist theory.<br />
<br />
At the same time, we should add that no Party member can maintain a proletarian stand and express a proletarian ideology concretely in every revolutionary struggle unless he studies the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism diligently and guides his thinking and action accordingly.<br />
<br />
There are some Party members who think it quite enough to have revolutionary firmness and to fight bravely, and that it does not matter much whether they study and undertake self-cultivation in Marxist-Leninist theory. Some comrades even think that a good class origin or a good personal class status is all that is needed to make them vanguard proletarian fighters, thus obviating the need to study Marxism-Leninism. There are other comrades who never study it earnestly in the course of work or struggle, though they generally admit the importance of theory. All such attitudes are obviously wrong.<br />
<br />
The theory of Marxism-Leninism is our weapon for studying every phenomenon and dealing with every question, and especially for studying all social phenomena and dealing with all social questions.. If we do not know how to wield the weapon of Marxist-Leninist theory, we shall be unable correctly to understand and deal with the problems confronting us in the revolutionary struggle and shall be in danger of loosing our bearings and departing from the revolutionary proletarian stand, or even, whether consciously or unconsciously, of becoming opportunists of one kind or another, captives and yes-men of the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Revolutionary firmness and courage in the struggle are precious qualities which every Communist must possess. Besides these qualities, Communists must have the ability to find the right way to conduct the revolution and carry on the struggle in different historical periods and under different conditions of struggle, if they are to win the victory for the revolution and realize the highest ideal of communism. Only by applying Marxism-Leninism can we correctly solve such important questions in the revolutionary struggle as the question of whom to rely upon, whom to unite with and whom to overthrow, the question of who are our direct allies, who is the main enemy and who are the secondary enemies, the question of rallying all possible allies, including even secondary enemies under certain conditions, to defeat the main enemy, and the question of making timely changes in strategy and tactics to meet changing situations. Without mastering the weapon of Marxism-Leninism and attaining a high degree of self-cultivation in Marxist-Leninist theory, we cannot possibly maintain a firm, correct proletarian stand on every important question in the revolutionary struggle, or formulate the policies which are most advantageous to the cause of the proletarian revolution or champion the overall, long term interests of the proletarian revolutionary struggle amid the complex situations and sharp changes, when it is necessary for us to make detours and turns.<br />
<br />
Consider, for instance, our Party's experience in carrying out the policy of the national [[united front]] against Japan. Before the Incident of July 7. 1937,<sup>1</sup> certain comrades did not understand that the [[contradiction]] between the Chinese nation and Japanese [[imperialism]] had become the principal one while the contradictions among the different classes and political groups within the country had become secondary. As a result, they opposed the Party's policy of forming a national united front against Japan. of uniting all [[Patriotism|patriotic]] classes, strata, political parties and social groupings for joint resistance, and especially of uniting with the Kuomintang to fight Japan. Although these comrades thought they were taking a firm proletarian stand in opposing the Party's correct policy, they actually departed from it and plunged into "closed-doorism" and [[sectarianism]]. Had we acted in accordance with their wrong views, the proletariat and its political party would have been unable to unite and lead all the patriotic classes, strata, parties and social groupings for the purpose of defeating Japanese imperialism; instead, the forces of the Anti-Japanese National United Front would have been weakened and the proletariat and its political party would have been isolated to the detriment of the struggle to resist Japan and save China. After the July 7th Incident, when our Party had formed the Anti-Japanese National United front with the Kuomintang, certain comrades went to the other extreme, maintaining that since the Kuomintang had joined in the resistance to Japan, there was hardly any distinction between it and the Communist Party. They adopted a policy of capitulation by appeasing the big [[landlord]] and big bourgeois classes and the Kuomintang. and opposed the Party's policy of upholding its independence within the united front. While they over estimated the strength of and placed undue trust in the Kuomintang, on which they pinned all their hopes for resisting Japan and saving China, they had no confidence in the strength of the Communist Party and the people, did not place their hopes on the Communist Party and therefore did not dare freely to expand the Party and the anti-Japanese people's revolutionary forces and to resolutely fight against the Kuomintang's policy of opposing and restricting the Communist Party. The comrades with this approach styled themselves as the true representatives of the proletariat, but in essence their policy would have made the proletariat a vassal or an appendage of the bourgeoisie, and would have caused the proletariat to loose the leadership of the Anti-Japanese National United Front. These "Left" and Right mistakes are both striking examples of the failure to take a firm proletarian stand and to identify the correct path for advancing the revolutionary cause when major changes are occurring in the political situation.<br />
<br />
The proletariat cannot just emancipate itself alone; it must fight for the emancipation of [[The people|all the working people]], the emancipation of the nation and of all humanity, for only thus can it fully emancipate itself. The proletariat must rid the whole of human society of exploitation, oppression and class struggle once and for all, for only thus can it genuinely and finally emancipate itself. Hence a firm proletarian stand must be sharply differentiated from "closed-doorism' and sectarianism. In waging struggles the proletariat and its political party must establish close ties with the masses of working people, form revolutionary alliances with other revolutionary classes and parties and lead the working masses and all their allies forward together; they must represent the interests of more than ninety per cent of the population of the country. To have a firm proletarian stand is to represent at all times and in all circumstances the highest interests of the overwhelming majority of the people, which, we must understand, are also the highest class interests of the proletariat. On the other hand, a firm proletarian stand must be sharply differentiated from all appeasement and capitulation. In waging revolutionary struggles the proletariat and its political party must draw clear lines of distinction not only between themselves and the landlord class and the bourgeoisie but also between themselves and the revolutionary democrats of the petty bourgeoisie, and must even make some distinction between themselves and the masses of working people. In the revolutionary struggle they must at all times firmly maintain their independence and be free from any bourgeois or other non-proletarian class influence. In every stage of the development of the revolutionary struggle they must combine the interests of the part with the interests of the whole and immediate interests with ling-term interests. As Marx and Engels said of Communists:<blockquote>1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.<br />
<br />
2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>During his struggle to organize a political party of the proletariat at the end of the 19th century, Lenin said:<blockquote>The consciousness of the masses and of the workers cannot be genuine [[class consciousness]], unless the workers learn to observe from concrete, and above all from topical (current), political facts and events, every other social class and all manifestations of the intellectual, ethical and political life of these classes; unless they learn to apply in practice the materialist analysis and the materialist estimate of all aspects of the life and activity of all classes, strata and groups of the population.<sup>3</sup></blockquote>Further:<blockquote>The [[Russian Social Democratic Labor Party|Social-Democrat]]'s ideal should not be a [[Trade union|trade-union]] secretary, but a tribune of the people, able to react to every manifestation of tyranny and oppression, no matter where it takes place, no matter what stratum of class of people it affects; he must be able to generalize all these manifestations to produce a single picture of police violence and capitalist exploitation; he must be able to take advantage of every event, however small, in order to explain his [[Socialism|socialist]] convictions and [[Democracy|democratic]] demands to all and everyone the world-historic significance of the proletariat's struggle for emancipation.<sup>4</sup></blockquote>To fulfill the requirements cited by Lenin in these two passages, we Communists must of course unceasingly take part in the revolutionary practice and thus increase our perceptual knowledge and accumulate practical experience. But it must be pointed out, perceptual knowledge and practical experience alone are not sufficient. As Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<blockquote>Fully to reflect a thing in its totality, to reflect its essence, to reflect its inherit laws, it is necessary through the exercise of thought to reconstruct the rich data of sense perception, discarding the dross and selecting the essential, eliminating the false and retaining the true, proceeding from the one to the other and from the outside to the inside, in order to form a system of concepts and theories—it is necessary to make a leap from perceptual to rational knowledge.<sup>5</sup></blockquote>Therefore, while engaged in revolutionary practice, we must most conscientiously study the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism.<blockquote>The theory of Marxism-Leninism is the summing-up of the experience of the international working-class movement; it is a theory formulated in revolutionary practice and in turn serving revolutionary practice. If only we study this theory, apply it and master it in close conjunction with revolutionary practice, we shall be able to understand the inner connections of the changes taking place all around us and to know how and in what direction the various classes are now moving and will soon move, and we shall be able to determine our line of action and shall confidence in the future of the revolutionary movement.</blockquote>It is precisely because the theory of Marxism-Leninism plays such a great role that Lenin said, "The role of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory."<sup>6</sup> Members of the Communist Party must closely link their study of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism with their own ideological self-cultivation and self-tempering; they must never divorce one from the other.<br />
<br />
Time and again Comrade Mao Zedong has emphasised the tremendous importance of cultivating oneself in the theory of Marxism-Leninism. He has said:<blockquote>From the Marxist viewpoint, theory is important, and its importance is fully expressed in Lenin's statement, "Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." But Marxism emphasises the importance of theory precisely and only because it can guide action.<sup>5</sup></blockquote>Comrade Mao Zedong has constantly urged all Party members who have some capacity for study to study Marxist-Leninist theory, study the actual conditions of the movement, study Chinese and world history and learn to guide their actions by Marxist-Leninist theory and also help to educate comrades with a lower cultural and theoretical level. The whole Party should at times bear in mind this injunction of Comrade Mao Zedong's.<br />
<br />
== The Cause of Communism is the Greatest and Most Arduous Undertaking in Human History ==<br />
Now let us continue with our discussion of ideological self-cultivation by Communist Party members.<br />
<br />
What does ideological self-cultivation mean? Fundamentally, in my opinion, it means that every Party member should use proletarian ideology to combat whatever non-proletarian ideas he has, use the communist world outlook he has and use the principle of the supremacy of the interests of the proletariat, the people and the Party to combat his individualism.<br />
<br />
This struggle is one of conflicting ideologies, and it reflects the class struggle in society. For a Party member, the result of this struggle should be that the proletarian ideology overcomes and ultimately eliminates any non-communist world outlook and that ideas based on the general interests and aims of the Party, of the revolution and of the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity overcome and ultimately eliminate all individualism. If the opposite happens, that is, if the latter prevails over the former, the comrade concerned will retrogress and may even loose his qualifications as a member of the Communist Party. For a Communist that would be a terrible and dangerous thing to happen.<br />
<br />
We Communist Party members temper ourselves ideologically in struggles of all kinds inside and outside the Party, constantly sum up and learn from experience gained in revolutionary practice, and examine our own ideas to see whether they fully conform to Marxism-Leninism and the interests of the struggle for the emancipation of the proletariat. It is through such study, reflection and self-examination that we eliminate all remnants of incorrect ideas and nip in the bud any ideas inconsistent with the interests of communism.<br />
<br />
As you know, a man's words and actions are guided by his ideology. And a man's ideology is inseparable from his world outlook. The only world outlook for members of the Communist Party is the communist world outlook. This world outlook is the philosophical system of the proletariat and also our communist methodology.. All this has been abundantly discussed in Marxist-Leninist literature, and especially in the philosophical works of the founders. As you have studied it, I shall not go into it today. Here I shall only talk briefly of our communist cause, of what it is and how Party members should advance it.<br />
<br />
What is our most fundamental duty as Party members? It is to achieve communism. As far as the Communist Parties of different countries are concerned, in each country it is for the Communist Party and the people there to transform it by their own efforts, and in that way the whole world will be transformed step by step into a communist world. Will the communist world be good? We all know it will be. In that world there will be no exploiters of oppressors, no landlords and capitalists, no imperialists and fascists, nor will there be any oppressed and exploited people, or any of the darkness, ignorance and backwardness resulting from the system of exploitation. In such a society the production of both material and moral values will develop and flourish mightily and will meet the varied needs of all its members. By then all humanity will consist of unselfish, intelligent, highly cultured and skilled communist workers; mutual assistance and affection will prevail among men and there will be no such irrationalities as mutual suspicion and deception, mutual injury, mutual slaughter and war. It will of course be the best, the most beautiful and the most advanced society in human history. Who can deny that such a society is good? But can this good communist society be built? We say that it can and will be. Marxist-Leninist theory has explained this scientifically and beyond all doubt. A factual testimony has been provided by the victory of the Great October revolution and the successes in socialist construction in the Soviet Union. Our duty is constantly to advance the cause socialism and communism in accordance with the laws of development of human society, so as to make socialist and communist society a reality as soon as possible. This is our ideal.<br />
<br />
However, the cause of socialism and communism still faces powerful enemies who must be thoroughly and finally defeated in every field; only then will the socialist and communist society be brought into being. Victory for the communist cause can only be won through long and arduous struggle. Without it there can be no victory. This struggle, of course, is not an "accidental" social phenomenon or an invention of certain Communists as some people assert. It is inevitable in the development of class society; it is unavoidable class struggle. The birth of the Communist Party and the fact that Communists participate, organize and guide this struggle are also inevitable phenomena conforming with the laws of social development. The imperialists, [[Fascism|fascists]] and landlords—in short, all exploiters and oppressors—are oppressing and exploiting the overwhelming majority of the people of the world to such an extent that the people are hardly able to survive and have to unite and fight against this exploitation and oppression, because they cannot exist, much less make progress in any other way. This struggle, therefore, is natural and unavoidable.<br />
<br />
On the one hand, we must understand that communism is the greatest cause in human history, which will eliminate exploitation and classes once and for all, emancipate humanity and bring humanity into a world of happiness, radiating with beauty, such as it has never known before. But on the other hand, we must also understand that the cause of communism is the most arduous undertaking in all history; that only through protracted, bitter and torturous struggle will we be able to defeat all the exploiting classes; and that for a long time after our victory we shall patiently have to carry out social and economic, ideological and cultural transformation, for only thus will all the influences, conventions and habits of the exploiting classes be eliminated from among the people, and only thus will a new social and economic system, a new communist culture and code of social morality be built up.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party will defiantly win final victory by relying on the proletariat and the masses of the exploited and oppressed people and by using Marxism-Leninism to guide the revolutionary struggle of the masses and propel society towards the great goal of communism. The reason is that the historical laws of social development make the progress of human society towards communism inevitable; that latent in the proletariat and the other exploited and oppressed masses of the world lie extremely powerful revolutionary energies which, once mobilized, united and organized, can triumph over all the reactionary forces of the exploiting classes and imperialism; and that the Communist Party and the proletariat are the new and rising forces and whatever is new and rising is invincible. This has been fully demonstrated by the history of the world communist movement and the Communist Party of China. The present situation is as follows. Socialism has already won a great victory in the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]], or on one sixth of the earth's surface; militant Communist Parties armed with the theory of Marxism-Leninism have been organized in many countries; the world communist movement is rapidly growing and developing; and the forces of the proletariat and the other exploited and oppressed masses of the world are being rapidly mobilized and united in the course of incessant struggles. The communist movement is already organized as a mighty and invincible world force. Beyond all doubt the communist cause will continue to develop and advance, and will win final and complete victory. However, we should also realize that the international reaction and the exploiting classes are yet stronger than we are, that they are temporarily superior in many fields and that only by protracted, torturous and bitter struggles can we defeat them.<br />
<br />
In a society in which [[Private property|private ownership of the means of production]] has existed for thousands of years, the exploiting classes through their rule have built up great power in all fields and have grabbed everything under the sun. Their long rule has given rise to backwardness, ignorance, selfishness, mutual suspicion and deception, mutual injury and slaughter in human society, which have persisted down the ages. It has exerted a most pernicious influence on the exploited masses and on other members of society. This is the inevitable result of the efforts of the exploiting classes to preserve their class interests and rule. For they cannot maintain their ruling position unless they keep the exploited masses and the colonial peoples backward, unorganized and divided. Hence, in order to achieve victory we must not only conduct a stern struggle against the exploiting classes but also carry on a struggle against their long-standing influence among the masses and the backward ideas and other backward phenomena found among the masses, for only thus can we enhance their political consciousness and unite them to defeat the exploiting classes. Here is the difficulty in the course of achieving communism. Comrades! If the masses were all politically conscious, united, free from the influence of the exploiting classes and free from backwardness, as some people imagine them to be, what would be so difficult about the revolution?<br />
<br />
Not only does this influence of the exploiting classes exist before the victory of the revolution, but it survives for a very long time after when the exploiting classes have been ejected from their ruling position. Think how torturous is the process and how arduous are the work and struggle that are needed to vanquish the exploiting classes and their influence among the people once and for all, to emancipate and change all humanity, to transform myriads of small commodity producers, finally to abolish all classes and gradually to transform humanity that has lived in class society for thousands of years and been influenced by all kinds of old customs and conventions until it becomes communist humanity, intelligent and unselfish, and with a high level of culture and skill!<br />
<br />
Lenin said:<blockquote>The abolition of classes means not only driving out landlords and capitalists—that we accomplished with comparative ease—it also means abolishing the small commodity producers, and they cannot be driven out, or crushed; we must live in harmony with them; they can (and must) be remoulded and re-educated only by very prolonged, slow, cautious organizational work. They encircle the proletariat on every side with a petty-bourgeois atmosphere, which permeates and corrupts the proletariat and causes constant relapses among the proletariat into petty-bourgeois spinelessness, disunity, individualism, alternate moods of exaltation and dejection. The strictest centralization and discipline are required within the political party of the proletariat in order to counteract this, in order that the organizational role of the proletariat (and that is its principle role) may be exercised correctly, successfully, victoriously....The force of habit of millions and tens of millions is a most terrible force....It is a thousand times easier to vanquish the centralized big bourgeoisie than to "vanquish" the millions and millions of small owners; yet they, by their ordinary, everyday, imperceptible, elusive, demoralizing activity, achieve the very results which the bourgeoisie need and which tend to restore the bourgeoisie.<sup>1</sup></blockquote>He also said:<blockquote>...the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by its overthrow (even if only in one country), and whose power lies not only in the strength of international capital, in the strength and durability of the international connections of the bourgeoisie, but also in the force of habit, in the strength of small production. For all these reasons the dictatorship of the proletariat is essential, and victory over the bourgeoisie is impossible without a long, stubborn and war of life and death, a war demanding perseverance, discipline, firmness, indomitableness and unity of will.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>Hence the proletariat has a very difficult task to perform even after the victory of the revolution. The proletarian revolution differs from all other revolutions in history. Bourgeois revolutions, for example, are largely completed with the seizure of state power. But for the proletariat, victory and political emancipation are only the beginning of the revolution, and a tremendous amount of work remains to be done after the victory, after the seizure of state power.<br />
<br />
The cause of communism is needed a "hundred years' task", as the saying goes, and it definitely cannot be accomplished at one stroke. In different countries this undertaking has to go through different stages, and different enemies must be defeated, before a communist society can gradually be established. Take the case of our own country. China is still in the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and our enemies are imperialism, which perpetuates aggression against China, and the feudal and comprador forces, which are in collusion with imperialism. Only when we have defeated these enemies can we complete the bourgeois-democratic revolution in our country. Then, after the victory of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, it will still be necessary to make the socialist revolution and to carry on socialist transformation and socialist construction for a long period, and only so will the gradual transition to communist society be possible.<br />
<br />
Since the ultimate goal of our struggle is the achievement of communism, it is naturally our duty as Communists to overcomes all the difficulties arising in the process.<br />
<br />
Since the communist cause is so great and arduous an undertaking, some people who seek social progress are still sceptical and not convinced that communism can be realized. They do not believe that under the leadership of the proletariat and its party the human race can develop and transform itself into a communist humanity of the highest quality and that all the difficulties in the process of revolution and construction can be overcome. Either they do not forsee the difficulties or they become pessimistic and disappointed when confronted with them, and there are even Party members who waver and desert the communist ranks.<br />
<br />
We communists should be men of the boldest vision and revolutionary determination. Every Party member should gladly and solemnly shoulder the task of realizing communism, a task greater and more arduous than any in human history. We clearly see the difficulties in the process of realising communism, but at the same time we clearly understand that they cam undoubtedly be overcome by arousing millions of people to the revolutionary action, and no difficulties will ever daunt us. We have the masses of the people to rely on, and we have full confidence that a substantial part of the work of building communism will be accomplished in our town time and that the whole of this magnificent undertaking will be triumphantly completed by the coming generations. The heroes of no other class in history could possibly have had this great communist ideal and boldness of vision. In this respect we have every reason for pride.<br />
<br />
I recall the instance of the western European bourgeois biographer<sup>3</sup> who interviewed Comrade Stalin during a visit to the Soviet Union and brought up the comparisons between historical personalities. Comrade Stalin told him that Lenin was like the ocean while Czar [[Peter I Romanov|Peter the Great]] was only a drop in the ocean. Such is the place in history a proletarian leader of the communist cause occupies, compared with that of a leader in the cause of the landlord and the rising mercantile classes. From this comparison we can see how truly great is a leader who fights for the triumph of communism and the cause of the emancipation of humanity and how paltry is one who fights for the cause of the exploiting classes.<br />
<br />
We Communist Party members must have the highest goals in our struggle and the highest ideals, while at the same time we must have a practical spirit and do real practical work. Such are the characteristics distinguishing us as Communists. If all a person has is great and lofty ideas without having a practical spirit or doing real practical work, he is not a good Party member but only a dreamer, a prattler or a pedant. On the other hand, whoever is interested only in practical work but lacks great and lofty communist ideals is not a good Communist either, but just a routine plodder. Only by combining the great and lofty ideals of communism with real practical work and practical spirit can one be a good Communist. This standard for a good Communist has often been stressed by Comrade Mao Zedong, the leader of our Party.<br />
<br />
The communist ideal is beautiful, while the reality of the existing capitalist world is ugly. This is precisely why the overwhelming majority of the people demand the changing of that reality and why it must be changed. In order to change the world we must not divorce ourselves from reality, disregard it or escape from it, nor must we surrender to ugly reality. We must face reality squarely, study and understand it, live and grow in it, fight against the ugly reality and transform it, so that we can gradually realize our ideal. Hence we members of the communist Party must initiate and press ahead with our great communist task of changing the world, beginning with our immediate surroundings, with the people immediately around us and such work as we can immediately undertake. Here we should criticize those young comrades who frequently make the mistake of wanting to escape from or disregarding reality. It is good that they have lofty ideals, but they often complain about their place of work and the kind of work they are given. They are always looking for some "ideal" place or job so that they can "change the world" with ease. But no such place and no such job exist, except in their dreams.<br />
<br />
The cause of communism is our life work. Throughout our lives, our every activity is exclusively devoted to it and to nothing else.<br />
<br />
== A Party Member's Personal Interests Must be Unconditionally Subordinated to the Interests of the Party ==<br />
Personal interests must be subordinated to the Party's interests, the interests of the local Party organization to those of the entire Party, the interests of the part to those of the whole, and temporary to long-term interests. This is a Marxist-Leninist principle which must be followed by every Communist.<br />
<br />
A Communist must be clear about the correct relationship between personal and Party interests.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party is the political party of the proletariat and has no interests of its own other than those of the emancipation of the proletariat. The final emancipation of the proletariat will also inevitably be the final emancipation of all humanity. Unless the proletariat emancipates all working people and all nations—unless it emancipates humanity as a whole—it cannot fully emancipate itself. The cause of the emancipation of the proletariat is identical with and inseparable from the cause of the emancipation of all working people, all oppressed nations and all humanity. Therefore, the interests of the Communist Party are the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity, are communism and social progress.. When a Party member<nowiki>''</nowiki>s personal interests are subordinated to those of the Party, they are subordinated to the interests of the emancipation of the class and the nation, and those of communism and social progress.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<br />
<br />
At no time and in no circumstances should a Communist place his personal interests first; he should subordinate to the interests of the nation and of the masses. Hence selfishness, slacking, corruption, seeking the limelight are most contemptible, while selflessness, working with all one's energy, whole hearted devotion to public duty, and quiet hard work will command respect.<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
The test of a Party member's loyalty to the Party, the revolution, the cause of communism is whether or not he can subordinate his personal interests absolutely and unconditionally to the interests of the Party whatever the circumstances.<br />
<br />
At all times and all questions a party member should give first consideration to the interests of the Party as a whole and put them in the foremost and place personal matters and interests second. The supremacy of the Party's interests is the highest principle that must govern the thinking and actions of the members of our Party. In accordance with this principle, every Party member must completely identify his personal interests with those of the Party both in his thinking and in his actions of the members of our Party both in his thinking and in his actions. He must be able o yield to the interests of the Party without any hesitations or reluctance and sacrifice his personal interests what ever of the two are at variance. Unhesitating readiness to sacrifice personal interests and even one's life, for the Party and for the proletariat and for the emancipation of the nation and of all humanity—this is one expression of what we usually describe as "Party spirit", "Party sense" or "sense of organization'. It is the highest expression of communist morality, of the principled nature of the party of the proletariat and of the purest proletarian class consciousness.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party should not have personal aims which are independent of the Party interests. Their personal aims must harmonize with the Party's interests. If the aim they set for themselves is to study Marxist-Leninist theory, to develop their ability in work, to establish revolutionary organizations and to lead the masses in successful revolutionary struggles—if their aim is more is to do more for the Party—then this personal aim harmonizes with the interests of the Party. The Party needs many such members and cadres. Apart from this aim, Party members should have no independent personal motives such as attaining position of fame, or playing the individual hero; otherwise they will depart from the interests of the Party and may even become careerists within the Party.<br />
<br />
If a Party member thinks only of the communist interests and aims of the Party, is really selfless and has no personal aims and considerations divorced from those of the Party, and he ceaselessly raises the level of his political consciousness through revolutionary practice and through the study of Marxism-Leninism, then the following ensues.<br />
<br />
First, he has a high communist morality. Taking a clear-cut, firm proletarian stand, he is able to show loyalty to and love for all comrades, all revolutionaries and working people, help them unreservedly and act towards them as equals, and he will never allow themself to hurt a single one of them for his own interests. He is able to feel for others, place themself in their position and be considerate of them. On the other hand, he is able to wage resolute struggle against the pernicious enemies of humanity and persevere in the fight for the interests of the Party, the proletariat and the emancipation of the nation and all humanity. "He is the first to worry and the last to enjoy themself".<sup>2</sup> Whether in the Party of among the people, he is the first to suffer hardship and the last to enjoy comfort; he compares themself with others not with respect to the material enjoyment but to the amount of work done for the revolution and the spirit of hard endurance in the struggle. In times of adversity he steps forward boldly, and in times of difficulty he does his duty to the full. He has such revolutionary firmness and integrity that "neither riches nor honours can corrupt him, neither [[poverty]] nor lowly condition can make him swerve from principle, neither threats nor force can bend him".<sup>3</sup><br />
<br />
Second, he has the greatest revolutionary courage. Having no selfish motives, he has nothing to fear. Having done nothing to give themself a guilty conscience, he can lay bare and courageously correct his mistakes and short comings, which are like "an eclipse of the sun or the moon".<sup>4</sup> Because he has the courage of righteous conviction, he never fears the truth, courageously upholds it, spreads it and fights for it. Even if it is temporarily to his disadvantage and if, in upholding the truth, he suffers blows of all kinds, is censured by most other people and so finds themself in temporary (and honourable) isolation, even to the point where he may give up his life, he will still breast the waves to uphold the truth and will never drift with the tide.<br />
<br />
Third, he learns how best to grasp the theory of Marxism-Leninism. He is able to apply them in keenly observing problems and in knowing and changing reality. Because he takes a clear-cut, firm proletarian stand and is tempered in Marxism-Leninism, he is free from personal apprehensions and self-interest, so that there is no impediment to his observation of things or distortion of his understanding of the truth. He seeks the truth from the facts, and he tests all theories and distinguishes what is true from what is false in revolutionary practice.<br />
<br />
Fourth, he is the most sincere, most candid and happiest of men. Because he has no private axe to grind, nothing to conceal from the Party and nothing he cannot tell others, he has no problems of personal gain or loss and no personal anxieties other than for the interests of the Party and the revolution. Even when he is working on his own without supervision and therefore has the opportunity to do something bad, he is just as "watchful over themself when he is alone"<sup>5</sup> and does not do anything harmful. His work bears examination and he is not afraid having it checked. He does not fear criticism and at the same time is able to criticize others with courage and sincerity.<br />
<br />
Fifth, he has the greatest self-respect and self-esteem. For the sake of the Party and the revolution he can be most forbearing and tolerant towards comrades and can suffer wrong in the general interest, even enduring misunderstanding and humiliation without bitterness if the occasion so demands. No personal aims lead him to flatter anyone or to desire flattery from others. When it comes to personal matters, he knows how to conduct themself and has no need to humble themself in order to get help from others. He knows how to take good care of themself in the interests of the Party and the revolution and how to strengthen both his grasp of theory and his practical effectiveness. But when it is necessary to swallow humiliations and bear a heavy load for some important purpose in the cause of the Party and the revolution, he can take on the most difficult and vital tasks without the slightest reluctance, never passing the difficulties to others.<br />
<br />
A member of the Communist Party should possess the finest and highest human virtues and take a clear-cut and firm Party and proletarian stand (that is, possess Party spirit and class spirit). Ours is a fine morality precisely because it is proletarian and communist. It is founded not on the protection of the interests of individuals or of the exploiting few, but on those of the great proletariat and the great mass of working people, of the cause of the final emancipation of all humanity, and the liberation of the whole world from the calamities of capitalism, and the building of a happy and beautiful communist world—t is a morality founded on the Marxist-Leninist theory of scientific communism. As we Communists see it, nothing can be more worthless or indefensible than to sacrifice oneself in the interests of an individual or a small minority. But it is the worthiest and most just thing in the world to sacrifice oneself for the Party, for the proletariat, for the emancipation of the nation and all humanity, for social progress and for the highest interests of the overwhelming majority of the people. Indeed, countless members of the Communist Party have looked death calmly in the face and made the ultimate sacrifice without the slightest hesitation. Most Communists consider it a matter of course to die for the sake of the cause, to lay down their lives for justice, when that is necessary. This does not stem from any revolutionary fanaticism or hunger for fame but from their scientific understanding of social development and their deep political consciousness. There is no morality in class society to compare with this high communist morality. The universal morality which supposedly transcends class is sheer deceptive nonsense and in fact a morality designed to protect the interests of the exploiting few. Such a concept of morality is always idealist. It is only we communists who build our morality on the scientific basis of historical materialism and proclaim its purpose to be the protection of the interests of the proletariat in the struggle for the emancipation of itself and all humanity.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party represents the general and long-range interests of the proletariat and all humanity in their struggle for emancipation; the Party's interests are the concentrated expression of this cause. One must never regard the communist Party as a narrow clique, like the guild perusing the interests of its members. Anyone who does so is no Communist.<br />
<br />
A Party member has interests of his own, which may be inconsistent with or even run counter to the interests of the Party in certain circumstances. Should this happen, it is incumbent on him to sacrifice his personal interests and unconditionally subordinate them to the interests of the Party; under no pretence or excuse may he sacrifice the Party's interests by clinging to his own. At all times and in all circumstances, he should fight heart and soul for the Party's interests and for the Party's development, regarding every success and victory won by the Party and the proletariat as his very own. Every Party member should strive to increase his effectiveness and ability in the service of the people. But this must be done in the fight for the advancement, success and victory of the Party's cause, and there must be no striving for individual development divorced from the fight to advance the Party's cause. The facts prove that only by complete devotion in the fight for the advancement, success and victory of the Party's cause can a Party member heighten his effectiveness and ability and that he cannot possibly make progress of heighten his ability in any other way. Hence a Party member can and must completely merge his personal interests with those of the Party.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party are no ordinary people but the awakened vanguard fighters of the proletariat. They must conscientiously represent the class interests and class ideology of the proletariat. Therefore, their personal interests must never project beyond those of the party and the proletariat. It is all the more necessary for each cadre and leader of the Party to be a living embodiment of the general interests of the Party and the proletariat and to merge his personal interests completely in their general interests and aims. In present-day China, it is the proletariat that best represents the interests of national liberation, and therefore our Party members must be worthy champions of the interests of the nation as a whole.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party must subordinate personal to Party interests and are required to sacrifice them to party interests if necessary. But this by no means implies that our Party does not recognise, or brushes aside, the personal interest of its members or that it wants to wipe out their individuality. Party members do have their personal problems to attend to, and, moreover, they should develop themselves according to their individual inclinations and aptitudes. Therefore, so long as the interests of the Party are not violated, a Party member can have his private and family life and develop his individual inclinations and aptitudes. At the same time, the Party will use every possibility to help members develop their individual inclinations and aptitudes in conformity with its interests, furnish them with suitable work and working conditions and commend and reward them. As far as possible, the Party will attend to and safeguard its members' essential interests; for example,, it will give them the opportunity to study and to acquire an education, it will help them cope with health and family problems and, when necessary, it will even give up some of its work in order to preserve comrades working under the rule of reaction. But all this has no other purpose than the overall interests of the Party. For the fulfillment of its tasks the Party must ensure that members have the conditions necessary for life, work and education so that they can perform their tasks with enthusiasm and without worry. Comrades in responsible Party positions must bear all this in mind when they deal with Party members' problems.<br />
<br />
To sum up, on his side, each Party member should completely submit themself to the interests of the Party and self-sacrificingly devote themself to the public duty. He should forego all personal aims and private considerations which conflict with the Party's interests. He should not think of themself all the time, make endless personal demands on the Party or blame the Party for not promoting or rewarding him. Whatever the circumstances, he should study hard, try to make progress, be courageous in struggle and make ceaseless efforts to raise the level of his political consciousness and his understanding of Marxism-Leninism, so as to be able to contribute more to the Party and the revolution. On their side all Party organizations and comrades in responsible positions, in dealing with the problems of Party members, should see how they work, live and study. and enable them to work better for the Party, ceaselessly develop themselves and raise their level in the course of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. In particular, attention should be paid to comrades who are really selfless and who serve the people well. Only so, through combined attention and effort by both sides can the interests of the Party be well served.<br />
<br />
== Examples of Wrong Ideology in the Party ==<br />
In the light of what has been said, we can see that if an understanding of communism and a correct correlation between personal and Party interests are taken as the standard for evaluating Party members and cadres, many measure up to it and can serve as models, but some do not yet measure up to this standard and still have various wrong ideas to some degree or other. It may not be amiss if I outline these wrong ideas for our comrades' attention.<br />
<br />
What are fundamentally the wrong ideas to be found among comrades in our Party?<br />
<br />
First. The people joining our Party not only differ in in class origin and personal class status but also carry with them aims and motives of every description. Many, of course, join the Party in order to bring about communism and attain the great goal of the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity, but some do so for other reasons and with other aims. For example, some comrades of peasant background used to think that communism meant "expropriation of local tyrants and distribution of the land". When they first joined, they had no understanding of the real meaning of communism. Today, quite a number of people join the Party chiefly because it is resolute in resisting Japan and advocates the Anti-Japanese National United Front. Others join our ranks because they admire the communist Party for its good reputation or because they realize in a vague way that it can save China. Still others are seeking a future for themselves, chiefly because they have no other way out—they have no fixed occupation, are out of work, lack the means of study, or want to escape from family bondage or forced marriage, etc. A few even join because they count on the Party to get their taxes reduced, or because they hope to "make their mark" some day, or because their relatives or friends have brought them in, etc. Naturally, such comrades do not have a clear-cut and stable communist world outlook, do not understand the greatness of the communist cause and the difficulties besetting it, and lack a firm proletarian stand point. Naturally too, some of them will waver or change somewhat in certain circumstances at certain critical turning points. Since they bring all sorts of ideas with them into the Party, it is most important that they should be educated and should train and temper themselves. Otherwise they cannot become revolutionary fighters of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, there is no terrible problem here. After all, it is not a bad thing that people turn to the Communist Party, enter it seeking a way out of their predicament and approve of its policy. They are not mistaken in coming to us. We welcome them—everyone except for enemy agents, traitors, careerists and ambitious climbers. Provided they accept and are ready to abide by the Party's Programme and Constitution, work in one of the Party's organizations and pay membership dues, they may be admitted into the Communist Party. As for deeping their study and understanding of communism and the Partys Programme and Constitution, they can do so after joining the Party and can temper and train themselves in revolutionary struggle on the basis of what they learn; in this way they have every possibility of becoming very good Communists. Indeed, for most people it is impossible to have a proufound understanding of communism and the Party's Programme and Constitution before joining the Party. That is why we can only prescribe acceptance, and not a thorough understanding of the Partys Programme and Constitution as a condition for admission. Although many people do not have a thorough understanding of communism before joining, it is possible for them to become active fighters in the communist and revolutionary movements of the time. They can become politically conscious Communists provided they study hard after joining the Party. Furthermore, our Party Constitution stipulates that members are free to withdraw form the Party (there is no freedom of admission). Any member is free to notify the Party that he is withdrawing from it if he lacks a profound belief in communism, or cannot live a strict Party life, or for any other reason, and the Party gives him the freedom to withdraw. It will do nothing against him unless he gives away Party secrets or engages in wrecking activities against the Party after he leaves. As for careerists and spies who have wormed their way into the Party, of course they have to be expelled. Only thus can we preserve the purity of our Party.<br />
<br />
Second. Fairly strong [[individualism]] and selfishness are still to be found in some members of our Party.<br />
<br />
The individualism expresses itself as follows. Some people habitually place their personal interests above those of the Party when it comes to practical matters; they are preoccupied with personal gain and loss and always calculate in terms of personal interests; they abuse the public trust, turning their Party work to private advantage of one kind or another; or they attack comrades they dislike and wreak private vengeance, on high-sounding pretexts of principle or Party interests. When it comes to status, material benefits and other questions affecting everyday life, they invariably try to get more than others, compare themselves with those at the top, diligently strive after greater personal benefits and crow when they get them. But when it comes to work, they like to compare themselves with those who are less capable. When there hard hardships to beat they make themselves scarce. In times of danger they want to run away. When it comes to orderlies they always want more. Their living quarters must be of the best, and they want to show off and bask in the Party's glory. They want to grab all the good things of life, but when it comes to the "unpleasant things", they think these are for others. The heads of such people are stuffed with the ideology of the exploiting classes. They believe that "every person is for themself or that Heaven and Earth will destroy him", person is a "selfish animal", and "no one in the world is genuinely unselfish, unless he is a simpleton or an idiot". They even use such exploiting class rubbish to justify their own selfishness and individualism. There are such people in our Party.<br />
<br />
This type of self-seeking individualism often manifests itself inside the Party in unprincipled quarrelling, factional struggle, sectarianism and departmentalism; it manifests itself in disrespect for and willful violation of Party discipline. Most unprincipled struggles originate in personal interests. Those who go in for factional struggle and are given to sectarianism usually place their own individual interests or the interests of a small minority, above those of the Party. Often, in their unprincipled factional struggles they deliberately undermine Party organization and discipline, making unprincipled and sometimes calculated attacks on certain people, while contracting unprincipled friendships to avoid giving offence, to cover up for one another, to sing each other's praises, etc.<br />
<br />
Departmentalism within the Party arises chiefly because some comrades only see the interest of the part, i.e., the work of their own department of locality, and fail to see the interests of the whole, i.e., the interests of the entire Party and the work of other departments and localities. Politically and ideologically, this resembles the guild outlook. Not all comrades who make the mistake of departmentalism are necessarily prompted by individualism, but people with an individualist ideology usually make the mistake of departmentalism.<br />
<br />
Third. Conceit, the idea of individualistic heroism, ostentatiousness, etc., are still to be found, to a greater or lesser extent, in the minds of quite a few Party comrades.<br />
<br />
The first consideration of people with such notions is their position in the Party. They like to show off and to have people sing their praises and flatter them. They are ambitious, they like to cut a dash, to claim credit for themselves and to get the limelight, and they like to keep everything in their own hands and lack a democratic style of work. They are extremely vain and unwilling to immerse themselves in hard work or do routine or technical jobs. They are arrogant, and whenever they accomplish something they throw their weight about, become overbearing and try to domineer, and they do not treat others as equals in a modest and friendly way. They are complacent, talk down to and lecture people and order others about, and they are always trying to tread on people's necks; they do not learn modestly from others, particularly from the masses, and do not accept even well-grounded opinions and criticisms. They can bear promotion but not demotion, they can bear fair weather but not foul, and they cannot bear being misunderstood or wronged. As their baleful yearning for fame has not yet been uprooted they try to dress themselves up as "great men" and "heroes" in the communist movement and stop at nothing to gratify their desire. When they fail to achieve this object, or when they are misunderstood or wronged there is a danger that they will vacillate. Quite a number of people have vacillated and left our Party for such reasons in the course of its history. Exploiting class ideas still linger in the minds of such people, who fail to understand the greatness of the cause of communism and who lack the communist breadth of vision.<br />
<br />
Communists must not be in the least complacent or arrogant. Granted that some comrades are very capable, have done some good work and have to their credit considerable achievements which may be reckoned "great" and on which they might well preen themselves (for example, our army comrades who have led thousands and tens of thousands of men in battle and won victories, or the leaders of our Party and mass work in various places who have brought about fairly significant changes in the situation). Yet after all, how great are these achievements compared with the communist cause as a whole?<br />
<br />
And for persons with a communist world outlook, what is there worth preening oneself about in these achievements?<br />
<br />
For a Communist to do his work properly and well is no more than his duty. He should guard against complacency and arrogance and do his best to make no mistakes, or as few as possible.<br />
<br />
What is there in personal position for a Communist to bother about? No one's position is higher than an emperor's, and yet what is an emperor compared with a fighter in the cause of communism? Is he not just "a drop in the ocean" as Comrade Stalin put it? So what is there in personal position worth bothering or bragging about?<br />
<br />
Yes, we need countless communist heroes and many mass leaders of great prestige in our Party and in the communist movement. At present we really have too few of them and have yet to train and temper large numbers of good communist revolutionary leaders and heroes in all fields. This is indeed very important for our cause and must not be neglected. Whoever takes it lightly is ignorant of how to advance the cause of communism. Its advancement requires that we should greatly enhance the revolutionary spirit of enterprise among our Party members and bring their vitality into full play. We have to admit that so far we have not done enough in this respect. This is shown, for instance, by the fact that some Party members do not study hard and have little interest in politics and theory. Therefore, while we are opposed to individualistic heroism and ostentatiousness , we are certainly not opposed to a spirit of enterprise in the Party members. The desire to make progress in the interests of the people is the most precious quality in a Communist. But the communist, proletarian spirit of enterprise is entirely different from the individualist "spirit of enterprise". The former means seeking truth, upholding it and fighting for it with the greatest effectiveness. It is progressive and opens up unlimited prospects of development, while the latter offers no prospects even for the individual, for people with an individualist ideology are usually driven by their personal interest into deliberately brushing aside, covering up or distorting the truth.<br />
<br />
Our comrades must understand that genuine leaders and heroes in the communist movement are never individualistic, nor are they ever self-styled or self-appointed. Anyone who styles themself a leader or reaches after leadership can never become a leader of the Party. The rank and file of our Party will not make leaders of people who are prone to conceit, individualistic heroism, ostentatiousness, personal ambition and vanity. No member of our Party has any right to demand that the rank and file should support or keep him as a leader. Only those who are entirely selfless and devoted to the Party, only those with an excellent communist morality and fine communist qualities, who have grasped the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism, who have considerable practical ability, who can direct Party work correctly and who study hard and make constant progress can win the trust of the Party and the confidence and support of the rank and file, and so become leaders and heroes in the communist movement.<br />
<br />
Our comrades must also understand that a member, or a leader and hero, whoever he may be, can only do part of the work, can only carry part of the responsibility, in the communist movement. The communist cause is an undertaking which requires the collective efforts of tens of millions of people over a long period of time and which cannot be encompassed by any one individual alone. Even such great men as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin could only perform part of the work needed by the communist cause. The cause for which they worked requires the joint effort and sustained labour of tens of millions of us. We ordinary Communists are also doing part of the work of the communist cause and carrying part of the responsibility. Of course, our part is much smaller than that of Marx, Engles, Lenin or Stalin. Nevertheless, we have a small part. Big or small, it is all part of the great cause. Therefore, if only we do our part of the work well, we can consider that we have done our duty. Naturally we should try our best to do more, but if we cannot and can only do a little, that is also useful and just as honourable. In any case, we should at least not hamper the progress of the communist cause, but should do our part, whether big of small, and perform our work well, be it heavy or light; that is the correct attitude for every member of our Party. Comrades who are unwilling to undertake technical work think that it stifles their talents, that it prevents them from becoming famous (actually it does not, as witness the technical worker [[Alexei Stakhanov|Stakhanov]]<sup>1</sup> and from giving full play to their abilities and that it kills some of the enterprising spirit which all Communists should have. This view is wrong. Technical work occupies a very important place in our Party work, and comrades engaged in it are doing their share in the communist cause no less than comrades engaged in other jobs. The proper attitude for a Communist is to do whatever work the Party requires of him and do it happily and well, whether it suits his inclinations of not.<br />
<br />
Naturally, in assigning work to members, the Party organization and the responsible Party comrades should, as far as possible, take their individual inclinations and aptitudes into consideration, develop their strong points and stimulate their zeal to go forward. However, no Communist must refuse a Party assignment on the grounds of personal preference.<br />
<br />
Fourth, A small number of comrades are deeply imbued with the ideology of the exploiting classes. They are usually unscrupulous in dealing with comrades and in handling problems inside the Party, and are utterly devoid of the great and sincere proletarian communist spirit of mutual help and solidarity.<br />
<br />
People with this ideology always want to climb over the heads of others in the Party and, to this end, resort to attacking others and doing them harm. They are jealous of those more capable than themselves. They always try to pull down those who are moving ahead of them. They cannot bear playing second fiddle and think only of themselves and never of others. When other comrades are suffering difficulties of setbacks, they gloat or secretly rejoice and have no comradely sympathy at all. They even scheme to injure comrades "drop on one who has fallen into a well", and take advantage of comrades' weaknesses and difficulties to attack and harm them. They "crawl through any crack" and exploit and exacerbate any weakness in Party organization and work for their personal advantage.. They love to stir up trouble in the Party, speak ill of others behind their backs and engage in intrigues in order to sow dissension between comrades. They love to join in any unprincipled dispute that may occur in the Party and take great interest in unprincipled quarrels. They are especially active in stirring up and aggravating such quarrels when the Party is in difficulties. In short, they are thoroughly crooked and lack all integrity. Would it not be absurd to describe such people as being able to grasp the Marxist-Leninist theory and method and give expression to proletarian ideology? It is only too clear that all they express is the ideology of the declining exploiting classes.<br />
<br />
All exploiters must do harm to other people in order to expand. To increase their wealth, or to avoid bankruptcy in an economic crisis, bigger capitalists must squeeze many smaller capitalists out of existence and drive countless workers to starvation. To enrich themselves, landlords must exploit peasants and deprive many of them of their land. In order to expand, fascist Germany, Italy and Japan must devastate other countries; they have subjugated Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Abyssinia<sup>2</sup> and are committing aggression against China. Exploiters always harm and ruin other people as a necessary precondition for their own expansion; their happiness is founded on the suffering of others. Among the exploiters, therefore, genuine firm unity, genuine mutual help, and genuine human sympathy are impossible; they inevitably engage in intrigues and underhand activities in order to ruin others. Yet they have to lie and pose as saints and pillars of justice before the people. Such are the distinguishing characteristics of all declining exploiting classes. These person be models of "fine" ethical conduct for the exploiters, but they are most criminal from the point of view of the proletariat and the masses.<br />
<br />
The proletariat is the complete antithesis of the exploiting classes. It does not exploit others but is itself exploited. There is no conflict of basic interests within its ranks or between it and the other oppressed and exploited working people. Far from needing to harm other working people or impede their development for the sake of its own development and emancipation, the proletariat most forge the closest unity with them in the common struggle. If the proletariat is to emancipate itself, it must at the same time emancipate all other working people and emancipate all humanity. There can be no such thing as the separate emancipation of a single worker or section of workers. The proletariat must carry the cause of the emancipation of humanity through to the end, fighting step by step for the liberation of all humanity, and there can be no giving up or compromising half-way.<br />
<br />
As a result of this objective position occupied by the proletariat, the ideology of the politically conscious workers is the diametrical opposite of that of the exploiters. Communists are vanguard fighters of the proletariat, who arm themselves with Marxism-Leninism and are ruthless towards the people's enemies but never towards the toilers, their class brothers and comrades. They differentiate clearly and sharply between the attitudes and methods to be adopted against the enemy and those to be adopted towards their comrades and friends. They cherish great and sincere friendship, warmth and sympathy for other members of their own class and for all oppressed and exploited working people, towards whom they show a fine spirit of mutual help, firm unity and genuine equality. They are absolutely opposed to privileges of any kind for anyone, consider it impermissible to think in terms of privilege for themselves, and would deem it unthinkable and even a disgrace, to occupy a privileged position among the people. If they themselves are to develop and improve status, they must develop others and improve the status of all the working people at the same time. They are anxious not to fall behind, whether ideologically or politically or in their work, and they have a sturdy spirit of enterprise, but at the same time they esteem, cherish and support those who are ahead of them in these respects and, without any jealousy, do their best to learn from them. They are deeply concerned with the sufferings and privations of their own class and of all working people, they are concerned with all the struggles of the working people for emancipation anywhere in the world, regarding every victory or defeat for the working people anywhere as their own victory of defeat, and therefore displaying the greatest solidarity. They consider it wrong to be indifferent to the struggle of the working and oppressed people for liberation and criminal to gloat over their set-backs They cherish their own comrades and brothers, whose weaknesses and mistakes they criticize frankly and sincerely (and this shows genuine affection); in matters of principle they never gloss over and accommodate, let alone encourage mistakes (to accommodate or even to encourage others' mistakes does not betoken genuine affection for one's comrades). They do everything possible to help comrades overcome weaknesses and correct mistakes and never exploit or aggravate these weaknesses and mistakes to get comrades into trouble, let alone cause the mistakes to develop beyond correction. Not harbouring any desire to settle old scores, they can return good for evil to their own comrades and brothers and help them straighten themselves out. They can be strict with themselves and lenient with others. The stand they take is firm, strict and principled, their attitude is frank, upright and responsible, they do not give way on matters of principle, they do not tolerate anyone who harms the Party, they do not permit anyone to insult them and are particularly contemptuous of adulation and flattery as contrary to all principle. They oppose all unprincipled struggles; they do not let themselves become involved in such struggles and are not swayed or affected by irresponsible or casual criticism made behind their backs as to depart from principle, become incapable of thinking calmly or lose their composure. Such are the proletarian qualities in the most concentrated, exemplary and concrete form. These qualities represent everything of integrity in present-day society. Indeed it is the Communist Party that represents human integrity. We must foster and enhance such proletarian integrity and overcome all that is crooked and evil.<br />
<br />
Fifth. Pettiness, fussing over trifles and ignoring the general interest are faults still prevalent among some Party members. These comrades lack the nature and breadth of vision of Communists and are blind to the bigger things; they relish only the immediate and petty. They do not take much interest in the great problems and events in the Party and the revolution, but are always fussing over the merest trifles about which they enter into ponderous and endless arguments and become highly disturbed. Such people are also easily led by the nose when they receive some small favour or kindness. They have the petty-mindedness characteristic of small rural producers.<br />
<br />
There are other people who do not seem to have a clear-cut and definite attitude in their Party life, people who shift and hedge. They are actually of two kinds; for one kind the question is one of understanding and for the other, of moral character. The latter are always opportunistic in their personal behaviour, curry favour with all sides and try to please everybody. They tailor their words to the person and the circumstances, tack with the wind and show no principle whatsoever. Such are their characteristics. Sometimes, they wait and see what will suit the occasion, like the bat in Aesop's Fables,<sup>3</sup> and then move over to the winning side. Such-double faced creatures, who are neither fish nor fowl, are not altogether unknown in our ranks. They have the traits of the old-fashioned merchant. In addition, there are some individuals who, unable to resist the lure of the old society's exploiting classes, with their glittering world, their money and their women, begin to waver, go wrong and eventually to betray the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
Finally, the ideology of some of our Party comrades often reflects the impetuosity and vacillation of the petty-bourgeoisie and the destructiveness of the lumpen-proletariat and certain bankrupt peasants, but I shall not go into this question here.<br />
<br />
To sum up, our Party represents the great and powerful proletarian communist ideology, but it must be noted that all kinds of non-proletarian ideology—including even the ideology of the declining exploiting classes—are still reflected to a greater or lesser degree in the minds of certain comrades. At times such ideology is dormant in the Party, revealing itself only in insignificant matters of everyday life; but at other times it becomes active, systematically revealing itself in a whole variety of questions of Party principle, in major political questions and in problems of inner Party struggle. Certain sections of links in the Party organization may come to be dominated and corroded by such erroneous ideology, and in extreme cases in may even temporarily dominate key links in the Party leadership, as in the periods when people like [[Chen Duxiu]]<sup>4</sup> and [[Zhang Guotao]]<sup>5</sup> were in control. In normal periods, however, it is held in check by the correct proletarian ideology. These are all manifestations within the Party of the struggle between the proletarian and non-proletarian ideology. Similarly with some individual Party members. At times what is wrong in their ideology lies dormant and under control, but at other times it may grow and even dominate their actions. This is a manifestation among individual Party members of the contradiction and struggle between proletarian and non-proletarian ideology. For our Party members, ideological self-cultivation means that they must conscientiously use the proletarian ideology and the communist world outlook to overcome and eliminate all the various kinds of incorrect, non-proletarian ideology.<br />
<br />
== The Source of Wrong Ideology in Our Party ==<br />
The Communist Party, representing the brightest and most progressive aspects of contempory human society, is the bearer and disseminator of Marxism-Leninism, the acme of human thought. The most politically conscious, progressive and developed people in the world, people with the highest sense of morality and justice, are gathered in the communist Parties, fighting unswervingly against all the forces of darkness and for the bright future and final emancipation of humanity. The Communist Party of China is one of the best Communist Parties in the world. Guided by our leader Comrade Mao Zedong, our Party is armed with the powerful weapon of Marxist-Leninist theory and, at the same time, is carrying forward the fine traditions of progressive thinkers and revolutionaries in Chinese history. It represents the most progressive and brightest aspects of Chinese society, and the finest sons and daughters of the Chinese nation are gathered within its organized ranks. It has been fighting the forces of darkness in Chinese society for a long time, has gone through an arduous process of tempering and has accumulate rich experience in revolutionary struggle. In all this we Communists can justly take pride. There is every ground for absolute confidence that we shall finally be successful and victorious. However, we cannot say yet that everything in our organization is perfect, or that there are no shortcomings and faults. Nor can we say that our ranks are free from unsound and even bad elements, who might be quite capable of any sort of nastiness. In other words, our glorious Party contains some undesirable phenomena, some dark spots which I have already enumerated.<br />
<br />
Now when a family acquires an ugly son-in-law or daughter-in-law, it can not always keep him or her away from the guests. Even if we wanted to do so by taking the attitude of trying to "conceal the family shame", it would be impossible to hide such unpleasantness. The masses of the people are in constant contact with our Party, sympathisers come here to visit us and people who look up to us including many young men and women, come here to study or to join our Party. When they arrive, besides the progressive, fine and attractive things and "members of the family", they will naturally see the ugly sons- or daughters-in-law who might publicly say or do something unpleasant or make a spectacle of themselves, to the perplexity or our guests and new Party members. The newcomers may ask, "Does not the Communist Party stand for all that is just? Are Communists not the finest people? Why are there still such bad people and ugly things in the Communist Party? How strange!" Before joining the Party, some young comrades were bitterly dissatisfied with existing society, saw no way out and turned to the Communist Party as to a beacon of light. They thought that everything would be satisfactory and would work out well once they joined. Yet after doing so, or after arriving in our revolutionary base area, they find there are shortcomings and mistakes in the Party, too, and in real life not everything is satisfactory (much that would satisfy them would not be in the interests of the revolution and the Party), and so they feel reality is not entirely as they pictured it, and some begin to have doubts and feel puzzled. They ask, "Why are such things to be found in the Communist Party as well?" Before coming to Yan'an or before enrolling in the Anti-Japanese Military and Political College, some people imagined Yan'an and the College would live up to their dreams, but after their arrival and enrollment they do not find everything to their satisfaction and are perplexed. They ask, "How can such things happen even in Yan'an and the Anti-Japanese College?" And failing to find answers, some even become pessimistic and disheartened.<br />
<br />
Their questions should alert our Party members and cadres and be a lesson to them so that they will give serious attention to guiding and taking care of all new Party members and all who are moving in our direction and to ensuring they are not adversely affected. But, quite apart from this, we should explain things clearly to comrades inside and outside the Party.<br />
<br />
Why are there still such undesirable things in our splendid Party? The reason, I think, is rather simple. Our Party has not fallen from the skies, but has grown out of Chinese society. In general, our Party consists of the finest sons and daughters of our country, the vanguard of the Chinese proletariat, but they come from all strata of the old society, and in China today there still exists exploiting classes and the influence of these classes—selfishness, intrigue, bureaucracy and various types of filth. We have many excellent Party members who are not easily affected by such influences. But it is so strange that certain members bring some of the filth of the old society with them into our Party of reflect it there? Is it so strange that a person that has just crawled out of the mud is covered with slime? Of course not. It is only to be expected. It would be strange and indeed incredible, if the ranks of the Communist Party were absolutely free from such filth. It may be said that so long as such filth exists in society, so long as classes and exploiting class influences exist in society, there is bound to be some filth in the Communist Party. It is precisely because there is such filth in society, and in the Party, that it is the duty of the communist Party to change existing society, and it is necessary for Communists to remould, cultivate and temper themselves. In addition to carrying on a struggle in society at large against everything evil and backward,, it is imperative for us to carry on a struggle inside the Party against every social evil and backward influence as mirrored in the Party by vacillating and unsteady elements. This is the source of inner-Party contradiction and struggle. Through struggle, both inside and outside the Party, we seek to change society and gradually rid it of its evils and backwardness, and at the same time seek to perfect our Party and remould our Party members, and to resolve our inner-Party contradictions, so that our Party and its membership will become healthier and stronger.<br />
<br />
Stalin said:<blockquote>The source of the contradiction within the proletarian parties lies in two circumstances.</blockquote>What are these circumstances?<br />
<br />
They are firstly the pressure exerted by the bourgeoisie and bourgeois ideology on the proletariat and its party in the conditions of the class struggle—a pressure to which the least stable strata of the proletariat, and hence the least stable strata of the proletarian party, not infrequently succumb. It must not be thought that the proletariat is completely isolated from society, that it stands outside society. The proletariat is a part of society, connected with its diverse strata by numerous threads. But the party is a part of the proletariat Hence the Party cannot be exempt from connections with, and from the influence of, the diverse sections of the bourgeois society The pressure of the bourgeoisie and its ideology on the proletariat and its party finds expression in the fact that bourgeois ideas, manners, customs and sentiments not infrequently penetrate the proletariat and its party through definite strata of the proletariat that are in one way or another connected with bourgeois society.<br />
<br />
They are, secondly, the heterogeneity of the working class, the existence of a different strata within the working class....<br />
<br />
One stratum is the main mass of the proletariat, its core, its permanent part, the mass of "pure blooded" proletarians, who have long broken off connection with the capitalist class. This stratum of the proletariat is the most reliable bulwark of Marxism.<br />
<br />
The second stratum consists of new comers from non-proletarian classes—from the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie or the intelligencia. These are former members of other classes who have only recently merged with the proletariat and brought with them into the working class their customs, their habits, their waverings and their vacillations. This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for all sorts of anarchist, semi-anarchist and "ultra-Left" groups.<br />
<br />
The third stratum, lastly, consists of the labour aristocracy, the upper stratum of the working class, the most well-to-do portion of the proletariat, with its propensity for compromise with the bourgeoisie, its predominant inclination to adapt itself to the powers that be, and its anxiety go "get on in life". This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for outright reformists and opportunists.<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
Here we see the source of the various kinds of non-proletarian ideology and the various errors, shortcomings and undesirable phenomena that exist in our proletarian party. Here, indeed, is the source of the various contradictions that are present in our Party.<br />
<br />
== Attitudes Towards Wrong Ideology in the Party and Towards Inner-Party Struggle ==<br />
The influences exerted by the exploiting classes and the petty bourgeoisie, the existence of different strata within the working class and the differences in the class background of our Party members give rise to different ideas among them, to certain differences in viewpoints, habits and sentiments, in world outlook and moral values, and differences in the way they look at and think about things in general and the problems of the revolution in particular.<br />
<br />
Some people in our Party are able to view issues as developing and interrelated, but others habitually view them statistically and in isolation. The former are able to grasp matters comprehensively and objectively and hence to draw correct conclusions that can serve us as correct guide lines to action. As for the latter, some of them only see or over emphasize this side of a thing, while others only see and over emphasize the other side; both fail to view problems comprehensively and objectively in accordance with the laws of the development and interrelationship of objective phenomena, and both take a one-sided, subjective view of problems. Hence, they are unable to arrive at correct conclusions or chart the right course for our actions.<br />
<br />
The differences among Party members in their approach to problems lead to different ways of handling problems, to divergences and controversies are bound to become especially acute at turning points in the revolution, or when the struggle grows in intensity and hardship mount.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the crux of the matter is not whether there are differences of thought and opinion within the Party, since such differences always exist. The crux of the matter is how to resolve contradictions, settle differences and overcome all kinds of incorrect, non-proletarian thinking. Obviously, it is only through inner-Party struggle that such contradictions can be resolved, differences settled and incorrect thinking overcome. As Engels put it, “In the long run the contradictions are never slurred over, but always fought out.”<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
Different people hold different views and take different attitudes with regard to shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in our Party.<br />
<br />
People of one kind do not or will not see shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in our Party, but blindly believe that there is scarcely anything wrong in it; hence they relax their vigilance and slacken their struggle their struggle against these phenomena. People of another kind see nothing, or hardly anything, except these undesirable phenomena and fail to see how correct and glorious our Party is; hence they become pessimistic and loose confidence, or they become alarmed and bewildered in the face of such phenomena. The views of both are wrong and one-sided. Our view is different.. On the one hand, we know we know that our Party is the political party of the proletariat, the most progressive and revolutionary party in China. On the other, we know clearly that there are still shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena, major and minor in our Party. Moreover, we clearly understand their source and how to correct and gradually eliminate them, and we are making constant efforts to temper ourselves, improve our work and wage the necessary struggles in order to promote the progress of the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
Since people differ in their class stand and their views, they take different attitudes towards what is undesirable in our Party. One attitude is that of alien class and hostile elements who have wormed their way into our Party. A second attitude is that of Party members who lack a firm proletarian stand and have a wrong way of thinking. A third is that of Party members who firmly uphold the principles of Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
The alien class and hostile elements who have worked their way into the Party are glad of its shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena. Gleefully seeking their opportunity, they use every possible means to exploit and magnify some of these undesirable phenomena for the purpose of wrecking our Party. Sometimes they even make a pretence of opposing certain mistakes and supporting the Party line in order to cause an opposite kind of mistake to be committed. People with the second type of attitude fall into the following distinct categories:<br />
<br />
1. Some Party members sympathize with and accept certain erroneous ideas, or follow the bad example of certain people in the Party, so as to further their personal ends and desires. They consider the existence of certain short comings and mistakes in the Party to be to their advantage and therefore, whether intentionally or unintentionally, aggravate these failings and exploit them. This is the attitude of careerists of bad characters in the Party.<br />
<br />
2. Some Party members do nothing about the shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party and allow them to grow. They just muddle along and are unwilling to fight these evils. They fear inner-Party struggle and self-criticism, considering them harmful to the Party, or they are insensitive or shut their eyes to the undesirable things, or they are perfunctory and compromising in the struggle against them. This is the attitude taken by Communists who have a weak sense of duty towards the Party, are extremely liberalistic, or are guilty of bureaucracy.<br />
<br />
3. The attitude of some Party members towards these shortcomings and mistakes and towards those comrades who have incorrect ideas is one of “bitter hatred and gall”. They lightly sever all relations with comrades who have committed some mistake and whom they attempt to expel from the Party outright. If they fail in this and need rebuffs, they give up and become pessimistic and down-hearted, or they keep aloof, “preserve their purity” and even put a great distance between themselves and the Party. This extreme attitude is also shown in some comradesÕ mechanical conception of inner-Party struggle and self-criticism. People with this attitude believe that inner-Party struggle must be launched under any and all circumstances—the more frequently and bitterly, the better. They magnify every trifle into a matter of “principle” and brand every tiny fault with such labels as political opportunism. They do not carry on inner-Party struggle properly and specifically in accordance with the objective needs and objective laws of development, but instead “struggle” mechanically, subjectively and violently, regardless of the consequences. This is the attitude taken by Party members who do not understand the source of inner-Party contradictions, who lack skill in dealing with inner-Party differences and who have a mechanical conception of inner-Party struggle. For a time, this extreme attitude towards inner-Party struggle was exploited by the “Left” opportunists in the Party. They intensified mechanical and excessive struggles to the point of deliberately hunting for “targets of struggle” within the Party, deliberately creating inner-Party struggles, punishing comrades by abusing Party disciplinary measures and even employing against them measures applicable to struggles outside the Party; and it was by such “struggles” and “disciplinary measures” that they tried to push the work ahead.<br />
<br />
The attitude we should adopt is the proletarian Marxist-Leninist one. Contrary to the erroneous attitudes described above, we advocate the following.<br />
<br />
1. First of all, get to know the various phenomena, ideas, views and opinions in the Party and distinguish those which are correct and beneficial to the interests of the Party and the revolution from those which are not, or, in the case of a dispute in which both sides are wrong, perceive this and be able to point out the correct view or opinion. After sober analysis and consideration, decide on a clear-cut attitude and take a correct stand. Do not follow blindly or drift with the tide.<br />
<br />
2. Profit by every good example, promote and spread a spirit of integrity in the Party and vigorously support all correct views and opinions. Do not follow any bad examples or be influenced by any wrong ideas.<br />
<br />
3. Do not take a liberalistic attitude or flinch from any necessary inner-Party struggle. Carry on an irreconcilable struggle in the Party against ideas and views which are wrong in principle and against all other undesirable phenomena, so that we can constantly move to overcome them; they should never be allowed to develop unchecked to the detriment of the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
4. Do not take a mechanical and extreme attitude. Properly combine irreconcilability and clarity in matters of principle with flexibility and patient persuasion in methods of struggle; in thecourse of prolonged struggles, educate, criticize, temper and remould comrades who have committed errors but who are not incorrigible. Such inner-Party ideological struggles on matters of principle as are necessary at different periods should be waged in a concrete and proper way; inner-Party struggles should not be waged indiscriminatingly, subjectively,, mechanically or on shadowy pretexts. Do not become “struggle addicts”.<br />
<br />
5. Strengthen the unity and discipline of the Party and enhance its prestige through inner-Party struggle. Organizational penalties, ranging all the way to expulsion, should be applied to the incorrigible elements of the Party. We should regard it as our supreme duty to safeguard the Party’s unity, preserve the purity of its ideology and consolidate its organization.<br />
<br />
Such is the attitude of all good Communists in the Party and indeed the only correct Marxist-Leninist attitude.<br />
<br />
It is not strange that our enemies should seek to make use of our every shortcoming and mistake to undermine our Party. Besides constantly sharpening our vigilance, we should do everything possible to give the enemy as little opportunity as possible to exploit shortcomings and mistakes in the Party whenever they occur; this is the duty of every comrade who cherishes the Party. If a Party member ignores this consideration in inner-Party struggle, if he only seeks to vent his feelings, or goes to the length of joining up with bad elements instead of rejecting their assistance, or even makes use of outside forces to help him attain some private ends within the Party, he will be making an unpardonable breach of discipline.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party should be the embodiment of correct ideology and should follow good examples in the Party; they should not follow but oppose wrong ideas and bad examples. But what actually happens is that some comrades that are generally correct in their ideology and follow good examples, sometimes reflect certain wrong ideas and follow certain bad examples. Other comrades seem to find it easy to learn from bad but hard to learn from good, and this merits our serious attention. When mistakes occur in the Party, they are apt to encourage or aggravate them, intentionally of unintentionally. In inner-Party struggles they are apt to take the wrong side or to go along with whichever side is currently in vogue., irrespective of right and wrong. These comrades will hardly make progress unless they receive strict criticism and rigorous tempering.<br />
<br />
Of course comrades who adopt a liberalistic or bureaucratic attitude towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomenon inside the Party are also wrong. This, I think should be quite clear to you as students of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism. For in the Party building course which you have studied, the necessity of self-criticism and ideological struggle within the Party is clearly and thoroughly discussed; you can go into it again, and I need not well on the matter further. However, I do want to point out that quite a few comrades have this liberalistic attitude. We often do not have enough really responsible and sincere criticism and self-criticism conducted in keeping with the Party’s organizational principles, for the purpose of exposing, correcting and eliminating the undesirable phenomena in the Party, and more particularly we do not have enough criticism from below and self-criticism, both of which would be greatly encouraged. On the other hand, there is quite a lot of criticism that is irresponsible and not in keeping with the Party’s organizational principles, of talking behind peopleÕs backs and gossip about this or that person or thing. Both are manifestations of liberalism in the Party. They show that some of the comrades are insufficiently mature politically and are not courageous enough in revolutionary struggle; they also indicate that inner-Party democracy has not been properly developed. Some comrades dare not dispense with face-saving, and fear to offend others lest they themselves incur complaints and counter-criticism. They would rather leave the shortcomings and mistakes alone, taking the attitude of “getting by” and “the less trouble the better”, but at the same time they talk about comrades behind their backs. All this harms the Party and does it no good. Irresponsible criticism and talk are not likely to overcome the shortcomings and mistakes in the party but will lead to unprincipled disputes and disunity. We stand for inner-Party criticism and self-criticism which is responsible and beneficial to the Party and is in keeping with its organizational principles.<br />
<br />
Shortcomings and mistakes exist in the Party and so do incorrect non-proletarian ideas. Any of these may at certain times develop into a trend, giving rise to differences of principle and imparing the PartyÕs unity of action. Hence it is impossible to educate the Party, the proletariat and the masses correctly if we do not unfold criticism and self-criticism, constantly expose and correct short comings and mistakes, overcome wrong ideas and conduct inner-Party struggle to resolve inner-Party differences, but instead take a compromising attitude and follow a “middle” line, or try to muddle through in inner-Party struggle.<br />
<br />
Liberalism in inner-Party struggle is manifested in yet another way. Thus when a dispute breaks out in the Party, many comrades put aside their work and indulge in aimless debate for days and months on end or let themselves go without restraint; as a result, the unity of the Party becomes the looser, Party discipline is weakened, the Party’s prestige is impaired and our militant Party organizations turn into debating societies. Such things have occurred more than once in certain Party organizations. They have absolutely nothing in common with the kind of criticism and self-criticism we advocate. We need criticism and self-criticism, not in order to impair the Party’s prestige, undermine its discipline and weaken its leadership, but in order to promote the Party’s prestige, consolidate its discipline and strengthen its leadership.<br />
<br />
Hence, it is wrong to adopt a liberalistic or bureaucratic attitude towards the various shortcomings and mistakes in the Party. In order to fight against all undesirable phenomena and resolve differences, we must promote criticism and self-criticism and conduct inner-Party struggle correctly. Only then can the party be strengthened, grow and advance.<br />
<br />
Comrades who take an extreme attitude in inner-Party struggle are also wrong.<br />
<br />
The extreme attitude is the exact antithesis of the liberalistic attitude. It arises because these comrades fail to understand that wrong ideas in the Party have deep social roots and cannot possibly be eliminated at one stroke. At various times and in varying degrees, many of our Party comrades may reflect certain incorrect ideas existing in society and may commit some mistakes in their work under the influence of non-proletarian ideologies; no comrade can entirely avoid this. If the Party were to refuse to retain or tolerate all comrades who reflect non-proletarian ideologies in some degree, or who have committed some mistakes and yet are not incorrigible, and were to reject them categorically and even expel them, then the tasks of educating the comrades and consolidating the Party’s organization would be nonexistent. Were our Party to follow such an extreme policy, the comrades promoting such actions would eventually have to be expelled themselves. In particular, these comrades fail to understand that the achievement of communism involves the tremendous and difficult task of transforming all humanity into the selfless citizenry of a communist society, the task of converting men with their many weaknesses into communists with a high level of culture through a long process of tempering and education in the course of struggle. If they did understand this, then they would understand that our Party has the important and constant duty of educating and remoulding people who are already members but whose ideology is not wholly proletarian.<br />
<br />
Naturally, the education and remoulding of such Party members is a most arduous task requiring prolonged and patient effort. Yet if we are unwilling to tackle this difficult task and shrink from it, how can we talk about changing the world and all humanity? Since we are determined to undertake, and not to shrink from, the unprecedentedly arduous task of changing the world and all humanity, what other task in the world today can daunt us? Party members who have the communist world outlook are dauntless, fear no difficulty or hardship, and understand that the process of development is torturous. Comrades who take an extreme attitude do not understand that the achievement of communism is an arduous and torturous task, they fear difficulties and crave a straight road, they want to eliminate everything unpleasant at one stroke and leap immediately into the world of their ideals. Thinking and acting in this way, they inevitably run their heads against a brick wall. And after banging and bruising their heads, they quite often become disheartened and loose their confidence in the future of communism. Thus they swing between extremes, from “Left” to “Right”, thereby revealing the essence of their non-proletarian ideology. It is regrettable that this erroneous, extreme attitude towards inner-Party shortcomings and mistakes should still be found to a greater or lesser extent among quite a few comrades, although it is harmful to the Party, to other comrades and to themselves.<br />
<br />
Inner-Party struggle is necessary not because we are subjectively addicted to struggle or partial to dispute, but because inner-Party differences of principle do arise in the growth of the Party and in the proletarian struggle. When they occur, “contradictions can be overcome only by means of a struggle for definite principles, for definite aims of the struggle, for definite methods of waging the struggle leading to the desired aim.”<sup>2</sup> Compromise is of no avail here. This means that when a dispute has developed into one of principle which can only be resolved through struggle, we should unflinchingly wage inner-Party struggle in order to resolve it. It does not mean that we should make a big fuss over small matters, conduct inner-Party struggle with stony faces and never compromise even on routine and on questions of a purely practical nature. “One can, and one should agree to any compromise with dissenters in the party on questions of current policy,, on questions of a purely practical nature.”<sup>3</sup><br />
<br />
When opportunist ideas and differences of principle arise in the Party, we must, of course, wage struggles to overcome those ideas and errors of principle. This defiantly does not mean that when there are no differences of principles and no opportunist ideas in the Party, we should deliberately magnify into “differences of principle” divergences of opinion among comrades on questions of a purely practical nature.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said: “The Party must on the one hand wage a serious struggle against erroneous thinking, and on the other give the comrades who have committed errors ample opportunity to wake up. This being the case, excessive struggle is obviously inappropriate.”<sup>4</sup><br />
<br />
It is necessary to make severe criticism of, or even to apply organizational penalties to, those comrades who, after committing opportunist mistakes or other mistakes of principle, turn a deaf ear to persuasion and Party criticism, wilfully and obstinately cling to their errors and resist Party policy, or double-faced in their attitude. But if these comrades do not cling to their mistakes but are willing to correct them and give up their previous point of view after sober discussion, persuasion and criticism, or if they coolly ponder over their mistakes or soberly discuss them with other comrades, we should welcome every small sign of progress on their part and not subject them to penalties undiscriminatingly. In criticism and inner-Party struggle, it is not true that the more stony-faced we are the better, or that the more comrades we punish the better; our highest aim is to educate the erring comrades to the best effect, help them to correct their mistakes, educate the entire membership and consolidate the Party.<br />
<br />
The “Left” opportunists are clearly wrong in their attitude towards inner-Party struggle. According to these almost hysterical people, any peace in the Party was intolerable—even peace based on complete unanimity on matters of principle an on the Party line. Even in the absence of any differences of principle in the Party, they deliberately hunted out targets, dubbed some comrades “opportunist” and set them up as “straw men” to shoot at in inner-Party struggle. They thought that such erroneous struggle and such shooting at “straw men” were the magic formula for developing the Party and achieving victory in the revolutionary fight of the proletariat. They considered that to stir up trouble out of nothing or to deliberately concoct inner-Party struggle was the only “Bolshevik” way. Of course, this is not serious and earnest inner-Party struggle; rather it is a mockery of the Party and the perverting of inner-Party struggle, which is a most serious matter, into a frivolous game. The advocates of such action are not Bolsheviks at all but are either people who are well-nigh incorrigible or careerists exploiting the name “Bolshevik”.<br />
<br />
We have been discussing the attitude to be adopted towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party. It is by combating all that is bad inside and outside the Party that we change the world and humanity and at the same time perfect the Party and remould ourselves. Inner-Party struggle is a reflection within the Party of existing contradictions in society between classes and between old and new. The Party tempers, develops and consolidates itself in the class struggle outside the Party (i.e., in the revolutionary struggles of the masses of the people) and simultaneously becomes consolidated and united through struggle inside the Party, and is therefore able to give more systematic, correct and effective leadership to the revolutionary struggle of the masses. Hence it would be utterly wrong, advantageous to the enemy, contrary to the laws of development of the class struggle and incompatible with our basic thesis of transformation of the world and humanity through struggle, if we were to adopt a liberal attitude towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party by flossing over internal differences of principle, covering up inner-Party contradictions, evading inner-Party struggle and just muddling along. Similarly, it would be wrong to isolate the struggle inside the Party from the class struggle outside the Party or the revolutionary movement of the masses and thus turn inner-Party struggle into empty talk. In fact, it is impossible to temper, develop and consolidate the party in isolation from the revolutionary struggle of the masses. However, it would be equally wrong and contrary to the laws of development of the Party, if we were to carry matters to the other extreme and adopt an extreme attitude towards all comrades who have shortcomings or have committed errors but who are not irredeemable, or if we were to fail to distinguish between them and the enemy, conducting mechanical and excessive inner-Party struggles against them and wilfully fabricating such struggles. We should not break with comrades who have committed errors but who are nevertheless loyal. Rather, we should show concern and sympathy for them, persuade and educate them and help them temper and reform themselves in struggle. We should not castigate or expel them unless they persist in their mistakes and prove incorrigible.<br />
<br />
Although there are still some shortcomings and mistakes, some isolated minor evils in our Party, we are fully confident that with the advance of the working-class movement we can and will get rid of them through the great revolutionary struggles of the masses. The history of nearly two decades of struggle and glorious progress by the Communist Party of China and the worldwide development of the working-class movement, thoroughly convince us of this.<br />
<br />
Inner-Party struggle is an indispensable component of the revolutionary struggle as a whole. Our comrades should therefore temper and cultivate themselves both in struggles outside the Party and in the struggle on two fronts inside the Party. Among many Party comrades, however, there is still no genuinely profound appreciation of such inner-Party struggle, and there is insufficient tempering and self-cultivation. This is manifested not only in the frequent unprincipled struggles carried on by some comrades but also in the fact that certain comrades, including even some with a fairly long history of militant struggle, cannot stand being criticized of misjudged. When fighting the counter-revolution, they never waver, complain or feel dejected, however ruthless the struggle, however bitter the conditions and however vicious the enemy’s blows. Yet in inner-Party struggle they cannot stand being criticized, attacked, misjudged or wronged, or tolerate even a single unpleasant word. Or they suspect people of making pointed allusions to them, and so they complain and feel very dejected. We must really five this kind of thing our attention.<br />
<br />
It must be stated that on the whole these comrades are very good because they wage resolute struggle against the counter-revolutionaries and look upon the Party as a most affectionate mother. After going out to fight hard battles against the counter-revolutionaries they should receive encouragement, consolation and caresses, and not blows and wrongs, when they return to their great mother’s embrace. It is only natural for them to expect such treatment. However, they fail to take one point into account, or fully into account—that our Party still has shortcomings and faults and that there are inner-Party struggles which every comrade must take part in. Our Party criticises and combats shortcomings and faults not because it is unfeeling but because such action is unavoidable in the course of revolutionary struggle. It is necessary for comrades in the course of inner-Party struggle to receive well founded criticism, for it is helpful to them, to the other comrades and to the whole Party. On the other hand, it is also unavoidable that at times some comrades will receive unfounded criticisms or be attacked on certain matters, or will even be wrongly judged and disciplined. Failing to allow for this, they become shocked and feel most miserable and dejected when it occurs.<br />
<br />
In this connection, it is my opinion that every Party member should pay attention to uniting with his comrades, be sincere and open,, refrain from hurting others by thoughtless or sarcastic remarks and, in particular, refrain from irresponsibly criticizing comrades behind their backs. The proper attitude to any comrade’s mistakes is sincerely to remonstrate with him and criticize him to his face., out of concern for the comrade and a desire to be of help. All of us, and especially those in more responsible positions, must bear this in mind.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, it is my opinion that comrades should be mentally prepared for inner-Party struggle, should open-mindedly accept all well-grounded criticism and be able to endure misunderstandings or attacks, or even unfairness and injustice; in particular, they should not get upset or excited over irresponsible and unjustified criticism or rumours. As far as irresponsible misjudgement and criticism are concerned—that is, excluding properly conducted criticism among comrades or through the Party organization—one can try and clear the matter up or offer some explanation when necessary, but if that does not help, one might just as well let others say what they please, provided there is nothing wrong in one’s thinking and behaviour. Let us remember the Chinese sayings: “Who never gossips about others behind their backs or is never the subject of gossip?” and “Never mind the storm, just sit tight in the fishing boat.” No one in this world can entirely avoid being misunderstood, but misunderstandings can always be cleared up sooner or later. We should be able to endure misunderstandings and should never allow ourselves to be dragged into unprincipled struggle; at the same time, we should be always vigilant and keep watch over our own thoughts and actions.<br />
<br />
That is to say, we should take care not to use words that wound other comrades and should be able to stand injurious language from others.<br />
<br />
We are radically opposed to unprincipled disputes in the Party. Since they are unprincipled, they are useless and harmful to the Party, and there is generally little of right or wrong, or good or bad, about them. In such unprincipled struggles, therefore, there is no point in passing judgement as to who is right and who is wrong, or estimating who is better and who is worse, because that is impossible. All we can do is radically to oppose struggles of that kind and ask the comrades involved unconditionally to stop them and get back to principles. This is the policy we should adopt towards unprincipled disputes and struggles. But what is to be done if unprincipled disputes do arise and if many of them get tangled up with struggles over principle? What should be done if such disputes knock at our door and we get dragged into them? All we can do in that case is, again, to put the stress on the questions of principle and avoid stressing those not involving any principle. Basing ourselves on the policy outlined here, we should handle such unprincipled disputes strictly and ourselves stand firm on the principle from beginning to end, refusing to be dragged into the unprincipled disputes. When something does go wrong to you, do not throw back something wrong at him. Always stand by the right to oppose the wrong. Some of our comrades find it very difficult to act in this way, which shows why special attention to self-tempering and self-cultivation is necessary.<br />
<br />
Let me briefly sum up the points discussed.<br />
<br />
The aim of ideological self-cultivation by members of the Communist party is to temper themselves to become staunch and utterly devoted members and cadres of the Party who make constant progress and serve as examples for others. What is required of us is the following:<br />
<br />
1. To build up our communist world outlook and a firm Party and proletarian class standpoint through the study of Marxism-Leninism and participation in the revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
2. To examine our own thinking and behaviour, to correct all erroneous ideas and at the same time to judge questions and judge other comrades on the basis of our communist world outlook and our firm Party and proletarian class standpoint.<br />
<br />
3. Always to adopt a correct attitude and appropriate methods in the struggle against erroneous ideology in the Party, and especially against the erroneous ideology which affects the current revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
4. To keep a firm control over ourselves in thought, speech and action, especially to take a firm standpoint and adhere to correct principles with regard to political ideas, statements and activities which are related to the current revolutionary struggle. In addition, it is as well to be careful even over “trifles” (in one's personal life, attitude, etc.). But as for making demands on other comrades, apart from matters of principle and major political questions, we should not be too severe or fault finding over “trifles”.<br />
<br />
In my opinion, the above is what we mean, fundamentally, when we talk about ideological self-cultivation by members of the Communist Party.<br />
[[Category:Library works by Liu Shaoqi]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:How_to_Be_a_Good_Communist&diff=64298Library:How to Be a Good Communist2024-03-17T16:15:41Z<p>RedCustodian: /* The Cause of Communism is the Greatest and Most Arduous Undertaking in Human History */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Library work|title=How to Be a Good Communist|author=Liu Shaoqi|written in=1939}}<br />
<br />
Comrades,<br />
<br />
The question I shall discuss us how members of the [[Communist Party of China|Communist Party]] should cultivate and temper themselves. It may not be unprofitable to the building and consolidation of the Party to take up this question at this present time.<br />
<br />
== Why Communists Must Undertake Self-Cultivation ==<br />
Why must Communists undertake to cultivate themselves?<br />
<br />
In order to live, person must wage a struggle against nature and make use of nature to produce [[Materialism|material]] values. At all times and under all conditions, his [[production]] of material things is social in character. It follows that when men engage in production at any [[Mode of production|stage of social development]], they have to enter into certain [[relations of production]] with one another. In their ceaseless struggle against nature, men ceaselessly change nature and simultaneously change themselves and their mutual relations. Men themselves, their social relations, their form of social organization and consciousness were all different from what they are today, and in the future they will again be different.<br />
<br />
Humanity and human society are in process of [[Historical materialism|historical development]]. When human society reached a certain historical stage, [[Social class|classes]] and [[class struggle]] emerged. Every member of a [[class society]] exists as a member of a given class and lives in given conditions of class struggle. Man’s social being determines his consciousness. In class society the ideology of the members of each class reflects a different position and different class interests. The class struggle constantly goes on among these classes with their different positions, interests and ideologies. Thus it is not only in the struggle against nature but in the struggle of social classes that men change nature, change society and at the same time change themselves.<br />
<br />
[[Karl Marx|Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]] said:<blockquote>Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary, an alteration that can only take place in a practical movement, a ''[[Proletarian revolution|revolution]]''; the revolution is necessary, therefore, not only the [[Bourgeoisie|ruling class]] cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because [[Proletariat|the class ''overthrowing'' it]] can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>That is to say, the proletariat must conscientiously go through long periods of social revolutionary struggles and, in such struggles change society and change itself.<br />
<br />
We should therefore see ourselves as in need of change and capable of being changed. We should not look upon ourselves as immutable, perfect and sacrosanct, as persons who need not and cannot be changed. When we pose the task of remoulding ourselves in social struggle, we are not demeaning ourselves; the objective laws of social development demand it. Unless we do so, we cannot make progress, or fulfill the task of changing society.<br />
<br />
We Communists are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history; to day the changing of society and the world rests upon us and we are the driving force in this change. It is by unremitting struggle against [[Counterrevolution|counter-revolutionaries]]<sup>3</sup> that we Communists change society and the world, and at the same time ourselves.<br />
<br />
When we say Communists must remould themselves by waging struggles in every sphere against the counter-revolutionaries,<sup>3</sup> we mean that it is through such struggles that they must seek to make progress and must enhance their revolutionary quality and ability. An immature revolutionary has to go through a long process of revolutionary tempering and self-cultivation, a long process of remoulding, before he cam become a mature and seasoned revolutionary who can grasp and skillfully apply the laws of revolution. For in the first place, a comparatively immature revolutionary, born and bred in the old society, carries with him the remnants of the various ideologies of that society (including its prejudices, habits and traditions), and in the second he has not been through a long period of revolutionary activity. Therefore he does not yet have a really thorough understanding of the enemy, of the people or of the laws of social development and revolutionary struggle. In order to change this state of affairs, besides learning from past revolutionary experience (the practice of our predecessors), he must themself participate in contemporary revolutionary practice, and in this revolutionary practice and struggle against all kinds of counter revolutionaries,<sup>3</sup> he must bring his conscious activity into full play and work hard at study and self-cultivation. Only so can he acquire deeper experience and understanding of the laws of social development and revolutionary struggle, acquire a really thorough understanding of the enemy and the people, discover his wrong ideas, habits and prejudices and correct them, and thus raise the level of his political consciousness, cultivate his revolutionary qualities and improve his revolutionary methods. Hence, in order to remould themself and raise his owl level, a revolutionary must take part in revolutionary practice from which he must on no account isolate themself. Moreover, he must strive to conduct self-cultivation and study in the course of practice. Otherwise, it will still be impossible for him to make progress.<br />
<br />
For example, several Communists take part in a revolutionary mass struggle together and engage in revolutionary practice under roughly the same circumstances and conditions. It is possible that the effect of the struggle on these Party members will not be at all uniform. Some will make very rapid progress and some who used to lag behind will even forge ahead of others. Other Party members will advance very slowly. Still others will waver in the struggle and, instead of being pushed forward by revolutionary practice, will fall behind. Why?<br />
<br />
Or take another example. Many members of our Party were on the [[Long March]]; it was a severe process of tempering for them, and the overwhelming majority made very great progress indeed. But the Long March had the opposite effect on certain individuals in the Party. After having been on the Long March they began to shrink before arduous struggles, and some of them even planned to back out or to run away and later, succumbing to outside allurements, actually deserted the revolutionary ranks. Many Party members took part in the Long March together, and yet its impact and results varied very greatly. Again, why?<br />
<br />
Basically speaking, these phenomena are reflections of our revolutionary ranks of the class struggle in society. Our Party members differ in quality because they differ in social background and have come under different social influences. They differ in their attitude, stand and comprehension in relation to the revolutionary practice, and consequently they develop in different directions in the course of revolutionary practice. This can clearly be seen in your institute as well. You all receive the same education and training here, and yet because you differ in quality and experience, in degree of effort and self-cultivation, you may obtain different of even contrary results. Hence, subjective effort and self-cultivation in the course of revolutionary struggle are absolutely essential, indeed, indispensable for a revolutionary in remoulding themself and raising his own level.<br />
<br />
Whether he joined the revolution long ago or just recently, every Communist who wants to become a good politically mature revolutionary must undergo a long period of tempering in revolutionary struggle, must steel themself in mass revolutionary struggles and all kinds of difficulties and hardships, must sum up the experience gained through practice, make great efforts in self-cultivation, raise his ideological level, heighten his ability and never loose sense of what is new. For only thus can he turn themself into a politically staunch revolutionary of high quality.<br />
<br />
[[Confucius]] said “At fifteen, my mind was bent on learning. At thirty, I could think for myself. At forty, I was no longer perplexed. At fifty, I knew the decree of Heaven. At sixty, my ear was attuned to the truth. At seventy, I can follow my heart’s desire without transgressing what is right.”<sup>4</sup> Here the [[Feudalism|feudal]] philosopher was referring to his own process of self-cultivation; he did not consider themself to have been born a “sage”.<br />
<br />
[[Mencius]], another feudal philosopher, said that no one had fulfilled a “great mission” and played a role in history without first undergoing a hard process of tempering, a process which “exercises his mind with suffering and toughens his sinews and bones with toil, exposes his body to hunger, subjects him to extreme poverty, thwarts his under-takings and thereby stimulates his mind, tempers his character and adds to his capacities”.<sup>5</sup> Still more so must Communists give attention to tempering and cultivating themselves in revolutionary struggles, since they have the historically unprecedented “great mission” of changing the world.<br />
<br />
Our Communist self-cultivation is the kind essential to proletarian revolutionaries. It must not be divorced from revolutionary practice or from the actual revolutionary movements of the labouring masses, and especially of the proletarian masses.<br />
<br />
Comrade [[Mao Zedong]] has said:<blockquote>Discover the truth through practice, and again through practice verify and develop the truth. Start from perceptual knowledge and actively develop it into rational knowledge; then start from rational knowledge and actively guide revolutionary practice to change both the subjective and the objective world. Practice, knowledge, again practice and again knowledge. This form repeats itself in endless cycles, and with each cycle the content the content of practice and knowledge rises to a higher level. Such is the whole of the dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge, and such is the dialectical-materialist theory of the unity of knowing and doing.<sup>6</sup></blockquote>Our Party members should temper themselves and intensify their self-cultivation not only in the hardships, difficulties and reverses of revolutionary practice, but also in the course of smooth, successful and victorious revolutionary practice. Some members of our Party cannot stand the plaudits of success and victory; they let victories turn their heads, become brazen, arrogant, and bureaucratic and may even vacillate, degenerate and become corrupted, completely loosing their original revolutionary quality. Individual instances of this kind are not uncommon among our Party members. The existence of such a phenomenon in the Party calls for our comrades’ sharp attention.<br />
<br />
In past ages, before the proletarian revolutionaries appeared on the scene, practically all [[Revolution|revolutionaries]] became corrupted and degenerated with the achievement of victory. They lost their original revolutionary spirit and became obstacles to the further development of the revolution. [[Republic of China|China]]’s [[History of China|history]] over the past century, or to speak of more recent times, over the past fifty years, has shown us that many bourgeois and [[Petty bourgeoisie|petty-bourgeois]] revolutionaries in the past and by the nature of earlier revolutions. Before the [[Russian revolution of 1917|Great October Socialist Revolution]] in [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1991)|Russia]], all revolutions throughout history invariably ended in the suppression of the rule of one [[Exploitation|exploiting]] class by that of another. Thus, once they themselves became the ruling class, these revolutionaries lost their revolutionary quality and turned round to [[Oppression|oppress]] the exploited masses; this was the inexorable law.<br />
<br />
But such can never be the case with the proletarian revolution and with the Communist Party. The proletarian revolution is a revolution to abolish all exploitation, oppression and classes. The Communist Party represents the proletariat which is itself exploited but does not exploit others and which can therefore carry the revolution through to the end finally abolish all exploitation and sweep away all the corruption and rottenness in human society. The proletariat is able to build a strictly organized and disciplined party and set up a centralized and at the same time democratic state apparatus, and through the Party and this state apparatus, it is able to lead the masses of the people in waging unrelenting struggle against all corruption and rottenness and in ceaselessly weeding out of the Party and the state organs all those elements that have become [[Corruption|corrupt]] and degenerate (whatever high office they may hold), thereby preserving the purity of the Party and the state apparatus. This outstanding feature of the proletarian revolution and of the [[Vanguard party|proletarian revolutionary party]] did not and could not exist in earlier revolutions and revolutionary parties. Members of our Party must be clear on this point, and—particularly when the revolution is successful and victorious and when they themselves enjoy the ever greater confidence and support of the masses—they must sharpen their vigilance, intensify their self-cultivation in proletarian ideology and always preserve their pure proletarian revolutionary character so that they will not fall into the rut of earlier revolutionaries who degenerated in the hour of success.<br />
<br />
Tempering and self-cultivation in revolutionary practice and tempering and self-cultivation in proletarian ideology are important for every Communist, especially after the seizure of political power. The Communist Party did not drop from heaven but was born out of the Chinese society. Every member of the Communist party has come from this society, is living in it today and is constantly exposed to its seamy side. It is not surprising then that Communists, whether they are of proletarian or non-proletarian origin and whether they are old or new members of the Party, should carry with them to a greater or lesser the thinking and habits of the old society. In order to preserve our purity as vanguard fighters of the proletariat and to enhance our revolutionary quality and working ability that is essential for every Communist to work hard to temper and cultivate themself in every respect.<br />
<br />
These are the reasons why Communists must undertake self-cultivation. I shall now discuss the criteria for Communist self-cultivation.<br />
<br />
== Be Worthy Pupils of Marx and Lenin ==<br />
The constitution of the party stipulates that membership is open to any member who accepts the Programme and [[Library:Constitution of the Communist Party of China (2022)|Constitution of the Party]]<ref group="ProleWiki 2.">At the time of writing, this would have been the [[Constitution of the Communist Party of China (1928)|1928 Constitution]].</ref> organizations, pays membership dues and works in one of the Party organizations. No one can be a Party member unless he fulfills these requirements. But no Communist should rest content with being a Party member who merely fulfills the minimum requirements; as laid down in the Party Constitution, he should strive to make progress ceaselessly raise the level of his political consciousness and diligently study [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxism-Leninism]], as manifested throughout their lives.<br />
<br />
Engels said of Marx:<blockquote>...Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being, to contribute to the liberation of the modern proletariat, which he was the first to make conscious of its own position and of its needs, conscious of the needs of its emancipation. Fighting was his element. And he fought with a passion, a tenacity and a success such as few could rival.<sup>1</sup></blockquote>Engels also said of Marx:<blockquote>None of us has the breadth of vision with which he, whenever it was necessary to act quickly, did the right thing and tackled the decisive issue.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>[[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] said concerning the necessity of our learning from the example of [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]]:<blockquote>Remember, love and study Ilyich, our teacher, our leader. Fight and defeat our enemies, home and foreign—in the way that Ilyich taught us. Build the new society, the new way of life, the new culture in the way that Ilyich taught us. Never refuse to do the little things, for from the little things are built the big things—that is one of Ilyich's important behests.<sup>3</sup></blockquote>On another occasion Stalin said:<blockquote>The electors, the people, must demand that their deputies should remain equal to their tasks, that in their work they should not sink to the level of political philistines, that in their posts definite as Lenin was, that they should be as fearless in battle and as merciless towards the complicated and some danger or other looms on the horizon, that they should be as free from all requiring a comprehensive orientation and a comprehensive weighing of all the pros and cons as Lenin did.<sup>4</sup></blockquote>These are the concise characterizations of Marx by Engels and of Lenin by Stalin. That is how all members of our Party should learn from the thinking and qualities of Marx and Lenin and strive to be their worthy pupils.<br />
<br />
Some say that the that the thinking and qualities of such great revolutionary geniuses as the founders of Marxism-Leninism cannot be acquired and that it is impossible to raise one's thinking and qualities to their high level. They regard the founders of Marxism-Leninism as born geniuses , as mysterious beings. Is such a view correct? I think not.<br />
<br />
True enough, the average Party comrade is far from possessing the great gifts and profound scientific knowledge of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, and most of our comrades cannot attain to their deep and broad erudition in the theory of proletarian revolution. But it is perfectly possible for our comrades to grasp the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism, cultivate the style of Marx and Lenin in work and in struggle, constantly heighten their revolutionary quality and become statesmen of the type of Marx and Lenin, if they really have the will. Take a really conscious and consistent stand as vanguard fighters of the proletariat, really acquire the communist world outlook, never isolate themselves from the current deep and great revolutionary movement of the proletariat and all the labouring masses, and exert themselves in study, self-tempering and self-cultivation.<br />
<br />
There is a saying of Mencius: "Everybody can be a [[History of China#Sage kings Yao and Shun|Yao or a Shun]]."<sup>5</sup> I think that was well said. Every Communist should keep his feet on the ground, seek the truth from the facts, work hard at tempering themself, work conscientiously at self-cultivation and do his best to improve his own thinking and quality. He should not regard the thinking and qualities of such great revolutionaries as the founders of Marxism-Leninism as beyond his reach, give up and be afraid to advance. For if he does so, he will become a "political philistine", a piece of "rotten wood that cannot be carved".<br />
<br />
We should of course adopt a correct attitude towards learning from the qualities of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and towards the learning of Marxism-Leninism itself. Otherwise it is impossible to learn anything, let alone to learn it well. In fact, there are different kinds of people in our ranks with different attitudes towards such learning.<br />
<br />
These are people who, when studying Marx and Lenin, fail to get to the essence of Marxism-Leninism, but only learn its terms and phrases superficially. Although they read Marxist-Leninist literature, they are unable to use its principles and conclusions as a guide to action and apply them to concrete, practical problems in real life. They are content to learn isolated principles and conclusions by rote, and even to style themselves as "[[Dogmatism|the genuine]]" Marxist-Leninists; but they are certainly not genuine Marxist-Leninists and their actions and methods are diametrically opposed to Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
We have had not a few people of this type in the Communist Party of China. We had certain representatives of dogmatism at one time who were even worse. These people knew absolutely nothing about Marxism-Leninism and could only babble Marxist-Leninist phraseology, and yet they regarded themselves as China's Marx or China's Lenin, posed as such in the Party and had the impudence to require that our Party members should revere them as Marx and Lenin are revered, support them as "the leaders" and accord them loyalty and devotion. They went so far as to appoint themselves "the leaders" without being chosen, climbed into positions of authority, issued orders to the Party like [[Patriarchy|patriarchs]], tried to lecture our Party, abused everything in the Party, wilfully attacked and punished our Party members and pushed them around. Those people had no sincere desire to study Marxism-Leninism or fight for the realization of communism—they were just careerists in the Party, termites in the communist movement. Such people were bound to be opposed and eventually unmasked and discarded by the rank and file. And indeed they were discarded by our Party members. But can we say with full confidence that no such people will reappear in our Party? No, we cannot yet say so.<br />
<br />
Then there are people of exactly the opposite kind. They see themselves above all as pupils of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, they conscientiously studyi the theory of Marxism-Leninism and strive to grasp its essence and spirit. They look up to the noble character and proletarian revolutionary qualities of the founders, and in the course of revolutionary struggles they conscientiously carry on self-cultivation and examine themselves to see if their handling of affairs, their dealings with people and their own behaviour conform to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism. They are well-read in Marxism-Leninism but at the same time they make a special effort to investigate and analyse living reality, to study the characteristics of their own time and all aspects of the situation facing the proletariat of their own country, and to integrate the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the revolution in their own country. They do not content themselves with memorizing Marxist-Leninist principles and conclusions, but take a firm Marxist-Leninist stand learn the Marxist-Leninist method and act accordingly, giving spirited guidance in every revolutionary struggle, and thus they transform reality and at the same time transform themselves. Every one of their actions without exception is guided by the general principles of Marxism-Leninism and is devoted to the victory of the proletarian cause, the liberation of the nation and all humanity, and the triumph of Communism.<br />
<br />
The attitude of these people is the only correct one. It is the one attitude towards studying Marxism-Leninism and learning from the qualities of its founders that will enable us to become communist proletarian revolutionaries of the Marx and Lenin type.<br />
<br />
A person who really takes pain to cultivate themselves and to be a faithful pupil of the founders of Marxism-Leninism will lay special stress on maintaining the Marxist-Leninist stand and using the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint and method to solve the problems arising in the revolutionary movement lead by the proletariat, as the founders of Marxism-Leninism did. He will give no thought whatsoever to his own position or fame in the Party, nor will he ever claim to be a Marx or a Lenin, nor require nor expect others to have the same high respect for him as for Marx or Lenin, for he does not think he has any right to do so. Yet such a person will enjoy the considered respect and support of the mass of the Party members just because he acts in this way, because he is always honest and loyal, brave and firm, and shows great ability in the revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
Of course it is not easy to model ourselves on the founders of Marxism-Leninism and to be their faithful and worthy pupils. But we can become their faithful and worthy pupils if we are strong-willed and determined to fight hard for the cause of communism, if we diligently study Marxism-Leninism amid the great revolutionary struggles of the masses and are good at summing up experience and if we temper and cultivate ourselves in every respect and devote our whole lives to the proletarian communist cause.<br />
<br />
=== ProleWiki annotations ===<br />
<references group="ProleWiki 2." /><br />
<br />
== The Self-Cultivation of Communists and the Revolutionary Practice of the Masses ==<br />
In order to become faithful and worthy pupils of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, we must engage in all round self-cultivation in the course of the great and protracted revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and the masses. We must engage in self-cultivation in the Marxist-Leninist theory; self cultivation in applying the Marxist-Leninist stand, view point and method to the study and handling of all problems; self-cultivation in proletarian ideology and morality; self-cultivation in upholding unity in the Party, practicing criticism and self-criticism and observing discipline; self-cultivation in developing the style of hard work and persistent struggle; self-cultivation in building close ties with the masses; self cultivation in various branches of scientific knowledge, etc. We are all members of the Communist Party and therefore we must all without exception carry on self-cultivation in these respects. However, since Party members differ from one another in political consciousness, experience of struggle, field of work, cultural level and in the conditions in which they work, it is natural that comrades should differ to some extent in the various aspects of self-cultivation to which they must pay special attention of which they must stress.<br />
<br />
When Zeng Zi, in ancient times, said, "I reflect on myself three times a day,"<sup>1</sup> he was discussing self-examination. The ''Book of Odes'' in the famous lines, "As knife and file make smooth the bone, as jade is wrought by chisel and stone", <sup>2</sup> referred to the need for help and criticism among friends. What all this shows is that very hard work and very earnest self-cultivation are essential if one is to make progress. But the "self-cultivation" perused by many people in the past was generally [[Idealism|idealistic]], formalistic, abstract and divorced from social practice. They exaggerated the role of subjective intentions, thinking that so long as they had "good will" in the abstract, they could transform reality, society and themselves. Of course this is absurd. Our self-cultivation cannot be done that way. We are revolutionary materialists; our self-cultivation cannot be separated from the revolutionary practices of the masses.<br />
<br />
For us it is most important to never divorce ourselves from the current revolutionary struggle of the masses, but to identify ourselves with it, in order to study, sum up and apply the revolutionary experience of the past. This means that we must cultivate and temper ourselves in revolutionary practice and that in turn our self-cultivation and tempering are undertaken solely for the sake of the people and of revolutionary practice. It means that we must modestly learn the Marxist-Leninist stand, viewpoint and method, learn from the noble proletarian quality of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and apply all this in our practice, in our words and deeds, our daily life and work, constantly correcting or eliminating anything in our ideology contrary to it and strengthening our own proletarian communist ideology and character. It means that we should listen modestly to the opinions and criticisms of our Party comrades and of the masses, make a careful study of the practical problems in our life and work, carefully sum up and draw lessons from our experience in work, and that, in the light of all this, we should ascertain whether our understanding of Marxism-Leninism and our use of the Marxist-Leninist method are correct and check up on our shortcomings and mistakes so as to overcome them and improve our work. Furthermore, on the basis of new experience we should ascertain whether there are any individual conclusions or aspects of Marxism-Leninism that need supplementing, enriching and developing. In short, we must integrate the universal truth of Marxism- Leninism with the concrete practice of the revolution.<br />
<br />
This is the method of self-cultivation for us communists. It is entirely different from those methods of self-cultivation which are idealistic and divorced from the revolutionary practice of the masses.<br />
<br />
In order to persevere in this Marxist-Leninist method of cultivation, we must resolutely oppose and thoroughly eradicate one of the worst vices bequeathed to us by the old society in the field of education and study, namely, the separation of theory from practice. In the old society many people who studied thought it unnecessary, or even impossible to act upon what they had learned, and though they wrote and spoke abundantly of justice and morality, in fact they were out and out scoundrels. Although the [[Kuomintang]] [[Reactionary|reactionaries]] memorize the "Three People's Principles"<sup>3</sup> and recite [[Sun Yat-sen]]'s Testament,<sup>4</sup> in actual fact they bleed the people white with [[Tax|taxes]], practice corruption and slaughter, oppress the masses, are opposed to "[[Anti-imperialism|those nations who treat us as equals]]", and go as far as to compromise with or surrender to the [[Empire of Japan (1868–1947)|national enemy]]. An old ixucai<sup>5</sup> once told me that of all the teachings of Confucius he was able to observe only this one, "For him no food can ever be too dainty and no minced meat too fine"<sup>5</sup> and that he could not observe the rest and had never intended to. Since that is what these people are like, why do they run schools and study the "teachings of the sages"? They are after advancement and money, use the "teachings of the sages" to oppress the exploited, and deceive the people by paying lip service to justice and morality. This is typical of the attitude of the exploiting classes of the old society towards the sages they "worship". Needless to say, when we Communists study Marxism-Leninism an all that is best in our national heritage, we must never adopt such an attitude. What we learn we must practice. Being proletarian revolutionaries who are honest and pure in purpose, we cannot be untrue to ourselves, to the people, or to those who went before us. This is an outstanding characteristic as well as a great merit of Communists.<br />
<br />
Is it possible that the old society's separation of theory from practice can have no influence on us? No, it is not! It is true that none of you students are studying Marxism-Leninism for the sake of advancement and money and or oppressing the exploited. Yet is it possible to maintain that none of you ever entertains the idea that your thoughts, words, deeds and life do not necessarily have to be guided by Marxist-Leninist principles or that you do not intend to put all the principles that you have learned into practice? Is it possible that none of you ever thinks of studying Marxism-Leninism or going deeper into the theory as a means of getting ahead in life, of showing off and becoming famous? I cannot guarantee that none of you thinks along these lines. That kind of thinking runs counter to Marxism-Leninism and to the basic Marxist-Leninist principle of the integration of theory and practice. Certainly we must study theory, but we must also practice what we learn. And it is for the sake of practice, of the Party, of the people, and of the victory of the revolution that we study theory.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<blockquote>The great strength of Marxism-Leninism lies precisely in its integration with the concrete revolutionary practice of all countries. For the Communist Party of China, it is a matter of learning to apply the theory of Marxism-Leninism to the specific circumstances of China. For the Chinese Communists who are part of the great Chinese nation, flesh of its flesh and blood of its blood, any talk about Marxism in isolation from China's characteristics is merely Marxism in the abstract, Marxism in a vacuum. Hence to apply Marxism concretely in China so that its every manifestation has an indubitable Chinese character, i.e., to apply Marxism in the light of China's specific characteristics, becomes a problem which it is urgent for the whole Party to understand and solve. Foreign stereotypes must be abolished, there must be less singing of empty, abstract tunes, and dogmatism must be laid to rest; they must be replaced by the fresh, lively Chinese style and spirit which the common people of China love.<sup>6</sup></blockquote>Our comrades must study the theory of Marxism-Leninism by following the method Comrade Mao Zedong speaks of here.<br />
<br />
== The Unity of Theoretical Study and Ideological Self-Cultivation ==<br />
We Communists must not separate our study of theory from our ideological self-cultivation. We must remould ourselves and temper our proletarian ideology not only in the practice of revolution but in the study of Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
The view is current among some members of our Party that a firm and purely proletarian stand is irrelevant to a Party member's understanding a and mastery of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism. They believe that one can thoroughly understand and genuinely master the Marxist-Leninist theory and method even though one's proletarian stand may not be very firm and one's ideology not very pure (i.e., it may be tainted with the remnants of non-proletarian ideas). They believe that the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism can be mastered merely through book learning. This view is wrong.<br />
<br />
Marxism-Leninism is the science of proletarian revolution, the science by which the working class builds socialism and communism. It can be thoroughly understood and mastered only by those who have a firm proletarian stand and who have made the ideals of the proletariat their own. Without a firm proletarian stand and pure proletarian ideals it is impossible for anyone to thoroughly understand or master the science of Marxism-Leninism. The science of Marxism-Leninism is of little of no use to anyone who is not a genuine revolutionary, who is not a proletarian revolutionary to the core, who does not want to bring about socialism and communism throughout the world and emancipate all humanity, to anyone who does not want revolution or is unwilling to carry it through to the end and wants to stop half-way.<br />
<br />
We often come across very fine Party members from the working class who are not well grounded in Marxist-Leninist theory and who may not do so well as others in an examination in which Marxist-Leninist works and formulations have to be quoted from memory. Yet in studying Marxism-Leninism, provided it is explained to them in language they understand, they generally show much keener interest and far greater comprehension than some Party members from the [[intelligentsia]]. For example, the section in Capital concerning surplus value is difficult for some Party members, but not for those from the working class. The reason is that in the process of production and of struggle against the capitalists, the workers come to know all too well how the capitalists calculate wages and working hours, exploit the workers for profit and oppress them. Therefore, they generally understand Marx's theory of surplus value more profoundly than do some Party members from other classes. When we say that many Party members from the working class are readier to accept Marxism-Leninism, we do not, of course mean that their class-background makes them born Marxist-Leninists. We mean that provided they study Marxist-Leninist theory modestly and diligently and have a real grasp of the method of seeking the truth from the facts, those comrades who have a firm and purely proletarian stand and are free from personal prejudice of other blemishes are certain to be keener and more correct than the others in their observation and handling of practical problems. In the struggle, too, these comrades will prove more able to discern the truth and will uphold it more courageously and unhesitatingly.<br />
<br />
Also, we come across many Party members of non-proletarian origin who differ in their development owing to their differing attitudes towards the relation between Marxist-Leninist study and ideological self-cultivation. Generally speaking, when they join the revolution such people do not have a firm and clear-cut proletarian stand, are not very correct or pure in their ideology, and to a greater of lesser extent carry over various non-proletarian ideas from the old society. Obviously these ideas come into direct conflict with the principles of Marxism-Leninism, and since the people take different attitudes, the results of the conflict differ. In studying Marxism-Leninism, some people correctly combine theoretical study with their ideological self-cultivation, using Marxist-Leninist principles to fight and overcome whatever is backward in their thinking. In this way thy achieve a more truly proletarian stand and a more undiluted proletarian ideology, and learn how to apply Marxist-Leninist principles to the solution of practical problems. We have many such Party members. Others, however, go the opposite way; they have a lot of old junk accumulated in their heads and many stubborn habits, prejudices and selfish desires, but the lack of determination to remould themselves. In studying Marxism-Leninism they do not make use of its principles to criticize and repudiate whatever is backward in their own ideology, but employ it as a weapon to further their own private ends, and this is carried to the point where the principles of Marxism-Leninism are so distorted by their old prejudices that these people can neither reach a correct understanding of these principles nor grasp the spirit and essence of Marxism-Leninism. When they handle practical problems in the course of revolutionary struggle, the habits and prejudices which they have brought with them from the old society and their individualistic calculations led them to think in terms of personal gain or loss, to be hesitant and vacillating and incapable of going deeply into things in a free untrammelled way or of courageously upholding the truth , and they conceal or distort the truth unintentionally, or even deliberately.<br />
<br />
These people are absolutely incapable of guiding their lives by the principals of Marxism-Leninism, and hence incapable of dealing with practical problems promptly, correctly and realistically according to these principles; sometimes they even adopt a negative attitude when practical problems have already been correctly solved according to these principals by the Party organization, or by comrades other than themselves. Such things are neither rare nor unusual, but are quite common.<br />
<br />
Thus we can say that it is impossible for a Party member who lacks a clear-cut firm proletarian stand and a correct, purely proletarian ideology to achieve a thorough understanding and real mastery of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism as a weapon in the revolutionary struggle. In other words a Party member must have the noble stand of the proletariat in order to become versed in Marxist-Leninist theory.<br />
<br />
At the same time, we should add that no Party member can maintain a proletarian stand and express a proletarian ideology concretely in every revolutionary struggle unless he studies the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism diligently and guides his thinking and action accordingly.<br />
<br />
There are some Party members who think it quite enough to have revolutionary firmness and to fight bravely, and that it does not matter much whether they study and undertake self-cultivation in Marxist-Leninist theory. Some comrades even think that a good class origin or a good personal class status is all that is needed to make them vanguard proletarian fighters, thus obviating the need to study Marxism-Leninism. There are other comrades who never study it earnestly in the course of work or struggle, though they generally admit the importance of theory. All such attitudes are obviously wrong.<br />
<br />
The theory of Marxism-Leninism is our weapon for studying every phenomenon and dealing with every question, and especially for studying all social phenomena and dealing with all social questions.. If we do not know how to wield the weapon of Marxist-Leninist theory, we shall be unable correctly to understand and deal with the problems confronting us in the revolutionary struggle and shall be in danger of loosing our bearings and departing from the revolutionary proletarian stand, or even, whether consciously or unconsciously, of becoming opportunists of one kind or another, captives and yes-men of the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Revolutionary firmness and courage in the struggle are precious qualities which every Communist must possess. Besides these qualities, Communists must have the ability to find the right way to conduct the revolution and carry on the struggle in different historical periods and under different conditions of struggle, if they are to win the victory for the revolution and realize the highest ideal of communism. Only by applying Marxism-Leninism can we correctly solve such important questions in the revolutionary struggle as the question of whom to rely upon, whom to unite with and whom to overthrow, the question of who are our direct allies, who is the main enemy and who are the secondary enemies, the question of rallying all possible allies, including even secondary enemies under certain conditions, to defeat the main enemy, and the question of making timely changes in strategy and tactics to meet changing situations. Without mastering the weapon of Marxism-Leninism and attaining a high degree of self-cultivation in Marxist-Leninist theory, we cannot possibly maintain a firm, correct proletarian stand on every important question in the revolutionary struggle, or formulate the policies which are most advantageous to the cause of the proletarian revolution or champion the overall, long term interests of the proletarian revolutionary struggle amid the complex situations and sharp changes, when it is necessary for us to make detours and turns.<br />
<br />
Consider, for instance, our Party's experience in carrying out the policy of the national [[united front]] against Japan. Before the Incident of July 7. 1937,<sup>1</sup> certain comrades did not understand that the [[contradiction]] between the Chinese nation and Japanese [[imperialism]] had become the principal one while the contradictions among the different classes and political groups within the country had become secondary. As a result, they opposed the Party's policy of forming a national united front against Japan. of uniting all [[Patriotism|patriotic]] classes, strata, political parties and social groupings for joint resistance, and especially of uniting with the Kuomintang to fight Japan. Although these comrades thought they were taking a firm proletarian stand in opposing the Party's correct policy, they actually departed from it and plunged into "closed-doorism" and [[sectarianism]]. Had we acted in accordance with their wrong views, the proletariat and its political party would have been unable to unite and lead all the patriotic classes, strata, parties and social groupings for the purpose of defeating Japanese imperialism; instead, the forces of the Anti-Japanese National United Front would have been weakened and the proletariat and its political party would have been isolated to the detriment of the struggle to resist Japan and save China. After the July 7th Incident, when our Party had formed the Anti-Japanese National United front with the Kuomintang, certain comrades went to the other extreme, maintaining that since the Kuomintang had joined in the resistance to Japan, there was hardly any distinction between it and the Communist Party. They adopted a policy of capitulation by appeasing the big [[landlord]] and big bourgeois classes and the Kuomintang. and opposed the Party's policy of upholding its independence within the united front. While they over estimated the strength of and placed undue trust in the Kuomintang, on which they pinned all their hopes for resisting Japan and saving China, they had no confidence in the strength of the Communist Party and the people, did not place their hopes on the Communist Party and therefore did not dare freely to expand the Party and the anti-Japanese people's revolutionary forces and to resolutely fight against the Kuomintang's policy of opposing and restricting the Communist Party. The comrades with this approach styled themselves as the true representatives of the proletariat, but in essence their policy would have made the proletariat a vassal or an appendage of the bourgeoisie, and would have caused the proletariat to loose the leadership of the Anti-Japanese National United Front. These "Left" and Right mistakes are both striking examples of the failure to take a firm proletarian stand and to identify the correct path for advancing the revolutionary cause when major changes are occurring in the political situation.<br />
<br />
The proletariat cannot just emancipate itself alone; it must fight for the emancipation of [[The people|all the working people]], the emancipation of the nation and of all humanity, for only thus can it fully emancipate itself. The proletariat must rid the whole of human society of exploitation, oppression and class struggle once and for all, for only thus can it genuinely and finally emancipate itself. Hence a firm proletarian stand must be sharply differentiated from "closed-doorism' and sectarianism. In waging struggles the proletariat and its political party must establish close ties with the masses of working people, form revolutionary alliances with other revolutionary classes and parties and lead the working masses and all their allies forward together; they must represent the interests of more than ninety per cent of the population of the country. To have a firm proletarian stand is to represent at all times and in all circumstances the highest interests of the overwhelming majority of the people, which, we must understand, are also the highest class interests of the proletariat. On the other hand, a firm proletarian stand must be sharply differentiated from all appeasement and capitulation. In waging revolutionary struggles the proletariat and its political party must draw clear lines of distinction not only between themselves and the landlord class and the bourgeoisie but also between themselves and the revolutionary democrats of the petty bourgeoisie, and must even make some distinction between themselves and the masses of working people. In the revolutionary struggle they must at all times firmly maintain their independence and be free from any bourgeois or other non-proletarian class influence. In every stage of the development of the revolutionary struggle they must combine the interests of the part with the interests of the whole and immediate interests with ling-term interests. As Marx and Engels said of Communists:<blockquote>1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.<br />
<br />
2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>During his struggle to organize a political party of the proletariat at the end of the 19th century, Lenin said:<blockquote>The consciousness of the masses and of the workers cannot be genuine [[class consciousness]], unless the workers learn to observe from concrete, and above all from topical (current), political facts and events, every other social class and all manifestations of the intellectual, ethical and political life of these classes; unless they learn to apply in practice the materialist analysis and the materialist estimate of all aspects of the life and activity of all classes, strata and groups of the population.<sup>3</sup></blockquote>Further:<blockquote>The [[Russian Social Democratic Labor Party|Social-Democrat]]'s ideal should not be a [[Trade union|trade-union]] secretary, but a tribune of the people, able to react to every manifestation of tyranny and oppression, no matter where it takes place, no matter what stratum of class of people it affects; he must be able to generalize all these manifestations to produce a single picture of police violence and capitalist exploitation; he must be able to take advantage of every event, however small, in order to explain his [[Socialism|socialist]] convictions and [[Democracy|democratic]] demands to all and everyone the world-historic significance of the proletariat's struggle for emancipation.<sup>4</sup></blockquote>To fulfill the requirements cited by Lenin in these two passages, we Communists must of course unceasingly take part in the revolutionary practice and thus increase our perceptual knowledge and accumulate practical experience. But it must be pointed out, perceptual knowledge and practical experience alone are not sufficient. As Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<blockquote>Fully to reflect a thing in its totality, to reflect its essence, to reflect its inherit laws, it is necessary through the exercise of thought to reconstruct the rich data of sense perception, discarding the dross and selecting the essential, eliminating the false and retaining the true, proceeding from the one to the other and from the outside to the inside, in order to form a system of concepts and theories—it is necessary to make a leap from perceptual to rational knowledge.<sup>5</sup></blockquote>Therefore, while engaged in revolutionary practice, we must most conscientiously study the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism.<blockquote>The theory of Marxism-Leninism is the summing-up of the experience of the international working-class movement; it is a theory formulated in revolutionary practice and in turn serving revolutionary practice. If only we study this theory, apply it and master it in close conjunction with revolutionary practice, we shall be able to understand the inner connections of the changes taking place all around us and to know how and in what direction the various classes are now moving and will soon move, and we shall be able to determine our line of action and shall confidence in the future of the revolutionary movement.</blockquote>It is precisely because the theory of Marxism-Leninism plays such a great role that Lenin said, "The role of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory."<sup>6</sup> Members of the Communist Party must closely link their study of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism with their own ideological self-cultivation and self-tempering; they must never divorce one from the other.<br />
<br />
Time and again Comrade Mao Zedong has emphasised the tremendous importance of cultivating oneself in the theory of Marxism-Leninism. He has said:<blockquote>From the Marxist viewpoint, theory is important, and its importance is fully expressed in Lenin's statement, "Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." But Marxism emphasises the importance of theory precisely and only because it can guide action.<sup>5</sup></blockquote>Comrade Mao Zedong has constantly urged all Party members who have some capacity for study to study Marxist-Leninist theory, study the actual conditions of the movement, study Chinese and world history and learn to guide their actions by Marxist-Leninist theory and also help to educate comrades with a lower cultural and theoretical level. The whole Party should at times bear in mind this injunction of Comrade Mao Zedong's.<br />
<br />
== The Cause of Communism is the Greatest and Most Arduous Undertaking in Human History ==<br />
Now let us continue with our discussion of ideological self-cultivation by Communist Party members.<br />
<br />
What does ideological self-cultivation mean? Fundamentally, in my opinion, it means that every Party member should use proletarian ideology to combat whatever non-proletarian ideas he has, use the communist world outlook he has and use the principle of the supremacy of the interests of the proletariat, the people and the Party to combat his individualism.<br />
<br />
This struggle is one of conflicting ideologies, and it reflects the class struggle in society. For a Party member, the result of this struggle should be that the proletarian ideology overcomes and ultimately eliminates any non-communist world outlook and that ideas based on the general interests and aims of the Party, of the revolution and of the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity overcome and ultimately eliminate all individualism. If the opposite happens, that is, if the latter prevails over the former, the comrade concerned will retrogress and may even loose his qualifications as a member of the Communist Party. For a Communist that would be a terrible and dangerous thing to happen.<br />
<br />
We Communist Party members temper ourselves ideologically in struggles of all kinds inside and outside the Party, constantly sum up and learn from experience gained in revolutionary practice, and examine our own ideas to see whether they fully conform to Marxism-Leninism and the interests of the struggle for the emancipation of the proletariat. It is through such study, reflection and self-examination that we eliminate all remnants of incorrect ideas and nip in the bud any ideas inconsistent with the interests of communism.<br />
<br />
As you know, a man's words and actions are guided by his ideology. And a man's ideology is inseparable from his world outlook. The only world outlook for members of the Communist Party is the communist world outlook. This world outlook is the philosophical system of the proletariat and also our communist methodology.. All this has been abundantly discussed in Marxist-Leninist literature, and especially in the philosophical works of the founders. As you have studied it, I shall not go into it today. Here I shall only talk briefly of our communist cause, of what it is and how Party members should advance it.<br />
<br />
What is our most fundamental duty as Party members? It is to achieve communism. As far as the Communist Parties of different countries are concerned, in each country it is for the Communist Party and the people there to transform it by their own efforts, and in that way the whole world will be transformed step by step into a communist world. Will the communist world be good? We all know it will be. In that world there will be no exploiters of oppressors, no landlords and capitalists, no imperialists and fascists, nor will there be any oppressed and exploited people, or any of the darkness, ignorance and backwardness resulting from the system of exploitation. In such a society the production of both material and moral values will develop and flourish mightily and will meet the varied needs of all its members. By then all humanity will consist of unselfish, intelligent, highly cultured and skilled communist workers; mutual assistance and affection will prevail among men and there will be no such irrationalities as mutual suspicion and deception, mutual injury, mutual slaughter and war. It will of course be the best, the most beautiful and the most advanced society in human history. Who can deny that such a society is good? But can this good communist society be built? We say that it can and will be. Marxist-Leninist theory has explained this scientifically and beyond all doubt. A factual testimony has been provided by the victory of the Great October revolution and the successes in socialist construction in the Soviet Union. Our duty is constantly to advance the cause socialism and communism in accordance with the laws of development of human society, so as to make socialist and communist society a reality as soon as possible. This is our ideal.<br />
<br />
However, the cause of socialism and communism still faces powerful enemies who must be thoroughly and finally defeated in every field; only then will the socialist and communist society be brought into being. Victory for the communist cause can only be won through long and arduous struggle. Without it there can be no victory. This struggle, of course, is not an "accidental" social phenomenon or an invention of certain Communists as some people assert. It is inevitable in the development of class society; it is unavoidable class struggle. The birth of the Communist Party and the fact that Communists participate, organize and guide this struggle are also inevitable phenomena conforming with the laws of social development. The imperialists, [[Fascism|fascists]] and landlords—in short, all exploiters and oppressors—are oppressing and exploiting the overwhelming majority of the people of the world to such an extent that the people are hardly able to survive and have to unite and fight against this exploitation and oppression, because they cannot exist, much less make progress in any other way. This struggle, therefore, is natural and unavoidable.<br />
<br />
On the one hand, we must understand that communism is the greatest cause in human history, which will eliminate exploitation and classes once and for all, emancipate humanity and bring humanity into a world of happiness, radiating with beauty, such as it has never known before. But on the other hand, we must also understand that the cause of communism is the most arduous undertaking in all history; that only through protracted, bitter and torturous struggle will we be able to defeat all the exploiting classes; and that for a long time after our victory we shall patiently have to carry out social and economic, ideological and cultural transformation, for only thus will all the influences, conventions and habits of the exploiting classes be eliminated from among the people, and only thus will a new social and economic system, a new communist culture and code of social morality be built up.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party will defiantly win final victory by relying on the proletariat and the masses of the exploited and oppressed people and by using Marxism-Leninism to guide the revolutionary struggle of the masses and propel society towards the great goal of communism. The reason is that the historical laws of social development make the progress of human society towards communism inevitable; that latent in the proletariat and the other exploited and oppressed masses of the world lie extremely powerful revolutionary energies which, once mobilized, united and organized, can triumph over all the reactionary forces of the exploiting classes and imperialism; and that the Communist Party and the proletariat are the new and rising forces and whatever is new and rising is invincible. This has been fully demonstrated by the history of the world communist movement and the Communist Party of China. The present situation is as follows. Socialism has already won a great victory in the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]], or on one sixth of the earth's surface; militant Communist Parties armed with the theory of Marxism-Leninism have been organized in many countries; the world communist movement is rapidly growing and developing; and the forces of the proletariat and the other exploited and oppressed masses of the world are being rapidly mobilized and united in the course of incessant struggles. The communist movement is already organized as a mighty and invincible world force. Beyond all doubt the communist cause will continue to develop and advance, and will win final and complete victory. However, we should also realize that the international reaction and the exploiting classes are yet stronger than we are, that they are temporarily superior in many fields and that only by protracted, torturous and bitter struggles can we defeat them.<br />
<br />
In a society in which [[Private property|private ownership of the means of production]] has existed for thousands of years, the exploiting classes through their rule have built up great power in all fields and have grabbed everything under the sun. Their long rule has given rise to backwardness, ignorance, selfishness, mutual suspicion and deception, mutual injury and slaughter in human society, which have persisted down the ages. It has exerted a most pernicious influence on the exploited masses and on other members of society. This is the inevitable result of the efforts of the exploiting classes to preserve their class interests and rule. For they cannot maintain their ruling position unless they keep the exploited masses and the colonial peoples backward, unorganized and divided. Hence, in order to achieve victory we must not only conduct a stern struggle against the exploiting classes but also carry on a struggle against their long-standing influence among the masses and the backward ideas and other backward phenomena found among the masses, for only thus can we enhance their political consciousness and unite them to defeat the exploiting classes. Here is the difficulty in the course of achieving communism. Comrades! If the masses were all politically conscious, united, free from the influence of the exploiting classes and free from backwardness, as some people imagine them to be, what would be so difficult about the revolution?<br />
<br />
Not only does this influence of the exploiting classes exist before the victory of the revolution, but it survives for a very long time after when the exploiting classes have been ejected from their ruling position. Think how torturous is the process and how arduous are the work and struggle that are needed to vanquish the exploiting classes and their influence among the people once and for all, to emancipate and change all humanity, to transform myriads of small commodity producers, finally to abolish all classes and gradually to transform humanity that has lived in class society for thousands of years and been influenced by all kinds of old customs and conventions until it becomes communist humanity, intelligent and unselfish, and with a high level of culture and skill!<br />
<br />
Lenin said:<blockquote>The abolition of classes means not only driving out landlords and capitalists—that we accomplished with comparative ease—it also means abolishing the small commodity producers, and they cannot be driven out, or crushed; we must live in harmony with them; they can (and must) be remoulded and re-educated only by very prolonged, slow, cautious organizational work. They encircle the proletariat on every side with a petty-bourgeois atmosphere, which permeates and corrupts the proletariat and causes constant relapses among the proletariat into petty-bourgeois spinelessness, disunity, individualism, alternate moods of exaltation and dejection. The strictest centralization and discipline are required within the political party of the proletariat in order to counteract this, in order that the organizational role of the proletariat (and that is its principle role) may be exercised correctly, successfully, victoriously....The force of habit of millions and tens of millions is a most terrible force....It is a thousand times easier to vanquish the centralized big bourgeoisie than to "vanquish" the millions and millions of small owners; yet they, by their ordinary, everyday, imperceptible, elusive, demoralizing activity, achieve the very results which the bourgeoisie need and which tend to restore the bourgeoisie.<sup>1</sup></blockquote>He also said:<blockquote>...the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by its overthrow (even if only in one country), and whose power lies not only in the strength of international capital, in the strength and durability of the international connections of the bourgeoisie, but also in the force of habit, in the strength of small production. For all these reasons the dictatorship of the proletariat is essential, and victory over the bourgeoisie is impossible without a long, stubborn and war of life and death, a war demanding perseverance, discipline, firmness, indomitableness and unity of will.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>Hence the proletariat has a very difficult task to perform even after the victory of the revolution. The proletarian revolution differs from all other revolutions in history. Bourgeois revolutions, for example, are largely completed with the seizure of state power. But for the proletariat, victory and political emancipation are only the beginning of the revolution, and a tremendous amount of work remains to be done after the victory, after the seizure of state power.<br />
<br />
The cause of communism is needed a "hundred years' task", as the saying goes, and it defiantly cannot be accomplished at one stroke. In different countries this undertaking has to go through different stages, and different enemies must be defeated, before a communist society can gradually be established. Take the case of our own country. China is still in the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and our enemies are imperialism, which perpetuates aggression against China, and the feudal and comprador forces, which are in collusion with imperialism. Only when we have defeated these enemies can we complete the bourgeois-democratic revolution in our country. Then, after the victory of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, it will still be necessary to make the socialist revolution and to carry on socialist transformation and socialist construction for a long period, and only so will the gradual transition to communist society be possible.<br />
<br />
Since the ultimate goal of our struggle is the achievement of communism, it is naturally our duty as Communists to overcomes all the difficulties arising in the process.<br />
<br />
Since the communist cause is so great and arduous an undertaking, some people who seek social progress are still sceptical and not convinced that communism can be realized. They do not believe that under the leadership of the proletariat and its party the human race can develop and transform itself into a communist humanity of the highest quality and that all the difficulties in the process of revolution and construction can be overcome. Either they do not forsee the difficulties or they become pessimistic and disappointed when confronted with them, and there are even Party members who waver and desert the communist ranks.<br />
<br />
We communists should be men of the boldest vision and revolutionary determination. Every Party member should gladly and solemnly shoulder the task of realizing communism, a task greater and more arduous than any in human history. We clearly see the difficulties in the process of realising communism, but at the same time we clearly understand that they cam undoubtedly be overcome by arousing millions of people to the revolutionary action, and no difficulties will ever daunt us. We have the masses of the people to rely on, and we have full confidence that a substantial part of the work of building communism will be accomplished in our town time and that the whole of this magnificent undertaking will be triumphantly completed by the coming generations. The heroes of no other class in history could possibly have had this great communist ideal and boldness of vision. In this respect we have every reason for pride.<br />
<br />
I recall the instance of the western European bourgeois biographer<sup>3</sup> who interviewed Comrade Stalin during a visit to the Soviet Union and brought up the comparisons between historical personalities. Comrade Stalin told him that Lenin was like the ocean while Czar [[Peter I Romanov|Peter the Great]] was only a drop in the ocean. Such is the place in history a proletarian leader of the communist cause occupies, compared with that of a leader in the cause of the landlord and the rising mercantile classes. From this comparison we can see how truly great is a leader who fights for the triumph of communism and the cause of the emancipation of humanity and how paltry is one who fights for the cause of the exploiting classes.<br />
<br />
We Communist Party members must have the highest goals in our struggle and the highest ideals, while at the same time we must have a practical spirit and do real practical work. Such are the characteristics distinguishing us as Communists. If all a person has is great and lofty ideas without having a practical spirit or doing real practical work, he is not a good Party member but only a dreamer, a prattler or a pedant. On the other hand, whoever is interested only in practical work but lacks great and lofty communist ideals is not a good Communist either, but just a routine plodder. Only by combining the great and lofty ideals of communism with real practical work and practical spirit can one be a good Communist. This standard for a good Communist has often been stressed by Comrade Mao Zedong, the leader of our Party.<br />
<br />
The communist ideal is beautiful, while the reality of the existing capitalist world is ugly. This is precisely why the overwhelming majority of the people demand the changing of that reality and why it must be changed. In order to change the world we must not divorce ourselves from reality, disregard it or escape from it, nor must we surrender to ugly reality. We must face reality squarely, study and understand it, live and grow in it, fight against the ugly reality and transform it, so that we can gradually realize our ideal. Hence we members of the communist Party must initiate and press ahead with our great communist task of changing the world, beginning with our immediate surroundings, with the people immediately around us and such work as we can immediately undertake. Here we should criticize those young comrades who frequently make the mistake of wanting to escape from or disregarding reality. It is good that they have lofty ideals, but they often complain about their place of work and the kind of work they are given. They are always looking for some "ideal" place or job so that they can "change the world" with ease. But no such place and no such job exist, except in their dreams.<br />
<br />
The cause of communism is our life work. Throughout our lives, our every activity is exclusively devoted to it and to nothing else.<br />
<br />
== A Party Member's Personal Interests Must be Unconditionally Subordinated to the Interests of the Party ==<br />
Personal interests must be subordinated to the Party's interests, the interests of the local Party organization to those of the entire Party, the interests of the part to those of the whole, and temporary to long-term interests. This is a Marxist-Leninist principle which must be followed by every Communist.<br />
<br />
A Communist must be clear about the correct relationship between personal and Party interests.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party is the political party of the proletariat and has no interests of its own other than those of the emancipation of the proletariat. The final emancipation of the proletariat will also inevitably be the final emancipation of all humanity. Unless the proletariat emancipates all working people and all nations—unless it emancipates humanity as a whole—it cannot fully emancipate itself. The cause of the emancipation of the proletariat is identical with and inseparable from the cause of the emancipation of all working people, all oppressed nations and all humanity. Therefore, the interests of the Communist Party are the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity, are communism and social progress.. When a Party member<nowiki>''</nowiki>s personal interests are subordinated to those of the Party, they are subordinated to the interests of the emancipation of the class and the nation, and those of communism and social progress.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<br />
<br />
At no time and in no circumstances should a Communist place his personal interests first; he should subordinate to the interests of the nation and of the masses. Hence selfishness, slacking, corruption, seeking the limelight are most contemptible, while selflessness, working with all one's energy, whole hearted devotion to public duty, and quiet hard work will command respect.<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
The test of a Party member's loyalty to the Party, the revolution, the cause of communism is whether or not he can subordinate his personal interests absolutely and unconditionally to the interests of the Party whatever the circumstances.<br />
<br />
At all times and all questions a party member should give first consideration to the interests of the Party as a whole and put them in the foremost and place personal matters and interests second. The supremacy of the Party's interests is the highest principle that must govern the thinking and actions of the members of our Party. In accordance with this principle, every Party member must completely identify his personal interests with those of the Party both in his thinking and in his actions of the members of our Party both in his thinking and in his actions. He must be able o yield to the interests of the Party without any hesitations or reluctance and sacrifice his personal interests what ever of the two are at variance. Unhesitating readiness to sacrifice personal interests and even one's life, for the Party and for the proletariat and for the emancipation of the nation and of all humanity—this is one expression of what we usually describe as "Party spirit", "Party sense" or "sense of organization'. It is the highest expression of communist morality, of the principled nature of the party of the proletariat and of the purest proletarian class consciousness.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party should not have personal aims which are independent of the Party interests. Their personal aims must harmonize with the Party's interests. If the aim they set for themselves is to study Marxist-Leninist theory, to develop their ability in work, to establish revolutionary organizations and to lead the masses in successful revolutionary struggles—if their aim is more is to do more for the Party—then this personal aim harmonizes with the interests of the Party. The Party needs many such members and cadres. Apart from this aim, Party members should have no independent personal motives such as attaining position of fame, or playing the individual hero; otherwise they will depart from the interests of the Party and may even become careerists within the Party.<br />
<br />
If a Party member thinks only of the communist interests and aims of the Party, is really selfless and has no personal aims and considerations divorced from those of the Party, and he ceaselessly raises the level of his political consciousness through revolutionary practice and through the study of Marxism-Leninism, then the following ensues.<br />
<br />
First, he has a high communist morality. Taking a clear-cut, firm proletarian stand, he is able to show loyalty to and love for all comrades, all revolutionaries and working people, help them unreservedly and act towards them as equals, and he will never allow themself to hurt a single one of them for his own interests. He is able to feel for others, place themself in their position and be considerate of them. On the other hand, he is able to wage resolute struggle against the pernicious enemies of humanity and persevere in the fight for the interests of the Party, the proletariat and the emancipation of the nation and all humanity. "He is the first to worry and the last to enjoy themself".<sup>2</sup> Whether in the Party of among the people, he is the first to suffer hardship and the last to enjoy comfort; he compares themself with others not with respect to the material enjoyment but to the amount of work done for the revolution and the spirit of hard endurance in the struggle. In times of adversity he steps forward boldly, and in times of difficulty he does his duty to the full. He has such revolutionary firmness and integrity that "neither riches nor honours can corrupt him, neither [[poverty]] nor lowly condition can make him swerve from principle, neither threats nor force can bend him".<sup>3</sup><br />
<br />
Second, he has the greatest revolutionary courage. Having no selfish motives, he has nothing to fear. Having done nothing to give themself a guilty conscience, he can lay bare and courageously correct his mistakes and short comings, which are like "an eclipse of the sun or the moon".<sup>4</sup> Because he has the courage of righteous conviction, he never fears the truth, courageously upholds it, spreads it and fights for it. Even if it is temporarily to his disadvantage and if, in upholding the truth, he suffers blows of all kinds, is censured by most other people and so finds themself in temporary (and honourable) isolation, even to the point where he may give up his life, he will still breast the waves to uphold the truth and will never drift with the tide.<br />
<br />
Third, he learns how best to grasp the theory of Marxism-Leninism. He is able to apply them in keenly observing problems and in knowing and changing reality. Because he takes a clear-cut, firm proletarian stand and is tempered in Marxism-Leninism, he is free from personal apprehensions and self-interest, so that there is no impediment to his observation of things or distortion of his understanding of the truth. He seeks the truth from the facts, and he tests all theories and distinguishes what is true from what is false in revolutionary practice.<br />
<br />
Fourth, he is the most sincere, most candid and happiest of men. Because he has no private axe to grind, nothing to conceal from the Party and nothing he cannot tell others, he has no problems of personal gain or loss and no personal anxieties other than for the interests of the Party and the revolution. Even when he is working on his own without supervision and therefore has the opportunity to do something bad, he is just as "watchful over themself when he is alone"<sup>5</sup> and does not do anything harmful. His work bears examination and he is not afraid having it checked. He does not fear criticism and at the same time is able to criticize others with courage and sincerity.<br />
<br />
Fifth, he has the greatest self-respect and self-esteem. For the sake of the Party and the revolution he can be most forbearing and tolerant towards comrades and can suffer wrong in the general interest, even enduring misunderstanding and humiliation without bitterness if the occasion so demands. No personal aims lead him to flatter anyone or to desire flattery from others. When it comes to personal matters, he knows how to conduct themself and has no need to humble themself in order to get help from others. He knows how to take good care of themself in the interests of the Party and the revolution and how to strengthen both his grasp of theory and his practical effectiveness. But when it is necessary to swallow humiliations and bear a heavy load for some important purpose in the cause of the Party and the revolution, he can take on the most difficult and vital tasks without the slightest reluctance, never passing the difficulties to others.<br />
<br />
A member of the Communist Party should possess the finest and highest human virtues and take a clear-cut and firm Party and proletarian stand (that is, possess Party spirit and class spirit). Ours is a fine morality precisely because it is proletarian and communist. It is founded not on the protection of the interests of individuals or of the exploiting few, but on those of the great proletariat and the great mass of working people, of the cause of the final emancipation of all humanity, and the liberation of the whole world from the calamities of capitalism, and the building of a happy and beautiful communist world—t is a morality founded on the Marxist-Leninist theory of scientific communism. As we Communists see it, nothing can be more worthless or indefensible than to sacrifice oneself in the interests of an individual or a small minority. But it is the worthiest and most just thing in the world to sacrifice oneself for the Party, for the proletariat, for the emancipation of the nation and all humanity, for social progress and for the highest interests of the overwhelming majority of the people. Indeed, countless members of the Communist Party have looked death calmly in the face and made the ultimate sacrifice without the slightest hesitation. Most Communists consider it a matter of course to die for the sake of the cause, to lay down their lives for justice, when that is necessary. This does not stem from any revolutionary fanaticism or hunger for fame but from their scientific understanding of social development and their deep political consciousness. There is no morality in class society to compare with this high communist morality. The universal morality which supposedly transcends class is sheer deceptive nonsense and in fact a morality designed to protect the interests of the exploiting few. Such a concept of morality is always idealist. It is only we communists who build our morality on the scientific basis of historical materialism and proclaim its purpose to be the protection of the interests of the proletariat in the struggle for the emancipation of itself and all humanity.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party represents the general and long-range interests of the proletariat and all humanity in their struggle for emancipation; the Party's interests are the concentrated expression of this cause. One must never regard the communist Party as a narrow clique, like the guild perusing the interests of its members. Anyone who does so is no Communist.<br />
<br />
A Party member has interests of his own, which may be inconsistent with or even run counter to the interests of the Party in certain circumstances. Should this happen, it is incumbent on him to sacrifice his personal interests and unconditionally subordinate them to the interests of the Party; under no pretence or excuse may he sacrifice the Party's interests by clinging to his own. At all times and in all circumstances, he should fight heart and soul for the Party's interests and for the Party's development, regarding every success and victory won by the Party and the proletariat as his very own. Every Party member should strive to increase his effectiveness and ability in the service of the people. But this must be done in the fight for the advancement, success and victory of the Party's cause, and there must be no striving for individual development divorced from the fight to advance the Party's cause. The facts prove that only by complete devotion in the fight for the advancement, success and victory of the Party's cause can a Party member heighten his effectiveness and ability and that he cannot possibly make progress of heighten his ability in any other way. Hence a Party member can and must completely merge his personal interests with those of the Party.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party are no ordinary people but the awakened vanguard fighters of the proletariat. They must conscientiously represent the class interests and class ideology of the proletariat. Therefore, their personal interests must never project beyond those of the party and the proletariat. It is all the more necessary for each cadre and leader of the Party to be a living embodiment of the general interests of the Party and the proletariat and to merge his personal interests completely in their general interests and aims. In present-day China, it is the proletariat that best represents the interests of national liberation, and therefore our Party members must be worthy champions of the interests of the nation as a whole.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party must subordinate personal to Party interests and are required to sacrifice them to party interests if necessary. But this by no means implies that our Party does not recognise, or brushes aside, the personal interest of its members or that it wants to wipe out their individuality. Party members do have their personal problems to attend to, and, moreover, they should develop themselves according to their individual inclinations and aptitudes. Therefore, so long as the interests of the Party are not violated, a Party member can have his private and family life and develop his individual inclinations and aptitudes. At the same time, the Party will use every possibility to help members develop their individual inclinations and aptitudes in conformity with its interests, furnish them with suitable work and working conditions and commend and reward them. As far as possible, the Party will attend to and safeguard its members' essential interests; for example,, it will give them the opportunity to study and to acquire an education, it will help them cope with health and family problems and, when necessary, it will even give up some of its work in order to preserve comrades working under the rule of reaction. But all this has no other purpose than the overall interests of the Party. For the fulfillment of its tasks the Party must ensure that members have the conditions necessary for life, work and education so that they can perform their tasks with enthusiasm and without worry. Comrades in responsible Party positions must bear all this in mind when they deal with Party members' problems.<br />
<br />
To sum up, on his side, each Party member should completely submit themself to the interests of the Party and self-sacrificingly devote themself to the public duty. He should forego all personal aims and private considerations which conflict with the Party's interests. He should not think of themself all the time, make endless personal demands on the Party or blame the Party for not promoting or rewarding him. Whatever the circumstances, he should study hard, try to make progress, be courageous in struggle and make ceaseless efforts to raise the level of his political consciousness and his understanding of Marxism-Leninism, so as to be able to contribute more to the Party and the revolution. On their side all Party organizations and comrades in responsible positions, in dealing with the problems of Party members, should see how they work, live and study. and enable them to work better for the Party, ceaselessly develop themselves and raise their level in the course of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. In particular, attention should be paid to comrades who are really selfless and who serve the people well. Only so, through combined attention and effort by both sides can the interests of the Party be well served.<br />
<br />
== Examples of Wrong Ideology in the Party ==<br />
In the light of what has been said, we can see that if an understanding of communism and a correct correlation between personal and Party interests are taken as the standard for evaluating Party members and cadres, many measure up to it and can serve as models, but some do not yet measure up to this standard and still have various wrong ideas to some degree or other. It may not be amiss if I outline these wrong ideas for our comrades' attention.<br />
<br />
What are fundamentally the wrong ideas to be found among comrades in our Party?<br />
<br />
First. The people joining our Party not only differ in in class origin and personal class status but also carry with them aims and motives of every description. Many, of course, join the Party in order to bring about communism and attain the great goal of the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity, but some do so for other reasons and with other aims. For example, some comrades of peasant background used to think that communism meant "expropriation of local tyrants and distribution of the land". When they first joined, they had no understanding of the real meaning of communism. Today, quite a number of people join the Party chiefly because it is resolute in resisting Japan and advocates the Anti-Japanese National United Front. Others join our ranks because they admire the communist Party for its good reputation or because they realize in a vague way that it can save China. Still others are seeking a future for themselves, chiefly because they have no other way out—they have no fixed occupation, are out of work, lack the means of study, or want to escape from family bondage or forced marriage, etc. A few even join because they count on the Party to get their taxes reduced, or because they hope to "make their mark" some day, or because their relatives or friends have brought them in, etc. Naturally, such comrades do not have a clear-cut and stable communist world outlook, do not understand the greatness of the communist cause and the difficulties besetting it, and lack a firm proletarian stand point. Naturally too, some of them will waver or change somewhat in certain circumstances at certain critical turning points. Since they bring all sorts of ideas with them into the Party, it is most important that they should be educated and should train and temper themselves. Otherwise they cannot become revolutionary fighters of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, there is no terrible problem here. After all, it is not a bad thing that people turn to the Communist Party, enter it seeking a way out of their predicament and approve of its policy. They are not mistaken in coming to us. We welcome them—everyone except for enemy agents, traitors, careerists and ambitious climbers. Provided they accept and are ready to abide by the Party's Programme and Constitution, work in one of the Party's organizations and pay membership dues, they may be admitted into the Communist Party. As for deeping their study and understanding of communism and the Partys Programme and Constitution, they can do so after joining the Party and can temper and train themselves in revolutionary struggle on the basis of what they learn; in this way they have every possibility of becoming very good Communists. Indeed, for most people it is impossible to have a proufound understanding of communism and the Party's Programme and Constitution before joining the Party. That is why we can only prescribe acceptance, and not a thorough understanding of the Partys Programme and Constitution as a condition for admission. Although many people do not have a thorough understanding of communism before joining, it is possible for them to become active fighters in the communist and revolutionary movements of the time. They can become politically conscious Communists provided they study hard after joining the Party. Furthermore, our Party Constitution stipulates that members are free to withdraw form the Party (there is no freedom of admission). Any member is free to notify the Party that he is withdrawing from it if he lacks a profound belief in communism, or cannot live a strict Party life, or for any other reason, and the Party gives him the freedom to withdraw. It will do nothing against him unless he gives away Party secrets or engages in wrecking activities against the Party after he leaves. As for careerists and spies who have wormed their way into the Party, of course they have to be expelled. Only thus can we preserve the purity of our Party.<br />
<br />
Second. Fairly strong [[individualism]] and selfishness are still to be found in some members of our Party.<br />
<br />
The individualism expresses itself as follows. Some people habitually place their personal interests above those of the Party when it comes to practical matters; they are preoccupied with personal gain and loss and always calculate in terms of personal interests; they abuse the public trust, turning their Party work to private advantage of one kind or another; or they attack comrades they dislike and wreak private vengeance, on high-sounding pretexts of principle or Party interests. When it comes to status, material benefits and other questions affecting everyday life, they invariably try to get more than others, compare themselves with those at the top, diligently strive after greater personal benefits and crow when they get them. But when it comes to work, they like to compare themselves with those who are less capable. When there hard hardships to beat they make themselves scarce. In times of danger they want to run away. When it comes to orderlies they always want more. Their living quarters must be of the best, and they want to show off and bask in the Party's glory. They want to grab all the good things of life, but when it comes to the "unpleasant things", they think these are for others. The heads of such people are stuffed with the ideology of the exploiting classes. They believe that "every person is for themself or that Heaven and Earth will destroy him", person is a "selfish animal", and "no one in the world is genuinely unselfish, unless he is a simpleton or an idiot". They even use such exploiting class rubbish to justify their own selfishness and individualism. There are such people in our Party.<br />
<br />
This type of self-seeking individualism often manifests itself inside the Party in unprincipled quarrelling, factional struggle, sectarianism and departmentalism; it manifests itself in disrespect for and willful violation of Party discipline. Most unprincipled struggles originate in personal interests. Those who go in for factional struggle and are given to sectarianism usually place their own individual interests or the interests of a small minority, above those of the Party. Often, in their unprincipled factional struggles they deliberately undermine Party organization and discipline, making unprincipled and sometimes calculated attacks on certain people, while contracting unprincipled friendships to avoid giving offence, to cover up for one another, to sing each other's praises, etc.<br />
<br />
Departmentalism within the Party arises chiefly because some comrades only see the interest of the part, i.e., the work of their own department of locality, and fail to see the interests of the whole, i.e., the interests of the entire Party and the work of other departments and localities. Politically and ideologically, this resembles the guild outlook. Not all comrades who make the mistake of departmentalism are necessarily prompted by individualism, but people with an individualist ideology usually make the mistake of departmentalism.<br />
<br />
Third. Conceit, the idea of individualistic heroism, ostentatiousness, etc., are still to be found, to a greater or lesser extent, in the minds of quite a few Party comrades.<br />
<br />
The first consideration of people with such notions is their position in the Party. They like to show off and to have people sing their praises and flatter them. They are ambitious, they like to cut a dash, to claim credit for themselves and to get the limelight, and they like to keep everything in their own hands and lack a democratic style of work. They are extremely vain and unwilling to immerse themselves in hard work or do routine or technical jobs. They are arrogant, and whenever they accomplish something they throw their weight about, become overbearing and try to domineer, and they do not treat others as equals in a modest and friendly way. They are complacent, talk down to and lecture people and order others about, and they are always trying to tread on people's necks; they do not learn modestly from others, particularly from the masses, and do not accept even well-grounded opinions and criticisms. They can bear promotion but not demotion, they can bear fair weather but not foul, and they cannot bear being misunderstood or wronged. As their baleful yearning for fame has not yet been uprooted they try to dress themselves up as "great men" and "heroes" in the communist movement and stop at nothing to gratify their desire. When they fail to achieve this object, or when they are misunderstood or wronged there is a danger that they will vacillate. Quite a number of people have vacillated and left our Party for such reasons in the course of its history. Exploiting class ideas still linger in the minds of such people, who fail to understand the greatness of the cause of communism and who lack the communist breadth of vision.<br />
<br />
Communists must not be in the least complacent or arrogant. Granted that some comrades are very capable, have done some good work and have to their credit considerable achievements which may be reckoned "great" and on which they might well preen themselves (for example, our army comrades who have led thousands and tens of thousands of men in battle and won victories, or the leaders of our Party and mass work in various places who have brought about fairly significant changes in the situation). Yet after all, how great are these achievements compared with the communist cause as a whole?<br />
<br />
And for persons with a communist world outlook, what is there worth preening oneself about in these achievements?<br />
<br />
For a Communist to do his work properly and well is no more than his duty. He should guard against complacency and arrogance and do his best to make no mistakes, or as few as possible.<br />
<br />
What is there in personal position for a Communist to bother about? No one's position is higher than an emperor's, and yet what is an emperor compared with a fighter in the cause of communism? Is he not just "a drop in the ocean" as Comrade Stalin put it? So what is there in personal position worth bothering or bragging about?<br />
<br />
Yes, we need countless communist heroes and many mass leaders of great prestige in our Party and in the communist movement. At present we really have too few of them and have yet to train and temper large numbers of good communist revolutionary leaders and heroes in all fields. This is indeed very important for our cause and must not be neglected. Whoever takes it lightly is ignorant of how to advance the cause of communism. Its advancement requires that we should greatly enhance the revolutionary spirit of enterprise among our Party members and bring their vitality into full play. We have to admit that so far we have not done enough in this respect. This is shown, for instance, by the fact that some Party members do not study hard and have little interest in politics and theory. Therefore, while we are opposed to individualistic heroism and ostentatiousness , we are certainly not opposed to a spirit of enterprise in the Party members. The desire to make progress in the interests of the people is the most precious quality in a Communist. But the communist, proletarian spirit of enterprise is entirely different from the individualist "spirit of enterprise". The former means seeking truth, upholding it and fighting for it with the greatest effectiveness. It is progressive and opens up unlimited prospects of development, while the latter offers no prospects even for the individual, for people with an individualist ideology are usually driven by their personal interest into deliberately brushing aside, covering up or distorting the truth.<br />
<br />
Our comrades must understand that genuine leaders and heroes in the communist movement are never individualistic, nor are they ever self-styled or self-appointed. Anyone who styles themself a leader or reaches after leadership can never become a leader of the Party. The rank and file of our Party will not make leaders of people who are prone to conceit, individualistic heroism, ostentatiousness, personal ambition and vanity. No member of our Party has any right to demand that the rank and file should support or keep him as a leader. Only those who are entirely selfless and devoted to the Party, only those with an excellent communist morality and fine communist qualities, who have grasped the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism, who have considerable practical ability, who can direct Party work correctly and who study hard and make constant progress can win the trust of the Party and the confidence and support of the rank and file, and so become leaders and heroes in the communist movement.<br />
<br />
Our comrades must also understand that a member, or a leader and hero, whoever he may be, can only do part of the work, can only carry part of the responsibility, in the communist movement. The communist cause is an undertaking which requires the collective efforts of tens of millions of people over a long period of time and which cannot be encompassed by any one individual alone. Even such great men as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin could only perform part of the work needed by the communist cause. The cause for which they worked requires the joint effort and sustained labour of tens of millions of us. We ordinary Communists are also doing part of the work of the communist cause and carrying part of the responsibility. Of course, our part is much smaller than that of Marx, Engles, Lenin or Stalin. Nevertheless, we have a small part. Big or small, it is all part of the great cause. Therefore, if only we do our part of the work well, we can consider that we have done our duty. Naturally we should try our best to do more, but if we cannot and can only do a little, that is also useful and just as honourable. In any case, we should at least not hamper the progress of the communist cause, but should do our part, whether big of small, and perform our work well, be it heavy or light; that is the correct attitude for every member of our Party. Comrades who are unwilling to undertake technical work think that it stifles their talents, that it prevents them from becoming famous (actually it does not, as witness the technical worker [[Alexei Stakhanov|Stakhanov]]<sup>1</sup> and from giving full play to their abilities and that it kills some of the enterprising spirit which all Communists should have. This view is wrong. Technical work occupies a very important place in our Party work, and comrades engaged in it are doing their share in the communist cause no less than comrades engaged in other jobs. The proper attitude for a Communist is to do whatever work the Party requires of him and do it happily and well, whether it suits his inclinations of not.<br />
<br />
Naturally, in assigning work to members, the Party organization and the responsible Party comrades should, as far as possible, take their individual inclinations and aptitudes into consideration, develop their strong points and stimulate their zeal to go forward. However, no Communist must refuse a Party assignment on the grounds of personal preference.<br />
<br />
Fourth, A small number of comrades are deeply imbued with the ideology of the exploiting classes. They are usually unscrupulous in dealing with comrades and in handling problems inside the Party, and are utterly devoid of the great and sincere proletarian communist spirit of mutual help and solidarity.<br />
<br />
People with this ideology always want to climb over the heads of others in the Party and, to this end, resort to attacking others and doing them harm. They are jealous of those more capable than themselves. They always try to pull down those who are moving ahead of them. They cannot bear playing second fiddle and think only of themselves and never of others. When other comrades are suffering difficulties of setbacks, they gloat or secretly rejoice and have no comradely sympathy at all. They even scheme to injure comrades "drop on one who has fallen into a well", and take advantage of comrades' weaknesses and difficulties to attack and harm them. They "crawl through any crack" and exploit and exacerbate any weakness in Party organization and work for their personal advantage.. They love to stir up trouble in the Party, speak ill of others behind their backs and engage in intrigues in order to sow dissension between comrades. They love to join in any unprincipled dispute that may occur in the Party and take great interest in unprincipled quarrels. They are especially active in stirring up and aggravating such quarrels when the Party is in difficulties. In short, they are thoroughly crooked and lack all integrity. Would it not be absurd to describe such people as being able to grasp the Marxist-Leninist theory and method and give expression to proletarian ideology? It is only too clear that all they express is the ideology of the declining exploiting classes.<br />
<br />
All exploiters must do harm to other people in order to expand. To increase their wealth, or to avoid bankruptcy in an economic crisis, bigger capitalists must squeeze many smaller capitalists out of existence and drive countless workers to starvation. To enrich themselves, landlords must exploit peasants and deprive many of them of their land. In order to expand, fascist Germany, Italy and Japan must devastate other countries; they have subjugated Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Abyssinia<sup>2</sup> and are committing aggression against China. Exploiters always harm and ruin other people as a necessary precondition for their own expansion; their happiness is founded on the suffering of others. Among the exploiters, therefore, genuine firm unity, genuine mutual help, and genuine human sympathy are impossible; they inevitably engage in intrigues and underhand activities in order to ruin others. Yet they have to lie and pose as saints and pillars of justice before the people. Such are the distinguishing characteristics of all declining exploiting classes. These person be models of "fine" ethical conduct for the exploiters, but they are most criminal from the point of view of the proletariat and the masses.<br />
<br />
The proletariat is the complete antithesis of the exploiting classes. It does not exploit others but is itself exploited. There is no conflict of basic interests within its ranks or between it and the other oppressed and exploited working people. Far from needing to harm other working people or impede their development for the sake of its own development and emancipation, the proletariat most forge the closest unity with them in the common struggle. If the proletariat is to emancipate itself, it must at the same time emancipate all other working people and emancipate all humanity. There can be no such thing as the separate emancipation of a single worker or section of workers. The proletariat must carry the cause of the emancipation of humanity through to the end, fighting step by step for the liberation of all humanity, and there can be no giving up or compromising half-way.<br />
<br />
As a result of this objective position occupied by the proletariat, the ideology of the politically conscious workers is the diametrical opposite of that of the exploiters. Communists are vanguard fighters of the proletariat, who arm themselves with Marxism-Leninism and are ruthless towards the people's enemies but never towards the toilers, their class brothers and comrades. They differentiate clearly and sharply between the attitudes and methods to be adopted against the enemy and those to be adopted towards their comrades and friends. They cherish great and sincere friendship, warmth and sympathy for other members of their own class and for all oppressed and exploited working people, towards whom they show a fine spirit of mutual help, firm unity and genuine equality. They are absolutely opposed to privileges of any kind for anyone, consider it impermissible to think in terms of privilege for themselves, and would deem it unthinkable and even a disgrace, to occupy a privileged position among the people. If they themselves are to develop and improve status, they must develop others and improve the status of all the working people at the same time. They are anxious not to fall behind, whether ideologically or politically or in their work, and they have a sturdy spirit of enterprise, but at the same time they esteem, cherish and support those who are ahead of them in these respects and, without any jealousy, do their best to learn from them. They are deeply concerned with the sufferings and privations of their own class and of all working people, they are concerned with all the struggles of the working people for emancipation anywhere in the world, regarding every victory or defeat for the working people anywhere as their own victory of defeat, and therefore displaying the greatest solidarity. They consider it wrong to be indifferent to the struggle of the working and oppressed people for liberation and criminal to gloat over their set-backs They cherish their own comrades and brothers, whose weaknesses and mistakes they criticize frankly and sincerely (and this shows genuine affection); in matters of principle they never gloss over and accommodate, let alone encourage mistakes (to accommodate or even to encourage others' mistakes does not betoken genuine affection for one's comrades). They do everything possible to help comrades overcome weaknesses and correct mistakes and never exploit or aggravate these weaknesses and mistakes to get comrades into trouble, let alone cause the mistakes to develop beyond correction. Not harbouring any desire to settle old scores, they can return good for evil to their own comrades and brothers and help them straighten themselves out. They can be strict with themselves and lenient with others. The stand they take is firm, strict and principled, their attitude is frank, upright and responsible, they do not give way on matters of principle, they do not tolerate anyone who harms the Party, they do not permit anyone to insult them and are particularly contemptuous of adulation and flattery as contrary to all principle. They oppose all unprincipled struggles; they do not let themselves become involved in such struggles and are not swayed or affected by irresponsible or casual criticism made behind their backs as to depart from principle, become incapable of thinking calmly or lose their composure. Such are the proletarian qualities in the most concentrated, exemplary and concrete form. These qualities represent everything of integrity in present-day society. Indeed it is the Communist Party that represents human integrity. We must foster and enhance such proletarian integrity and overcome all that is crooked and evil.<br />
<br />
Fifth. Pettiness, fussing over trifles and ignoring the general interest are faults still prevalent among some Party members. These comrades lack the nature and breadth of vision of Communists and are blind to the bigger things; they relish only the immediate and petty. They do not take much interest in the great problems and events in the Party and the revolution, but are always fussing over the merest trifles about which they enter into ponderous and endless arguments and become highly disturbed. Such people are also easily led by the nose when they receive some small favour or kindness. They have the petty-mindedness characteristic of small rural producers.<br />
<br />
There are other people who do not seem to have a clear-cut and definite attitude in their Party life, people who shift and hedge. They are actually of two kinds; for one kind the question is one of understanding and for the other, of moral character. The latter are always opportunistic in their personal behaviour, curry favour with all sides and try to please everybody. They tailor their words to the person and the circumstances, tack with the wind and show no principle whatsoever. Such are their characteristics. Sometimes, they wait and see what will suit the occasion, like the bat in Aesop's Fables,<sup>3</sup> and then move over to the winning side. Such-double faced creatures, who are neither fish nor fowl, are not altogether unknown in our ranks. They have the traits of the old-fashioned merchant. In addition, there are some individuals who, unable to resist the lure of the old society's exploiting classes, with their glittering world, their money and their women, begin to waver, go wrong and eventually to betray the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
Finally, the ideology of some of our Party comrades often reflects the impetuosity and vacillation of the petty-bourgeoisie and the destructiveness of the lumpen-proletariat and certain bankrupt peasants, but I shall not go into this question here.<br />
<br />
To sum up, our Party represents the great and powerful proletarian communist ideology, but it must be noted that all kinds of non-proletarian ideology—including even the ideology of the declining exploiting classes—are still reflected to a greater or lesser degree in the minds of certain comrades. At times such ideology is dormant in the Party, revealing itself only in insignificant matters of everyday life; but at other times it becomes active, systematically revealing itself in a whole variety of questions of Party principle, in major political questions and in problems of inner Party struggle. Certain sections of links in the Party organization may come to be dominated and corroded by such erroneous ideology, and in extreme cases in may even temporarily dominate key links in the Party leadership, as in the periods when people like [[Chen Duxiu]]<sup>4</sup> and [[Zhang Guotao]]<sup>5</sup> were in control. In normal periods, however, it is held in check by the correct proletarian ideology. These are all manifestations within the Party of the struggle between the proletarian and non-proletarian ideology. Similarly with some individual Party members. At times what is wrong in their ideology lies dormant and under control, but at other times it may grow and even dominate their actions. This is a manifestation among individual Party members of the contradiction and struggle between proletarian and non-proletarian ideology. For our Party members, ideological self-cultivation means that they must conscientiously use the proletarian ideology and the communist world outlook to overcome and eliminate all the various kinds of incorrect, non-proletarian ideology.<br />
<br />
== The Source of Wrong Ideology in Our Party ==<br />
The Communist Party, representing the brightest and most progressive aspects of contempory human society, is the bearer and disseminator of Marxism-Leninism, the acme of human thought. The most politically conscious, progressive and developed people in the world, people with the highest sense of morality and justice, are gathered in the communist Parties, fighting unswervingly against all the forces of darkness and for the bright future and final emancipation of humanity. The Communist Party of China is one of the best Communist Parties in the world. Guided by our leader Comrade Mao Zedong, our Party is armed with the powerful weapon of Marxist-Leninist theory and, at the same time, is carrying forward the fine traditions of progressive thinkers and revolutionaries in Chinese history. It represents the most progressive and brightest aspects of Chinese society, and the finest sons and daughters of the Chinese nation are gathered within its organized ranks. It has been fighting the forces of darkness in Chinese society for a long time, has gone through an arduous process of tempering and has accumulate rich experience in revolutionary struggle. In all this we Communists can justly take pride. There is every ground for absolute confidence that we shall finally be successful and victorious. However, we cannot say yet that everything in our organization is perfect, or that there are no shortcomings and faults. Nor can we say that our ranks are free from unsound and even bad elements, who might be quite capable of any sort of nastiness. In other words, our glorious Party contains some undesirable phenomena, some dark spots which I have already enumerated.<br />
<br />
Now when a family acquires an ugly son-in-law or daughter-in-law, it can not always keep him or her away from the guests. Even if we wanted to do so by taking the attitude of trying to "conceal the family shame", it would be impossible to hide such unpleasantness. The masses of the people are in constant contact with our Party, sympathisers come here to visit us and people who look up to us including many young men and women, come here to study or to join our Party. When they arrive, besides the progressive, fine and attractive things and "members of the family", they will naturally see the ugly sons- or daughters-in-law who might publicly say or do something unpleasant or make a spectacle of themselves, to the perplexity or our guests and new Party members. The newcomers may ask, "Does not the Communist Party stand for all that is just? Are Communists not the finest people? Why are there still such bad people and ugly things in the Communist Party? How strange!" Before joining the Party, some young comrades were bitterly dissatisfied with existing society, saw no way out and turned to the Communist Party as to a beacon of light. They thought that everything would be satisfactory and would work out well once they joined. Yet after doing so, or after arriving in our revolutionary base area, they find there are shortcomings and mistakes in the Party, too, and in real life not everything is satisfactory (much that would satisfy them would not be in the interests of the revolution and the Party), and so they feel reality is not entirely as they pictured it, and some begin to have doubts and feel puzzled. They ask, "Why are such things to be found in the Communist Party as well?" Before coming to Yan'an or before enrolling in the Anti-Japanese Military and Political College, some people imagined Yan'an and the College would live up to their dreams, but after their arrival and enrollment they do not find everything to their satisfaction and are perplexed. They ask, "How can such things happen even in Yan'an and the Anti-Japanese College?" And failing to find answers, some even become pessimistic and disheartened.<br />
<br />
Their questions should alert our Party members and cadres and be a lesson to them so that they will give serious attention to guiding and taking care of all new Party members and all who are moving in our direction and to ensuring they are not adversely affected. But, quite apart from this, we should explain things clearly to comrades inside and outside the Party.<br />
<br />
Why are there still such undesirable things in our splendid Party? The reason, I think, is rather simple. Our Party has not fallen from the skies, but has grown out of Chinese society. In general, our Party consists of the finest sons and daughters of our country, the vanguard of the Chinese proletariat, but they come from all strata of the old society, and in China today there still exists exploiting classes and the influence of these classes—selfishness, intrigue, bureaucracy and various types of filth. We have many excellent Party members who are not easily affected by such influences. But it is so strange that certain members bring some of the filth of the old society with them into our Party of reflect it there? Is it so strange that a person that has just crawled out of the mud is covered with slime? Of course not. It is only to be expected. It would be strange and indeed incredible, if the ranks of the Communist Party were absolutely free from such filth. It may be said that so long as such filth exists in society, so long as classes and exploiting class influences exist in society, there is bound to be some filth in the Communist Party. It is precisely because there is such filth in society, and in the Party, that it is the duty of the communist Party to change existing society, and it is necessary for Communists to remould, cultivate and temper themselves. In addition to carrying on a struggle in society at large against everything evil and backward,, it is imperative for us to carry on a struggle inside the Party against every social evil and backward influence as mirrored in the Party by vacillating and unsteady elements. This is the source of inner-Party contradiction and struggle. Through struggle, both inside and outside the Party, we seek to change society and gradually rid it of its evils and backwardness, and at the same time seek to perfect our Party and remould our Party members, and to resolve our inner-Party contradictions, so that our Party and its membership will become healthier and stronger.<br />
<br />
Stalin said:<blockquote>The source of the contradiction within the proletarian parties lies in two circumstances.</blockquote>What are these circumstances?<br />
<br />
They are firstly the pressure exerted by the bourgeoisie and bourgeois ideology on the proletariat and its party in the conditions of the class struggle—a pressure to which the least stable strata of the proletariat, and hence the least stable strata of the proletarian party, not infrequently succumb. It must not be thought that the proletariat is completely isolated from society, that it stands outside society. The proletariat is a part of society, connected with its diverse strata by numerous threads. But the party is a part of the proletariat Hence the Party cannot be exempt from connections with, and from the influence of, the diverse sections of the bourgeois society The pressure of the bourgeoisie and its ideology on the proletariat and its party finds expression in the fact that bourgeois ideas, manners, customs and sentiments not infrequently penetrate the proletariat and its party through definite strata of the proletariat that are in one way or another connected with bourgeois society.<br />
<br />
They are, secondly, the heterogeneity of the working class, the existence of a different strata within the working class....<br />
<br />
One stratum is the main mass of the proletariat, its core, its permanent part, the mass of "pure blooded" proletarians, who have long broken off connection with the capitalist class. This stratum of the proletariat is the most reliable bulwark of Marxism.<br />
<br />
The second stratum consists of new comers from non-proletarian classes—from the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie or the intelligencia. These are former members of other classes who have only recently merged with the proletariat and brought with them into the working class their customs, their habits, their waverings and their vacillations. This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for all sorts of anarchist, semi-anarchist and "ultra-Left" groups.<br />
<br />
The third stratum, lastly, consists of the labour aristocracy, the upper stratum of the working class, the most well-to-do portion of the proletariat, with its propensity for compromise with the bourgeoisie, its predominant inclination to adapt itself to the powers that be, and its anxiety go "get on in life". This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for outright reformists and opportunists.<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
Here we see the source of the various kinds of non-proletarian ideology and the various errors, shortcomings and undesirable phenomena that exist in our proletarian party. Here, indeed, is the source of the various contradictions that are present in our Party.<br />
<br />
== Attitudes Towards Wrong Ideology in the Party and Towards Inner-Party Struggle ==<br />
The influences exerted by the exploiting classes and the petty bourgeoisie, the existence of different strata within the working class and the differences in the class background of our Party members give rise to different ideas among them, to certain differences in viewpoints, habits and sentiments, in world outlook and moral values, and differences in the way they look at and think about things in general and the problems of the revolution in particular.<br />
<br />
Some people in our Party are able to view issues as developing and interrelated, but others habitually view them statistically and in isolation. The former are able to grasp matters comprehensively and objectively and hence to draw correct conclusions that can serve us as correct guide lines to action. As for the latter, some of them only see or over emphasize this side of a thing, while others only see and over emphasize the other side; both fail to view problems comprehensively and objectively in accordance with the laws of the development and interrelationship of objective phenomena, and both take a one-sided, subjective view of problems. Hence, they are unable to arrive at correct conclusions or chart the right course for our actions.<br />
<br />
The differences among Party members in their approach to problems lead to different ways of handling problems, to divergences and controversies are bound to become especially acute at turning points in the revolution, or when the struggle grows in intensity and hardship mount.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the crux of the matter is not whether there are differences of thought and opinion within the Party, since such differences always exist. The crux of the matter is how to resolve contradictions, settle differences and overcome all kinds of incorrect, non-proletarian thinking. Obviously, it is only through inner-Party struggle that such contradictions can be resolved, differences settled and incorrect thinking overcome. As Engels put it, “In the long run the contradictions are never slurred over, but always fought out.”<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
Different people hold different views and take different attitudes with regard to shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in our Party.<br />
<br />
People of one kind do not or will not see shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in our Party, but blindly believe that there is scarcely anything wrong in it; hence they relax their vigilance and slacken their struggle their struggle against these phenomena. People of another kind see nothing, or hardly anything, except these undesirable phenomena and fail to see how correct and glorious our Party is; hence they become pessimistic and loose confidence, or they become alarmed and bewildered in the face of such phenomena. The views of both are wrong and one-sided. Our view is different.. On the one hand, we know we know that our Party is the political party of the proletariat, the most progressive and revolutionary party in China. On the other, we know clearly that there are still shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena, major and minor in our Party. Moreover, we clearly understand their source and how to correct and gradually eliminate them, and we are making constant efforts to temper ourselves, improve our work and wage the necessary struggles in order to promote the progress of the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
Since people differ in their class stand and their views, they take different attitudes towards what is undesirable in our Party. One attitude is that of alien class and hostile elements who have wormed their way into our Party. A second attitude is that of Party members who lack a firm proletarian stand and have a wrong way of thinking. A third is that of Party members who firmly uphold the principles of Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
The alien class and hostile elements who have worked their way into the Party are glad of its shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena. Gleefully seeking their opportunity, they use every possible means to exploit and magnify some of these undesirable phenomena for the purpose of wrecking our Party. Sometimes they even make a pretence of opposing certain mistakes and supporting the Party line in order to cause an opposite kind of mistake to be committed. People with the second type of attitude fall into the following distinct categories:<br />
<br />
1. Some Party members sympathize with and accept certain erroneous ideas, or follow the bad example of certain people in the Party, so as to further their personal ends and desires. They consider the existence of certain short comings and mistakes in the Party to be to their advantage and therefore, whether intentionally or unintentionally, aggravate these failings and exploit them. This is the attitude of careerists of bad characters in the Party.<br />
<br />
2. Some Party members do nothing about the shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party and allow them to grow. They just muddle along and are unwilling to fight these evils. They fear inner-Party struggle and self-criticism, considering them harmful to the Party, or they are insensitive or shut their eyes to the undesirable things, or they are perfunctory and compromising in the struggle against them. This is the attitude taken by Communists who have a weak sense of duty towards the Party, are extremely liberalistic, or are guilty of bureaucracy.<br />
<br />
3. The attitude of some Party members towards these shortcomings and mistakes and towards those comrades who have incorrect ideas is one of “bitter hatred and gall”. They lightly sever all relations with comrades who have committed some mistake and whom they attempt to expel from the Party outright. If they fail in this and need rebuffs, they give up and become pessimistic and down-hearted, or they keep aloof, “preserve their purity” and even put a great distance between themselves and the Party. This extreme attitude is also shown in some comradesÕ mechanical conception of inner-Party struggle and self-criticism. People with this attitude believe that inner-Party struggle must be launched under any and all circumstances—the more frequently and bitterly, the better. They magnify every trifle into a matter of “principle” and brand every tiny fault with such labels as political opportunism. They do not carry on inner-Party struggle properly and specifically in accordance with the objective needs and objective laws of development, but instead “struggle” mechanically, subjectively and violently, regardless of the consequences. This is the attitude taken by Party members who do not understand the source of inner-Party contradictions, who lack skill in dealing with inner-Party differences and who have a mechanical conception of inner-Party struggle. For a time, this extreme attitude towards inner-Party struggle was exploited by the “Left” opportunists in the Party. They intensified mechanical and excessive struggles to the point of deliberately hunting for “targets of struggle” within the Party, deliberately creating inner-Party struggles, punishing comrades by abusing Party disciplinary measures and even employing against them measures applicable to struggles outside the Party; and it was by such “struggles” and “disciplinary measures” that they tried to push the work ahead.<br />
<br />
The attitude we should adopt is the proletarian Marxist-Leninist one. Contrary to the erroneous attitudes described above, we advocate the following.<br />
<br />
1. First of all, get to know the various phenomena, ideas, views and opinions in the Party and distinguish those which are correct and beneficial to the interests of the Party and the revolution from those which are not, or, in the case of a dispute in which both sides are wrong, perceive this and be able to point out the correct view or opinion. After sober analysis and consideration, decide on a clear-cut attitude and take a correct stand. Do not follow blindly or drift with the tide.<br />
<br />
2. Profit by every good example, promote and spread a spirit of integrity in the Party and vigorously support all correct views and opinions. Do not follow any bad examples or be influenced by any wrong ideas.<br />
<br />
3. Do not take a liberalistic attitude or flinch from any necessary inner-Party struggle. Carry on an irreconcilable struggle in the Party against ideas and views which are wrong in principle and against all other undesirable phenomena, so that we can constantly move to overcome them; they should never be allowed to develop unchecked to the detriment of the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
4. Do not take a mechanical and extreme attitude. Properly combine irreconcilability and clarity in matters of principle with flexibility and patient persuasion in methods of struggle; in thecourse of prolonged struggles, educate, criticize, temper and remould comrades who have committed errors but who are not incorrigible. Such inner-Party ideological struggles on matters of principle as are necessary at different periods should be waged in a concrete and proper way; inner-Party struggles should not be waged indiscriminatingly, subjectively,, mechanically or on shadowy pretexts. Do not become “struggle addicts”.<br />
<br />
5. Strengthen the unity and discipline of the Party and enhance its prestige through inner-Party struggle. Organizational penalties, ranging all the way to expulsion, should be applied to the incorrigible elements of the Party. We should regard it as our supreme duty to safeguard the Party’s unity, preserve the purity of its ideology and consolidate its organization.<br />
<br />
Such is the attitude of all good Communists in the Party and indeed the only correct Marxist-Leninist attitude.<br />
<br />
It is not strange that our enemies should seek to make use of our every shortcoming and mistake to undermine our Party. Besides constantly sharpening our vigilance, we should do everything possible to give the enemy as little opportunity as possible to exploit shortcomings and mistakes in the Party whenever they occur; this is the duty of every comrade who cherishes the Party. If a Party member ignores this consideration in inner-Party struggle, if he only seeks to vent his feelings, or goes to the length of joining up with bad elements instead of rejecting their assistance, or even makes use of outside forces to help him attain some private ends within the Party, he will be making an unpardonable breach of discipline.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party should be the embodiment of correct ideology and should follow good examples in the Party; they should not follow but oppose wrong ideas and bad examples. But what actually happens is that some comrades that are generally correct in their ideology and follow good examples, sometimes reflect certain wrong ideas and follow certain bad examples. Other comrades seem to find it easy to learn from bad but hard to learn from good, and this merits our serious attention. When mistakes occur in the Party, they are apt to encourage or aggravate them, intentionally of unintentionally. In inner-Party struggles they are apt to take the wrong side or to go along with whichever side is currently in vogue., irrespective of right and wrong. These comrades will hardly make progress unless they receive strict criticism and rigorous tempering.<br />
<br />
Of course comrades who adopt a liberalistic or bureaucratic attitude towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomenon inside the Party are also wrong. This, I think should be quite clear to you as students of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism. For in the Party building course which you have studied, the necessity of self-criticism and ideological struggle within the Party is clearly and thoroughly discussed; you can go into it again, and I need not well on the matter further. However, I do want to point out that quite a few comrades have this liberalistic attitude. We often do not have enough really responsible and sincere criticism and self-criticism conducted in keeping with the Party’s organizational principles, for the purpose of exposing, correcting and eliminating the undesirable phenomena in the Party, and more particularly we do not have enough criticism from below and self-criticism, both of which would be greatly encouraged. On the other hand, there is quite a lot of criticism that is irresponsible and not in keeping with the Party’s organizational principles, of talking behind peopleÕs backs and gossip about this or that person or thing. Both are manifestations of liberalism in the Party. They show that some of the comrades are insufficiently mature politically and are not courageous enough in revolutionary struggle; they also indicate that inner-Party democracy has not been properly developed. Some comrades dare not dispense with face-saving, and fear to offend others lest they themselves incur complaints and counter-criticism. They would rather leave the shortcomings and mistakes alone, taking the attitude of “getting by” and “the less trouble the better”, but at the same time they talk about comrades behind their backs. All this harms the Party and does it no good. Irresponsible criticism and talk are not likely to overcome the shortcomings and mistakes in the party but will lead to unprincipled disputes and disunity. We stand for inner-Party criticism and self-criticism which is responsible and beneficial to the Party and is in keeping with its organizational principles.<br />
<br />
Shortcomings and mistakes exist in the Party and so do incorrect non-proletarian ideas. Any of these may at certain times develop into a trend, giving rise to differences of principle and imparing the PartyÕs unity of action. Hence it is impossible to educate the Party, the proletariat and the masses correctly if we do not unfold criticism and self-criticism, constantly expose and correct short comings and mistakes, overcome wrong ideas and conduct inner-Party struggle to resolve inner-Party differences, but instead take a compromising attitude and follow a “middle” line, or try to muddle through in inner-Party struggle.<br />
<br />
Liberalism in inner-Party struggle is manifested in yet another way. Thus when a dispute breaks out in the Party, many comrades put aside their work and indulge in aimless debate for days and months on end or let themselves go without restraint; as a result, the unity of the Party becomes the looser, Party discipline is weakened, the Party’s prestige is impaired and our militant Party organizations turn into debating societies. Such things have occurred more than once in certain Party organizations. They have absolutely nothing in common with the kind of criticism and self-criticism we advocate. We need criticism and self-criticism, not in order to impair the Party’s prestige, undermine its discipline and weaken its leadership, but in order to promote the Party’s prestige, consolidate its discipline and strengthen its leadership.<br />
<br />
Hence, it is wrong to adopt a liberalistic or bureaucratic attitude towards the various shortcomings and mistakes in the Party. In order to fight against all undesirable phenomena and resolve differences, we must promote criticism and self-criticism and conduct inner-Party struggle correctly. Only then can the party be strengthened, grow and advance.<br />
<br />
Comrades who take an extreme attitude in inner-Party struggle are also wrong.<br />
<br />
The extreme attitude is the exact antithesis of the liberalistic attitude. It arises because these comrades fail to understand that wrong ideas in the Party have deep social roots and cannot possibly be eliminated at one stroke. At various times and in varying degrees, many of our Party comrades may reflect certain incorrect ideas existing in society and may commit some mistakes in their work under the influence of non-proletarian ideologies; no comrade can entirely avoid this. If the Party were to refuse to retain or tolerate all comrades who reflect non-proletarian ideologies in some degree, or who have committed some mistakes and yet are not incorrigible, and were to reject them categorically and even expel them, then the tasks of educating the comrades and consolidating the Party’s organization would be nonexistent. Were our Party to follow such an extreme policy, the comrades promoting such actions would eventually have to be expelled themselves. In particular, these comrades fail to understand that the achievement of communism involves the tremendous and difficult task of transforming all humanity into the selfless citizenry of a communist society, the task of converting men with their many weaknesses into communists with a high level of culture through a long process of tempering and education in the course of struggle. If they did understand this, then they would understand that our Party has the important and constant duty of educating and remoulding people who are already members but whose ideology is not wholly proletarian.<br />
<br />
Naturally, the education and remoulding of such Party members is a most arduous task requiring prolonged and patient effort. Yet if we are unwilling to tackle this difficult task and shrink from it, how can we talk about changing the world and all humanity? Since we are determined to undertake, and not to shrink from, the unprecedentedly arduous task of changing the world and all humanity, what other task in the world today can daunt us? Party members who have the communist world outlook are dauntless, fear no difficulty or hardship, and understand that the process of development is torturous. Comrades who take an extreme attitude do not understand that the achievement of communism is an arduous and torturous task, they fear difficulties and crave a straight road, they want to eliminate everything unpleasant at one stroke and leap immediately into the world of their ideals. Thinking and acting in this way, they inevitably run their heads against a brick wall. And after banging and bruising their heads, they quite often become disheartened and loose their confidence in the future of communism. Thus they swing between extremes, from “Left” to “Right”, thereby revealing the essence of their non-proletarian ideology. It is regrettable that this erroneous, extreme attitude towards inner-Party shortcomings and mistakes should still be found to a greater or lesser extent among quite a few comrades, although it is harmful to the Party, to other comrades and to themselves.<br />
<br />
Inner-Party struggle is necessary not because we are subjectively addicted to struggle or partial to dispute, but because inner-Party differences of principle do arise in the growth of the Party and in the proletarian struggle. When they occur, “contradictions can be overcome only by means of a struggle for definite principles, for definite aims of the struggle, for definite methods of waging the struggle leading to the desired aim.”<sup>2</sup> Compromise is of no avail here. This means that when a dispute has developed into one of principle which can only be resolved through struggle, we should unflinchingly wage inner-Party struggle in order to resolve it. It does not mean that we should make a big fuss over small matters, conduct inner-Party struggle with stony faces and never compromise even on routine and on questions of a purely practical nature. “One can, and one should agree to any compromise with dissenters in the party on questions of current policy,, on questions of a purely practical nature.”<sup>3</sup><br />
<br />
When opportunist ideas and differences of principle arise in the Party, we must, of course, wage struggles to overcome those ideas and errors of principle. This defiantly does not mean that when there are no differences of principles and no opportunist ideas in the Party, we should deliberately magnify into “differences of principle” divergences of opinion among comrades on questions of a purely practical nature.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said: “The Party must on the one hand wage a serious struggle against erroneous thinking, and on the other give the comrades who have committed errors ample opportunity to wake up. This being the case, excessive struggle is obviously inappropriate.”<sup>4</sup><br />
<br />
It is necessary to make severe criticism of, or even to apply organizational penalties to, those comrades who, after committing opportunist mistakes or other mistakes of principle, turn a deaf ear to persuasion and Party criticism, wilfully and obstinately cling to their errors and resist Party policy, or double-faced in their attitude. But if these comrades do not cling to their mistakes but are willing to correct them and give up their previous point of view after sober discussion, persuasion and criticism, or if they coolly ponder over their mistakes or soberly discuss them with other comrades, we should welcome every small sign of progress on their part and not subject them to penalties undiscriminatingly. In criticism and inner-Party struggle, it is not true that the more stony-faced we are the better, or that the more comrades we punish the better; our highest aim is to educate the erring comrades to the best effect, help them to correct their mistakes, educate the entire membership and consolidate the Party.<br />
<br />
The “Left” opportunists are clearly wrong in their attitude towards inner-Party struggle. According to these almost hysterical people, any peace in the Party was intolerable—even peace based on complete unanimity on matters of principle an on the Party line. Even in the absence of any differences of principle in the Party, they deliberately hunted out targets, dubbed some comrades “opportunist” and set them up as “straw men” to shoot at in inner-Party struggle. They thought that such erroneous struggle and such shooting at “straw men” were the magic formula for developing the Party and achieving victory in the revolutionary fight of the proletariat. They considered that to stir up trouble out of nothing or to deliberately concoct inner-Party struggle was the only “Bolshevik” way. Of course, this is not serious and earnest inner-Party struggle; rather it is a mockery of the Party and the perverting of inner-Party struggle, which is a most serious matter, into a frivolous game. The advocates of such action are not Bolsheviks at all but are either people who are well-nigh incorrigible or careerists exploiting the name “Bolshevik”.<br />
<br />
We have been discussing the attitude to be adopted towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party. It is by combating all that is bad inside and outside the Party that we change the world and humanity and at the same time perfect the Party and remould ourselves. Inner-Party struggle is a reflection within the Party of existing contradictions in society between classes and between old and new. The Party tempers, develops and consolidates itself in the class struggle outside the Party (i.e., in the revolutionary struggles of the masses of the people) and simultaneously becomes consolidated and united through struggle inside the Party, and is therefore able to give more systematic, correct and effective leadership to the revolutionary struggle of the masses. Hence it would be utterly wrong, advantageous to the enemy, contrary to the laws of development of the class struggle and incompatible with our basic thesis of transformation of the world and humanity through struggle, if we were to adopt a liberal attitude towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party by flossing over internal differences of principle, covering up inner-Party contradictions, evading inner-Party struggle and just muddling along. Similarly, it would be wrong to isolate the struggle inside the Party from the class struggle outside the Party or the revolutionary movement of the masses and thus turn inner-Party struggle into empty talk. In fact, it is impossible to temper, develop and consolidate the party in isolation from the revolutionary struggle of the masses. However, it would be equally wrong and contrary to the laws of development of the Party, if we were to carry matters to the other extreme and adopt an extreme attitude towards all comrades who have shortcomings or have committed errors but who are not irredeemable, or if we were to fail to distinguish between them and the enemy, conducting mechanical and excessive inner-Party struggles against them and wilfully fabricating such struggles. We should not break with comrades who have committed errors but who are nevertheless loyal. Rather, we should show concern and sympathy for them, persuade and educate them and help them temper and reform themselves in struggle. We should not castigate or expel them unless they persist in their mistakes and prove incorrigible.<br />
<br />
Although there are still some shortcomings and mistakes, some isolated minor evils in our Party, we are fully confident that with the advance of the working-class movement we can and will get rid of them through the great revolutionary struggles of the masses. The history of nearly two decades of struggle and glorious progress by the Communist Party of China and the worldwide development of the working-class movement, thoroughly convince us of this.<br />
<br />
Inner-Party struggle is an indispensable component of the revolutionary struggle as a whole. Our comrades should therefore temper and cultivate themselves both in struggles outside the Party and in the struggle on two fronts inside the Party. Among many Party comrades, however, there is still no genuinely profound appreciation of such inner-Party struggle, and there is insufficient tempering and self-cultivation. This is manifested not only in the frequent unprincipled struggles carried on by some comrades but also in the fact that certain comrades, including even some with a fairly long history of militant struggle, cannot stand being criticized of misjudged. When fighting the counter-revolution, they never waver, complain or feel dejected, however ruthless the struggle, however bitter the conditions and however vicious the enemy’s blows. Yet in inner-Party struggle they cannot stand being criticized, attacked, misjudged or wronged, or tolerate even a single unpleasant word. Or they suspect people of making pointed allusions to them, and so they complain and feel very dejected. We must really five this kind of thing our attention.<br />
<br />
It must be stated that on the whole these comrades are very good because they wage resolute struggle against the counter-revolutionaries and look upon the Party as a most affectionate mother. After going out to fight hard battles against the counter-revolutionaries they should receive encouragement, consolation and caresses, and not blows and wrongs, when they return to their great mother’s embrace. It is only natural for them to expect such treatment. However, they fail to take one point into account, or fully into account—that our Party still has shortcomings and faults and that there are inner-Party struggles which every comrade must take part in. Our Party criticises and combats shortcomings and faults not because it is unfeeling but because such action is unavoidable in the course of revolutionary struggle. It is necessary for comrades in the course of inner-Party struggle to receive well founded criticism, for it is helpful to them, to the other comrades and to the whole Party. On the other hand, it is also unavoidable that at times some comrades will receive unfounded criticisms or be attacked on certain matters, or will even be wrongly judged and disciplined. Failing to allow for this, they become shocked and feel most miserable and dejected when it occurs.<br />
<br />
In this connection, it is my opinion that every Party member should pay attention to uniting with his comrades, be sincere and open,, refrain from hurting others by thoughtless or sarcastic remarks and, in particular, refrain from irresponsibly criticizing comrades behind their backs. The proper attitude to any comrade’s mistakes is sincerely to remonstrate with him and criticize him to his face., out of concern for the comrade and a desire to be of help. All of us, and especially those in more responsible positions, must bear this in mind.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, it is my opinion that comrades should be mentally prepared for inner-Party struggle, should open-mindedly accept all well-grounded criticism and be able to endure misunderstandings or attacks, or even unfairness and injustice; in particular, they should not get upset or excited over irresponsible and unjustified criticism or rumours. As far as irresponsible misjudgement and criticism are concerned—that is, excluding properly conducted criticism among comrades or through the Party organization—one can try and clear the matter up or offer some explanation when necessary, but if that does not help, one might just as well let others say what they please, provided there is nothing wrong in one’s thinking and behaviour. Let us remember the Chinese sayings: “Who never gossips about others behind their backs or is never the subject of gossip?” and “Never mind the storm, just sit tight in the fishing boat.” No one in this world can entirely avoid being misunderstood, but misunderstandings can always be cleared up sooner or later. We should be able to endure misunderstandings and should never allow ourselves to be dragged into unprincipled struggle; at the same time, we should be always vigilant and keep watch over our own thoughts and actions.<br />
<br />
That is to say, we should take care not to use words that wound other comrades and should be able to stand injurious language from others.<br />
<br />
We are radically opposed to unprincipled disputes in the Party. Since they are unprincipled, they are useless and harmful to the Party, and there is generally little of right or wrong, or good or bad, about them. In such unprincipled struggles, therefore, there is no point in passing judgement as to who is right and who is wrong, or estimating who is better and who is worse, because that is impossible. All we can do is radically to oppose struggles of that kind and ask the comrades involved unconditionally to stop them and get back to principles. This is the policy we should adopt towards unprincipled disputes and struggles. But what is to be done if unprincipled disputes do arise and if many of them get tangled up with struggles over principle? What should be done if such disputes knock at our door and we get dragged into them? All we can do in that case is, again, to put the stress on the questions of principle and avoid stressing those not involving any principle. Basing ourselves on the policy outlined here, we should handle such unprincipled disputes strictly and ourselves stand firm on the principle from beginning to end, refusing to be dragged into the unprincipled disputes. When something does go wrong to you, do not throw back something wrong at him. Always stand by the right to oppose the wrong. Some of our comrades find it very difficult to act in this way, which shows why special attention to self-tempering and self-cultivation is necessary.<br />
<br />
Let me briefly sum up the points discussed.<br />
<br />
The aim of ideological self-cultivation by members of the Communist party is to temper themselves to become staunch and utterly devoted members and cadres of the Party who make constant progress and serve as examples for others. What is required of us is the following:<br />
<br />
1. To build up our communist world outlook and a firm Party and proletarian class standpoint through the study of Marxism-Leninism and participation in the revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
2. To examine our own thinking and behaviour, to correct all erroneous ideas and at the same time to judge questions and judge other comrades on the basis of our communist world outlook and our firm Party and proletarian class standpoint.<br />
<br />
3. Always to adopt a correct attitude and appropriate methods in the struggle against erroneous ideology in the Party, and especially against the erroneous ideology which affects the current revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
4. To keep a firm control over ourselves in thought, speech and action, especially to take a firm standpoint and adhere to correct principles with regard to political ideas, statements and activities which are related to the current revolutionary struggle. In addition, it is as well to be careful even over “trifles” (in one's personal life, attitude, etc.). But as for making demands on other comrades, apart from matters of principle and major political questions, we should not be too severe or fault finding over “trifles”.<br />
<br />
In my opinion, the above is what we mean, fundamentally, when we talk about ideological self-cultivation by members of the Communist Party.<br />
[[Category:Library works by Liu Shaoqi]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:Plan_to_Redeem_Toil;_Eugene_V._Debs&diff=63883Library:Plan to Redeem Toil; Eugene V. Debs2024-03-08T03:54:03Z<p>RedCustodian: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Library work|title=Plan to Redeem Toil|author=Chicago Record|written in=1897-05-24|publisher=Chicago Record|type=Newspaper|source=https://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1897/970524-chicagorecord-debslermondmeet.pdf}}<br />
<br />
== Eugene V. Debs and Others Look Toward Establishing a Colony in the West that Finally Will Enfold All Labor (May 24, 1897) ==<br />
Special to the Chicago Record.<br />
<br />
Terre Haute, Ind., May 24 [1897].— Eugene V. Debs has returned from his trip to Utah and Colorado and finds awaiting him here N. [Norman Wallace] Lermond of Thomaston, Maine, Secretary of the Brotherhood of the Cooperative Commonwealth. Mr. Lermond has been in Tennessee and Arkansas looking for a location for a cooperative colony, but since his conference with Mr. Debs he announces that no further steps will be taken by brotherhood until after the convention, or conference, which is to be held in Chicago after the special convention of the American Railway Union, which is called for June 15. It is probable that the brotherhood, which now has 2,000 members, will be merged into the new organization, which will endeavor to get political possession of some western state and there try the experiment of a state cooperative commonwealth. Mr. Debs, himself, is opposed to the colony idea, because he believes it is not on a scale large enough to accomplish much good even if it were successful. But it is his impression that there is to be a radical change in the industrial system throughout the country, and that the successful operation of the cooperative idea in one state will cause it to be adopted everywhere.<br />
<br />
=== Prepare for Chicago Conference. ===<br />
The Chicago conference will be attended by delegates from labor organizations in most of the larger cities, especially in the West. There will also be present such men as Prof. [Frank] Parsons of Boston, Prof. [George D.] Herron of Iowa, and Henry D[emarest] Lloyd. Mr. Debs says that while he cannot speak for the conference his own theory is that as soon as possible 100 men should begin the work of enrolling of members of the new organization. He is confident that a membership of 1 million could be obtained in six months. These members would be asked to contribute whatever amount they felt able to give, and the fund thus raised would be used in sending men into that Western or Southwestern state where the effort is to be made to obtain political control. After this has been accomplished, a constitutional convention would be called, and the organic law of the state changed in such a manner as to permit of the complete introduction of the cooperative plan. The Chicago conference will determine which state is to be selected.<br />
<br />
=== Kind of Men Wanted. ===<br />
While Debs denies that he is to lead an army of unemployed in a march to the field of endeavor on the part of the cooperative people, still he is in favor of sending large numbers of men to the state, perhaps 1,000 at a time, and this, too, as soon as possible. They will not go as mendicants, however, nor will they be the idle and disreputable part of humanity, such as would have been called together by a rallying cry for a marching army. The manner in which they will move to the state is yet to be decided, but if they march, it will be as self-respecting men, who are backed with money to pay their way, and will not depend on the charity of the country through which they pass. Mr. Debs says that perhaps it may be determined to march not so much for the purpose of economy as to attract the attention of the country to the cooperative movement, but if it is decided to march every precaution will be taken to prevent the movement being brought into ridicule or disrepute by the character of the men or the march itself. When the army starts it will be with a public meeting, perhaps in Chicago, which will be addressed by men whose hearts are in the movement, such as B[enjamin] Fay Mills, perhaps, or Myron Reed, or Henry D. Lloyd<br />
<br />
=== Receives Much Encouragement ===<br />
Mr. Debs has received many letters about the cooperative scheme since he was interviewed on the subject a few weeks ago, and all are of an encouraging nature. Among those who have written is Dr. Rainsford, the Episcopal clergymen of New York. In New England, among the professional men and those not engaged in commercial pursuits, Mr. Lermond says there is almost a unanimous sentiment in favor of some effort to bring about a change in the industrial system, and these men are willing to assist the state cooperative commonwealth movement. Mr. Debs is confident that $50,000 a month can be raised after a few months of organization, and this money will be sufficient to keep the new men in the state employed until they can find a market for their product. In this respect, it is intended to have all members of the organization assist in supporting the movement by buying from [their] own producers. In the larger cities stores will be established where the products of the cooperative industries will be on sale. [The intimation] is that the cities of Chicago, St. Louis, and Milwaukee will furnish much assistance to the movement, both in membership and in the purchase of products. It is also true that there are thousands in those cities who will join an army to go anywhere.<br />
<br />
Mr. Debs has been informed that some persons in Chicago want to hold meetings of the unemployed, but he has urgently requested that this be not done. He knows the temper of the idle men, and also fears the effect of what some excitable speaker might say on the cooperative movement. He says that while he has the utmost sympathy for the unemployed men, no matter how far they have slipped away from self-respecting manhood in their idleness, still care must be taken not to do anything that would lose the support of all people who desire a change in the condition of the industrial element in the country.<br />
<br />
=== Mr. Debs’ Trip to the West. ===<br />
Mr. Debs says that while in Utah he made close investigation of the workings of the original cooperative scheme of the Mormons. He found that it was perfect until the spirit of commercialism came upon the leaders of the church. He thinks that the work of the Mormons in building up Utah out of a desert has not been fully understood, because the public knows Mormonism only by its upholding of polygamy. The details of the cooperative scheme of the Mormons, however, show that it was perfect. When asked if the church discipline did not have a great deal to do with making the Mormons prosperous and content with their lot, he said it undoubtedly did, but that in the new cooperative movement there would be equally as strong influences in the belief of those who undertake it in the doctrine of cooperation. Only such men as believe in the doctrine as devout Christians believe in their religion would take part in the movement. There are thousands of men who are now believers in the doctrine who a few years ago would not give it a thought. These men have come to see that there is no hope for the relief they have been counting upon from trade unions or from political parties. Trade unions are utterly unable to stop the constantly lowering of wages simply because these reductions are part of a natural law and are inevitable. The grinding process is the natural result of the rule of capitalism, and no organization of men can uphold wages when the heartless strife for gain is ruling all industry and commerce. Workingmen cannot be held in line, he says, for trade unionism when they see the futility of these organizations. They want something which gives promise of results, and the cooperative scheme appeals to them strongly now as it never did before.<br />
<br />
=== Further Wage Reductions. ===<br />
While in the West Mr. Debs learned that there is to be a reduction of wages all along the line in mining, railroad service, and in all industries within the next 90 days, and he does not see how it can be prevented. The miners, whose convention he has just attended,<ref>Debs and his wife were the guests of the Western Federation of Miners, who held their 5th Annual Convention in Salt Lake City.</ref> fought the Leadville strike at a cost of $1.5 million and lost. Those men know there must now be a new plan of operations, and they are going into cooperative mining as fast as they can do so. They are in an ugly temper, though, and when President [Edward] Boyce made the following recommendation in his annual address he was cheered to the echo, and the recommendation was adopted.<blockquote>I strongly advise you to devise ways and means to provide every member with the latest improved rifle which can be obtained from the factory at a nominal price. I entreat you to take action on this important question so that in two years we can hear the inspiring music of the martial tread of 25,000 armed men in the ranks of labor. </blockquote>Published in the Chicago Record, vol. 17, no. 124 (May 25, 1897), pg. 1.<br />
[[Category:Library documents from the United States of America]]<br />
<references /><br />
[[Category:Library works by Eugene V. Debs]]<br />
[[Category:Library works about the United States of America]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:The_London_Congress_of_the_Russian_Social-Democratic_Labour_Party&diff=63735Library:The London Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party2024-03-06T00:45:38Z<p>RedCustodian: /* (Notes of a Delegate) */</p>
<hr />
<div>http://www.marx2mao.com/PDFs/StWorks2.pdf<br />
<br />
== (Notes of a Delegate)<ref>The article “The London Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (Notes of a Delegate)” was not finished. Its completion was prevented by the intensified police shadowing of J. V. Stalin in the latter half of 1907 and his subsequent arrest. </ref> ==<br />
The London Congress is over. In spite of the expectations of liberal hacks, such as the Vergezhskys<ref>A. Vergezhsky—the nom de plume of A. V. Tyrkova; she was a contributor to the Cadet newspaper ''Rech''</ref> and Kuskovas,<ref>E. D. Kuskova—one of the authors of the programme of the Economists known as the “Credo.” In 1906-07 she was a contributor to semi-Cadet and semi-Menshevik newspapers and journals.</ref> the congress did not result in a split, but in the further consolidation of the Party, in the further unification of the advanced workers of all Russia in one indivisible party. It was a real all-Russian unity congress, for at this congress our Polish comrades, our comrades of the Bund, and our Lettish comrades were for the first time most widely and fully represented, for the first time they took an active part in the work of the Party congress and, consequently, for the first time most directly linked the fate of their respective organisations with the fate of the entire Party. In this respect the London Congress greatly contributed to the consolidation and strengthening of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party.<br />
<br />
Such is the first and an important result of the London Congress.<br />
<br />
But the importance of the London Congress is not confined to this. The point is that, in spite of the wishes of the liberal hacks we have referred to, the congress ended in the victory of “Bolshevism,” in the victory of revolutionary Social-Democracy over the opportunist wing of our Party, over “Menshevism.” Everybody, of course, is aware of the disagreements among us on the role of the different classes and parties in our revolution and of our attitude towards them. Everybody knows, too, that in a number of pronouncements the official centre of the Party, which is Menshevik in composition, took a stand in opposition to the Party as a whole. Recall, for example, the case of the Central Committee’s slogan of a responsible Cadet ministry, which the Party rejected in the period of the First Duma; the case of the same Central Committee’s slogan of “resumption of the session of the Duma” after the First Duma was dispersed, which was also rejected by the Party; and the case of the Central Committee’s well-known call for a general strike in connection with the dispersion of the First Duma, which was also rejected by the Party. . . . It was necessary to put an end to that abnormal situation. And to do this it was necessary to sum up the actual victories the Party had achieved over the opportunist Central Committee, the victories which fill the history of our Party’s internal development during the whole of the past year. And so the London Congress summed up all these victories of ''revolutionary'' Social-Democracy and sealed the victory by adopting the tactics of that section of Social-Democracy.<br />
<br />
Consequently, the Party will henceforth pursue the strictly class policy of the socialist proletariat. The red flag of the proletariat will no longer be hauled down before the spell-binders of liberalism. A mortal blow has been struck at the vacillation characteristic of intellectuals, which is unbecoming to the proletariat.<br />
<br />
<br />
Such is the second and no less important result of the London Congress of our Party.<br />
<br />
The actual unification of the advanced workers of all Russia into a single all-Russian party under the banner of ''revolutionary'' Social-Democracy—that is the significance of the London Congress, that is its general character.<br />
<br />
We shall now pass to a more detailed characterisation of the congress.<br />
<br />
=== '''THE COMPOSITION OF THE CONGRESS''' ===<br />
In all about 330 delegates were present at the congress. Of these, 302 had the right to vote; they represented over 150,000 Party members. The rest were consultative delegates. The distribution of the delegates according to groups was approximately as follows (counting only those with right to vote): Bolsheviks 92, Mensheviks 85, Bundists 54, Poles 45 and Letts 26.<br />
<br />
As regards the social status of the delegates (workers or non-workers) the congress presented the following picture: manual workers 116 in all, office and distributive workers 24, the rest were non-workers. The manual workers were distributed among the different groups as follows: Bolshevik group 38 (36 per cent), Menshevik group 30 (31 per cent), Poles 27 (61 per cent), Letts 12 (40 per cent) and Bundists 9 (15 per cent). Professional revolutionaries were distributed among the groups as follows: Bolshevik group 18 (17 per cent), Menshevik group 22 (22 per cent), Poles 5 (11 per cent), Letts 2 (6 per cent), Bundists 9 (15 per cent).<br />
<br />
We were all “amazed” by these statistics. How is this? The Mensheviks had shouted so much about our Party consisting of intellectuals; day and night they had been denouncing the Bolsheviks as intellectuals; they had threatened to drive all the intellectuals out of the Party and had all the time been reviling the professional revolutionaries—and suddenly it turned out that they had far fewer workers in their group than the Bolshevik “intellectuals” had! It turned out that they had far more professional revolutionaries than the Bolsheviks! But we explained the Menshevik shouts by the proverb: “The tongue ever turns to the aching tooth.”<br />
<br />
Still more interesting are the figures of the composition of the congress showing the “territorial distribution” of the delegates. It turned out that the large groups of Menshevik delegates came mainly from the peasant and handicraft districts: Guria (9 delegates), Tiflis (10 delegates), Little-Russian peasant organisation “Spilka” (I think 12 delegates), the Bund (the overwhelming majority were Mensheviks) and, by way of exception, the Donets Basin (7 delegates). On the other hand, the large groups of Bolshevik delegates came exclusively from the large-scale industry districts: St. Petersburg (12 delegates), Moscow (13 or 14 delegates), the Urals (21 delegates), Ivanovo-Voznesensk (11 delegates), Poland (45 delegates).<br />
<br />
Obviously, the tactics of the Bolsheviks are the tactics of the proletarians in big industry, the tactics of those areas where class contradictions are especially clear and the class struggle especially acute. Bolshevism is the tactics of the real proletarians.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, it is no less obvious that the tactics of the Mensheviks are primarily the tactics of the handicraft workers and the peasant semi-proletarians, the tactics of those areas where class contradictions are not quite clear and the class struggle is masked. Menshevism is the tactics of the semi-bourgeois elements among the proletariat.<br />
<br />
So say the figures.<br />
<br />
And this is not difficult to understand: it is impossible to talk seriously among the workers of Lodz, Moscow or Ivanovo-Voznesensk about blocs with the very same liberal bourgeoisie whose members are waging a fierce struggle against them and who, every now and again, “punish” them with partial dismissals and mass lockouts. There Menshevism will find no sympathy; there Bolshevism, the tactics of uncompromising proletarian class struggle, is needed. On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to inculcate the idea of the class struggle among the peasants of Guria or say, the handicraftsmen of Shklov, who do not feel the sharp and systematic blows of the class struggle and, therefore, readily agree to all sorts of agreements against the “common enemy.” There Bolshevism is not yet needed; there Menshevism is needed, for there an atmosphere of agreements and compromises pervades everything.<br />
<br />
No less interesting is the national composition of the congress. The figures showed that the majority of the Menshevik group were Jews (not counting the Bundists, of course), then came Georgians and then Russians. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of the Bolshevik group were Russians, then came Jews (not counting Poles and Letts, of course), then Georgians, etc. In this connection one of the Bolsheviks (I think it was Comrade Alexinsky<ref>G. A. Alexinsky—a member of the Bolshevik section of the Social-Democratic group in the Second State Duma. After the London Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. he advocated the tactics of boycotting the Third State Duma. Subsequently, he left the Bolshevik Party. After the October Socialist Revolution he became a White émigré</ref>) observed in jest that the Mensheviks constituted a Jewish group while the Bolsheviks constituted a true-Russian group and, therefore, it wouldn’t be a bad idea for us Bolsheviks to organise a pogrom in the Party.<br />
<br />
It is not difficult to explain this composition of the different groups: the main centres of Bolshevism are the areas of large-scale industry, purely Russian districts with the exception of Poland, whereas the Menshevik districts are districts with small production and, at the same time, Jewish, Georgian, etc., districts.<br />
<br />
As regards the different trends revealed at the congress, it must be noted that the formal division of the congress into five groups (Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Poles, etc.) retained a certain validity, inconsiderable it is true, only up to the discussion on questions of principle (the question of the non-proletarian parties, the labour congress, etc.). When these questions of principle came up for discussion the formal grouping was in fact cast aside, and when a vote was taken the congress, as a rule, divided into two parts: Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. There was no so-called centre, or marsh, at the congress. Trotsky proved to be “pretty but useless.” All the Poles definitely sided with the Bolsheviks. The overwhelming majority of the Letts also definitely supported the Bolsheviks. The Bund, the overwhelming majority of whose delegates in fact always supported the Mensheviks, formally pursued an extremely ambiguous policy, which, on the one hand, raised a smile, and on the other, caused irritation. Comrade Rosa Luxemburg aptly characterised the policy of the Bund when she said that the Bund’s policy was not the policy of a mature political organisation that influenced the masses, but the policy of shopkeepers who are eternally looking forward to, and hopefully expecting, a drop in the price of sugar tomorrow. Of the Bundists, only 8 to 10 delegates supported the Bolsheviks, and then not always.<br />
<br />
In general, predominance, and rather considerable predominance, was on the side of the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
Thus, the congress was a Bolshevik congress, although not sharply Bolshevik. Of the Menshevik resolutions only the one on guerilla actions was carried, and that by sheer accident: on that point the Bolsheviks did not accept battle, or rather, they did not wish to fight the issue to a conclusion, purely out of the desire to “give the Menshevik comrades at least one opportunity to rejoice.” . . .<br />
<br />
=== '''THE AGENDA. REPORT OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE. REPORT OF THE GROUP IN THE DUMA''' ===<br />
As regards political trends at the congress, its proceedings can be divided up into two parts.<br />
<br />
First part: debates on formal questions, such as the agenda of the congress, the reports of the Central Committee and report of the group in the Duma, i.e., questions of profound political significance, but linked, or being linked, with the “honour” of this or that group, with the idea “not to offend” this or that group, “not to cause a split”—and for that reason called formal questions. This part of the congress was the most stormy, and absorbed the largest amount of time.<br />
<br />
This was due to the fact that considerations of principle were forced into the background by “moral” considerations (“not to offend”) and, consequently, no strictly defined groups were formed; it was impossible to tell at once “who would win,” and in the hope of winning over the “neutral and polite,” the groups plunged into a furious struggle for predominance.<br />
<br />
Second part: discussion on questions of principle, such as the question of the non-proletarian parties, the labour congress, etc. Here “moral” considerations were absent, definite groups were formed in conformity with strictly defined trends of principle; the relation of forces between the groups was revealed at once, and for that reason this part of the congress was the calmest and most fruitful— clear proof that keeping to principle in discussion gives the best guarantee that the proceedings of a congress will be calm and fruitful.<br />
<br />
We shall now pass to a brief characterisation of the first part of the congress proceedings.<br />
<br />
After a speech by Comrade Plekhanov, who opened the congress and in his speech urged the necessity of agreements “as occasion arises” with “the progressive elements” of bourgeois society, the congress elected a presidium of five (one from each group), elected a credentials committee and then proceeded to draw up the agenda. It is characteristic that at this congress, just as they did at last year’s Unity Congress, the Mensheviks furiously opposed the Bolsheviks’ proposal to include in the agenda the questions of the present situation and of the class tasks of the proletariat in our revolution. Is the revolutionary tide rising or subsiding and, accordingly, should we “liquidate” the revolution or carry it through to the end? What are the proletariat’s class tasks in our revolution which sharply distinguish it from the other classes in Russian society? Such are the questions which the Menshevik comrades are afraid of. They flee from them like shadows from the sun; they do not wish to bring to light the roots of our disagreements. Why? Because the Menshevik group itself is split by profound disagreements on these questions, because Menshevism is not an integral trend; Menshevism is a medley of trends, which are imperceptible during the factional struggle against Bolshevism but which spring to the surface as soon as current questions and our tactics are discussed from the point of view of principle. The Mensheviks do not wish to expose this inherent weakness of their group. The Bolsheviks were aware of this, and in order to keep the discussions closer to principles, insisted on the inclusion of the above-mentioned questions in the agenda. Realising that keeping to principles would kill them, the Mensheviks became stubborn; they hinted to the “polite comrades” that they would be “offended,” and so the congress did not include the question of the present situation, etc., in the agenda. In the end, the following agenda was adopted: report of the Central Committee, report of the group in the Duma, attitude towards the non-proletarian parties, the Duma, the labour congress, the trade unions, guerilla actions, crises, lockouts and unemployment, the International Congress at Stuttgart<ref>The question of the Stuttgart International Socialist Congress (the Seventh Congress of the Second International) was originally included in the agenda of the London Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. but was subsequently withdrawn by the congress. The Stuttgart Congress took place in August 5-11 (18-24) 1907. The Bolsheviks were represented by V. I. Lenin, A. V. Lunacharsky, M. M. Litvinov and others.</ref>, and organisational questions.<br />
<br />
The chief speakers on the report of the Central Committee were Comrade Martov (for the Mensheviks) and Comrade Ryadovoi<ref>Ryadovoi (“rank-and-filer”)—the pseudonym of A. A. Malinovsky, better known as Bogdanov. (He also used the pseudonym of Maximov.) Joined the Bolsheviks in 1903, but left the Bolshevik Party after the London Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (see Note 80 in this volume). Died in 1928.</ref> (for the Bolsheviks). Strictly speaking, Martov’s report was not a serious elucidation of facts, but a sentimental story about how the innocent Central Committee set to work to guide the Party and then the group in the Duma, and how the “awful” Bolsheviks hindered it in its work by pestering it with their principles. Martov justified the Central Committee’s slogans of a responsible Cadet ministry, “resumption of the session of the Duma,” etc., etc., which the Party subsequently rejected, on the plea that the situation was indefinite and that it was impossible to advance different slogans in a period of lull. And he justified the Central Committee’s misguided call for a general strike, and later for partial actions immediately after the dispersion of the First Duma, also on the plea that the situation was indefinite and that it was impossible to define precisely the mood of the masses. He spoke very little about the part the Central Committee played in the split in the St. Petersburg organisation<ref>Concerning the split in the St. Petersburg organisation, see J. V. Stalin’s article “The Election Campaign in St. Petersburg and the Mensheviks”</ref>. But he spoke too much about the conference of military and combat organisations that was convened on the initiative of a certain group of Bolsheviks, and which, in Martov’s opinion, caused disruption and anarchy in the Party organisations. At the end of his report Martov called upon the congress to bear in mind the difficulties connected with the work of guiding the Party in view of the exceptionally complicated and confused situation, and asked it not to be severe in its criticism of the Central Committee. Evidently, Martov himself realised that the Central Committee had grave sins to answer for.<br />
<br />
Comrade Ryadovoi’s report was of an entirely different character. He expressed the opinion that it was the duty of the Central Committee of the Party: 1) to defend and carry out the Party programme, 2) to carry out the tactical directives given it by the Party Congress, 3) to safeguard the integrity of the Party, and 4) to co-ordinate the positive activities of the Party. The Central Committee had not carried out any one of these duties. Instead of defending and carrying out the Party programme, the Central Committee, in connection with the wellknown agrarian appeal of the First Duma,<ref>Draft appeal on the land question “In the Name of the State Duma” that was drawn up by the Cadets and published on July 5, 1906, in answer to the government’s announcement of June 20, 1906, concerning peasant land ownership. The Cadets urged the peasants to take no action until the Duma had finally drafted the land law. The Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P., which was controlled by the Mensheviks, instructed the Social-Democratic group in the Duma to support the Cadets’ appeal. The group, however, voted against it.</ref> instructed the Social-Democratic group in the Duma, with a view to ensuring the unity of the opposition and winning over the Cadets, not to try to secure the inclusion in the Duma’s appeal of the well-known point of our agrarian programme on the confiscation of all (landlords’) land, but to confine itself to a simple statement about alienating the land without saying whether compensation should be paid or not.<br />
<br />
Just think of it! The Central Committee issued instructions to throw out the extremely important point in the Party programme on the confiscation of the land! The Central Committee violated the Party programme! The Central Committee as the violator of the programme—can you imagine anything more disgraceful?<br />
<br />
To proceed. Instead of carrying out at least the directives of the Unity Congress, instead of systematically intensifying the struggle between the parties in the Duma with the object of introducing greater political consciousness in the class struggle outside the Duma, instead of pursuing the strictly class, independent policy of the proletariat—the Central Committee issued the slogans of a responsible Cadet ministry, “resumption of the session of the Duma,” “for the Duma against the camarilla,” etc., etc., slogans which obscured the struggle of the Party in the Duma, glossed over the class antagonisms outside the Duma, obliterated all distinction between the militant policy of the proletariat and the compromising policy of the liberal bourgeoisie, and adapted the former to the latter. And when Comrade Plekhanov, a member of the editorial board of the Central Organ and, consequently, of the Central Committee, went even further on the road of compromise with the Cadets and proposed that the Party should enter into a bloc with the liberal bourgeoisie, abandoning the slogan of a Constituent Assembly and issuing the slogan acceptable to the liberal bourgeoisie of a “sovereign Duma,” the Central Committee, far from protesting against Comrade Plekhanov’s sally which disgraced the Party, even agreed with it, although it did not dare to express its agreement officially.<br />
<br />
That is how the Central Committee of the Party violated the elementary requirements of the independent class policy of the proletariat and the decisions of the Unity Congress!<br />
<br />
A Central Committee which obscures the class consciousness of the proletariat; a Central Committee which subordinates the policy of the proletariat to the policy of the liberal bourgeoisie; a Central Committee which hauls down the flag of the proletariat before the charlatans of Cadet liberalism—this is what the Menshevik opportunists have brought us to!<br />
<br />
We shall not dilate on the fact that far from safeguarding the unity and discipline of the Party the Central Committee systematically violated them by taking the initiative in splitting the St. Petersburg organisation.<br />
<br />
Nor do we wish to dilate on the fact that the Central Committee has not co-ordinated the Party’s activities— this is clear enough as it is.<br />
<br />
How is all this, all these mistakes of the Central Committee, to be explained? Not, of course, by the fact that there were “awful” people in the Central Committee, but by the fact that Menshevism, which then predominated in the Central Committee, is incapable of guiding the Party, is utterly bankrupt as a political trend. From this point of view, the entire history of the Central Committee is the history of the failure of Menshevism. And when the Menshevik comrades reproach us and say that we “hindered” the Central Committee, that we “pestered” it, etc., etc., we cannot refrain from answering these moralising Comrades: yes Comrades, we “hindered” the Central Committee in its violation of our programme, we “hindered” it in its adaptation of the tactics of the proletariat to the tastes of the liberal bourgeoisie, and we will continue to hinder it, for this is our sacred duty. . . .<br />
<br />
That is approximately what Comrade Ryadovoi said.<br />
<br />
The discussion showed that the majority of the comrades, even some Bundists, supported Comrade Ryadovoi’s point of view. And if, after all, the Bolshevik resolution, which noted the mistakes of the Central Committee, was not carried, it was because the consideration “not to cause a split” strongly influenced the comrades. Nor, of course, was the Menshevik vote of confidence in the Central Committee carried. What was carried was simply a motion to pass to the order of the day without appraising the activities of the Central Committee. . . .<br />
<br />
The discussion on the report of the group in the Duma was, in general, a repetition of the discussion on the preceding question. That is understandable; the group in the Duma acted under the direct guidance of the Central Committee and, naturally, criticism or defence of the Central Committee was at the same time criticism or defence of the group in the Duma.<br />
<br />
Of interest were the remarks of Comrade Alexinsky, the second reporter (the first reporter being Comrade Tsereteli), to the effect that the slogan of the group in the Duma, the majority of which was Menshevik, the slogan of unity of the opposition in the Duma, of not splitting the opposition and of the need to march with the Cadets—this Menshevik slogan went completely bankrupt in the Duma, as Comrade Alexinsky put it, because on the most important questions, such as the budget, the army, etc., the Cadets sided with Stolypin, and the Menshevik Social-Democrats were obliged to fight hand in hand with the peasant deputies against the government and the Cadets. The Mensheviks were, in fact, obliged to admit the failure of their position and carry out in the Duma the Bolshevik slogan that the peasant deputies must be won for the struggle against the Rights and the<br />
<br />
Cadets.<br />
<br />
No less interesting were the remarks of the Polish comrades to the effect that it was impermissible for the group in the Duma to agree to joint meetings with the Narodovtsy<ref>Narodovtsy (National-Democrats)—the counter-revolutionary nationalist party of the Polish bourgeoisie formed in 1897. During the revolution of 1905-07 it became the principal party of the Polish counter-revolution, the party of the Polish Black Hundreds.</ref>, those Black Hundreds of Poland, who have more than once in the past organised the massacre of Socialists in Poland and are continuing to do so now. To this, two leaders of the Caucasian Mensheviks<ref>This refers to the speeches delivered at the Fifth (London) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. by the Menshevik deputies in the Second State Duma A. L. Japaridze and I. G. Tsereteli <br />
<br />
(see ''Minutes of the Fifth Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.'', 1935, Russ. ed., pp. 250 and 354-355).</ref>, one after another, replied that the important thing for the group in the Duma was not what the various parties did at home, but how they were behaving in the Duma, and that in the Duma the Narodovtsy were behaving more or less like liberals. It follows, therefore, that parties must be judged not by what they ''do'' outside the Duma, but by what they ''say'' in the Duma. Opportunism cannot go further than that. . . .<br />
<br />
Most of the speakers agreed with the point of view expressed by Comrade Alexinsky, but, for all that, no resolution was adopted on this question either; once again from the consideration “not to offend.” The congress set aside the question of the resolution and passed straight on to the next question.<br />
<br />
=== '''THE NON-PROLETARIAN PARTIES''' ===<br />
From formal questions we pass to questions of principle, to the questions of our disagreements.<br />
<br />
Our disagreements on tactics centre around the questions of the probable fate of our revolution, and of the role of the different classes and parties in Russian society in this revolution. That our revolution is a bourgeois revolution, that it must end in the rout of the feudal and not of the capitalist system, and that it can culminate only in a democratic republic—on this, everybody seems to be agreed in our Party. Further, that, on the whole, the tide of our revolution is rising and not subsiding, and that our task is not to “liquidate” the revolution but to carry it through to the end—on this too, formally at least, everybody is agreed, for the Mensheviks, as a group, have so far not said anything to the contrary. But how is our revolution to be carried through to the end? What is the role of the proletariat, of the peasantry and of the liberal bourgeoisie in this revolution? With what combination of fighting forces would it be possible to carry through this revolution to the end? Whom shall we march with, whom shall we fight? etc., etc. This is where our disagreements begin.<br />
<br />
''The opinion of the Mensheviks.'' Since ours is a bourgeois revolution, only the bourgeoisie can be the leader of the revolution. The bourgeoisie was the leader of the great revolution in France, it was the leader of revolutions in other European countries—it must be the leader of our Russian revolution too. The proletariat is the principal fighter in the revolution, but it must march behind the bourgeoisie and push it forward. The peasantry is also a revolutionary force, but it contains too much that is reactionary and, for that reason, the proletariat will have much less occasion to act jointly with it than with the liberal-democratic bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie is a more reliable ally of the proletariat than the peasantry. It is around the liberal-democratic bourgeoisie, as the leader, that all the fighting forces must rally. Hence, our attitude towards the bourgeois parties must be determined not by the revolutionary thesis: together with the peasantry against the government and the liberal bourgeoisie, with the proletariat at the head— but by the opportunist thesis: together with the entire opposition against the government, with the liberal bourgeoisie at the head. Hence the tactics of compromising with the liberals.<br />
<br />
Such is the opinion of the Mensheviks.<br />
<br />
''The opinion of the Bolsheviks''. Ours is, indeed, a bourgeois revolution, but this does not mean that our liberal bourgeoisie will be its leader. In the eighteenth century the French bourgeoisie was the leader of the French revolution, but why? Because the French proletariat was weak, it did not come out independently, it did not put forward its own class demands, it had neither class consciousness nor organisation, it then dragged at the tail of the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie used it as a tool for its bourgeois aims. As you see, the bourgeoisie was then not in need of an ally in the shape of the tsarist regime against the proletariat—the proletariat itself was the ally and servant of the bourgeoisie—and that is why the latter could then be revolutionary, even march at the head of the revolution. Something entirely different is observed here in Russia. The Russian proletariat can by no means be called weak: for several years already it has been acting quite independently, putting forward its own class demands; it is sufficiently armed with class consciousness to understand its own interests; it is united in its own party; its party is the strongest party in Russia, with its own programme and principles of tactics and organisation; led by this party, it has already won a number of brilliant victories over the bourgeoisie. . . . Under these circumstances, can our proletariat be satisfied with the role of tail of the liberal bourgeoisie, the role of a miserable tool in the hands of this bourgeoisie? Can it, must it march behind this bourgeoisie and make it its leader? Can it be anything else than the leader of the revolution? And see what is going on in the camp of our liberal bourgeoisie: our bourgeoisie is terrified by the revolutionary spirit of the proletariat; instead of marching at the head of the revolution it rushes into the embrace of the counter-revolution and enters into an alliance with it against the proletariat. Its party, the Cadet Party, openly, before the eyes of the whole world, enters into an agreement with Stolypin, votes for the budget and the army for the benefit of tsarism and against the people’s revolution. Is it not clear that the Russian liberal bourgeoisie is an anti-revolutionary force against which the most relentless war must be waged? And was not Comrade Kautsky right when he said that where the proletariat comes out independently the bourgeoisie ceases to be revolutionary? . . .<br />
<br />
Thus, the Russian liberal bourgeoisie is anti-revolutionary; it cannot be the driving force of the revolution, and still less can it be its leader; it is the sworn enemy of the revolution and a persistent struggle must be waged against it.<br />
<br />
The only leader of our revolution, interested in and capable of leading the revolutionary forces in Russia in the assault upon the tsarist autocracy, is the proletariat. The proletariat alone will rally around itself the revolutionary elements of the country, it alone will carry through our revolution to the end. The task of Social-Democracy is to do everything possible to prepare the proletariat for the role of leader of the revolution.<br />
<br />
This is the pivot of the Bolshevik point of view.<br />
<br />
To the question: who, then, can be the reliable ally of the proletariat in the task of carrying through our revolution to the end, the Bolsheviks answer—the only ally of the proletariat, to any extent reliable and powerful, is the revolutionary peasantry. Not the treacherous liberal bourgeoisie, but the revolutionary peasantry will fight side by side with the proletariat against all the props of the feudal system.<br />
<br />
Accordingly, our attitude towards the bourgeois parties must be determined by the proposition: together with the revolutionary peasantry against tsarism and the liberal bourgeoisie, with the proletariat at the head. Hence the necessity of combating the hegemony (leadership) of the Cadet bourgeoisie and, consequently, the impermissibility of compromising with the Cadets.<br />
<br />
Such is the opinion of the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
It was within the framework of these two positions that the speeches of the reporters—Lenin and Martynov— and of all the other speakers revolved.<br />
<br />
Comrade Martynov touched the final depths of “profundity” of the Menshevik point of view by categorically denying that the proletariat should assume hegemony, and also by categorically defending the idea of a bloc with the Cadets.<br />
<br />
The other speakers, the vast majority of them, expressed themselves in the spirit of the Bolshevik position.<br />
<br />
Of exceptional interest were the speeches of Comrade Rosa Luxemburg, who conveyed greetings to the congress on behalf of the German Social-Democrats and expounded the views of our German comrades on our disagreements. (Here we link together the two speeches R. L. delivered at different times.) Expressing her complete agreement with the Bolsheviks on the questions of the role of the proletariat as the leader of the revolution, the role of the liberal bourgeoisie as an anti-revolutionary force, etc., etc., Rosa Luxemburg criticised the Menshevik leaders Plekhanov and Axelrod, called them opportunists, and put their position on a par with that of the Jaurèsists in France. I know, said Luxemburg, that the Bolsheviks, too, have certain faults and fads, that they are somewhat too rigid, but I fully understand and excuse them: one cannot help being rigid in face of the diffuse and jellylike mass of Menshevik opportunism. The same excessive rigidity was observed among the Guesdists<ref>Guesdists—the supporters of Jules Guesde, the Left-wing Marxist trend in the ranks of the French Socialists. In 1901 the Guesdists founded the Socialist Party of France. They fought the opportunists in the French labour movement and opposed the policy of concluding agreements with the bourgeoisie and of Socialists entering bourgeois governments. On the outbreak of the world imperialist war Guesde took a nationaldefence stand and entered the bourgeois government. A section of the Guesdists who remained true to revolutionary Marxism subsequently joined the Communist Party of France.</ref> in France, whose leader, Comrade Guesde, stated in a well-known election poster: “Don’t let a single bourgeois dare to vote for me, for in Parliament I will defend only the interests of the proletarians against all the bourgeois.” In spite of this, in spite of this sharpness, we German Social-Democrats always took the side of the Guesdists in their struggle against the traitors to Marxism, against the Jaurèsists. The same must be said about the Bolsheviks, whom we German Social-Democrats will support in their struggle against the Menshevik opportunists. . . .<br />
<br />
That approximately is what Comrade R. Luxemburg said.<br />
<br />
Still more interesting was the famous letter the Central Committee of the German Social-Democratic Party sent to the congress, and which Rosa Luxemburg read. It is interesting because, by advising the Party ''to fight'' liberalism, and recognising the special role played by the Russian proletariat as the leader of the Russian revolution, by the same token it recognised all the main propositions of Bolshevism.<br />
<br />
Thus, it became clear that the German Social-Democratic Party, the most tried and tested and the most Revolutionary party in Europe, openly and clearly supported the Bolsheviks, as true Marxists, in their struggle ''against'' the traitors to Marxism, ''against'' the Mensheviks.<br />
<br />
Of interest also are several passages in the speech delivered by Comrade Tyszka, the representative of the Polish delegation in the Presidium. Both groups assure us, said Comrade Tyszka, that they stand firmly by the point of view of Marxism. It is not easy for everybody to understand who it is that really stands by this point of view, the Bolsheviks or the Mensheviks. . . . “We stand by the point of view of Marxism”—came an interruption from several Mensheviks on the “Left.” “No, comrades,” retorted Tyszka, “you do not stand by it, you ''lie down'' on it, for all the helplessness you display in leading the class struggle of the proletariat, the fact that you can learn by rote the great words of the great Marx but are unable to apply them—all this shows that you do not stand by but lie down on the point of view of Marxism.” Aptly put!<br />
<br />
Indeed, just take the following fact. The Mensheviks often say that it is the task of Social-Democracy always and everywhere to convert the proletariat into an independent political force. Is this true? Absolutely true! These are the great words of Marx, which every Marxist should always remember. But how do the Menshevik comrades apply them? Are they helping actually to separate the proletariat from the mass of bourgeois elements which surround it and to form it into an independent, self-reliant class? Are they rallying the revolutionary elements around the proletariat and preparing the proletariat for the role of leader of the revolution? The facts show that the Mensheviks are doing nothing of the kind. On the contrary, the Mensheviks advise the proletariat to enter more often into agreements with the liberal bourgeoisie—and thereby they are helping not to separate the proletariat as an independent class, but to fuse it with the bourgeoisie. The Mensheviks advise the proletariat to renounce the role of leader of the revolution, to cede that role to the bourgeoisie, to follow the bourgeoisie—thereby they are helping to convert the proletariat not into an independent political force, but into an appendage of the bourgeoisie. . . . That is to say, the Mensheviks are doing the very opposite of what they should be doing from the standpoint of the correct Marxist proposition.<br />
<br />
Yes, Comrade Tyszka was right when he said that the Mensheviks do not stand by but lie down on the point of view of Marxism. . . .<br />
<br />
At the end of the discussion two draft resolutions were submitted: a Menshevik and a Bolshevik resolution. Of these two, the draft submitted by the Bolsheviks was adopted as a basis by an overwhelming majority of votes.<br />
<br />
Then came amendments to the draft. About eighty amendments were moved, mainly to two points in the draft: on the point concerning the proletariat as the leader of the revolution, and the point on the Cadets as an antirevolutionary force. That was the most interesting part of the discussion, for here the complexions of the different groups were revealed in special relief. The first important amendment was moved by Comrade Martov. He demanded that the words “proletariat as the ''vanguard''” be substituted for the words “proletariat as the ''leader'' of the revolution.” In support of his amendment he said that the word “vanguard” expressed the idea more precisely. He was answered by Comrade Alexinsky who said that it was not a matter of precision, but of the two opposite points of view that were reflected in this, for “vanguard” and “leader” are two totally different concepts. To be the vanguard (the advanced detachment) means fighting in the front ranks, occupying the points most heavily under fire, shedding one’s blood, but at the same time ''being led by others'', in this case by the bourgeois democrats; the vanguard never leads the general struggle, the vanguard is always led. On the other hand, to be a leader means not only fighting in the front ranks ''but also leading the general struggle, directing'' it towards its goal. We Bolsheviks do not want the proletariat to be led by the bourgeois democrats, we want the proletariat itself to lead the whole struggle of the people and direct it towards the democratic republic.<br />
<br />
As a result, Martov’s amendment was defeated.<br />
<br />
All the other amendments of a similar nature were also defeated.<br />
<br />
Another group of amendments was directed against the point about the Cadets. The Mensheviks proposed that it be recognised that the Cadets have not yet taken the path of counter-revolution. But the congress refused to accept this proposal and all amendments of that kind were rejected. The Mensheviks further proposed that in certain cases at least technical agreements with the Cadets be permitted. The congress also refused to accept this proposal and defeated all amendments of that kind.<br />
<br />
At last the resolution as a whole was voted on and it turned out that 159 votes were cast for the Bolshevik resolution, 104 against, the rest abstaining.<br />
<br />
The congress adopted the resolution of the Bolsheviks by a large majority.<br />
<br />
From that moment, the point of view of the Bolsheviks became the point of view of the Party.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, this vote produced two important results.<br />
<br />
First, it put an end to the formal and artificial division of the congress into five groups (Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Poles, Letts and Bundists) and introduced a new division based on principles: Bolsheviks (including here all the Poles and a majority of the Letts) and Mensheviks (including nearly all the Bundists).<br />
<br />
Second, the vote provided the most precise figures showing how the worker delegates were distributed among the groups: it turned out that in the Bolshevik group there were not 38 but 77 workers (38 plus 27 Poles plus 12 Letts), and that in the Menshevik group there were not 30 workers but 39 (30 plus 9 Bundists). The Menshevik group turned out to be a group of intellectuals.<br />
<br />
=== '''THE LABOUR CONGRESS''' ===<br />
Before describing the discussion on the labour congress it is necessary to know the history of this question.* The fact of the matter is that this question is extremely confused and unclear. Whereas on the other points of our disagreements we already have two sharply defined trends in the Party, Bolshevik and Menshevik, on the question of the labour congress we have not two but a whole heap of<br />
<br />
<nowiki>*</nowiki> This is all the more necessary because the Menshevik comrades who have migrated to the editorial offices of bourgeois newspapers are spreading fables about the past and present of this question (see the article “A Labour Congress,” from the pen of a prominent Menshevik, published in ''Tovarishch'' and reprinted in ''Bakinsky Dyen''<ref>This refers to an article by Yuri Pereyaslavsky (G. Khrustalyov). ''Bakinsky Dyen'' (''The Baku Day'')—a daily liberal newspaper published from June 1907 to January 1908</ref>).<br />
<br />
trends, extremely unclear and contradictory. True, the Bolsheviks take a united and definite stand: they are opposed to a labour congress altogether. But among the Mensheviks utter chaos and confusion reign; they have split up into numerous groups, each one singing its own song and paying no heed to the others. Whereas the St. Petersburg Mensheviks, headed by Axelrod, propose that a labour congress be convened for the purpose of ''forming a party'', the Moscow Mensheviks, headed by El, propose that it should be convened not for the purpose of forming a party, but ''with the object of forming a non-party'' “''All-Russian Workers''’ ''League.''” The Mensheviks from the South go still further and, headed by Larin<ref>Y. Larin, also L. A. Rin, the pseudonyms of M. A. Lourier— a Menshevik Liquidator who in 1907 advocated the convocation of a “broad labour congress.” In 1917 Y. Larin joined the Bolshevik Party. El (I. I. Luzin)—a Menshevik Liquidator.</ref>, call for the convocation of a labour congress with the object of forming not a party, and not a “Workers’ League,” ''but a wider'' “''Toilers''’ ''League''” which, in addition to all the proletarian elements, could embrace also the Socialist-Revolutionary, semi-bourgeois “toiler” elements. I shall not dwell on other, less influential, groups and persons, like the Odessa and trans-Caspian groups, or like those half-witted “authors” of a comical pamphlet who call themselves “Brodyaga” and “Shura<ref>This refers to the pamphlet ''The All-Russian Labour Congress and the'' “''Bolsheviks''” published in Georgian in Tiflis in 1907. “Brodyaga” (“Tramp”)—the nom de plume of the Menshevik Georgi Eradze. “Shura,” the pseudonym of the Menshevik Pyshkina, wife of Eradze</ref>.”<br />
<br />
Such is the confusion that reigns in the ranks of the Mensheviks.<br />
<br />
But how is the labour congress to be convened? How is it to be organised? In connection with what is it to be convened? Who is to be invited to it? Who is to take the initiative in convening it?<br />
<br />
The same confusion reigns among the Mensheviks on all these questions as on the question of the object of the congress.<br />
<br />
While some of them propose that the election of delegates to the congress should be made to coincide with the Duma elections and that the labour congress be thus organised by “unauthorised means,” others propose to trust to the government’s “connivance” or, in the last resort, to apply for its “permission,” while still others advise that the delegates be sent abroad—even if they number three or four thousand—and that the labour congress be held underground there.<br />
<br />
While some Mensheviks propose that only definitely formed workers’ organisations be allowed to send representatives to the congress, others advise inviting representatives of the entire organised and unorganised proletariat, which numbers not less than ten millions.<br />
<br />
While some Mensheviks propose that the labour congress be convened on the initiative of the Social-Democratic Party with the participation of intellectuals, others advise that the Party and the intellectuals be thrust aside, and that the congress be convened only on the initiative of the workers themselves, without the participation of any intellectuals.<br />
<br />
While some Mensheviks insist on a labour congress being convened immediately, others propose that it be postponed indefinitely, and that, meanwhile, only agitation in favour of the idea of a labour congress be conducted.<br />
<br />
But what is to be done with the existing Social-Democratic Labour Party which has been leading the proletarian struggle for several years already, which has united 150,000 members in its ranks, which has already held five congresses, etc., etc.! “Send it to the devil?” Or what?<br />
<br />
In answer to this, all the Mensheviks, from Axelrod to Larin, declare unanimously that ''we have no proletarian party.'' “The whole point is that we have no party,” said the Mensheviks at the congress. “''All we have is an organisation of petty-bourgeois intellectuals,''” which must be replaced by a party with the aid of a labour congress. That is what Comrade Axelrod, the Menshevik reporter, said at the Party congress.<br />
<br />
But wait! What does that mean? Does it mean that all the congresses our Party has held, from the first (1898) to the latest (1907), in the organisation of which the Menshevik comrades took a most energetic part, that all the colossal expenditure of proletarian money and effort involved in the organisation of these congresses—and for which the Mensheviks are as much responsible as the Bolsheviks—does it mean that all this was mere deception and hypocrisy?!<br />
<br />
Does it mean that all the fighting appeals the Party has issued to the proletariat, appeals which the Mensheviks also signed, that all the strikes and insurrections of 1905, 1906 and 1907, which flared up with the Party at their head, and often on the Party’s initiative, that all the victories achieved by the proletariat headed by our Party, that the thousands of proletarian victims who fell in the streets of St. Petersburg, Moscow, and elsewhere, who were immured in Siberia and who perished in prison ''for the sake of'' the Party, and ''under the banner'' of the Party— that all that was just a farce and a deception?<br />
<br />
So we have no party? We have only “an organisation of petty-bourgeois intellectuals”?<br />
<br />
Of course, that was a downright lie; an outrageous, brazen lie.<br />
<br />
That, evidently, explains the boundless indignation which the above-mentioned statement by Axelrod roused among the worker delegates from St. Petersburg and Moscow. They jumped to their feet and energetically answered the reporter Axelrod: “You, who spend your time abroad, are bourgeois, not we. We are workers, and we have our Social-Democratic Party, and we will not allow anyone to defame it.” . . .<br />
<br />
But let us suppose that a labour congress is held; let us imagine that it has already been held. The existing Social-Democratic Party therefore has been put into the archives, a labour congress has been convened in some way or another, and we want to organise at it a league of “workers” or “toilers,” whatever it may be. Well, what next? What programme will this congress adopt? What will be the complexion of the labour congress?<br />
<br />
Some Mensheviks answer that the labour congress could adopt the programme of Social-Democracy, with certain deletions, of course; but they at once add that it might not adopt the programme of Social-Democracy and that this, in their opinion, would not be particularly harmful to the proletariat. Others answer more emphatically as follows: Since our proletariat is strongly imbued with petty-bourgeois tendencies, in all probability the labour congress will adopt not a Social-Democratic but a ''petty-bourgeois democratic programme.'' At the labour congress the proletariat will lose the Social-Democratic programme, but instead it will acquire a workers’ organisation that will unite all the workers in one league. That is what, for example, N. Cherevanin, the head of the Moscow Mensheviks, says (see “Problems of Tactics”<ref>Cherevanin’s article on the Labour Congress was published in the Menshevik symposium ''The Political Situation and Tactical Problems'', Moscow 1906</ref>).<br />
<br />
And so: “A workers’ league without a Social-Democratic programme”—such is the probable result of a labour congress.<br />
<br />
That, at all events, is what the Mensheviks themselves think.<br />
<br />
Evidently, while they disagree with one another on certain questions concerning the objects of the labour congress and the methods of convening it, the Mensheviks are agreed among themselves on the point that “we have no party, all we have is an organisation of petty-bourgeois intellectuals, ''which ought to be put into the archives.''” . . .<br />
<br />
It was within this framework that Axelrod’s report revolved.<br />
<br />
It became evident from Axelrod’s report that agitation for a labour congress would practically and inevitably amount to agitation ''against'' the party, a war against it.<br />
<br />
And the practical work of convening the labour congress would also inevitably amount to practical work in disorganising and undermining our present party.<br />
<br />
And yet the Mensheviks—through the mouth of their reporter, and also in their draft resolution—requested the congress ''to prohibit agitation'' against attempts to organise a labour congress, i.e., against attempts leading to disorganisation of the Party.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note that, running through the speeches of the Menshevik speakers (with the exception of Plekhanov, who said nothing about the labour congress), were the slogans: “Down with the Party, down with Social-Democracy—long live the non-party principle, long live the non-Social-Democratic ‘Workers’ League.’” These slogans were not openly advanced by the speakers, but they ran as an undertone through their speeches.<br />
<br />
It is not without reason that all the bourgeois writers, from the Syndicalists and Socialist-Revolutionaries to the Cadets and Octobrists—all so ardently express themselves in favour of a labour congress; after all, they are all enemies of our Party, and the practical work of convening a labour congress might considerably weaken and disorganise the Party. Why should they not welcome “the idea of a labour congress”?<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik speakers said something entirely different.<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik reporter, Comrade Lindov<ref>Lindov—the pseudonym of G. D. Leiteisen</ref>, after briefly characterising the main trends among the Mensheviks, proceeded to trace the conditions which gave rise to the idea of a labour congress. Agitation for a labour congress began in 1905, before the October days, during the repressions. It ceased during the October-November days. During the subsequent months of fresh repression, agitation for a labour congress revived. During the period of the First Duma, in the days of relative freedom, the agitation subsided. Then, after the dispersion of the Duma, it grew again, etc. The conclusion to be drawn is clear: in the period of relative freedom, when the Party is able to expand freely, there is naturally no ground for agitation for a labour congress with the object of forming “a broad non-party party.” On the other hand, during periods of repression, when the influx of new members into the Party gives way to an exodus, agitation for a labour congress, as an artificial measure for widening the narrow party, or replacing it by “a broad non-party party,” finds some ground. But it goes without saying that no artificial measures will be of any avail, for what is needed for the actual expansion of the Party is political freedom and not a labour congress, which itself needs such freedom.<br />
<br />
To proceed. The idea of a labour congress, taken concretely, is fundamentally false, for it rests not on facts, but on the false proposition that “we have no party.” The point is that we have a proletarian party which loudly proclaims its existence, and whose existence is felt only too well by the enemies of the proletariat—the Mensheviks are fully aware of this—and precisely because we already have such a party, the idea of a labour congress is fundamentally false. Of course, if we did not have a party numbering over 150,000 advanced proletarians in its ranks, and leading hundreds of thousands of fighters, if we were only a tiny handful of uninfluential people as the German Social-Democrats were in the six-ties or the French Socialists in the seventies of the last century, we ourselves would try to convene a labour congress with the object of squeezing a Social-Democratic Party out of it. But the whole point is that we already have a party, a real proletarian party, which exercises enormous influence among the masses, and to convene a labour congress, to form a fantastic “non-party party,” we would, inevitably, first of all have to “put an end” to the existing party, we would first of all have to wreck it.<br />
<br />
That is why, in practice, the work of convening a labour congress must inevitably amount to a work of disorganising the Party. And whether success could ever be achieved in forming “a broad non-party party” in place of it, and indeed, whether such a party ought to be formed, is questionable.<br />
<br />
That is why the enemies of our Party, the Cadets and Octobrists, and the like, so heartily praise the Mensheviks for their agitation in favour of a labour congress.<br />
<br />
That is why the Bolsheviks think that the work of convening a labour congress would be dangerous, would be harmful, for it would discredit the Party in the eyes of the masses and subject them to the influence of bourgeois democracy.<br />
<br />
That is approximately what Comrade Lindov said.<br />
<br />
For a labour congress and against the Social-Democratic Party? Or, for the Party and against a labour congress? This is how the question stood at the congress.<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik worker delegates understood the question at once and vigorously came out “in defence of the Party”: “We are Party patriots,” they said. “We love our Party, and we shall not allow tired intellectuals to discredit it.”<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note that Comrade Rosa Luxemburg, the representative of German Social-Democracy, entirely agreed with the Bolsheviks. “We German Social-Democrats,” she said, “cannot understand the comical dismay of the Menshevik comrades who are groping for the masses when the masses themselves are looking for the Party and are irresistibly pressing towards it.” . . .<br />
<br />
The discussion showed that the vast majority of the speakers supported the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
At the end of the discussion two draft resolutions were submitted to a vote: a Bolshevik draft and a Menshevik draft. Of these two, the Bolshevik draft was accepted as a basis. Nearly all amendments on points of principle were rejected. Only one more or less important amendment was accepted, viz., against restricting freedom to discuss the question of a labour congress. The resolution as a whole stated that “the idea of convening a labour congress leads to the disorganisation of the Party,” “to the subjection of the broad masses of the workers to the influence of bourgeois democracy,” and, as such, is harmful to the proletariat. Moreover, the resolution drew a strict distinction between a labour congress and Soviets of Workers’ Deputies and their congresses which, far from disorganising the Party and competing with it, strengthen the Party by following its lead and helping it to solve practical problems in periods of revolutionary upsurge.<br />
<br />
Finally the resolution as a whole was adopted by a majority of 165 votes against 94. The rest of the delegates abstained from voting.<br />
<br />
Thus, the congress rejected the idea of a labour congress as harmful and anti-Party.<br />
<br />
The voting on this question revealed to us the following important fact. Of the 114 worker delegates who took part in the voting, only 25 voted for a labour congress. The rest voted against it. Expressed in percentages, 22 per cent of the worker delegates voted for a labour congress, while 78 per cent voted against it. What is particularly important is that of the 94 delegates who voted for a labour congress, only 26 per cent were workers and 74 per cent were intellectuals.<br />
<br />
And yet the Mensheviks shouted all the time that the idea of a labour congress was a workers’ idea, that it was only the Bolshevik “intellectuals” who were opposing the convocation of a congress, etc. Judging by this vote, one should rather admit that, on the contrary, the idea of a labour congress is the idea of intellectual dreamers. . . .<br />
<br />
Apparently, even the Menshevik workers did not vote for the labour congress: of the 39 worker delegates (30 Mensheviks plus 9 Bundists) only 24 voted for a labour congress. <br />
<br />
Baku, 1907<br />
<br />
First published in the ''Bakinsky Proletary'', Nos. 1 and 2 <br />
<br />
1907-06-20 - 07-10<br />
<br />
Signed: '' Koba Ivanovich''<br />
[[Category:Library works by Joseph Stalin]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:The_London_Congress_of_the_Russian_Social-Democratic_Labour_Party&diff=63734Library:The London Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party2024-03-06T00:33:00Z<p>RedCustodian: /* THE NON-PROLETARIAN PARTIES */</p>
<hr />
<div>http://www.marx2mao.com/PDFs/StWorks2.pdf<br />
<br />
== (Notes of a Delegate) ==<br />
The London Congress is over. In spite of the expectations of liberal hacks, such as the Vergezhskys<sup>33</sup> and Kuskovas,<sup>34</sup> the congress did not result in a split, but in the further consolidation of the Party, in the further unification of the advanced workers of all Russia in one indivisible party. It was a real all-Russian unity congress, for at this congress our Polish comrades, our comrades of the Bund, and our Lettish comrades were for the first time most widely and fully represented, for the first time they took an active part in the work of the Party congress and, consequently, for the first time most directly linked the fate of their respective organisations with the fate of the entire Party. In this respect the London Congress greatly contributed to the consolidation and strengthening of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party.<br />
<br />
Such is the first and an important result of the London Congress.<br />
<br />
But the importance of the London Congress is not confined to this. The point is that, in spite of the wishes of the liberal hacks we have referred to, the congress ended in the victory of “Bolshevism,” in the victory of revolutionary Social-Democracy over the opportunist wing of our Party, over “Menshevism.” Everybody, of course, is aware of the disagreements among us on the role of the different classes and parties in our revolution and of our attitude towards them. Everybody knows, too, that in a number of pronouncements the official centre of the Party, which is Menshevik in composition, took a stand in opposition to the Party as a whole. Recall, for example, the case of the Central Committee’s slogan of a responsible Cadet ministry, which the Party rejected in the period of the First Duma; the case of the same Central Committee’s slogan of “resumption of the session of the Duma” after the First Duma was dispersed, which was also rejected by the Party; and the case of the Central Committee’s well-known call for a general strike in connection with the dispersion of the First Duma, which was also rejected by the Party. . . . It was necessary to put an end to that abnormal situation. And to do this it was necessary to sum up the actual victories the Party had achieved over the opportunist Central Committee, the victories which fill the history of our Party’s internal development during the whole of the past year. And so the London Congress summed up all these victories of ''revolutionary'' Social-Democracy and sealed the victory by adopting the tactics of that section of Social-Democracy.<br />
<br />
Consequently, the Party will henceforth pursue the strictly class policy of the socialist proletariat. The red flag of the proletariat will no longer be hauled down before the spell-binders of liberalism. A mortal blow has been struck at the vacillation characteristic of intellectuals, which is unbecoming to the proletariat.<br />
<br />
<br />
Such is the second and no less important result of the London Congress of our Party.<br />
<br />
The actual unification of the advanced workers of all Russia into a single all-Russian party under the banner of ''revolutionary'' Social-Democracy—that is the significance of the London Congress, that is its general character.<br />
<br />
We shall now pass to a more detailed characterisation of the congress.<br />
<br />
=== '''THE COMPOSITION OF THE CONGRESS''' ===<br />
In all about 330 delegates were present at the congress. Of these, 302 had the right to vote; they represented over 150,000 Party members. The rest were consultative delegates. The distribution of the delegates according to groups was approximately as follows (counting only those with right to vote): Bolsheviks 92, Mensheviks 85, Bundists 54, Poles 45 and Letts 26.<br />
<br />
As regards the social status of the delegates (workers or non-workers) the congress presented the following picture: manual workers 116 in all, office and distributive workers 24, the rest were non-workers. The manual workers were distributed among the different groups as follows: Bolshevik group 38 (36 per cent), Menshevik group 30 (31 per cent), Poles 27 (61 per cent), Letts 12 (40 per cent) and Bundists 9 (15 per cent). Professional revolutionaries were distributed among the groups as follows: Bolshevik group 18 (17 per cent), Menshevik group 22 (22 per cent), Poles 5 (11 per cent), Letts 2 (6 per cent), Bundists 9 (15 per cent).<br />
<br />
We were all “amazed” by these statistics. How is this? The Mensheviks had shouted so much about our Party consisting of intellectuals; day and night they had been denouncing the Bolsheviks as intellectuals; they had threatened to drive all the intellectuals out of the Party and had all the time been reviling the professional revolutionaries—and suddenly it turned out that they had far fewer workers in their group than the Bolshevik “intellectuals” had! It turned out that they had far more professional revolutionaries than the Bolsheviks! But we explained the Menshevik shouts by the proverb: “The tongue ever turns to the aching tooth.”<br />
<br />
Still more interesting are the figures of the composition of the congress showing the “territorial distribution” of the delegates. It turned out that the large groups of Menshevik delegates came mainly from the peasant and handicraft districts: Guria (9 delegates), Tiflis (10 delegates), Little-Russian peasant organisation “Spilka” (I think 12 delegates), the Bund (the overwhelming majority were Mensheviks) and, by way of exception, the Donets Basin (7 delegates). On the other hand, the large groups of Bolshevik delegates came exclusively from the large-scale industry districts: St. Petersburg (12 delegates), Moscow (13 or 14 delegates), the Urals (21 delegates), Ivanovo-Voznesensk (11 delegates), Poland (45 delegates).<br />
<br />
Obviously, the tactics of the Bolsheviks are the tactics of the proletarians in big industry, the tactics of those areas where class contradictions are especially clear and the class struggle especially acute. Bolshevism is the tactics of the real proletarians.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, it is no less obvious that the tactics of the Mensheviks are primarily the tactics of the handicraft workers and the peasant semi-proletarians, the tactics of those areas where class contradictions are not quite clear and the class struggle is masked. Menshevism is the tactics of the semi-bourgeois elements among the proletariat.<br />
<br />
So say the figures.<br />
<br />
And this is not difficult to understand: it is impossible to talk seriously among the workers of Lodz, Moscow or Ivanovo-Voznesensk about blocs with the very same liberal bourgeoisie whose members are waging a fierce struggle against them and who, every now and again, “punish” them with partial dismissals and mass lockouts. There Menshevism will find no sympathy; there Bolshevism, the tactics of uncompromising proletarian class struggle, is needed. On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to inculcate the idea of the class struggle among the peasants of Guria or say, the handicraftsmen of Shklov, who do not feel the sharp and systematic blows of the class struggle and, therefore, readily agree to all sorts of agreements against the “common enemy.” There Bolshevism is not yet needed; there Menshevism is needed, for there an atmosphere of agreements and compromises pervades everything.<br />
<br />
No less interesting is the national composition of the congress. The figures showed that the majority of the Menshevik group were Jews (not counting the Bundists, of course), then came Georgians and then Russians. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of the Bolshevik group were Russians, then came Jews (not counting Poles and Letts, of course), then Georgians, etc. In this connection one of the Bolsheviks (I think it was Comrade Alexinsky<sup>35</sup>) observed in jest that the Mensheviks constituted a Jewish group while the Bolsheviks constituted a true-Russian group and, therefore, it wouldn’t be a bad idea for us Bolsheviks to organise a pogrom in the Party.<br />
<br />
It is not difficult to explain this composition of the different groups: the main centres of Bolshevism are the areas of large-scale industry, purely Russian districts with the exception of Poland, whereas the Menshevik districts are districts with small production and, at the same time, Jewish, Georgian, etc., districts.<br />
<br />
As regards the different trends revealed at the congress, it must be noted that the formal division of the congress into five groups (Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Poles, etc.) retained a certain validity, inconsiderable it is true, only up to the discussion on questions of principle (the question of the non-proletarian parties, the labour congress, etc.). When these questions of principle came up for discussion the formal grouping was in fact cast aside, and when a vote was taken the congress, as a rule, divided into two parts: Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. There was no so-called centre, or marsh, at the congress. Trotsky proved to be “pretty but useless.” All the Poles definitely sided with the Bolsheviks. The overwhelming majority of the Letts also definitely supported the Bolsheviks. The Bund, the overwhelming majority of whose delegates in fact always supported the Mensheviks, formally pursued an extremely ambiguous policy, which, on the one hand, raised a smile, and on the other, caused irritation. Comrade Rosa Luxemburg aptly characterised the policy of the Bund when she said that the Bund’s policy was not the policy of a mature political organisation that influenced the masses, but the policy of shopkeepers who are eternally looking forward to, and hopefully expecting, a drop in the price of sugar tomorrow. Of the Bundists, only 8 to 10 delegates supported the Bolsheviks, and then not always.<br />
<br />
In general, predominance, and rather considerable predominance, was on the side of the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
Thus, the congress was a Bolshevik congress, although not sharply Bolshevik. Of the Menshevik resolutions only the one on guerilla actions was carried, and that by sheer accident: on that point the Bolsheviks did not accept battle, or rather, they did not wish to fight the issue to a conclusion, purely out of the desire to “give the Menshevik comrades at least one opportunity to rejoice.” . . .<br />
<br />
=== '''THE AGENDA. REPORT OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE. REPORT OF THE GROUP IN THE DUMA''' ===<br />
As regards political trends at the congress, its proceedings can be divided up into two parts.<br />
<br />
First part: debates on formal questions, such as the agenda of the congress, the reports of the Central Committee and report of the group in the Duma, i.e., questions of profound political significance, but linked, or being linked, with the “honour” of this or that group, with the idea “not to offend” this or that group, “not to cause a split”—and for that reason called formal questions. This part of the congress was the most stormy, and absorbed the largest amount of time.<br />
<br />
This was due to the fact that considerations of principle were forced into the background by “moral” considerations (“not to offend”) and, consequently, no strictly defined groups were formed; it was impossible to tell at once “who would win,” and in the hope of winning over the “neutral and polite,” the groups plunged into a furious struggle for predominance.<br />
<br />
Second part: discussion on questions of principle, such as the question of the non-proletarian parties, the labour congress, etc. Here “moral” considerations were absent, definite groups were formed in conformity with strictly defined trends of principle; the relation of forces between the groups was revealed at once, and for that reason this part of the congress was the calmest and most fruitful— clear proof that keeping to principle in discussion gives the best guarantee that the proceedings of a congress will be calm and fruitful.<br />
<br />
We shall now pass to a brief characterisation of the first part of the congress proceedings.<br />
<br />
After a speech by Comrade Plekhanov, who opened the congress and in his speech urged the necessity of agreements “as occasion arises” with “the progressive elements” of bourgeois society, the congress elected a presidium of five (one from each group), elected a credentials committee and then proceeded to draw up the agenda. It is characteristic that at this congress, just as they did at last year’s Unity Congress, the Mensheviks furiously opposed the Bolsheviks’ proposal to include in the agenda the questions of the present situation and of the class tasks of the proletariat in our revolution. Is the revolutionary tide rising or subsiding and, accordingly, should we “liquidate” the revolution or carry it through to the end? What are the proletariat’s class tasks in our revolution which sharply distinguish it from the other classes in Russian society? Such are the questions which the Menshevik comrades are afraid of. They flee from them like shadows from the sun; they do not wish to bring to light the roots of our disagreements. Why? Because the Menshevik group itself is split by profound disagreements on these questions, because Menshevism is not an integral trend; Menshevism is a medley of trends, which are imperceptible during the factional struggle against Bolshevism but which spring to the surface as soon as current questions and our tactics are discussed from the point of view of principle. The Mensheviks do not wish to expose this inherent weakness of their group. The Bolsheviks were aware of this, and in order to keep the discussions closer to principles, insisted on the inclusion of the above-mentioned questions in the agenda. Realising that keeping to principles would kill them, the Mensheviks became stubborn; they hinted to the “polite comrades” that they would be “offended,” and so the congress did not include the question of the present situation, etc., in the agenda. In the end, the following agenda was adopted: report of the Central Committee, report of the group in the Duma, attitude towards the non-proletarian parties, the Duma, the labour congress, the trade unions, guerilla actions, crises, lockouts and unemployment, the International Congress at Stuttgart,<sup>36</sup> and organisational questions.<br />
<br />
The chief speakers on the report of the Central Committee were Comrade Martov (for the Mensheviks) and Comrade Ryadovoi<sup>37</sup> (for the Bolsheviks). Strictly speaking, Martov’s report was not a serious elucidation of facts, but a sentimental story about how the innocent Central Committee set to work to guide the Party and then the group in the Duma, and how the “awful” Bolsheviks hindered it in its work by pestering it with their principles. Martov justified the Central Committee’s slogans of a responsible Cadet ministry, “resumption of the session of the Duma,” etc., etc., which the Party subsequently rejected, on the plea that the situation was indefinite and that it was impossible to advance different slogans in a period of lull. And he justified the Central Committee’s misguided call for a general strike, and later for partial actions immediately after the dispersion of the First Duma, also on the plea that the situation was indefinite and that it was impossible to define precisely the mood of the masses. He spoke very little about the part the Central Committee played in the split in the St. Petersburg organisation.<sup>38</sup> But he spoke too much about the conference of military and combat organisations that was convened on the initiative of a certain group of Bolsheviks, and which, in Martov’s opinion, caused disruption and anarchy in the Party organisations. At the end of his report Martov called upon the congress to bear in mind the difficulties connected with the work of guiding the Party in view of the exceptionally complicated and confused situation, and asked it not to be severe in its criticism of the Central Committee. Evidently, Martov himself realised that the Central Committee had grave sins to answer for.<br />
<br />
Comrade Ryadovoi’s report was of an entirely different character. He expressed the opinion that it was the duty of the Central Committee of the Party: 1) to defend and carry out the Party programme, 2) to carry out the tactical directives given it by the Party Congress, 3) to safeguard the integrity of the Party, and 4) to co-ordinate the positive activities of the Party. The Central Committee had not carried out any one of these duties. Instead of defending and carrying out the Party programme, the Central Committee, in connection with the wellknown agrarian appeal of the First Duma,<sup>39</sup> instructed the Social-Democratic group in the Duma, with a view to ensuring the unity of the opposition and winning over the Cadets, not to try to secure the inclusion in the Duma’s appeal of the well-known point of our agrarian programme on the confiscation of all (landlords’) land, but to confine itself to a simple statement about alienating the land without saying whether compensation should be paid or not.<br />
<br />
Just think of it! The Central Committee issued instructions to throw out the extremely important point in the Party programme on the confiscation of the land! The Central Committee violated the Party programme! The Central Committee as the violator of the programme—can you imagine anything more disgraceful?<br />
<br />
To proceed. Instead of carrying out at least the directives of the Unity Congress, instead of systematically intensifying the struggle between the parties in the Duma with the object of introducing greater political consciousness in the class struggle outside the Duma, instead of pursuing the strictly class, independent policy of the proletariat—the Central Committee issued the slogans of a responsible Cadet ministry, “resumption of the session of the Duma,” “for the Duma against the camarilla,” etc., etc., slogans which obscured the struggle of the Party in the Duma, glossed over the class antagonisms outside the Duma, obliterated all distinction between the militant policy of the proletariat and the compromising policy of the liberal bourgeoisie, and adapted the former to the latter. And when Comrade Plekhanov, a member of the editorial board of the Central Organ and, consequently, of the Central Committee, went even further on the road of compromise with the Cadets and proposed that the Party should enter into a bloc with the liberal bourgeoisie, abandoning the slogan of a Constituent Assembly and issuing the slogan acceptable to the liberal bourgeoisie of a “sovereign Duma,” the Central Committee, far from protesting against Comrade Plekhanov’s sally which disgraced the Party, even agreed with it, although it did not dare to express its agreement officially.<br />
<br />
That is how the Central Committee of the Party violated the elementary requirements of the independent class policy of the proletariat and the decisions of the Unity Congress!<br />
<br />
A Central Committee which obscures the class consciousness of the proletariat; a Central Committee which subordinates the policy of the proletariat to the policy of the liberal bourgeoisie; a Central Committee which hauls down the flag of the proletariat before the charlatans of Cadet liberalism—this is what the Menshevik opportunists have brought us to!<br />
<br />
We shall not dilate on the fact that far from safeguarding the unity and discipline of the Party the Central Committee systematically violated them by taking the initiative in splitting the St. Petersburg organisation.<br />
<br />
Nor do we wish to dilate on the fact that the Central Committee has not co-ordinated the Party’s activities— this is clear enough as it is.<br />
<br />
How is all this, all these mistakes of the Central Committee, to be explained? Not, of course, by the fact that there were “awful” people in the Central Committee, but by the fact that Menshevism, which then predominated in the Central Committee, is incapable of guiding the Party, is utterly bankrupt as a political trend. From this point of view, the entire history of the Central Committee is the history of the failure of Menshevism. And when the Menshevik comrades reproach us and say that we “hindered” the Central Committee, that we “pestered” it, etc., etc., we cannot refrain from answering these moralising Comrades: yes Comrades, we “hindered” the Central Committee in its violation of our programme, we “hindered” it in its adaptation of the tactics of the proletariat to the tastes of the liberal bourgeoisie, and we will continue to hinder it, for this is our sacred duty. . . .<br />
<br />
That is approximately what Comrade Ryadovoi said.<br />
<br />
The discussion showed that the majority of the comrades, even some Bundists, supported Comrade Ryadovoi’s point of view. And if, after all, the Bolshevik resolution, which noted the mistakes of the Central Committee, was not carried, it was because the consideration “not to cause a split” strongly influenced the comrades. Nor, of course, was the Menshevik vote of confidence in the Central Committee carried. What was carried was simply a motion to pass to the order of the day without appraising the activities of the Central Committee. . . .<br />
<br />
The discussion on the report of the group in the Duma was, in general, a repetition of the discussion on the preceding question. That is understandable; the group in the Duma acted under the direct guidance of the Central Committee and, naturally, criticism or defence of the Central Committee was at the same time criticism or defence of the group in the Duma.<br />
<br />
Of interest were the remarks of Comrade Alexinsky, the second reporter (the first reporter being Comrade Tsereteli), to the effect that the slogan of the group in the Duma, the majority of which was Menshevik, the slogan of unity of the opposition in the Duma, of not splitting the opposition and of the need to march with the Cadets—this Menshevik slogan went completely bankrupt in the Duma, as Comrade Alexinsky put it, because on the most important questions, such as the budget, the army, etc., the Cadets sided with Stolypin, and the Menshevik Social-Democrats were obliged to fight hand in hand with the peasant deputies against the government and the Cadets. The Mensheviks were, in fact, obliged to admit the failure of their position and carry out in the Duma the Bolshevik slogan that the peasant deputies must be won for the struggle against the Rights and the<br />
<br />
Cadets.<br />
<br />
No less interesting were the remarks of the Polish comrades to the effect that it was impermissible for the group in the Duma to agree to joint meetings with the Narodovtsy,<sup>40</sup> those Black Hundreds of Poland, who have more than once in the past organised the massacre of Socialists in Poland and are continuing to do so now. To this, two leaders of the Caucasian Mensheviks,<sup>41</sup> one after another, replied that the important thing for the group in the Duma was not what the various parties did at home, but how they were behaving in the Duma, and that in the Duma the Narodovtsy were behaving more or less like liberals. It follows, therefore, that parties must be judged not by what they ''do'' outside the Duma, but by what they ''say'' in the Duma. Opportunism cannot go further than that. . . .<br />
<br />
Most of the speakers agreed with the point of view expressed by Comrade Alexinsky, but, for all that, no resolution was adopted on this question either; once again from the consideration “not to offend.” The congress set aside the question of the resolution and passed straight on to the next question.<br />
<br />
=== '''THE NON-PROLETARIAN PARTIES''' ===<br />
From formal questions we pass to questions of principle, to the questions of our disagreements.<br />
<br />
Our disagreements on tactics centre around the questions of the probable fate of our revolution, and of the role of the different classes and parties in Russian society in this revolution. That our revolution is a bourgeois revolution, that it must end in the rout of the feudal and not of the capitalist system, and that it can culminate only in a democratic republic—on this, everybody seems to be agreed in our Party. Further, that, on the whole, the tide of our revolution is rising and not subsiding, and that our task is not to “liquidate” the revolution but to carry it through to the end—on this too, formally at least, everybody is agreed, for the Mensheviks, as a group, have so far not said anything to the contrary. But how is our revolution to be carried through to the end? What is the role of the proletariat, of the peasantry and of the liberal bourgeoisie in this revolution? With what combination of fighting forces would it be possible to carry through this revolution to the end? Whom shall we march with, whom shall we fight? etc., etc. This is where our disagreements begin.<br />
<br />
''The opinion of the Mensheviks.'' Since ours is a bourgeois revolution, only the bourgeoisie can be the leader of the revolution. The bourgeoisie was the leader of the great revolution in France, it was the leader of revolutions in other European countries—it must be the leader of our Russian revolution too. The proletariat is the principal fighter in the revolution, but it must march behind the bourgeoisie and push it forward. The peasantry is also a revolutionary force, but it contains too much that is reactionary and, for that reason, the proletariat will have much less occasion to act jointly with it than with the liberal-democratic bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie is a more reliable ally of the proletariat than the peasantry. It is around the liberal-democratic bourgeoisie, as the leader, that all the fighting forces must rally. Hence, our attitude towards the bourgeois parties must be determined not by the revolutionary thesis: together with the peasantry against the government and the liberal bourgeoisie, with the proletariat at the head— but by the opportunist thesis: together with the entire opposition against the government, with the liberal bourgeoisie at the head. Hence the tactics of compromising with the liberals.<br />
<br />
Such is the opinion of the Mensheviks.<br />
<br />
''The opinion of the Bolsheviks''. Ours is, indeed, a bourgeois revolution, but this does not mean that our liberal bourgeoisie will be its leader. In the eighteenth century the French bourgeoisie was the leader of the French revolution, but why? Because the French proletariat was weak, it did not come out independently, it did not put forward its own class demands, it had neither class consciousness nor organisation, it then dragged at the tail of the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie used it as a tool for its bourgeois aims. As you see, the bourgeoisie was then not in need of an ally in the shape of the tsarist regime against the proletariat—the proletariat itself was the ally and servant of the bourgeoisie—and that is why the latter could then be revolutionary, even march at the head of the revolution. Something entirely different is observed here in Russia. The Russian proletariat can by no means be called weak: for several years already it has been acting quite independently, putting forward its own class demands; it is sufficiently armed with class consciousness to understand its own interests; it is united in its own party; its party is the strongest party in Russia, with its own programme and principles of tactics and organisation; led by this party, it has already won a number of brilliant victories over the bourgeoisie. . . . Under these circumstances, can our proletariat be satisfied with the role of tail of the liberal bourgeoisie, the role of a miserable tool in the hands of this bourgeoisie? Can it, must it march behind this bourgeoisie and make it its leader? Can it be anything else than the leader of the revolution? And see what is going on in the camp of our liberal bourgeoisie: our bourgeoisie is terrified by the revolutionary spirit of the proletariat; instead of marching at the head of the revolution it rushes into the embrace of the counter-revolution and enters into an alliance with it against the proletariat. Its party, the Cadet Party, openly, before the eyes of the whole world, enters into an agreement with Stolypin, votes for the budget and the army for the benefit of tsarism and against the people’s revolution. Is it not clear that the Russian liberal bourgeoisie is an anti-revolutionary force against which the most relentless war must be waged? And was not Comrade Kautsky right when he said that where the proletariat comes out independently the bourgeoisie ceases to be revolutionary? . . .<br />
<br />
Thus, the Russian liberal bourgeoisie is anti-revolutionary; it cannot be the driving force of the revolution, and still less can it be its leader; it is the sworn enemy of the revolution and a persistent struggle must be waged against it.<br />
<br />
The only leader of our revolution, interested in and capable of leading the revolutionary forces in Russia in the assault upon the tsarist autocracy, is the proletariat. The proletariat alone will rally around itself the revolutionary elements of the country, it alone will carry through our revolution to the end. The task of Social-Democracy is to do everything possible to prepare the proletariat for the role of leader of the revolution.<br />
<br />
This is the pivot of the Bolshevik point of view.<br />
<br />
To the question: who, then, can be the reliable ally of the proletariat in the task of carrying through our revolution to the end, the Bolsheviks answer—the only ally of the proletariat, to any extent reliable and powerful, is the revolutionary peasantry. Not the treacherous liberal bourgeoisie, but the revolutionary peasantry will fight side by side with the proletariat against all the props of the feudal system.<br />
<br />
Accordingly, our attitude towards the bourgeois parties must be determined by the proposition: together with the revolutionary peasantry against tsarism and the liberal bourgeoisie, with the proletariat at the head. Hence the necessity of combating the hegemony (leadership) of the Cadet bourgeoisie and, consequently, the impermissibility of compromising with the Cadets.<br />
<br />
Such is the opinion of the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
It was within the framework of these two positions that the speeches of the reporters—Lenin and Martynov— and of all the other speakers revolved.<br />
<br />
Comrade Martynov touched the final depths of “profundity” of the Menshevik point of view by categorically denying that the proletariat should assume hegemony, and also by categorically defending the idea of a bloc with the Cadets.<br />
<br />
The other speakers, the vast majority of them, expressed themselves in the spirit of the Bolshevik position.<br />
<br />
Of exceptional interest were the speeches of Comrade Rosa Luxemburg, who conveyed greetings to the congress on behalf of the German Social-Democrats and expounded the views of our German comrades on our disagreements. (Here we link together the two speeches R. L. delivered at different times.) Expressing her complete agreement with the Bolsheviks on the questions of the role of the proletariat as the leader of the revolution, the role of the liberal bourgeoisie as an anti-revolutionary force, etc., etc., Rosa Luxemburg criticised the Menshevik leaders Plekhanov and Axelrod, called them opportunists, and put their position on a par with that of the Jaurèsists in France. I know, said Luxemburg, that the Bolsheviks, too, have certain faults and fads, that they are somewhat too rigid, but I fully understand and excuse them: one cannot help being rigid in face of the diffuse and jellylike mass of Menshevik opportunism. The same excessive rigidity was observed among the Guesdists<sup>42</sup> in France, whose leader, Comrade Guesde, stated in a well-known election poster: “Don’t let a single bourgeois dare to vote for me, for in Parliament I will defend only the interests of the proletarians against all the bourgeois.” In spite of this, in spite of this sharpness, we German Social-Democrats always took the side of the Guesdists in their struggle against the traitors to Marxism, against the Jaurèsists. The same must be said about the Bolsheviks, whom we German Social-Democrats will support in their struggle against the Menshevik opportunists. . . .<br />
<br />
That approximately is what Comrade R. Luxemburg said.<br />
<br />
Still more interesting was the famous letter the Central Committee of the German Social-Democratic Party sent to the congress, and which Rosa Luxemburg read. It is interesting because, by advising the Party ''to fight'' liberalism, and recognising the special role played by the Russian proletariat as the leader of the Russian revolution, by the same token it recognised all the main propositions of Bolshevism.<br />
<br />
Thus, it became clear that the German Social-Democratic Party, the most tried and tested and the most Revolutionary party in Europe, openly and clearly supported the Bolsheviks, as true Marxists, in their struggle ''against'' the traitors to Marxism, ''against'' the Mensheviks.<br />
<br />
Of interest also are several passages in the speech delivered by Comrade Tyszka, the representative of the Polish delegation in the Presidium. Both groups assure us, said Comrade Tyszka, that they stand firmly by the point of view of Marxism. It is not easy for everybody to understand who it is that really stands by this point of view, the Bolsheviks or the Mensheviks. . . . “We stand by the point of view of Marxism”—came an interruption from several Mensheviks on the “Left.” “No, comrades,” retorted Tyszka, “you do not stand by it, you ''lie down'' on it, for all the helplessness you display in leading the class struggle of the proletariat, the fact that you can learn by rote the great words of the great Marx but are unable to apply them—all this shows that you do not stand by but lie down on the point of view of Marxism.” Aptly put!<br />
<br />
Indeed, just take the following fact. The Mensheviks often say that it is the task of Social-Democracy always and everywhere to convert the proletariat into an independent political force. Is this true? Absolutely true! These are the great words of Marx, which every Marxist should always remember. But how do the Menshevik comrades apply them? Are they helping actually to separate the proletariat from the mass of bourgeois elements which surround it and to form it into an independent, self-reliant class? Are they rallying the revolutionary elements around the proletariat and preparing the proletariat for the role of leader of the revolution? The facts show that the Mensheviks are doing nothing of the kind. On the contrary, the Mensheviks advise the proletariat to enter more often into agreements with the liberal bourgeoisie—and thereby they are helping not to separate the proletariat as an independent class, but to fuse it with the bourgeoisie. The Mensheviks advise the proletariat to renounce the role of leader of the revolution, to cede that role to the bourgeoisie, to follow the bourgeoisie—thereby they are helping to convert the proletariat not into an independent political force, but into an appendage of the bourgeoisie. . . . That is to say, the Mensheviks are doing the very opposite of what they should be doing from the standpoint of the correct Marxist proposition.<br />
<br />
Yes, Comrade Tyszka was right when he said that the Mensheviks do not stand by but lie down on the point of view of Marxism. . . .<br />
<br />
At the end of the discussion two draft resolutions were submitted: a Menshevik and a Bolshevik resolution. Of these two, the draft submitted by the Bolsheviks was adopted as a basis by an overwhelming majority of votes.<br />
<br />
Then came amendments to the draft. About eighty amendments were moved, mainly to two points in the draft: on the point concerning the proletariat as the leader of the revolution, and the point on the Cadets as an antirevolutionary force. That was the most interesting part of the discussion, for here the complexions of the different groups were revealed in special relief. The first important amendment was moved by Comrade Martov. He demanded that the words “proletariat as the ''vanguard''” be substituted for the words “proletariat as the ''leader'' of the revolution.” In support of his amendment he said that the word “vanguard” expressed the idea more precisely. He was answered by Comrade Alexinsky who said that it was not a matter of precision, but of the two opposite points of view that were reflected in this, for “vanguard” and “leader” are two totally different concepts. To be the vanguard (the advanced detachment) means fighting in the front ranks, occupying the points most heavily under fire, shedding one’s blood, but at the same time ''being led by others'', in this case by the bourgeois democrats; the vanguard never leads the general struggle, the vanguard is always led. On the other hand, to be a leader means not only fighting in the front ranks ''but also leading the general struggle, directing'' it towards its goal. We Bolsheviks do not want the proletariat to be led by the bourgeois democrats, we want the proletariat itself to lead the whole struggle of the people and direct it towards the democratic republic.<br />
<br />
As a result, Martov’s amendment was defeated.<br />
<br />
All the other amendments of a similar nature were also defeated.<br />
<br />
Another group of amendments was directed against the point about the Cadets. The Mensheviks proposed that it be recognised that the Cadets have not yet taken the path of counter-revolution. But the congress refused to accept this proposal and all amendments of that kind were rejected. The Mensheviks further proposed that in certain cases at least technical agreements with the Cadets be permitted. The congress also refused to accept this proposal and defeated all amendments of that kind.<br />
<br />
At last the resolution as a whole was voted on and it turned out that 159 votes were cast for the Bolshevik resolution, 104 against, the rest abstaining.<br />
<br />
The congress adopted the resolution of the Bolsheviks by a large majority.<br />
<br />
From that moment, the point of view of the Bolsheviks became the point of view of the Party.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, this vote produced two important results.<br />
<br />
First, it put an end to the formal and artificial division of the congress into five groups (Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Poles, Letts and Bundists) and introduced a new division based on principles: Bolsheviks (including here all the Poles and a majority of the Letts) and Mensheviks (including nearly all the Bundists).<br />
<br />
Second, the vote provided the most precise figures showing how the worker delegates were distributed among the groups: it turned out that in the Bolshevik group there were not 38 but 77 workers (38 plus 27 Poles plus 12 Letts), and that in the Menshevik group there were not 30 workers but 39 (30 plus 9 Bundists). The Menshevik group turned out to be a group of intellectuals.<br />
<br />
=== '''THE LABOUR CONGRESS''' ===<br />
Before describing the discussion on the labour congress it is necessary to know the history of this question.* The fact of the matter is that this question is extremely confused and unclear. Whereas on the other points of our disagreements we already have two sharply defined trends in the Party, Bolshevik and Menshevik, on the question of the labour congress we have not two but a whole heap of<br />
<br />
<nowiki>*</nowiki> This is all the more necessary because the Menshevik comrades who have migrated to the editorial offices of bourgeois newspapers are spreading fables about the past and present of this question (see the article “A Labour Congress,” from the pen of a prominent Menshevik, published in ''Tovarishch'' and reprinted in ''Bakinsky Dyen'' <sup>43</sup>).<br />
<br />
trends, extremely unclear and contradictory. True, the Bolsheviks take a united and definite stand: they are opposed to a labour congress altogether. But among the Mensheviks utter chaos and confusion reign; they have split up into numerous groups, each one singing its own song and paying no heed to the others. Whereas the St. Petersburg Mensheviks, headed by Axelrod, propose that a labour congress be convened for the purpose of ''forming a party'', the Moscow Mensheviks, headed by El, propose that it should be convened not for the purpose of forming a party, but ''with the object of forming a non-party'' “''All-Russian Workers''’ ''League.''” The Mensheviks from the South go still further and, headed by Larin,<sup>44</sup> call for the convocation of a labour congress with the object of forming not a party, and not a “Workers’ League,” ''but a wider'' “''Toilers''’ ''League''” which, in addition to all the proletarian elements, could embrace also the Socialist-Revolutionary, semi-bourgeois “toiler” elements. I shall not dwell on other, less influential, groups and persons, like the Odessa and trans-Caspian groups, or like those half-witted “authors” of a comical pamphlet who call themselves “Brodyaga” and “Shura.”<sup>45</sup><br />
<br />
Such is the confusion that reigns in the ranks of the Mensheviks.<br />
<br />
But how is the labour congress to be convened? How is it to be organised? In connection with what is it to be convened? Who is to be invited to it? Who is to take the initiative in convening it?<br />
<br />
The same confusion reigns among the Mensheviks on all these questions as on the question of the object of the congress.<br />
<br />
While some of them propose that the election of delegates to the congress should be made to coincide with the Duma elections and that the labour congress be thus organised by “unauthorised means,” others propose to trust to the government’s “connivance” or, in the last resort, to apply for its “permission,” while still others advise that the delegates be sent abroad—even if they number three or four thousand—and that the labour congress be held underground there.<br />
<br />
While some Mensheviks propose that only definitely formed workers’ organisations be allowed to send representatives to the congress, others advise inviting representatives of the entire organised and unorganised proletariat, which numbers not less than ten millions.<br />
<br />
While some Mensheviks propose that the labour congress be convened on the initiative of the Social-Democratic Party with the participation of intellectuals, others advise that the Party and the intellectuals be thrust aside, and that the congress be convened only on the initiative of the workers themselves, without the participation of any intellectuals.<br />
<br />
While some Mensheviks insist on a labour congress being convened immediately, others propose that it be postponed indefinitely, and that, meanwhile, only agitation in favour of the idea of a labour congress be conducted.<br />
<br />
But what is to be done with the existing Social-Democratic Labour Party which has been leading the proletarian struggle for several years already, which has united 150,000 members in its ranks, which has already held five congresses, etc., etc.! “Send it to the devil?” Or what?<br />
<br />
In answer to this, all the Mensheviks, from Axelrod to Larin, declare unanimously that ''we have no proletarian party.'' “The whole point is that we have no party,” said the Mensheviks at the congress. “''All we have is an organisation of petty-bourgeois intellectuals,''” which must be replaced by a party with the aid of a labour congress. That is what Comrade Axelrod, the Menshevik reporter, said at the Party congress.<br />
<br />
But wait! What does that mean? Does it mean that all the congresses our Party has held, from the first (1898) to the latest (1907), in the organisation of which the Menshevik comrades took a most energetic part, that all the colossal expenditure of proletarian money and effort involved in the organisation of these congresses—and for which the Mensheviks are as much responsible as the Bolsheviks—does it mean that all this was mere deception and hypocrisy?!<br />
<br />
Does it mean that all the fighting appeals the Party has issued to the proletariat, appeals which the Mensheviks also signed, that all the strikes and insurrections of 1905, 1906 and 1907, which flared up with the Party at their head, and often on the Party’s initiative, that all the victories achieved by the proletariat headed by our Party, that the thousands of proletarian victims who fell in the streets of St. Petersburg, Moscow, and elsewhere, who were immured in Siberia and who perished in prison ''for the sake of'' the Party, and ''under the banner'' of the Party— that all that was just a farce and a deception?<br />
<br />
So we have no party? We have only “an organisation of petty-bourgeois intellectuals”?<br />
<br />
Of course, that was a downright lie; an outrageous, brazen lie.<br />
<br />
That, evidently, explains the boundless indignation which the above-mentioned statement by Axelrod roused among the worker delegates from St. Petersburg and Moscow. They jumped to their feet and energetically answered the reporter Axelrod: “You, who spend your time abroad, are bourgeois, not we. We are workers, and we have our Social-Democratic Party, and we will not allow anyone to defame it.” . . .<br />
<br />
But let us suppose that a labour congress is held; let us imagine that it has already been held. The existing Social-Democratic Party therefore has been put into the archives, a labour congress has been convened in some way or another, and we want to organise at it a league of “workers” or “toilers,” whatever it may be. Well, what next? What programme will this congress adopt? What will be the complexion of the labour congress?<br />
<br />
Some Mensheviks answer that the labour congress could adopt the programme of Social-Democracy, with certain deletions, of course; but they at once add that it might not adopt the programme of Social-Democracy and that this, in their opinion, would not be particularly harmful to the proletariat. Others answer more emphatically as follows: Since our proletariat is strongly imbued with petty-bourgeois tendencies, in all probability the labour congress will adopt not a Social-Democratic but a ''petty-bourgeois democratic programme.'' At the labour congress the proletariat will lose the Social-Democratic programme, but instead it will acquire a workers’ organisation that will unite all the workers in one league. That is what, for example, N. Cherevanin, the head of the Moscow Mensheviks, says (see “Problems of Tactics”).<sup>46</sup><br />
<br />
And so: “A workers’ league without a Social-Democratic programme”—such is the probable result of a labour congress.<br />
<br />
That, at all events, is what the Mensheviks themselves think.<br />
<br />
Evidently, while they disagree with one another on certain questions concerning the objects of the labour congress and the methods of convening it, the Mensheviks are agreed among themselves on the point that “we have no party, all we have is an organisation of petty-bourgeois intellectuals, ''which ought to be put into the archives.''” . . .<br />
<br />
It was within this framework that Axelrod’s report revolved.<br />
<br />
It became evident from Axelrod’s report that agitation for a labour congress would practically and inevitably amount to agitation ''against'' the party, a war against it.<br />
<br />
And the practical work of convening the labour congress would also inevitably amount to practical work in disorganising and undermining our present party.<br />
<br />
And yet the Mensheviks—through the mouth of their reporter, and also in their draft resolution—requested the congress ''to prohibit agitation'' against attempts to organise a labour congress, i.e., against attempts leading to disorganisation of the Party.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note that, running through the speeches of the Menshevik speakers (with the exception of Plekhanov, who said nothing about the labour congress), were the slogans: “Down with the Party, down with Social-Democracy—long live the non-party principle, long live the non-Social-Democratic ‘Workers’ League.’” These slogans were not openly advanced by the speakers, but they ran as an undertone through their speeches.<br />
<br />
It is not without reason that all the bourgeois writers, from the Syndicalists and Socialist-Revolutionaries to the Cadets and Octobrists—all so ardently express themselves in favour of a labour congress; after all, they are all enemies of our Party, and the practical work of convening a labour congress might considerably weaken and disorganise the Party. Why should they not welcome “the idea of a labour congress”?<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik speakers said something entirely different.<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik reporter, Comrade Lindov,<sup>47</sup> after briefly characterising the main trends among the Mensheviks, proceeded to trace the conditions which gave rise to the idea of a labour congress. Agitation for a labour congress began in 1905, before the October days, during the repressions. It ceased during the October-November days. During the subsequent months of fresh repression, agitation for a labour congress revived. During the period of the First Duma, in the days of relative freedom, the agitation subsided. Then, after the dispersion of the Duma, it grew again, etc. The conclusion to be drawn is clear: in the period of relative freedom, when the Party is able to expand freely, there is naturally no ground for agitation for a labour congress with the object of forming “a broad non-party party.” On the other hand, during periods of repression, when the influx of new members into the Party gives way to an exodus, agitation for a labour congress, as an artificial measure for widening the narrow party, or replacing it by “a broad non-party party,” finds some ground. But it goes without saying that no artificial measures will be of any avail, for what is needed for the actual expansion of the Party is political freedom and not a labour congress, which itself needs such freedom.<br />
<br />
To proceed. The idea of a labour congress, taken concretely, is fundamentally false, for it rests not on facts, but on the false proposition that “we have no party.” The point is that we have a proletarian party which loudly proclaims its existence, and whose existence is felt only too well by the enemies of the proletariat—the Mensheviks are fully aware of this—and precisely because we already have such a party, the idea of a labour congress is fundamentally false. Of course, if we did not have a party numbering over 150,000 advanced proletarians in its ranks, and leading hundreds of thousands of fighters, if we were only a tiny handful of uninfluential people as the German Social-Democrats were in the six-ties or the French Socialists in the seventies of the last century, we ourselves would try to convene a labour congress with the object of squeezing a Social-Democratic Party out of it. But the whole point is that we already have a party, a real proletarian party, which exercises enormous influence among the masses, and to convene a labour congress, to form a fantastic “non-party party,” we would, inevitably, first of all have to “put an end” to the existing party, we would first of all have to wreck it.<br />
<br />
That is why, in practice, the work of convening a labour congress must inevitably amount to a work of disorganising the Party. And whether success could ever be achieved in forming “a broad non-party party” in place of it, and indeed, whether such a party ought to be formed, is questionable.<br />
<br />
That is why the enemies of our Party, the Cadets and Octobrists, and the like, so heartily praise the Mensheviks for their agitation in favour of a labour congress.<br />
<br />
That is why the Bolsheviks think that the work of convening a labour congress would be dangerous, would be harmful, for it would discredit the Party in the eyes of the masses and subject them to the influence of bourgeois democracy.<br />
<br />
That is approximately what Comrade Lindov said.<br />
<br />
For a labour congress and against the Social-Democratic Party? Or, for the Party and against a labour congress? This is how the question stood at the congress.<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik worker delegates understood the question at once and vigorously came out “in defence of the Party”: “We are Party patriots,” they said. “We love our Party, and we shall not allow tired intellectuals to discredit it.”<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note that Comrade Rosa Luxemburg, the representative of German Social-Democracy, entirely agreed with the Bolsheviks. “We German Social-Democrats,” she said, “cannot understand the comical dismay of the Menshevik comrades who are groping for the masses when the masses themselves are looking for the Party and are irresistibly pressing towards it.” . . .<br />
<br />
The discussion showed that the vast majority of the speakers supported the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
At the end of the discussion two draft resolutions were submitted to a vote: a Bolshevik draft and a Menshevik draft. Of these two, the Bolshevik draft was accepted as a basis. Nearly all amendments on points of principle were rejected. Only one more or less important amendment was accepted, viz., against restricting freedom to discuss the question of a labour congress. The resolution as a whole stated that “the idea of convening a labour congress leads to the disorganisation of the Party,” “to the subjection of the broad masses of the workers to the influence of bourgeois democracy,” and, as such, is harmful to the proletariat. Moreover, the resolution drew a strict distinction between a labour congress and Soviets of Workers’ Deputies and their congresses which, far from disorganising the Party and competing with it, strengthen the Party by following its lead and helping it to solve practical problems in periods of revolutionary upsurge.<br />
<br />
Finally the resolution as a whole was adopted by a majority of 165 votes against 94. The rest of the delegates abstained from voting.<br />
<br />
Thus, the congress rejected the idea of a labour congress as harmful and anti-Party.<br />
<br />
The voting on this question revealed to us the following important fact. Of the 114 worker delegates who took part in the voting, only 25 voted for a labour congress. The rest voted against it. Expressed in percentages, 22 per cent of the worker delegates voted for a labour congress, while 78 per cent voted against it. What is particularly important is that of the 94 delegates who voted for a labour congress, only 26 per cent were workers and 74 per cent were intellectuals.<br />
<br />
And yet the Mensheviks shouted all the time that the idea of a labour congress was a workers’ idea, that it was only the Bolshevik “intellectuals” who were opposing the convocation of a congress, etc. Judging by this vote, one should rather admit that, on the contrary, the idea of a labour congress is the idea of intellectual dreamers. . . .<br />
<br />
Apparently, even the Menshevik workers did not vote for the labour congress: of the 39 worker delegates (30 Mensheviks plus 9 Bundists) only 24 voted for a labour congress. Baku, 1907<br />
<br />
First published in the<br />
<br />
''Bakinsky Proletary'', Nos. 1 and 2<br />
<br />
June 20 and July 10, 1907<br />
<br />
Signed: '' Koba Ivanovich''<br />
[[Category:Library works by Joseph Stalin]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:Black_Bolshevik&diff=63719Library:Black Bolshevik2024-03-05T18:04:57Z<p>RedCustodian: /* LOVESTONE’S MOMENT OF TRUTH */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Library work|title=Black Bolshevik: Autobiography Of An Afro-American Communist|image=https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1328767045i/704092.jpg|author=Harry Haywood|publisher=Liberator Press|published_date=January 1, 1978|published_location=Chicago Illinois|type=Book|isbn=9780930720537|source=[https://archive.org/details/black-bolshevik-autobiography-of-an-afro-american-communist/mode/2up archive.org]}}<br />
<br />
''Black Bolshevik'' is the autobiography of [[Harry Haywood]], published January 1, 1978. The son of former slaves who became a leading member of the [[Communist Party of the United States of America|Communist Part USA]] and a pioneering theoretician on the Afro-American struggle.<br />
<br />
The author's first-hand accounts of the Chicago race riot of 1919, the Scottsboro Boys' defense, communist work in the South, the [[Spanish Civil War]], the battle against the revisionist betrayal of the Party, and other history-shaping events are must reading for all who are interested in Black history and the working class struggle.<br />
<br />
It was dedicated to his family; his third wife, son and daughter. <br />
<br />
"To My Family,<br />
<br />
Gwen, Haywood, Jr., and Becky" <br />
<br />
== Acknowledgement ==<br />
There have been many friends and comrades who have, directly or indirectly, helped me with the writing of this book. Unfortunately, they are too numerous to all be named here.<br />
<br />
There are a number of young people who have helped with the editorial, research and typing tasks and helped the project along through political discussions. Special thanks to Ernie Allen, who gave yeoman help with the early chapters. Others whose assistance was indispensable include Jody and Susan Chandler, Paula Cohen, Stu Dowty and Janet Goldwasser, Paul Elitzik, Pat Fry, Gary Goff, Sherman Miller, John Schwartz, Lyn Wells and Carl Davidson. Others who gave me assistance are Renee Blakkan and Nathalie Garcia.<br />
<br />
Over the past years, I have had discussions with several veteran comrades and friends who have helped immeasurably in jogging my memory and filling in the gaps where my own experience was lacking, I extend my warmest appreciation to Jesse Gray, Josh Lawrence, Arthur and Maude (White) Katz, John Killens, Ruth Hamlin, Frances Loman, Al Murphy, Joan Sandler, Delia Page and Jack and Ruth Shulman.<br />
<br />
A political autobiography is necessarily shaped by experiences over the years and by comrades who helped and influenced me in the long battle for self-determination and against revisionism. My earliest political debts are to the first core of Black cadres in the CPUSA: Cyril Briggs, Edward Doty, Richard B. Moore and to my brother Otto Hall, all former members of the African Blood Brotherhood.<br />
<br />
To Harrison George, outstanding son of the working class, charter member of the CPUSA, former editor of the Daily Worker and the Peoples' World, who gave his all to the Communist movement and died alone, victimized for his “premature" anti- revisionism.<br />
<br />
A special tribute to my comrades in the battles against revisionism within the CPUSA and after: Al Lannon, veteran director of the Waterfront Section and member of the Central Committee of the CPUSA; Charles Loman, executive secretary of the Brooklyn Party Organization; Isidore Beagun, executive secretary of the Bronx Party Organization; Allen and Pearl Lawes, Al and Ruth Hamlin, Olga and Victor Agosto. And to my wife, Gwendolyn Midlo Hall, my closest collaborator from 1953 through 1964 in the writing of manuscripts as well as in the Apolitical battles, who has since established her own reputation as historian and essayist.<br />
<br />
A tribute to Ed Strong, former communist youth leader and director of the Southern Negro Youth Congress, whose premature death in the mid-fifties cut short his uncompromising stand within the Central Committee for the right of self-determination for the Black nation.<br />
<br />
To the editors of Soulbook Magazine, who published my writings in 1965-66 and invited me to Oakland, California, in the spring of 1966 during the formative stages of the Black Panther movement.<br />
<br />
To Vincent Harding, who provided me with funds to return to the U.S. from Mexico in 1970 and gave me technical and material assistance to begin this autobiography.<br />
<br />
Thanks to John Henrik Clarke and Francisco and Elizabeth Cattlett de Mora for their enthusiasm and moral support.<br />
<br />
To Robert Warner, Director of the Michigan Historical Collections, for his help and his sensitivity to the need to collect and preserve historically relevant materials from the Black movement in the United States.<br />
<br />
== Prologue ==<br />
On July 28, 1919,1 literally stepped into a battle that was to last the rest of my life. Exactly three months after mustering out of the Army, I found myself in the midst of one of the bloodiest race riots in U.S. history. It was certainly a most dramatic return to the realities of American democracy. <br />
<br />
It came to me then that I had been fighting the wrong war. The Germans weren’t the enemy -the enemy was right here at home. These ideas had been developing ever since I landed home in April, and a lot of other Black veterans were having the same thoughts. <br />
<br />
I had a job as a waiter on the Michigan Central Railroad at the time. In July, I was working the Wolverine, the crack Michigan Central train between Chicago and New York. We would serve lunch and dinner on the run out of Chicago to St. Thomas, Canada, where the dining car was cut off the train. The next morning our cars would be attached to the Chicago-bound train and we would serve breakfast and lunch into Chicago.<br />
<br />
On July 27, the Wolverine left on a regular run to St. Thomas. Passing through Detroit, we heard news that a race riot had broken out in Chicago. The situation had been tense for some time. Several members of the crew, all of them Black, had bought revolvers and ammunition the previous week when on a special to Battle Creek, Michigan. Thus, when we returned to Chicago at about 2:00 P.M. the next day (July 28). we were apprehensive about what awaited us.<br />
<br />
The whole dining car crew, six waiters and four cooks, got off at the Twelfth Street Station in Chicago. Usually we would stay on the car while it backed out to the yards, but the station seemed a better route now. We were all tense as we passed through the station on the way to the elevated which would take us to the Southside and home. Suddenly a white trainman accosted us. “Hey, you guys going out to the Southside?”<br />
<br />
“Yeah, so what?” I said, immediately on the alert, thinking he might start something.<br />
<br />
“If I were you I wouldn’t go by the avenue” He meant Michigan Avenue which was right in front of the station.<br />
<br />
“Why?”<br />
<br />
“There’s a big race riot going on out there, and already this morning a couple of colored soldiers were killed coming in unsuspectingly. If I were you I’d keep off the street, and go right out those tracks by the lake.”<br />
<br />
We took the trainman’s advice, thanked him, and turned toward the tracks. It would be much slower walking home, but if he were right, it would be safer. As we turned down the tracks toward the Southside of the city, towards the Black ghetto, I thought of what I had just been through in Europe and what now lay before me in America.<br />
<br />
On one side of us lay the summer warmness of Lake Michigan. On the other was Chicago, a huge and still growing industrial center of the nation, bursting at its seams; brawling, sprawling Chicago, “hog butcher for the nation” as Carl Sandburg had called it<br />
<br />
As we walked, I remembered the war. On returning from Europe, I had felt good to be alive. I was glad to be back with my family—Mom, Pop and my sister. At twenty-one, my life lay before me. What should I do? The only trade I had learned was waiting tables. I hadn’t even finished the eighth grade. Perhaps I should go back to France, live there and become a French citizen? After all, I hadn’t seen any Jim Crow there.<br />
<br />
Had race prejudice in the U.S. lessened? I knew better. Conditions in the States had not changed, but we Blacks had. We were determined not to take it anymore. But what was I walking into?<br />
<br />
Southside Chicago, the Black ghetto, was like a besieged city. Whole sections of it were in ruins. Buildings burned and the air was heavy with smoke, reminiscent of the holocaust from which I had recently returned.<br />
<br />
Our small band, huddled like a bunch of raw recruits under machine gun fire, turned up Twenty-sixth Street and then into the heart of the ghetto. At Thirty-fifth and Indiana, we split up to go our various ways; I headed for home at Forty-second Place and Bowen. None of us returned to work until the riot was over, more than a week later.<br />
<br />
The battle at home was just as real as the battle in France had been. As I recall, there was full-scale street fighting between Black and white. Blacks were snatched from streetcars and beaten or killed; pitched battles were fought in ghetto streets; hoodlums roamed the neighborhood, shooting at random. Blacks fought hack.<br />
<br />
As I saw it at the time, Chicago was two cities. The one was the Chamber of Commerce’s city of the “American Miracle,” the Chicago of the 1893 World Columbian Exposition. It was the new industrial city which had grown in fifty years from a frontier town to become the second largest city in the country. <br />
<br />
The other, the Black community, had been part of Chicago almost from the time the city was founded. Jean Baptiste Pointe DuSable, a Black trapper from French Canada, was the first settler. Later came fugitive slaves, and after the Civil War- more Blacks, fleeing from post-Reconstruction terror, taking jobs as domestics and personal servants. <br />
<br />
The large increase was in the late 1880s through World War 1, as industry in the city expanded and as Blacks streamed north following the promise of jobs, housing and an end to Jim Crow lynching. The Illinois Central tracks ran straight through the deep South from Chicago to New Orleans, and the Panama Limited made the run every day. <br />
<br />
Those that took the train north didn’t find a promised land. They found jobs and housing, all right, but they had to compete with the thousands of recent immigrants from Europe who were also drawn to the jobs in the packing houses, stockyards and steel mills. <br />
<br />
The promise of an end to Jim Crow was nowhere fulfilled. In those days, the beaches on Lake Michigan were segregated. Most were reserved for whites only. The Twenty-sixth Street Beach, close to the Black community, was open to Blacks—but only as long as they stayed on their own side.<br />
<br />
The riot had started at this beach, which was then jammed with a late July crowd. Eugene Williams, a seventeen-year-old Black youth, was killed while swimming off the white side of the beach. The Black community was immediately alive with accounts of what had happened—that he had been murdered while swimming., that a group of whites had thrown rocks at him and killed him, and that the policeman on duty at the beach had refused to make any arrests.<br />
<br />
This incident was the spark that ignited the flames of racial animosity which had been smoldering for months. Fighting between Blacks and whites broke out on the Twenty-sixth Street beach after Williams’s death. It soon spread beyond the beach and lasted over six days. Before it was over, thirty-eight people—Black and white—were dead, 537 injured and over 1,000 homeless.<br />
<br />
The memory of this mass rebellion is still very sharp in my mind. It was the great turning point in my life, and I have dedicated myself to the struggle against capitalism ever since. In the following pages of my autobiography, I have attempted to trace the development of that struggle in the hopes that today’s youth can learn from both our successes and failures. lt is for the youth and the bright future of a socialist USA that this book has been written.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 ==<br />
<br />
=== A Child of Slaves ===<br />
I was born in South Omaha, Nebraska, on February 4, 1898— the youngest of the three children of Harriet and Haywood Hall. Otto, my older brother, was born in May 1891; and Eppa, my sister, in December 1896. <br />
<br />
The 1890s had been a decade of far-reaching structural change in the economic and political life of the United States. These were fateful years in which the pattern of twentieth century subjugation of Blacks was set. A young U.S. imperialism was ready in 1898 to shoulder its share of the “white man’s burden” and take its "manifest destiny” beyond the Pacific Coast and the Gulf of Mexico. In the war against Spain, it embarked on its first "civilizing” mission against the colored peoples of the Philippines and the “mixed breeds” of Cuba and Puerto Rico. In the course of the decade and a half following the Spanish-American War, the two-faced banner of racism and imperialist “benevolence” was carried to the majority of the Caribbean countries and the whole of Latin America.<br />
<br />
“The echo of this industrial imperialism in America,” said W. E. B. DuBois, “was the expulsion of Black men from American democracy, their subjection to caste control and wage slavery.” In 1877, the Hayes-Tilden agreement had successfully aborted the ongoing democratic revolution of Reconstruction in the South. Blacks were sold down the river, as northern capitalists, with the assistance of some former slaveholders, gained full economic and political control in the South. Henceforward, it was assured that the future development of the region would be carried out in complete harmony with the interests of Wall Street. The following years saw the defeat of the Southern based agrarian populist movement, with its promise of Black and white unity against the power of monopoly capital. The counter-revolution against Reconstruction was in full swing.<br />
<br />
Beginning in 1890, the Southern state legislatures enacted a series of disenfranchisement laws. Within the next sixteen years, these laws were destined to completely abrogate the right of Blacks to vote. This same period saw the revival of the notorious Black Codes, the resurgence of the hooded terror of the Ku Klux Klan and the defeat for reelection in 1905 of the last Black congressman surviving the Reconstruction period. Jim Crow laws enforcing segregation in public facilities were enacted by Southern states and municipal governments. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Jim Crow in the Plessy vs. Ferguson decision in 1896, declaring that legislation is powerless to eradicate “racial instinets” and establishing the principle of “separate but equal.” This decision was only reversed in 1954, when the U.S. Supreme Court held that separate facilities were inherently unequal.<br />
<br />
At the time when I was born, the Black experience was mainly a Southern one. The overwhelming majority of Black people still resided in the South. Most of the Black inhabitants of South Omaha were refugees from the twenty-year terror of the post-Re construction period. Omaha itself, despite its midwestern location, did not escape the terror completely, as indicated by the lynching of a Black man, Joe Coe, by a mob in 1891. Many people had relatives and families in the South. Some had trekked up to Kansas in 1879 under the leadership of Henry Adams of Louisiana and Moses “Pap” Singleton of Tennessee, and many had then continued further north to Omaha and Chicago.<br />
<br />
My parents were born slaves in 1860. They were three years old at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation. My Father was born on a plantation in Martin County, Tennessee, north of Memphis. The plantation was owned by Colonel Haywood Hall, whom my Father remembered as a kind and benevolent man. When the slaves were emancipated in 1863, my Grandfather, with the consent of Mr. Hall, took both the given name and surname of his former master.<br />
<br />
I never knew Grandfather Hall, as he died before I was born. According to my Father and uncles, he was—as they said in those days—“much of a man” He was active in local Reconstruction polities and probably belonged to the Black militia. Although Tennessee did not have a Reconstruction government, there were many whites who supported the democratic aims that were pursued during the Reconstruction period.<br />
<br />
But Tennessee was also the home of the Ku Klux Klan, where it was first organized after the Civil War. In the terror that followed the Hayes-Tilden agreement, these “night riders” had marked my Grandfather out as a “bad nigger” for lynching. At first they were deterred because of the paternalism of Colonel Hall. Many of Hall’s former slaves still lived on his plantation after the war ended, and the colonel had let it be known that he would kill the first “son-of-a-bitch” that trespassed on his property and tried to terrorize his “nigrahs.”<br />
<br />
But the anger of the night riders, strengthened by corn liquor, finally overcame their fear of Colonel Hall. My Father, who was about fifteen at the time, described what happened. One night the Klansmen rode onto the plantation and headed straight for Grandfather’s cabin. They broke open the door and one poked his head into the darkened cabin. “Hey, Hall’s nigger-where are you?"<br />
<br />
My Grandfather was standing inside and fired his shotgun point blank at the hooded head. The Klansman, half his head blown off, toppled onto the floor of the cabin, and his companions mounted their horses and fled. Grandmother, then pregnant, fell against the iron bed.<br />
<br />
Grandfather got the family out of the cabin and they ran to the “big house” for protection. It was obvious they couldn’t stay in Tennessee, so the Colonel hitched up a wagon and personally drove them to safety, outside of Martin County. Some of Grandfather’s family were already living in Des Moines, Iowa, so the Hall family left by train for Des Moines the following morning. The shock of this experience was so great that Grandmother gave birth prematurely to their third child—my Uncle George who lived to be ninety-five. Grandmother, however, became a chronic invalid and died a few years after the flight from Tennessee.<br />
<br />
Father was only in his teens when the family left for Des Moines, so he spent most of his youth there. In the late 1880s, he left and moved to South Omaha where there was more of a chance to get work. He got a job at Cudahy’s Packing Company, where he worked for more than twenty years—first as a beef-lugger (loading sides of beef on refrigerated freight cars), and then as a janitor in the main office building. Not long after his arrival, he met and married Mother—Harriet Thorpe—who had come up from Kansas City, Missouri, at about the same time.<br />
<br />
Father was powerfully built—of medium height, but with tremendous breadth (he had a forty-six-inch chest and weighed over 200 pounds). He was an extremely intelligent man. With little or no formal schooling, he had taught himself to read and write and was a prodigious reader. Unfortunately, despite his great strength, he was not much of a fighter, or so it seemed to me. In later years, some of the old slave psychology and fear remained. He was an ardent admirer of Booker T. Washington who, in his Atlanta compromise speech of 1895, had called on Blacks to submit to the racist status quo,<br />
<br />
Uncle George was the opposite. He would brook no insult and had been known to clean out a whole barroom when offended. The middle brother, Watt, was also a fighter and was especially dangerous if he had a knife or had been drinking. I remember both of them complaining of my Father’s timidity.<br />
<br />
My Mother’s family also had great fighting spirit. Her father, Jerry Thorpe, was born on a plantation near Bowling Green, Kentucky. He was illiterate, but very smart and very strong. Even as an old man, his appearance made us believe the stories that were told of his strength as a young man. When he was feeling fine and happy, his exuberance would get the best of him and he’d grab the largest man around, hoist him on his shoulders, and run around the yard with him.<br />
<br />
Grandfather Thorpe was half Creek Indian and had an Indian profile with a humped nose and high cheekbones. His hair was short and curly and he had a light brown complexion. He had a straggly white beard that he tried to cultivate into a Van Dyke. He said his father was a Creek Indian and his mother a Black plantation slave. No one knew his exact age, but we made a guess based on a story he often told us.<br />
<br />
He was about six or seven years old when, he said, “The stars fell”<br />
<br />
“When was that, Grandpa?”<br />
<br />
“Oh, one night the stars fell, I remember it very clearly. The skies were all lit up by falling stars. People were scared almost out of I heir wits. The old master and mistress and all the slaves were running out on the road, falling down on their knees to pray and ask forgiveness. We thought the Judgement Day had surely come. Glory Hallelujah! It was the last fire! The next day, the ground was all covered with ashes!”<br />
<br />
At first we thought all of that was just his imagination, something he had fantasized as a child and then remembered as a real event. But when my older brother Otto was in high school, he got interested in astronomy and came across a reference to a meteor shower of 1833. We figured out that was what Grandfather Thorpe had been talking about, so we concluded that he was born around 1825 or 1826.<br />
<br />
Grandfather Thorpe was filled with stories, many about slavery.<br />
<br />
“Chillen, I’ve got scars I’ll carry to my grave.” He would show us the welts on his back from slave beatings (my Grandmother also had them). Most of his beatings came from his first master in Kentucky. But he was later sold to a man in Missouri, whom he said treated him much better. This may have been due in part to his value as a slave—he was skilled both as a carpenter and cabinetmaker.<br />
<br />
Grandfather had many stories to tell about the Civil War. He was in Missouri at the time, living in an area that was first taken by a group known as Quantrell's raiders (a guerrilla-like band of irregulars who fought for the South) and then by the Union forces.<br />
<br />
When the Union soldiers first came into the plantations, they would call in slaves from the fields and make them sit down in the great drawing room of the house. They would then force the master and mistress and their family to cook and serve for the slaves. Grandfather told us that the soldiers would never eat any of the food that was served, because they were afraid of getting poisoned.<br />
<br />
The master on the plantation was generally decent when it became clear that the Union forces were going to control the area for awhile. At that time, Grandfather and my Grandmother Ann lived on adjacent plantations somewhere near Moberly, Missouri. Grandfather was allowed to visit Ann on weekends. Often on Sundays when he went to make a visit, he was challenged by Union guards. They would roughly demand to know his mission. My Grandfather and Grandmother got married, with the agreement of their two masters, and eventually had a family of five daughters and two sons. Grandfather Thorpe was given a plot of land in return for his services as a carpenter, but the family soon moved into Moberly. As the children reached working age, the family began to break up, but the girls always remained very close. They came back to visit frequently and never broke family ties as the boys had.<br />
<br />
My Mother, Harriet, was born when Grandmother was a slave on the plantation of Squire Sweeney in Howard County, Missouri. After the family moved into Moberly, Mother worked for a white family in town. She later went to St. Joseph, Missouri, to work for another white family. One day, while she was at work in St. Joseph, she heard a shot and then screams from down the street. She ran out to see what had happened. There was a great commotion and a crowd of people was gathering in front of the house next door.<br />
<br />
The family living there went by the name of Howard—a man, wife and two children. Both the man and his wife were church members; they appeared to be a most respectable couple. Mrs. Howard had been very active in church affairs and socials. Her husband was frequently absent because, she said, he was a traveling salesman and his work took him out of town for long periods of time.<br />
<br />
What the neighbors were not aware of was that “Mr. Howard” was none other than the legendary Jesse James. He was shot in the hack while hanging a picture in his house. The man who killed him was Robert Ford—a member of Jesse's own gang who had turned 11 a it or for a bribe offered by the Burns Detective Agency.<br />
<br />
When my Mother did the laundry, I remember she would often ring the “Ballad of Jesse James"—a song which became popular niter his death.<br />
<br />
'''Jesse James was a man—he killed many a man,'''<br />
<br />
'''The man that robbed that Denver train.'''<br />
<br />
'''It was a dirty little coward Who shot Mr. Howard,'''<br />
<br />
'''And they laid Jesse James in his grave.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh the people held their breath When they heard of Jesse's death,'''<br />
<br />
'''And they wondered how he came to die.'''<br />
<br />
'''He was shot on the sly By little Robert Ford,'''<br />
<br />
'''And they laid poor Jesse in his grave.'''<br />
<br />
In 1893, my Mother went to Chicago to visit her sister and see the Exposition. She said she saw Frank James, Jesse's brother, lie was out of prison then, a very dignified old man with a long white beard. He had been hired to ride around as an attraction at one of the exhibitions.<br />
<br />
Mother kept moving up to the north by stages. After the job in St. Joseph, she found work in St. Louis. She arrived to Find the city in a tense situation- the whole town was on the verge of a race riot. The immediate cause was the murder of an Irish cop named Brady. The Black community was elated, for Brady was a “nigger-hating cop" who carved notches on his pistol to show the number of Blacks he had killed. Brady finally met his end at the hands of a "bad" Black man who ran a gambling house in Brady's district.<br />
<br />
The gambling, of course, was illegal. But as was often the case, The cops were paid off with a “cut" from the takings of the house. As the story was told to me, Brady and the gambler met on the street one day and got into an argument. Brady accused the gambler of not giving him his proper “cut." This was denied vehemently. Brady then threatened to close the place down. The Black man told him, “Don’t you come into my place when the game’s going on!” He then turned and walked off. The scene was witnessed by several Blacks, and the news of how the gambler had defied Brady spread immediately throughout the Black district.<br />
<br />
This was bad stuff for Brady. It might lead to “niggers gettin’ notions,” as the cops put it. A few days passed, and Brady made his move. He went to the gambling house when the game was on and was shot dead.<br />
<br />
Some anonymous Black bard wrote a song about it all:<br />
<br />
'''Brady, why didn’t you run,'''<br />
<br />
'''You know you done wrong.'''<br />
<br />
'''You came in the room when the game was going on!''' <br />
<br />
'''Brady went below looking mighty curious.'''<br />
<br />
'''Devil said, " Where you from?”'''<br />
<br />
'''"I'm from East St. Louis .”'''<br />
<br />
'''"East St. Louie, come this way I’ve been expecting you every day!”'''<br />
<br />
The song was immediately popular in the Black community and became a symbol of rebellious feelings. Mother said that when she arrived in St. Louis, Blacks were singing this song all over town. The police realized the danger in such “notions” and began to arrest anyone they caught singing it. Forty years later. I was pleasantly surprised to hear Carl Sandburg sing the same song as part of his repertoire of folk ballads of the midwest. I had not heard it since Mother had sung it to us.<br />
<br />
Mother later moved to Kansas City, Missouri, and then to South Omaha. Her marriage there to my Father was her second. As a very young girl in Moberly, she had married John Harvey, but he was, to use her words, “a no-good yellah nigger, who expected me to support him.” They had one child, Gertrude, before he deserted her.<br />
<br />
Gertie came to Omaha some time after my Mother, and married my Father’s youngest brother, George. I have a feeling that Mother promoted this match; the two hard-working, sober Hall brothers must have been quite a catch!<br />
<br />
As I remember Mother in my childhood years, she was a small, brown-skinned woman, rather on the plumpish side, with large and beautiful soft brown eyes. She had the humped, Indian nose of the Thorpe family.<br />
<br />
My first memory of her is hearing her sing as she did housework. She had a melodious contralto voice and what seemed to me to be an endless and varied repertoire. Much of what I know about this period, I learned from her songs. These included lullabies (“Go to Sleep You Little Pickaninny, Mamma’s Gonna Swat You if You Don’t”) and many spirituals and jubilee songs. There were also innumerable folk ballads, and the popular songs of her day like "Down at the Ball” and “Where Did You Get That Hat?” Then there was the old song the slaves sang about their masters fleeing the Union Army—“The Year of Jubilo.”<br />
<br />
'''Oh darkies, have you seen the Massah with the mustache on his face?'''<br />
<br />
'''He was gwine down de road dis mornin’ like''' <br />
<br />
'''he's gwine to leave dis place.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, de Massah run, ha ha!'''<br />
<br />
'''And the darkies sing, ho ho!'''<br />
<br />
'''It must be now the Kingdom cornin' and de year of Jubilo!'''<br />
<br />
Mother never went to school a day in her life, but she had a phenomenal memory and was a virtual repository of Black folklore. My brother Otto taught her to read and write when she when forty years old. She told stories of life on the plantations, of the “hollers” they used. When a slave wanted to talk to a friend on n neighboring plantation, she would throw back her head and half sing, half yell: “Oh, Bes-sie, I wa-ant to see you.” Often you could hear one of the “hollers” a mile away.<br />
<br />
When Mother was a girl, camp meetings were a big part of her life. She had songs she remembered from the meetings, like “I Don’t Feel Weary, No Ways Tired,” and she would imitate the preachers with all of their promises of fire and brimstone. Later, when we lived in South Omaha, she was very active in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. As a means of raising funds, she used to organize church theatricals. Otto would help her read the plays; she would then direct them and usually play the leading role herself. She was a natural mimic. I heard her go through entire plays from beginning to end, imitating the voices (even the male ones) and the actions of the performers.<br />
<br />
In addition to caring for Otto, Eppa and myself, Mother got jobs catering parties for rich white families in North Omaha. She would bring us back all sorts of goodies and leftovers from these parties. Sometimes she would get together with her friends among the other domestics, and they would have a great time panning their employers and exchanging news of the white folks’ scandalous doings.<br />
<br />
Mother had the great fighting spirit of her family. She was a strong-minded woman with great ambition for her children, especially for us boys. Eppa, who was a plain Black girl, was sensitive but physically tough, courageous, and a regular tomboy.<br />
<br />
Worried about her future, Mother insisted that she learn the piano and arranged for her to take lessons at twenty-five cents each. Though she learned to play minor classics such as “Poet and Peasant,” arias from such operas as Aida and II Trovatore, accompanied the choir and so on, Eppa never liked music very much and was not consoled by it the way Mother was.<br />
<br />
As a wife, Mother had a way of making Father feel the part of the man in the house. She flattered his ego and always addressed him as “Mr. Half’ in front of guests and us children.<br />
<br />
=== LIFE IN SOUTH OMAHA ===<br />
'''You ask what town I love the best.''' <br />
<br />
'''South Omaha, South Omaha!'''<br />
<br />
'''The fairest town of all the rest,'''<br />
<br />
'''South Omaha, South Omaha!'''<br />
<br />
'''Where yonder's Papillion’s limp stream'''<br />
<br />
'''To where Missouri’s waters gleam.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, fairest town, oh town of mine,''' <br />
<br />
'''South Omaha, South Omaha!'''<br />
<br />
In the early part of the century, the days of my youth, South Omaha was an independent city. In 1915, it was annexed to become part of the larger city of Omaha. Like many midwestem towns, the city took its name from the original inhabitants of the area. In this case, it was the Omaha Indians of the Sioux tribal family. The area was a camping ground of the Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1804. It grew in importance when it became a licensed trading post and an important outfitting point during the Colorado Gold Rush. But the main growth of South Omaha came in the 1880s as the meat packing industry developed.<br />
<br />
In 1877, the first refrigerated railroad cars were perfected. This made it possible to slaughter livestock in the midwest and ship the meat to the large markets in eastern cities. As a result, the meat packing industry grew tremendously in the midwest.<br />
<br />
The city leaders saw the opportunity and encouraged the expanding packing industry to settle there—offering them special tux concessions and so forth. The town, situated on a plateau back from the “big muddy” (the Missouri River), began to grow. Soon it was almost an industrial suburb of Omaha and was one of the three largest packing centers in the country. All of the big packers of the time—Armour, Swift, Wilson and Cudahy—had big branches there. Cudahy’s main plant was in South Omaha.<br />
<br />
The industry brought with it growing railroad traffic. As a boy, I watched the dozens of lines of cars as they carried livestock in from the west and butchered meat to ship out to the east. The Burlington; the Chicago and Northwestern; the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific; the Illinois Central; the Rock Island; the Union Pacific—all of these lines had terminals there. By 1910, Omaha was the fourth largest railway center in the country.<br />
<br />
When I was born in 1898, South Omaha was a bustling town of about 20,000. Most of these 20,000 people were foreign-born and first generation immigrants. The two largest groups were the Irish and the Bohemians (or Czechs). There was a sprinkling of other Slavic groups—Poles, Russians, Serbs—as well as Germans, Greeks and Italians.<br />
<br />
The Bohemians were the largest ethnic group in town. They lived mainly in the southern part of town, towards the river, in the Brown Park and Albright sections. One thing that impressed me was their concern with education. They were a cultured group of people. I can’t remember any of them being illiterate and they had their own newspaper. They were involved in the political wheelings and dealings of the town and were successful at it. At one time, both the mayor and chief of police were Bohemians.<br />
<br />
The Irish were the second largest group, scattered throughout the town. The newly arrived poor "shanty” Irish would first settle on Indian Hill, near the stockyards. There were two classes of Irish the "shanty” Irish on the one hand, and the "old settlers” or "lace curtain” Irish on the other. This second group, who had settled only one generation before, was mostly made up of middle class, white collar, civil service and professional workers who lived near North Omaha. There were also a few Irish who were very rich; managers and executives who lived in Omaha proper. They had become well assimilated into the community. The tendency was for the poorer Irish to live in South Omaha, and those who had "made it” to one degree or another would move up to North Omaha or Omaha proper.<br />
<br />
There were only a few dozen Black families in South Omaha, scattered throughout the community. There was no Black ghetto and, as I saw it, no "Negro problem.” This was due undoubtedly to our small numbers, although there was a relatively large number of Blacks living in North Omaha. The Black community there had grown after Blacks were brought in as strikebreakers during the 1894 strike in the packing industry, but no real ghetto developed until after World War I.<br />
<br />
Our family lived in the heart of the Bohemian neighborhood in South Omaha. Nearly all our neighbors were Bohemians. They came from many backgrounds; there were workers and peasants, professionals, artists, musicians and other skilled artisans, all fleeing from the oppressive rule of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.<br />
<br />
They were friendly people, and kept up their language and traditions. On Saturdays, families would gather at one of the beer gardens to sing and dance. I remember watching them dance scottisches and polkas, listening to the beautiful music of their bands and orchestras, or running after their great marching bands when they were in a parade. On special occasions, they would bring out their colorful costumes. Much of their community life centered around the gymnastic clubs—Sokols or Turners’ Halls— which they had established.<br />
<br />
There were differences in how the ethnic groups related to each other and to the Blacks in town. In those days, Indian Hill was the stomping ground of teenage Irish toughs. One day, a mob of predominantly Irish youths ran the small Greek colony out of town when one of their members allegedly killed an Irish cop. I remember seeing the Greek community leaving town one Sunday afternoon. There were men, women and children (about 100 in all) walking down the railroad tracks, carrying everything they could hold. Some of their houses had been burned and a few of them had been beaten up in town.<br />
<br />
We should have seen the danger for us in this, but one Black man even boasted to my Father about how he had helped run the Greeks out. My Father called him a fool. “What business did you have helping that bunch of whites? Next time it might be you they run out!’’ The incident was an ominous sign of tensions that were lo come many years later.<br />
<br />
At the time, however, our family got along well with all the immigrant families in our immediate neighborhood. I loved the sweet haunting melodies of the Irish folk ballads; “Rose of Tralce,” "Mother Machree” and many of the popular songs, like “My Irish Molly-O” and “Augraghawan, I Want to Go Back to Oregon.”<br />
<br />
There was a Bohemian couple living next door. On occasion, Mr. Rehau would get a bit too much under his belt. He’d come home and really raise hell. When this happened, Mrs. Rehau scurried to Officer Bingham, the Black cop, to get some help. I remember one afternoon when Bingham came to lend a hand in laming him. The Bohemian was a little guy compared to him. Officer Bingham threw him down out in the yard and plunked himself down on Rehau’s back.<br />
<br />
Dust flew as he kicked and thrashed and tried to get out from under the Black man. Bingham just “rode the storm” and when Rehau raised his head, he’d smack him around until the rebellion subsided.<br />
<br />
“Had enough?" he’d yell at his victim. “You gonna behave now and mind what Mrs. Rehau says?" All the while, she was running around them, waving her apron.<br />
<br />
“Beat him some more, Mr, Bingham, please! Make him be good.”<br />
<br />
Finally, either Bingham got tired or Mr. Rehau just gave out and peace returned to the neighborhood.<br />
<br />
“Police and community relations" were less tense then. The cops knew how to control a situation without using guns. Often this meant they'd get into actual fist fights. In those days, there was a big Black guy in town named Sam, a beef lugger like my Father. Sam was a nice quiet guy, but on occasion he'd go on a drunk and fight anyone within arm’s length (which was a big area). The cops generally handled it by fighting it out with him.<br />
<br />
But I remember one time Sam really caused a row. He was outside a bar on J Street, up in Omaha proper. During the course of his drunk, he’d beaten up five or six of the regular cops. This called for extreme measures. Briggs, the chief of police, came to the scene to restore law and order. He marched up to Sam and threw out his chest, “Now Sam, it's time for you to behave, you hear?" He even pulled out his thirty-eight to show he meant business.<br />
<br />
But Sam wasn’t ready to behave. He came at Briggs, intending to lay him out like he’d done with the other officers, Briggs backed up, one step at a time. “Sam, you stop. You hear me Sam? Time to stop, now." Sam forced Briggs all the way back to his carriage. Once Briggs was in, he delivered his final threat: “Sam, you come down to City Hall on Monday and see me. This just can’t happen this way."<br />
<br />
Briggs drove off. Monday morning came and Sam went down to City Hall. He was fined for being drunk and disorderly. He didn’t fight the court and willingly paid the fine. It seemed like an unwritten agreement. The cops wouldn’t shoot when Sam went on a spree. When it was over, Sam would go and pay his fine and that would end the whole business.<br />
<br />
Our family was the only Black family in our neighborhood, and we were pretty well insulated from the racist pressures of the outside world. As children we were only very dimly aware of what DuBois called the “veil of color between the races.”<br />
<br />
I First became aware of the veil, not from anything that happened in the town, but from what my parents and grandparents told me of how Southern whites had persecuted Blacks and of how they had suffered under slavery. I remember Grandfather and Grandmother Thorpe showing me the scars they had on their backs from the overseer’s lash. I remember Pa reading newspaper accounts of the endless reign of lynch terror in the South, and about the 1908 riots in Springfield, Illinois.<br />
<br />
In 1908, Jack Johnson, the first Black heavyweight champion, defeated the “great white hope.” Jim Jeffries. Pa said that it was the occasion for a new round of lynchings in the South. There were other great Black fighters—Sam Langford, Joe Jeanett and Sam McVey for instance—but Johnson was the first Black heavyweight to be able to fight for the championship and the first to win it.<br />
<br />
He was conscious that he was a Black man in a racist world. “I’m Black, they never let me forget it. Pm Black, Til never forget it.” Jeffries had been pushed as the hope of the white race to reclaim the heavyweight crown from Johnson. When Johnson knocked out Jeffries, it was a symbol of Black defiance and self-assertion. To Blacks, the victory meant pride and hope. It was a challenge to the authority of bigoted whites and to them it called for extra measures to “keep the niggers in their place.”<br />
<br />
To us children, Black repression seemed restricted to the South, outside the orbit of our immediate experience. As I saw it then, there was no deliberate plot of white against Black. I thought there were two kinds of white folk: good and bad, and the latter were mainly in the South. Most of those I knew in South Omaha were good people. Disillusionment came later in my life.<br />
<br />
The friendly interracial atmosphere of South Omaha was illustrated by the presence of Officer Bingham and Officer Ballou, two Black cops in the town’s small police force. Bingham was a big, Black and jolly fellow. His beat was our neighborhood. Ballou was a tall, slim, ramrod straight and light brown-skinned Black. He was a veteran of the Black Tenth Cavalry. He had fought in the Indian wars against Geronimo and had participated in the chase for Billy the Kid. Ballou was also a veteran of the Spanish- American War. All the kids, Black and white, regarded him with a special awe and respect. Both Black officers were treated as respectable members of the community, liked by the people because they had their confidence. While they wore guns, they never seemed to use them. These cops fought tough characters with fists and clubs, pulling a gun only rarely, and then only in self- defense. It seemed that a large part of their duty was to keep the kids out of mischief.<br />
<br />
“Officer Bingham,” the Bohemian woman across the alley would call, “would you please keep an eye on my boy Frontal. See he don’t make trouble.”<br />
<br />
“Don’t worry, Mrs. Brazda. He’s a good boy.”<br />
“<br />
<br />
Has Haywood been a good boy?”<br />
<br />
“Oh yes, Mrs. Hall. He’s all right.’’And he would stop for a chat.<br />
My sister Eppa, a lad called Willy Starens and I were the only Black kids in the Brown Park Elementary School. My brother Otto had already graduated and was in South Omaha High. Our schoolmates were predominantly Bohemians, with a sprinkling of Irish, German and a few Anglo-Americans. My close childhood chums included two Bohemian lads, Frank Brazda and Jimmy Rehau; an Anglo-Irish kid, Earl Power; and Willy Ziegler, who was of German parentage. We were an inseparable fivesome, in and out of each other’s homes all the time.<br />
<br />
During my first years in school, I was plagued by asthma, and was absent from school many months at a time. The result was that I was a year behind. I finally outgrew this infirmity and became a strong, healthy boy. By the time I reached the eighth grade, I had become one of the best students in my class, sharing this honor with a Bohemian girl, Bertha Himmel. Both of us could solve any problem in arithmetic, both were good at spelling, and at interschool spelling bees our school usually won the first prize. My self-confidence was encouraged by my teachers, all of whom were white and yet uniformly kind and sympathetic.<br />
<br />
Of course, like all kids, I had plenty of fights. But race was seldom involved. Occasionally, I would hear the word “nigger.” While it evoked anger in me, it seemed no more disparaging than the terms “bohunk,” “sheeny,” “dago,” “shanty Irish” or “poor white trash.” All were terms of common usage, interchangeable as slurring epithets on one’s ethnic background, and usually employed outside the hearing of the person in question.<br />
<br />
In contrast to the daily life of the neighborhood, however, the virus of racism was subtly injected into the classroom at the Brown Park School I attended. The five races of mankind illustrated in our geography books portrayed the Negro with the receding forehead and prognathous jaws of a gorilla. There was a complete absence of Black heroes in the history books, supporting the inference that the Black man had contributed nothing to civilization. We were taught that Blacks were brought out of the savagery of the jungles of Africa and introduced to civilization through slavery under the benevolent auspices of the white man.<br />
<br />
In spite of my Father’s submissive attitude, it is to him that I must give credit for scotching this big lie about the Negro’s past. His attitude grew out of his concern for our survival in a hostile environment. He felt most strongly that the Negro was not innately inferior, He perceived that his children must have some sense of self-respect and confidence to sustain them until that distant day when, through “obvious merit and just dessert,” Blacks would receive their award of equality and recognition.<br />
<br />
Father possessed an amazing store of knowledge which he had culled from his readings. He would tell us about the Black civilizations of ancient Egypt, Ethiopia and Cush. He would quote from the Song of Solomon: “I am Black and comely, oh ye daughters of Jerusalem.” He would tell us about Black soldiers in the Civil War; about the massacre of Blacks at Fort Pillow and the battle cry they used thereafter, “Remember Fort Pillow! Remember Fort Pillow!”2 He knew about the Haitian Revolution, the defeat of Napoleon’s Army by Toussaint L’Ouverture, Dessalines and Jean Christophe. He told us about the famous Zulu chief Shaka in South Africa; about Alexandre Dumas, the great French romanticist, and Pushkin, the great Russian poet, who were both Black.<br />
<br />
Father said that he had taught himself to read and write. He had an extensive library, which took up half of one of the walls in our subject. They included such titles as The Decisive Battles of the World The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, and many histories of England, France, Germany and Russia. He had Stanley in Africa, and a number of biographies of famous men, including Napoleon, Caesar and Hannibal (who Father said was a Negro). He had Scott’s Ivanhoe and his Waverly novels; Bulwer Lytton; Alexandre Dumas’ novels and the Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, and Up From Slavery by Booker T. Washington.<br />
<br />
On another wall there was a huge picture of the charge of the Twenty-fifth Black Infantry and the Tenth Cavalry at San Juan Hill, rescuing Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders. There were pictures of Frederick Douglass and, of course, his hero, Booker T. Washington. He would lecture to us on history, displaying his .extensive knowledge. He was a great admirer of Napoleon. He would get into one of his lecturing moods and pace up and down with his hands behind his back before the rapt audience of my sister Eppa and myself. Talking about the Battle of Waterloo, he would say:<br />
<br />
“Wellington was in a tough spot that day. Napoleon was about to whip him; the trouble was Blucher hadn’t shown up.”<br />
<br />
“Who was he, Pa?”<br />
<br />
“He was the German general who was supposed to reinforce Wellington with 13,000 Prussian troops. Wellington was getting awful nervous, walking up and down behind the lines and saying, 4Oh! If Blucher fails to come! Where is Blucher?”<br />
<br />
“Did he Finally get there, Pa?”<br />
<br />
“Yes, son, he finally got there and turned the tide of battle. And if he hadn’t shown up and Napoleon had won, the whole course of history would have been changed.”<br />
<br />
It was through Father that I entered the world of books. I developed an unquenchable thirst to learn about people and their history. I remember going to the town library when I was nine or ten and asking, “Do you have a history of the world for children?” My first love became the historical novel. I loved George Henty’s books; they always dealt with the exploits of a sixteen-year-old during an important historical period. Through Henty’s heroes, I too was with Bonnie Prince Charlie, with Wellington in rite Spanish Peninsula, with Gustavus Adolphus at Lutsen in the Thirty Years War, with Clive in India and Under Drake's Flag around the world. I was also fascinated by romances of the feudal period such as When Knighthood Was in Flower and Ivanhoe. I read Twain’s Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer, and the works of H. Rider Haggard.<br />
<br />
I went through a definite Anglophile stage, in part due to the influence of a Jamaican named Mr. Williams who worked as assistant janitor with my Father. Mr. Williams was a huge Black man with scars all over his face. He was a former stoker in the British Navy. I was attracted by his strange accent and haughty demeanor. Evidently he saw in me an appreciative audience. I would listen with open mouth and wonder at the stories of the strange places he had seen, of his adventures in faraway lands. He was a real British patriot, a Black imperialist, if such was possible.<br />
<br />
He would declare, “The sun never sets on the British Empire,” and then sing “Rule Brittania, Brittania Rule the Waves.” He quoted Napoleon as allegedly saying, “Britain is a small garden, but she grows some bitter weeds,” and “Give me French soldiers and British officers, and I will conquer the world.” I pictured myself as a British sailor, and read Two Years Before the Mast and Battle of Trafalgar.<br />
<br />
“Do you think they would let me join the British Navy?” I asked Mr. Williams.<br />
<br />
“No, my lad,” he answered, “You have to be a British citizen or subject to do that.” I was quite disappointed.<br />
But it was not only British romance that fascinated me. At about the age of twelve I became a Francophile. I read all of Dumas’ novels and quite a number of other novels about France. I had begun to read French history, which to me turned out to be as interesting as the novels and equally romantic. I read about Joan of Arc, the Hundred Years’ War, Francis I, about Catherine de Medici, the Huguenots and Admiral Coligny, the Due de Guise, the massacre of St. Bartholomew Eve or the night of the long knives; then the French Revolution, A Tale of Two Cities, the guillotining of Charlotte Corday and the assassination of Marat.<br />
<br />
Occasionally, the ugly reality of race would intrude upon the dream world of my childhood. I distinctly remember two such occasions. One was when a white family from Arkansas moved across the alley from us. Mr. Faught, the patriarch of the clan, was a typical red-necked peckerwood. He would sit around the store front, chawing tobacco, telling how they treated “niggers” down his way.<br />
<br />
“They were made to stay in their place- -down in the cotton patch—not in factories taking white men’s jobs.”<br />
<br />
As I remember, his racist harangues did not make much of an impression on the local white audience. Apparently at that time there was no feeling of competition in South Omaha because there were so few Blacks. I would also imagine that his slovenly appearance did not jibe with his white supremacist pretensions.<br />
<br />
One day a substitute teacher took over our class. I was about ten years old. The substitute was a Southerner from Arkansas. During history class she started talking about the Civil War. The slaves, she said, did not really want freedom because they were happy as they were. They would have been freed by their masters in a few years anyway. Her villain was General Grant, whom she contrasted unfavorably with General Robert E. Lee.<br />
<br />
“Lee was a gentleman,” she put forth, “But Grant was a cigar-smoking liquor-drinking roughneck.”<br />
<br />
She didn’t like Sherman either, and talked about his “murdering rampage” through Georgia. I wasn't about to take all of this and challenged her.<br />
<br />
“I don’t know about General Grant’s habits, but he did beat Lee. Besides, Lee couldn’t have been much of a gentleman; he owned slaves!”<br />
<br />
Livid with rage, she shouted, “That’s enough —what I could say about you!”<br />
<br />
“Well, what could you say?” I challenged.<br />
She apparently saw that wild racist statements wouldn’t work in this situation, and that I was trying to provoke her to do something like that. She cut short the argument, shouting, “That’s enough”<br />
<br />
“Yes, that’s enough,” I sassed.<br />
During the heated exchange, I felt that I had the sympathy of most of my classmates. After school, some gathered around me and said, “You certainly told her off?”<br />
<br />
When I told Mother she supported me. “You done right, son,” she said.<br />
<br />
But Father was not so sure. “You might have gotten into trouble.”<br />
<br />
I feel now that one of the reasons for my self-confidence during my childhood years, and why the racist notions of innate Black inferiority left me cold, was my older brother Otto. His example belied such claims. He was the most brilliant one in our family, and probably in all of South Omaha. He had skipped a grade both in grade school and in high school, and was a real prodigy. He was a natural poet, and won many prizes in composition. His poem on the charge of the Twenty-fifth Black Infantry and Tenth Cavalry at San Juan Hill was published in one of the Omaha dailies. Otto was praised by all of his teachers. “An unusual boy,” they said, “clearly destined to become a leader of his race.”<br />
<br />
One day, one of his teachers and a Catholic priest called on Mother and Father to talk about Otto’s future. Otto was about fourteen at the time. They suggested that he might be good material for the priesthood, and that there was a possibility of his getting a scholarship for Creighton University, Omaha’s famous Jesuit school. The teacher suggested that if this were agreed to, he should take up Latin. My parents were extremely flattered, despite the fact that they were good Methodists (AME). Even Father, who did not seem ambitious for his children, was impressed.<br />
<br />
But when the proposition was placed before Otto, he vehemently disagreed. He did not want to become a priest nor did he want to study Latin. He wanted, he said, to be an architect! Doctors, dentists, teachers and preachers -these were the professions for an ambitious Black in those days.<br />
<br />
“An architect!” they exclaimed in amazement. “Who ever heard of a Black architect?”<br />
<br />
“Who ever heard of a Black priest?” Otto retorted. (At that time there were only two or three Black priests in the entire U.S.)<br />
<br />
“But Otto,” Mother argued,“you’ll have the support of a lot of prominent white folks. They’ll help you through college.”<br />
<br />
But Otto would have none of it. Undoubtedly, my parents thought that they could finally wear down his opposition and that he would become more amenable in time. They did force him to take Latin, a subject he hated.<br />
<br />
Otto stayed in school, but no longer seemed interested in his studies. He dropped out of school suddenly in his senior year. He was sixteen. He left home and got a job as a bellhop in a hotel in North Omaha’s Black community. This move cut completely the few remaining tics he had with his white age group in South Omaha.<br />
<br />
Otto’s drop-out from high school evidently signified that he had given up the struggle to be somebody in the white world. He had become disillusioned with the white world and therefore sought identity with his own people. During my childhood years, our relationship had never been close. There was, of course, the age gap—he was seven years older. But even in later years, when we were closer and had more in common, we never talked about our childhood. I don’t know why. As a child I had been proud of his academic feats and boasted about them to my friends.<br />
<br />
At the time he left high school Otto was the only Black in South Omaha High and was about to become its first Black graduate. Highly praised by his teachers and popular among his fellow students, he was a real showpiece in the school.<br />
<br />
What caused him to drop out of school in his senior year? Thinking back on it, I don’t believe that it had anything to do with the attempt to make him a priest. I think that he had won that battle a couple of years before. At least, I never heard the matter mentioned again.<br />
<br />
Otto undoubtedly had had high aspirations at one time, as evidenced by his desire to become an architect. Somewhere along the line they disappeared. Perhaps a contributing factor was the accumulating effect of Otto’s malady. On occasion, Mother would remind us that Otto had water on the brain, and that he was different from Eppa and myself. At the time, he seemed smarter than us, more independent and in rebellion against Pa’s lack of encouragement, moral support and his parental authority. Certainly in adult life Otto used to sleep about ten hours a day and very often fell asleep in meetings. He seemed to lack the ability of prolonged concentration, although whatever brain damage he may have suffered never affected the quickness of his mind and ability to grasp the nub of any question or the capacity for leadership which he showed on a number of occasions.<br />
<br />
But more debilitating, probably, than any physical disease was the generation gap of that era—between parents of slave backgrounds and children born free, particularly in the north. Otto’s dropping out of school and his later radical political development were undoubtedly related to a conflict more intense than the ones of today.<br />
<br />
Father was an ardent follower of Booker T. Washington. His ambitions for his sons were very modest, to put it mildly. He undoubtedly would have been satisfied if we could become good law-abiding citizens with stable jobs. He thought of jobs a notch or two above his own station, like a postal employee, a skilled tradesman, or a clerk in the civil service. The offer of a scholarship for the priesthood was, therefore, simply beyond his expectations, and I guess that the old man was deeply disappointed at Otto’s rejection of it.<br />
<br />
Otto was quite independent and would not conform to Father’s idea of discipline. For example, he was completely turned off on the question of religion, and Father could not force him to go to church I don’t remember Otto ever going to church with the family. Father claimed that Otto was irresponsible and wild. As a result, there was mutual hostility between them. The results were numerous thrashings when Otto was young and violent quarrels between them as he grew older. Mother would usually defend Otto. Grandpa Thorpe, himself a strict disciplinarian, would warn Mother: “Hattie, you mark my words, that boy is going to lan’ in the pen.”<br />
<br />
At some point, Otto came to the conclusion that there was no use in continuing his education. He must have felt that it was irrelevant. Opportunities for educated Blacks were few, even in North Omaha’s Black community where there were only a few professionals. In that community there were a few preachers, one doctor, one dentist and one or two teachers. Black businesses consisted of owners of several undertaking establishments, a couple of barber shops and a few pool rooms. The only other Blacks in any sort of middle class positions were a few postal employees, civil service workers, pullman porters and waiters.<br />
<br />
Then too, Otto had passed through the age of puberty and was becoming more and more conscious of his race. Along with the natural detachment and withdrawal from childhood socializing with girls—in his case white girls who were former childhood sweethearts—Otto experienced a withdrawal and non-socialization because of his race. He ended up quite alone because there were not many Black kids his age in South Omaha. There wasn’t much contact with the Black kids from North Omaha either. As a very sensitive person on the verge of manhood, I imagine he began to feel these changes keenly.<br />
<br />
After he dropped out of school in 1908, Otto was soon attracted to the “sportin’ life”...the pool halls and sporting houses of North<br />
Omaha. He wanted to be among Black people; he was anxious to get away from Father. Thus, he left home and got jobs as a bellhop, shoeshine boy, and busboy. He began to absorb a new way of life, stepping fully into the social life of the Black community in North Omaha. He’d evidently heeded the “call of the blood” and gone back to the race. It was not until a few years later, when I had similar experiences, that I understood that Otto had arrived at the first stage in his identity crisis and had gone to where he felt he belonged.<br />
<br />
He would come home quite often, though, flaunting his new clothes, a “box-backed” suit—“fitting nowhere but the shoulders,” high-heeled Stacey Adams button shoes, and a stetson hat. He’d give a few dollars to Mother and some dimes to me and my sister. Sometimes he would bring a pretty girl friend with him. But most of the time, he would bring a young man, Henry Starens, who was a piano player. He played a style popular in those days, later to be known as boogie-woogie, in which the piano was the whole orchestra. He played Ma Rainey’s famous blues, “Make Me a Pallet on Your Floor, Make It Where Your Man Will Never Know,” and the old favorite, “Alabama Bound.”<br />
<br />
'''Alabama Bound'''<br />
<br />
'''I'm Alabama Bound.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, babe, don't leave me here,'''<br />
<br />
'''Just leave a dime for beer.'''<br />
<br />
A boy of ten at the time, I was tremendously impressed. There is no doubt that Otto’s experience served to weaken some of my childish notions about making it in the white world.<br />
<br />
=== HALLEY’S COMET AND MY RELIGION ===<br />
On May 4, 1910, Halley’s Comet appeared flaring down out of the heavens, its luminous tail switching to earth. It was an ominous sight.<br />
<br />
A rash of religious revival swept Omaha. Prophets and messiahs appeared on street comers and in churches preaching the end of the world. Hardened sinners “got religion.” Backsliders renewed their faith. The comet, with its tail moving ever closer to the earth, seemed to lend credence to forecasts of imminent cosmic disaster.<br />
<br />
Both my Mother and Father were deeply religious. Theirs was that “old time religion,” the fire-and-brimstone kind which leaned heavily on the Old Testament. It was the kind that accepted the Bible and all its legends as the literal gospel truth. We children had the “fear of the Lord” drilled into us from early age. My image of God was that of a vengeful old man who demanded unquestioned faith, strict obedience and repentant love as the price of salvation;<br />
<br />
'''I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.'''<br />
<br />
Every Sunday, rain or shine, the family would attend services at the little frame church near the railroad tracks. For me, this was a tortuous ordeal. I looked forward to Sundays with dread. We would spend all of eight hours in church. We would sit through the morning service, then the Sunday school, after which followed a break for dinner. We returned at five for the Young People’s Christian Endeavor and finally the evening service. It was not just boredom. Fear was the dominant emotion, especially when our preacher, Reverend Jamieson, a big Black man with a beautiful voice, would launch into one of his fire-and-brimstone sermons. He would start out slowly and in a low voice, gradually raising it higher he would swing to a kind of sing-song rhythm, holding his congregation rapt with vivid word pictures. They would respond with “Hallelujah! ” “Ain’t it the truth! ” “Preach it, brother!”<br />
<br />
He would go on in this manner for what seemed an interminable time, and would reach his peroration on a high note, winding up with a rafter-shaking burst of oratory. He would then pause dramatically amidst moans, shouts and even screams of some of the women, one or two of whom would fall out in a dead faint. Waiting for them to subside he would then, in a lowered, scarcely audible voice, reassure his flock that it was not yet too late to repent and achieve salvation. All that was necessary was to: “Repent sinners, and love and obey the Lord. Amen.” Someone would then rise and lead off with an appropriate spiritual such as:<br />
<br />
'''Oh, my sins are forgiven and my soul set free-ah,'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, glory Halelua-a-a-a'''<br />
<br />
'''Just let me in the kingdom when the world is all a'fi-ah.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh Glory Halelu!'''<br />
<br />
'''I don't feel worried, no ways tiahd,'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, glory Halelu!'''<br />
<br />
I remember the family Bible, a huge book which lay on the center table in the front room. The first several pages were blank, set aside for recording the vital family statistics: births, deaths, marriages. The book was filled with graphic illustrations of biblical happenings. Leafing through Genesis (which we used to call “the begats”), one came to Exodus and from there on a pageant of bloodshed and violence unfolded. Portrayed in striking colors were the interminable tribal wars in which the Israelites slew the Mennonites and Pharoah’s soldiers killed little children in march of Moses. There was the great God, Jehovah himself, whitebearded and eyes flashing, looking very much like our old cracker neighbor, Mr. Faught.<br />
<br />
Just a couple of weeks before Halley’s comet appeared, Mother had taken us to see the silent film, Dante’s Inferno, through which I sat with open mouth horror. Needless to say, this experience did not lessen my apprehension.<br />
<br />
The comet continued its descent, its tail like the flaming sword of vengeance. Collision seemed not just possible, but almost certain. What had we poor mortals done to incur such wrath of the Lord?<br />
<br />
My deportment underwent a change. I did all my chores without complaint and helped Mama around the house. This was so unlike me that she didn’t know what to make of it. I overheard her telling Pa about my good behavior and how helpful I had become lately. But I hadn’t really changed. I was just scared. I was simply trying to carry out another one of God’s commandments, “Honor thy lather and thy mother that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.'’<br />
<br />
Then one night, when the whole neighborhood had gathered as usual on the hill to watch the comet, it appeared to have ceased its movement towards the earth. We were not sure, but the next night we were certain. It had not only ceased its descent, but was definitely withdrawing. In a couple more nights, it had disappeared. A wave of relief swept over the town.<br />
<br />
“It’s not true!” I thought to myself. “The fire and brimstone, the leering devils, the angry vengeful God. None of it is true.”<br />
<br />
It was as if a great weight had been lifted from my mind. It was the end of my religion, although I still thought that there was most likely a supreme being. But if God existed, he was nothing like the God portrayed in our family Bible. I was no longer terrified of him. Later, at the age of fourteen or fifteen, I read some of the lectures of Robert G. Ingersoll and became an agnostic, doubting the existence of a god. From there, I later moved to positive atheism.<br />
<br />
Two years later, the great event was the sinking of the Titanic.This was significant in Omaha because one of the Brandeis brothers, owners of the biggest department store in North Omaha, went down with her. In keeping with the custom of Blacks to gloat over the misfortunes of whites, especially rich ones, some Black bard composed the "Titanic Blues":<br />
<br />
'''When old John Jacob As tor left his home,'''<br />
<br />
'''He never thought he was going to die.'''<br />
<br />
'''Titanic fare thee well'''<br />
<br />
'''I say fare thee well.'''<br />
<br />
But disaster was more frequently reserved for the Black community. On Easter Sunday 1913, a tornado struck North Omaha. It ripped a two-block swath through the Black neighborhood, leaving death and destruction in its wake. Among the victims were a dozen or so Black youths trapped in a basement below a pool hall where they had evidently been shooting craps. Mother did not fail to point out the incident as another example of God's wrath. While I was sorry for the youths and their families (some of them were friends of Otto), the implied warning left me cold. My God-fearing days had ended with Halley's Comet.<br />
<br />
Misfortune, however, was soon to strike our immediate family. It happened that summer, in 1913. My Father fled town after being attacked and beaten by a gang of whites on Q Street, right outside the gate of the packing plant. They told him to get out of town or they would kill him.<br />
<br />
I remember vividly the scene that night when Father staggered through the door. Consternation gripped us at the sight. His face was swollen and bleeding, his clothes torn and in disarray. He had a frightened, hunted look in his eyes. My sister Eppa and I were alone. Mother had gone for the summer to work for her employers, rich white folks, at Lake Okoboji, Iowa. <br />
<br />
"What happened?" we asked.<br />
<br />
He gasped out the story of how he had been attacked and beaten.<br />
<br />
"They said they were going to kill me if I didn't get out of town."<br />
<br />
We asked him who "they" were. He said that he recognized some of them as belonging to the Irish gang on Indian Hill, but there were also some grown men.<br />
<br />
"But why, Pa? Why should they pick on you?"<br />
<br />
"Why don't we call the police?"<br />
<br />
"That ain't goin' to do no good. We just have to leave town."<br />
<br />
"But Pa," I said, "how can we? We own this house. We've got friends here. If you tell them, they wouldn't let anybody harm us."<br />
<br />
Again the frightened look crossed his face.<br />
<br />
"No, we got to go."<br />
<br />
"Where, where will we go?"<br />
<br />
"We'll move up to Minneapolis, your uncles Watt and George are there. I'll get work there. I'm going to telegraph your Mother to come home now."<br />
<br />
He washed his face and then went into the bedroom and began packing his bags. The next morning he gave Eppa some money and said, "This will tide you over till your Mother comes. She'll be here in a day or two. I'm going to telegraph her as soon as I get to the depot. I'll send for you all soon."<br />
<br />
He kissed us goodbye and left.<br />
<br />
Only when he closed the door behind him did we feel the full impact of the shock. It had happened so suddenly. Our whole world had collapsed. Home and security were gone. The feeling of safety in our little haven of interracial goodwill had proved elusive. Now we were just homeless "niggers" on the run.<br />
<br />
The crudest blow, perhaps, was the shattering of my image of lather. True enough, I had not regarded him as a hero. Still, however, I had retained a great deal of respect for him. He was undoubtedly a very complex man, very sensitive and imaginative. Probably he had never gotten over the horror of that scene in the cabin near Martin, Tennessee, where as a boy of fifteen he had seen his father kill the Klansman. He distrusted and feared poor whites, especially the native born and, in Omaha, the shanty Irish.<br />
<br />
Mother arrived the next day. For her it was a real tragedy. Our home was gone and our family broken up. She had lived in Omaha for nearly a quarter of a century. She had raised her family there and had built up a circle of close friends. With her regular summer job at Lake Okoboji and catering parties the rest of the year, she had helped pay for our home. Now it was gone. We would be lucky if we even got a fraction of the money we had put into it, not to speak of the labor. Now she was to leave all this. Friends and neighbors would ask why Father had run away.<br />
<br />
Why had he let some poor white trash run him out of town? He had friends there. Ours was an old respected family. He also had influential white patrons. There was Ed Cudahy of the family that owned the packing plant where he worked. The Cudahys had become one of the nation's big three in the slaughtering and meat packing industry. Father had known him from boyhood. There was Mr. Wilkins, general manager at Cudahy's, whom Father had known as an office boy, and who now gave Father all his old clothes.<br />
<br />
A few days later, Mr. Cannon, a railroad man in charge of a buffet car on the Omaha and Minneapolis run and an old friend of the family, called with a message from Father. He said that Father was all right, that he had gotten a job for himself and Mother at the Minneapolis Women's Club. Father was to become caretaker and janitor, Mother was to cater the smaller parties at the club and to assist at the larger affairs. They were to live on the place in a basement apartment.<br />
<br />
The salary was ridiculously small (I think about $60 per month for both of them) and the employers insisted that only one of us children would be allowed to live at the place. That, of course, would be Eppa. He said that Father had arranged for me to live with another family. This, he said, would be a temporary arrangement. He was sure he could find another job, and rent a house where we could all be together again. As for me, Father suggested that since I was fifteen, I could find a part-time job to help out while continuing school. Mr. Cannon said that he was to take me back to Minneapolis with him, and that Mother and Eppa were to follow in a few days.<br />
<br />
With regards to our house, Mr. Cannon said that he knew a lawyer, an honest fellow, who for a small commission would handle its sale. Mother later claimed that after deducting the lawyer's commission and paying off a small mortgage, they only got the paltry sum of $300! This was for a five-room house with electricity and running water.<br />
<br />
The next day, Mr. Cannon took me out to his buffet car in the railroad yards. He put me in the pantry and told me to stay there, and if the conductor looked in: "Don't be afraid, he's a friend of mine." Our car was then attached to a train which backed down to the station to load passengers. I looked out the window as we left Omaha. I was not to see Omaha again until after World War I, when I was a waiter on the Burlington Railroad.<br />
<br />
My childhood and part of my adolescence was now behind me. I felt that I was practically on my own. What did the world hold for me—a Black youth?<br />
<br />
Arriving in Minneapolis, I went to my new school. As I entered the room, the all-white class was singing old darkie plantation songs. Upon seeing me, their voices seemed to take on a mocking, derisive tone. Loudly emphasizing the Negro dialect and staring directly at me, they sang:<br />
<br />
'''"Down in De Caunfiel—HEAH DEM darkies moan'''<br />
<br />
'''All De darkies AM a weeping'''<br />
<br />
'''MASSAHS in DE Cold Cold Ground"'''<br />
<br />
They were really having a ball.<br />
<br />
In my state of increased racial awareness, this was just too much for me. I was already in a mood of deep depression. With the breakup of our family, the separation from my childhood friends, and the interminable quarrels between my Mother and Father (in which I sided with Mother), I was in no mood to be kidded or scoffed at.<br />
<br />
That was my last day in school. I never returned. I made up my mind to drop out and get a full-time job.<br />
<br />
I was fifteen and in the second semester of the eighth grade.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 ==<br />
<br />
=== A Black Regiment in World War I ===<br />
'''On the Negroes this double experience of deliberate and devilish persecution from their own countrymen, coupled with a taste of real democracy and world-old culture, was revolutionizing. They began to hate prejudice and discrimination as they had never hated it before. They began to realize its eternal meaning and complications., .they were filled with a bitter, dogged determination never to give up the fight for Negro equality in America....A new, radical Negro spirit has been born in France, which leaves us older radicals far behind. Thousands of young Black men have offered their lives for the Lilies of France and they return ready to offer them again for the Sunflowers of Afro-America. W.E.B. DuBois, June 1919'''<br />
<br />
Despite my bitter encounter with racism in school, I liked Minneapolis. I was impressed by the beauty of this city with its many lakes and surrounding pine forests. The racial climate in 1913 was not as bad as my early experience in school would indicate, either. Blacks seemed to get along well, especially with the Scandinavian nationalities, who constituted the most numerous ethnic grouping in the city. <br />
<br />
Upon quitting school, I became a part of the small Black community and completely identified with it. I found friends among Black boys and girls of my age group, attended parties, dances, picnics at Lake Minnetonka, and ice skated in the winter time. Here, as in Omaha, a ghetto had not yet fully formed, though I here were the beginnings of one in the Black community on the north side.<br />
<br />
Included in the Black community and among my new friends were a relatively large number of mulattos, the progeny of mixed marriages between Scandinavian women and Black men. This phenomenon dated back to the turn of the century. At that time it was the fashion among wealthy white families to import Scandinavian maids. Many of these families had Black male servants— butlers, chauffeurs, etc.—and the small Black population was preponderantly male. The result was a rash of inter-marriages between the Scandinavian maids and the Black male house servants. The interracial couples formed a society called Manasseh which held well-known yearly balls. As a whole the children of this group were a hot-headed lot and seemed even more racially conscious than the rest of us.<br />
<br />
It was in Minneapolis that I too reached a heightened stage of racial awareness. This was hastened, no doubt, by the tragic events in South Omaha and the fact that I was now an adolescent and there was the problem of girls. I had noticed that it was in the period of pubescence that a Black boy, raised even in communities of relative racial tolerance, was first confronted with the problem of race. It had been so with my brother Otto in Omaha, and now it was so with me.<br />
<br />
During the first year after dropping out of school I worked as a bootblack, barber shop porter, bell hop and busboy, continuing in the last long enough to acquire the rudiments of the waiter's trade. At the age of sixteen, I got a j ob as dining car waiter on the Chicago Northwestern Railway. The first run was also my first trip to the big city, where I had four aunts (my Mother's sisters). All through my childhood my Mother had told stories about her first visit there at the time of the Chicago Exposition. Upon arrival, one of the older waiters on the car, Lon Holliday, took me to see the town. I'm sure he looked forward to showing a young "innocent" the ropes. After a visit to my aunts, he took me to a notorious dive on the Southside. It was the back room of a saloon at Thirty-second and State Street.<br />
<br />
The piano man was playing "boogie woogie" style, popular in those days. The few couples on the floor were "walking the dog," "balling the jack," and so on. Then one of the dancers, a woman, called to the pianist, "Oh, Mr. Johnson, please play 'Those Dirty Motherfuckers.'" He enthusiastically complied and sang a number of verses of the bawdy tune. I almost sank through the floor in embarrassment and even amazement. Lon, who was watching, burst out laughing and he said, "Boy, you ain't seen nothing yet!"<br />
<br />
He then took me to the famous "Mecca Flats" on Federal Street, where a rent party was in process. There he introduced me to a young woman, whom he evidently knew, and slipped her some money, saying, "Take care of my young friend here; be sure you get him back on the car in the morning. We leave for Minneapolis at 10:00 A.M."<br />
<br />
The railroads were a way to see the country and in the months that followed I took advantage of that, working for different lines, on different runs as far west as Seattle. On one run in Montana called the Loop, the dining car shuttled between Great Falls and Butte by way of Helena, stopping at each town overnight. It was known as the "outlaw run" and I soon found out why. It attracted a number of characters wanted by police in other cities, searching for an escape or a temporary hideout.<br />
<br />
While laying over in Butte one night, our chef murdered the parlor car porter—cut his throat while he was sleeping in the parlor car. They had been feuding for days. I went through the parlor car that morning and was the first to see the ghastly sight. The police came, but the chef had disappeared. My enthusiasm for the job was gone. It might have been me, I thought, for I had had a number of arguments with the chef about my orders.<br />
<br />
I quit and headed back to Minneapolis, arriving there shortly after war broke out in Europe in 1914.1 was sixteen and had been avidly following the news, reading of the invasions of Belgium, France, the Battle of the Marne, etc. <br />
<br />
One day, walking along Hennepin Avenue I saw a Canadian recruiting sergeant. He was wearing the uniform of the Princess Pat Regiment, bright red jacket and black kilt. A handsome fellow, I thought, looking like Bonnie Prince Charlie himself. He noticed me looking at him and asked, "You want to join up with the Princess Pat, my lad? We've got a number of Black boys like you in the regiment. You'll find you're treated like anyone else up there. We make no difference between Black and white in Canada."<br />
<br />
Imagining myself in the red jacket and black kilt, I said, "Sure,I'll join."<br />
<br />
Then looking at me closely, he asked, "How old are you?"<br />
<br />
"Eighteen," I lied.<br />
<br />
"Your parents living?"<br />
<br />
"Yes."<br />
<br />
"Well, you've got to get their consent."<br />
<br />
"Oh, they'll agree," I said.<br />
<br />
"They live in the city?"<br />
<br />
"Yes."<br />
<br />
"Well, you come back here tomorrow and bring one of them with you and I'll sign you up."<br />
<br />
"Okay," I said, but I knew that my parents would never agree. And well it was, too, for I later learned that this regiment was among the first victims of the German mustard gas attack at Ypres, and what was left of them was practically wiped out at bloody Paschendale on the Sommes front.<br />
<br />
Life in Minneapolis was beginning to bore me. I was anxious to get back to Chicago, "the big city," so I moved there and stayed with my Aunt Lucy at Forty-third and State. In 1915 my parents, at the urging of my Mother, also moved to Chicago, and I then stayed with them.<br />
<br />
In Chicago I got a job as a busboy at the Tip Top Inn, then considered the finest restaurant in town. It was owned by old man Hieronymous, a famous chef, and was noted for its French cuisine and service. In the trade it was taken for granted that if you had been a waiter at the Tip Top Inn you could work anywhere in the country. After a few months I was promoted to waiter and felt that I had perfected my skills. During the next three years I worked at a number of places: the Twentieth Century Limited, the New York Central's crack train; the Wolverine (Michigan Central); the Sherman House; the old Palmer House; and the Auditorium.<br />
<br />
During this time in Chicago I saw Casey Jones, a Black man and a legendary character known to at least four generations of Black Chicagoans. As I remember, he was partially paralyzed, probably from cerebral palsy. He would go through the streets with trained chickens, which he put through various capers, shouting, "Crabs, crabs, I got them!" He had a defect in his speech which he exploited. The audience would literally fall out at his rendering of the popular sentimental ballad, "The Curse of an Aching Heart":<br />
<br />
'''You made me what I am today,'''<br />
<br />
'''I hope you're satisfied.'''<br />
<br />
'''You dragged and dragged me down until'''<br />
<br />
'''a The heart within me died.'''<br />
<br />
'''Although you're not true,'''<br />
<br />
'''May God bless you,'''<br />
<br />
'''That's the curse of an aching heart!'''<br />
<br />
Then there was the beloved comedian, String Beans, who often appeared at the old Peking Theater at Thirty-first and State Street. The Dolly Sisters also appeared there; they were very famous at the time. Teenan Jones'slush night spot was at Thirty-fifth and State Street. Then at the Panama, another night club, I would listen to Mamie Smith sing "Shimmy-sha-Wobble, That's All," a very popular song and dance at the time.<br />
<br />
Once, when I wanted to go back to Minneapolis to visit, I caught the Pioneer Limited—riding the rods—out of the station on the west side. This was my first experience in hoboing. I rode the rods as far as Beloit, Wisconsin.<br />
<br />
At Beloit I got off, but was afraid to get back on because a yard dick was going around the cars. I stayed there overnight—a fairly cold night as I remember. I met a white man, a "professional" hobo, who took me in tow and told me about the trains leaving in the morning. He said we could catch a train that would pull us right into Minneapolis. It was a passenger train, and we could "ride the blinds in," that is, the space between the two Pullman cars.<br />
<br />
We rode the blinds, reaching La Crosse, Wisconsin. On the way he warned, "You know, there's a bad dick up there in La Crosse. We gotta watch out for him." When the train pulled to a stop in La Crosse both of us hopped off. Other guys were flying out of the train from all sides—from the rods, the blinds, and there were some on top, too. But this notorious yard dick caught us. He was a rough character, and let us know it as he lined us up.<br />
<br />
"Hey, up there!"<br />
<br />
I was at the end of the line of about a dozen guys and was the only Black there. I had my hands in my pocket.<br />
<br />
"Take yer hands outta yer pockets!"<br />
<br />
I took my hands out of my pockets.<br />
<br />
The engine's fireman was looking out, watching all of this. He called to the yard dick, "Say, Jim, let me have that young colored boy over there to slide down coal for me into Minneapolis."<br />
<br />
The dick looked at me and scowled, "All right, you, get up there!"<br />
<br />
He shouted to the fireman, "But see that he works!"<br />
<br />
"I'll see to that; he'll work."<br />
<br />
I scrambled on the engine tender and slid coal all the way to Minneapolis, where I got off at the station.<br />
<br />
Among my new friends in Chicago were several members of the Eighth Illinois, Black National Guard Regiment. They would regale me with tall stories of their exploits on the Mexican border in the summer of 1916 when the regiment took part in a "show of force" against the Mexican Revolution. None of us, of course, knew the real issues involved.<br />
<br />
I remember reading of the exploits of the famous Black Tenth Cavalry Regiment, which was a part of the force sent by General Funston across the border in pursuit of Pancho Villa. They had been ambushed by Villa and a number of them killed. The papers, on that occasion, had been full of accounts of the heroic Black cavalrymen and their valiant white officers. The Eighth, however, had been in the rear near San Antonio, Texas, and saw no action during the abortive campaign.<br />
<br />
Intrigued by their experiences, I joined the Eighth Regiment in the winter of 1917. I was nineteen. The regiment, officered by Blacks from the colonel on down (many of them veterans of the four Black Regular Army regiments), gave me a feeling of pride. They had a high esprit de corps which emphasized racial solidarity. I didn't regard it just as a part of a U.S. Army unit, but as some sort of a big social club of fellow race-men. Still, I knew that we would eventually get into the war. That did not bother me; on the contrary, romance, adventure, travel beckoned. I saw possible escape from the inequities and oppression which was the lot of Blacks in the U.S. I was already a Francophile. I had read and heard about the fairness of the French with respect to the race issue. It seems now, as I look back upon it, that patriotism was the least of my motives. I was avidly following all the news of the war and it seemed certain that the U.S. was going to get involved, despite protestations of President Wilson to the contrary.<br />
<br />
Already the press was whipping up war sentiment. Tin PanAlley joined in with a rash of jingoistic songs: "Don't Bite the Hand That's Feeding You," "Let's All Be American Now," ad nauseum. All this left us cold. However, the song that brought tears to my eyes was "Joan of Arc":<br />
<br />
'''Joan of Arc, Joan of Arc,'''<br />
<br />
'''Do your eyes from the skies see the foe?'''<br />
<br />
'''Can't you see the drooping Fleur de Lys,'''<br />
<br />
'''Can't you hear the tears of Normandy?'''<br />
<br />
'''Joan of Arc, Joan of Arc,'''<br />
<br />
'''Let your spirit guide us through.'''<br />
<br />
'''Awake old France to victory!'''<br />
<br />
'''Joan of Arc, we're calling you.'''<br />
<br />
Truly, nothing was sacred to Tin Pan Alley!<br />
<br />
The Lusitania was sunk; the U.S. declared war in April 1917. Our regiment was federalized on July 25, 1917, and in the late summer we were on our way to basic training at Camp Logan, near Houston, Texas.<br />
<br />
A demagogic promise was widely circulated that things would be better if Blacks fought loyally. For example, there was the statement of President Wilson: "Out of this conflict you must expect nothing less than the enjoyment of full citizenship rights." This propaganda was immediately belied by the mounting wave of new lynchings in the South, which claimed thirty-eight victims in 1917 and fifty-eight in 1918. Worst of all was the East St. Louis riot in September 1917; at least forty Blacks were massacred in a bloody pogrom that lasted several days.<br />
<br />
Then there was the mutiny-riot of the Twenty-fourth Infantry in Houston, Texas, where our regiment was to receive its basic training. Company G of our outfit was already in Houston at the time, having been sent on as an advance detachment to prepare the camp for our occupation. It was through them that I learned exactly what had happened.<br />
<br />
Black soldiers of the Twenty-fourth Infantry, an old Regular Army regiment, had for months been subjected to insults and abuse by Houston police and civilians. The outfit had stationed its military police in Houston, who were, in theory, supposed to cooperate with local police in maintaining law and order among soldiers on leave. Instead, the Black military police found themselves the object of abuse, insults and beatings by local police. This treatment of Black MPs by racist cops was evidently encouraged by the fact that they (the Blacks) were unarmed.<br />
<br />
A report of the special on-the-spot investigator for the NAACP published in the Crisis, its organ, reads:<br />
<br />
'''In deference to the southern feeling against the arming of Negroes and because of the expected cooperation of the City Police Department, members of the provost guard were not armed, thus creating a situation without precedent in the history of this guard. A few carried clubs, but none of them had guns, and most of them were without weapons of any kind. They were supposed to call on white police officers to make arrests. The feeling is strong among the colored people of Houston that this was the real cause of the riot.'''<br />
<br />
'''On the afternoon of August 23, two policemen, Lee Sparks and Rufe Daniels—the former known to the colored people as a brutal bully—entered the house of a respectable colored woman in an alleged search for a colored fugitive accused of crap-shooting. Failing to find him, they arrested the woman, striking and cursing her and forcing her out into the street only partly clad. While they were waiting for the patrol wagon a crowd gathered about the weeping woman who had become hysterical and was begging to know why she was being arrested.'''<br />
<br />
'''In this crowd was a colored soldier, Private Edwards. Edwards seems to have questioned the police officers or remonstrated with them. Accounts differ on this point, but they all agree that the officers immediately set upon him and beat him to the ground with the butts of their six-shooters, continuing to beat and kick him while he was on the ground, and arrested him. In the words of Sparks himself: "I beat that nigger until his heart got right. He was a good nigger when I got through with him."'''<br />
<br />
'''Later Corporal Baltimore, a member of the military police, approached the officers and inquired for Edwards, as it was his duty to do. Sparks immediately opened fire and Baltimore, being unarmed, fled....They followed...beat him up, and arrested him. It was this outrage which infuriated the men of the Twenty-fourth Infantry to the point of revolt.'''<br />
<br />
When word of this outrage reached the camp, feeling ran high. It was by no means the first incident of the kind that had occurred.<br />
<br />
The white officers, feeling that the men would seek revenge, ordered them disarmed. The arms were stacked in a tent guarded by a sergeant. A group of men killed the sergeant, seized their rifles, and under the leadership of Sergeant Vida Henry, an eighteen-year veteran, marched on Houston in company strength.<br />
<br />
When the soldiers left camp their slogan was "On to the Police Station!" They entered town by way of San Felipe Street which ran through the heart of the Black community. The fact that they took this route and avoided the more direct one which lead through a white neighborhood disproved the charge by local newspapers and the police that they were out to shoot up the town and kill all whites. Their target was clearly the Houston cops. On the way to the station they shot every person who looked like a cop.<br />
<br />
Finally meeting resistance, a battle ensued which ended with seventeen whites, thirteen of them policemen, killed. The alarm went out and a whole division of white troops, which was stationed in the camp, was sent in to round up the mutineers. Finally cornered, the men threw down their arms and surrendered, with the exception of Sergeant Vida Henry, who committed suicide rather than be taken. <br />
<br />
The whole battalion of the Twenty-fourth Infantry, including the mutineers, was hurriedly placed aboard a guarded troop train and sent to Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Immediately upon arrival there, those involved were given a drum-head court martial. Thirteen were executed and forty-one others were sentenced to life imprisonment.<br />
<br />
The bodies of all the executed men were sent home to their families for burial. I remember reading of the funeral of Corporal Baltimore in some little town in Illinois.<br />
<br />
Our regiment entrained for Camp Logan with our ardor considerably dampened by these events. Indeed, we left Chicago in an angry and apprehensive mood which lasted all the way to Texas. We passed through East St. Louis in the middle of the night. Those of us who were awake were brooding about the massacre of our kinsmen which had recently taken place there. The regiment traveled in three sections, a battalion each, in old style tourist cars (sort of second-class Pullmans).<br />
<br />
The next morning we arrived in Jonesboro, Arkansas, our first stop on the other side of the Mason-Dixon line. We were in enemy territory. For many of us it was our first time in the South. Jonesboro was a division point—all three sections of the train pulled up on sidings while the engines were being changed and the cars serviced.<br />
<br />
It was a bright, warm and sunny Sunday morning. It seemed like the whole town had turned out at the station platform to see the strange sight of armed Black soldiers. Whites were on one side of the station platform and Blacks on the other. We pulled into the station with the windows open and our 1903 Springfield rifles on the tables in plain view of the crowd.<br />
<br />
We were at our provocative best. We threw kisses at the white girls on the station platform, calling out to them: "Come over here, baby, give me a kiss!" "Look at that pretty redhead over there, ain't she a beaut!" And so forth.<br />
<br />
A passenger train pulled up beside us on the next track. There, peering out the open window, was a real stereotype of an Arkansas red-neck. The sight of him was provocation enough for Willie Morgan, a huge Black in our company who was originally from Mississippi. Morgan was sitting directly across from the white man. He undoubtedly retained bitter memories of insults and persecutions from the past and quickly took advantage of what was perhaps his first opportunity to bait a cracker in his own habitat.<br />
<br />
He reached a big ham-like hand through the window, grabbed the fellow's face and shouted, "What the hell you staring at, you peckerwood motherfucker?" The man pulled back, his hat flew off. Bending down, he recovered it and then moved quickly to the other side of his car, a frightened and puzzled look on his face. Our whole car let out a big roar.<br />
<br />
Then a yard man, walking along the side of the car, asked, "Where are you boys going?"<br />
<br />
"Goin' to see your momma, you cracker son-of-a-bitch!" came the reply.<br />
<br />
The startled man looked up in amazement.<br />
<br />
All of us were hungry. We had been given only a couple of apples for breakfast and now noticed that there were a number of shops and stores in the streets behind the station. I believe our first thought was to buy some food. The vestibule guards would not allow us to take our rifles off the cars, so we left them on our seats and proceeded to the stores in groups. As the stores became crowded, and as the storekeepers were busy serving some of our group, others started to snatch up any article in sight.<br />
<br />
Cases of Coca-Cola, ginger ale and near-beer went back to the cars. The path to the train was strewn with loot dropped by some of the fellows. In the stores, some bought as others stole—this spontaneously evolved pattern was employed in raids on all stores in Jonesboro and at other train stops along the road to Houston.<br />
<br />
The only serious confrontation that took place that day<br />
<br />
involved the group I was with. We crowded into a little store and a fellow named Jeffries, one of my squad buddies, approached the storekeeper who was standing behind the counter. Putting his money down, he demanded a coke. Whereupon the guy said, 'Til serve you one, but y'all can't drink it in heah."<br />
<br />
"Why?" Jeffries asked, innocently.<br />
<br />
"Cause we don't serve niggahs heah."<br />
<br />
Just as we were about to jump him and wreck the place, Jeffries, a comedian, decided to play it straight. He turned to us and said, "Now wait, fellahs, let me handle this. What the man is saying is that you don't know your place."<br />
<br />
Turning to the storekeeper he put his money down and with feigned meekness said, "All right, mister, give me a coke. I know my place, I'll drink it outside."<br />
<br />
"Thank goodness this nigger's got some sense," the storekeeper must have thought as he placed a coke on the counter. Jeffries snatched up the bottle and immediately hit him on the head, knocking him out cold.<br />
<br />
We then proceeded to wreck the place. We took everything in sight. Rushing back to the train, I heard a loud crash—a plate glass window someone had smashed as a parting gift to the niggerhating storekeeper.<br />
<br />
Up to this time we had not seen any of our officers. They had been up front in the first-class Pullmans. Many of them, we suspected, were sleeping off the after effects of the parties held on the eve of our departure. Major Hunt and Captain Hill now appeared and gave orders to the non-coms and the vestibule guards to allow no one else to leave the train.<br />
<br />
We waved goodbye to the Blacks on the station platform. They looked frightened, sad and cowed. We were leaving, but they had to stay and face the wrath of the local crackers. <br />
<br />
The train headed to Texarkana, where the scene was repeated though on a smaller scale. In Texarkana the train stopped only a few minutes and we raided one store near the railroad station. I was the last one out, running to the train with a box of pilfered Havana cigars in my hand. Nearing the train, I passed a couple of local whites talking about the raid. One said to the other, "You see all those niggers taking that man's stuff?"<br />
<br />
"Yeah, I see it."<br />
<br />
"Well, what are we going to do about it?"<br />
<br />
I reached the train just as it was pulling out, relieved not to have been left behind to find out the answer. The next stop was Tyler, deep in the heart of Texas, scene of our most serious confrontation. Here we confronted the law in the person of the county sheriff. Tyler seemed to be a larger town than the others. It was a division point and all three sections pulled up on the sidings. As in Jonesboro, a large crowd had gathered at the station; Blacks on one side, whites on the other. Again, with our guns in view, we started flirting with the white women, throwing kisses at them and so on.<br />
<br />
We were very hungry. There had been some foul-up in logistics so there wasn't any food on the train. All we had that day was a couple of sandwiches and some coffee. We piled off the train and headed for the stores, elbowing whites out of the way. We didn't carry our guns but many of us wore sheathed bayonets.<br />
<br />
Major Hunt finally appeared but he was only able to stop a few of us. By that time most of us were already ransacking the stores in the immediate vicinity of the station. The path back to the station was strewn with bottles of soft drinks, hams, fruits, wrappers from the candy and cigarettes, etc. The major was frantically blowing his whistle and calling the fellows to come back to the cars. Finally we all got back and were eating our pilfered food, drinking our near-beer and soda.<br />
<br />
Suddenly a large white man stepped forward out of the crowd. He wore a khaki uniform, a Sam Brown belt and a Colt forty-five in his holster. He approached Major Hunt and identified himself as the sheriff. (Or he might have been chief of police.) He said he intended to search the train and recover the stolen goods.<br />
<br />
The major, a short, heavy-set Black man, said: "No, you don't. This is a military train. Any searching to be done will be done by our officers."<br />
<br />
"I know," he said, "I want to accompany you."<br />
<br />
"No you don't. You won't set foot on this train."<br />
<br />
The sheriff hesitated and looked around at the crowd of white and Black. It was clearly a bitter pill for him to swallow, having for the first time in his life to take low to a Black man in front of his white constituents, as well as setting a bad example for the Blacks. He pushed the unarmed major aside and walked forward.<br />
<br />
"Come on you peckerwood son-of-a-bitch!" we hollered from the car.<br />
<br />
He approached the vestibule of our car where Jimmy Bland, a mean, grey-eyed and light-skinned Black was on guard.<br />
<br />
"Back! Get back or I'll blow you apart!" Jimmy pushed the sheriff in the belly with the barrel of his rifle. To further impress upon him that the gun was loaded, he threw the bolt and ejected a bullet. The sheriff, who had doubled over from the blow, straightened up. his face ghastly white. He gasped out something to the effect that he was going to report this affair to the government and walked away. We all let out a tremendous roar.<br />
<br />
We arrived in Houston the next day, five days after the mutiny of the Twenty-fourth. We were informed that five dollars would be docked from each man's pay to cover the damage incurred on the trip down. I believe we all felt that it was a small price to pay for the lift in morale that resulted from our forays on the trip.<br />
<br />
We were greeted by our comrades from Company G of our battalion on arriving at Camp Logan. They had been there at the time of the mutiny-riot and gave us a detailed account of what had happened. We expected to be confronted by the hostile white population, but to our surprise, the confrontation with the Twenty-fourth seemed to have bettered the racial climate of this typical Southern town. Houston in those days was a small city of perhaps 100,000 people, not the metropolis it has now become. The whites, especially the police, had learned that they couldn't treat all Black people as they had been used to treating the local Blacks.<br />
<br />
I can't remember a single clash between soldiers and police during our six-month stay in the area. On the contrary, if there were any incidents involving our men, the local cops would immediately call in the military police. There was also a notable improvement in the morale of the local Black population, who were quick to notice the change in attitude of the Houston cops. The cops had obviously learned to fear retaliation by Black soldiers if they committed any acts of brutality and intimidation in the Black community.<br />
<br />
Houston Blacks were no longer the cowed, intimidated people they had been before the mutiny. They were proud of us and it was clear that our presence made them feel better. A warm and friendly relationship developed between our men and the Black community. The girls were especially proud of us. Local Blacks would point out places where some notorious, nigger-hating cop had been killed.<br />
<br />
"See those bullet holes in the telephone pole over there," they'd say. "That's where that bad cop, old Pat Grayson, got his."<br />
<br />
"Those Twenty-fourths certainly were sharpshooters!"<br />
<br />
I occasionally took my laundry to an elderly woman who had known Corporal Baltimore. She told me what a nice young man he was.<br />
<br />
"I hear he was hanged," she said.<br />
<br />
"That's right," I replied.<br />
<br />
Tears came to her eyes and she cluck-clucked. "He left some of his laundry here; you're about his size, you want it?"<br />
<br />
"Yes, I'll take it."<br />
<br />
She handed me several pairs of khaki trousers and some underwear and shirts all washed and starched and insisted that I pay only the cost of the laundry.<br />
<br />
In Camp Logan, our Black Regiment, a part of the Thirty-third Illinois National Guard Division, went into intensive training. We had high esprit de corps. Our officers lost no opportunity to lecture us on the importance of race loyalty and race pride. They went out to disprove the ideas spread by the white brass to the effect that Black soldiers could be good, but only when officered by whites.<br />
<br />
Our solidarity was strengthened when the Army attempted to remove Colonel Charles R. Young from the regiment. Young was the first Black West Point graduate and the highest ranking Black officer in the Regular Army. He wanted to go overseas very badly, but it was quite clear that they did not want a Black officer of his rank over there. He was examined by an Army medical board and found unfit for overseas service. We all knew it was a fraud. It was in all the Black papers and was known by Blacks throughout the country.<br />
<br />
We men didn't let our officers down. We were out to show the whites that not only were we as good in everything as they, but better. In Camp Logan, our regiment held division championships in most of the sports: track, boxing, baseball, etc. We had the highest number of marksmen, sharpshooters and expert riflemen. Of course, there was no socializing between Blacks and whites, but it was clear that we had the respect, if not the friendship, of many of the white soldiers in the division.<br />
<br />
In fact, despite all the efforts of the command, there was a certain degree of solidarity between Black and white soldiers in our division. In Spartanburg, North Carolina, white soldiers from New York came to the defense of their Black fellows of the Fifteenth New York when the latter were attacked by Southern whites. Many of us felt that in the case of a showdown in town with the local crackerdom, we could get support from some of the white members of our division who happened to be around. At least, we felt they would not side with the crackers against us.<br />
<br />
The high morale of the regiment, the new tolerance (at least on the part of the local white establishment), the new spirit of Houston Blacks were all displayed during the parade of our division in downtown Houston. About two months before our departure, we received notice from headquarters that the regiment was to participate in a parade. We were to pass in review before Governor Howden of Illinois, our host governor of Texas, high brass from the War Department and other notables.<br />
<br />
We spent a couple of days getting our clothes and equipment into shape. We washed and starched our khaki uniforms, bleached our canvas leggings snow white, cleaned and polished our rifles and side arms, shined our shoes to a mirror gloss. On the day of the parade, we marched the five miles into town, halting just before we reached the center of the city. We wiped the dust from our rifles and shoes and continued the march.<br />
<br />
Executing perfectly the change from squad formation to platoon front, we entered the main square. With our excellent band playing the Illinois March, we passed the reviewing stand with our special rhythmic swagger which only Black troops could affect. We were greeted by a thunderous ovation from the crowds, especially the Blacks.<br />
<br />
I believe all of Black Houston turned out that day. The next morning, the Houston Post, a white daily, headlined a story about the parade and declared that "the best looking outfit in the parade was the Negro Eighth Illinois."<br />
<br />
Given final leave, we bid good-bye to our girls and friends in Houston. After that, security was clamped down and no one was allowed to leave the camp. A few days later, we boarded the train and were on our way to a port of embarkation. We didn't know where we were headed but suspected it was New York. Instead, five days later, we wound up in Camp Stewart near Newport News, Virginia.<br />
<br />
In Newport News, we barely escaped a serious confrontation with some local crackers and the police. The first batches of our fellows given passes to the town were subjected to the taunts and slurs of the local cops.<br />
<br />
"Why don't you darkies stay in camp? We don't want you downtown making trouble."<br />
<br />
Several fights ensued. Some of the men from our regiment were arrested and others literally driven out of town. They returned to the barracks, some of them badly beaten, and told us what had happened. A repetition of the riot of the Twenty-fourth Infantry at Houston was narrowly averted, as a number of us grabbed our guns and were about to head downtown. We were turned back, however, by our officers, who intervened and pleaded with us to return to our barracks. Among them was Lt. Benote Lee, whom we all loved and respected.<br />
<br />
"Don't play into the hands of these crackers," he said. "We'll be leaving any day now. All they want is to get us in trouble on the eve of our departure."<br />
<br />
"How about our guys who were arrested?" we asked.<br />
<br />
"Don't worry. We'll get them out."<br />
<br />
We returned to the barracks and, sure enough, our comrades were returned the next day, escorted by white MPs. We spent the next days on standby orders, apparently waiting for our ship to arrive. After that, all leaves were cancelled.<br />
<br />
It was on the same day, I believe, that we first learned that we had been separated from our Thirty-third Illinois Division. Henceforth, we were to be known as the 370th Infantry.<br />
<br />
One morning shortly after this, we looked down into the harbor and saw three big ships. We knew then that we would soon be on our way. The following morning the regiment marched down to the dockside to board ship. Yet another incident occurred at the dock. We lined up in company front facing the harbor and halted a few yards from the fence which ran the entire length of the dock.<br />
<br />
Facing us in front of the fence were several groups of loitering white native males, probably dockworkers. They stared at us as if we were some strange species. Our captain apparently wanted to move the company closer to the fence and gave the command, "Forward march." But he "forgot" to call "halt." That was all we needed.<br />
<br />
We were still angry about the beating of our comrades in downtown Newport News a few days before. We marched directly into the whites, closing in on them, cursing and cuffing them with fists and rifle butts, kicking and kneeing them; in short, applying the skills of close order combat we had learned during our basic training. Of course, we didn't want to kill anybody, we just wanted to rough them up a bit.<br />
<br />
We were finally stopped by the excited cries of our officers, "Halt! Halt!" We withdrew, opening up a path through which our victims ran or limped away. Then at the command of "Attention! Right face!" we marched along the dock in columns of two's and finally boarded the ship.<br />
<br />
=== ON TO FRANCE ===<br />
We sailed for France in early April 1918, on the old USS Washington, a passenger liner converted into a troop ship. I have crossed the Atlantic many times since, but I can truthfully say that I have never experienced rougher seas. Our three ships sailed out of Newport News without escort. Of course, we were worried; there were rumors of German submarines. Our anxiety was relieved when in mid-ocean we picked up two escort vessels, one of which was the battle cruiser Covington. When we reached the war zone, about three days out of Brest, a dozen destroyers took over, circling our ships all the way into port.<br />
<br />
It took us sixteen days in all to reach Brest, France, where we arrived on April 22. We were so weak on landing that one-half of the regiment fell out while climbing the hill to the old Napoleon Barracks where we were quartered. Immediately upon our arrival, we were put to work cleaning up ourselves and our equipment, notwithstanding our weakened condition.<br />
<br />
The next morning we passed in review before some U.S. and French big brass. The following day we boarded a train. We crossed the whole of France from east to west and detrained at Granvillars, a village in French Alsace, close to the Swiss frontier. There we found out that we had been brigaded with and were to be an integral part of the French Army. <br />
<br />
The reason we were separated from the white Americans was, as the white brass put it, "to avoid friction." But the American command of General Pershing was not satisfied just to separate us; they tried to extend the long arm of Jim Crow to the French. The American Staff Headquarters, through its French mission, tried to make sure that the French understood the status of Blacks in the United States. Their Secret Information Bulletin Concerning Black American Troops is now notorious, though I did not learn of it until after I had returned from France. The Army of Democracy spoke to its French allies:<br />
<br />
It is important for French officers who have been called upon to exercise command over black American troops, or to live in close contact with them, to have an exact idea of the position occupied by Negroes in the United States. The increasing number of Negroes in the United States (about 15,000,000) would create for the white race in the Republic a menace of degeneracy were it not that an impassable gulf has been made between them....<br />
<br />
Although a citizen of the United States, the black man is regarded by the white American as an inferior being with whom relations of business or service only are possible. The black is constantly being censured for his want of intelligence and discretion, his lack of civic and professional conscience, and for his tendency toward undue familiarity.<br />
<br />
The vices of the Negro are a constant menace to the American who has to repress them sternly. For instance, the black American troops in France have, by themselves, given rise to as many complaints for attempted rape as the rest of the army....<br />
<br />
Conclusion:<br />
<br />
1. We must prevent the rise of any pronounced degree of intimacy between French officers and black officers. We may be courteous and amiable with these last, but we cannot deal with them on the same plane as with the white American officers without deeply wounding the latter. We must not eat with them, must not shake hands or seek to talk or meet with them outside the requirements of military service.<br />
<br />
2. We must not commend too highly the black American troops, particularly in the presence of [white] Americans....<br />
<br />
3. Make a point of keeping the native cantonment population from "spoiling" the Negroes. [White] Americans become greatly incensed at any public expression of intimacy between white women with black men....Familiarity on the part of white women with black men is furthermore a source of profound regret to our experienced colonials, who see in it an overweening menace to the prestige of the white race.<br />
<br />
Apparently this classic statement of U.S. racism was ineffectual with the French troops and people, even though it was supplemented by wild stories circulated by the white U.S. troops. These included the claim that Blacks had tails like monkeys, which was especially told to women, including those in the brothels.<br />
<br />
Our regiment was not sorry to be incorporated into the French military. In fact, most of us thought it was the best thing that could have happened. The French treated Blacks well—that is, as human beings. There was no Jim Crow. At the time, I thought the French seemed to be free of the virulent U.S. brand of racism.<br />
<br />
The American Command not only wanted its front line to be all white, it also wanted all regiment commanders (even those under the French) to be white. Consequently, our Black colonel, Franklin A. Dennison; our lieutenant colonel, James H. Johnson; and two of our majors (battalion commanders) were replaced by white officers. Colonel Dennison was sent back to the States, kicked upstairs, given the rank of brigadier general, and placed in command of the Officer Training Camp for Colored Men at Fort Des Moines, Iowa. Although our first reaction was anger, we became reconciled to the shift.<br />
<br />
Our new white colonel, T. A. Roberts, seemed to be warm, paternalistic and deeply concerned about the welfare of his men. He would often make the rounds of the field kitchens, tasting the food and admonishing the cooks about ill-prepared food. He even gave instructions on how the various dishes should be cooked. Naturally, this made a great hit with the men. Our confidence in him was high because we felt that he was a professional soldier who knew his business.<br />
<br />
I remember the day the new colonel took over. The regiment formed in the village square. Colonel Roberts introduced himself. He seemed quite modest. He said that he was honored to be our new commander and that he knew the record of our regiment dating back to 1892 and its exploits during the Spanish-American War.<br />
<br />
"Since West Point," he said, "I have always served with colored troops—the Ninth and Tenth Cavalry." He then turned to Captain Patton, our Black regiment adjutant. "Captain Patton knows me, he was one of my staff sergeants in the old Tenth Cavalry." Patton nodded.<br />
<br />
The colonel smiled and pointed to our top sergeant. "Over there is Mark Thompson. I remember him when he was company clerk in Troop C of the Tenth Cavalry." He went on to point out a dozen or so officers and non-coms with whom he had served in the Ninth or Tenth Cavalry. "These men will tell you where I stand with respect to the race issue and everything else. We are going into the lines soon and I am sure that the men of this regiment will pile up a record of which your people and the whole of America will be proud."<br />
<br />
The process of integration into the French Army was thorough. The American equipment with which we had trained at home was taken away and we were issued French weapons—rifles, carbines, machine guns, automatic rifles, pistols, helmets, gas masks and knapsacks. We were even issued French rations—with the exception of the wine, which our officers apparently felt we could not handle. We got all the wine we wanted anyway from the French troops. They were issued a liter (about a quart) a day and for a few centimes could buy more at the canteen.<br />
<br />
The regiment was completely reorganized along French lines, with a machine gun company to every battalion. My Company E of the Second Battalion was converted into Machine Gun Company No. 2. We entered a six-week period of intensive training under French instructors to master our new weapons. Our main weapon was the old air-cooled Hotchkiss. And we had to master the enemy's gun, the water-cooled Maxim.<br />
<br />
The period of French training was not an easy one. It was a miserable spring—dark and dreary, and it rained incessantly the whole time we were there. There was a lot of illness—grippe, pneumonia and bronchitis. We lost a number of men, several from our company. The men were in a sullen mood as the time approached for the regiment to move up to the front.<br />
<br />
Disgruntlement was often voiced in the now familiar form of "What are we doing over here? Germans ain't done nothing to us. It's those crackers we should be fighting." While we were lined up in the square one day, our captain took the occasion to comment on these sentiments.<br />
<br />
"Well," he said, "I've been hearing all this stuff about guys saying that they weren't going to fight the Germans. Well, we certainly can't make you fight if you don't want to. But I'll tell you one thing we can and will do is take you up to the front where the Germans are, and you can use your own judgment as to whether you fight them or not."<br />
<br />
In early June 1918, we entered the trenches at the St. Mihiel Salient near the Swiss frontier as a part of the Tenth Division of the French Army under General Mittelhauser. We were intermingled with the French troops in the Tenth Division so that our officers and men might observe and profit by close association with veteran soldiers. At that time St. Mihiel was a quiet sector. Except for occasional shelling, desultory machine gun and rifle fire, nothing much occurred. We lost no men.<br />
<br />
It was here, however, that we made our first acquaintance with two pests—the rat and the louse—whom thereafter were our inseparable companions for our entire stay at the front. Undoubtedly there were more rats than men; there were hordes of them. Regiments and battalions of rats. They were the largest rats I had ever seen. We soon became tired of killing them; it seemed a wasted effort. Some of the rats became quite bold, even impudent. They seemed to say, "I've got as much right here as you have." They would walk along, pick up food scraps and eat them right there in front of you! The dark dug-outs were their real havens. When we slept we would keep our heads covered with blankets as protection against rat bites. This may seem flimsy protection, but we were so conditioned that we would awake at any attempt on the part of a rat to bite through the blanket. I have often wondered why there were so few rat bites. Probably the rats felt that it was not worthwhile fooling with live humans when there were so many dead ones around. We soon got used to the rats and learned to live with them.<br />
<br />
It was the same with the lice. I woke up lousy after my first sleep in a dug-out. My reaction to the pests took the following progression: first, I was besieged by interminable itching, followed by depression. Then I began to lose appetite and weight, finally becoming quite ill. All this was within a period of a few days. Most of the fellows exhibited the same symptoms. <br />
<br />
One might say that our illness was mainly psychological, but it was nonetheless real. Since this was a quiet front, I had no difficulty in getting permission to go back to the rear for a few hours. Foolishly, I thought if I could get cleaned up just once, I would feel a lot better. I got some delousing soap, took a bath and washed my clothes. I then returned to the front, stood machine gun watch and then went into the dug-out for a nap. Needless to say, I woke up lousy again.<br />
<br />
I told my troubles to an old French veteran who had been assigned to my machine gun squad. "Oh, it's nothing! You must forget all about it,' he said. "You'll get used to it. I've been at the front for nearly four years and I've been lousy all the time, except when I was in the hospital or at home on leave."<br />
<br />
I took his advice which was all to the good, because I was not to be rid of these pests until six months later during my sojourn in hospitals at Mantes-sur-Seine and Paris after the Armistice. Even then, it was only a temporary respite, for I was reinfected upon rejoining my regiment at the embarkation port of Brest. After a brief stay with the regiment, I was returned to the hospital, again deloused, only to be reinfected again on the hospital ship returning to the States. I parted company with my last louse at the debarkation hospital at Grand Central Palace in New York City.<br />
<br />
We remained in the St. Mihiel sector about two weeks. We were then withdrawn and moved into a sector in the Argonne Forest near Verdun, site of the great battles of 1916; we arrived there in late July 1918. We were still brigaded with the Tenth French Division. The area around Verdun was a vast cemetery with a half million crosses of those who had perished in that great holocaust, each bearing the legend, Mort Pour La France. <br />
<br />
The Argonne at that time was also a quiet sector. But it was here that we suffered our first casualty, Private Robert M. Lee of Chicago. The incident occurred during machine gun target practice. The first and second line trenches ran along parallel hills about a hundred yards apart. The French had set up a make-shift range in the valley in between the trenches. Behind the gun there was a two or three foot rise in the earth, on which a number of us French and Blacks were sitting, chewing the rag, awaiting our turn at the machine gun. <br />
<br />
Suddenly, there was a short burst of machine gun fire. It was not from our guns. Bullets whizzed over our heads—they seemed to be coming from behind the target. All of us scrambled to get into the communication trench which opened on the valley. Second Lieutenant Binga DesMond, our platoon commander (and the University of Chicago's great sprinting star), fell from the embankment on top of me. Fortunately, he was not hit. But even with his 180 pounds on my back, I am sure I made that ten or fifteen yards to the communication trench, crawling on my hands and knees, as fast as he could have sprinted the distance!<br />
<br />
The fire was coming from behind the target. What obviously had happened was that the Germans had cased the position of our guns and had somehow got around behind the target and waited for a pause in our target practice to open fire on us. We never found out how they did it, for none of us knew the exact topography of the place. The French of course knew it, but they had assured us that the place was safe and that they had been using the range for months.<br />
<br />
We were crouched down, panting, in the communication trench for about five minutes after the German guns ceased fire. The French lieutenant (bless his soul) then sent a French gun crew out to get the gun. To our great surprise they also brought back Robert M. Lee. He was quite dead, with bullets right through the heart. He had evidently been hit by the first burst and had fallen forward in front of the embankment. All of us were deeply saddened by the incident.<br />
<br />
No one spoke as we bore his body back to the rear. He was only nineteen, a very sweet fellow, and he was our first casualty. We buried him down in the valley, beside the graves of those fallen at Verdun. The funeral was quite impressive. He was given a hero's burial, with representatives both from our regiment and our French counterparts. We were especially impressed by the appearance of General Mittelhauser who came down from Division Headquarters to express condolences and appreciation to the Black troops now under his command.<br />
<br />
=== THE SOISSONS SECTOR ===<br />
Despite the fact that we had been in aa quiet sector, it was still the front lines with its daily tensions of anticipated attack. In the middle of August, we were pulled out of the Argonne sector and sent to rest behind the lines near Bar-le-Duc. We were deeply pleased by the hospitality and kindness extended to us by the townspeople there. They invited us into their homes and plied us with food and wine. Half-jokingly they told us to come back after the war and we could have our pick of the girls. As we did throughout our stay in France, we deported ourselves well. For pleasures of the flesh, there were a number of legal houses of prostitution, or “houses of pleasure” as they were called by the French, It was with regret that we left that area.<br />
<br />
By this time, we had become an integral part of the French Army. Along with our French equipment, training and so forth, we had affected the style of the French poilu (doughboy). The flaps of our overcoats were buttoned back in order to give us more leg room while on the march, as was their style. Like the French infantry, we used walking sticks, which helped to ease the burden of our seventy pounds of equipment. French peasants along the road, hearing our strange language and noticing our color, would often mistake us for French colonials. Not Senegalese, who were practically all black but Algerians, Moroccans or Sudanese, We would swing along the road to the tune of our favorite marching song:<br />
<br />
'''My old mistress promised me, Raise a ruckus tonight,'''<br />
<br />
'''When she died she'd set me free, Raise a ruckus tonight.'''<br />
<br />
'''She lived so long her head got bald, Raise a ruckus tonight.'''<br />
<br />
'''She didn’t get to set me free at all, Raise a ruckus tonight!'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, come along, little children come along, While the moon is shining bright;'''<br />
<br />
'''Get on board on down the river flow, Gonna’ raise a ruckus tonight.'''<br />
<br />
But we had not escaped the long arm of American racism. We were rudely confronted with this reality upon our arrival in a small town on the Compiégne front in the department of Meuse. We entrained here for our next front. The regiment was confronted dramatically with the effects of the racist campaign launched by the American high brass,<br />
<br />
Upon entering the town, the regiment was drawn up in battalion formation in the square, Before being assigned to billets, we were informed by the battalion commander that a Black soldier from a labor battalion had been court martialed and hanged in the very square where we were standing, It had happened just a few weeks before our arrival. His crime was the raping of a village girl. His body had been left hanging there for twenty-four hours, as a demonstration of American justice,<br />
<br />
“As a result,” he told us, “you may find the town population hostile, In case this is so,” the major warned, “you are not to be provoked or to take umbrage at any discourtesies, but are to deport yourselves as gentlemen at all times,” In any case, we were to be there only for a few days, during which time we were to remain close to our barracks, Then, in a lowered voice, he muttered, “This is what i have been told to tell you.”<br />
<br />
We kept close to our billets the first day or so, but then gradually ventured further into town. At first, the townsfolk seemed to be aloof, but the coolness was gradually broken down, probably as a result of our correct deportment, especially our attitude towards the children (with whom we always immediately struck up friendships). Friendly relations were finally established with the villagers. When we asked about the hanging, they shrugged the matter off,<br />
<br />
“So what? That was only one soldier. The others were nice enough,” When asked why they had been so aloof when we first arrived, they said it was the result of the warnings of the white officers. “They didn’t want us to fraternize with the Blacks.”<br />
<br />
Continuing the conversation, they seemed puzzled about why the sentence had been so severe and the body barbarously left exposed in the square. “Trés brutale, trés horrible!” they exclaimed. With regard to the girl, “Ah, she had been raped many times before,” one of them jeered.<br />
<br />
After two weeks of rest, the regiment began to move by stages toward the front lines again. A few days later, we boarded a train consisting of a long line of box-cars. Each car was marked: “Quarante hommes ou huit chevaux.” (Forty men or eight horses.)<br />
<br />
The last couple of months had been quiet and relatively pleasant, with the exception of the Lec incident and the events just related. But now, we felt, we were going into the thick of it. The premonition was confirmed the very next morning when we woke (that is, those of us who had been able to sleep in such crowded conditions),<br />
<br />
We were passing through Chateau-Thierry. There could be no doubt about it, eventhough part of the sign had been blown away and only the word “Thierry” remained. The woods around the station and Belleau Woods, a few miles further on, looked like they had been hit by a cyclone: broken and uprooted trees, gaping shell holes, men from the Graves Registration walking around with crosses, Black Pioneers removing ammunition, All were grim reminders of the great battles that had been fought there by American troops only several weeks before.<br />
<br />
We were on the Soissons front, where we became part of the famous Armée Mangin, General Mangin (le boucher or the butcher as he was called by the French) was commander of the Tenth Army of France, among whom were a number of shock troops; Chausseurs Alpines, Chausseurs d’Afrique (Algerians and Moroccans), Senegalese riflemen and the Foreign Legion. His army was pivotal in breaking the Hindenburg Lineabout Soissons. On this front, we were brigaded with the Fifty-ninth French Division, under the command of General Vincendon.<br />
<br />
We bypassed Thierry and Belleau Woods and detrained at the village of Villers-Cotteréts, the birthplace of Alexandre Dumas. ‘The atmosphere was charged with expectancy, Observation balloons hung like giant sausages on the horizon. Big guns rumbled ominously in the distance, A steady stream of ambulances carrying wounded jammed the roads leading from the front. Obviously a big battle was in progress not too far away. But it turned out that we were not going into that sector. We left the village and marched west to Crépy-en-Valois. Turning north through the Compiégne Forest, we reached the Aisne River at a point near Vie-sur-Aisne and continued on to Resson-le-Long where we established our depot company. The march from the railhead to Resson took about three days. It was a forced march and covered about twenty-five kilometers (fifteen miles) a day.<br />
<br />
This was pretty rough after the restless night we had spent on the crowded train. As one of the company wags observed, “One thing bout these kilomeeters, they sho’ will kill you if you keep on meetin’ “em.”<br />
<br />
Our regiment spent six months in the lines in all. We took part in the fifty-nine day drive of Mangin’s Tenth Army which ended on the day of the Armistice. During that period, one or another of our units was always under fire or fighting. Our toughest battles were at the Death Valley Jump Off near the Aisne Canal, the taking of Mont Singes (Monkey Mountain which was later renamed Hill 370 in honor of our regiment), fighting at a railroad embankment northwest of Guilleminet Farm, and the advance into the Hindenburg Line at the Oise-Aisne Triangle.<br />
<br />
It was in the battles on the Hindenburg Line that we met the strongest enemy resistance and sustained most of our losses. The enemy resistance was broken in these battles and they began a general withdrawal, at first orderly and accompanied by brief rearguard actions. Finally, there was the flight to the Belgian frontier, destroying roads and railroads on orders to impede our advance. After Laon, their flight was so precipitous that we had difficulty maintaining contact. We entered many villages which they had left the day before.<br />
<br />
Our outfit was the first allied troops to enter the fortified city of Laon, wresting it from the Germans after four years of war. We were greeted with tremendous elation by the population, who had lived under German occupation the whole of that period.<br />
<br />
The regiment was highly praised by the French. It won twenty-one Distinguished Service Crosses, sixty-eight Croix de Guerre and one Distinguished Service Medal. In the whole two months’ drive, casualties were 500 killed and wounded-—a total of about one-fifth of the regiment. These casualties were light when compared with those of Black regiments on other fronts. For example, the 37] st Infantry of drafted men lost 1,065 out of 2,384 men in three days’ fighting during the great September defensive on the Compiégne Front. I believe that the German resistance on these other fronts, east and west of Soissons, was more stubborn than on our front.<br />
<br />
All of our Black regiments were fortunate to have been brigaded with the French. In this respect, the American High Command did us a big favor, unintentionally, lam sure. For as far as we were able to observe, the French made no discrimination in the treatment of Black officers and men, with whom they fraternized freely. They regarded us as brothers-in-arms.<br />
<br />
Similarly, the French people in the villages in which we stopped or were stationed were uniformly courteous and friendly, and we made many friends, I must say that we were also on our best behavior. I don’t remember a single incident of misbehavior on the part of our men toward French villagers. The latter were quick to notice this and to contrast our gentlemanly deportment with the rudeness of the white Americans. Many of the white soldiers made no effort to hide their disdain for the French(whom they regarded as inferiors) and commonly referred to them as “frogs.”<br />
<br />
But even as we fought, we were being stabbed in the back by the American High Command. We were not to learn, however, until our return to the States of the slanderous, racist document issued by the American General Staff Headquarters through its brainwashed French Mission (the Secret Information Concerning Black American Troops referred to earlier).<br />
<br />
We learned also that the hanging of the Black soldier on the Compiégne Front was not an isolated incident, but part of a deliberate campaign conducted by higher and lower echelons in the American Command to influence French civilians against Blacks. The campaign focused on the effort to build up the Black rapist scare among them.<br />
<br />
Such was a memorandum issued by headquarters of the Ninety-second Division (a Black division officered largely by whites) on August 21, 1918. Its purpose was to “prevent the presence of colored troops from being a menace to women,” The memorandum read in part:<br />
<br />
On account of increasing frequency of the crime of rape, or attempted rape, in this Division, drastic preventive measures have become necessary... Until further notice, there will be a check of all troops of the 92nd Division every hour daily between reveille and 11 P.M,, with a written record showing how each check was made, by whom, and the result...the one mile limit regulation will be strictly enforced at all times, and no passes will be issued except to men of known reliability.<br />
<br />
This was followed the next day by another memorandum saying that the commander-in-chief of the American Expeditionary Forces “would send the 92nd Division back to the States or break it up into labor battalions as unfit to bear arms in France, if efforts to prevent rape were not taken more seriously.”<br />
<br />
As a result, Dr. Robert R. Moton of Tuskegee was sent by President Wilson and the secretary of war to investigate the charges. He found only one case of rape in the whole division of 15,000 men. Two other men who were from labor battalions in the Ninety-second area were convicted. One of these was hanged, and I’m sure that this was the unfortunate soldier whom we saw on the Compiégne Front. General headquarters was forced to admit that the crime of rape, as later stated by Moton, “was no more prevalent among coloured soliders than among white, or any other soldiers.”<br />
<br />
This whole racist smear of Black troops, I was to conclude later, represented but an extension to France of the anti-Black racist campaign then current in the States, It was designed to maintain Black subjugation and prevent its erosion by liberal racial attitudes of the French. Back in the States, the campaign was marked by an upturn of lynchings during the war years, with thirty-eight Black victims in 1917 and half again that number in the following year. Even then, things were working up to the bloody riots of 1919.<br />
<br />
In contrast to all of this, the appreciation of the French for Black soldiers from the U.S. was shown by the accolade given by the French division commander, General Vincendon, to our regiment. On December 19, 1918, we were transferred from the French Army back to the American Army. On that day, General Order 4785, directed to the Fifty-ninth Division of the Army of France, was read to the officers and men of the 370th. It commended us for our contributions to France. remember being struck by the poetry of the language, it was all beautifully French to me:<br />
<br />
We at first, in September at Mareuil-sur-Ourcg, admitted your fine appearance under arms, the precision of your review, the suppleness of your evolutions that presented to the eye the appearance of silk unrolling its waves...<br />
<br />
Further on in remembering our dead, the communique read:<br />
<br />
The blood of your comrades who fell on the soil of France, mixed with the blood of our soldiers, renders indissoluble the bonds of affection that unite us.<br />
<br />
=== THE ROAD HOME ===<br />
The road back from Soissons lay through the old battlefields where we had fought a couple of months before. Near Anizy-le Chateau there were crosses marking the graves of some of our comrades who had died in the fighting there. We paused before the graves, seeking out those of the comrades we knew. We all had the same thoughts: “What rotten luck that they should die almost in sight of victory.”<br />
<br />
Among the crosses, there was one marked “Sergeant Theodore Gamelin.” Gamelin hadn’t died in combat. 1 remember the incident clearly, We were all lined up in some hastily dug trenches that morning, waiting for the “over the top” signal. The cooks had just distributed reserved rations. These consisted of a half-loaf of French bread (not the crispy white kind, but a coarse grayish loaf baked especially for the troops, which we called “war bread”) and a big bar of chocolate. Somehow, Gamelin had missed out on these rations. Jump-off time was drawing near. He looked around and his eyes fixed upon a private named Brown, who was sitting on the firing step, putting his rations in a knapsack. Now, Private Brown was one of those quiet, meek little fellows. He always took low, was never known to fight. But Brown was the type of man, I have observed, who can become dangerous. This is particularly true in a combat situation where one doesn’t know whether one will live five minutes longer. Gamelin, a big bullying type, an amateur boxer and very unpopular with his men, called to Brown:<br />
<br />
“Give me some of that bread, Brown. I didn’t get my rations.”<br />
<br />
“Now, that’s just too bad, sergeant,” Brown responded, “I’m not going to give you any of this bread. It’s not my fault you missed your rations.”<br />
<br />
Gamelin, with one hand on his pistol, moved as though he were going to seize the bread. Brown had his rifle lying across his lap. He simply raised it and coolly pulled the trigger. The sergeant fell dead!<br />
<br />
The platoon commander heard the commotion and ran to the spot, inquiring about what had happened. The men told him that Gamelin was trying to take Brown’s reserve rations and had made a move toward his pistol. Brown, they said, had shot in self-defense,<br />
<br />
Obviously nothing could be done about Brown in those circumstances. So the lieutenant said, “Consider yourself under arrest, Brown. We will take this matter up after this action.”<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, Brown was killed a few days later, The memory of this incident was on our minds as we viewed Gamelin’s grave, His helmet hung on a cross, which ironically bore the inscription “Sergeant Theodore Gamelin—Mort Pour La France (Died for France), September 1918.”<br />
<br />
Thad gone through six months at the front without a scratch or a day of illness. But as we neared Soissons, I began to feel faint and light-headed, By the time we reached the city, I had developed quite a high fever, It was the period of the first great flu epidemic which wreaked havoc among U.S. troops in France. I reported to the infirmary and lined up with a group of about fifty men. The medical sergeant took our temperatures and then tied tags to our coats. I looked at mine and it read “influenza.” We were evacuated to a field hospital near Soissons, where I remained for about five days. After that, we boarded a hospital train and were told that we were going to the big base hospital in Paris, Now, I liked that.<br />
<br />
I had never seen Paris and was most anxious to visit the famed city before going home. There were two of us in the compartment, another soldier from the regiment and myself, I felt a little drowsy, sol told my compartment mate that I was going to take a little nap and to wake me up when the chow came around, I “awoke” five days later in a French hospital at Mantes-sur-Seine, near Paris.<br />
<br />
They had put me off the train as an emergency case just before Paris. I came out of a coma to find a number of strange people around my bed—nurses who were Catholic nuns, doctors and a number of patients, They were all smiling. “Thank God, young man,” said the doctor, “we thought we were going to lose you. You've been in a coma for five days, but you’re going to be all right now.”<br />
<br />
“Where am I? Is this Paris?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“No, this is Mantes-sur-Seine, close to Paris. They had to put you off here as an emergency case.”<br />
<br />
“What’s wrong with me?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“Qh, you've had a little kidney infection and it has affected your heart.”<br />
<br />
“That sounds bad,” I said.<br />
<br />
“Well, you’re young and have a remarkable constitution. You'll pull through all right—you’re out of danger now,” he assured me.<br />
<br />
I remained in the hospital for about a month, receiving the kindest and most solicitous attention from nurses, doctors and patients. All seemed to regard me as their special charge, No one spoke English, but I got along all right. It was like a crash course in French, They told me I had a beautiful accent. They brought in an old lady to talk English with me, but she bored me to death, Really, my French was better than her English. She came once and didn’t return,<br />
<br />
I was feeling much better when the head sister came to me one evening to tell me I was to leave the next morning for Paris and the American hospital at Neuilly.<br />
<br />
“You've never been to Paris, have you?” she asked.<br />
<br />
“No,” I said. ,<br />
<br />
“Well, you’ve got a treat coming’<br />
<br />
I was filled with great expectations, The next morning, after embracing all my fellow patients and exchanging warm goodbyes with the doctor and sisters, the head nurse (or sister) took me out in front of the hospital where an American ambulance was waiting.<br />
<br />
“Hop in, buddy,” said the driver.<br />
<br />
“Haywood, be sure to write us when you get back to Chicago,” said the sister. “Remember we are your friends and want to know how you are getting along.”<br />
<br />
I promised that I would. As we pulled out, she stood on the road waving a white handkerchief and continued to wave it as long as we were in sight. I never wrote them, hut often thought of them.<br />
<br />
Paris, you wondrous city! I was feeling good that morning as we pulled into the hospital at Neuilly. The hospital was situated on the Avenue Neuilly near the Boulevard de la Grande Armée, only a few blocks from the Arc de Triomphe. It was a veritable palace. I was assigned to a ward in which there were only four guys, three Australians and one white American from Wisconsin. They greeted me and gave mea run-down on the situation. They were having a hall seeing Paris, taking in all the events, theaters, race tracks, boxing and girls, I don’t believe that I saw a real sick man in that hospital. There were some of course, but they must have been secluded in some out of sight wards. We were all convalescents in our ward. A couple were recuperating from wounds received at the front,<br />
<br />
“What do you do for money?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“Oh, we don’t worry about that—-just stick around a while and we'll show you the ropes,”<br />
<br />
Under their tutelage, it didn’t take me long to catch on. At that time there were dozens of rich American women, including a number from the social register in Paris. They were under the auspices of the Red Cross and had taken over the hospital and its patients as their special “war duty.” They would organize excursions, get tickets for shows, sports events, etc. Coming to the hospital in relays, they would leave huge boxes of chocolates and other goodies.<br />
<br />
We were showered with gifts—Gillette razors, Waterman fountain pens, and even some serviceable wrist watches if you asked for them. They would come in waves. Scarcely had one group left when another would come, leaving the same gifts. The guys had it down perfect. They always left one man on watch in the ward. He was there in case the gals would come in while the others were out and receive all the presents and gifts for them. He would point to the three un oceupied beds (there were only five of us in an eight bed ward) and pretend that their occupants were out in the streets. He would suggest that the presents be left for them, also. Old Wisconsin Slim was the real genius in all this, He even hung a couple of crosses over the unoccupied beds to give more substance to the fiction that they were occupied,<br />
<br />
Every morning we would gather all our presents, take them to the gate, and sell them fora good price to the French who gathered there to buy them. We would then return to the ward and divide the “swag.” Razors and fountain pens seemed to be rare in France at that time. The going rate for razors was about ten francs ($2) and for Waterman fountain pens even more. All this was carried out under the benign gaze of the hospital authorities.<br />
<br />
Discipline was lax, almost nonexistent. We could stay out for two days at a time. The attitude seemed to be: let the boys have a good time, they deserve it. Besides, it’s essential for their convalescence, When we would get a little money together (about once a week), we would run out to Montmartre and the famous Rue Pigalle, “Pig Alley,” to see the girls.<br />
<br />
As an old Francophile, I was also interested in French history and culture. I got a guidebook and spent days walking all over Paris, visiting all the historical places about which I had read, mentally reconstructing the events.<br />
<br />
Time was passing rapidly. I had been in the hospital about two months when an administrator called me into his office.<br />
<br />
“Well, Corporal Hall,” he said. “I hope you've been having a good time in Paris.”<br />
<br />
“Oh yes,” I replied.<br />
<br />
“That’s good,” he said, “We're sending you back to your regiment tomorrow.”<br />
<br />
“Where are they?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“They’re in Brest, waiting to embark for the voyage home.”<br />
<br />
The next morning I got on the train at the Gare Ouest and arrived in Brest that evening. In Brest, I strolled around a bit on the waterfront and finally sat down at a sidewalk cafe. I was in no hurry to get back into the old regimental harness, I was about to order a drink when suddenly a big white MP appeared. Glowering at me, he said, “Where’s your pass, soldier?”<br />
<br />
“Here it is. I’ve just got back from the hospital in Paris and I'm going to my outfit up on the hill,” I explained.<br />
<br />
He grabbed it, glanced at it and shouted, “Well, get going up that hill right now. You're not supposed to hang around here.”<br />
<br />
I left without my drink and started climbing the hill to the old Napoleon barracks where we had been eleven months before. It seemed like that had been years ago, so much had been crowded into the brief intervening period.<br />
<br />
T rejoined my outfit. They were living in tents in what seemed to me like a swamp. The weather was miserable, a steady cold rain. The mud was ankle deep. I was greeted warmly by my comrades. I don’t think that more than half the old boys of my company were left. The rest were dead, wounded, or ill in hospitals all over France.<br />
<br />
A couple of bottles of cognac were produced. The guys started reminiscing about what they were going to do when they got home. The news from home was bad. Discrimination and Jim Crow were rampant, worse than before. Blacks were being lynched everywhere. “Now, they want us to go to war with Japan,” observed one of the fellows. (The Hearst newspapers at the time were again raising the specter of the “yellow peril.”)<br />
<br />
“Well,” someone said, “they won’t get me to fight their yellow peril. If it comes to that, I'll join the Japs. They are colored.” There was unanimous agreement on that point.<br />
<br />
I bunked down that night and awoke the next morning with a high fever. I went to the infirmary and again was evacuated to a hospital. I immediately began to worry whether I would be able to return with my outfit. As I was waiting on the side of the road to hitch a ride to the hospital, I heard footsteps behind me. I turned and there was Colonel Roberts, our white commander whom I had not seen for months.<br />
<br />
I started to spring to my feet and salute, but he motioned me to remain seated. “Corporal, you're from our regiment, aren’t you?”<br />
<br />
“Yes, sir,” I said, “I'm sick and going to the hospital.”<br />
<br />
“What’s the matter?”<br />
<br />
“I guess I got the flu.”<br />
<br />
“Well,” he said, “you’re in no condition to walk that distance.” He hailed a passing truck and instructed the driver to take me to the hospital. “Take care, son; we’re going home soon. Try to come hack with us.” That’s the last time I saw Colonel Roberts.<br />
<br />
A month later, while in the hospital, I picked up the Paris edition of the Herald Tribune. The headline read: “The 370th Infantry (the old Eighth Illinois) returns and is given hero’s welcome in victory parade down State Street.” I felt pretty bad, because I could imagine my old Mother standing there waiting for me to pass by, Since I hadn’t written in months, she would probably assume the worst.<br />
<br />
I had been away from the States for quite a while, in free France so to speak, and I had become less used to the American nigger-hating way of life. But I was thrown abruptly back into reality as soon as I crossed the threshold of the American Army hospital in Brest.<br />
<br />
It seemed to be manned by an all Southern staff: doctors, nurses, etc. All of them spoke with broad Southern accents. I was assigned a bed at one end of the ward. When I looked around, I could see only Blacks were in that end. Whites were at the other end. There were no screens, no Jim Crow signs. The Jim Crow was de facto, but nonetheless real. I also noticed that there was a large space between the Black and white sections.<br />
<br />
After a cursory entrance examination, the doctor seemed to think that I didn’t have the flu, and upon hearing my recent medical history, he decided that it was a relapse of the old illness.<br />
<br />
Thad no sooner gotten settled when J heard a nurse bawling out a Black soldier for being so dirty. The poor fellow had just come in from some mud hole like the one in which my regiment was situated, where there was no opportunity to bathe.<br />
<br />
“You don’t see any of our white boys that dirty!” she shouted, her eyes flashing indignantly at what she, a white lady, was forced to put up with, For the first time, it occurred to me that our Black regiment had been put in a worse location than the whites. Now, that’s pretty hard stuff for a front-line veteran to take. If I had been ill when I came in, I was really sick now. I could feel my blood pressure and-fever mount.<br />
<br />
There was a Black sergeant from my outfit in the same ward, He was a tall, dignified and proud looking man, convalescing from a previous illness. He wasn’t a bed patient and was therefore supposed to make his own bed. This he did, but he never seemed to do it to the satisfaction of the nurse, who kept berating him.<br />
<br />
“Make it over, that’s not good enough.”<br />
<br />
“I've already made it, and I’m not going to do it again.”<br />
<br />
“Don’t talk back to me,” she shouted. “Make that bed!”<br />
<br />
“I’m not going to,” he said.<br />
<br />
“You dare disobey my order?” she yelled.<br />
<br />
“I'm a front-line soldier and you don’t have to yell at me.”<br />
<br />
She turned and walked to the office and returned with the ward doctor, a little pip-squeak of a man. Ina stentorian voice he said:<br />
<br />
“Make that bed, soldier.” The sergeant didn’t move. The doctor looked at his watch and said, “I’m giving you two minutes to start making that bed. If you don’t, I’m going to prefer charges against you for disobeying your superior officers.”<br />
<br />
You could see that the proud sergeant was thinking it over and coming to a decision. I could almost read his mind; it seemed that he was thinking that this wasn’t the time to die. He only had a couple more months to go.<br />
<br />
He finally burst into tears, but he got up and made the bed. I’ve seen this sort of situation before, and I feel almost certain that had there been a loaded gun around, the sergeant might have started shooting. It would have been reported in the news as “Another nigger runs amuck.” All of us, including some of the whites, breathed a sigh of relief at this peaceful culmination of what could have been a dangerous incident. At least the nurse never bothered the sergeant after that. Undoubtedly, she sensed the inherent danger of any further provocation.<br />
<br />
After my stay in Paris, I was seized periodically by moods of depression. These deepened and became chronic during my stay at the Brest hospital, especially after witnessing such humiliating incidents. I felt that I could never again adjust myself to the conditions of Blacks in the States after the spell of freedom from racism in France, I did not want to go back and my feeling was shared by many Black soldiers.<br />
<br />
I thought of remaining in France, getting my discharge there and possibly becoming a French citizen. But I did not know how to go about this. Besides, I was ill, and there was my Mother whom! wanted to see again. Probably, some day, if I got well, I would come back—or so I thought as I lay in the hospital at Brest.<br />
<br />
Finally, the day came. We were discharged from the hospital, given casual’s pay (one month’s pay), which in my case amounted to $33, and boarded the ship for home. There was no change in the Jim Crow pattern. We were merely transferred from a Jim Crow hospital to a Jim Crow hospital ship. We Blacks found ourselves quartered in a separate section of the ship. The segregation, however, did not extend to the mess hall or the lavatories (heads). I guess that would have been too much trouble. But the ship’s military command passed up no opportunity to let us know our place.<br />
<br />
For example, on the first day out we were given tickets for mess—~-breakfast, lunch and supper. We were supposed to present them to a checker who stood at the foot of the stairway leading up to the mess hall. A Black soldier who had evidently misplaced his ticket tried to slip by the checker unnoticed, but he was not quick enough. A cracker officer who was standing by the checker hollered: “Hey, Nigger, come back here!”<br />
<br />
The guy kept going and tried to merge into a group of us Blacks who had already passed through. Again the officer shouted, “Nigger, come back here. You, I mean. I mean the tall one over there. That nigger knows who I’m calling.” The soldier finally turned and walked back. Purple with rage, protected by his bars and white skin, the officer said, “Listen, you Black son of a bitch, where is your ticket?” Clearly, the officer had already gauged his man and concluded that there was no fight in him,<br />
<br />
“I couldn’t find it,” said the soldier.<br />
<br />
“Well, why didn’t you say that in the first place instead of tryin’ toslip through heah? Well, you go on back and try to find it. If you can’t, see the sergeant in charge. Don’t evah try that trick again,” said the officer. His anger seemed to ebb and a glow of self-satisfaction spread across his face. He had done his chore for the day. He had put a nigger in his place.<br />
<br />
The seas were rough again. It was a small ship, leased from the Japanese. Most of us were seasick. The sailors were having a ball at our expense, When one of us would rush to the rail to vomit, one of them would holler, “A dollar he comes.”<br />
<br />
One night, the ship tilted sharply and a number of us were thrown out of our bunks, The bunks were in tiers and I was in a top one, I got a pretty hard bump. The next morning on deck the sailors were talking loudly among themselves (for our benefit of course),<br />
<br />
“Gee,” said one, “this is the roughest sea I’ve ever seen. This old pile is about to come apart, The Japs leased us the worst ship they had.”<br />
<br />
“It just might be sabotage,” another one suggested,<br />
<br />
“I hope we make it, but I’m not so sure,” said another,<br />
<br />
Not being seamen, most of us were taking this seriously, A Black soldier turned to me and said, “You know man, after all I’ve been through, if this ship were to sink now almost in sight of home, I would get off and walk the water like the good Lord,”<br />
<br />
Another voice, that of a white sergeant from Florida who had been rather friendly to us: “You know,” he drawled, “this reminds me of old Sam down home.”<br />
<br />
Here it comes, we thought, one of those nigger jokes.<br />
<br />
“He was up theah on the gallows with a rope around his neck and the sheriff said, ‘Well Sam, is there anything you want to say before you die?<br />
<br />
“All T got to say sheriff, said Sam, ‘this sho’ would be a lesson to me,’ ”<br />
<br />
The voyage proceeded uneventfully, with one exception, The gamblers among us were out to get the soldiers’ casual pay. The law of concentration of money into fewer and fewer hands was in process, This was taking place in one of the endless crap games which started in the Bay of Biscay and wound up at Sandy Hook,<br />
<br />
IT never really gambled, even in the Army with room and board guaranteed, If you were broke, you could always borrow some money. The lender knew you couldn’t run out on him. His only risk was that you might become a casualty. But motivated by nothing more than sheer boredom, I got into the game this time.<br />
<br />
After all, what good was $33 going to do me? To my surprise, I hit a streak of luck and over a period of a week in and out of the game, I ran my paltry grub stake up to the tremendous sum of $1200, That was the high point, after which time my luck began to peter out. Nevertheless, I left the ship with $500. It was my last gambling venture,<br />
<br />
That morning, we lined up at the rail as our ship passed Sandy Hook and pulled into New York Harbor, It was my first view of the New York skyline, Overcome with emotion, tears welled up in my eyes, Embarrassed, I looked around and found that I was not alone. The guy next to me was obviously crying,<br />
<br />
Our landing was a memorable one, Ship stacks were blasting, foghorns blowing, bells were ringing and fire boats were sending up great sprays of water, Passengers in ferryboats were waving and shouting greetings.<br />
<br />
Upon docking, we were met by two reception committees of young women. A white one to receive the white soldiers and a Black one to greet us, This time segregation didn’t bother us at all, we were so pleased to see the pretty Black girls, They drew us aside as we came down the gang plank, ushered us into waiting ambulances, and drove us to Grand Central Palace which had been converted into a deharkation hospital, Leaving us in the lobby, they said goodbye and promised to come back soon and show us around.<br />
<br />
A woman from the Red Cross took our home addresses to notify our families of our arrival. We were then escorted into a large room and told to strip off our clothes. Leaving them in the room, we then went through the delousing process. We were sprayed with some sort of chemical and washed off under showers. We were then given pajamas and a bathrobe and shown to our Jim Crow ward.<br />
<br />
The next day, after a physical examination, we were paid off, receiving all of our back pay, In my case, it was for twelve months, amounting to about $450, This, plus the $500 I had won on the ship, seemed to me a small fortune, the largest amount of money I had ever had in my life. J was, so to speak, chafing at the bit, raring to get out and up to famed Harlem.<br />
<br />
On the ship, I had met a Black sergeant named Patterson, who was from the 369th, the old Fifteenth New York. He had also won a considerable sum in the crap game. He suggested that we team up and go to Harlem together. He said he knew his way around there since that was where he lived before he joined the Army.<br />
<br />
After the pay off, we were still without clothes. But a clothing salesman came around to take orders for new uniforms. Patterson and I ordered suits, for which we were measured. In a couple of hours the man was back with two brand new whip cord uniforms with chevrons and service stripes sewed on. We had also ordered shoes, which were promptly delivered, We then sneaked out of the hospital.<br />
<br />
After we banked most of our money downtown, we took the subway up to 125th Street and visited several “Buffet Flats” (a current euphemism for a high-class whorehouse), drinking and looking over the girls. Patterson seemed to be an old friend of all the madams. They greeted him like a long lost brother. We finally wound up in one real classy joint where we stayed for four days, playing sultan-in-a-harem with the girls.<br />
<br />
We returned to the hospital, expecting to be sharply reprimanded and restricted to quarters, but the doctor on his rounds merely asked, “Where have you boys been?” Before we could answer, he simply said, “I suggest that you stick around a day or two, we have some tests to make.”<br />
<br />
From New York, we left for Camp Grant near Rockford, Illinois, where we were demobilized out of the service, I was discharged on April 29, 1919. After a cursory examination, I was pronounced physically fit. “What about my chronic endocarditis and chronic nephritis?” I protested,<br />
<br />
“Oh, you're all right, you’ve overcome it all. You’re young and fit as a fiddle,” the doctor answered me. From Camp Grant I returned home to Chicago to see my parents.<br />
<br />
=== REUNION WITH OTTO ===<br />
Not too long after my discharge, I came home one evening to find Otto. He had just arrived after mustering out of the service at Camp Grant. We were all happy to see him, especially Mother. He showed us his honorable discharge.<br />
<br />
“You know,” he said, “I’m lucky to get this.”<br />
<br />
He then told stories about his harrowing experiences in a stevedore battalion in the South and then in France. The main mass of Black draftees had been relegated to these labor units, euphemistically called “service battalions,” “engineers,” “pioneer infantry,” ete.<br />
<br />
Regardless of education or ability, young Blacks were herded indiscriminately into these stevedore outfits and faced the drudgery and hard’ work with no possibility of promotion beyond the rank of corporal. With few exceptions, the officers were KKK whites, as also were the sergeants. Many of them were plantation riding boss types, especially recruited for these jobs. Southern newspapers openly carried want ads calling for white men who had “experience in handling Negroes,” Black draftees were not only subjected to the drudgery of hard labor, but insults, abuse, and in many cases blows from white officers and sergeants.<br />
<br />
Otto told us his worst experience was in Camp Stewart in Newport News, Virginia, where he was stationed during the terribly cold winter of 1917-18, For a considerable period after their arrival, they were forced to live in tents without floors or stoves. In most cases, they had only a blanket, some not even that.<br />
<br />
New arrivals to the camp were forced to stand around fires outside all night or sleep under trees for partial protection from the weather, For months there were no bathing facilities nor clothing for the men, These conditions were subsequently changed as a result of protests by the men and reports by investigators.<br />
<br />
His outfit landed in the port of St. Lazare, France, and during the great advance participated in the all-out effort to keep the front-lines supplied in the “race to Berlin.” They worked from dawn to nightfall unloading supplies, including all kinds of railroad equipment, engines, tractors and bulldozers. They built and repaired roads, warehouses and barracks. Discipline was strict; guys were thrown in the guardhouse on the most flimsy pretexts. A Black soldier seen on the street with a French woman was likely to be arrested by the MPs. <br />
<br />
“The spirit of St. Lazare,” said one officer, “is the spirit of the South.”<br />
<br />
Needless to say, Otto often found himself in the guard house as a result of fights, AWOLs, etc. How he escaped general court martial or imprisonment I don’t know.<br />
<br />
His outfit was finally moved to the American military base at Le Mans, about a hundred miles from Paris. Things were somewhat better there. There were even a few “reliable” Black corporals who were allowed weekend passes to visit Paris, Otto was assigned to mess duty as a cook,<br />
<br />
When he applied for leave, he was refused, however, “Well, I didn’t intend to come this close to Paris without seeing it,” he said, “so I went AWOL.”<br />
<br />
He did not see much of it, however, before he was arrested by MPs. I was surprised to learn that he had been in Paris during the period that I was in the hospital in Neuilly. Most of his time in the great city was spent in the Hotel St. Anne, the notorious American military jail run by the sadistic Marine captain, “hard-boiled Smith.”<br />
<br />
Here now, bitter and disillusioned, Otto continued his rebellion, It led him first to the Garvey movement where he served for a brief period as an officer in Garvey’s Black Legion, Then in succession, Wobblies, or Industrial Workers of the World ([WW), the African Blood Brotherhood and finally the Communist Party—joining soon after its unity convention in 1921. After returning from the service, Otto stayed at home only a short time and then moved in with some of his new friends.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 ==<br />
<br />
=== Searching for Answers ===<br />
Back home in Chicago, I was soon working again as a waiter on the Michigan Central Railroad. As I have already mentioned, the first day of the bloody Chicago race riot (July 28, 1919) came while I was working on the Wolverine run up through Michigan, When arrived home from work that afternoon, the whole family greeted me emotionally. We were all there except for Otto. The disagreements I had had with my Father in the past were forgotten, Both my Mother and sister were weeping. Everyone was keyed up and had been worrying about my safety in getting from the station to the house.<br />
<br />
Following our brief reunion, I tore loose from the family to find out what was happening outside. I went to the Regimental Armory at Thirty-fifth and Giles Avenue because I wanted to find some of my buddies from the regiment. The street, old Forrest Avenue, had recently been renamed in honor of Lt. Giles, a member of our outfit killed in France. I knew they would be planning an armed defense and I wanted to get in on the action. I found them and they told me of their plans. It was rumored that Irishmen from west of the Wentworth Avenue dividing line were planning to invade the ghetto that night, coming in across the tracks by way of Fifty-first Street. We planned a defensive action to meet them.<br />
<br />
it was not surprising that defensive preparations were under way. There had been clashes before, often when white youths in “athletic clubs” invaded the Black community. These “clubs” were really racist gangs, organized by city ward heelers and precinct captains,<br />
<br />
Once of the guys from the regiment took us to the apartment of a friend, It had a good position overlooking Fifty-first Street near State. Someone had brought a Browning submachine gun; he’d gotten it sometime before, most likely from the Regimental Armory. We didn’t ask where it had come from, or the origin of the 1903 Springfield rifles (Army issue) that appeared. We set to work mounting the submachine gun and set up watch for the invaders, Fortunately for them, they never arrived and we all returned home in the morning, The following day it rained and the National Guard moved into the Black community, so overt raids by whites did not materialize.<br />
<br />
Ours was not the only group which used its recent Army training for self-defense of the Black community. We heard rumors about another group of veterans who set up a similar ambush, On several occasions groups of whites had driven a truck at breakneck speed up south State Street, in the heart of the Black ghetto, with six or seven men in the back firing indiscriminately at the people on the sidewalks,<br />
<br />
The Black veterans set up their ambush at Thirty-fifth and State, waiting in a car with the engine running, When the whites on the truck came through, they pulled in behind and opened up with a machine gun, The truck crashed into a telephone pole at Thirty-ninth Street, most of the men in the truck had been shot down and the others fled, Among them were several Chicago police officers—“off duty,” of course!<br />
<br />
I remember standing before the Angeles Flats on Thirty-fifth and Wabash where the day before four Blacks had been shot by police. It appeared that enraged Blacks had set fire to the building and were attacking some white police officers when the latter fired on them.<br />
<br />
Along with other Blacks, I gloated over the mysterious killing of two Black cops with a history of viciousness in the Black community, They had been found dead in an alley between State and Wabash, Undoubtedly they had been killed by Blacks who had taken advantage of the confusion to settle old scores with these Black enforcers of the white man’s law.<br />
<br />
Bewilderment and shock struck the Black community as well. I had seen Blacks standing before the burned-out buildings of their former homes, trying to salvage whatever possible, Apparent on their faces was bewilderment and anger.<br />
<br />
The Chicago rebellion of 1919 was a pivotal point in my life, Always I had been hot-tempered and never took any insults lying down. This was even more true after the war. I had walked out of a number of jobs because of my refusal to take any crap from anyone, My experiences abroad in the Army and at home with the police left me totally disillusioned about being able to find any solution to the racial problem through the help of the government; for I had seen that official agencies of the country were among the most racist and most dangerous to me and my people.<br />
<br />
I began to see that I had to fight; I had to commit myself to struggle against whatever it was that made racism possible. Racism, which erupted in the Chicago riot—and the bombings and terrorist attacks which preceded it---must be eliminated. My spirit was not unique--it was shared by many young Blacks at that time, The returned veterans and other young militants were all fighting back. And there was a lot to fight against, Racism reached a high tide in the summer of 1919, This was the “Red Summer” which involved twenty-six race riots across the country—“red” for the blood that ran in the streets, Chicago was the bloodiest.<br />
<br />
The holocaust in Chicago was the worst race riot in the nation’s post-war history. But riots took place in such widely separate places as Long View, Texas, Charleston, South Carolina; Elaine, Arkansas, Knoxville, Tennessee, and Omaha, Nebraska. The flareup of racial violence in Omaha, my old home town, followed the Chicago riots by less than two months, It resulted in the lynching of Will Brown, a packing house worker, for an alleged assault on a white woman, When Omaha’s mayor, Edward P. Smith, sought to intervene, he was seized by the mob. They were close to hanging the mayor from a trolley pole when police cut the rope and rushed him to a hospital, badly injured.<br />
<br />
The common underlying cause of riots in most of the northern cities was the racial tension caused by the migration of tens of thousands of Blacks into these centers and the competition for jobs, housing and the facilities of the city. Rather than being at a temporary peak, this outbreak of racism was more like the rising of a plateau—-it never got any higher, but it never really went down, either. Writing in the middle of a riot in Washington, D.C., that summer, the Black poet Claude McKay caught the bitter and belligerent mood of many Blacks:<br />
<br />
'''If we must die, let it not be like hogs'''<br />
<br />
'''Hunted and penned in an inglorious spot,''' <br />
<br />
'''While round us bark the mad and hungry dogs,''' <br />
<br />
'''Making their mock at our accursed lot.'''<br />
<br />
'''if we must die, O let us nobly die'''<br />
<br />
'''So that our precious blood may not be shed'''<br />
<br />
'''Jn vain; then even the monsters we defy'''<br />
<br />
'''Shall be constrained to honor us though dead!'''<br />
<br />
'''* Okinsmen! We must meet the common foe!''' <br />
<br />
'''Though far outnumbered let us show us brave,''' <br />
<br />
'''And for their thousand blows deal one death blow!''' <br />
<br />
'''What though before us lies the open grave?'''<br />
<br />
'''Like men we'll face the murderous, cowardly pack,''' <br />
<br />
'''Pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back!''' <br />
<br />
‘The war and the riots of the “Red Summer” of 1919 left me bitter and frustrated. I felt that I could never again adjust to the situation of Black inequality. But how had it come about? Who was responsible?<br />
<br />
Chicago in the early twenties was an ideal place and time for the education of a Black radical. As a result of the migration of Blacks during World War I, the Chicago area came to have the largest concentration of Black proletarians in the country. It was a major point of contact for these masses with the white labor movement and its advanced, radical sector. In the thirties it was to become a main testing ground for Black and white labor unity.<br />
<br />
The city itself was the core of a vast urban industrial complex. Sprawling along the southeast shore of Lake Michigan, the area includes five Illinois counties and two in Indiana. The latter contains such industrial towns as East Chicago, Gary and Hammond. This metropolitan area contains the greatest concentration of heavy industry in the country.<br />
<br />
By the second half of the twentieth century, it had forged into the lead of the steel-making industry, surpassing the great Monongahela Valley of Pittsburgh in the production of primary metals; including steel mill, refining and non-ferrous metals operations. There was the gigantic U.S. Steel Corporation in Gary, the Inland Steel Company plant in East Chicago and the U.S. Steel South Works, These are now the three largest steel works in the United States. The steel mills of the Chicago area supply more than 14,000 manufacturing plants,<br />
<br />
Chicago was at that time, and remains today, the world’s largest railway center. It ranks first in the manufacture of railroad equipment, including freight and passenger cars, Pullmans, locomotives and specialized rolling stock.<br />
<br />
The core city itself was most famous for its wholesale slaughter and meat packing industry. Chicago was known as the meat capital of the world, or in Carl Sandburg’s more homely terms, “hog butcher for the nation.”<br />
<br />
The city’s colossal wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few men, who comprised the industrial, commercial and financial oligarchy. Among these were such giants as Judge Gary of the mighty U.S. Steel; Cyrus McCormick of International Harvester, the meat packers Philip D, Armour, Gustavus Swift and the Wilson brothers; George Pullman. of the Pullman Works; Rosenwald of Montgomery Ward; General Wood of Sears and Roebuck; the “merchant prince” Marshall Field; and Samuel Insull of utilities. These were the real rulers, Ostensible political power rested in the notoriously corrupt, gangster ridden, county political machine headed by Mayor William Hale (Big Bill) Thompson, who carried on the tradition exposed as early as 1903 by Lincoln Steffens in his book, The Shame of the Cities.<br />
<br />
The glitter and wealth of Chicago’s Gold Coast was based on the most inhuman exploitation of the city’s largely foreign-born working force. A scathing indictment of the horrible conditions in Chicago's meat packing industry was contained in Upton Sinclair’s novel, The Jungle, published in 1910. It was inevitable that the wage slave would rebel, that Chicago should become the scene of some of the nation’s bloodiest battles in the struggle between labor and capital, The first of these clashes was the railroad strike of 1877 which erupted in pitched battles between strikers and federal troops,<br />
<br />
Then in 1886 came the famous Haymarket riot which grew out of a strike for the eight-hour day at the McCormick reaper plant. During a protest rally, a bomb was thrown which killed one policeman and injured six others. ‘This led to the arrest of eight anarchist leaders; four were hanged, one committed suicide or was murdered in his cell, and the others were sentenced to life imprisonment. Obviously being tried and executed simply because they were labor leaders, these innocent men became a cause célebre of international labor, Thousands of visitors made yearly pilgrimages to the city where monuments to the executed men were raised, Haymarket became a rallying word for the eight-hour day. The martyrs were memorialized by the designation of the first of May as International Labor Day. <br />
<br />
Several years later the city was the scene of the great Pullman strike led by Eugene V. Debs and his radical but lily-white American Railway Union, which precipitated a nationwide shutdown of railroads in 1894. Again the federal troops were called in and armed clashes between workers and troops ensued. ‘These battles were merely high points in the city’s long history of labor radicalism. It was the national center of the early anarcho-socialist movements. In 1905, the Industrial Workers of the World (the IWW or Wobblies) was founded there. The IWW maintained its headquarters and edited its paper, Solidarity, there. In 1921, Chicago was to become the site of the founding convention of the Workers (Communist) Party, USA, which maintained its headquarters and the editorial offices of the Daily Worker there from 1923 to 1927.<br />
<br />
Blacks, however, played little or no role in the turbulent early history of the Chicago labor movement. This was so simply because they were not a part of the industrial labor force. Prior to World War I, Blacks were employed mainly in the domestic or personal service occupations, untouched by labor organizations. They were not needed in industry where the seemingly endless tide of cheap European immigrant labor—Irish, Scots, English, Swedes, Germans, Poles, East Europeans and Italians—sufficed to fill the city’s manpower needs.<br />
<br />
The only opportunity Blacks had of entering basic industry was as strikebreakers. Thus, in the early part of the century, Blacks were brought in as strikebreakers on two important occasions, the stockyards strike of 1904 and the city-wide teamsters’ strike in 1905. In the first instance, Blacks were discharged as soon as the strike was broken. After the teamsters’ strike, a relatively large number of Blacks remained. As a result of the defeat of the 1904 strike, the packing houses remained virtually unorganized for thirteen more years, and the animosities which developed toward the Black strikebreakers became a part of the racial tension of the city.<br />
<br />
At the outbreak of World War I, the situation with respect to Chicago’s Black labor underwent a basic change, Now Blacks were needed to fill the labor vacuum caused by the war boom and the quotas on foreign immigration. Chicago's employers turned to the South, to the vast and untapped reservoir of Black labor eager to escape the conditions of plantation serfdom--exacerbated by the cotton crisis, the boll weevil plague and the wave of lynchings. The “great migrations” began and continued in successive waves through the sixties. <br />
<br />
During the war, the occupational status of Blacks thus shifted from largely personal service to basic industry. In the tens of thousands, Blacks flocked to the stockyards and steel mills. During the war, the Black population went from 50,000 to 100,000. Successive waves of Black migration were to bring the Black population to over a million within the next fifty years. Black labor, getting its first foothold in basic industry during the war, had now become an integral part of Chicago’s industrial labor force.4<br />
<br />
With the tapping of this vast reservoir of cheap and unskilled labor, there was no longer any need for the peasantry of eastern and southern Europe. There was, however, a difference between the position of Blacks and that of the European immigrants. The latter, after a generation or two, could rise to higher skilled and better paying jobs, to administrative and even managerial positions. They were able to leave the ethnic enclaves and disperse throughout the city—to become assimilated into the national melting pot, The Blacks, to the contrary, found themselves permanently relegated to a second-class status in the labor force, with a large group outside as a permanent surplus labor pool to be replenished when necessary from the inexhaustible reservoir of Black, poverty-ridden and land-starved peasantry of the South.<br />
<br />
‘The employers now had in hand a new source of cheap labor, the victims of racist proscription, to use as a weapon against the workers’ movement. Indeed, this went hand in hand with the Jim Crow policies of the trade union leaders, who had been largely responsible for keeping Blacks out of basic industry in the first place. <br />
<br />
These labor bureaucrats premised their racism on the doctrine of a natural Black inferiority, The theory of an instinctive animosity between the races was a powerful instrument for an anti-union, anti-working class, divide and rule policy. The use of racial differences was found to be a much more effective dividing instrument than the use of cultural and language differences between various white ethnic groups and the native born. As we know, ethnic conflicts proved transient as the various European nationalities became assimilated into the general population. Blacks, on the other hand, remain to this day permanently unassimilable under the present system.<br />
<br />
Such were conditions in the days when I undertook my search for answers to the question of Black oppression and the road to liberation. Living conditions were pretty rough then, and I had gone back to my old trade of waiting tables in order to make some sort of living.<br />
<br />
But I was restless, moody, short-tempered-—-qualities ill-suited to the trade, Naturally, I had trouble holding a job. My trouble was not with the guests so much as with my immediate superiors; captains, head waiters and dining car stewards, most of whom were white. In less than a month after the Chicago riot, I lost my job on the Michigan Central as a result of a run-in with an inspector.<br />
<br />
The dining car inspectors were a particularly vicious breed. Their job was to see that discipline was maintained and service kept up to par. These inspectors, whom we called company spies, would board the train unexpectedly anywhere along the route, hoping to catch a member of the crew violating some regulation or not giving what they considered proper service. They would then reprimand the guilty party personally, or if the offense was sufficiently serious, would turn him in to the main office to be laid off or fired. Usually the inspector’s word was law from which there was no appeal. The dining car crew had no unions in those days.<br />
<br />
This particular inspector (his name was McCormick) had taken a dislike to me. He had made that clear on other occasions. The feeling was mutual. Perhaps he sensed my independent attitude. He probably felt I was not sufficiently impressed by him and did not care about my job. He was right on both counts. <br />
<br />
He boarded the Chicago-bound train one morning in Detroit, We were serving breakfast. It was just one of those days when everything went wrong. People were lined up at each end of the diner, waiting to be served. Service was slow. The guests were squawking and I was in a mean mood myself. I was cutting bread in the pantry when McCormick peered in and shouted, “Say, Hall, that silver is in terrible condition.”<br />
<br />
The silver! What the hell is this man talking about dirty silver when I’ve got all these people out there clamoring for their breakfast. 2<br />
<br />
“I’ve been noticing you lately,” he continued. “It looks as though you don’t want to work. If you don't like your job why in hell don't you quit?”<br />
<br />
I took that as downright provocation. “Damn you and your job!” I exploded, advancing on him.<br />
<br />
He turned pale and ran out of the pantry. A friend of mine in the crew grabbed me by the wrist.<br />
<br />
“What the hell’s the matter with you, Hall? Are you crazy?” It was only then that I realized that I had been waving the bread knife at the inspector.<br />
<br />
In a few minutes, the brakeman and the conductor came into the pantry. MeCormick brought up the rear,<br />
<br />
“That’s the one,” he said pointing at me.<br />
<br />
Addressing me, the conductor said, “The inspector here says you threatened him with a knife. Is that true?”<br />
<br />
I denied it, stating that I had been cutting bread when the argument started and had a knife in my hand. I wasn’t threatening him with it. My friend (who had grabbed my wrist) substantiated my story.<br />
<br />
“Well,” said the conductor, “you’d better get your things and ride to Chicago in the coach. We don’t want any more trouble here, and the inspector has said he doesn’t want you in the dining car.”<br />
<br />
I went up forward in the coach. I got off the train in Chicago at Sixty-third and Stony Island. I didn’t go to the downtown station, thinking that the cops might be waiting there.<br />
<br />
So much for my job with the Michigan Central.<br />
<br />
I went back to working sporadically in restaurants, hotels and on trains. I didn’t stay anywhere very long. The first job that I regarded as steady was the Illinois Athletic Club, where I remained for several months, 1 was beginning to settle down a little and participate in the social life of the community, attending dances, parties and visiting cabarets. The Royal Gardens, a night club on Thirty-first Street, was one of my favorite hangouts. King Oliver and Louis Armstrong were often featured there. At the Panama, on Thirty-fifth Street between State and Wabash, we went to see our favorite comedians-—Butter Beans and Susie.<br />
<br />
It was on one of these occasions that I met my first wife, Hazel. She belonged to Chicago’s Black social elite, such as it was. Her father had died and her family was on the downgrade. Her mother was left with four children, three girls and a boy, of whom Hazel was the oldest. The other children were still teenagers, and Hazel and her mother had supported them by doing domestic work and catering for wealthy whites. I was twenty-one and she was twenty five.<br />
<br />
Hazel was attractive, a high school graduate. She spoke good English and, as Mother said, “had good manners.” She worked for Montgomery Ward, then owned by the philanthropic Rosenwald family, the first big company to hire Blacks as office clerks. She had a nice singing voice and used to sing around at parties. Her friends were among the Black upper strata and the family belonged to the Episcopal Church on Thirty-eighth and Wabash which at that time was the church of the colored elite. We were married in 1920. I was all decked out in a rented swallowtail coat, striped pants, spats and a derby. The ceremony was impressive. Photos appeared in the Chicago Defender.<br />
<br />
In a short time, the romance wore off. Hazel’s ambition to get ahead in the world, “to be somebody,” clashed with my love of freedom. I soon had visions of myself, a quarter century hence-making mortgage payments on a fancy house, installments on furniture, and trapped in a drab, lower middle-class existence, surrounded by a large and quarrelsome family.<br />
<br />
The worst of it was having to put up with being kicked around on the job and taking all that crap from headwaiters and captains. I had been working at the Athletic Club for several months before I got married. Then nobody had bothered me. When I asked for time off to get married, the white headwaiter and the captain seemed delighted. “Sure Hall, that’s fine. Congratulations, Take a couple of weeks off.”<br />
<br />
Upon my return, I immediately felt a change in their attitude, Now that I was married, they felt they had me where they wanted me. They became more and more demanding. One day at lunch I had some difficulty getting my orders out of the kitchen, and the guests were complaining—not an unusual occurrence in any restaurant. Instead of helping me out and calming down the guests, or seeing what the hang-up was in the kitchen, the captain started shouting at me in front of the guests. “What’s the matter with you, Hall? Why don’t you bring these people’s orders?”<br />
<br />
“Can’t you see that I’m tied up in the kitchen?” I said. “Why don’t you go out and see the chef instead of hollering at me!”<br />
<br />
All puffed up, he yelled out, “Don’t give me any of your lip or I'll snatch that badge off you!”<br />
<br />
I jerked my badge off, threw both badge and side towel into his face, and shouted, “Take your badge and shove it!”<br />
<br />
I was moving on him when a friend of mine, Johnson, a waiter at the next station, jumped between us, I turned away, walked down the steps, through the kitchen and into the dressing room. Johnson followed me into the dressing room a few minutes later. “Hurry up and get out of here. They’re calling the cops.” I changed and left.<br />
<br />
My marriage went down the drain along with the job. That was a period of post-war crisis. Jobs were hard to find, and especially so for me since I had been blacklisted from several places because of my temper. 1 was no longer the same man that Hazel married, and the truth of the matter was that I wanted it that way. Her hangups were typical of Black aspirants for social status—strivers, we called them-—-who never really doubted the validity of the prejudice from which they suffered. Hazel slavishly accepted white middle class values. I, on the other hand, was looking around trying to figure out how best to maladjust<br />
<br />
=== MY REBELLION ===<br />
For me, the break-up of our marriage in the spring of 1920 destroyed my last ties with the old conventional way of life. I was completely disenchanted with the middle class crowd into which Hazel was trying to draw me. But more important, I not only rejected the status quo, I was determined to do something about it--to make my rebellion count.<br />
<br />
I sought answers to a number of questions: What was the nature of the forces behind Black subjugation? Who were its main beneficiaries? Why was racism being entrenched in the north in this period? How did it differ from the South? Could the situation be altered and, if so, what were the forces for change and the program?<br />
<br />
l renewed my search for a way to go, pressed by a driving need for a world view which would provide a rational explanation of society and a clue to securing Black freedom and dignity. My search was to continue during what must have been the most virulent and widespread racist campaign in U.S. history, The forces of racist bigotry unleashed during the riots of the “Red Summer” of 1919 were still on the march through the twenties. Indeed, they had intensified and extended their campaign. <br />
<br />
The whole country seemed gripped in a frenzy of racist hate. Anti-Black propaganda was carried in the press, in magazine articles, literature and in theater. D.W. Griffith’s obscene movie, The Birth of a Nation, which glorified the Ku Klux Klan and pictured Blacks as depraved animals, was shown to millions.5 Thomas Dickson’s two novels, The Klansman (upon which Griffith’s picture was based) and The Leopard's Spots (an earlier book on the theme of the white man’s burden) were best sellers. Racist demagogues of the stripe of “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman of South Carolina, Vardeman of Mississippi, and “Cotton” Ed Smith of South Carolina, were in demand on northern lecture platforms.<br />
<br />
Closely behind the trumpeters of race-hate rode their cavalry, A revived Ku Klux Klan now extended to the north and made its appearance in twenty-seven states.6 This organization, embracing millions, headed the list of a whole rash of super-patriotic groups who were anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, anti-foreign-born and anti-Black. The apostles of white, Anglo-Saxon and Nordic supremacy included in their galaxy of ethnic outcasts Asians (the “yellow peril”), Latin Americans and other foreign-born from southern and eastern Europe. Their hate propaganda pitted Protestants against Catholics, Christians against Jews, native against foreign-born, and all against the Blacks, upon whom was fixed the stigma of inherent and eternal inferiority.<br />
<br />
It seemed as though the prophets of the “lost cause” were out to reverse their military defeat at Appomattox by the cultural subversion of the north. That they were receiving encouragement by powerful northern interests was self-evident. Tin Pan Alley added its contribution to the attack with a spate of Mammy songs, and along the same vein, “That’s Why Darkies Were Born”:<blockquote>'''Someone had to pick the cotton,''' <br />
<br />
'''Someone had to plant the corn,'''<br />
<br />
'''Someone had to slave and be able to sing,''' <br />
<br />
'''That's why darkies were born.'''<br />
<br />
'''Though the balance is wrong,'''<br />
<br />
'''Sull your faith must be strong,'''<br />
<br />
'''Accept your destiny brothers, listen to me.'''</blockquote>A main objective of the racist assault was the academic establishment. The old crude forms of racist propaganda proved inadequate in an age of advancing science. The hucksters of race hate conducted raids upon the sciences, especially upon the new disciplines-—anthropology, ethnology and psychology--in an attempt to establish a scientific foundation for the race myth.<br />
<br />
The new “science of race” evolved and flourished during the period, Spadework for this grotesque growth had been done in the middle of the last century by the Frenchman, Count Arthur D. Gobineau, in his work, The Inequality of the Human Races (1851-1853), It was carried on by his disciple, the Englishman turned German, Houston Chamberlain, who asserted that racial mixture was a natural crime. In the U.S, early efforts in this field were the works of Knott and Glidden. Also, there was Ripley's Races of Mankind.<br />
<br />
Carrying on in this pseudo-scientific tradition during the war and postwar years were the popular theorists Lathrop Stoddard, The Rising Tide of Color: Against White World Supremacy (1923) and Madison Grant, The Passing of a Great Race: The Racial Basis of European History (1916). The cornerstone of this pseudo-scientific structure was Social Darwinism which was an attempt to subvert Darwin’s theory of evolution and arbitrarily apply natural selection in plant and animal society to human society. According to the Social Darwinists, led by Herbert Spencer, the British sociologist, history was a continuous struggle for existence between races. In this struggle, the Nordic, Anglo-Saxon, or Aryan civilizations naturally survived as the fittest.<br />
<br />
The racists had a field day in history, long the area in which the heroes of the “lost cause” had their greatest, most effective concentration. They had held chairs in some of the nation’s most prestigious universities—Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Harvard, etc, Among such historians was William Archibald Dunning, who during his long tenure at Columbia miseducated generations of students by his distortions of the Reconstruction, Civil War and slave periods.7<br />
<br />
In the academic world this pseudoscience of racism held sway with only a few open challengers. The latter seemed to be isolated voices in the wilderness, as the counter-offensive was slow in getting underway. In anthropology there was Franz Boaz’s antiracist thrust, Mind of Primitive Man. This was written in 1911, and not widely known at the time. The works of his students and colleagues-—-most notably Melville Hershovitz, The Myth of the Negro Past, Jane Weltfish, Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead and Otto Klineburg-—-were not to appear until the next decade.<br />
<br />
In history, the movement for revision was then decades away. It only became a trend with the Black Revolt of the sixties, Black scholars had pioneered the reexamination: W.E.B. DuBois, his tour de force, Black Reconstruction, and the epilogue, “Propaganda of History,” which contained a bitter indictment of the white historical establishment, was not to appear until the mid-thirties. J.A. Rogers, popular Black historian, had not yet appeared on the scene, Young Carter Woodson, who had founded his Association for the Study of Negro History in 1915, only began to publish the Journal of Negro History in 1916. His own important historical works were yet to come. <br />
<br />
‘Thus, from its tap-roots in the Southern plantation system, the anti-Black virus had spread throughout the country, shaping the pattern of Black-white relationships in the industrial urban north as well. The dogma of the inherent inferiority of Blacks had permeated the national consciousness to become an integral part of the American way of life. Racist dogma, first a rationale for chattel slavery and then plantation peonage, was now carried over to the north as justification for a new system of de facto segregation.<br />
<br />
Black subjugation, city-style Jim Crow, became fixed by the twenties, and continues up to the present day. Its components were the residential segregation of the ghetto with its inferior education, slums and the second class status of Black workers in the labor force where they were relegated to the bottom rung of the occupational ladder and prevented by discrimination from moving into better skills and higher paid jobs.<br />
<br />
Although its purpose was not clear to me then, I later realized that the virulent racism of the period served to justify and bulwark the structure of Black powerlessness which was developing in every northern city where we had become a sizable portion of the work force,<br />
<br />
At the time the racist deluge simply revealed great gaps in my own education and knowledge. I knew that the propaganda was a tissue of lies, but I felt the need for disproving them on the basis of scientific fact. I rejected racism—the lie of the existence in nature of superior and inferior races--and its concomitant fiction of intuitive hostility between races. For one thing, it ran counter to my own background of experience in Omaha.<br />
<br />
Religion as an explanation for the riddles of the universe I had rejected long before. I knew that our predicament was not the result of some divine disposition and therefore that racial oppression was neither a spiritual or natural phenomenon. It was created by man, and therefore must be changed by man, How? Well, that was the question to be explored. I had only a smattering of knowledge of natural and social sciences, much of which I had gathered through reading the lectures of Robert G. Ingersoll. It was through him that I discovered Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution through natural selection.<br />
<br />
Armed with a dictionary and a priori knowledge gleaned from Ingersoll’s popularizations, I was able to make my way through Origin of the Species. Darwin showed the origin of the species to be a result of the process of evolution and not the mysterious act of a divine creation. Here at last was a scientific refutation of religious dogma. I had at last found a basis for my atheism which had before been based mainly upon practical knowledge.<br />
<br />
Continuing my search, I found myself attracted to other social iconoclasts or image-destroyers, and to their attacks upon established beliefs. I remember staying up all night reading Max Nordau’s Conventional Lies of Our Civilization, being thrilled by his castigation of middle class hypocrisy, prejudices and philistinism. Moving on to the contemporary scene, I discovered H.L. Mencken, “The Sage of Baltimore,” and his “smart set” crowd.<br />
<br />
For a short while, I was an avid reader of the Mercury which he helped to establish in 1920 as a forum for his views, I was particularly delighted by his critical potshots at some of the most sacred cultural cows of what he called “the American Babbitry,” “boobocracy,” “anthropoid majority’--Menckenian sobriquets for middle class commoners. Mencken enjoyed a brief popularity among young Black radicals of the day who saw in his searing diatribes against WASP cultural idols ammunition with which to blast the claims of white supremacists. The novelty soon wore off as it became clear that Mencken’s type of iconoclasm posed no real challenge to the prevailing social structure, In fact, it was reactionary. He sought to replace destroyed idols with even more reactionary oncs, as I soon found out. <br />
<br />
Mencken’s philosophical mentor was none other than the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, prophet of the superman, of the aristocratic minority destined to rile over the unenlightened hoardes of Untermenschen—-the “perenially and inherently unequal majority of mankind.” Most Blacks then, including myself, who flirted with Mencken never accepted him fully. The one exception was George Schuyler of the Pittsburgh Courier, who took Mencken's snobbery and reactionary politics and made a career of them which has lasted for forty years.<br />
<br />
What confused me most were the contentions of the Social Darwinists, who claimed to be the authentic continuators of Darwin’s theories. Darwin had not dealt with the question of race per se, But it had seemed to me that his theory of evolution precluded the myth of race. How could Darwin's theory which had helped me finally and irrevocably throw aside the veil of mysticism and put the understanding of the descent of man within my grasp—how could this be used as an endorsement of racism? Perhaps I had been wrong? Was I reading into Darwin more than, what he implied?<br />
<br />
It was my brother Otto who finally cleared me up on this point. He and I were running in different circles, but we would meet from time to time and exchange notes. Otto pointed out that Social Darwinists had distorted Darwin by mechanically transferring the laws of existence among plants and animals to the field of social and human relations. Human society had its own laws, he asserted. Ah, what were those laws? That was the subject that I wanted to explore.<br />
<br />
“You ought to quit reading those bourgeois authors and start reading Marx and Engels,” Otto told me, suggesting also that I read Henry Lewis Morgan’s Ancient Society and the works of Redpath. ’<br />
<br />
About this time I got a job as a clerk at the Chicago Post Office. I heard that jobs were available and that veterans were given preference. Following the advice of friends, I approached S.L. Jackson of the Wabash Avenue YMCA, who at that time was a Black Republican stalwart with connections in the Madden political machine. Jackson gave me a note to some Post Office official in charge of employment. I passed the civil service examination, in which veterans were given a ten percent advantage, and was employed as a substitute clerk.<br />
<br />
The Post Office job in those days carried considerable prestige. It was almost the only clerical job open to Blacks. Postal workers, along with waiters, Pullman porters and tradesmen, were traditionally considered a part of the Black middle class. A number of prominent community leaders came from this group. Many officers of the old Eighth Illinois were postal employees, a good percentage of them mail-carriers.<br />
<br />
The Post Office became a refuge for poor Black students and unemployed university graduates, For some of the latter it was a sort of way-station on the road to their professional careers. Others remained, settling for regular Post Office careers. But even here opportunities were limited. Blacks held only a few supervisory positions, as advancement depended solely on the discretion of the white postmaster.<br />
<br />
On the job I found the work extremely boring. It consisted of standing before a case eight hours a night, sorting mail. All substitutes were relegated to the night shift. It took years to get on the day shift which was preempted by the veteran employees: On the other hand, I found the company of my new young fellow workers very stimulating.<br />
<br />
In those days the organization of Black postal employees was the Phalanx Forum. Before the war, the organization had played an important political and social role in the community. It was dominated by the conservative crowd of social climbers and political aspirants, who were the most active group among postal employees and had close ties with the local Republican machine.<br />
<br />
Their leadership was completely incffective with respect to the job issues of Black rank-and-file employees, and it had little or no influence over the younger group of new employees, which included many veterans and students. The gap between the old, conservative crowd and the new, youthful element was sharp. Among the latter a radical sentiment was growing.<br />
<br />
I was immediately attracted to this group among whom I was to find friends who seemed to be impelled by the same motivations as myself-—to find new answers to the problems afflicting our people. Most of those with whom I fraternized considered the postal job as temporary, a step to other careers. Our interest at the time, therefore, was not so much with the immediate economic or onthe-job needs of Black postal workers, but with the “race problem” generally. The drive for unionization of postal employees was to come later.<br />
<br />
The issue to which we addressed ourselves was the current campaign of white racist propaganda: how to counter it on the basis of scientific truth. We saw the network of racist lies as clearly aimed at justifying Black subjugation and destroying our dignity as a people. On this question we had long, endless discussions on the job while sorting mail, at rest, during lunch breaks and on Sundays when some of us would meet. I soon identified with what I considered the more vocal segment. Among our group of aspirant intellectuals there was a medical student, a couple of law students, a dentist (whom we all called “Doc”), students of education and some intellectually oriented workers like myself. On one Sunday when we had gathered, it was suggested, I think by Joc Mabley, that we organize ourselves as an informal discussion group, and that our purpose would be to answer the racist lies on the basis of scientific truth. The idea was instantly agreed upon.<br />
<br />
The discussion circle was loosely organized, not more than a dozen participants in all, and bent on finding answers. The moving spirits of the group were John Heath, Joe Mabley and “Doc.”<br />
<br />
Heath was a tall, light-complexioned man with high cheekbones. He was a graduate student in the field of education, anda man whose sterling character and keen intellect we all respected. Then there was Joc Mabley, a brilliant, small Black man. He had large velvety eyes and was a college dropout. He was married and had a family-—two or three children—and had settled down to a regular Post Office job, He and Doe were the only regular postal workers in our group—the rest of us being suhstitutes. Doc had set up an office on the Southside and was trying hard to build upa clientele while working night shifts.<br />
<br />
Originally we had planned to meet every Sunday at noon as the most convenient time for the fellows on our shift. The meeting places were to alternate between the homes or apartments of the members. When we got to procedure, the group would choose a topic of discussion and ask for volunteers or assign a member to make introductory reports, He would then have a week to prepare the report, Our original plans included the eventual organization of a forum in which the issues of the day could be debated, and the holding of social affairs. All of this proved to be too ambitious, We found it impractical to have weekly meetings and finally agreed that twice a month was more feasible. The forum idea never got off the ground.<br />
<br />
Among us I think we had most of the answers on the question of race, that is, to all but the big lie, the onc that was most convincing to the white masses and is the cornerstone on which the whole structure stood or fell: the assertion that Blacks have no history.<br />
<br />
A leading formulator of the lie at that time was John Burgess, professor of political science and history at Columbia University:<blockquote>T'''he claim that there is nothing in the color of the skin from the point of view of political ethics is a great sophism. A black skin means membership in a race of men which has never of itself’ succeeded in subjecting passion to reason, has never, therefore, created any civilization of any kind.'''</blockquote>We wanted to refute the slanders on the basis of scientific truth. For this, we needed more ammunition and better weapons, particularly in the field of history. It was ahout this time that I met George Wells Parker, a brilliant young Black graduate student from Omaha’s Creighton University. I was introduced to him by my brother Otto, who had known him in Omaha. He was in Chicago to visit relatives and to conduct research for his dissertation. His major was history, I believe. We found him a virtual storehouse of knowledge on the race question, especially Black history. His major objective in life was apparently to refute the prevalent racist lies and to huild Black dignity and pride, He possessed wide knowledge and seemed to have read everything.<br />
<br />
Parker called our attention to the writings of the great anthropologist Franz Boas; the Egyptologist Virchow; to Max Mueller (philologist who formulated the Aryan myth and then rejected it); to the Frenchman Jean Finot; to Sir Harry Johnstone (British authority on African history); and to the Italian Giuseppe Serg and his theory of the Mediterranean races, arefutation of the Aryan mythology. Proponents of this myth claimed all civilizations—Indian, Near East, Egyptians—as Aryan, One wonders why the Chinese were left out, but then that would have been too palpable a fraud! It was Parker who called our attention to Herodotus (ancient Greek historian) who had described the Egyptians of his time (around 400 B.C.) as “Black and with woolly hair.”<br />
<br />
Otto and I introduced Parker to friends and acquaintances, and I, of course, to our discussion circle. He spoke before numerous groups. Everywhere there was hunger for his knowledge. Weeven brought him before the Bugs Club Forum in Washington Park, where he led a discussion on the race question. <br />
<br />
This brilliant young man returned to Omaha to resume his studies. The next winter he was dead. We heard it was the result of a mental breakdown. Thus was a brilliant career cut short and a potentially great scholar lost. Surviving, I believe, was only one brief paper and some notes.<br />
<br />
=== GARVEY’S BACK TO AFRICA MOVEMENT ===<br />
But time and tide did not stand still to wait for our answers to the social problems of the day, or for the results of our intellectual researches. While we sought arguments with which to counter the racist thrust, the masses were forging their own weapons. Their growing resistance was finally to erupt on the political scene in the grcatest mass movement of Blacks since Reconstruction,<br />
<br />
Great masses of Blacks found the answer in the Back to Africa program of the West Indian Marcus Garvey. Under his aegis this movement was eventually diverted from the encmy at home into utopian Zionistic channels of peaceful return to Africa and the establishment of a Black state in the ancestral land.<br />
<br />
The organizational course of the movement was Garvey’s Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA). He first launched this organization in Jamaica, British West Indies, in 1914. Coming to the USA, he founded its first section in New York City in 1917. The organization grew rapidly during the war and the immediate post-war period, At its height in the early twenties, it claimed a membership of half a million. While estimates of the organization's membership vary-—from half a million to a million—it was the largest organization in the history of U.S. Blacks. There can be no doubt that its influence extended to millions who identified wholly or partially with its programs.<br />
<br />
What in Garvey’s program attracted these masses?<br />
<br />
Garvey was a charismatic leader and in that tradition best articulated the sentiments and yearnings of the masses of Black people. In his UNIA he also created the vehicle for their organization, Equally important, he was a master at understanding how to use pageantry, ritual and ceremony to provide the Black peasantry with psychological relief from the daily burdens of their oppression. His apparatus included such high sounding titles as potentate, supreme deputy potentate, knights of the Nile, knights of distinguished service, the order of Ethiopia, the dukes of Nigeria and Uganda. There were Black gods and Black angels and a flag of black, red and green: “Black for the race, Red for their blood and Green for their hopes.”<br />
<br />
The movement’s program was fully outlined in the historic Declaration of Rights of the Negro Peoples of the World, adopted at the first convention of the organization in New York City August 13, 1920. In the manner of the Nation of Islam and its publication Muhammad Speaks (Bilalian News), the program of Garvey combined a realistic assessment of the conditions facing Blacks with a fantasy and mystification about the solution. Along with the Back to Africa slogan, the document contained a devastating indictment of the plight of the Black peoples in the United States. Expressing the militancy of its delegates, it called for opposition to the incquality of wages betwecn Blacks and whites, it protested their cxclusion from unions, their deprivation of land, taxation without representation, unjust military service, and Jim Crow laws.<br />
<br />
Anticipating the Black Power Revolt of the sixties, the document called for “complete control of our social institutions without the interference of any other race or races.” Reflecting the rising worldwide anti-colonial movement of the period, it called for self-determination of peoples and repudiated the loosely formed League of Nations, declaring its decisions “null and void as far as the Blacks were concerned because it seeks to deprive them of their independence.” This latter point was in reference to the assignment of mandates to European powers over African territories wrested from the Germans.<br />
<br />
Through this atmosphere of militancy, expressing the desire of the masses to defend their rights at home, ran the incongruent theme of Back to Africa. Declared Garvey:<blockquote>'''Being satisfied to drink of the dregs from the cup of human progress will not demonstrate our fitness as a people to exist alongside others, but when of our own initiative we strike out to build industries, governments, and ultimately empires (sic), then and only then, will we as a race prove to our Creator and to man in general that we are fit to survive and capable of shaping our own destiny.'''<br />
<br />
'''Wake up, Africa! Let us work toward the one glorious end of a free, redeemed, and mighty nation. Let Africa be a bright star among the constellation of nations.'''</blockquote>Who were Garvey’s followers?<br />
<br />
Garvey's Zionistic message was beamed mainly to the submerged Black peasantry, especially its uprooted vanguard, the new migrants in such industrial centers as New York City, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago and St. Louis. These masses made up the rank and file of the movement. They were embittered and disillusioned by racist terror and unemployment, and saw in Garvey’s program of Back to Africa the fulfillment of their yearnings for land and freedom to be guaranteed by a government of their own.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, Garveyism was the trend of a section of the ghetto lower middle classes, small businessmen, shopkeepers, property holders who were pushed to the wall, ruined or threatened with ruin by the ravages of the post-war crisis, Also attracted to Garveyism were the frustrated and unemployed Black intelligentsia: professionals, doctors, lawyers with impoverished clientele, storefront preachers who had followed their flocks to the promised land of the north, and poverty stricken students.<br />
<br />
Garveyism reflected the desperation of these strata before the ruthless encroachments of predatory white corporate interests upon their already meager markets. It reflected an attempt by them to escape from the sharpening racist oppression, the terror of race riots, the lynchings, economic and social frustrations. It was from these strata that the movement drew its leadership cadres.<br />
<br />
The immediate pecuniary interests of this element were expressed in the form of ghetto enterprises, the organization of a whole network of cooperative enterprises, including grocery stores, laundries, restaurants, hotels and printing plants. The most ambitious was the Black Star Steamship Line. Several ships were purchased and trade relations were established with groups in the West Indies and Africa, including the Republic of Liberia.<br />
<br />
The New York City division comprised a large segment of the intensely nationalistic West Indian immigrants. West Indians were prominent in the leadership, in Garvey's close coterie, and in the organization’s inner councils. There can be no doubt of the considerable influence of this element on the organization. But the attempt on the part of some writers to brand the movement as a foreign import with no indigenous roots is superficial and without foundation in fact. It is clear that Garveyism had both a social and economic base in Black society of the twenties. Nor was Garvey’s nationalism a new trend among Blacks—nationalist currents had repeatedly emerged, going back even before the Civil War.<br />
<br />
A key role in the movement was also played by deeply disillusioned Black veterans who had fought an illusory battle to “make the world safe for democracy” only to return to continued and even harsher slavery. Veterans were involved in the setting up of the skeleton army for the future African state, and in such paramilitary organizations as the Universal African Legion, the Universal Black Cross Nurses, the African Motor Corps and the Black Eagle Flying Corps. Many Black radicals—even some socialistically inclined—were swept into thé Garvey movement, attracted by its militancy.<br />
<br />
Despite his hostility toward local communists, Garvey seemed to regard the Soviet experience with some favor-at least in the early years of his movement. This probably reflected the sentiments of many of his followers. As late as 1924, in an editorial in the Negro World, he publicly mourned the passing of Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union, calling him “probably the world’s greatest man between 1917 and ...1924.” On that occasion, he sent a cable to Moscow “expressing the sorrow and condolence of the 400,000,000 Negroes of the world.”<br />
<br />
‘The Garvey movement revealed the wide rift between the policies of the traditional upper class of the NAACP and associates, and the life needs of the sorely oppressed people. It represented a mass rejection of the policies and programs of this leadership, which during the war had built up false hopes and now offered no tangible proposals for meeting the rampant anti-Black violence and joblessness of the post-war period. This mood was expressed by Garvey, who denounced the whole upper class leadership, claiming that they were motivated solely by the drive for assimilation and banked their hopes for equality on the support of whites—all classes of whom, he contended, were the Black man’s enemy. The policy of this leadership, he maintained, was a policy of compromise.<br />
<br />
It was in these conditions that Garvey, as thespokesman for the new ghetto petty bourgeoisie, seized leadership of the incipient Black revolt and diverted it into the blind alley of utopian escapism.<br />
<br />
My contact with the movement was limited. [ had never seen Garvey. I had missed his appearance in 1919 at the Eighth Regiment Armory. I never visited the organization’s Liberty Hall headquarters. In Chicago, the movement seemed to spring up overnight, I first took serious notice of it in 1920. I listened to its orators on street corners, watched its spectacular parades through the Southside streets, The black, red and green flag of the movement was carried at the head of the parade. The parades were lively and snappy; marching were the African Legion and the Universal Black Cross Nurses in their spotless white uniforms and white veils, All marched in step with a band. It was quite impressive, but to me it was unreal and had little or no relevance to the actual problems that confronted Blacks.<br />
<br />
From the first, the Garvey movement met heavy opposition in Chicago, The powerful Chicago Defender, edited by Robert S. Abbott, took the lead. If not the world’s greatest weekly as its masthead proclaimed, it had great influence among Chicago and Sofithern Blacks, due to its role in promoting the migration to the north. It was widely read in the South where a daily newspaper of Athens, Georgia, called it “the greatest disturbing element that has yet entered Georgia.” The Defender was relentless in its attack, throwing scorn and contempt on the movement and Garvey himself.<br />
<br />
In addition to The Defender’s attacks, the so-called Abyssinia Affair in the summer of 1920 served to discredit the movement. The Star Order of Ethiopia and Ethiopian Missionaries to Abyssinia was an extremist split off from Chicago’s UNIA branch. The leaders of the group held a parade and rally on Thirty-fifth and Indiana. Speakers clad in loud African costume called upon the crowd to return to their African ancestral land.<br />
<br />
To show their scorn for the U.S., they burned an American flag, and when white policemen sought to intervene, the Abyssinians shot and killed two white men and wounded a third. This incident was blown up in the white press as an armed rebellion of Blacks. It was condemned on ali sides in the Black community and by its leaders, including the editors of The Defender, who helped authorities in capturing the Abyssinian dissidents.<br />
<br />
Despite its repudiation by the official Garvey organization, the Abyssinian affair served to muddy the Garvey image in Chicago. I was working on the New York Central at the time and heard a graphic account of the affair from my aunts when I arrived intown the next day. They lived right around the corner on Indiana Avenue.<br />
<br />
Despite the hostile Black press and the Abyssinian affair, the UNIA grew. At its height, it claimed a Chicago membership of 9,000 devoted followers. This is probably exaggerated, but there is no doubt that the sympathizers numbered in the tens of thousands.<br />
<br />
Our Sunday discussion group underestimated the significance of the Garvey movement and the strength it was later to reveal. We regarded it as a transient phenomenon. We applauded some of the cultural aspects of the movement—Garvey’s emphasis on race pride, dignity, self-reliance, his exultation of things Black. This was all to the good, we felt. However, we rejected in its entirety the Back to Africa program as fantastic, unreal and a dangerous diversion which could only lead to desertion of the struggle for our rights in the USA. This was our country, we strongly felt, and Blacks should not waive their just claims to equality and justice in the land to whose wealth and greatness we and our forefathers had made such great contributions.<br />
<br />
Finally, we could not go along with Garvey’s idea about inherent racial antagonisms between Black and white. This to us seemed equivalent to ceding the racist enemy one of his main points. While it is true that I personally often wavered in the direction of race against race, I was not prepared to accept the idea as a philosophy. It did not jibe with my experience with whites.<br />
<br />
While rejecting Garvey’s program, our ideas for a viable alternative were still vague and unformed. The most important effect the Garvey movement had on us was that it put into clear focus the questions to which we sought answers.<br />
<br />
Who were the enemies of the Black freedom struggle? While Garvey claimed the cntire white race was the enemy, it did not escape us that he was inconsistent, being soft on white capitalists. His main target was clearly white labor and the trade union movement. According to Garvey:<blockquote>'''It seems strange and a paradox, but the only convenient friend the Negro worker or laborer has, in America, at the present time, is the white capitalist. The capitalist being selfish---seeking only the largest profit out of labor-—is willing and glad to use Negro labor wherever possible on a scale “reasonably” below the standard white union wage....but, if the Negro unionizes himself to the level of the white worker... the choice and preference of employment is given to the white worker...'''<br />
<br />
'''If the Negro takes my advice he will organize by himself and always keep his scale of wage a little lower than the whites until he is able to become, through proper leadership, his own employer; by doing so he will keep the good will of the white employer and live a little longer under the present scheme of things.'''</blockquote>There was no doubt that Garvey was voicing the sentiments of the vast mass of new migrant workers. And it was not that we had any compunction about strikebreaking in industries from which Blacks were barred. In fact, that had been one of the ways Blacks broke into industries such as stockyards and steel. We were also keenly aware of the Jim Crow policies of the existing trade union leadership and of the anti-Black prejudices rampant among white workers. But in casting Blacks permanently into the role of strikebreakers, Garvey was helping to further divide an already polarized situation and playing into the hands of businessmen, bankers, factory owners and the reactionary leadership of the trade unions,<br />
<br />
My own experience with unions in the waiters’ trade was bad. Old waiters would tell us how in the first part of the century they had listened to the siren call of white union leaders. They had gone out on strike, ostensibly to better their conditions, only to find their jobs immediately taken by whites. This had been quite a serious blow because at that time, Black waiters had had jobs in most of the best hotels and in a number of fine restaurants. It is therefore understandable that in 1920, we Black waiters felt not the slightest pang of conscience in taking over the jobs of white waiters on strike at the Marygold Gardens (the old Bismark Gardens) on the Northside, one of the swankiest night spots in Chicago, It was also probably the best waiter’s job in town; in fact, so good that some of the German captains who remained on the job used to drive to and from work in Cadillacs. The strike was broken after several months, and Blacks were turned out.<br />
<br />
Strikebreaking to me was not a philosophy or principle as Garvey contended, but an expedient forced upon Blacks by the Jim Crow policies of the bosses and the unions.<br />
<br />
Even as Garvey was putting forward such views, times were beginning to change. Large numbers of Blacks had been brought into industry during the war and had joined unions, especially in steel and the packing houses. A new industrial unionism was developing and raising the slogan of Black and white labor unity.<br />
<br />
My sister Eppa’s experiences in 1919 at Swift Packing Company were a case in point, She was one of the first Black women to join the union during the organizing drive of the Stockyards Labor Council, which was headed by two communists-—-William Z. Foster and Jack Johnstone. The drive was supported by John Fitzpatrick, chairman of the Chicago Federation of Labor and a bitter foe of the Jim Crow machine of Samuel Gompers’ AFL. Despite inevitable racial tensions fostered by the employers, Eppa had seen the basic unity of interest between all workers and felt strongly that the union was the best place to fight for the interests of Black workers.<br />
<br />
In looking back at our study of the Garvey movement, it must be evaluated in light of the fact that it was our first confrontation with nationalism as a mass movement. Our mistake, which I was to find out later through my own experience and study of nationalist movements, resulted from the failure to understand the contradictory nature of the nationalism of oppressed peoples. This contradiction or dualism was inherent in the inter-class character of these movements once they assume a popular mass form.<br />
<br />
‘They comprise various classes and social groupings with conflicting interests, tendencies and motives, all gathered under the unifying banner of national liberation, each with its own concept of that goal and how it should be attained. These conflicts, at first submerged, surface as the movement develops.<br />
<br />
‘They are expressed in two main currents (tendencies) within the movement. First of all, there is the nationalism which reflects the interests of the basic masses~-workers and peasants—-determined to fight for liberation against the oppressor of the nation. Then there is the nationalism of the Black bourgeoisie who, while at time in conflict with the white oppressors, tend toward compromise and accommodation to protect their own weak position.<br />
<br />
From the very beginning this dualism was reflected in the Garvey movement. A highly vocal and aggressively dominant current within the movement was the drive of the small business, professional and intellectual elements for a Black controlled economy. They sought fulfillment of this goal through withdrawal to Africa where they envisioned establishment of their own State, their right to exploit their own masses free from the overwhelming competition of dominant white capital. (A historical example of this can be seen in Liberia.) They thought they could accomplish this, presumably with the acquiescence of the American white rulers, and even the active support of some.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, there was a grass-roots nationalism of the masses, the uprooted, dispossessed soil-tillers of the South; their poverty-ridden counterparts in the slum ghettos of the cities. ‘These masses saw in the Black nationalist state fulfillment of their age-old yearnings for land, equality and freedom through power in their own hands to guarantee and protect these freedoms. It was this indigenous, potentially revolutionary nationalism that Garvey diverted with his Back to Africa slogan.<br />
<br />
We failed to recognize the objective conflict of interests between these class components of the movement, equating the social and political aims of the ghetto nationalists, the bourgeoisie, to that of the masses~-condemning the whole as reactionary, escapist and utopian.<br />
<br />
These were the internal contradictions upon which the movement was to flounder and finally collapse. They were brought to a head by the subsiding of the post-war economic depression, the ushering in of the “boom,” and subsequent easing of the plight of Blacks, the partial adjustment of migrants to their new environment and their partial absorption into industry.<br />
<br />
The main contradiction inherent in the Garvey movement from its very beginning had been the conflict between the needs of the masses to defend and advance their rights in the USA and the fantastic Back to Africa schemes of the Garvey leadership. Garvey’s emphasis on these fantastic schemes reflected his resolution of the conflict in favor of business interests and against the interests of the masses. The resources and energy of the organization were increasingly diverted to support racial business enterprises such as the Black Star Line and the Negro Factories Corporation. The concentration on selling stock for the Black Star Steamship Line by the UNIA leadership from 1921 on neglected the immediate needs of the masses and began to erode the base of support.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, Garvey’s response to the crisis in the movement exposed the dangerously reactionary logic of a program based upon complete separation of the races and its acceptance of the white racist doctrine of natural racial incompatibility. Pursuing the logic of this idea against the backdrop of the organization's decline inevitably drove Garvey into an alliance of expediency with the most rabid segregationists and race bigots of the period.<br />
<br />
Thus, in 1922, Garvey sought the support of Edward Young Clark, the imperial giant of the Ku Klux Klan. This “meeting of the minds” between Garvey and the Klan was not fortuitous. It was an open secret that it took place on the basis of Garvey’s agreement to soft-pedal the struggle for equality in the U.S. in return for help in the settlement of Blacks in Africa. This ideological kinship arose from the mutual acceptance of the racist dogma of natural incompatibility of races, race purity and so forth.<br />
<br />
In 1924 Garvey went so far seeking support for his Back to Africa program as to invite John Powell, organizer of the AngloSaxon Clubs, and other prominent racists to speak at UNIA headquarters. Garvey also publicly praised the KKK. According to W.E.B. DuBois, the Kian issued circulars defending Garvey and declared that the opposition to him was from the Catholic Church. In the late thirties, Senator Bilbo of Mississippi introduced a bill to deport thirteen million Blacks to Africa and received the support of the remnants of the Garvey organization.<br />
<br />
The final curtain was to drop on the Garvey episode with the failure of the Black Star Linc. The movement was torn by factionalism and splits, with some of the leadership and remaining rank and file demanding that the domestic fight for equal rights be emphasized over the Back to Africa scheme of Garvey. The internal struggle drove many out of the organization and others into a multitude of splinter groups, each a variation of Garveyism itself. Taking advantage of this disarray, the government moved in.<br />
<br />
In 1925, Garvey was framed on charges of using the mail to defraud in connection with the sale of stocks for the Black Star Line and was sent to the Atlanta federal prison for two years. He was deported to the West Indies upon release from prison. This debacle marked the end of Garveyism as an important mass movement, although the offshoots continued to exist in numbers of smaller groups advocating Garvey’s theory.<br />
<br />
At the time, I had taken Garvey’s peculiar brand as representing nationalism in general and had simply rejected the whole ideology as a foreign import with no roots in the conditions of U.S. Blacks, Seeing only the negative features of nationalism in the UNIA, I was blind to the progressive and potentially revolutionary aspects which were to prove so important in my own later development.<br />
<br />
Thus, the great movement that Garvey built passed into history. But nationalism, as a mass trend, persisted in the Black freedom struggle. Existing side by side with the assimilationist trend, it was eclipsed by the latter in so-called normal times while flaring up in times of stress and crisis.<br />
<br />
The Garvey movement was the U.S. counterpart of the vast upsurge of national and colonial liberation struggles which swept the world during the war and post-war period. In this period, masses of Blacks had come to consider themselves as an oppressed nation. Garvey’s ability to capture leadership of this nationalist upsurge by default was the result of the immaturity of the revolutionary forces, Black and white. The collapse of the Garvey movement proved conclusively that the petty bourgeois ghetto nationalist current, left to itself, led only to a hopeless blind alley. Unfortunately the forces which could give Black nationalism revolutionary content and direction were only in the process of formation.<br />
<br />
The Black working class and its spokesmen had not yet arrived on the scene as an independent force in the Black community and, therefore, was not capable of challenging either the assimilationist leadership of the NAACP or the ghetto nationalism of Garvey. Its counterparts among radical, class-conscious white labor were waging an uphill fight against the Jim Crow-minded AFL bureaucracy led by the Gompers machine. ‘These radical sections of white labor were not yet clear as to the significance of the Black freedom struggle as a revolutionary force in its own right and regarded it simply as a part of the general labor question. Coalescence of these two forces was then a decade away, destined not to take place until the crisis of the thirties.<br />
<br />
The preceding analysis is hindsight. I didn't realize the significance of Garvey’s movement until a few years later, when, as a student in Moscow, I was assigned to a commission to prepare a resolution on the Negro question in the USA for the Sixth Congress of the Communist International in 1928. It was in the course of these discussions that I came to the recognition of nationalism as an authentic and potentially revolutionary trend in the movement.<br />
<br />
The assimilationist programs of the NAACP had been easy to reject. Garvey was somewhat more difficult. But while the Garvey movement was forcing me to a consideration of nationalism (which at the time I also rejected) I could not help but notice the other political developments of the period.<br />
<br />
Most conspicuous was the concerted and vicious attack being carried out against white radicals and the trade union movement. The same forces appeared to be behind the Palmer raids of 1919 and 1920, behind the wave of racism and behind the violent union and strike busting which took place. The foreigners who were being deported, the radicals who were imprisoned and the workers throughout the country who were attacked by Pinkerton “private armies,” were white as well as Black. In Chicago, the strikes at the stockyards and the steel mills in the area particularly attracted my attention.<br />
<br />
For me, the Garvey movement, the racists’ assault and the attacks on labor and the radical movement sharpened my political perceptions. The racial fog lifted and the face and location of the enemy was clearly outlined. I began to see that the main beneficiaries of Black subjugation also profited from the social oppression of poor whites, native and foreign-born.<br />
<br />
The enemy was those who controlled and manipulated the levers of power; they were the super-rich, white moneyed interests who owned the nation’s factories and banks, and thus controlled its wealth, They were known by many names: the corporate elite; the industrial, financial (and robber) barons; ete. Chicago was the home base of a significant segment of this ruling class. <br />
<br />
Here the chain of command was clear: on the political side, it extended from city hall down to the lowliest wardheeler and precinct captain and was tied in at all levels with organized crime, On the economic side, it was represented by such employer organizations as the Chicago Chamber of Commerce, by trade associations and by top management in the giant industrial plants, railroads, big commercial establishments, banks, utilities and insurance firms, Their chain of command extended down to the foremen and department heads, and on-the-job supervisors. <br />
<br />
These levers of power also controlled education, the media, the arts and all law enforcement agencies, both military and police, At the bottom of this pyramid and hearing its weight were the working people who toiled in the steel mills, the packing plants, the railway yards, and the thousands of other sweatshops. Lowliest among these were the Blacks, pushed to the very bottom by the “divide and rule” policy of the corporate giants and their henchmen, and the complimentary Jim Crow policies and practices of the AFL trade union bureaucracy.<br />
<br />
=== PASSAGES ===<br />
Our postal discussion circle, which had held together scarcely three months, was breaking up. Heath, our chairman and recognized leader, was leaving. He had played the greatest role in keeping the group together. Now he had taken a job at some college in Virginia, his native state.<br />
<br />
Differences had already developed in the group, and with Heath gone, the possibilities for reconciling them seemed slim. These differences, as I recall, were not of a political or ideological nature. ‘They were seldom expressed in the open, but were reflected in the opposition of some members to proposals for enlarging the group and moving it into the outside political arena. This opposition evidently reflected the desire of some members to retain the group as a narrow discussion circle with membership restricted by tacit understanding to those whom they, considered their intellectual peers. It seemed to me they sought to reduce it to a sort of elitist mutual admiration society. As a result of this sectarian attitude, the group hardly grew beyond its original membership of a dozen or so.<br />
<br />
There was no doubt, though, that our association had been mutually beneficial. All of us had grown in political understanding and awareness. But up to the time of Heath’s departure, we had advanced no program for putting our newly acquired political understanding into practice. Our original plans for the organization of a forum to debate the issues of the day never got off the ground. We had not developed a program for involvement in the struggles of the community, nor, for that matter, in the immediate on-the-job problems of Black postal employees. We never even got around to deciding on a name for the group. One suggestion, that we call ourselves the “New Negro Forum,” was never acted upon.<br />
<br />
Heath, Mabley, Doe and myself were beginning to feel the pull from the outside, the need for a broader political arena of activity, to play a more active role in the community. We were the ones who most often attended radical forums and lectures and kept abreast of what was going on in the Southside community. We often went to the Bugs Club in Washington Park (Chicago’s equivalent of London's Hyde Park), and the Dill Pickle Club on the Northside which was run by the anarchist Jack Jones.<br />
<br />
Heath had gone. Mabley refused the chairmanship, pleading that he was tied down by his family and could not take on additional responsibilities. Doe refused to accept the honor; he was similarly tied down by his job and dental practice. But the real reason for their refusal, which they were to confide to me later, was that they had lost confidence in the group. Without Heath, they saw no future role for it. Like myself, they were attracted to the broader movement, I also declined, giving as my excuse that I was quitting the Post Office in a few days and was going back to my old job on the railroad. A chairman pro-tem was chosen; I don’t remember who.<br />
<br />
I continued my reading along the lines which Otto had suggested. Among the books I read were Henry Morgan’s Ancient Society (which Engels had used as the basis for Origins of the Family), Gustavus Meycr’s History of the Great American Fortunes, John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook the World and Jack London’s The Iron Heel.<br />
<br />
I also kept abreast of world events, reading about Lenin and Trotsky in revolutionary Russia. I followed the post-war colonial rebellions of Sun Yat-sen’s China, Gandhi in India, Ataturk in Turkey, the rebellion of the Riff tribes in Morocco led by Abdul Krim. There were rumblings in black Africa—strikes and demonstrations against colonial oppression. One heard such names as Kadelli and Gumede of the South African National Congress, and of Sandino in Nicaragua who fought the U.S. Marines for many years,<br />
<br />
My fect were getting itchy. I was fed up with the Post Office and the excruciatingly monotonous nature of the work. At the same time, the night shift cramped my social life as well as my growing need for broader political activity. I quit the job without regret.<br />
<br />
Soon after, I started work as a waiter on the Santa Fe’s Chief, the company’s crack train running to Los Angeles. It was an eightday run: three days to the coast, with a two-day layover in Los Angeles and three days back. Our crew would make three trips a month, and a layover one trip (eight days) in Chicago. This schedule gave me approximately twelve free days a month in Chicago---time enough for both political and social life. It was a hard job, but good money for those days and exciting after the drab routine of the Post Office.<br />
<br />
Los Angeles, “Sweet Los,” as we used to call it. The Santa Fe boys, all “big spenders,” were very popular with the girls. A bevy would show up to meet us at the station every trip.<br />
<br />
I was to remain on that run three years, which up to that time was the longest I had ever remained on one job. Upon my return from the first trip, I called Mabley and he informed me that he thought the discussion circle had dissolved. Only one or two guys showed up at the next scheduled meeting, and the pro-tem chairman himself was absent. It was dead.<br />
<br />
My political development continued nevertheless, The runs on the Santa Fe gave ample time for discussion with my fellow crew members. Most of them, though somewhat older, were as aware as those at the Post Office with whom I had worked. I also continued to read, now studying The Communist Manifesto, Engels’ Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, and Marx’s Value, Price and Profit.<br />
<br />
The first stage of my political search was near an end. In the years since I had mustered out of the Army, I had come from being a disgruntled Black ex-soldier to being a self-conscious revolutionary looking for an organization with which to make revolution.<br />
<br />
For three years I had listened in lecture halls, at rallies and in Washington Park to a spate of orators each claiming to meet the challenge of the times. They included the great “people’s lawyer” Clarence Darrow; Judge Fisher of the reform movement; the socialist leader Victor Berger and sundry other members of his party; the anarchist Ben Reichman, Ben Fletcher, the Black IWW orator and organizer, and assorted Garveyites. Although some had their points—for example, the fighting spirit and sincerity of the IWW impressed me-—I rejected them all.<br />
<br />
In the spring of 1922, I approached my brother Otto, whom I knew had joined the Workers (Communist) Party shortly after its inception in 1921. I told him that I wanted to join the Party.<br />
<br />
The fact that Otto was in the Party and had advised me from time to time on my reading had undoubtedly influenced my decision, I had a generally favorable impression of the Black communists I knew; men like Otto, the Owens brothers and Edward Doty. I was also impressed by whites like Jim Early, Sam Hammersmark, Robert Minor and his wife, Lydia Gibson. What added great weight to my favorable impression of the communists, however, was their political identity with the successful Bolshevik Revolution.<br />
<br />
At the time it happened, I had been taken totally unaware of its significance, I first heard of it during an incident that occurred in France in August 1918. My regiment, while marching into positions on the Soissons sector, had paused fora rest. On one side of the road there was a high barbed wire fence and behind it loitered groups of soldiers in strange uniforms. Upon closer observation, it became clear that they were prisoners. They spoke in a strange tongue, but we understood from their gestures that they were asking for cigarettes, A number of us immediately responded, offering them some from our packs.<br />
<br />
When we asked who they were, one of them replied in halting English that they were Russian Cossacks. He explained that their division, which had been fighting on the western front, had been withdrawn from the lines, disarmed and placed in quarantine, They were considered unreliable, he said, because of the revolution in Russia. At the time, I was not even sure of the meaning of the word revolution—some kind of civil disorder I conjectured. Giving the matter no further thought, we resumed our march. It was not until I had returned from France that I began reading about the Russian Revolution. From then on, I followed its course, and despite the distorted view in the U.S. press, its significance slowly dawned on me.<br />
<br />
Here, I felt, was a tangible accomplishment and real power. Along with other Black radicals, I was impressed-—just as a later generation came to look at China, Cuba and Vietnam as models of successful struggle against tyranny, colonialism and oppression.<br />
<br />
Thus, I was particularly attracted to the communists. True, the Party was largely white in its racial composition, with only a handful of Black members. I felt, nevertheless, that it comprised the best and most sincerely revolutionary and internationally minded elements among white radicals,and therefore formed the basis for the revolutionary unity of Blacks and whites. This was so, I believed, because it was a part of a world revolutionary movement uniting Chinese, Africans and Latin Americans with Europeans and North Americans through the Third Communist International.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks had destroyed the czarist rule, established the first workers’ state, and breached the world system of capitalism over a territory comprising more than one-sixth of the earth’s surface. Most impressive as far as Blacks were concerned was that the revolution had laid the basis for solving the national and racial questions on the basis of complete freedom for the numerous nations, colonial peoples and minorities formerly oppressed by the czarist empire. Moscow had now become the focus of the colonial revolution. In the turbulence of those days, there seerned every reason to think that the energy unleashed in Russia would carry the revolution throughout the world.<br />
<br />
In the U.S., the deluge of lies and distortions by the media, the red baiting, the Palmer raids, had not been able to hide this monumental achievement of the Russian Bolsheviks. The uninformed Black man in the street could reason that a phenomenon that evoked such fear and hatred on the part of the white supremacist rulers “couldn't be all bad.” As for me, the socialist victory confirmed my belief in the Bolshevik variety of socialism as a way out for U.S. Blacks.<br />
<br />
I found the theory behind this achievement all there in Lenin’s State and Revolution. He developed and applied the theories of Marx and Engels on the role of the state and the dictatorship of the proletariat. This work was the single most important book I had read in the entire three years of my political search and was decisive in leading me to the Communist Party. In this work, Lenin clarified the nature of the state and the means by which to overthrow it. His approach seemed practical and realistic; it was no longer just abstract theory.<br />
<br />
Using Origins of the Family as a departure point, Lenin demystified and desanctified the myth of the state in capitalist society as an impartial monitor of human affairs. Rather, he exposed the state in capitalist society--and its apparatus of military, police, courts and prisons—as an instrument of ruling class domination, a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
It thus followed that the job of forcibly replacing the state power of the dominant class with that of the proletariat was the paramount and indispensable task of socialist revolution. As far as I could seé, the Soviet example appeared to offer a completely clear solution to the problems facing American workers, both Black and white. I saw the elimination of racism and the achievement of complete equality for Blacks as an inevitable by product of a socialist revolution in the United States, It was at this point that I became fully resolved to make my own personal commitment to the fight for a socialist United States.<br />
<br />
The first part of my odyssey was over.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
=== An Organization of Revolutionaries ===<br />
Otto was pleased when I first told him of my desire to join the Party in the summer of 1922. He said that he had known that that i had been ready to join for some time, but he suggested that i should wait a while before joining. When I asked why, he told me about an unpleasant situation that had arisen in the Party’s Southside branch.<br />
<br />
Most of the few Black members were concentrated in this English-speaking branch, but it seemed that a number of recent Black recruits had dropped out. They resented the paternalistic attitude displayed toward them by some of the white comrades who, Otto said, treated Blacks like children and seemed to think that the whites had all the answers, It was only a temporary situation, he assured me. The matter had been taken up before the Party District Committee; if it was not resolved there, they would take it to the Central Committee.<br />
<br />
“And if you don’t get satisfaction there?” I queried.<br />
<br />
“Well, then there’s the Communist International!” he teplied emphatically. “It’s as much our Party as it is theirs.”<br />
<br />
I was properly impressed by his sincerity and by the idea that we could appeal our case to the “supreme court” of international communism, which included such luminaries as the great Lenin.<br />
<br />
‘The Blacks who had remained in the Party had decided not to bring any new members into the branch until the matter was satisfactorily settled. I was rather surprised to hear all of this.<br />
<br />
Clearly, membership in the Party did not automatically free whites from white supremacist ideas. Nor, for that matter, did it free Blacks from their distrust of whites. Throughout my lifetime, I found that interracial solidarity--even in the Communist Party— required a continuous ideological struggle.<br />
<br />
Otto suggested that until the matter was cleared up I should join the African Blood Brotherhood. The ABB was a secret, all-Black, revolutionary organization to which some of the Black Party members belonged---including Otto. I later learned that the matter of white paternalism was eventually resolved to the satisfaction of the Black comrades. I don’t recall the details; I think that Arne Swabeck (the district organizer) or Robert Minor from the Central Committee finally came down and lectured the branch on the evils of race prejudice and threatened disciplinary action to the point of expulsion of comrades guilty of bringing bourgeois social attitudes into the Party.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, I took Otto’s advice and joined the African Blood Brotherhood. He took me to see Edward Doty, then commander of the Brotherhood’s Chicago Post. Vouched for by Otto and Doty, I was taken to a meeting of the membership committee and went through the induction ceremonies. This consisted of an African fraternization ritual requiring the mixing of blood between the applicant and one of the regular members. The organization took its name from this ritual. Doty performed the ceremony; he pricked our index fingers with a needlc (I hoped it was sterilized!) and when drops of blood appeared, he rubbed them together.<br />
<br />
Now a Blood Brother, I proceeded to take the Oath of Loyalty which contained a clause warning that divulging of any of the secrets of the organization was punishable by death. I was deeply impressed by all this; the atmosphere of great secrecy appealed to my romantic sense. There were two degrees of membership; one was automatically conferred upon joining and the second, which I took a few days later, involved the performance of some service for the organization. In my case, as I recall, it was a trivial task—-the selling of a dozen or so copies of its magazine, The Crusader.<br />
<br />
At the time that I joined the African Blood Brotherhood, I knew little about the organization other than the fact that it wasin some way associated with the Communist Party. I do remember having read a copy or two of The Crusader before I joined the group.<br />
<br />
Some of the history of the ABB I got from Otto and other post members, but most of it I found out much later when I met and worked with Cyril P. Briggs, the original founder of the group. The African Blood Brotherhood was founded in New York City in 1919 by a group of Black radicals under the leadership of Briggs. A West Indian (as were most of the founders), he was a former editor of the Amsterdam News, a Black New York newspaper. He quit in disagrcement over policy with the owner, who attempted to censor his anti-war editorials. Briggs’s own magazine. The Crusader, was established in 1919. The Brotherhood was organized around the magazine with Briggs as its executive head presiding over a supreme council.<br />
<br />
The group was originally conceived as the African Blood Brotherhood “for African liberation and redemption” and was later broadened to “for immediate protection and ultimate liberation of Negroes everywhere.” As it was a secret organization, it never sought broad membership. National headquarters were in New York. Its size never exceeded 3,000. But its influence was many times greater than this; the Crusader at one time claimed a circulation of 33,000.' There was also The Crusader News Service which was distributed to two hundred Black newspapers.<br />
<br />
Briggs, his associates--Richard B. Moore, Grace Campbell and others—-and The Crusader were among the vanguard forces for the New Negro movement, an ideological current which reflected the new mood of militancy and social awareness of young Blacks of the post-war period. In New York, the New Negro movement also included the radical magazine, The Messenger, edited by Chandler Owen and A. Philip Randolph, and The Emancipator, edited by W.A. Domingo. Many of the groups were members of the Socialist Party or close to it politically. They espoused “economic radicalism,” an over-simplificd interpretation of Marxism which, nevertheless, enabled them to see the economic and social roots of racial subjugation. Historically, theirs was the first serious attempt by Blacks to adopt the Marxist world view and the theory of class struggle to the problems of Black Americans.<br />
<br />
Within this broad grouping, however, there were differences which emerged later. Briggs was definitely a revolutionary nationalist; that is, he saw the solution of the “race problem” in the establishment of independent Black nation-states in Africa, the Caribbean and the United States, In America, he felt this could be achieved only through revolutionizing the whole country. This meant he saw revolutionary white workers as allies. These were elements of a program which he perceived as an alternative to Garvey’s plan of mass exodus.<br />
<br />
A self-governing Black state on U.S. soil was a novel idea for which Briggs sent up trial balloons in the form of editorials in the Amsterdam News in 1917, of which he was then editor. Shortly after the entrance of the United States into World War I, he wrote an editorial entitled “Security of Life for Poles and Serbs—Why Not for Colored Americans?”<br />
<br />
Briggs, however, had no definite idea for the location of the future “colored autonomous state,” suggesting at various times Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California or Nevada: Later, after President Wilson had put forth his fourteen points in January 1918, Briggs equated the plight of Blacks in the United States to nations occupied by Germany and demanded:<br />
<br />
'''With what moral authority or justice can President Wilson demand that eight million Belgians be freed when for his entire first term and to the present moment of his second term he has not lifted a finger for justice and liberty for over TEN MILLION colored people, a nation within a nation, a nationality oppressed and jim-crowed, yet worthy as any other people of a square deal or failing that, a separate political existence?'''<br />
<br />
He continued this theme in The Crusader. One year after the founding of the Brotherhood, Briggs shifted from the idea of a Black state on U.S. soil to the advocacy of a Black state in Africa, South America or the Caribbean, where those Blacks who wanted to could migrate. In this, he was undoubtedly on the defensive, giving ground to the overwhelming Garvey deluge then sweeping the national Black community. In 1921, Briggs was to link the struggle for equal rights of U.S. Blacks with the establishment of a Black state in Africa and elsewhere:<br />
<br />
Just as the Negro in the United States can never hope to win equal rights with his white neighbors until Africa is liberated and a strong Negro state (or states) erected on that continent, so, too, we can never liberate Africa unless, and until, the American Section of the Negro Race is made strong enough to play the part for a free Africa that the Irish in America now play for a free Ireland.<br />
<br />
The Brotherhood rejected Garvey’s racial separatism. They knew that Blacks needed allies and tied the struggle for equal rights to that of the progressive section of white labor. In the 1918-1919 elections, the Brotherhood supported the Socialist Party candidates, The Crusader and the ABB were ardent supporters of the Russian Revolution; they saw it as an opportunity for Blacks to identify with a powerful international revolutionary movement. It enabled them to overcome the isolation inherent in their position as a minority people in the midst of a powerful and hostile white oppressor nation. Thus, The Crusader called for an alliance with the Bolsheviks against race prejudice. In 1921, the magazine made its clearest formulation, linking the struggles of Blacks and other oppressed nations with socialism:<blockquote>'''The surest and quickest way, then, in our opinion, to achieve the salvation of the Negro is to combine the two most likely and feasihle propositions, viz.: salvation for all Negroes through the establishment of a strong, stable, independent Negro State (along the lines of our own race genius) in Africa and elsewhere: and salvation for all Negroes (as well as other oppressed people) through the establishment of a Universal Socialist Co-operative commonwealth.'''</blockquote>The split in the world socialist movement as a result of the First World War led to the formation of the Third (Communist) International in 1919. This split was reflected in the New Negro movement as well. Randolph and Owens, the whole Messenger crowd, remained with the social democrats of the Second International who were in opposition to the Bolshevik revolution. Members of The Crusader group--Briggs, Moore and others gravitated toward the Third International and eventually joined its American affiliate, the Communist Party. They were followed in the next year or two by Otto Hall, Lovett Fort-Whiteman and others.<br />
<br />
The decline of the African Blood Brotherhood in the early twenties and its eventual demise coincided with the growing participation of its leadership in the activities of the Communist Party. By 1923-24, the Brotherhood had ceased to exist as an autonomous, organized cxpression of the national revolutionary trend. Its leading members became communists or close sympathizers and its posts served as one of the Party’s recruiting grounds for Blacks.<br />
<br />
I first met Briggs upon my return from Russia in 1930. We were to strike up a lasting friendship--one that went beyond the comradeship of the Party and which extended over more than three decades, until his death in 1967. Throughout those years, we were associated on numerous projects and found ourselves on the same side of many political issues.<br />
<br />
When I first met Briggs, he conformed to the impression that I had been given of him: a tall, impressive-looking man—so light in complexion that he was often mistaken for white. He had a large head and bushy black eyebrows. He was a man possessed of great physical and moral courage, which I was to observe on many occasions. Briggs also had a fiery temper, which was usually controlled in the case of comrades or friends.<br />
<br />
He had one outstanding physical defect--he was a heavy stutterer. He stuttered so much that it often took him several scconds to get out the first word of a sentence, When he took the floor at meetings we would all listen attentively; no one would interrupt him because we knew he always had something important and pertinent to say. While he spoke we would cast our eyes down and look away from him to avoid making him feel self-conscious, though he never seemed to be.<br />
<br />
We noticed that he stuttered less when he was angry, One such occasion was when Garvey rejected Briggs’s offer of cooperation. The wily Garvey saw through the maneuver for what it was-—an attempt by Briggs to gain a position from which he could better attack him. Garvey lashed out at Briggs, calling him a “white man trying to pass himself off as a Negro.”<br />
<br />
Friends told me that this attack sent Briggs into such a rage that he mounted a soapbox at Harlem's 135th Strect and Lenox Avenue and assailed Garvey for two hours without a stutter, branding him a charlatan and a fraud. Not content with this verbal lashing of his enemy, Briggs hauled Garvey into court on the charge of defamation of character. He won the case, forcing Garvey to make a public apology and pay a fine of one dollar.<br />
<br />
Briggs’s real forte, however, was as a kecn polemicist, a veritable master of invective. His speech handicap was a pity, because aside from the stutter he had all the qualities of a good orator. Closely associated with Briggs was Richard B. Moore, a fine orator who did much public speaking for the ABB.<br />
<br />
What were the reasons for the decline of the ABB and its eventual absorption by the Communist Party? Why did Briggs fail to develop the program for Black self-determination in the USA? In the fifties, I had a series of talks with Briggs and asked his opinion on these questions.<br />
<br />
His overall appraisal of the role of the Brotherhood was that it was a forerunner of the contemporary national revolutionary trend and a very positive thing. “Of course, we didn’t stop Garvey,” he said, but “we were beginning to develop a revolutionary alternative. We did put a crimp in his sails,” Briggs added.<br />
<br />
For a while, the ABB had been a rallying center for left opposition to Garvey. Its membership included class-conscious Black workers and revolutionary intcllectuals and drew membership from both disillusioned Garveyites and radicals who never took to Garvey’s program in the first place. The main reason for de-emphasizing the idea of Black nationhood in the United States, Briggs stated, was the unfavorable relationship of forces then existing.<br />
<br />
Garvey, with his Back to Africa program, had preempted the leadership of the mass movement and corralled most of the militants. His hold over the masses was strengthened by the anti-Black violence of the Red Summer of 1919. This gave further credence to Garvey’s contention that the U.S. was a white man’s country where Blacks could never achieve equality. Indeed, for these masses, his program for a Black state in Africa to which American Blacks could migrate seemed far less utopian than the idea of a Black state on U.S. soil.<br />
<br />
As for the South, Briggs did not feel that such a region of entrenched racism could be projected realistically as a territorial focus of a Black nationalist state. It would not have been so accepted by the masses who were in flight from the area. For himself, he reasoned, the very idea of self-determination in the United States presupposed the support of white revolutionaries. That meant a revolutionary crisis in the country as a whole, and in that day no such prospect was in sight. In fact, white revolutionary forces were then small and weak, the target of the vicious anti-red drives of the government and employers.<br />
<br />
In other words, he felt that Black self-determination in the United States was an idea whose time had not yet come. The communists didn’t have all the answers, and neither did we, Briggs indicated. Whites, as well as a number of Black radicals, undoubtedly underestimated the national element; socialism alone was seen as the solution. Briggs was impressed, however, by the sincerity and revolutionary ardor of the communists and by the fact that they were a detachment of Lenin’s Third Communist International. He felt that the future of the revolution in the United States and of Black liberation lay in multinational communist leadership.<br />
<br />
Though the ABB ceased to exist as an organized, independent expression of the national revolutionary current, the tendency itself remained, awaiting the further maturing of its main driving force, the Black proletariat. By the end of the decade, the national revolutionary sentiment was to find expression in the program of the Communist Party.<br />
<br />
By the time I joined the Brotherhood’s Chicago post in the summer of 1922, The Crusader had dropped much of its original national revolutionary orientation. Although I was then unaware of it, Briggs and the supreme council were presiding over the absorption of the organization into the Communist Party.<br />
<br />
In Chicago, the decline of the organization was slower than elsewhere, Perhaps this was because it had a strong base among Black building-tradesmen, plumbers, electricians and bricklayers. Edward Doty, a plumber by trade, was simultaneously the ABB post commander and a leader and founder of the American Consolidated Trades Council (ACTC). The council was a federation of independent Black unions and groups in the building trades industry who had formed their own unions forthe double purpose of protecting Black workers on the job and counteracting the discriminatory policies of the white AFL craft unions dominant in the field.<br />
<br />
Doty, a tall, muscular man, was born in Mobile, Alabama, and had come north in 1912 at the age of seventeen, According to him, most of the Black steamfitters and plumbers had learned their trades in the stockyards during the industrial boom and labor shortage that accompanied World War I. Some, however, had gotten their training at Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. Active in the Brotherhood along with Doty were such outstanding leaders of the Black workers’ struggle as Herman Dorsey (an electrician) and Alexander Dunlap (a plumber).<br />
<br />
Besides the tradesmen, other members of the ABB post included a number of older radicals such as Alonzo Isabel, Norval Allen, Gordon Owens, H.V. Phillips, Otto Hall and several others. Together with Doty, they made up the communist core of the Brotherhood. <br />
<br />
My experiences in the ABB marked my first association with Black communists. I had met some of them before, at forums and lectures; I had heard Owens speak at the Bugs Club and Dill Pickle forums, but I had never worked together with any of them before.” ‘They were mostly workers from the stockyards and other industries. One or two, like myself, were from the service trades. Like Otto, several of them had previously been in the Garvey movement. There was no doubt that they represented a politically advanced section of the Black working class. They were the types who today would be called “political activists,” the people who kept abreast of the issues in the Southside community and participated in local struggles.<br />
<br />
I was interested to learn their backgrounds and how they had come to the revolutionary movement. I found that some of them had been among Chicago's first Marxist-oriented Black radicals and had been associated with the Free Thought Society. This society was formed immediately after the war and held regular forums. I believe its leader and founder was a young man named Tibbs. He was one of the earliest of Chicago’s Black radicals. A victim of police harassment and persecution, Tibbs was arrested during the Palmer raids in 1919 and spent several years in jailona fake charge of stealing automobile tires. This continual perseeution reduced his political effectiveness, which was as the authorities intended.<br />
<br />
In 1920, members of the Free Thought Society took an active part in the campaign of the Independent Non-Partisan League, sponsored by The Whip and its editors. This coalition ran a full slate of candidates in the Republican primary of that year, in which they challenged the old guard Republicans of the second ward Republican organization as well as the so-called New People’s Movement of Oscar DePriest.’<br />
<br />
The election platform called for abolition of all discrimination, for public ownership of utilities, civil service reform, women’s suffrage, children’s welfare service and “organization of labor into one union.” While they were not successful in turning back the Republican old guard, the campaign resulted in appreciable gains for some of the league’s candidates,<br />
<br />
At that time, the main efforts of the ABB were directed at mobilizing community support for the Black ACTC tradesmen. While retaining a secret character, its members participated as individuals in campaigns on local issues. They collaborated with the Trade Union Education League (TUEL) of which Doty was a member, in its drive to organize the stockyards. The TUEL supported the demands of the ACTC. At that time, it was led by William Z. Foster and Jack Johnstone. Later to become the Trade Union Unity League, it was a gathering of the revolutionary and progressive forces within trade unions to fight against the reactionary labor bureaucracy and their collaborationist policies and Jim Crowism.<br />
<br />
Other members of the Brotherhood participated in the cainpaign against high rents that was waged in the Southside community. This was a fight in which a white Party member, Bob Minor, and his wife, Lydia Gibson, played leading roles.<br />
<br />
I found my experience in the Brotherhood both stimulating and rewarding. In addition to learning a lot from the communists with whom I was associated, it was here I forged my first active association with Black industrial workers. I found them literate, articulate and class conscious, a proud and defiant group which had been radicalized by. the struggles against discriminatory practices of the unions and employers. They understood the meaning of solidarity and the need for militant organization to obtain their objectives. In this, they were quite different from the people with whom I had been associated at the post office, as well as writers whom I so commonly found to be stamped with a hustler mentality. Doty and his followers in the Trades Council were pioneers in the struggle for the rights of Black workers, a struggle which has continued over half a century and remains unfinished to this day.<br />
<br />
‘The older tradesmen finally fought their way into the unions, the electricians in 1938 and the plumbers in 1947. In the early fifties, Doty became the first Black officer in the plumbers’ union. But these gains were only token! The bars are still up against Blacks and other minority workers seeking jobs in the ninety billion dollar-a-year industry.<br />
<br />
=== THE YOUNG COMMUNIST LEAGUE ===<br />
My sojourn in the African Blood Brotherhood was brief about six months. I felt the need to move on. My original goal was the Communist Party. While I was in the ABB, the problem of white chauvinism in the Southside branch had been cleared up. Joining the Party was no longer a problem, after all, the Brotherhood had been but a stopover.<br />
<br />
I was about to apply for admission when H.V. Phillips asked me to join the Young Workers (Communist) League, the youth division of the Communist Party. Phillips, I learned, was a member of the district and national committees of the League. When I told him I was just about to join the Party, he said: “That’s all right, but youre a young fellow and should be among the youth. Besides, more of us Blacks are needed in the League.”<br />
<br />
I thought the matter over. “Why not? It’s all the same, they’re all communists.”<br />
<br />
The next day Phillips took me to meet John Harvey, a white youth who was district organizer of the League. Harvey told me that I had been highly recommended to them by Phillips and others. He expressed delight at my decision to join and said that it fit right in with their plans since they were anxious to move forward with work among Black youth, but were handicapped by the faet that they had only a few Black members.<br />
<br />
I expressed doubt that I could be considered a youth at the age of twenty-five.<br />
<br />
They replied that there were a number of members my age and older in the organization. All that was needed, they assured me, was for one to have the “youth angle.”<br />
<br />
“What is that?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“Oh, that simply means the ability to understand youth and their problems and to be able to communicate with them.”<br />
<br />
I was not sure I had all of these qualities, but the proposition appealed to me, So I joined the YCL in the winter of 1923. The League at that time was a close-knit fraternity of idealistic and dedicated young people determined to build a new world for future generations. When we sang the Youth International at meetings, we actually felt ourselves to be as the song proclaimed, “the youthful guardsmen of the proletariat.”<br />
<br />
The organization was small, with only several hundred members. As I recall, Phillips and myself were the only Blacks. I was still working on the Santa Fe and on layovers I spent most of the time getting acquainted with my new comrades, attending classes, meetings and social gatherings. I was impressed by what seemed to me to be a high level of political development and by their use of Marxist terminology. It made me keenly aware of my own sketchy knowledge of Marxism and the revolutionary movement and spurred me to close the gap. A partial explanation for their political sophistication, I felt, was the fact that a large number of them, perhaps a majority, were “red diaper” babies—their parents being old revolutionaries, either members of the Party or its supporters. On the whole, they were a spirited, intelligent group, and as far as I could discern exhibited not a trace of race prejudice. Many went on to become leaders of the Party.<br />
<br />
There was our district organizer, John Harvey, a lanky youth and one of the few WASPs; Max Shachtman, a brilliant young orator and editor of the League’s theoretical organ, the Young Worker, who was later to become first a Trotskyist and then a rabid, professional anti-communist. There was Valeria Meltz, an able young leader, and her brother; their ethnie background was Russian-American, as was that of Jim Sklar (Keller). His brothers Gus and Boris were old stalwarts in the Russian Federation and were well known. There was also Nat Kaplan (Ganley) and Gil Green. Gil was about sixteen at the time; we used to call him “the kid.” He went on to become national chairman of the YCL and later a national leader in the Party. I met a number of the League's national leaders: Johnny Williamson, a Scottish-American and national secretary, Herbert Zam, Sam Darcy, Marty Abern, Phil Herbert and others, many of whom were to become national leaders of the Party.<br />
<br />
There was no searcity of places for meetings or for social affairs. We were on friendly terms with Jane Addams and her people at Hull House, where we sometimes met. Other times we used the halls of various language groups. We participated in and supported the activities of the Anti-Imperialist League, headed by Manny Gomez, the Party’s Latin American specialist. The main eampaign at the time: was against the invasion of Nicaragua by the U.S. Marines.<br />
<br />
I was particularly impressed by Bob Mazut, a young Russian representative of the Young Communist International (YCI) to the League, A small, dark-complected and soft-spoken young man, Mazut hailed from Soviet Georgia, His mild manner belied his impressive background, Only twenty-five when I met him, he had fought in the Revolution and Civil War, first as a Red Partisan and then in the Red Army, in which he advanced to the rank of colonel. He spoke what we called “political English,” and we were always amused by some of his expressions. For example, | remember how we used to kid Mazut about his being sweet on a certain girl comrade, “She likes you very much,” someone would say, “but she’s a little overawed by you.”<br />
<br />
He replied very seriously, “How can I liquidate her suspicions of me?”<br />
<br />
He took particular interest in me. I believe Phillips and I were the first Blacks he had ever really known and for us he was the first real Soviet communist we had met. I asked questions about Russia and told him I wanted to go there and see it for myself. “You undoubtedly will,” he said in a matter-of-fact tone, as if the matter were settled,<br />
<br />
On one occasion he told me of a discussion he had had on the eve of his departure from Russia, Zinoviey, then president of the Communist International, had asked him to look closely into the Afro-American question in the United States, and to see if he could find any confirmation for his belief and that of other Russian leaders that the right of self-determination was the appropriate slogan for Black rebellion. Zinoviev added that he had long believed that the question would become the “Achilles heel of American imperialism,” I told Mazut that I liked the part about the “Achilles heel,” but I didn’t feel that the slogan of self-determination was applicable for U.S. Blacks, It was my understanding that the principle had to do with nations, and Blacks were not a national but a racial minority. To me, it smacked of Garvey’s separatism,<br />
<br />
Mazut nevertheless raised the question of self-determination for discussion in a meeting of the Chicago District Committe of the YCL. Desirous of getting the committee’s reaction to the question, he was literally shouted down by the white comrades, “Blacks are Americans,” they said. “They want equality, not separation.” Phillips and I, the only Black members of the committee, were non-committal, And that was the end of that, They did not pursue the matter further.<br />
<br />
In order to move forward in work with Black youth, we struck upon the idea of organizing an interracial youth forum on the Southside. The organizing committee consisted of Chi (Dum Ping), a Chinese student at the University of Chicago; a young woman official of the colored YMCA; Phillips, a white League member; and myself, During this period, J was still working on the Santa Fe, but on my layovers | devoted all my time to the forum. We had rented a small hall, decorated it and got out our publicity—leaflets, posters and an‘ad in the Chicago Defender, Our first speaker was to be John Harden, a Black radical orator, It was our first effort at mass work among young Blacks and with our youthful enthusiasm, we were certain of success. But the venture proved to be abortive.<br />
<br />
I can still remember our shock when we came to our mecting place to find it wrecked. Furniture was smashed, posters ripped from the walls. There was no doubt in our minds that this was the work of the police who had unleashed their stool pigeons against us. Some of our non-communist friends dropped out, and the project collapsed. The idea of a forum was abandoned---temporarily, we hoped. A less ambitious plan was then agrced to.<br />
<br />
If we could enlarge our cadres by a few more Blacks, we thought, we would have a better base from which to approach mass work. It was therefore suggested that Phillips and I approach some of our acquaintances and try to recruit them directly into the League. I eliminated my waiter friends, all of whom were too old, and approached one of my former colleagues, a postal worker, who had been in our study circle and whom I considered a likely prospect. I remember that he sat very quictly while I delivered a long lecture on the League’s program and activities and the need to get support among Black youth.<br />
<br />
Finally interrupting me, he blurted out, “I’m sorry, Hall, but I find being Black trouble enough, but to be Black and red at the same time, well that’s just double trouble, and when you mix in the whites, why that’s triple trouble.”<br />
<br />
At first I was rather shocked by his off-hand rebuff, considering it to be an expression of cynical opportunism. I felt that he had backslid, even from his position at the post office, but he continued in a more serious tone. Apparently he felt a deep distrust for whites and their motives. He regarded the YCL as just another organization of white “do-gooders” and saw me as their captive Negro. When I interrupted to say something about socialism, he cut me short. He said that he too was for socialism as a final solution, but that was a long way off and he would not put it beyond the whites in the United States to distort socialism in a manner in which they could remain top dogs. In any case, he believed Blacks would have to be on guard. In the meantime, he believed Blacks should retain their own organizations under their own leadership. Alliances, yes—but we ourselves must decide the terms and conditions, he said.<br />
<br />
Our exchange had gotten off on the wrong foot. I was deeply chagrined by his charge that I was a captive of the whites and that the League was a white organization. For me, that meant that he felt that I was a “white folks’ nigger.” As I recall, I retorted by calling him a Black racialist who saw everything in terms of Black and white.<br />
<br />
“Why not?” he replied. “Being a Negro, how else should I see things?”<br />
<br />
After this flare-up, our tempers cooled off and we continued our discussion in calmer tones. But I was definitely on the defensive, trying to explain why I was in the League and that it was not an organization of white “do-gooders” as he had charged. It was a revolutionary, interracial vanguard organization, I asserted. Sure, we only had a few Blacks now, but our numbers would grow, I argued.<br />
<br />
He was still skeptical and repeated that he was for socialism, but a special road toward this goal he felt was necessary for Black Americans, under their own leadership and organization.<br />
<br />
“Do you mean a Black party?” I queried.<br />
<br />
“Why not?” he rejoined. “It might be necessary as a safeguard for our interests.”<br />
<br />
I had no answers to his position. There was a logic to it which I hadn't thought about.<br />
<br />
We finally parted on friendly terms, promising to keep in touch. I left, realizing that I’d come out the worst in our exchange. I felt that I had failed in my first effort to recruit a good Black man to the League and that we still had some study to do with regards to Black nationalism.<br />
<br />
My friend had been, as I recalled, a bitter critic of Garvey, and therefore assumed that he was hostile to Black nationalism. But now it seemed that he expressed some of Garvey’s racial separatism. Thinking the matter over, I finally camc to the conclusion that the main reason for my inability to counter his arguments was that I sensed that they contained a good measure of truth. What was most disturbing was the sense that his position was less isolated from the masses of Blacks than was my own.<br />
<br />
Up to that point, I had failed to understand the contradictory nature of Black nationalism. I had rejected it totally as a reactionary bourgeois philosophy which, in the conditions of the U.S., had found its logical expression in Garvey’s Back to Africa program. It was therefore a diversion from the struggle for economic, social and political equality-—-the true goal of Blacks in the United States. The fight for equality, I felt, was revolutionary in that it was unattainable within the framework of U.S. capitalist society. Nationalism, moreover, was divisive and played into the hands of the reactionary racists. This, of course, did not exclude the acceptance of some of its features, such as race pride and selfreliance, which were not inconsistent with, but an essential element in, the fight for equality.<br />
<br />
While rejecting nationalism, I also rejected the bourgeois assimilationist position of the NAACP and its associates, and their blind acceptance of white middle class values and culture. What confused me were attempts to amalgamate what I felt were two mutually contradictory elements-—--socialism and the class struggle on the one hand, and nationalism on the other. Or was the contradiction more apparent than real, I wondered. My friend’s nationalism did not go to the point of advocacy of a separate Black nation, He demanded only autonomy in leadership and organization of the Black freedom movement. Was this inconsistent with the concept of equality and class unity? Had not Blacks the right to formulate their conditions for unity? For me, this was the first time I had encountered these questions.<br />
<br />
I attempted to reflect on my short experience in the YCL. Was there not a basis for Black distrust of even white revolutionaries? ‘The situation in the League was not as idyllic as I had first thought. There was a certain underestimation of the importance of the Black struggle against discrimination and for equal rights among both the youth and the adults of the communist movement. Behind that, I sensed there was a feeling that the Black struggle was not itself really revolutionary, but was sort of a drag on the “pure” class struggle.<br />
<br />
This was no doubt a legacy of the old Socialist Party, Evensuch a revolutionary as Debs had said: <blockquote>'''“We have nothing special to offer the Negro, and we cannot make separate appeals to all the races, The Socialist Party is the party of the working-class, regardless of color.” And regarding the Afro-American question: “Social equality, forsooth ... is pure fraud and serves to mask the real issue, which is not social equality, but economic freedom.” “The Socialist platform has not a word in reference to ‘social equality.’ ”'''</blockquote>Evidently, there were a number of theoretical matters still to be cleared up on the question of the struggle for Black equality and freedom.<br />
<br />
I joined the Party itself in the spring of 1925, recruited by Robert Minor, with the consent of the League. I had quit the Santa Fe the summer before, and, totally committed to the communist cause, I then decided to devote more time to the work and to eventually becoming a professional revolutionary. I took extra jobs on weekends and worked banquets and an occasional extra trip on the road. I was living at home with my Mother, Father and sister, who had an infant child, David. All were employed, with my Mother accepting occasional catering jobs.<br />
<br />
Minor, whom I had known for some time, was a reconstructed white Southerner from Texas, a direct descendant of Sam Houston (first Governor of the Lone Star State), He was a former anarchist and one of the great political cartoonists of his day. His powerful cartoons were carried in the Sz. Louis Post-Dispatch, and later on in the old Masses (a cultural magazine of the left) and in the Daily Worker. Among his many talents, he was a journalist of no small ability. Having travelled widely in Europe as a news correspondent during the First World War, Minor had visited Russia during the revolutionary period and had met and spoken with Lenin.<br />
<br />
With these impressive credentials, he was now a member of the Party’s Central Committee and responsible for its Negro work. This was understood as an interim assignment, eventually to be taken over by a Black comrade as soon as one could be developed to fill the position. The person then being groomed for the job was Lovett Fort-Whiteman, who was then in Russia taking a crash course in communist leadership. He had been an associate of Briggs on The Crusader and also worked with Randolph and Owens on The Messenger. Later, as I recall, his selection was the cause for some disgruntlement among the Black comrades.<br />
<br />
Why was Fort-Whiteman chosen in preference to such wellknown and capable Blacks as Richard B. Moore, Otto Huiswood or Cyril P. Briggs, all of whom had revolutionary records superior to Fort-Whiteman’s? At that time, there were no Blacks on the Central Committee, and even when Fort-Whiteman returned from Russia in 1925 to take charge of Afro-American work, Minor remained responsible to the Central Committee. While not as flamboyant as Fort-Whiteman, these Black leaders had records comparable to, or better than, those of many whites on the Central Committee.<br />
<br />
Be that as it may, of all the white comrades, Minor was best fitted for the assignment because of his wide knowledge of and close interest in the question. His intense hatred of his Southern racist background came through in some of the most powerful cartoons of the day. He had wide acquaintances among Black middle class intellectuals. Bob and his wife Lydia had turned their Southside apartment into a virtual salon where Black and white friends would gather to discuss the issues of the day. There I met various Black notables, including Dean Pickens, national field secretary of the NAACP, and Abraham Harris, then secretary of the Minneapolis Urban League. Harris would later become Chairman of the Economies Department of Howard University, and then a full professor of the same subject at the University of Chicago.<br />
<br />
=== THE FOURTH CONVENTION OF THE CPUSA ===<br />
It was the period immediately before the Fourth National Convention of the Communist Party. The factional fight was at its height, with the Party split between two warring camps: the Ruthenberg-Pepper group vs. the Foster-Bittelman group. The atmosphere was rife with charges and counter-charges of “right opportunism” and “left sectarianism.” This factionalism had spilled over into the League, which reflected the alignments then current within the Party.<br />
<br />
I had stood aloof from these factions, as I did not clearly understand the issues. The question of Blacks did not seem to be directly involved. I assumed it was a clash mainly between personalities and narrow group interests, and did not reflect political principles. Each side accused the other of responsibility for the “Farmer-Labor fiasco” which left the Party isolated in its first major attempt to form a united front. I could sce no differences among the factions on the question of bolshevization of the Party.<br />
<br />
The Comintern had recently called upon the Party to bolshevize its ranks. Among other things, this called for the reorganization of the Party on the basis of shop and street units, and the elimination of the foreign language clubs as federated organizations within the Party. These clubs remained close to the Party, however, and followed its leadership.<br />
<br />
I was inclined to favor the Ruthenberg-Pepper group because most of the Party’s Black members--Doty, Elizabeth Griffin, Alonzo Isabel, Otto and my sister Eppa—were in that group. This, I suspected, was partly due to the influence of Bob Minor and Lydia Gibson—their work on the Southside in the tenants’ struggle of 1924, their support of Doty’s Consolidated Trades Council, and their consistent advocacy in the Party of the importance of work among Blacks. (Most of this occurred after I had Ieft the ABB and joined the YCL.)<br />
<br />
Upon joining the Party, I immediately became part of the Ruthenberg group. Under Minor’s tutelage, I was to undergo intensive indoctrination. According to the Ruthenberg faction, Foster, Bittelman, Jack Johnstone and their allies(Cannon, Dunne and Shachtman) were opportunist, narrow-minded trade unionists lacking in Marxist theory and hence in the ability to lead a Marxist party. They said that Foster’s group, which possessed a majority of the delegates, was out to steamroll the convention and toss Ruthenberg, Pepper and Lovestone out of the leadership.<br />
<br />
For most of us, the clincher was that the Foster group lacked the confidence of the Communist International. This latter charge, it seemed to me, was confirmed by the decisions of the Fourth Party Convention the following summer, I was a delegate to this convention from the YCL. I was to witness the intervention of the Cl in the person of its on-the-spot representative, Comrade Green (Gusev), an old Bolshevik friend and co-worker of Lenin and Stalin. For obvious security reasons, only the leaders of both factions had direct contact with him. His job was to suppress factionalism and to unite the Party on the basis of the Comintern line. I must say that he tackled this task with an expertise that was remarkable to behold.<br />
<br />
First, he set up what was called a Parity Committee, composed of an equal number of top leaders of both factions, with himself as a neutral chairman. Since the two factions were evenly represented on the committee, his was the deciding vote. I remember that there was widespread speculation among the delegates as to which faction he would support. We didn’t have long to wait.<br />
<br />
The convention had been in session about a week. The atmosphere was charged, passions inflamed, a split seemed imminent. Indeed, our caucus leaders had difficulty in preventing a walkout by some of the more hot-headed members. A message finally arrived in the form of a cable from the CI (which undoubtedly was sent at Gusev’s urging). The cable was presented to the Parity Committee by Gusev. It demanded that “under no circumstances” should the Foster majority “be allowed to suppress the Ruthenberg group... because,” it went on to say, “the Ruthenberg group is more loyal to the decisions of the Communist International and stands closer to its views. It has the majority or strong minority in most districts and the Foster group uses excessively mechanical and ultra-factional methods,” It further demanded that the Ruthenberg group “get not less than forty percent of the Central Executive Committee” and insisted as “an ultimatum” to the majority “that Ruthenberg retains post of Secretary...categorically insist upon Lovestone’s Central Executive Committee membership...demand retention by Ruthenberg group of co-editorship on central organ,”<br />
<br />
The results were greeted with great jubilation by our group. Foster refused to accept the majority of the incoming Central Committee under these circumstances (in which his loyalty was questioned) and ceded leadership to the Ruthenberg group. The result was that the Ruthenberg-Pepper group retained key positions on the new Central Committee--Ruthenberg as general secretary, Lovestone as organizational secretary, Bedacht as agitprop head.<br />
<br />
Despite factionalism, the convention marked a step forward in the work among Blacks, Although its decisions threw no new light on the question, the platform adopted did contain the most elaborate statement the Party had thus far made.<br />
<br />
It subscribed to full equality in the relationship between Black and white workers, It advocated the right to vote, abolition of Jim Crowism in law and custom, including segregation and intermarriage laws. The main thrust of the program, however, was directed towards building Black and white labor unity on the job and in the union, Toward this end the platform asserted that:<blockquote>'''Our Party must work among the unorganized Negro workers destroying whatever prejudice may exist against trade unions, which has been cultivated by white capitalists..(and) the Negro petty-bourgeoisie... Our Party must make itself the foremost spokesman for the real abolition of all discrimination of the as yet largely unorganized Negro workers in the same union with the white workers on the same basis of equality of membership, equality of right to employment in all branches of work and equality of pay.'''</blockquote>The Party called for the inclusion of Black workers in the existing unions. It came out against racial separatism and dual unionism, but it declared its intention to organize Blacks into separate unions wherever they were barred from existing organizations and to use the separation as a battering ram against Black exclusion. Emphasizing the relationship between these partial demands and ultimate goals, the platform declared that the accomplishment of the above aims was not an end in itself and that on the contrary, it was the struggle for their accomplishment that was even more important: <blockquote>'''In the course of the struggle with such demands we will demonstrate...that these aspirations can be realized only as a result of the successful class struggle against capitalism and with the establishment of the rule of the working class in the Soviet form.'''</blockquote>It must be remembered that by this time the attempts to infiltrate the Garvey movement had proven unsuccessful and that the African Blood Brotherhood, the sole revolutionary Black organization in the field, had been dissolved. To meet the necd for an organizational vehicle to put our program into effect, the Party and the Trade Union Educational League sponsored the American Negro Labor Congress (ANLC). <br />
<br />
In the meantime, Lovett Fort-Whiteman, our man in Moscow, returned to head up the Negro work and to prepare the launching of the ANLC. H.V. Phillips, Edwards, Doty and I were assigned to the organizing committce for the congress, drafting and circulating the call, and approaching organizations for delegates. As I remember, most of the Blacks in the Party were assigned to work on the congress. Otto was not involved in these activities, as immediately after the Fourth Party Convention, he had left for Moscow with the first batch of Black students. <br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman was truly a fantastic figure. A brown-skinned man of medium height, Fort-Whiteman’s high cheekbones gave him somewhat of an Oriental look. He had affected a Russian style of dress, sporting a robochka (a man’s long belted shirt) which came almost to his knees, ornamental belt, high boots and a fur hat. Here was a veritable Black Cossack who could be seen sauntering along the streets of Southside Chicago. Fort-Whiteman was a graduate of Tuskegec and, as I understood, had had some training as an actor, He had been a drama critic for The Messenger and for The Crusader. There was no doubt that he was a showman; he always seemed to be acting out a part he had chosen for himself.<br />
<br />
Upon his return from the Soviet Union, he held a number of press conferences in which he delineated plans for the American Negro Labor Congress, and as a Black communist fresh from Russia, he made good news copy.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman had taken responsibility for lining up enter tainment for the opening night of the congress. Characteristically, with his Russian affectations, he arranged for a program of Russian ballet and theater. The rest of us didn’t question what he was doing, and the incongruity of the program didn’t occur to us until the opening night.<br />
<br />
The mecting took place in a hall on Indiana Avenue near Thirty~ first Street, in the midst of the Black ghetto, When I arrived it was packed—-perhaps 500 people or so. Inside, I was suddenly attracted by a commotion at the door. Asa member of the steering committee, I walked over to see what was the matter. Something was amiss with the “Russian ballet” which was about to enter the hall. A young blonde woman in the “ballet” had been shocked by the complexion of most of the audience, which she had apparently expected to be of another hue. Loudly, in a broad Texas accent, she exclaimed, “Ah’m not goin’ ta dance for these niggahs!”<br />
<br />
Somebody shouted, “Throw the cracker bitches out!” and the “Russian” dance group hurriedly left the hall.<br />
<br />
The Russian actors remained to perform a one-act Pushkin play. They, at least, were genuine Russians from the Russian Federation, But alas, it was in Russian. Of itself, the play was undoubtedly interesting, but its relevance to a Black workers’ congress was, to say the least, unclear. Although Pushkin was a Black man, he wrote as a Russian, and the characters portrayed were Russian. More significant, however, and perhaps an indication of our sectarian approach, was the fact that no Black artist appeared on the program.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman made the keynote speech outlining the purposes and tasks of the congress. He was a passable orator and received a good response. Otto Huiswood, an associate of Briggs and one of the first Blacks to join the Party, also spoke. Richard B. Moore brought the house down with an impassioned speech which reached its peroration in Claude McKay's poem, “If We Must Die.” I was spellbound by Moore; I had never heard such oratory.<br />
<br />
That night, Phillips and I left the hall in high spirits. In fact, I was literally walking on air. At last, I felt, we were about to get somewhere in our work among Blacks. Phillips, a bit more sober than I, remarked, “Let’s wait and sec the report of the credentials committee.”<br />
<br />
His caution was justified, for the big letdown came the following morning. The first working session of the congress convened with about forty Black and white delegates, mainly communists and close sympathizers, The crowd of 500 at the opening night rally had been mainly community people. I think it was Phillips who remarked that there was hardly a face in the working session that he didn’t recognize; most participants, sadly, were from the Chicago arca.<br />
<br />
The organizing committee had prepared draft resolutions for the congress to consider. As we had anticipated a much larger turnout, we had made plans for a credentials committee, resolutions committee, etc. But in light of the small attendance, these resolutions and preparations took on an Alice-in-Wonderland quality. For example, according to the constitution, the group’s purpose was to “unify the efforts...of all organizations of Negro workers and farmers as well as organizations composed of both Negro and white workers and farmers."<br />
<br />
Despite our efforts and work, the ANLC never got off the ground. Few local units were formed, resolutions and plans were never carried into action. Only its official paper, the Negro Champion, subsidized by the Party, continued for several years. Among the post-mortems undertaken on the organization was the one made by James Ford in his book, The Negro and the Democratic Front, He commented that “for the period of its existence, it (the ANLC) was almost completely isolated from the basic masses of the Negro people." Disappointment and disillusionment followed and personal differences surfaced among our group. The fact was that the congress had failed, and with it, the first efforts to build a left-led united front among Blacks.<br />
<br />
There was a natural tendency to find seapegoats for the failure. Moore and Huiswood, the able delegates from New York, seemed to have come to Chicago witha chip on their shoulders. They made no attempt to hide their contempt for Fort-Whiteman, whom they had known in New York. They openly alluded to him as “Minor’s man Friday.” At the time, I was a bit shocked at what I felt was an attempt to malign these comrades. This was especially true of Bob Minor, whom I regarded with respect and affection. He was sort of a father figure to me.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman, on the other hand, was still an unknown quantity. My feelings about him were rather mixed. I was both repelled and fascinated by the excessive flamboyance of the man. But much later, I recalled overhearing a conversation between him and Minor during the preparations for the congress. Minor informed Fort-Whiteman that Ben Fletcher, the well-known Black IWW Leader, had expressed a desire to participate in the congress, It was evident that Bob was pleased by the response of such an important Black labor leader. Fletcher, as an IWW organizer, had played a leading role in the successful organization of Philadelphia longshoremen, His attendance would undoubtedly have attracted other Blacks in the labor movement.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman, however, vehemently opposed the idea and exclaimed, “I don’t want to work with him; I know him. He’s the kind of fellow who'll try to take over the whole show.” That ended the discussion; Fletcher was not invited. .<br />
<br />
I didn’t know Fletcher at the time, but as I reflected back onthe incident some time later, it was clear to me that had he been allowed to participate, Fort-Whiteman would have been overshadowed. I was too new to pass judgment on Fort-Whiteman’s qualifications, but I did wonder why he was chosen over such stalwarts as Moore and Huiswood. Huiswood, as a delegate to the Fourth Congress of the Comintern in 1922, was the first Black American to attend a congress of that body. (Claude McKay was also a special fraternal delegate to that congress.) Together with other delegates, Huiswood visited Lenin and became the first Black man to meet the great Bolshevik. He later became the first Black to serve as a candidate member of the Executive Committee of the Communist International.<br />
<br />
On the whole, I was very optimistic during my early years in the Party—confident we were building the kind of party that would eventually triumph over capitalism.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 5 ==<br />
<br />
=== A Student in Moscow ===<br />
Otto’s delegation of Black students to the Soviet Union caused quite a stir in the States. The FBI kept an eye on their activities and, in late summer 1925, their departure was sensationalized in the New York Times.! The article attributed a statement to Lovett Fort-Whiteman to the effect that he had sent ten Blacks to the Soviet Union to study bolshevism and prepare for careers in the communist “diplomatic service.” The article concluded with a statement calling for action against such “subversive activity.”<br />
<br />
At the time, we all felt that any Black applying for a passport would be subjected to close scrutiny. Therefore, when I learned that I too would soon be studying in Moscow, I applied for a first names of my Mother (Harriet) and Father (Haywood). This name was to stick with me the rest of my life.<br />
<br />
Several weeks after I received my passport, I heard the FBI had been making inquiries about me. By that time, I had become known as one of the founders of the ANLC. Therefore, as the time for my departure drew near, I hid out at the home of comrades on Chicago's Westside until arrangements were made. I went to the national office of the Communist Party, then in Chicago, and was informed by Ruthenberg or Lovestone that I should get ready to leave, Political credentials, typed on silk, were sewn into the lining of my coat sleeve. In order to avoid going through the port of New York, I left by way of Canada.<br />
<br />
In the manner of the old Underground Railroad, I was passed on from one set of comrades to the next: from Detroit, Rudy Baker, the district organizer, forwarded me on to the Canadian Party headquarters in Toronto where Jim MacDonald and Tim Buck were in charge. They sent me on to Montreal where comrades housed me and booked passage for me to Hamburg, Germany. Boarding ship in Quebec in the late spring of 1926, I sailed on the Canadian Pacific liner, the old Empress of Scotland. From Hamburg, I took a train to Berlin, arriving on a Saturday afternoon,<br />
<br />
Thad the address of Hazel Harrison the wife of a Chicago friend of mine who was a concert pianist studying in Berlin, where she had had her professional debut. (Years later, she was to head the Music Department at Howard University.) At that time, she was living at a boarding house near the Kurfurstendamm and I stopped there for the remainder of the weekend.<br />
<br />
This was the first time I had been in Berlin, Germany was then emerging from post-war crisis, during which currency inflation had reached astronomical heights, resulting in the virtual expropriation of a large section of the middle class. It was common to see shabbily dressed men still trying to keep up appearances by wearing starched white collars under their patched clothing,<br />
<br />
The owners of the boarding house, two middle-aged widows who were friends of Hazel’s, showed me a trunk filled with paper notes—-old German marks which were now worthless. This had probably represented a life’s savings.<br />
<br />
Hazel and her two friends took me out to the Tiergarten—the famous Berlin Zoo. I was attracted by the sight of three lion cubs that had been mothered by a German police dog. The cubs were getting big, and it was clear that the “mother” was no longer able to control them. We watched for some time, fascinated. I turned around and realized that there was a crowd around us. At first I thought they were looking at the cubs, but then it became clear that Hazel and I were the center of attention. Blacks were rare in Berlin in those days-—there were only half a dozen or so, mostly from the former German colonies of the Cameroons.<br />
<br />
Monday morning I took a cab to the headquarters of the German Party, at Karl Marx House on Rosenthallerstrasse. It was a dour, fortress-like structure, with high walls surrounding the main building which was set in the middle. I entered into the anteroom just inside the walls, in which there were a number of sturdy looking young men lounging around. When I came in, they jumped up and stood eyeing me suspicously.<br />
<br />
They were unarmed, but I knew their weapons were within arms’ reach, This was a symbol of the times for it was not long after the Beer Hall Putsch of Hitler’s brownshirts in Munich, and the battle for the streets of Berlin had already begun. I presented my credentials to a man named Walters, who was undoubtedly the head of security.<br />
<br />
It was on this occasion that I first met Ernst Thaelmann, a former Hamburg longshoreman and then leader of the German Communist Party. He was passing through the gate and Walters stopped him and introduced us. Thaelmann spoke fairly good English (probably acquired in his work as a seaman) and we chatted. a while. He asked after Foster, Ruthenberg and others. Wishing me good luck, he passed on his way.<br />
<br />
Walters gave me some spending money and arranged for me to stay with some German comrades, a young couple who had an elaborate apartment. The husband ran a haberdashery store on Friedrichstrasse and was a commander in the Rote Front (the red front)---the para-military organization which the communists had organized for defense of workers against the fascists.<br />
<br />
One day while walking down the Kurfurstendamm, I saw a cabaret billboard advertising the Black jazz band of Leland and Drayton and their Charleston dancers. It was a well-known band back. in the States. I had little money, but I couldn’t resist the temptation to stop in and hear them. I sat down at a table and ordered a beer. ‘To my dismay, the waiter said they didn’t sell beer, just wine. So | took the wine card and chose the cheapest bottle I could find.<br />
<br />
A number of band members and dancers came over to my table and asked where I was going. When I told them I was a student going to Moscow, they said they had just returned from a six-month tour in Russia, They were the first Black jazz group that had gone to the Soviet Union. I asked if they had met Otto and the other Black students there. Yes, they had met them all and they had had good times together. So we all sat down to exchange news.<br />
<br />
As we talked, I began to worry about the bill, and said I was low on money. “Oh, don’t worry about that,” someone said and ordered more wine. But when it came time to pay for the drinks, I got stuck with the whole tab and had to walk several miles across town to get home.<br />
<br />
After a month in Berlin, my visa came through. I was on my way to Stettin, a city on the Baltic Sea which bordered Poland and where I boarded a small Soviet ship. After three days of some of the roughest seas I have ever experienced, we landed in Leningrad. It was April 1926, and we were already in the season of the “white nights,” when daylight lasted until late into the evening.<br />
<br />
As we entered the Gulf of Finland the following morning, we passed the naval fortress of Kronstadt about twenty miles out from Leningrad (the site of the anti-Soviet mutiny of 1920). The ship finally docked in Leningrad. Upon landing, I presented my visa and passport to the authorities, Addressing me in English, a man in civilian dress said, “Oh, you’re going to the Comintern school in Moscow?”<br />
<br />
“Yes,” I replied.<br />
<br />
He immediately took me in charge and got my baggage through customs. I assumed he was a member of the security police. We left the customs building and got into an old beat-up Packard. As we drove away from the docks, he informed me that the Moscow train would not leave until eight that evening. He put me up at a hotel where I could rest and go out to see the city.<br />
<br />
Leningrad (old St. Petersburg) was built by Czar Peter the Great in the sixteenth century and now renamed for the architect of the new socialist society. As I walked down the now famous Nevsky Prospekt, I thought of John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook the World, trying to recapture some of the dramatic scenes in that classic. I passed the Peter and Paul Fortress and then the Winter Palace---once the home of the czars and now a museum of the people. The storming of the Winter Palace in 1917 had been the crucial event in the taking of St. Petersburg by the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
The people I saw passing me on the street were plainly dressed. Many of the men wore the traditional robochka and high boots; others were in European dress. Most people were dressed neatly, though shabhily, and all appeared to be well-fed. They were bright and cheerful, It seemed they went ahout with a purpose—a sharp contrast to the atmosphere of hopelessness that had pervaded Berlin, People in Leningrad looked at me---and I looked at them. By this time, I had become used to being stared at and took it as friendly curiosity. After all, a Black man was seldom seen in those parts.<br />
<br />
After several hours, I returned to my hotel. My friend from the security police showed up promptly at seven with my train ticket and took me to the station to put me on the train to Moscow. Filled with excitement and anticipation, I got little sleep on the train and awoke early to see the Russian landscape flowing by my window— pine forests, groves of birch trees and swamps. I was in the midst of the great Russian steppes.<br />
<br />
When we arrived in Moscow at Yaroslavsky Station, some of my traveling companions hailed a droshky and told the driver to take me to the Comintern.<br />
<br />
Moscow at last! We drove from the station into the vast sprawling city--once the capital of old Russia and now of the new. It was a bright, sunny morning and the sun glistened off the golden church domes in the “city of a thousand churches.” It seemed a maze of narrow, cobblestone streets, intersected by broad boulevards. While Leningrad had been a distinctly European city, Moscow seemed a mixture of the Asiatic and the European—a bizarre and strange combination to me, but a cheerful one. Moscow was more Russian than the cosmopolitan Leningrad. Crowds swarmed in the streets in many different styles of dress.<br />
<br />
We arrived at the Comintern, which was housed in an old eighteenth century structure on Ulitsa Komintern near the Kremlin, across the square from Staraya Konyushnya (the old stables of the czar). I paid the driver and entered the building. The guard at the door checked my credentials and directed me upstairs to a small office on the third floor. After producing my bonafides, I was told to take a seat, to wait for my comrades who would soon becoming for me.<br />
<br />
About half an hour later, Otto and another Black man entered the room. I was overjoyed at the sight of him and his friend, who turned out to be a fellow student, Harold Williams. We embraced Russian style, and I began to feel more at home in this strange jand.<br />
<br />
Otto asked about the family. An expression of sadness crossed his face, however, when I asked him about the rest of the Black students, He then informed me of Jane Golden’s serious illness. She was at that moment in a uremic coma from a kidney ailment and was not expected to live. Her husband was at her side at the hospital. (Though both were from Chicago, I had not met them before.)<br />
<br />
The situation had saddened the whole Black student body, and for that matter, the whole school. In the course of her brief sojourn, Jane had become very popular. Otto described her in glowing terms—a real morale booster, whose spirit had helped all of them through the period of initial adjustment.<br />
<br />
I was impressed. Here was a Black woman, not a member of the Communist Party, who had so easily become accustomed to the new Soviet socialist society. It seemed to me that there must be thousands of Black women like her in the U.S.<br />
<br />
After we had greeted each other, we caught a droshky over to the school in order that I might register officially. In the course of the ride, the driver lashed his horse and cursed at him. I asked Otto what he was saying, and he gave a running translation: “Get up there, you son-of-a-bitch. I feed you oats while I myself eat black bread! Your sire was no good, you bastard, your momma was no good too!” This verbal and physical abuse, Otto told me, was typical of most Russian droshky drivers.<br />
<br />
We finally arrived at the school administration which was housed in another old seventeenth century structure, built before the Revolution. It had been a finishing school for daughters of the aristocracy. Before that, it had been a boys’ school where, rumor has it, the great Pushkin had studied.<br />
<br />
Otto introduced me to the university rector with what sounded to my untrained ear like fluent Russian. We then went to the office of the chancellor, where I was duly registered. I was now a student at the Universitet Trydyashchiysya Vostoka Imeni Stalina (the University of the Toilers of the East Named for Stalin)---Russian acronym KUTVA, Otto and I then walked to the dormitory a few blocks away where I met the other two Black students, Bankole and Farmer,<br />
<br />
We all immediately took a streetcar to the hospital which was located on the other side of the Moscow River. There we were met by Golden and some other students who informed us that Jane Golden had just passed away that morning, Golden seemed to be in a state of shock and the doctors had given him some sedatives. We went into the hospital morgue to view her body. Bankole broke down in uncontrollable tears, I learned afterwards that Jane had been a close friend—a kind of mother to him during the period of his adjustment to this new land.<br />
<br />
We took Golden home to the dormitory. The school collective and its leaders immediately took over the funeral arrangements. The body lay in state in the school auditorium for twenty-four hours, during which time the students thronged past.<br />
<br />
The funeral was held the following day and the whole school turned out. The cortege seemed a mile long as it flowed past Tverskaya towards the cemetery. The students would not allow the casket to be placed upon the cart, but organizing themselves in relays every fifty yards, insisted on carrying it the distance of several miles on their shoulders,<br />
<br />
A good portion of the American colony in Moscow was assembled at the cemetery. The chairman of the school collective, a young Georgian, delivered a stirring eulogy at the graveside. One of the students who was standing next to me made a running translation sotto voce which went something like this:<br />
<br />
The first among her race to come to the land of socialism...in search of freedom for her oppressed peoples, former slaves... to find out how the Soviets had done it. We were happy to receive her and her comrades...condolences to her bereaved husband, our Comrade Golden, and to the rest of the Negro Students,..the whole university has suffered a great loss. Rest in peace, Jane Golden. You were with us only a short time, but all of us have benefitted from your presence and comradeship,<br />
<br />
Turning to Golden, he said:<br />
<br />
We Soviet people and comrades of oppressed colonial and dependent countries must carry on. We pledge our undying support to the cause of your people’s freedom. Long live the freedom fight of our Negro brothers in America! Long live the Soviet Union and its Communist Party, beacon light of the struggle for freedom of all oppressed peoples.<br />
<br />
Golden had borne himself well at the graveside, but we didn't want him to return to his room in the students’ dormitory, which would only remind him of his grievous loss. So we went to the apartment of MacCloud, an old Wobbly friend of ours from Philadelphia, who had attended the funeral and who lived in the Zarechnaya District, across the river. He was a close friend of Big Bill Haywood and had followed the great working class leader to the Soviet Union, There we tried to drown our sorrows in good old Russian vodka, which was in plentiful supply.<br />
<br />
Jane Golden’s funeral and the school collective’s response to her death made a profound impression on me, Through these events, crammed into the first three days of my stay in the Soviet Union, I came to know something about my fellow students and the new socialist society into which I had entered<br />
<br />
=== THE BOLSHEVIKS FIGHT FOR EQUALITY OF NATIONS ===<br />
KUTVA was a unique university. At the time I entered, its student body represented more than seventy nationalities and ethnic groups. It was founded by the Bolsheviks for the special purpose of training cadre from the many national and ethnic groups within the Soviet Union—the former colonial dependencies of the czarist empire—and also to train cadres from colonies and subject nations outside the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
The school was divided into two sections-—inner and outer. At the inner section there were Turkmenians, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Bashkirs, Yakuts, Chuvashes, Kazaks, Kalmucks, Buryat-Mongols and Inner and Outer Mongolians from Soviet Asia. From the Caucasus there were Azerbaidzhanis, Armenians, Georgians,<br />
<br />
Abkhazians and many other national and ethnic groups I had never heard of before, There were Tartars from the Crimea and the Volga region,<br />
<br />
The national and ethnic diversity found within the Soviet Union is hard to imagine. The Revolution had opened up many areas, for example through the Trans-Caucasus Road, and as late as 1928, the existence of new groups was still being “discovered.” These nationalities were all former colonial dependencies of the czars and were referred to as the “Soviet East,” “peoples of the East,” and “borderland countries,” The inner section comprised the main and largest part of the student body in the university.<br />
<br />
We Blacks were of course part of the outer section at the school. It included Indians, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, Persians, Egyptians, Arabs and Palestinian Jews from the Middle East, Arabs from North Africa, Algerians, Moroccans, Chinese and several Japanese (hardly a colonial people, but as revolutionaries, identified with the East).<br />
<br />
The Chinese, several hundred strong, comprised the largest group of the outer section, This was obviously because China, bordering on the USSR, was in the first stage of its own antiimperialist revolution, a revolution receiving direct material and political support from the Soviet Union. While KUTVA trained the communist cadres from China, there was also the Sun Yat-sen University, just outside of Moscow, which trained cadres for the Kuomintang.<br />
<br />
Among its students was the daughter of the famous Christian general, Chang Tso-lin, Several Chinese, including Chiang Kaishek’s son, studied in Soviet military schools during this period. A number of the Chinese students from KUTVA were massacred by Chiang’s troops at the Manchurian border when they returned to China shortly after Chiang’s bloody betrayal of the revoiution in 1927, Otto told me that a former girlfriend of his was among this group. As I remember, there were no Latin Americans at KUTVA during the time I was there, and the sole black African was Bankole, The student body was continually expanding, however, and later included many students from these and other areas.<br />
<br />
We students studied the classic works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. But unlike the past schooling we had known, this whole body of theory was related to practice. Theory was not regarded as dogma, but as a guide to action.<br />
<br />
In May 1925, Stalin had delivered an historic speech at the school, outlining KUTV A’s purpose and its main task. His lecture was the subject of continuous discussion and study. It was our introduction to the Marxist theory on the national question and its development by Lenin and Stalin.<br />
<br />
How did the Bolsheviks transform a territory embracing onesixth of the earth’s surface—known as the “prison-house of nations” under the Czar-—into a family of nations, a free union of peoples? What was the policy pursued by the Soviets which enabled them to forge together more than a hundred different stages of social development into such extraordinary unity of effort for the building of a multinational socialist state—the kind of unity that enabled them to win the civil war within and to defeat the intervention of seventeen nations, including the United States, from without.<br />
<br />
The starting point for us was to understand that the formation of peoples into nations is an objective law of social development around which the Bolsheviks, particularly Lenin and Stalin, had developed a whole body of theory. According to this theory, a nation is an historically constituted stable community of people, based on four main characteristics; a common territory, a common economic life, a common language and a common psychological makeup (national character) manifested in common features in a national culture, Since the development of imperial ism, the liberation of the oppressed nations has become a question whose final resolution would only come through proletarian revolution.<br />
<br />
The guiding principle of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on the national question was to bring about the unity of the laboring masses of the various nationalities for the purpose of waging a joint struggle—first to overthrow czarism and imperialism, and then to build the new society under a working class dictatorship. The accomplishment of the latter required the establishment of equality before the law for all nationalities —with no special privileges for any one people-—and the right of the colonies and subject nations to separate.<br />
<br />
This principle was incorporated into the law of the land in the Declaration of Rights of the People of Russia, passed a few days after the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks. Of course, the declaration of itself did not eliminate national inequality, which as Stalin had observed, “rested on economic inequality, historically formed.” To eliminate this historically based economic and cultural inequality imposed by the czarist regimes upon the former oppressed nations, it was required that the more developed nations assist these formerly oppressed nations and peoples to catch up with the Great Russians in economic and cultural development,<br />
<br />
In pursuance of this aim, the new government was organized on a bicameral basis. One body was chosen on the basis of population alone, the other, the Council of Nationalities, consisted of representatives from each of the national territorial units.the autonomous Soviet republics, autonomous regions and national areas, Any policy in regard to the affairs of these formerly oppressed nations could be carried through only with the approval of the Council of Nationalities. The Communist Party, through its members, was involved in both bodies and worked to see that its policy of full equality and the right of self-determination was implemented,<br />
<br />
As this theory was put into practice, we learned that national cultures could be expressed with a proletarian (socialist) content and that there was no antagonistic contradiction, under socialism, between national cultures and proletarian internationalism. Under the Soviets, the languages and other national characteristics of the many nationalities were developed and strengthened with the aim of drawing the formerly oppressed nationalities into full participation in the new society. Thus, the Bolsheviks upheld the principle of “proletarian in content, national in form.” Through this policy, they hoped to draw all nationalities together, acquainting each with the achievements of the others, leading to a truly universal culture, a joint product of all humanity.<br />
<br />
This is in sharp contrast to imperialism’s policy of forcibly arresting and distorting the free development of nations in order to maintain their economic and cultural backwardness as an essential condition for the extraction of superprofits. Thus, the oppressed nations can achieve liberation only through the path of revolutionary struggle to overthrow imperialism and in alliance with the working class of the oppressor nations. Stalin, proceeding from the experience and practice of the Soviet Union, emphasized the need for the formation and consolidation of a united revolutionary front between the working class of the West and the rising revolutionary movements of the colonies.--a united front based on a struggle against a common enemy. The precondition for forming such unity is that the proletariat of the oppressor nations gives:<blockquote>'''direct and determined support to the liberation movement of the oppressed peoples against the imperialism of its “own country,” for “no nation can be free if it oppresses other nations.” (Engels)... This support implies the advocacy, defense and implementation of the slogan of the right of nations to secession, to independent existence as states'''.</blockquote>Without this cooperation of peoples based on mutual confidence and fraternal interrelations, it will be impossible to establish the material basis for the victory of socialism.<br />
<br />
The test of all this theory was being proven in practice in the Soviet Union. The experience of the Bolsheviks demonstrably proved to us that socialism offered the most favorable conditions for the full development of oppressed nations and peoples.<br />
<br />
At the time of the Revolution, there were many nationalities within the borders of the Soviet Union in which the characteristics of nationhood had not yet fully matured, and in fact had been suppressed by the czars. It was the Soviet system itself which became a powerful factor in the consolidation of these nationalities into nations, as socialist industry and collective farming created the economic basis for this consolidation.<br />
<br />
I observed this firsthand in the Crimea and the Caucasus during my visits there in the summers of 1927 and 1928. The language and culture which had been stifled under the czarist regime were now being developed. The language of the Crimean people was a Turko-Tartar language, but before the Revolution, almost all education, such as there was, was in the Russian language. Now there were schools established which used the native language. Otto and other students made similar observations when they traveled to different areas of the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, | was having my own problems with the Russian language. On first hearing it, the language had sounded most strange to me. I could hardly understand a word and wondered if I would ever be able to master it. As the youngest Black American, I applied myself seriously to its study. The first hurdle was the Cyrillic alphabet—-its uniquely different characters intimidated me. But the crash course at KUTVA, lasting about an hour and a half per day, soon broke down this initial barrier.<br />
<br />
In addition, I studied on my own for a couple of hours each day. I would set out to memorize twenty new words a day, Then at night, | would write them out on a sheet of paper and pin them above the mirror in my room. I would then go over them again in the morning while shaving, and during the day I would make sure to use them in conversation with the Russians.<br />
<br />
English grammar had always seemed irrelevant to me, but I soon came to appreciate the logic of Russian grammar. In fact, I learned most of my English grammar through the study of Russian. Its rules were consistent and understandable. ‘The language soon ceased to be mysterious and revealed itself as being beautifully and simply constructed. In six months | was able to read Pravda with the help of a dictionary.<br />
<br />
=== KUTVA: STRUCTURE AND STUDIES ===<br />
The school structure was fairly complicated, but, as I saw it, thoroughly democratic. There was the collective, the general body which ineluded everybody in the school—from the rector, faculty, students, clerical and maintenance workers to the scrubwoman. The leading body of the collective was the bureau—-composed of representatives clected by the various groups in the university. There was also a Communist Party organization which played the leadership role at all levels.<br />
<br />
Originally established by the Council of Nationalities, KUTVA was now a Party school, administered by the Educational Department (AGITPROP) of the Central Committee of the CPSU. There was a direct representative of the Party, called a “Party strengthener,” in the school administration, Together with the rector and a representative of the students, he was part of the “troika” which constituted the top leadership of the school.<br />
<br />
Students had the rights of citizens, voting and participating in local elections, The school discussed and dealt with all the issues which Soviet workers and peasants discussed at their work places. As with all students who pursued courses in higher education in the Soviet Union, we at KUTVA received full room and board, clothes and a small stipend for spending money. There was, of course, no tuition, We used to attend workers’ cultural clubs and do volunteer work, like working Saturdays to help build the Moscow subways. Education for us was not an ivory tower, but a true integration into the Soviet society, where we received firsthand knowledge from our experiences.<br />
<br />
The curriculum (which was a three-year course) was based on Marxism-Leninism; that is, the teachings of Marx and Engels as developed by Lenin. It included dialectical and historical materialism, the Marxist world concept; the Marxist theory of class struggle as the motive force of human events, the economic doctrines of Marx: value and surplus value, as a key to understanding history by revealing the economic law of motion of modern capitalist societies, Lenin’s analysis of imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism; theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat and its Soviet state form; the problems of socialist construction; Lenin’s theory on the peasant question-—the alliance of workers and peasants as the base for Soviet power; the national and colonial questions; and the role of the party as vanguard of the proletariat. We also studied the specifie history of the CPSU.<br />
<br />
Our favorite teacher was Endré Sik, who taught courses on Leninism and the history of the Soviet Party. Sik was a striking young man. His distinguishing feature was a large shock of white hair, unusual for a manso young---he was probably in his thirties. He was soft-spoken and modest. We all loved Sik; he was an outgoing person who radiated warmth.<br />
<br />
Sik was a Hungarian, a politieal refugee living in Russia, He had been a soldier in the Austro-Hungarian Army during the First World War. Captured by the Russians, he was converted to Bolshevism while in a Russian prison camp. On his release, he had gone baek to Hungary and participated in the short-lived (133 days) Hungarian Soviet government of 1919 of Béla Kun, Withthe defeat of the Béla Kun government, Sik—along with hundreds of other revolutionaries—fled to the Soviet Union. Hungarian exiles made up one of Moscow’s largest foreign colonies. In Moscow, Sik pursued an academic career. He was a graduate of the Institute of Red Professors and like many Hungarian intellectuals, he was multilingual.<br />
<br />
For all his good nature, Sik seemed tired and harassed. He was teaching in many schools, in addition to activity in the Hungarian community. Seven years after the defeat of the Hungarian Soviet, the exiled revolutionaries were bitterly divided and factionalized, laying blame on each other for the failure of the revolution,<br />
<br />
Sik beeame deeply interested in the question of Blacks in the United States and undertook a serious study of the question. He read all the books available and also asked the Black students at KUTVA to join with him. Unfortunately for our personal relationship, Sik and I were to find ourselves on opposite sides of the fenee in the discussion of Black Americans which took place at the Sixth Congress of the Communist International in June 1928.<br />
<br />
Our teacher of Marxist economics was a young man by the name of Rubenstein, a Russian economist in the Gosplan (Governmental Planning Commission). The star pupil in that class turned out to be our modest friend Golden. Golden, who had known nothing about Marxism before eoming to the Soviet Union, was able to grasp the intricacies of Marx’s Capital and Value, Price and Profit seemingly without effort.<br />
<br />
A class that stands out in my memory was one on how tomakea revolution, to seize power onee the situation was ripe. This course eonsisted of a series of Jeetures by a young Red Army officer. He had been a heroie figure in the Moscow uprising of 1917 and the subsequent seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in that city. A tall, handsome young man of bourgeois background, he had been a lieutenant in the army of the Kerensky government. Like many other soldiers, he had been won over by the Bolsheviks on the basis of their demands, which reflected the needs of the people. peace, bread and land. To him, the Moscow uprising against Kerensky, led by the Bolsheviks, was a model for the coming seizure of power in the big cities of the capitalist world.<br />
<br />
He had a large map of Moscow on the wall and would use it to illustrate how it had been done. The eall for the uprising, he said, had come to the Moseow Communist Party by telephone from Leningrad, where the revolutionary workers, sailors and army under the leadership of Lenin had overthrown the Kerensky government and seized power in that eity.<br />
<br />
In Moscow, the Party organization, already prepared, issued a call to the people for an uprising. His regiment, stationed on the outskirts of the eity, together with red guards (workers’ militia), responded and began to march towards the center of the city. The White Guardists were concentrated in the Arbot and in the Kremlin, Here he pointed out, in Russian and other European cities, the working class districts were centered around factories on the outskirts of the city and Moseow was cireled by workers suburbs. Together with defected units of other regiments and with red guards, they marehed towards Moscow’s central area, whence fighting spread throughout the city--even into the trans-Moscow district. The reds finally wiped out the White Guardist strongholds, and the Kremlin, which had changed hands two times before in the fighting, finally surrendered,<br />
<br />
Moscow was ours!<br />
<br />
=== CLASSMATES AT KUTVA ===<br />
Beeausc of the language problem, we students from outside the Soviet Union were subdivided into three main language groups: English, French and Chinese. English and French were the dominant languages of the many colonial areas represented at the university. Spanish was later added when Latin American students began to arrive. In addition to ourselves, the English-speaking group included East Indians, Koreans, Japanese and Indonesians. I had many close friends in this latter group.<br />
<br />
One of the most interesting and brilliant was an Indian student by the name of Sakorov. (They all took Russian names because of the severe repression which they faced back home.) A former machinist in a Detroit auto plant, Sakorov had been sent to the school by the American Party.<br />
<br />
Originally from Bombay, Sakorov had gone to sea on a British ship at the age of twelve and had been subjected to very oppressive conditions his whole career at sea. He eventually jumped ship in Baltimore and wound up working in an auto plant in Detroit. Of all the group of students, he was the closest to us Blacks, He knew first hand the plight of Blacks in the United States, and as a dark skinned Indian, he had experienced much of the same type of racial abuse while there, After he left the school, he returned to India, where he became one of the founders of the Indian Communist Party.<br />
<br />
Later, more Indian students were to come, including one sixteen year old—a tall, lanky boy who took the name of Volkoy. He had been born in California; his parents were Sikhs who had migrated to the U.S. and worked as agricultural workers in the Imperial Valley of California. They were part of a foreign contingent of the Ghadr Party, a revolutionary nationalist party of Sikhs which had been organized in 1916. The Party would pick out young men to be future leaders; Volkov was chosen and sent to Japan for education and stayed there a year. Then he was sent to study in the Soviet Union, perhaps by the Japanese Party. He spoke Japanese and English.<br />
<br />
Among the Indian students was a group of about half a dozen Sikhs, former professional soldiers, survivors of the Hong Kong massacre of 1926. On the pretext of quelling an “imminent mutiny,” the British colonel of the regiment stationed in Hong Kong had called the unarmed Sikh soldiers into the regimental square and turned machine guns on them. (All regiments in the Indian Army included a British machine gun company as a safeguard against mutiny.) Several hundred were killed or wounded. As I understood it, the massacre was engineered to quell the protests over conditions which were being raised by members of the Ghadr Party and its supporters.<br />
<br />
The group who arrived in Moscow were among the few who escaped over the walls; they had fled to Shanghai where they were taken in charge by M.N. Roy, an Indian and then Comintern representative to China. Roy sent them to Moscow. These students, some of them older grey-bearded men, had spent their whole lives in the British Indian Army, They represented a special problem for the school, because most of them had had very little education of any kind. They were not brought into our class, but were put into a special group under the tutelage of Volkov, Sakorov and other of the regular Indian students,<br />
<br />
It was my good fortune to meet many of these Indian students again in 1942, when I was in Bombay as a merchant seaman, Most of them were leading figures in the Indian revolutionary movement. Sakorov had been a defendant in one of the Merut trials, having been charged with “conspiracy against the king,” Since his return to India, he had spent eleven years in prison. Nada, another former schoolmate, was president of the Indian Friends of the Soviet Union and very active among the students and youth,<br />
<br />
There were several Koreans and Japanese at the school, and two Indonesians. I remember Dirja particularly well. A Dutcheducated Indonesian intellectual, he was an old revolutionary who had spent many years in prison. There was another Indonesian, a young man (whose name I cannot recall), who later emerged as a communist leader and was killed in the Indonesian revolt of 1946.<br />
<br />
Kemal Pasha (a party name conferred on him by Sakorov) was a grey-eyed Moroccan from the Riffian tribe of Abdul Krim, I met Kemal Pasha again in Paris during the Spanish Civil War. There were also two whites in the group-June Kroll, then the wife of an American communist leader, Carl Reeves; and Max Halff, a young English lad of Russian-Jewish parentage.<br />
<br />
=== BLACKS IN MOSCOW ===<br />
We students were a fairly congenial lot and in particular I got to know the other Black students quite well. Golden was a handsome, jet-Black man; a former Tuskegee student and a dining car waiter, He was not a member of the Communist Party, but was a good friend of Lovett Fort-Whiteman, head of the Party's Afro-American work.<br />
<br />
Golden told me that his coming to the Soviet Union had been accidental. He had run into Fort-Whiteman, a fellow student at Tuskegee, on the streets of Chicago, Fort-Whiteman had just returned from Russia and was dressed in a Russian blouse and hoots.<br />
<br />
As Golden related it: “I asked Fort-Whiteman what the hell he was wearing, Had he come off the stage and forgotten to change clothes? He informed me that these were Russian clothes and that he had just returned from that country.”<br />
<br />
Golden at first thought it was a put-on, but became interested as Fort-Whiteman talked about his experiences. “Then out of the blue, he asks me if I want to go to Russia as a student. At first, I thought he was kidding, but man, I would have done anything to get off those dining cars! I was finally convinced that he was serious. ‘But I’m married,’ I told him. ‘What about my wife? ‘Why, bring her along too!’ he replied. He took me to his office at the American Negro Labor Congress, an impressive set-up with a secretary, and I was convinced, Fort-Whiteman gave me money to get passports, and the next thing I knew, a couple of weeks later we were on the boat with Otto and the others on the way to Russia. And here I am now.”<br />
<br />
He had a keen sense of humor and kidded the rest of us a lot, particularly Otto, His Southern accent carried over into Russian, and we teased him about being the only person who spoke Russian with a Mississippi accent,<br />
<br />
Then there was Bankole, an African who spent most of his time with the Black Americans. He was an Ashanti, from the Gold Coast (now Ghana) and his family was part of the African elite.<br />
<br />
The son of a wealthy barrister, his family had sent him to London University to study journalism, From there, he had gone to Carnegie Tech in Pittsburgh.<br />
<br />
He had been on the road to becoming a perennial student and had planned to continue at McGill University in Montreal, but was recruited to the Young Communist League in Pittsburgh. In the States, he was confronted with a racism more blatant than any he had met before. I gathered that this had struck him sharply and had been largely responsible for his move to the left,<br />
<br />
My brother Otto had become sort of a character in the school, He was popular among the students, who immediately translated his pseudonym “John Jones” into the Russian “Ivan Ivanovich,” Otto had ahsolutely no tolerance for red tape, and he had hecome a mortal enemy of the apparatchiki (petty bureaucrats) in the school. He had built a reputation for making their lives miserable, and when they saw him coming, they would huddle in a corner; “Here comes Ivan Ivanovich. Ostorozhno (watch out)! Bolshoi skandal budyet (this guy will make a big scandal)!”<br />
<br />
Harold Williams of Chicago was a West Indian and former seaman in the British merchant marine, He had adopted the name of Dessalines, one of the three leaders of the Haitian revolution of the 1790s. Williams had little formal education and some difficulty in grasping theory, but was instinctively a class-conscious guy.<br />
<br />
Finally, there was Mahoney, whose name in the USSR was Jim Farmer. Farmer was a steelworker from East Liverpool, Ohio, a Communist Party member and had played a leading role in local struggles in the steel mills.<br />
<br />
There were only eight of us Blacks in a city of 4,500,000 people. In addition to the six students, there were also two Black American women who had long residence (since before the Revolution) in Moscow.<br />
<br />
I only knew one of the women, Emma Harris. We first met on the occasion of the death of Jane Golden. Emma was a warm, outgoing and earthy middle-aged woman, originally from Georgia. It was evident that she had once been quite handsome—of the type that in the old days we called a “teasin’ brown.” Emma had first come to Moscow as a member of a Black song and dance group, a lowly hoofer in the world of cheap vaudeville. Having been deserted by its manager, the group was left stranded in Moscow.<br />
<br />
While the others had evidently made their way back to the States, Emma had decided to stay. She had liked the country. Here, being Black wasn’t a liability, but on the contrary, a definite asset, With her drive and ambition to be “somebody,” Emma parlayed this asset into a profitable position. She married a Russian who installed her, it seems, as a madam of a house of prostitution. It was no ordinary house, she once explained to me. “Our clients were the wealthy and nobility.” To the former hoofer, this was status.<br />
<br />
Such was Emma’s situation in November 1917, when the Russian Bolsheviks and Red Guards moved in from the proletarjan suburbs of Moscow to capture the bourgeois inner city and the Kremlin. During some mopping-up operations, Emma’s house was raided by the Cheka (the security police). A bunch of White Guardists had holed up there and the whole group was arrested, including Emma. They were taken to the Lubyanka Prison and some of the more notorious White Guardists were summarily executed.<br />
<br />
Emma remained in a cell for a few days. Finally she was called up before a Cheka official. He told her that they were looking into her case. Many of the people who had been arrested at her place were counter-revolutionaries and conspirators against the new Soviet state, and some had been shot. Emma disclaimed knowledge of any conspiracy and stated that she was engaged in “legitimate” business and had nothing to do with the politics of her clients.<br />
<br />
“You know the only reason we didn’t shoot you was because you are a Negro woman,” the official said. To her surprise, he added, “You are free to go now. I advise you to try to find some useful work. Keep out of trouble.”<br />
<br />
When we met Emma, she had become a textile worker. She lived with a young Russian woman--also a textile worker, whom I suspected was a reformed prostitute—in a two-room apartment in an old working class district near Krasnaya Vorota (Red Gate). Soon after the first Black students arrived, she sought them out and grected them like long lost kinfolk.<br />
<br />
At least once a month, we students would pool part of the small stipends we received and give Emma money to shop for and prepare some old home cooking for us. On these occasions, she would regale us with stories from her past life. At times one could detect a fleeting expression of sadness, of nostalgia, for her old days of affluence. One could see that she had never become fully adjusted to the new life under the Soviets. While not openly hostile, it was clear that she was not an ardent partisan of the new regime. Knowing our sentiments, she avoided political discussion and kept her views to herself. Our feelings toward her were warmest when we first arrived, but as we developed more ties with the Russians, we went by to see her less often. But we did continue to visit her periodically; she was a sort of mother figure for us, and we all felt sorry for her. She was getting old and often expressed a desire to return to the States. She was finally able to return home after World War II.<br />
<br />
Needless to say, Blacks attracted the curiosity of the Muscovites. Children followed us in the streets. If we paused to grect a (riend, we found ourselves instantly surrounded by curious crowds-—unabashedly staring at us. Once, while strolling down Tverskaya, Otto and I stopped to greet a white American friend and immediately found ourselves surrounded by curious Russians. It was a friendly curiosity which we took in stride. A young Russian woman stepped forward and began to upbraid and lecture the crowd.<br />
<br />
“Why are you staring at these people? They're human beings the same as us. Do you want them to think that we’re savages? Era ne kulturnya! (That is uncultured!)” The last was an epithet and in those days a high insult.<br />
<br />
“Eta ne po-Sovietski! (It’s not the Soviet way!)” she scolded them,<br />
<br />
At that point, someone in the crowd calmly responded: “Well, citizeness, it’s a free country, isn’t it?”<br />
<br />
We were not offended, but amused. We understood all this for what it was.<br />
<br />
There was one occasion when Otto, Farmer, Bankole and I were walking down Tverskaya. Bankole, of course, stood out—attracting more attention than the rest of us with his English cut Savile Row suit, monocle and cane—a black edition of a British aristocrat. We found ourselves being followed by a group of Russian children, who shouted: “Jass Band....Jass Band!”<br />
<br />
Otto, Farmer and I were amused at the incident and took it in stride. Bankole, however, shaking with rage at the implication, jerked around to confront them. His monocle fell off as he shouted: “Net Jass Band! Net Jass Band!” As he spoke, he hit his cane on the ground for emphasis.<br />
<br />
Evidently, to these kids, a jazz band was not just a group of musicians, but a race or tribe of people to which we must belong. They obviously thought we were with Leland and Drayton, the musicians I had met in Berlin, They had been a big hit with the Muscovites. We pulled Bankole away, “C'mon man, cut it out, ‘They don’t mean anything.”<br />
<br />
In the Soviet Union, remnants of national and racial prejudices from the old society were attacked by education and law. It was a crime to give or receive direct or indirect privileges, or to exercise discrimination because of race or nationality. Any manifestation of racial or national superiority was punishable by law and was regarded as a serious political offense, a social crime.<br />
<br />
During my entire stay in the Soviet Union, I encountered only one incident of racial hostility, It was on a Moscow streetear. Several of us Black students had boarded the car on our way to spend an evening with our friend MacCloud. It was after rush hour and the car was only about half filled with Russian passengers. As usual, we were the objects of friendly curiosity. At one stop, a drunken Russian staggered aboard. Seeing us, he muttered (but loud enough for the whole car to hear) something about “Black devils in our country.”<br />
<br />
A group of outraged Russian passengers thereupon seized him and ordered the motorman to stop the ear. It was a citizen's arrest, the first I had ever witnessed. “How dare you, you scum, insult people who are the guests of our country!”<br />
<br />
What then occurred was an impromptu, on-the-spot meeting, where they debated what to do with the man. I was to see many of this kind of “meeting” during my stay in Russia.<br />
<br />
It was decided to take the culprit to the police station which, the conductor informed them, was a few blocks ahead, Upon arrival there, they hustled the drunk out of the car and insisted that we Blacks, as the injured parties, come along to make the charges.<br />
<br />
At first we demurred, saying that the man was obviously drunk and not responsible for his remarks. “No, citizens,” said a young man (who had done most of the talking), “drunk or not, we don’t allow this sort of thing in our country. You must come with us to the militia (police) station and prefer charges against this man.”<br />
<br />
‘The car stopped in front of the station. The poor drunk was hustled off and all the passengers came along. The defendant had sobered up somewhat by this time and began apologizing before we had even entered the building. We got to the commandant of the station.<br />
<br />
The drunk swore that he didn’t mean what he'd said. “I was drunk and angry about something else. I swear to you citizens that I have no race prejudice against those Black gospoda (gentlemen).”<br />
<br />
We actually felt sorry for the poor fellow and we accepted his apology. We didn’t want to press the matter.<br />
<br />
“No,” said the commandant, “we'll keep him overnight. Perhaps this will be a lesson to him<br />
<br />
=== BIG BILL HAYWOOD ===<br />
In addition to the students at KUTVA and the two Black women, there was a sizeable American colony in Moscow during my stay there. There were political representatives of the Communist Party USA to the Comintern, the Profintern, the Crestintern and to the departments, bureaus and secretaries of these organizations—holding jobs as translators, stenographers and researchers <br />
<br />
Soviet cultural and publishing organizations also employed U.S, citizens, and in addition to the political groups, there were a number of technical and skilled workers who came as specialists to work for the new Soviet state. I got to know a number of the Americans during my stay, both official reps and others in the colony.<br />
<br />
Big Bill Haywood was perhaps the most famous of these. He was organizer and founder of the IWW, and a great friend of all Blacks in Moscow. At the time I met him he was in his late fifties and quite ill, suffering from diabetes. Physically, he was only the shell of the man he had once been. He called himself a political refugee from American capitalism, As a sick man, he had fled the U.S. to avoid a ten-year frame-up prison sentence which he knew he would never have survived, Bill was blind in one eye, over which he wore a black patch. I had imagined the loss of his eye had happened in a fight with company or police thugs and was rather disappointed to learn that it was the result of a childhood accident.<br />
<br />
In the Soviet Union he had participated in the organization of the Kuzbas Colony. This project was to reopen and operate industry in the Kuznetsk Basin in the Urals, closed during the Civil War period. The colony was located about a thousand miles from Moscow in an area of enormous coal deposits, vital to socialist industrialization. The district, with its mines and deserted chemical plants, had been established by the Soviet government as an autonomous colony. Big Bill had brought a number of American skilled workers, many of whom were old Wobblies, to reopen the plants and mines,<br />
<br />
Big Bill became a member of the CPUSA at its founding convention in 1921, and while in the Soviet Union he was a member of the CPSU. Bill and his devoted wife, a Russian office worker, lived in the Lux Hotel---a Comintern hostelry.<br />
<br />
His room had become a center for the gathering of American radicals, especially old Wobblies passing through or working in the Soviet Union. Here they would gather on a Saturday night and reminisce about old times and discuss current problems. Often a bunch of us Black students were present, Sometimes these sessions would carry on all night until Sunday morning. There were only a few chairs in the room, and Bill would sit in a huge armchair surrounded by people sitting on the floor. For us Blacks, listening to Big Bill was like a course on the American labor movement. He was a bitter enemy of racism, which he saw as the mainstay of capitalist domination over the U.S. working class, a continuous brake on labor unity, This attitude was reflected in the preamble of the IWW constitution, he told us, It read: “No working man or woman shall be excluded from membership in unions because of creed or color.” This was borne out in practice,<br />
<br />
The IWW was the first labor organization in modern times to invade the South and break down racial barriers in that benighted region. He recounted his experiences in the organizing drives among Southern lumber workers in Louisiana and Texas. This resulted in the organization of the Brotherhood of Timber Workers in 1910, an independent union in the lumber camps of Louisiana, Texas and Arkansas, At its height this union had 25,000 members, half of them Black.<br />
<br />
Big Bill described how the IWW broke down discrimination at the first convention of this union, He had come from the national IWW office to speak to the convention. They were all white, he said, and he inquired why no colored men were present. He was told that the Louisiana state law prohibited meetings of Black and white—the Negro brothers were meeting in another hall nearby. Bill recalled that he then told them: “Damn the law! It’s the law of the lumber bosses. Its objective is to defeat you and to keep you divided and you're not going to get anywhere by obeying the dictates of the bosses. You've got to meet together.” And the latter is exactly what they did, he told us.<br />
<br />
I remember that a few days after one of these gatherings we telephoned to tell him that we were coming over, only to learn from his wife that he had had a stroke and was in the Kremlin hospital. She said that he was getting along OK, but couldn’t see visitors. After several weeks he returned home. Still weak, he received many of his friends, and many of the delegates to the Fourth Congress of the Profintern which was in Moscow at the time. Big Bill had been a leading participant in this organization since its inception.<br />
<br />
Then suddenly, he was back in the hospital, where he died May 18, 1928. The whole American colony turned out for the funeral. There were delegations from the Russian Communist Party, of which he was a member, and from the various international organizations in which he had played a role. The Fourth Congress of the RILU adjourned its sessions, and representatives of trade unions from all over the world attended the funeral.<br />
<br />
I'm sure for all us Black students, our meeting and friendship with this great man were among the most memorable experiences of our stay in Moscow, A stalwart son of the American working class, Bill’s life and battles represented its best traditions. To Blacks, he was a man who would not only stand up with you, but if need be, go down with you. This was the iron test in the fight against the common enemy, U.S, capitalism. Big Bill obviously understood from his own experience the truth of the Marxian maxim that in the U.S., “labor in the white skin can never be free as long as in the Black it is branded.”<br />
<br />
=== Ina ===<br />
I first met my second wife, Ekaterina—-Ina—in December 1926, We were both at a party at the home of Rose Bennett, a British woman who had married M. Petrovsky (Bennett), the chairman of the Anglo-American Commission of the Comintern and formerly Cl representative to Great Britain,<br />
<br />
Ina was one of a group of ballet students whom Rose had invited to meet some of us KUTVA students, She was a small young woman of nineteen or twenty, shy and retiring, and sat off removed from the party. After that party, we met several times, and she told me about herself,<br />
<br />
She was born in Vladikavkaz (in northern Caucasus), the daughter of the mayor of the town, It was one of those towns that was taken and re-taken during the Civil War, one time by the whites, then by the reds. On one occasion when the town fell to the reds, her father was accused of collaborating with the whites, The reds came and arrested him and she never saw him again, Ina was about eleven at the time; she later learned that her father had been executed,<br />
<br />
Her uncle was a famous artist in Moscow and after her father’s execution they went there to live. Ina told me of her trip to Moscow at the height of famine and a typhus epidemic; they rode in freight cars several days through the Ukraine, and saw people dying along the road. Her uncle took charge of them and got them an apartment on Malaya Bronaya. He investigated the case of her father and discovered that a mistake had been made, and her father was posthumously exonerated. As a sort of compensation, she and her mother were regarded as “social activists,” and Ina entered school to study ballet. She later transferred from the ballet school to study English in preparation for work as a translator. We lived together in the spring of 1927 and got married the following fall, after my return from the Crimea.<br />
<br />
In January 1927, I was stunned by the news of the death of my Mother. One morning, when I was at Ina’s house, Otto burst in. Overcome by emotion, he could hardly talk, but managed to blurt out, “Mom’s dead!” He had a letter from our sister Eppa, with a clipping of Mother’s obituary from the Chicago Defender.<br />
<br />
Under the headline “Funeral of Mrs. Harriet Hall,” was her picture and an article which described her, a domestic worker, asa “noted club woman.” She had been a member of the Black Eastern Star and several other lodges and burial societies. The article mentioned that she was survived by her husband, daughter and two sons, the latter in Moscow.<br />
<br />
I was overcome with grief and guilt at not being home. Deeply shocked, I had always assumed that I would return to see Mother again, Born a slave, her world had been confined to the midwest and upper South, She had once told me, “Son, I sure would like to see the ocean,” and I had glibly promised, “Oh, I'll take you there someday, Momma.” I felt that I had been her favorite; | was the responsible one, and yet I hadn’t been able to do what I had promised, Worse yet, I wasn’t even there when she died. It took me some time to get over the shock.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
=== Trotsky’s Day in Court ===<br />
Apart from our academic courses, we received our first tutelage in Leninism and the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the heat of the inner-party struggle then raging between Trotsky and the majority of the Central Committee led by Stalin. We KUTVA students were not simply bystanders, but were active participants in the struggle. Most of the students—and all of our group from the U.S,—-were ardent supporters of Stalin and the Central Committee majority.<br />
<br />
It had not always been thus. Otto told me that in 1924, a year before he arrived, a majority of the students in the school had been supporters of Trotsky. Trotsky was making a play for the Party youth, in opposition to the older Bolshevik stalwarts, With his usual demagogy, he claimed that the old leadership was betraying the revolution and had embarked on a course of “Thermidorian reaction," In this situation, he said, the students and youth were “the Party’s truest barometer,”<br />
<br />
But by the time the Black American students arrived, the temporary attraction to Trotsky had been reversed. The issues involved in the struggle with Trotsky were discussed in the school, They involved the destiny of socialism in the Soviet Union. Which way were the Soviet people to go? What was to be the direction of their economic development? Was it possible to build a socialist economic system? These questions were not only theoretical ones, but were issues of life and death. The economic life of the country would not stand still and wait while they were being debated.<br />
<br />
The Soviet working class, under the leadership of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, had vanquished capitalism over one-sixth of the globe; shattered its economic power; expropriated the capitalists and landlords; converted the factories, railroads and banks into public property; and was beginning to build a state-owned socialist industry. The Soviet government had begun to apply Lenin’s cooperative plans in agriculture and begun to fully develop a socialist economic system. This colossal task had to be undertaken by the workers in alliance with the masses of working peasantry.<br />
<br />
From the October Revolution through 1921, the economic system was characterized by War Communism. Basic industry was nationalized, and all questions were subordinated to the one of meeting the military needs engendered by the civil war and the intervention of the capitalist countries.<br />
<br />
But by 1921, the foreign powers who had attempted to overthrow the Soviets had largely been driven from Russia’s borders, It was then necessary to orient the economy toward a peace-time situation. The NEP (New Economic Policy) formulated at the Tenth Party Congress in 1921 was the policy designed to guide the transition from War Communism to the building of socialism. It replaced a system of surplus appropriation with a tax in kind which would be less of a burden on the peasantry, The NEP was a temporary retreat from socialist forms: smaller industries were leased to private capital to run; peasants were allowed to sell their agricultural surplus on free markets, central control over much of the economy was lessened. All of this was necessary to have the economy function on a peace-time basis, It was a measure designed to restore the exchange of commodities between city and country which had been so greatly disrupted by the civil war and intervention. It was a temporary retreat from the attack on all remnants of capitalism, a time for the socialist state to stabilize its base area, to gather strength for another advance. A year later at the Eleventh Party Congress, Lenin declared that the retreat was ended and called on the Party to “prepare for an offensive on private capital.” <br />
<br />
Lenin was incapacitated by a series of strokes in 1923 and couldno longer participate in the active leadership of the Party. It was precisely at this time, taking advantage of Lenin's absence, that Trotsky made his bid for leadership in the Party. Trotsky had consistently opposed the NEP and its main engineer, Lenin— attacking the measures designed to appease the peasantry and maintain the coalition between the peasants and the workers,<br />
<br />
From late 1922 on, Trotsky made a direct attack on the whole Leninist theory of revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. He denied the possibility (and necessity) of building socialism in one country, and instead characterized that theory as an abandonment of Marxist principles and a betrayal of the revolutionary movement. He postulated his own theory of “permanent revolution,” and contended that a genuine advance of socialism in the USSR would become possible only as a result of a socialist victory in the other industrially developed states.<br />
<br />
While throwing around a good deal of left-sounding rhetoric, Trotsky’s theories were thoroughly defeatist and class-collaborationist. For instance, in the postscript to Program for Peace, written in 1922, he contended that “as long as the hourgeoisie remains in power in the other European countries, we shall be compelled, in our struggle against economic isolation, to strive for agreement with the capitalist world; at the same time it may be said with certainty that these agreements may at best help us to mitigate some of our economic ills, to take one or another step forward, but real progress of a socialist economy in Russia will become possible only after the victory of the proletariat in the major European countries.”<br />
<br />
At the base of this defeatism was Trotsky’s view that the peasantry would be hostile to socialism, since the proletariat would “have to make extremely deep inroads not only into feudal but also into bourgeois property relations.” Thus Trotksy contended that the working class would:<blockquote>'''come into hostile collision not only with all the bourgeois groupings which supported the proletariat during the first Stages of its revolutionary struggle, but also with the broad masses of the peasaniry with whose assistance it came into power. The contradictions in the position of a workers’ government in a backward country with an overwhelmingly peasant population could be solved only ...in the arena of the world proletarian revolution.'''</blockquote>Therefore, it would not be possible to build socialism in a backward, peasant country like Russia. The mass of peasants would exhaust their revolutionary potential even before the revolution had completed its bourgeois democratic tasks—the breakup of the feudal landed estates and the redistribution of the land among the peasantry. This line, which underestimated the role of the peasantry, had been put forward by Trotsky as early as 1915 in his article “The Struggle for Power.” There he claimed that imperialism was causing the revolutionary role of the peasantry to decline and downgraded the importance of the slogan “Confiscate the Landed Estates.”<br />
<br />
As it was pointed out in our classes, Trotsky portrayed the peasantry as an undifferentiated mass. He made no distinction between the masses of peasants who worked their own land (the muczhiks) and the exploiting strata who hired labor (the kulaks). His conclusions openly contradicted the strategy of the Bolsheviks, developed by Lenin, of building the worker-peasant alliance as the basis for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Further, they were at complete variance with any realistic economic or social analysis.<br />
<br />
Trotsky’s entire position reflected a lack of faith in the strength and resources of the Soviet people, the vast majority of whom were peasants. Since it denied the revolutionary potential of the peasantry, the success of the revolution could not come from internal forces, but had to depend on the success of proletarian revolutions in the advanced nations of Western Europe. In the absence of such revolutions, the revolutionary process within the Soviet Union itself would have to be held in abeyance, and the proletariat, which had seized power with the help of the peasantry, would have to hold state power in conflict,with all other classes.<br />
<br />
Behind Trotsky’s revolutionary rhetoric was a simplistic socialdemocratic view which regarded the class struggle for socialism as solely labor against capital. This concept of class struggle did no regard the struggle of peasant against landlord, or peasant against the Czar, as a constituent part of the struggle for socialism. This was reflected as early as 1905, in Trotsky’s slogan, “No Czar, but a Workers’ Government,” which, as Stalin had said, was “the slogan of revolution without the peasantry.”<br />
<br />
Given the state of the revolutionary forces at the time, the position was dangerously defeatist. For instance, 1923 marked a period of recession for the revolutionary wave in Europe; it was a year of defeat for communist movements in Germany, Italy, Poland and Bulgaria. What then, Stalin asked, is left for our revolution? Shall it “vegetate in its own contradictions and rot away while waiting for the world revolution”? To that question, Trotsky had no answer. Stalin’s reply was to build socialism in the Soviet Union. The Soviet working class, allied with the peasantry, had vanquished its own bourgeoisie politically and was fully capable of doing the job economically and building up a socialist society.<br />
<br />
Stalin’s position did not mean the isolation of the Soviet Union. The danger of capitalist restoration still existed and would exist until the advent of classless society. The Soviet people understood that they could not destroy this external danger by their own efforts, that it could only be finally destroyed as a result of a victorious revolution in at Icast several of the countries of the West. The triumph of socialism in the Soviet Union could not be final as long as the external danger existed. Therefore, the success of the revolutionary forces in the capitalist West was a vital concern of the Soviet people.<br />
<br />
Trotsky’s scheme of permanent revolution downgraded not only the peasantry as a revolutionary force, but also the national liberation movements of oppressed peoples within the old Czarist Empire. Thus, in “The Struggle for Power,” he wrote that “imperialism does not contrapose the bourgeois nation to the old regime, but the proletariat to the bourgeois nation.”<br />
<br />
While Trotsky de-emphasized the national colonial question in the epoch of imperialism, Lenin, on the other hand, stressed its new importance. “Imperialism,” said Lenin, means the progressively mounting oppression of the nations of the world by a handful of Great Powers; it means a period of wars between the latter to extend and consolidate the oppression of nations.”<br />
<br />
It was not until sometime later that I was able to fully grasp the implications of Trotsky’s concept of permanent revolution on the international scene. The most dramatic example was in Spain during the Spanish Civil War, 1936-39. The Trotskyist organivation had infiltrated the anarchist movement in Catalonia and incited revolt against the Loyalist government under the slogans of “Socialist Republic” and “Workers’ Government.” The Loyalist government, headed by Juan Negrin, a liberal Republican, was a coalition of all democratic parties. It included socialists, communists, liberal Republicans and anarchists—all in alliance against fascist counter-revolution led by Franco and backed by Hitler and Mussolini. The attempted coup against the Loyalist Government was typical of the Trotskyist attempts to short-circuit the bourgeois-democratic stage of the revolutionary process. The result was a “civil war within a civil war” and, had their strategy succeeded, it would have split the democratic coalition—effec~ tively giving aid to the fascists.<br />
<br />
In the United States I was to witness how Trotsky’s purist concept of class struggle led logically to a denial of the struggle for Black liberation as a special feature of the class struggle, revolutionary in its own right. As a result, American Trotskyists found themselves isolated from that movement during the great upsurge of the thirties. But all this was to come later.<br />
<br />
At the time I was at KUTVA, Trotskyism had not yet emerged as an important tendency on the international scene. | did not foresee its future role as a disruptive force on the fringes of the international revolutionary movement. At that point, I wasn’t clear myself on a number of these theoretical questions. It was somewhat later when my understanding of the national and colonial question-—-particularly the Afro-American question— deepened, that the implications of Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution became fully obvious to me.<br />
<br />
We students felt that Trotsky’s position denigrated the achievement of the Soviet Revolution. We didn’t like his continual harping about Russia’s backwardness and its inability to build socialism, or his theory of permanent revolution. The Soviet Union was an inspiration for all of us, a view confirmed by our experience in the country. Everything we could see defied Trotsky’s logic,<br />
<br />
His writings were readily available throughout the school, and the issues of the struggle were constantly on the agenda in our collective. These were discussed in our classes, as they were in factories, schools and peasant organizations throughout the country,<br />
<br />
About once a month the collective would meet and a report would be given by Party representatives-.-sometimes local, some+ times from the rayon (region of the city) and Moscow district, and sometimes from the Central Committee itself, They would report on the latest developments in the inner-party struggles—Trotsky’s and Lenin's views on the question of the peasantry; the NEP, how it had proved its usefulness and how it was now being phased out; Trotsky’s position on War Communism and Party rules; the dictatorship of the proletariat, and whether it could be a dictatorship in alliance with the peasantry or one over the peasantry. An open discussion would be held after the report. By that time the Trotskyists at KUTVA had dwindled to a small group of bitter-enders.<br />
<br />
The struggle raged over a period of five years (1922-27) during which time the Trotsky bloc had access to the press and Trotsky’s works were widely circulated for everyone to read. Trotsky was not defeated by bureaucratic decisions or Stalin’s control of the Party apparatus—as his partisans and Trotskyite historians claim. He had his day in court and finally lost because his whole position flew in the face of Soviet and world realities, He was doomed to defeat because his views were incorrect and failed to conform to objective conditions, as well as the needs and interests of the Soviet people.<br />
<br />
It was my great misfortune to be out of the dormitory when the Black students were invited to attend a session of the Seventh Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, then meeting in the Kremlin in the late fall of 1926, I was out in the street at the time and couldn’t be found, so they went without me. I missed a historic occasion, my only chance to have seen Trotsky in action. I was bitterly disappointed. When I arrived back at the dormitory, Sakorov, my Indian friend, told me where they had gone. Returning in the early hours of the morning, they found me waiting for them. They described the session and the stellar performance of Trotsky.<br />
<br />
Stalin made the report for the Russian delegation. Trotsky then asked for two hours to defend his position; he was given one. He spoke in Russian, and then personally translated and delivered his speech in German and then in French. In all, he held the floor for about three hours.<br />
<br />
Otto said it was the greatest display of oratory he had ever heard. But despite this, Trotsky and his allies (Zinoviev and Kamenev) suffered a resounding defeat, obtaining only two votes out of the whole body. The delegates from outside the Soviet Union didn’t accept Trotsky’s view that socialism in one country was a betrayal of the revolution. On the contrary, the success of the Soviet Union in building socialism was an inspiration to the international revolution,<br />
<br />
Otto told me that this point was made again and again in the course of the discussion. Ercoli (Togliatti), the young leader of the Italian Party, summed it up well a few days later when he defended the achievements of the Russian Party and revolution as “the strongest impetus for the revolutionary forces of the world.”<br />
<br />
The American Party united across factional lines in support of Stalin, The Trotsky opposition, already defeated within the Soviet Union, was now shattered internationally. From there on out, it was downhill for Trotsky. I witnessed Trotsky’s opposition bloc degenerate from an unprincipled faction within the Party to a counter-revolutionary conspiracy against the Party and the Soviet state. We learned of secret, illegal meetings held in the Silver Woods outside Moscow, the establishment of factional printing presses~all in violation of Party discipline. Their activities reached a high point during the November 7, 1927 anniversary of the Revolution.<br />
<br />
At that Tenth Anniversary, Trotsky’s followers attempted to stage a counter-demonstration in opposition to the traditional celebration. I remember vividly the scene of our school contingent marching on its way to Red Square. As we passed the Hotel Moscow, Trotskyist leaflets were showered down on us, and orators appeared at the windows of the hotel shouting slogans of “Down with Stalin.”<br />
<br />
They were answered with catcalls and booing from the crowds in the streets below. We seized the leaflets and tore them up. This attempt to rally the people against the Party was a total failure and struck no responsive chord among the masses. It was equivalent to rebellion and this demonstration was the last overt act of the Trotskyist opposition.<br />
<br />
During the next month Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev were expelled---along with seventy-five of their chief supporters. They, along with the lesser fry, were sent in exile to Siberia in Central Asia. Trotsky was sent to Alma Alta in Turkestan from where, in 1929, he was allowed to go abroad, first to Turkey and eventually to Mexico.<br />
<br />
Later, many of Trotsky’s followers criticized themselves and were accepted back into the Party, But among them was a hard core of bitter-enders, who “criticized” themselves publicly only in order to continue the struggle against Stalin’s leadership from within the Party, Their bitterness fed on itself and they emerged later in the thirties as part of a conspiracy which wound up onthe side of Nazi Germany.<br />
<br />
Throughout this whole struggle, we Black students at the school had been ardent supporters of the position of Stalin and the Central Committee. Most certainly we were Stalinists--whose policies we saw as the continuation of Lenin’s. Those today who use the term “Stalinist” as an epithet evade the real question: that is, were Stalin and the Central Committee correct? I believe history has proven that they were correct.<br />
<br />
=== RUTHENBERG’S DEATH ===<br />
In March 1927, the American community in Moscow was shocked by the news of the death of Ruthenberg, general secretary of the CPUSA. His death came suddenly, from a ruptured appendix. His last request had been that he be buried in the Kremlin walls in Moscow—a request acceded to by the Russian Communist Party, His ashes were carried to Moscow by J. Louis Engdahl, a member of the Central Committee of the U.S. Party.<br />
<br />
The Moscow funeral was impressive. The procession entered Red Square led by a detachment of Red Cavalry. The square was crowded with thousands of Soviet workers, including the entire work force of the Ruthenberg Factory, which had been named in his honor.<br />
<br />
We half dozen Black students, together with other members of the American colony, marched into the square immediately behind the urn, We followed it until we stood directly in front of the Lenin Mausoleum. On top of the mausoleum was the speakers’ platform, There stood Bukharin, who had recently succeeded Zinoviev as head of the Communist International: Béla Kun, leader of the abortive Hungarian Soviet of 1919; Sen Katayama, the veteran Japanese Communist; and others.<br />
<br />
Bukharin delivered the main eulogy, followed by several speakers. Suddenly I noticed Bukharin whispering to Robert Minor, who was standing beside him. Bukharin pointed down towards our group of Blacks who were gathered below the mausoleum.<br />
<br />
As Minor came down the steps toward us, I was a bit apprehensive, anticipating his mission. Sure enough, addressing my brother Otto, he said, “Comrade Bukharin wants one of the Negro comrades to say a few words.”<br />
<br />
Otto pointed at me and said, “Let Harry speak.”<br />
<br />
I felt trapped, not wanting to start an argument on such a solemn occasion, I reluctantly agreed to speak. and followed Minor back up the steps of the mausoleum, Béla Kun, a polished orator, was speaking, I was to follow. I tried to gather my thoughts, but I was not much of a speaker and certainly not prepared,<br />
<br />
Generalities did not come easy to me, and besides, I hadn’t really known Ruthenberg, I had only met him formally on the occasion of my departure for Moscow when he had shaken my hand and wished me luck. But what could I say about him, specifically in relation to the Blacks?<br />
<br />
I stood there amidst this array of internationally famous revolutionary leaders, and as I looked down on the thousands of faces in Red Square, panic suddenly seized me. Here was my turn to speak, but I found myself unable to utter a coherent sentence.<br />
<br />
I remember saying something about “our great lost leader.” This being my first experience in front of a mike, the words seemed to come back and hit me in the face. Finally, after a minute or two of floundering around | said, “That's all!” and turned away from the mike in disgust and humiliation. The words “that’s all” resounded through the square loud and clear, to my further discomfiture.<br />
<br />
And then came the moment for the translation. The translator was a young Georgian named Tival, one of Stalin’s secretaries. He was one of those people who speak half a dozen languages fluently, Tival got right into the job of translation, assuming an orator’s stance. He had a strong roaring voice, surprising for one of such diminutive stature.<br />
<br />
Swinging his arms, apparently emphasizing points that I was supposed to have made, I must admit that he made a pretty good speech for me. Speaking two or three times longer than my two minutes of rambling, he ‘preceded each point by emphasizing, “Tovarishch Haywood skazal” (Comrade Haywood said).<br />
<br />
The next morning, I went to the school cafeteria for breakfast, And there sat our little group of Black students. Golden had them laughing at something. He saw me and waved the day’s copy of Pravda. The headline was “Pokhorony Tovarishcha Ruthenberga” (Funeral of Comrade Ruthenberg).<br />
<br />
Golden began reading with a straight face, but using that peculiar language of his--Russian with a Mississippi accent. The article quoted from the main speeches and went on to say, Tovarishch Harry Haywood, Americanski Negr, tozhe bystupal (Negro American comrade Harry Haywood also stepped forward with a speech).”<br />
<br />
And Golden read one paragraph after another of the speech Tival gave for me, each paragraph starting with “Tovarishch Haywood skazal...Tovarishch Haywood skazal...Tovarisheh Haywood skazal.”<br />
<br />
Finally Golden looked up from that paper at me, and he said, “Man, you know you ain’t skazaled a goddamned thing!”<br />
<br />
Back home in the U.S., the death of Ruthenberg had signalled another flareup in the factional struggle within the Party. Following the intervention of the Cl at the Fourth Party Convention, there was a period of uneasy peace between the factions. But now a struggle for succession to Ruthenberg’s position as general secretary was raging hot and heavy.<br />
<br />
Lovestone, who had been organizational secretary, was supported by the Ruthenberg stalwarts—-Max Bedacht, Ben Gitlow and John Pepper. Since Ruthenberg’s death, Lovestone (as heir apparent) had pre-empted the interim job of acting secretary. In opposition, William W. Weinstone was the candidate supported by the Foster-Cannon bloc which included Alexander Bittelman and Jack Johnstone.<br />
<br />
Weinstone had formerly been a member of the Ruthenberg faction, but following Ruthenberg’s death, he sought the position of general secretary himself. His move offered an opportunity for the Foster-Cannon group to oppose Lovestone, whom they bitterly detested, with a candidate they believed had more of a chance of winning than did one of their old stalwarts.<br />
<br />
We Blacks in Moscow were isolated from much of this struggle. We were sort of observers from the sidelines, and with the exception of Otto (who had entered the Party immediately after its founding convention), we didn’t have any of the old factional loyalties or political axes to grind. We generally favored the Ruthenberg leadership, although we could hardly be called ardent supporters.<br />
<br />
Ruthenberg’s leadership had been endorsed by the CI, which gave his followers credence in our view. But Lovestone was something else again. On this, even Otto agreed. Lovestone had a reputation for being a factionalist par excellence, involved in the dirty infighting that took place. He was regarded as a hatchet man for the Ruthenberg group.<br />
<br />
None of us in Moscow could discern any principled political differences between the two groups on the question uppermost in our minds-—the question of Black liberation. Though we had not yet fully succeeded in relating our newly acquired Marxist-Leninist perspective to the question of Blacks in the U.S., we were sure— and our studies had confirmed---that Blacks were a potentially powerful revolutionary force in the struggle against U.S. capital, Clearly the common enemy could not be defeated without a revolutionary alliance of Blacks and the class-conscious elements of the working class, It was crucial to us that Party policy be directed towards consummating that alliance. We felt, however, that both factions underestimated the revolutionary potential of Blacks and we were determined not to allow ourselves to become a political football between the two.<br />
<br />
There had been no progress in this area since the folding of the American Negro Labor Congress in 1925, The collapse of the ANLC for us confirmed the Party’s isolation from the Black thasses, According to James Ford, a young Black Party leader, there were only about fifty Blacks in the Party at this time.<br />
<br />
Something was definitely wrong, At the time, we were inclined to attribute the Party’s shortcomings simply to an underestimation of the importance of Afro-American work. We were not, at that point, able to discern any theoretical tendencies within the Party which served to rationalize this underestimation, We felt it was due simply to hangovers of racial prejudices of white Party members and leaders.<br />
<br />
In Moscow, we had been in constant communication with Black comrades in the U.S. We had, in fact, set ourselves up as a sort of unofficial lobby to keep the situation with respect to Blacks continuously before the attention of the Russians and other Comintern leaders. They, for the most part, were sympathetic to our grievances.<br />
<br />
In May 1927, Jay Lovestone (while still acting secretary of the Party) showed up in Moscow at the CI’s Eighth Plenum. During his stay, he invited us Black students to his room at the Lux Hotel to give us an informal report on the Party’s work among Blacks. He had heard, of course, of our discontent and wanted to mollify us. He also knew that the question was coming up for serious discussion at the Sixth Congress of the Communist International, which was to take place the following year. There was no doubt he was out to mend his political fences.<br />
<br />
I had my first close look at the man when we gathered in his room. He tried to give us the impression of being very frank and self-critical, He said the Party leadership, involved in factional struggles, had neglected Black struggles, had neglected AfroAmerican work, an “important phase” of the Party’s activities. But this factional phase had now at long last come to a close and the Party (under his leadership) had now hegun seriously to tackle the job of overcoming this tremendous lag in the work.<br />
<br />
He told us that Otto Huiswood had been placed on the Central Committee and assigned as organizer for the Buffalo (western New York) district, We thought it was about time! Richard B. Moore had been placed as New England organizer for the International Labor Defense, “I cite this,” Lovestone said, “only as an earnest example of the determination of the Central Committee to remedy our default on this most important question.”<br />
<br />
Assuming a modest air, he turned to me and said, “Last but not least, we have decided that you, Harry, as one of our bright young Negroes, are to be transferred to the Lenin School. We've had our eye on you, Harry, for some time.”<br />
<br />
I was delighted at this news. The Lenin School had been established only the year before (1926) as a select training school for the development of leading cadres of the parties in the Communist International. But though I was delighted, I was also suspicious of the man, his cold eyes belied the warmth and modesty he tried to express. It seemed like a bid to buy me out. Otto, however, seemed to have been impressed.<br />
<br />
Though Lovestone was a teetotaler, he had a big bottle of vodka in his room for us students. He had brought us presents-—-which was true of most visitors from the States. It was understood that a visitor would not return to the U.S. with extra things that the students in Moscow could use. Most people, and Lovestone was no exception, came prepared with things to give away. During the course of the evening, Otto had seized a few pair of socks, and Lovestone had given him a tin of pipe tobacco (and cigarettes for us all). As we were leaving, Otto looked over Lovestone’s shoes.<br />
<br />
“Say, Jay,” he said, “you and me wear the same size shoes, don’t we? You got another pair with you?”<br />
<br />
“Sure, Otto, sure,” said Lovestone, and produced an extra pair.<br />
<br />
On our way home, walking down Tverskaya Boulevard towards the dormitory, we exchanged our impressions of the evening. Golden started off: “Oh, he’s full of crap. There’s no sincerity in the man.”<br />
<br />
Otto responded, “I think you’re wrong, Golden, I think you're wrong.”<br />
<br />
Golden said, “I saw his eyes. That’s something you didn’t see, Otto. You had too much vodka. You know I’ve always told you to go light on it—-you know you can’t handle the stuff, You remember what Vesey’s lieutenant said when the slaves rebelled in Virginia: “Beware of those wearing the old clothes of the master, for they will betray you!’ ”<br />
<br />
I never saw Otto so furious! He turned on Golden with his fists clenched, but thought better of it. Golden was too big, I laughed, and he turned towards me, but I was his brother, At that moment a drunk Russian staggered into view and suddenly bumped into him.<br />
<br />
Otto let his fist go and knocked the poor man down. There was a great commotion and a crowd of Russians gathered around. Some Chinese students from our school were across the street, and thinking we were being attacked by “hooligans,” rushed to our defense. We helped the man to his feet and, in the confusion, attempted to explain to the crowd what had happened. Otto said he had thought the drunk was attacking him, and it was thus that we managed to pass the thing off and return to our dorm.<br />
<br />
Lovestone was a consummate factionalist, utterly uninhibited by scruples or principles. He finally won out in the struggle to succeed Ruthenberg, but the mantle of Ruthenberg fit him poorly; the cloven hoof was always visible. His victory was aided by the ineptitude of the Foster-Cannon-Weinstone bloc, which made several tactical blunders (of which Lovestone took full advantage). Lovestone’s friendship with Bukharin was perhaps a factor in his victory, Nikolai Bukharin had succeeded Zinoviev as the president of the Comintern. He was an erstwhile ally of Stalin in the struggle against the Trotskyist “Left” and was later to emerge as a leader of the right deviation within the Soviet Party and the Communist International. As head of the Comintern, he already had begun to line up forces for his next battle which was to break out following the Sixth Congress of the CI in 1928. His man in the U.S. was none other than Jay Lovestone.<br />
<br />
As I have indicated, we KUTVA students in Mosccow were removed from much of the bitterness of the post-Ruthenberg struggle, and at the time, were not fully aware of its intensity. I was to be filled in with a blow-by-blow account of what went on at home by some of my classmates at the Lenin School, which | entered the following autumn.<br />
<br />
=== VACATION IN THE CRIMEA ===<br />
The month of August, vacation time, drew near. Our group of Black students split up and all of us (with the exception of Bankole) left Moscow, Bankole was reluctant to leave his Russian girl friend and remained in the city. Golden’s girl friend, a pretty Kazakhstanian girl, took him home to meet her people in Kazakhstan, an autonomous republic in southwest Asia, inhabited by a Turko-Mongolian people.<br />
<br />
As for myself, I asked for and received permission to spend my vacation in the Crimea. At the Chancellor’s office, I was given money, a railroad ticket and a document entitling me to stay one month at a rest home in Yalta. I was on my own and for the first time since my arrival fourteen months before, I was separated from my fellow Black students, But I had no misgivings. By this time, I had acquired a considerable knowledge of the country and had overcome the main hurdles in the language and could speak and read Russian with some fluency. In fact, I looked forward to my journey with pleasurable expectations, I was not to be disappointed.<br />
<br />
The Autonomous Republic of Crimea is a square-shaped peninsula jutting out into the Black Sea. At that time, it was one of the two Tartar autonomous republics; the other was Tartaria, on the Volga. I immediately fell in love with the country——its lush subtropical climate and its people. The Tartars were a darkskinned Mongolic people, descendants of the Golden Horde of Genghis Khan. When I arrived in Sevastopol, the largest city and seaport, I was struck by the dazzling brilliance of the sun against the pastel-colored buildings, the deep blue of the sea and the verdant Crimean mountains rising behind the city. Tall and stately cypress trees lined the streets. It was a busy seaport; all types of shipping could be found in the harbor from small fishing boats to Black Sea passenger liners and ocean-going freighters of the Soviet trading fleet,<br />
<br />
As a history buff, I stopped over for a couple of days to take in the historic sites of the city and its environs, There was the Panarama, a life-like display graphically depicting the battle of Sevastopol during the Crimean War, 1854-66. (The war was fought mainly on the Crimean peninsula between Russian forces on the one hand; British, French and Turkish allies on the other.). In this battle, the allies sought to knock out the strong Russian naval base in Sevastopol through an invasion by land and bombardment by sea. The Russians lost the war, but Sevastopol remained Russian.<br />
<br />
I drove out to Balaklava, a small village nestling on the sea a few miles southeast of Sevastopol, the scene of the disastrous charge of the British “Light Brigade,” led by Lord Cardigan and immortalized by Tennyson in his poem. Looking at the scene brought back memories of childhood school days when our class recited Tennyson’s poem aloud. I stood on Voronsov Heights overlooking the Valley of Death into which rode the six hundred. I walked over the grounds and viewed the graves of the victims of this blunder of the British officer caste. Fourteen years later, Sevastopol was to be the site of one of the most destructive and bloody battles of World War II.<br />
<br />
My automobile ride to Yalta, about sixty kilometers further along the coast, was not only exciting, but in some parts, a frightening experience. It was mostly along a narrow road, cut out of the side of mountains, on which two cars could barely pass. In some places, one could look down to what appeared to me to be a sheer drop of two or three thousand feet into the sea below, The chauffeurs driving powerful Packards, Cadillacs and Espano-Swiss sped along the road with its many curves at breakneck speed. The obvious fact that they were expert drivers was not enough to allay my fears nor those of the other passengers.<br />
<br />
Nearing Yalta, we passed Lavadaya, a beautiful palace built by an Italian architect during the reign of Alexander the Third. It was situated on a high cliff overlooking the sea. Later, it became the summer home of Czar Nicholas II. Now, under the Soviets, it had been converted into a rest home for local peasant leaders. The palace later housed President Roosevelt and Premier Churchill during the Yalta conference in 1945,<br />
<br />
At last I arrived in Yalta, center of the great Crimean resort area which extended along the coast and behind which rose the Crimean Mountains. Yalta was a town of rest homes and sanitaria, mostly owned by Soviet trade unions, I was put up at a rest home which mainly housed employees of the Moscow city administration.<br />
<br />
Immediately after registering, I put on my bathing trunks and donned the gorgeous Ashanti robe which Bankole had lent meand stepped out for a dip in the sea. I stepped out into the main street which ran alongside the seashore and headed for the beach. Although many of the Tartars of the area were dark-skinned, Blacks were rarely seen, even in these southern climes.<br />
<br />
As I passed along I could hear remarks like, “Kak khorosho zagorelsya (How beautifully sunburnt he is)!” It was a remark I was to hear often. It was good natured, and I sensed in it a trace of envy.<br />
<br />
The crowds were mainly vacationers from the north, who after the long, weary and cold sub-arctic winters of central Russia had fled to this semi-tropical paradise to soak up a little sunshine. Here they formed a cult of sun-worshippers bent on acquiring a suntan to display upon their return home.<br />
<br />
A crowd of small boys followed me out to the public beach a few blocks away. Perhaps they associated me with some of the South Sea Island characters they had seen in movies and waited expectantly for an exhibition of my aquatic skills. I doffed my gorgeous robe and stepped into the water, walked out a few feet and sat down. I tumed to see expressions of amazement, disappointment, and even pity, Their bewilderment was quite natural, for I myself had never met a Russian who didn't know how to swim, These children regarded swimming to be a natural human attribute; to them, an adult who couldn't swim was regarded as sort of a cripple.<br />
<br />
One day, while walking to the beach in Yalta, | was approached by a uniformed officer of the OGPU (federal police), “Bonjour, camarade, vous étes Sénégalais?” he asked in French.<br />
<br />
He seemed a bit surprised when I responded in Russian, telling him that I was an American Black and a student at KUTVA in Moscow.<br />
<br />
He said that he had noticed me several times on the streets and wondered if I were Senegalese, He had fought beside Senegalese riflemen during the world war. His Cossack regiment, he explained, was a part of a small Russian expeditionary force sent to fight with the French Army on the Western Front.<br />
<br />
I told him that I had also fought in the war with an American Black regiment and how | had seen Russian troops in a prison camp on my way to the Soissons front in the late summer of 1918. I asked him if he had been in that camp.<br />
<br />
He shrugged and said that it was quite possible. “They scattered us around in a number of camps; they didn’t want too many of us together in one place,” he said.<br />
<br />
“Our Russian force,” he went on, “was small and had no real military significance.” It had been sent by the Czar as a demonstration of solidarity and friendship between Russia and Francesort of a morale booster for the French people.<br />
<br />
“Be that as it may,” he said, “it didn’t boost our morale any to be there. In France, we fought in some of the toughest battles in the war, on the Champagne front and the Marne salient, and we suffered heavy casualties. Our fellows were homesick and confused, and didn’t know what they were fighting for so far away from Mother Russia.<br />
<br />
“There was much grumbling and always an undercurrent of discontent, All of this was heightened towards the latter part of the war by the bad news of Russian defeats on the Eastern Front. This all came to a head with the news of the fall of the Czar. Shortly after that we were withdrawn from the front by the French, as an unreliable element. Behind the lines, we were surrounded and disarmed by Senegalese troops, and quite a number who resisted were killed or wounded. To say that we were ‘unreliable’ was an understatement; by that time, we were downright mutinous!”<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik Party had active nuclei in the regiments. “I myself was a member of the Party,” said my new-found friend. “We followed the course of the Revolution through French newspapers and were able to glean the truth behind their distortions. We also had contact with some of the French left-socialists and with Bolshevik exiles before they returned home after the outbreak of the February Revolution. After the Armistice was signed, we were sent to Morocco and eventually Soviet ships came to take us to Odessa and home.<br />
<br />
“The French used the Senegalese against us,” he said. “We learned later of a mutiny among the Senegalese troops in which they were shot up and disarmed by the French Blue Devils.” I had just been reading André Barbusse and was surprised to learn how widespread mutiny had been in the French Army.<br />
<br />
“Well, c’est la guerre,” he said, “especially so an imperialist war. After all, what interest had the Senegalese in defending French imperialism? What interest did we Russian workers and muzhiks (peasants) have in fighting the Czar’s wars?”<br />
<br />
We parted, with both of us wanting to meet again, but he had to leave town that evening and I never saw him again.<br />
<br />
Often, we visited the local vineyards and wine cellars and tasted the local wines. It was wine country and Crimean wines were of the first quality, from the sweet ports, tokays and muscatels, to the dry red and white wines. On these outings there was always someone who had a guitar or accordion, and we sat late into the nights singing Russian folk songs and gypsy romans (love songs).<br />
<br />
The Crimea was not just a vacationers’ haven, although tourism occupied a large place in its economy. At that time, the economy was mainly agricultural. Vineyards were constantly expanding in the mountain valleys along the southern coast. Tobacco of fine quality was grown, and there was also an important fishing industry. On the east coast of the peninsula near Kerch, there was an area of rich iron ore deposits and mines. This was to serve as the basis for the construction of the gigantic Kerch metallurgical, chemical and engineering works, contemplated in the first five year plan. It was a plan which sought to quadruple the basic capital of the republic.<br />
<br />
With the renaissance of national cultures which accompanied the Soviet policy on the national question, the Turkic language spoken by the Tartars—which I understood was closely related to; modern Turkish—was being revived and taught in schools, A Latinized alphahet was introduced, replacing the old Arabic script. Tartar literature and culture flourished through this encouragement.<br />
<br />
I met the Party secretary for the county, a young Tartar who took me to visit a kolkhoz (collective farm), a vineyard in this case. A hundred or more peasant families were in the collective, all winegrowers. As in all collective farms, its members were required to sell a definite amount to the government at fixed prices and were allowed to sell the surplus on the free markets.<br />
<br />
Each family had a special plot of land which they cultivated for their own food supply. The chairman of the collective was a huge Ukrainian fellow, who showed us around and explained the wine growing process. The cultivation of grapes and making of the wine required special knowledge, which the government supplied.<br />
<br />
The members of the collective used up-to-date wineries owned by the state and managed by expert vintners. There I was to view the intricate process of wine-making, the pressing of the grapes, the fermenting process and the bottling itself. As I remember, this particular collective specialized in dry wines—both red and white. The Crimeans insisted that their wines were as good as the French. Not being a connoisseur, I wouldn’t know, but all I can say is that they tasted good to me.<br />
<br />
When I returned to Moscow in the fall, Otto told me of the discovery he had made on one of his trips to the southern region of the Caucasus. He had originally gone there on the invitation of one of our fellow students, a young woman from the Abkhazian Republic, a part of Georgia. After meeting some of us, she commented that they too had some Black folk down near her area in a village not very far from Sukhum, the capital of the republic on the Black Sea.<br />
<br />
She invited Otto down to visit the region over his summer vacation, and there he met the people. He described them as being of definite black ancestry—notwithstanding a history of intertarriage with the local people. But the starsata (old man) of the tribe was Black beyond a doubt. His story went some generations back, when he and the others joined the Turkish army as Numidian mercenaries from the Sudan. After several forays into this region they deserted the Army and had settled there. The starsata himself had been in the Czar’s Cavalry with the Dikhi (wild) Division of the Caucasus Cossacks.<br />
<br />
‘The people in the village wanted to know what was happening to “our brothers over the mountains.” Otto related to them the troubles we had gone through, described the travels “over the mountains and across the hig sea.” As the evening wore on and the local hrandy was consumed, toast after toast was drunk to “our little brother from over the hills.” Otto descrihed to them the conditions of Blacks in the U.S.—the lynchings, racism and brutality. Incensed, a few jumped up and pulled out their daggers. “You should make a revolution.”<br />
<br />
“Why don’t you revolt?”<br />
<br />
“Why do you put up with it?”<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
We were not the only ones surprised to learn about this group; it was news to the Russians in Moscow too! Several of these tribesmen later visited Moscow as a result of Otto’s visit. <br />
<br />
== Chapter 7 ==<br />
<br />
=== The Lenin School ===<br />
Following my summer in the Crimea, I returned to Moscow in the fall of 1927 to attend the Lenin School. The school was located off the Arbot on what is now called Ambassadors’ Row, a few blocks down the inner ring of boulevards from the KUTVA dormitories.<br />
<br />
The Lenin School, which was set up by the Comintern, opened in Moscow in May 1926, The plans for the school, formally called the International Lenin Course, had been reported on the previous year by Béla Kun, then head of the Educational (Agitprop) Department of the Comintern, Accordingly, the school was to train sixty to seventy qualified students both in theoretical and practical subjects, which included observations of Soviet trade unions and collective farm work, It offered a full three‘year course and a short course of one year.<br />
<br />
It was a school of great prestige and influence within the international communist movement, Its students, mainly party functionaries of district and section level and some secondary national Icaders who could be spared for the period of study, were generally at a higher level of political development than the students at KUTVA.<br />
<br />
I was the first Black to be assigned to the school, Others followed later; including H.V. Phillips in 1928, Leonard Patterson in the thirties, and Nzula—a Zulu intellectual and national secretary of the South African Communist Party.<br />
<br />
The American students who entered the Lenin School in the fall of 1927 were an impressive lot, They included prominent Party leaders from the national and district level. Outstanding in the group was Charles Krumbcin, a member of the Central Commitice of the Party and formerly in charge of trade union work in Chicago and district organizer for Chicago. A steamfitter by trade and a charter member of the Party, he was one ofa group of young trade unionists who made up the Chicago Party leadership in the twenties. They were the best representatives of the radical tradition of that city’s labor movement. <br />
<br />
Modesty and honesty were hallmarks of Charlie’s character, and he was a man of exceptional organizational and administrative ability. He was a founder of the Trade Union Education League (TUEL) and played a key role in the Chicago Federation of Labor. We developed a close and lasting friendship, and I learned a lot from him about Party history and the background of the revolutionary movement in the United States.<br />
<br />
Margaret Cowl, Charlie's wife, was a capable Party leader and organizer. She had worked in the TUEL and was recognized particularly for her leadership in the struggle for unity of Pennsylvania’s anthracite coal miners in 1927. Later she was to head up the Party’s Women’s Commission and play an active role in the movement for a Woman’s Charter, a broad united front movement launched in 1936 which asserted the rights of women to full equality in all spheres of activity. Margaret also energetically mobilized support for the struggles of women wage workers in the needle trades, textile, electrical and other industries.<br />
<br />
Joseph Zack had emigrated to the U.S. from Eastern Europe shortly after the First World War. Active in the first communist organization in New York, he had been section organizer of Yorktown and served on the Party’s Trade Union Commission. Zack was one of Foster’s leading trade union cadres in New York and had also been one of the first New York Party members assigned to work among Blacks, He was a bitter enemy of Lovestone, but was also critical of Foster. In 1932, he was expelled from the Party for refusing to abide by democratic centralism and by the forties had become an informant for the Dies Committee on Un-American Propaganda Activities.<br />
<br />
Morris Childs, a Chicagoan, was a leader in trade union and Party work. He became Illinois D.O. in the thirties at the same time that I was chairman of the Cook County Committee and secretary of the Southside region. While at the Lenin School, he served as the representative of the American students to the School Bureau.<br />
<br />
Rudy Baker, a Yugoslav comrade who later became D.O. in Pittsburgh and in Detroit, and Lena Davis (Sherer), a good friend of mine who was organizational secretary for New York in the thirties, were also at the school. All of these students were members of the Foster group. As far as I can recall, the sole Lovestone supporter in our class was Gus Sklar of Chicago, a leader in the Russian Federation.<br />
<br />
Poor Gus was alone in the midst of Fosterites, and it must have been an unhappy experience for him. When Lovestone was expelled from the Party in 1929, Gus remained in the Soviet Union and never returned to the U.S. He served as an officer in the Red Army and was killed in the defense of Moscow during the Second World War.<br />
<br />
The American students at the Lenin School were all experienced leaders of the U.S. Party, One might ask why so many were spared from U.S. work at a time when the Party’s position among the masses was so weak.<br />
<br />
Actually, these students were victims of Lovestone’s purge of the Party apparatus following his victory at the Fifth Party Convention in 1927. Part of Lovestone’s strategy was to weaken his opposition on the home front by “exiling” some of its leaders to the Lenin School. His plan backfired however. In Moscow, these “exiles,” as they jokingly called themselves, were to become an effective lobby against Lovestone both in the Comintern and in the CPSU. The political winds were changing.<br />
<br />
From the ashes of the defeated Trotskyist “left ” rose an equally dangerous, organized and secret rightist opposition headed by none other than Lovestone’s patron in the Comintern, Nikolai Bukharin. On the home front, this rightist opposition had its social base among the capitalists, the landlords and the kulaks (upper peasantry) and pushed a line that would have lopsidedly developed industry along consumer lines, to the detriment of the vast masses of Soviet people. Internationally, Bukharin greatly underestimated the war danger and the potentially revolutionary situation then developing on a world scale. At the same time, he greatly overestimated the strength and resiliency of imperialism.<br />
<br />
The Lenin School students helped to legitimize the antiLovestone struggle in the U.S. Party by linking it up with the fight against the right deviation, then only in its incipient stage, The Lenin School was to become a strong point in the fight against this danger.<br />
<br />
There were several other American students who had entered the Lenin School the year before. This group included Clarence Hathaway, Tom Bell, Max Salzman and Car! Reeves (the son of Mother Bloor). Of this group, Hathaway had the most imposing credentials. A machinist from Minneapolis and one of the leading people in the Trade Union Education League, Hathaway proved to be a valuable asset in the Party’s trade union work.<br />
<br />
He was a fine organizer and speaker, particularly effective in debates, and combined these talents with a good grasp of Marxist-Leninist theory. Clearly destined for top leadership in the Party, he later served as D.O. of the New York District, became an editor of the Daily Worker and a member of the Political Bureau. Tom Bell, Hathaway’s close friend, remained in the Soviet Union, married a Russian woman and died sometime before World War Il.<br />
<br />
William Kruse of Chicago was the principal Lovestonite in the school. For a brief period he filled in as acting rep from the Party to the Comintern in the absence of a permanent Party rep. Later, he was D,O. in Chicago under Lovestone’s leadership and was expelled from the Party with Lovestone in 1929.<br />
<br />
The students were organized at the school by language groups, as we had been at KUTVA. In this case, the languages were English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Russian and, later, Chinese. The whole school was a collective, comprising students, teachers, administrators and employees, The leading body was the Party Bureau, which included delegates from the various groups, including the employees. All students transferred membership from their home party to the CPSU, and were directly subject to its discipline. Party meetings were held about once a month.<br />
<br />
Our rector was a handsome, energetic woman named Kursanova. She was a leading communist educator and was married to the old Bolshevik propagandist and CC member, E. Yaroslavsky. She was about forty at the time and had an impressive background, including civil war experiences as a machine-gunner in a detachment of Siberian partisans. Kursanova had also been a delegate to the Bolshevik Conference in April 1917 which adopted Lenin’s famous April Theses.<br />
<br />
In addition to the Americans, others in the English-speaking section included British, Irish, Australians, a New Zealander, two Chinese, two Japanese and two Canadians—Leslie Morris and Stewart Smith, The British group included Springhall, Tanner, Black (a Welshman), Margaret Pollitt and George Brown. My special friend among the British was Springhall, known to all as “Springy,” with whom I roomed at the Lenin School.<br />
<br />
Springy was a British naval veteran of the First World War. He had come from a poor family and his parents had chosen him fora naval career. This latter act, it seemed, was a common practice among British lower class families with several sons. At the age of twelve, therefore, he had been “given” to His Majesty's Navy to be trained as a sailor, He served through the First World War and after the Armistice was involved in a mutiny or near-mutiny among members of the fleet who protested being sent to Leningrad to intervene against the Bolshevik Revolution. At the time, Springy was about twenty-one years old. As a result of the mutiny, he was cashiered from the Navy. Apparently, the admiralty was deterred from taking any harsher measures against the mutineers because of the widespread sympathy their action had evoked among British workers.<br />
<br />
Springy was popular with everybody, particularly among the women on the technical staff. After leaving the Lenin School, he returned to England where he rose rapidly in Party leadership. He also fought in Spain as a member of the Fifteenth International Brigade and was wounded at Jarama.<br />
<br />
At the beginning of World War II, he served as organizational secretary of the British Party. During the early stages of the war, Springy was charged by the Churchill government with subversive activity among the armed forces. This was during the period prior to the German invasion of the Soviet Union, when the war was still an imperialist war and we communists opposed it.<br />
<br />
There was no defense against the charge of subversion in wartime England, and Springy was sentenced to seven years in prison, After his release, he went to China, where he did editorial work on English language publications until his death from cancer in 1953. Springy died in a Moscow hospital, where he had been sent by his Chinese comrades to make sure that everything possible could be done to save him. His ashes were returned to China and interred with a memorial stone in the Revolutionary Martyrs’ Cemetery outside Peking.<br />
<br />
Springy introduced me to the gifted English writer, historian and Marxist scholar, Ralph Fox. A promising young theoretician, Fox was then researching material for one of his books at the Marx-Engels Institute. He died at the age of thirty-seven, fighting the fascists on the Cordova Front during the Spanish Civil War. By the end of his brief life span, he had already published a tremendous body of work.<br />
<br />
I got a lot out of my friendship with Fox. Profiting greatly from his wide-ranging knowledge, I often consulted him on theoretical and political questions which arose during my stay at the school.<br />
<br />
Springy and I were frequent visitors at the apartment of Fox and his wife Midge. It was there that I first met Karl Radek. A Polish expatriate, he had been an active leader in the Polish Social Democratic Party and a member of the Zimmerwald Left (those internationalists who broke off from the Second International in 1915 and were instrumental in founding the Third International). In 1915-16, Radek—along with Rosa Luxemburg—publicly disagreed with Lenin on the question of self-determination of subject nations. Radek later changed his position and fully united with the Bolshevik point of view in 1917.<br />
<br />
Radek was part of the group that returned with Lenin to Russia via Germany in the famous “sealed coach.” He was a member of the Bolshevik Central Committee and Politburo. At the time that I met him in 1928, Radek was still under a shadow politically. He had been a leading member of the Trotsky-Zinoviev opposition and was expelled from the CPSU along with the other leaders of the bloc at the Sixteenth Congress of the CPSU in December 1927. Exiled to the Urals, he publicly repudiated his earlier position and was readmitted to the Party a few months later in 1928. He was assigned as editor of Izvestia and later became the chief foreign affairs commentator in the leading Soviet papers, He was also a member of the Soviet delegation to the Comintern.<br />
<br />
Radek, as I remember him, was a little man, appearing to be somewhat of a dandy in his English tweed jacket, plus-fours and cane, But to me, the most striking thing about him was his beard. It stretched from ear to ear, under his chin and cheeks, giving him a simian look.<br />
<br />
His English, though accented, was fluent, When we first met, he immediately engaged me in a conversation about conditions of Blacks in the United States, which branched off into questions of Black literature, writers and the Harlem Renaissance. To my amazement, it was clear that he knew more about the latter subject than I did. I was embarrassed when he asked my opinion about certain Black writers with whom he was familiar but whom I had never even read. I found out later that Claude MeKay had been a sort of a protégé of Radek’s during the poet’s stay in the Soviet Union,<br />
<br />
In 1937, along with several others in the Trotskyite “Left Opposition,” Radek was convicted of treason, of acting as an “agency” of German and Italian fascism and giving assistance to those who might invade the Soviet Union. He was sent to prison where he died in the forties.<br />
<br />
Springy introduced me to many other young Britons in Moscow: such men as William Rust, who later became editor of the British Worker, Walter Tapsell, editor of the Young Worker; and George Brown. Both Brown and Tapsell were in my brigade in the Spanish Civil War and were killed in battle. Brown was killed at Brunete while I was there.<br />
<br />
Our English-speaking section at the Lenin School included five young Irishmen, all members of the Irish Workers League, a communist-oriented group organized by Big Jim Larkin in 1923. It seems that the Irish Communist Party, founded in 1921 by Young Roderick Connolly (son of James Connolly), had collapsed. I was told that its failure was due to a lack of Marxist-Leninist theory and the inability of its members to relate their views on socialism to the specific conditions in Ireland. But there was certainly no lack of revolutionary enthusiasm and motivation among the young people I met at the Lenin School, some of whom had been members of the Irish Communist Party. The group had been sent to the Lenin School as a step towards rebuilding the Irish Party.<br />
<br />
All five were protégés of the famous Irish revolutionary, Big Jim Larkin—most definitely a man of action and organization, not of theory. A tall, bulky man with a huge, hawk-like nose and bushy eyebrows, Larkin was one of the most colorful figures of the Irish labor movement. From his base among Dublin dockworkers, his activities as a labor leader had ranged over three continents~-from the British Isles, to Argentina, to the U.S.—and at the time that I met him, spanned more than three decades. He had been a founding member of the U.S. Party and was a member of both the Executive Committees of the Communist International and the Red International of Labor Unions (RILU or the Profintern). He was often in Moscow, where I saw him frequently.<br />
<br />
The Irish students came from the background of the 1916 Easter Rebellion and the revolutionary movement reflected in the lives of men like Larkin and James Connolly. Among them were Sean Murray and James Larkin, Jr. (Big Jim's son). All of them had been active in the post-war independence and labor struggles. I was closest to Murray, the oldest of the group, who was a roommate of mine.<br />
<br />
This was my first encounter with Irish revolutionaries and their experiences excited me. As members of oppressed nations, we had a lot in common. I was impressed by their idealism and revolutionary ardor and their implacable hatred of Britain’s imperialist rulers, as well as for their own traitors. But what impressed me most about them was their sense of national pride—not of the chauvinistic variety, but that of revolutionaries aware of the international importance of their independence struggle and the role of Irish workers.<br />
<br />
Then too, they were a much older nation. Their fight against Britain had at that time been going on for 750 years. They were fond of quoting the observations of Marx and Engels on the Irish movement, such as Marx’s letter to Engels in which he said: “English reaction in England had its roots in the subjugation of Ireland.” Another favorite was: “No nation can be free if it oppresses other nations.”!<br />
<br />
But most of all, they liked to point out Lenin’s defense of the Easter Uprising in his reply to Karl Radek, who had called the rebellion a putsch and discounted the significance of the struggle of small nations in the epoch of imperialism. Lenin admonished Radek, stating that “a struggle capable of going to the lengths of insurrection and street fighting, of breaking down the iron discipline of the army and martial law,” on the doorstep of the imperialist metropolis itself, would be a blow against imperialism more significant than that in a remote colony.<br />
<br />
I was shortly to find these observations applicable to the liberation movement of U.S. Blacks. As a result of my association with the Irish, I became deeply intcrested in the Irish question, seeing in it a number of parallels to U.S. Blacks. In retrospect, I am certain that this interest heightened my receptivity to the idea of a Black nation in the United States. <br />
<br />
=== TEACHERS AND CLASSES ===<br />
The teaching method at the school was a combination of lectures and discussions. About once a week the instructor would give a lecture to the entire English-speaking group, all twenty-five or thirty of us. Readings would be assigned, and when material was not available in English, it would be translated especially for us. I had one advantage in this regard because by this time I could read Russian fluently. Following the iccture, the instructor would delineate a number of sub-topics. Several days later, we would all get together again and one person from each group would report on its work. The instructors were often available for consultation during the time the groups were discussing and researching their topics.<br />
<br />
There were no grades given, nor were there any examinations. At the end of the term we would have evaluation sessions, where everyone met and discussed each other’s work, including that of the teachers. It was a process of comradely criticism and self-criticism.<br />
<br />
I found the classes exciting and challenging and the students on the whole sharp and on a high political level. I was under pressure to keep up. The English in general seemed to be a notch above most of us in political economy. This, I believe, was due to the existence of a large number of Labour Party schools which were spread throughout Britain.<br />
<br />
Our instructor for Marxist political economy was Alexandrov, an economist for the Gosplan, the state planning agency. In our class, he was often challenged on some aspect of Marxian economics, He would often have sharp exchanges with one of the British students, I believe it was Black, over differences in interpretations of Marxian economics,<br />
<br />
Black was a perfect foil for Alexandrov, who scemed to enjoy these tilts and invited the whole class to participate. Summing up the discussion, Alexandroy would brand Black’s position as “undialectical, mechanistic, and rooted in vulgar economism and Fabianism.” Black was stubborn, however, and prodded by Alexandrov, kept up his critical attitude for the whole first term, It was only during the evaluations at the end of the term that Black conceded that some of his positions had been in error,<br />
<br />
Perhaps the most prominent among my teachers was Ladislaus Rudas, a noted Hungarian Marxist philosopher and scholar. Like many Hungarian intellectuals, he spoke several languages fluently. He had been a leader of the short-lived Hungarian Soviet and had come to Moscow along with Béla Kun and the other Hungarian refugees. He taught historical and dialectical materialism and his class was one of the most interesting, It prescnted history, my favorite subject, but with a different content: a Marxist-Leninist interpretation, portraying not just the role of individuals but of classes.<br />
<br />
We had lengthy discussions on the French Revolution; the petty bourgeois dictatorship under Robespierre and the Jacobins; Saint Just and the extreme left, the Thermidor and Napoleon— “the man on the white horse.” The English Revolution and Cromwell, the Levellers, the Long Parliament. The Dutch revolution and Prince Egmont. We had extended discussions on the American revolutions---the War of Independence, the Civil War and Reconstruction.<br />
<br />
These discussions brought out our lack of knowledge of our own U.S, history; there was a complete absence of materials which presented U.S. history from a Marxist standpoint. All I can remember is the so-called Marxist analysis in the works of James Oneal (The Workers in American History) and A.M. Simons’s Social Forces in American History.<br />
<br />
The former I never read, but the work by Simons stands out in my memory for its gratuitous slur on U.S. Blacks, Simons claimed that the Black man did not revolt against slavery during the Civil War: “His inaction in time of crisis, his failure to play any part in the struggle that broke his shackles, told the world that he was not of those who to free themselves would strike a blow.”<br />
<br />
I had read about the slave revolts of Gabriel, Nat Turner, and John Brown’s heroic raid on Harper’s Ferry with his band of whites, free Blacks and escaped slaves. I knew of the role of Black soldiers in the Civil War who had to overcome the opposition of the Union Army in order to fight. Simons’s book skipped over all of this,<br />
<br />
I had come across Charles and Mary Beard’s The Rise of American Civilization, The Beards were economic determinists who had characterized the Civil War as the Second American Revolution. The idea seemed novel at the time, all of which points up how widespread had been the distortion of the period by U.S. bourgeois historians.<br />
<br />
My sub-group, which included Springy and the Irishman Sean Murray, had chosen the Civil War and the Reconstruction period as our subject, with myself as the reporter. Our group had long discussions, after which we consulted Rudas, who by that time had evidently done some homework of his own on the matter. He called our attention to the writings of Marx and Engels, their correspondence on the Civil War, and Mary’s series of articles in the New York Herald Tribune. After the discussions, I submitted a paper to the class, which evoked considerable discussion. On the whole it was well-received by my fellow classmates and commended by Rudas.<br />
<br />
Perhaps our most interesting and stimulating course was on Leninism and the history of the CPSU, taught by the historian I. Mintz. A former Red Army officer, he was at the time assigned to work on a history of the CPSU. Mintz was a young Ukrainian Jew, a soft-spoken and mild-mannered little man. He had a way of illustrating his subject through his own personal experiences during the Revolution and the Civil War in the Ukraine. His appearance contrasted sharply with his role and bloody experiences in the battle for the Ukraine. His was a thrilling story, involving a meteoric rise from leader of partisans to commander of a Red Army brigade. They had fought against a whole array of anti-Soviet and interventionist forces: the White Guardist Deniken; the Cossack Hepmans, Kornilov and Kaledin; Makhno’s anarchists (who were sometimes with and sometimes against the Red Army); General Petlura and sundry gangs of marauders and pogromists; and the remnants of the German garrisons in the Ukraine.<br />
<br />
In connection with our studies of the Bolshevik agrarian policy during the Civil War, Mintz told us of his involvement in the settling of the question of land redistribution in a Ukrainian district. This district had been reconquered by his Red Army unit from Denikin in the early winter of 1920. He gave us a general rundown of the agrarian situation at the time, the class forces in the countryside, their shifting alignment during the course of the Revolution, and the evolution of Bolshevik agrarian policy.<br />
<br />
Kerensky’s provisional government had done nothing to solve the agrarian problem, to relieve the land hunger of the masses of peasantry. Though Kerensky’s program had promised confiscation of the big estates, once in power, the government reneged on even that level of reform.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks exhorted the peasants to await the decision of the Constituent Assembly. Thus, at the time of the outbreak of the Revolution, the vast majority of the cultivatable land was still concentrated in the estates of the big landlords. The peasantry, constituting four-fifths of the population of the old Czarist Empire, was composed of three different strata. The well-to-do peasant not only owned enough land to support himself in good fashion, but also often hired labor to work his land. This group comprised only about four to five percent of the total. The poor peasant was without sufficient land to support himself and his family and often hired himself out as a laborer to the landlord or to a well-to-do peasant. The landless peasant subsisted entirely from the sale of his labor to the landlord or well-to-do peasant.<br />
<br />
Under the slogan “Land, Bread and Peace,” the Bolsheviks cgmbined the seizure of power in the cities with the land revolution underway in the countryside. Allied with the Social Revolutionaries (SRs), the traditional party of the peasantry, the land was taken over in two phases, The first phase, nationalization and confiscation, was incorporated in the Land Decree of the All Russian Congress of Soviets, November 8, 1917. This stamped the seal of governmental endorsement on the land seizures and called for their extension.<br />
<br />
In September 1917, Lenin declared Bolshevik support for the land program of the SRs, while pointing out that only a proletarian revolution could put even this program into practice. The SR program called for equal distribution of land among the peasants while the Bolsheviks favored collective, and eventually state-owned farms. But since the SR program represented the understanding of the majority of peasants, Lenin’s policy was to resolve this difference by “teaching the masses, and in turn learning from the masses, the practical expedient measures for bringing about such a transition.”<br />
<br />
The day after seizing power, the Bolsheviks put this policy into practice with their November 8, 1917, Decree on Land which made the SR program into law. Within three weeks, the SRs' left wing—representing the poorer peasants—had split from the rest of the party and entered a coalition government with the Bolsheviks. In the following years, Lenin held to the basie position he stated when presenting the November 8 decree:<blockquote>'''As a democratic government, we cannot ignore the decision of the masses of the people, even though we may disagree with it. In the fire of experience, applying the decree in practice, and carrying it out locally, the peasants will themselves realize where the truth lies... We must be guided by experience, we must allow complete freedom to the creative faculties of the masses.'''</blockquote>It was against this background that Mintz related some of his experiences in the Ukraine. He told us that the Party in the Ukraine had not fully grasped the lessons of the agrarian revolution in Great Russia. He spoke of one occasion when his outfit had attempted to arbitrarily carry out the collectivization of all the big estates in territory occupied by their division of the Red Army; their efforts met with the stiff resistance of the local peasants, even though the peasants supported Soviet power.<br />
<br />
The peasants insisted on the redistribution of all the estates, breaking them up among the individual peasant families, rather than taking over the large estates collectively, This occurred during the fall months of 1919, on the eve of Denikin’s final defeat, when Soviet power in the form of an “independent Ukrainian Republic” was about to be established.<br />
<br />
It was a time when Lenin, in order to allay anti-Russian distrust and suspicion among the Ukrainian peasantry, had insisted that certain concessions be made. Both Russian and Ukrainian were to be used on an equal footing, and attempts to push back the Ukrainian language to a secondary status were to be denounced. Lenin demanded that all officials in the new republic be able to speak Ukrainian and called for the distribution of large farms among the peasants. State farms were to be created “in strictly limited numbers and of limited size and in each casein conformity with the instruments of the surrounding peasantry.”<br />
<br />
Despite this, Mintz said, many of us Ukrainian Bolsheviks tended to downplay the nationality element in our own country. “In my own case, I had long since ceased to consider myself a Jew.” Most of them were what was called at that time “abstract internationalists”; super-internationalists who, in the name of internationalism, renounced the national element in the struggle of the Ukrainian masses.<br />
<br />
“But we were not alone in this deviation,” Mintz told us. “Although Lenin’s policy was eventually adopted by the Central Executive Committee, it was sharply opposed by leading Ukrainian Bolsheviks such as Rakovsky and Manuilsky. What it finally came down to, in the case of our army division, was that as a result of the opposition of the peasants in the area, we were foreed to give up our plan for collectivization; we thus had to settle for having only one of the estates being set aside as a Soviet farm.”<br />
<br />
The first part of each summer at the Lenin School was spent in practical work that related to our studies. In the course of my practical work program in the early summer of 1928, I had my first close-up ohservation of the peasant question in the USSR. I visited a peasant village in an agricultural district to talk with the people and make observations. Though hardly more than 100 versts (about 66 miles) from Moscow, it was truly in “darkest Russia,” a provincial place, isolated from the city. Few inhabitants had been as far away as Moscow.<br />
<br />
After taking a train to the nearest station, I then had to take a droshky another twenty versts to the county seat. Arriving in the morning, I was let down in the middle of the village square. I looked around to get my bearings, and in no time at all, a crowd had gathered to stare at me.<br />
<br />
‘The crowd grew larger by the minute; it seemed as if the whole village had turned out in the square, I could overhear remarks: “Who is he?”<br />
<br />
“Why is he so Black?”<br />
<br />
“What nice teeth!”<br />
<br />
“Look, his palms are white!”<br />
<br />
“He seems sympatichno,” remarked some.<br />
<br />
Someone else who perhaps had done a little reading said, “Oh, he’s probably from Africa. There the sun is so hot that people who have lived there for thousands of years become black.” The crowd seemed to accept this explanation.<br />
<br />
I stuck out my hand to a young man standing nearby. “Zdravstvuyte,” I said. “Could you direct me to the town committee?” He seemed to be surprised that I could speak Russian, but getting himself together, he directed me toa building across the square.<br />
<br />
“Who are you? Where did you come from?” the young man asked.<br />
<br />
“I'm an American Negro from the United States,” I replied.<br />
<br />
Someone in the crowd remarked, “I told you he was of the Negro tribe.” <br />
<br />
Someone else spoke up, “I thought all people in the United States were white.” <br />
<br />
That gave me the chance to get off on my international propaganda spiel, and I jumped right in. “Oh no,” I replied. “There are twelve million Blacks in the U.S.—ahout one-tenth of the population.” I went on to tell them about Blacks inthe South, and the modern-day remnants of the plantation system: sharecropping, Jim Crow and lynch terror.<br />
<br />
Someone remarked, “Oh, Like it was with us under the old regime.” Many of the villagers nodded their heads in agreement with this.<br />
<br />
Just then I noticed an old woman with a cane, slowly making her way through the crowd toward where I was. The young people gave way before her, in deference to her age. When she reached the center, I watched the changes in expression on her old wrinkled face as she gazed at me. First it registered amazement at such a sight; then comprehension when she had “cased” the whole situation,<br />
<br />
Then she spit on the ground and slammed her cane down, “Idite domoi! Go home!” she told me. “Wash your face! You should be ashamed of yourself, trying to fool the people around here!” Waving her cane at me, she then turned scornfully away. In all her ninety-odd years, she had never before seen a Black man!<br />
<br />
=== TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION ===<br />
The first time I met Stalin was at a social gathering in the Kremlin during the World Congress of the Friends of the Soviet Union. The congress coincided with the Tenth Anniversary celebrations in the fall of 1927. The congress sessions were held at the Dom Soyusov (House of the Trade Unions), It was the greatest international gathering I had ever witnessed. There were probably more than one thousand delegates, representing countries from six continents, The most impressive delegation was the huge one (about one hundred people) from China which was headed by the young and beautiful widow of Sun Yat-sen. (Today she is vice-chairman of the National People’s Republic of China.) <br />
<br />
I was surprised and delighted to meet my old friend Chi (Dum Ping), a former Chinese student at the University of Chicago with whom I had worked in the organization of the ill-fated Interracial Youth Forum on the Southside in 1924. He had since gone back to China and was now one of the translators for the Chinese delegation. It was Chi who introduced me to Madame Sun Yatsen. She spoke English with an American accent, which was not surprising since she had been educated in the United States.<br />
<br />
Among the other notables we were to meet were the young Cuban revolutionary, Antonio Mella, later murdered in Mexico City by Machado’s assassins. He was a tall, wiry youth, who always had a guitar slung over his back. There was Henri Barbusse, a pale, wan man, a victim of tuberculosis, He was a great literary figure in France and wrote a biography of Stalin. There was the american novelist Theodore Dreiser, father of American realism who was there with his secretary, Ruth Epperson Kennel, a young American woman. <br />
<br />
A special friend of us Black students was Josiah Gumede, the elderly president of the African National Congress and a descendant of Zulu chiefs. We took him in charge. Every morning we would call for him at his room at the National Hotel on Tverskaya (now Gorky Street) and escort him to the congress sessions. We also accompanied him on the rounds of parties held by the various delegations. He must have been about sixty at the time, but was big, strong and healthy and never seemed to tire.<br />
<br />
The gala occasion for the whole congress was the Evening of National Culture, It consisted of an elaborate pageant of folk dances from the various Soviet republics and autonomous regions. The dancers were all in their traditional costumes, a striking array of color and diversity. On this occasion, our Soviet hosts went all out for their foreign guests.<br />
<br />
The hall in the Dom Soyusov had been converted into a huge banquet room. We were seated before tables loaded with various kinds of liquor, including of course, the best vodka and zakuskas; appetizers of all kinds—cheeses, herrings, caviar, cold sturgeon and cold meats. Then came dinner, from soup to dessert.<br />
<br />
The banquet finally ended. Most of us were in somewhat of a stupor from food and drink, Our group, which included our teacher Sik, was leaving the hall amidst the din of a thousand people talking and laughing. On our way out we stopped and chatted with numerous delegates.<br />
<br />
Gumede was the chief attraction; he had given a stirring speech at a session of the congress a few days before. As I recall, we were nearing the door when we were stopped and greeted by the old Cossack cavalryman, Marshall Budenny. He was a short, powerful, bow-legged man, with a large ferocious black mustache. He was also in a merry mood.<br />
<br />
“Tell the chief,” he said, grasping Gumede’s hand, “that we stand ready to come to his support anytime he needs us!”<br />
<br />
“Thank you, thank you,” beamed Gumede.<br />
<br />
At that moment, someone approached us, I believe it was Tival, Stalin’s seeretary, and informed us that we were invited to a party in the Kremlin.<br />
<br />
We walked the short distance across the square to the Kremlin. Once within the Kremlin walls, we were guided into one of the old palaces and then taken upstairs to a small hall. It was a longroom with an arched ceiling reaching almost to the floors on the sides. It looked to me as though it could have been a throne room of one of the old czars.<br />
<br />
There were perhaps fifty people in the room. In the center there was a large table loaded with the traditional zakuskas, fruits and drinks. It was sort of a buffet; chairs were not directly at the table but rather were along the walls on each side.<br />
<br />
There in the center on one side was Stalin, with a number of people seated beside him, He rose, shook our hands, and after we were introduced, welcomed us, “Be our guests.” He was a short, thick-set man, as T remember, dressed in a neat tan suit with a military collar and boots shined to glisten.<br />
<br />
He motioned us to the vacant chairs on the other side of the room. On that side were a number of folk dancers and musicians, presumably participants in the earlier festivities, Somebody introduced Gumede as an African Zulu chief from the congress, and the dancers probably thought we were all from the same tribe. Gumede, however, was the center of attention, surrounded by the daricers, who insisted on being photographed with him.<br />
<br />
They gathered around him—a couple sitting on his lap and others behind him with their arms around him, Stalin, observing all this from the other side of the room, seemed amused. Later on, Stalin got up, bid us all good-night and walked out. As I remember, it was quite a relaxed evening with no political discussion. We left shortly after Stalin departed and were driven home by a chauffeur from the Kremlin car pool.<br />
<br />
Another version of this occasion was given, I believe by Sik, who insisted that Otto had danced with Stalin that evening. I don’t doubt Sik’s word, but I certainly don’t remember seeing it. Otto didn’t remember the incident either, But I do know that in Russia it was not uncommon for one man to dance with another on festive occasions, As I recall, the hall became more crowded, and I was attracted by a group of folk dancers who offered to help us students with our Russian,<br />
<br />
Afterwards Sik kept reminding Otto, “Don’t you remember, Otto, you asked Stalin to dance, and you danced around the hall with him several times, That was a memorable occasion; how could you forget it?”<br />
<br />
As for Gumede, he returned home a firm supporter of the Soviet Union. Everywhere he went, he gave glowing reports of his visit there. In January 1928, he told an ANC rally that “I have seen the new world to come, where it has already begun. I have been to the new Jerusalem."<br />
<br />
One day in December, Otto called me and said he had inst gotten a call to pick up a young Black woman, Maude White, who was to be a student at KUTVA. She was waiting at the station. He asked me if I'd like to go along and I readily agreed, looking forward with pleasure to meeting this woman—the first Black woman since Jane Golden to study in the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
We rented a droshky and proceeded to the station. It was a cold winter night, the temperature was somewhere around thirty-five below zero. When we got there, we saw the young Black woman, She was about nineteen, standing in the unheated station, she was a strikingly pretty, brown-skinned woman with huge dark eyes.<br />
<br />
She had on a seal skin coat, silk stockings and pumps, and by time we got there she was practically hysterical with the cold. "Get me out of here,” she shouted. Otto and I looke at each other, both thinking the same thing—we're going to have a rough time with this one. <br />
<br />
We couldn't have been more wrong. Maude got right into the swing of things at school. She was a very popular suger ae stayed in Moscow for three years. We later learned that she ha been a school teacher before coming to Moscow, On returning to the States, she became an outstanding Party cadre and a life-long friend of mine.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 8 ==<br />
<br />
=== Self-Determination: The Fight for a Correct Line ===<br />
Towards the end of 1927, Nasanov returned to the Soviet Union after a sojourn in the United States as the representative of the Young Communist International. I had known him briefly in the States before my departure for Russia. Nasanov was one of a group of YCI workers who had been sent on missions to several countries. He had considerable experience with respect to the national and colonial question and was considered an expert on these matters.<br />
<br />
Nasanov's observations had convinced him that U.S. Blacks were essentially an oppressed nation whose struggle for equality would ultimately take an autonomous direction and that the content of the Black liberation movement was the completion of the agrarian and democratic revolution in the South—a struggle which was left unresolved by the Civil War and betrayal of Reconstruction. Therefore, it was the duty of the Party to channel the movement in a revolutionary direction by raising and supporting the slogan of the right of self-determination for Afro-Americans in the Black Belt, the area of their greatest concentration.<br />
<br />
Upon his return, Nasanov sought me out and it was he, I believe, who first informed me that I had been elected to the National Committee of the YCL back in the States. In the months ahead, we were to become close friends. Through him, I met a number of YCI people, mostly Soviet comrades who held the same position as Nasanov did on the national question. They seemed to be pushing to have the matter reviewed at the forthcoming Sixth Congress of the Comintern. And as it later became clear to me, they were anxious to recruit at least one Black to support their position.<br />
<br />
As I have indicated before, the position was not entirely new to me. I was present at the meeting of the YCL District Committee in Chicago in 1924 when Bob Mazut (then YCI rep to the U.S.), at the behest of Zinoviev, had raised the question of self-determination At that time, he had been shouted down by the white comrades. (See Chapter Four.)<br />
<br />
Sen Katayama had told us Black KUTVA students that Lenin had regarded U.S. Blacks as an oppressed nation and referred us to his draft resolution on the national and colonial question which was adopted by the Second Congress of the Comintern in 1920. Otto and other Black students had also told me that they got a similar impression from their meeting with Stalin at the Kremlin shortly after their arrival in the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
All of this seemed tentative to me. No one had elaborated the position fully and Nasanov was the first person I met who attempted to argue it definitively. But all of these arguments, and especially Nasanov’s prodding, set me to thinking and confronted me with the need to apply concretely my newly-acquired Marxist-Leninist knowledge on the national-colonial question to the condition of Blacks in the United States,<br />
<br />
To me, the idea of a Black nation within U.S. boundaries seemed far-fetched and not consonant with American reality. I saw the solution through the incorporation of Blacks into U.S. society on the basis of complete equality, and only socialism could bring this to pass. There was no doubt in my mind that the path to freedom for us Blacks led directly to socialism, uncluttered by any interim stage of self-determination or Black political power. The unity of Black and white workers against the common enemy, U.S. capitalism, was the motor leading toward the dual goal of Black. freedom and socialism.<br />
<br />
I felt that it was difficult enough to build this unity, without adding to it the gratuitous assumption of a non-existent Black nation, with its implication of a separate state on U.S. soil. To do so, I felt, was to create new and unnecessary roadblocks to the already difficult path to Black and white unity.<br />
<br />
Socialism, I reasoned, was not in contradiction to the movement for Black cultural identity, expressed in the cultural renaissance of the twenties and in Garvey’s emphasis on race pride and history (which I regarded as one of the positive aspects of that movement), Socialism for U.S. Blacks did not imply loss of cultural identity any more than it did for the Jews of the Soviet Union, among whom I had witnessed the proliferation of the positive features of Jewish culture—theater, literature and language.<br />
<br />
The Jews were not considered a nation because they were not concentrated in any definite territory; they were regarded as a national minority and Birobidzhan was set aside as a Jewish autonomous province. Such a bolstering of self-respect, dignity and self-assertion on the part of a formerly oppressed minority people was a necessary stage in the development of a universal culture which would amalgamate the best features of all national groups. This was definitely the policy of the Soviet Union with regard to formerly oppressed nationalities and ethnic groups.<br />
<br />
Like the Jews, I reasoned, the position of U.S. Blacks was that of an oppressed race, though at the time I am sure I would have been hard-pressed to define precisely what was meant by that phrase. The main factor in the oppression of Jews under the Czar had been the religious factor; the main factor with U.S, Blacks was race. Blacks lacked some of the essential attributes of a nation which had been defined by Stalin in his classic work, Marxism and the National Question.<br />
<br />
Most assuredly, one could argue that among Blacks there existed elements of a special culture and also a common language (English). But this did not add up to a nation, I reasoned. Missing was the all-important aspect of a national territory. Even if one agreed that the Black Belt, where Blacks were largely concentrated, rightfully belonged to them, they were in no geographic position to assert their right of self-determination.<br />
<br />
I could see many analogies between the national problem in the old Czarist Empire and the problem of U.S. Blacks, but the analogy floundered on this question of territory. For the subject nations of the old Czarist Empire were situated either on the border of the oppressing Great Russian nation or were completely outside it. But American Blacks were set down in the very midst of the oppressing white nation, the strongest capitalist power on earth. Faced with this, it was no wonder that most nationalist movements up until then had taken the road of a separate state outside the United States. How then could one convince U.S. Blacks that the right of self-determination was a realistic program?<br />
<br />
Nasanov and his young friends answered my arguments over the course of a series of discussions and were quick to pick out the flaws in my position, They contended that I was guilty of an ahistoric approach with respect to the elements of nationhood. Certainly, some of the attributes of a nation were weakly developed in the case of U.S. Blacks. But that was the case with most oppressed peoples precisely because the imperialist policy of national oppression is directed towards artificially and forcibly retaining the economic and cultural backwardness of the colonial peoples as a condition for their super-exploitation. My mistake had been to ignore Lenin’s dictum that in the epoch of imperialism it was essential to differentiate between the oppressor and the oppressed nations,<br />
<br />
They further contended that I had presented the matter as though self-determination were solely a question for Blacks. | had therefore separated the Black rebellion from the struggle for socialism in the United States. In fact, it was a constituent part of the latter struggle or, more precisely, a special phase of the struggle of the American working class for socialism.<br />
<br />
My argument added up to a defense of the current position of the U.S. Party, albeit I had embellished the position somewhat against Nasanov's criticisms. Up to this point, the Black students had not challenged the Party’s line on Afro-American work, We reasoned that the Party’s default in the work among Blacks was not the result of an incorrect line, but came from a failure to carry out in practice its declared line. We believed that this failure was due to an underestimation of the importance of work among Blacks, which came from an underestimation of the revolutionary potential of the struggle of the Black masses for equality. All this resulted from the persistence of remnants of white racist ideology vathin the ranks of the Party, including some of its leadership.<br />
<br />
Nasanov and some of his friends agreed with us that the American CP did underestimate the revolutionary potential of the Black struggle for equality. But, they maintained, this underestimation came from a fundamentally incorrect social-democratic line, rather than from white chauvinism, They said that I had stood the whole matter on its head: I had presented the incorrect policies as the result of subjective white chauvinist attitudes; whereas, they pointed out that the white chauvinist attitudes persisted precisely because the Party’s line was fundamentally incorrect in that it denied the national character of the question.<br />
<br />
“Our American comrades seem to think that only the direct struggle for socialism is revolutionary,” they told me, “and that the national movement detracts from that struggle and is therefore reactionary.” This, they pointed out, was an American version of the “pure proletarian revolution” concept; they referred me to Lenin’s polemic against Radek on the question of self-determination.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks also criticized my formulation of the matter as primarily a race question. To call the matter a race question, they said, was to fall into the bourgeois liberal trap of regarding the fight for equality as primarily a fight against racial prejudices of whites. This slurred over the economic and social roots of the question and obscured the question of the agrarian democratic revolution in the South, which was pivotal to the struggle for Black equality throughout the country. They pointed out that it was wrong to counterpose the struggle for equality to the struggle for self-determination. For in fact, in the South, self-determination for Blacks (political power in their own hands) was the guarantee of equality.<br />
<br />
=== HISTORY OF THE QUESTION IN THE COMINTERN ===<br />
In these discussions with my young friends, which extended over the course of several months, I became keenly aware of the gaps in my understanding of Marxist-Leninist theory on the national-colonial question. I was to find, as Nasanov and others had indicated, that the idea of Blacks as an oppressed nation was not new in the Comintern. Though Stalin was undoubtedly the person pushing the position at the time, it had not originated with him, but with Lenin himself.<br />
<br />
It first appeared in Lenin’s “Draft Theses on the National Colonial Question” which he submitted to the Second Congress of the Comintern in 1920. The draft, which was later adopted, called upon the communist parties to “render direct aid to the revolutionary movements among the dependent and underprivileged nations (for example, Ireland, the American Negroes, etc.) and in the colonies.<br />
<br />
Some have argued that Lenin’s reference to U.S. Blacks as a subject nation was merely a tentative deduction. When he submitted his draft, he asked the delegates for opinions and suggestions on fifteen points, one of which was “Negroes in America."<br />
<br />
It was recorded, however, that the Colonial Commission of the congress, which Lenin himself headed and in which Sen Katayama was a leading member, held lengthy discussions on the question of U.S, Blacks. <br />
<br />
John Reed, the American author, was a delegate and participated in the discussion, apparently in opposition to Lenin’s formulations. In fact, he made two speeches, one in the commission and one to the congress, contending that the problem of U.S. Blacks was that of “both a strong race movement and a strong proletarian workers’ movement which is rapidly developing in class consciousness.” Equating all national movements among Blacks to Garvey’s Back to Africa separatism, he contended that “a movement which struggles for a separate national existence has no success among the Negroes, like the ‘Back to Africa’ movement, for example.....” and that Blacks “consider themselves above all Americans, they feel at home in the United States. This makes the tasks of communists very much easier."<br />
<br />
But despite Reed’s objections, the reference to American Blacks as an oppressed nation remained in the resolution as finally adopted. For Lenin’s thesis was not something spun out of thin air, but was the result of a serious study of the question. This is clear from his work “New Data on the Laws Governing the Development of Capitalism in Agriculture,” which spoke about the United States,<br />
<br />
In this work, published in 1915 (and based on the U.S. Census of 1910), Lenin viewed the question of Blacks in the South as one of an uncompleted agrarian and bourgeois democratic revolution, He drew attention to the remarkable similarity between the economic positions of the South’s Black tenants and the emancipated serfs in theagrarian centers of Russia, pointing out that both groups were not tenants in the European civilized sense, but “...semi-slaves, share-croppers...”<br />
<br />
Emphasizing the absence of elementary democratic rights among Blacks, he alluded to the South as “the most stagnant area, where the masses are subjected to the greatest degradation and oppression...a kind of prison where (these ‘emancipated’ Negroes) are hemmed in, isolated, and deprived of fresh air.” These kinds of conditions, the lot of the vast majority of U.S. Blacks, undoubtedly led Lenin to conclude that their movement for “emancipation” would take a national revolutionary direction.<br />
<br />
Conclusive proof of Lenin’s thinking at the time with respect to U.S. Blacks can be found in an uncompleted work written in 1917 though not available until 1935. The work, “Statistics and Sociology,” was begun in the early part of 1917, but was interrupted by the February Revolution and never resumed. <br />
<br />
In the section of the manuscript referring to U.S. Blacks, he drew a clear distinction between their positions and that of the foreign-born immigrants, that is between the white foreign-born assimilables and the Black unassimilables.<blockquote>'''In the United States, the Negroes (and also the Mulattos and Indians) account for only 11.1 per cent. They should be classed as an oppressed nation, for the equality won in the Civil War of 1861-1865 and guaranteed by the Constitution of the republic was in many respects increasingly curtailed in the chief Negro areas (the South) in connection with the transition from the progressive, pre-monopoly capitalism of 1860-1870 to the reactionary, monopoly capitalism (imperialism) of the new era."'''</blockquote>Whereas with the white foreign-born immigrants, Lenin observed that the speed of development of capitalism in America has “produced a situation in which vast national differences are speedily and fundamentally, as nowhere else in the world, smoothed out to form a single ‘American nation.’ <br />
<br />
All of this shows that the idea that U.S. Blacks comprise an oppressed nation was neither a temporary nor tentative formulation on Lenin’s part. <br />
<br />
Despite the thesis of the Second Congress, Reed’s views reflecting as they did the position of the young American Party-— were to persist in the U.S. without serious challenge through the Fifth Congress of the Comintern. The Third Congress of 1921 recorded no discussion with respect to the character of the problem. <br />
<br />
The Fourth Congress in 1922 also did not seriously discuss the point. This mecting, however, marked the first appearance of Black delegates to the Comintern. They were Otto Huiswood as regular Party delegate, and the poet Claude McKay as a special fraternal delegate. It was also the first congress to set up a Negro Commission, and extended discussions took place on the thesis brought in by the commission which characterized the position of U.S. Blacks as an aspect of the colonial question. It stressed the special role of American Blacks in support of the liberation struggles of Africa, Central and South America and the Caribbean. <br />
<br />
The thesis of the Fourth Congress did add a new, international dimension to the question, but it did not challenge the Party's basic anti-self-determination position. This position was stressed in a speech by Huiswood (Billings) which called the Afro-American question “another phase of the racial and colonial question,’ an essentially economic problem which was “intensified by the friction which exists between the white and black races,"<br />
<br />
The discussion of the character of the question came up in the Fifth Congress in 1924, this time in connection with the Draft Program of the Communist International. For the first time since the Second Congress, the discussion centered directly on the character of the question as an oppressed nation and the appropriateness of the slogan of the right of self-determination.<br />
<br />
August Thalheimer (the German head of the Commission on the Draft Program) reported that “the slogan of the right of self-determination cannot solve all national questions,” Such is the case in the United States, “where there is an extraordinarily mixed population” and where the “race question” is also involved. Therefore, he pointed out, “the Program Commission was of the opinion that the slogan of right of self-determination must be supplemented by another slogan: ‘Equal Rights for all Nationalities and Races."<br />
<br />
Representing the U.S. at the Fifth Congress, John Pepper supported this anti-self-determination position. According to him, the United States was a country in which the different nationalities could not be separated. Self-determination was not appropriate; Blacks in the U.S, did not want it. “They do not want to set up a separate state inside the U.S.A.,” and they wish to remain inside the U.S,, not leave it for Africa. To the demand of “social equality,” he held that “we should change these words to the following: full equality in every respect.”<br />
<br />
Lovett Fort-Whiteman, the sole Black delegate, apparently supported Pepper’s position and gave his standard speech (which I was to hear a number of times in the States), He stressed the racial aspect of the problem and called for a special communist approach to Blacks.<br />
<br />
There appeared to be no opposition to the draft program, but, after all, it was only the first version. The program in its final form was to be discussed and adopted at the Sixth Congress. Apparently Zinoviev and others in the CI leadership were not satisfied with the formulation that had rejected self-determination for U.S. Blacks. Zinoviev had instructed Bob Mazut to investigate the question while on his assignment to the U.S., immediately following the congress.<br />
<br />
Such was the situation following the Fifth Congress. The question can be raised as to why the U.S. Party’s position was not seriously challenged during this whole period and why the proponents in the Comintern of the self-determination thesis failed to press for their position.<br />
<br />
Their reluctance in this regard, I presume, was because they did not want to push their position against the unanimous opposition of the American Party, including its Black members. After all, the Comintern was a voluntary union of communist parties which operated under democratic-centralism. It was not the policy of the Comintern leadership to arbitrarily force positions on member parties. <br />
<br />
=== 1928; A REEXAMINATION OF THE QUESTION ===<br />
How are we to account then for the renewed interest in the Afro-American question among certain influential leaders of the Comintern on the eve of the Sixth Congress? Why the drive to re open the question? The answer lies in the changed world situation: the sharpened crisis of the world capitalist system, consequent on the breakdown of partial capitalist stabilization, the beginning of a deepening economic depression in Europe; and the continued upsurge of the colonial revolutions in China, India and Indonesia,<br />
<br />
These harbingers of the new period were pointed out by Stalin at the Fifteenth Congress of the CPSU in early December 1927, in which he referred to the “collapsing stabilization” of capitalism. <br />
<br />
It was to be a period of revolutionary struggle. In order to lead these struggles, an attack on right opportunism was required in the practice and work of the communist parties. It was a period in which the national and colonial question was to acquire a new urgency. The CI paid special attention to the fight against those views which liquidated or downplayed the importance of the question. In this context, the Comintern felt that the establishment of a revolutionary line on the Afro-American question was key if the CPUSA was to lead the joint struggle of the Black and white working masses in the coming period.<br />
<br />
The low status of the CP’s Negro work itself was another factor pressing for a radical policy review. There had been no progress in this work, despite the prodding of the Comintern. As already mentioned, the highly touted American Negro Labor Congress had failed to even get off the ground.<br />
<br />
In a speech at the Sixth Congress, James Ford counted nineteen communications from the Comintern to the U.S, Party on Negro work, none of which had been put into effect or brought before the Party. He further observed that “we have no more than 50 Negroes in our Party, out of the 12 million Negroes in America." <br />
<br />
All of these factors strengthened the determination of the Comintern to make the Sixth Congress the arena for a drastic reevaluation of work and policy in this area.<br />
<br />
In the winter of 1928, preparations were already afoot for the Sixth Congress which was to convene the following summer. The Anglo-American Secretariat of the CI set up a special subcommitteee on the Negro question which would prepare a draft resolution for the official Negro Commission of the Congress.<br />
<br />
As I recall, the subcommittce consisted of Nasanov and five students: four Blacks (including my brother Otto and myself) and one white student, Clarence Hathaway, from the Lenin School, In addition, there were some ex-officio members: Profintern rep Bill Dunne and Comintern rep Bob Minor, They seldom attended our sessions. James Ford, who was then assigned to the Profintern, also attended some sessions.<br />
<br />
Our subcommittee met and broke the subject down into topics; each of us accepted one as his assignment to research and report on to the committee as a whole. The high point in the discussion was the report of my brother Otto on Garvey’s Back to Africa movement. In his report, he concluded that the nationalism expressed in that movement had no objective base in the economic, social and political conditions of U.S. Blacks. It was, he asserted, a foreign importation artificially grafted onto the freedom movement of U.S, Blacks by the West Indian nationalist, Garvey.<br />
<br />
U.S. Blacks, Otto concluded, were not an oppressed nation but an oppressed racial minority. The long-range goal of the movement was not the right of self-determination but complete economic, social and political equality to be won through a revolutionary alliance of Blacks and class-conscious white labor in a joint struggle for socialism against the common enemy, U.S. capitalism.<br />
<br />
Up to that point, I was still not certain as regarded tbe applicability of the right of self-determination to the problems of Blacks in the U.S., but my misgivings about the slogan had been shaken somewhat by the series of discussions I had had with my Russian friends. Otto, in his report, had merely restated the CP’s current position. But somehow, against the background of our discussion of the Garvey movement, the inadequacy of that position stood out like a sore thumb. Otto, however, had done more than simply restate the position; he brought out into the open what had been implicit in the Party’s position all along. That is, that any type of nationalism among Blacks was reactionary.<br />
<br />
This view, it occurred to me, was the logical outcome of any position which saw only the “pure proletarian” class struggle as the sole revolutionary struggle against capitalism. The Party had traditionally considered the Afro-American question as that of a persecuted racial minority. They centered their activity almost exclusively on Blacks as workers and treated the question as basically a simple trade union matter, underrating other aspects of the struggle. The struggle for equal rights was seen as a diversion that would obscure or overshadow the struggle for socialism.<br />
<br />
But how could one wage a fight against white chauvinism from that position? I thought at the time that viewing everything in light of the trade union question would lead to a denial of the revolutionary potential of the struggle of the whole people for equality. Otto’s rejection of nationalism as an indigenous trend brought these points out sharply in my mind.<br />
<br />
In the discussion, I pointed out that Otto's position was not merely a rejection of Garveyism but also a denial of nationalism as a legitimate trend in the Black freedom movement, I felt that it amounted to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. With my insight sharpened by previous discussions, I argued further that the nationalism reflected in the Garvey movement was not a foreign transplant, nor did it spring full-blown from the brow of Jove. On the contrary, it was an indigenous product, arising from the soil of Black super-exploitation and oppression in the United States, It expressed the yearnings of millions of Blacks for a nation of their own.<br />
<br />
As I pursued this logic, a totally new thought occurred to me, and for me it was the clincher. The Garvey movement is dead, I reasoned, but not Black nationalism. Nationalism, which Garvey diverted under the slogan of Back to Africa, was an authentic trend, likely to flare up again in periods of crisis and stress. Sucha movement might again fall under the leadership of utopian visionaries who would seek to divert it from the struggle against the main enemy, U.S. imperialism, and on to a reactionary separatist path. The only way such a diversion of the struggle could be forestalled was by presenting a revolutionary alternative to Blacks.<br />
<br />
To the slogan of “Back to Africa,” I argued, we must counterpose the slogan of “right of self-determination here in the Deep South.” Our slogan for the U.S, Black rebellion therefore must be the “right of self-determination in the South, with full equality throughout the country,” to be won through revolutionary alliance with politically conscious white workers against the common enemy-—-U.S. imperialism,<br />
<br />
Nasanov was seated across the table from me during this discussion and, elated at my presentation, he demonstratively rose to shake my hand. I was the first American communist (with perhaps the exception of Briggs) to support the thesis that U.S. Blacks constituted an oppressed nation.<br />
<br />
The next day, Nasanov and I submitted a resolution to the subcommittee incorporating our views. We couldn't get a majority but we had Hathaway’s support, as I remember. It was agreed that the resolution be submitted to the Anglo-American Secretariat as the views of those who subscribed to it, and those who disagreed with it would present their own views.<br />
<br />
The only really persistent opposition in the subcommittee, as I remember, came from Otto; the other students were somewhat ambivalent on the question. I attributed much of this to Sik’s influence, since he had already begun to develop his position which held that the question of U.S. Blacks was a “race” question and that Blacks should not demand seif-determination, but simply full social and political equality. His theories were later used by the Lovestoncites and others who opposed the self-determination position.<br />
<br />
Once my hesitations were overcome, the whole theory fell logicatly into place. Here is the full analysis as I came to understand it. The thesis that called for the right of selfdetermination is supported by a serious economic-historical analysis of U.S. Blacks.<br />
<br />
The evolution of American Blacks as an oppressed nation was begun in slavery. In the final analysis, however, it was the result of the unfinished bourgeois democratic revolution of the Civil War and the betrayal of Reconstruction through the Hayes-Tilden (Gentiemen’s) Agreement of 1877.<br />
<br />
This betrayal was followed by withdrawal of federal troops and the unleashing of counter-revolutionary terror, including the massacre of thousands of Blacks and the overthrow of the Reconstruction governments which had been based on an alliance of Blacks, poor whites and carpetbaggers. The result was that the Black freedmen, deserted by their former Republican allies, were left without land. Their newly-won rights were destroyed with the abrogation of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and they were thrust back upon the plantations of their former masters in a position but little removed from chattel bondage.<br />
<br />
The revolution had stopped short of a solution to the crucial land question, there was neither confiscation of the big plantations of the former slaveholding class, nor distribution of the land among the Negro freedmen and poor whites. It was around this issue of land for the freedmen that the revolutionary democratic wave of Radical Reconstruction beat in vain and finally broke.<br />
<br />
The advent of imperialism, the epoch of trusts and monopolies at the turn of the century, froze the Blacks in their post-Reconstruction position; landless, semi-slaves in the South. It blocked the road to fusion of Blacks and whites into one nation on the basis of equality and put the final seal on the special oppression of Blacks. The path towards equality and freedom via assimilation was foreclosed by these events, and the struggle for Black equality thenceforth was ultimately bound to take a national revolutionary direction.<br />
<br />
Under conditions of imperialist and racist oppression, Blacks in the South were to acquire all the attributes of a subject nation. They are a people set apart by a common ethnic origin, economically interrelated in various classes, united by a common historical experience, reflected in a special culture and psychological makeup. The territory of this subject nation is the Black Belt, an area encompassing the Deep South, which, despite massive outmigrations, still contained (and does to this day) the country’s largest concentration of Blacks.<br />
<br />
Thus, imperialist oppression created the conditions for the eventual rise ofa national liberation movement with its base in the South. The content of this movement would be the completion of the agrarian democratic revolution in the South; that is, the right of self-determination as the guarantee of complete equality throughout the country.<br />
<br />
This new analysis defined the status of Blacks in the north as an unassimilable national minority who cannot escape oppression by fleeing the South. The shadow of the plantation falls upon them throughout the country, as the semi-slave relations in the Black Belt continually reproduce Black inequality and servitude in all walks of life.<br />
<br />
There are certain singular features of the submerged Afro-American nation which differentiate it from other oppressed nations and which have made the road towards national eonsciousness and identity difficult and arduous. Afro-Americans are not only “a nation within a nation,” but a captive nation, suffering a colonial-type oppression while trapped within the geographic bounds of one of the world’s most powerful imperialist countries.<br />
<br />
Blacks were forced into the stream of U.S. history in a peculiar manner, as chattel slaves, and are victims of an excruciatingly destructive system of oppression and persecution, due not only to the economic and social survivals of slavery, but also to its ideological heritage, racism.<br />
<br />
The Afro-American nation is also unique in that it is a new nation evolved from a people forcibly transplanted from their original African homeland. A people comprised of various tribal and linguistic groups, they are a product not of their native African soil, but of the conditions of their transplantation.<br />
<br />
The overwhelming, stifling factor of race, the doctrine of inherent Black inferiority perpetuated by ruling class ideologues, has sunk deep into the thinking of Americans. It has become endemic, permeating the entire structure of U.S. life. Given this, Blacks could only remain permanently unabsorbed in the new world’s “melting pot.”<br />
<br />
The race factor has also left its stigma on the consciousness of the Black nation, creating a powerful mystification about Black Americans which has served to obscure their objective status as an oppressed nation. It has twisted the direction of the Afro-American liberation movement and scarred it while still in its embryonic state.<br />
<br />
Although the objective base for equality and freedom via direct integration was foreclosed by the defeat of Reconstruction andthe advent of the U.S. as an imperialist power, bourgeois assimilationist illusions were continued into the new era. They were nurtured and kept alive by the nascent Black middle class and the liberal detachment of the white bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Conditions, however, were maturing for the rise of a mass nationalist movement. This movement was to burst with explosive force upon the political scene in the period following World War I, with the rise of the Garvey movement. The potentially revolutionary movement of Black toilers was diverted into utopian reactionary channels of a peaceful return to Africa.<br />
<br />
The period of bourgeois democratic revolutions in the United States ended with the defeat of democratic Reconstruction. The issue of Black freedom was carried over into the epoch of imperialism. Its full solution postponed to the next stage of human progress, socialism. The question has remained and become the most vulnerable area on the domestic front of U.S. capitalism, its “Achilles heel”—a major focus of the contradictions in U.S. society.<br />
<br />
Blacks, therefore, in the struggle for national liberation and the entire working class in its struggle for socialism are natural allies. The forging of this alliance is enhanced by the presence of a growing Black industria} working class. with direct and historical connections with white labor.<br />
<br />
This new line established that the Black freedom struggle is a revolutionary movement in its own right, directed against the very foundations of U.S. imperialism, with its own dynamic pace and momentum, resulting from the unfinished democratic and land revolutions in the South. It places the Black liberation movement and the class struggle of U.S. workers in their proper relationship as two aspects of the fight against the common enemy—U.S. capitalism, It elevates the Black movement to a position of equality in that battle.<br />
<br />
The new theory destroys forever the white racist theory traditional among class-conscious white workers which had relegated the struggle of Blacks to a subsidiary position in the revolutionary movement. Race is defined as a device of national oppression, a smokescreen thrown up by the class enemy, to hide the underlying economic and social conditions involved in Black oppression and to maintain the division of the working class.<br />
<br />
The new theory was to sensitize the Party to the revolutionary significance of the Black liberation struggle. During the crisis of the thirties, a significant segment of radicalized white workers would come to see the Blacks as revolutionary allies.<br />
<br />
The struggle for this position had now begun; there remained its adoption by the Comintern and its final acceptance by the U.S. Party. Our draft resolution, which summed up these points, was turned over to Petrovsky (Bennett), Chairman of the AngloAmerican Secretariat. He seemed quite pleased with it, expressed his agreement and suggested some minor changes. He agreed to submit it to the Negro Commission at the forthcoming Sixth Congress.<br />
<br />
I continued to work with Nasanov on preparations for the congress. By that time, we had become quite a team. Our next project was the South African question, a question which also fell under the jurisdiction of the Anglo-American Secretariat.<br />
<br />
We were assigned to work with James La Guma, a South African Colored comrade who had come to Moscow to attend the Tenth Anniversary celebrations and stayed on to discuss with the ECCI and the Anglo-American Secretariat the problems of the South African Party. Specifically, we were to draft a new resolution on the question, restating and elaborating the Comintern line of an independent Native South African Republic, (The word “Native” was in common usage at the time of the Sixth Congress, though today it is considered derogatory and has been replaced with Black republic or Azania.) <br />
<br />
=== SOUTH AFRICA ===<br />
This line, formulated the year before with the cooperation of La Guma during his first visit to the Soviet Union in the spring of 1927, had been rejected by the leadership of the South African Party.<br />
<br />
La Guma, as I recall, was a young brown-skinned man of Malagasy and French parentage. In South Africa, this placed him in the Colored category, a rung above the Natives on the racial ladder established by the white supremacist rulers. Colored persons were defined as those of mixed blood, including descendants of Javanese slaves, mixed in varying degrees with European whites.<br />
<br />
La Guma, however, identified completely with the Natives and their movement. He had been general secretary of the ICU (Industrial and Commercial Union, the federation of Native trade unions) and also secretary of the Capetown branch of the ANC. Later, after his expulsion from the ICU by the red-baiting clique of Clements Kadalie (a Native social democrat), La Guma became secretary of the non-European trade union federation in Cape town.<br />
<br />
La Guma was the first South African communist I had ever met. I was delighted and impressed with him and was to find, in the course of our brief collaboration, striking parallels between the struggles of U.S. Blacks for equality and those of the Native South Africans. In both countries, the white leadership of their respective parties underestimated the revolutionary potential of the Black movement,<br />
<br />
La Guma had made his first trip to Moscow the year before. He and Josiah Gumede, president of the ANC, had come as delegates to the inaugural conference of the League Against Imperialism which had convened in Brussels, Belgium, in February 1927. Gumede attended as a delegate from the ANC, while La Guma was a delegate from the South African Communist Party. It was La Guma’s first international gathering, and he had the opportunity to meet with leaders from colonial and semi-colonial countries and discuss the South African question with them. Madame Sun Yat-sen and Pandit Nehru were among those present, The conference adopted the resolutions of the South African delegates on the right of self-determination through the complete overthrow of imperialism. The general resolutions of the congress proclaimed: “Africa for the Africans, and their full freedom and equality with other races and the right to govern Afriea.”<br />
<br />
After Brussels, La Guma went on a speaking tour to Germany, after which he came to Moscow. Although the Brussels conference had called for the right of self-determination, it left unanswered many specific questions that are raised by that slogan. Were the Natives in South Africa a nation? What was to be done with the whites?<br />
<br />
La Guma was to find the answer to these questions in Moscow, where he consulted with ECCI leaders, including Bukharin, who was then president of the Comintern. He participated with ECCI leaders in the formulation of a resolution on the South Afriean question, calling for the return of the land to the natives and for “an independent native South African republic as a stage towards a workers’ and peasants’ republic with full, equal rights for all races.”<br />
<br />
La Guma returned to South Africa with the resolution in June 1927, Gumede also arrived home in the same month. But the resolution was received hostilely by Bunting and was rejected by the South African Party leadership at its annual conference in December 1927.<br />
<br />
Bunting was a British lawyer who had come to South Africa some years before. An early South African socialist and a founder of the Communist Party, he was the son of a British peer. As Bunting later commented, he nearly used up the small fortune he had inherited in the support of Party work and publications.<br />
<br />
Bunting and his followers insisted that the South African revolution, unlike those in the colonies, was a direct struggle for socialism without any intermediary stages. To the Comintern slogan of a “Native South African Republic,” Bunting counterposed the slogan of a “Workers’ and Peasants’ Republic.” This concept of “pure proletarian revolution” was an echo of what we had found in the U.S. Party with respect to Blacks. But here, the error stood out grotesquely given the reality of the South African situation with its overwhelming Native majority.<br />
<br />
it was against this background that La Guma and Gumede left to go to Moscow to attend the Tenth Anniversary celebrations, and the Congress of the Friends of the Soviet Union. La Guma apparently was not in Moscow on that oceasion; he was probably out on a tour of the provinces. Both he and Gumede travelled widely during their visit to the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
Our purpose at this time was to develop and clarify the line laid down in the resolution formulated the previous year. Our draft, with few changes, was adopted by the Sixth Congress of the Comintern and the ECCI.<br />
<br />
As already noted, Bunting had put forward the slogan of a South African “Workers’ and Peasants’ Government.” Bunting’s formulation denied the colonial character of South Africa, He failed, therefore, to see the inherent revolutionary nature of the Natives’ struggle for emancipation.<br />
<br />
As opposed to this, our resolution began with a definition of South Africa as “a British dominion of the colonial type” whose colonial features included:<br />
<br />
1, The country was exploited by British imperialism, with the participation of the South African white bourgeoisie (British and Boer), with British capital occupying the principal economic position.<br />
<br />
2. The overwhelming majority of the population were Natives and Colored (five million Natives and Colored, with one and a half million whites, according to the 1921 Census).<br />
<br />
3. Natives, who held only one-eighth of the land, were almost completely landless, the great bulk of their land having been expropriated by the white minority.<br />
<br />
4, The “great difference in wages and material conditions of the white and black proletariat,” and the widespread corruption of the white workers by the racist propaganda and ideology of the imperialists.<br />
<br />
These features, we held, determined the character of the South African revolution which, in its first stage, would be a struggle of Natives and non-European peoples for independence and land. As the previous resolution had done, our draft (in the form adopted by the Sixth Congress and the ECCI) held that as a result of these canditions, in order to lead and influence that movement, communists—black and white—must put forth and fight for the general political slogan of “an independent Native South African Republic as a stage towards a workers’ and peasants’ republic, with full, equal rights for all races, black, coloured and white.”<br />
<br />
“South Afriea is a black country,” the resolution went onto say, with a mainly black peasant population, whose land had been expropriated by the white colonizers. Therefore, the agrarian question lies at the foundation of the revolution. The black peasantry, in alliance with and under the leadership of the working class, is the main driving foree. Thus, along with the slogan of a “Native Republic,” the Party must place the slogan “return of the land to the Natives.”<br />
<br />
This latter formulation does not appear in the resolution as finally adopted. Instead, it includes the following two formulations:<br />
<br />
1. Whites must accept the “correct principle that South Africa belongs to the native population.”<br />
<br />
2. “The basic question in the agrarian situation in South Africa is the land hunger of the blacks and . . . their interest is of prior importance in the solution of the agrarian question.”<br />
<br />
With the new resolution completed, La Guma returned to South Africa. In the year since the first resolution, the opposition to the line had intensified and had already come to a head at the December Party Congress—-even before La Guma’s return.<br />
<br />
Bunting put forward his position in a fourteen page document in the early part of 1928. He equated the nationalism of the Boer minority to the nationalism of the Natives and justified his opposition to nationalism on the basis that all national movements were subject to capitalist corruption, and, in the case of South Afriea, a national movement among Natives “would probably only accelerate the fusion, in opposition to it, of the Dutch and British imperialists." Since it would thus only consolidate the forees against it, it was not to be supported.<br />
<br />
Bunting not only underrated nationalism, he played on the whites’ fear of it and raised the specter of blacks being given free reign, with a resulting campaign to drive the whites into thesea. He was echoing the specter that was haunting whites who remembered the song of the Xhosas:<blockquote>'''To chase the white men from the earth''' <br />
<br />
'''And drive them to the sea.'''<br />
<br />
'''The sea that cast them up at first'''<br />
<br />
'''For Ama Xhosa’s curse and bane''' <br />
<br />
'''Howls for the progeny she nursed'''<br />
<br />
'''To swallow them again.'''</blockquote>According to Bunting, the elimination of whites seemed to be implied in the slogan of a “Native Republic.” He regarded the phrase “safeguards for minorities ” as having little meaning, since whites would assume that the existing injustices would be reversed; that, in effect, blacks would do to them what they had been handing out for so long.<br />
<br />
While Bunting had held that all nationalism was reactionary, La Guma distinguished between the revolutionary nationalism of the Natives and the “nationalism” of the Boers (which in reality was simply a quarrel between sections of the ruling class), He argued that the communists must not hold back on the revolutionary demands of the Natives in order to pacify the white workers who are still “saturated with an imperialist ideology” and conscious of the privileges they enjoy at the Natives’ expense. <br />
<br />
Bunting held that the road to socialism would be traveled under white leadership; to La Guma, the securing of black rights was the first step to be taken, As the Simonses described it, “First establish African majority rule, he argued, and unity, leading to socialism, would follow.” La Guma called on communists to “build up a mass party based upon the non-European masses,” put forward the slogan of a Native Republic and thus destroy the traditional subservience to whites among Africans. This argument continued up through the Sixth Congress.<br />
<br />
=== MY STAY IN THE CAUCASUS ===<br />
In the middle of April 1928, I left Moscow for a stay in the Caucasus. The winter had been one of those long, cold, dark Moscow winters, Snow was still on the ground in April, Over the whole season, I had been plagued by recurrent seizures of grippe. Between the demands of school and the preparations for the Sixth Congress, it had been a winter of intense activity, Undoubtedly, this had contributed to my inability to shake off the illness. By the spring, I was pretty run down. <br />
<br />
The school doctor detected a slight anemia and recommended a month in a rest home. So, I was shipped off to Kislovodsk, a famous health resort in the northern Caucasus. I traveled south and east, across the Ukrainian steppe, where spring had already come to Rostov-on-Don, the administrative center for the northerm Caucasus region, Then on to Mincralny Vody (Mineral Water), the gateway to the Caucasus and a major railroad junction. I changed there for Kislovodsk, a short distance further towards the mountains.<br />
<br />
Stepping off the train in Kislovodsk in early morning, I felt better at my first breath of fresh mountain air. The city was located in the foothills on the northern range of the Caucasus. Its mineral springs were famed for their medicinal properties, especially for coronary patients. Formerly a famous watcring-place for the wealthy, it was now enjoyed by all the Soviet people. Kislovodsk was the source of the famous Narzan water which cost forty or fifty kopeks a bottle in Moscow. Here it bubbled from the ground in numerous springs, and you could drink all you wanted.<br />
<br />
Checking in at the sanitarium, I was assigned to a room shared by three others-—two workers and a Party functionary from Tbilisi named Kolya Tsereteli. Kolya was a tall, handsome, swarthy young man. He cut quite a figure in his long Georgian robochka, soft leather boots, high astrakhan cap and ornamental belt, complete with kinjal (dagger). He immediately took me in charge and became my constant companion during my stay there. <br />
<br />
After I had been examined by a doctor who prescribed daily baths, Kolya took me around on a sightseeing tour. The sun was coming up over the parks, cypress trees and places for open air concerts.<br />
<br />
After several weeks, I felt much better and was soon chafing at the bit, bored with the regimen and eager to return to Moscow, At this point Kolya suggested that we might try to arrange my accompanying him to his home in Tbilisi (hot springs) and stay for a week before returning to Moscow. I was delighted and had no difficulty in getting both my release from the sanitarium and permission from the school to make the trip.<br />
<br />
Tbilisi--the Florence of the Caucasus—was a beautiful modern city, stretching for miles along both sides of the Kura River. Ithad spacious avenues lined by stately cypress trees; handsome buildings and apartments, a magnificent cathedral, its great central dome flanked by four cupolas, framed against a background of the mountains of the mighty Caucasus chain, with Mount David rising 2,500 fect above the city.<br />
<br />
It was a mixed population of mainly Georgians, Armenians, Jews and some Turko-Tartars. Kolya explained that there actually were more Armenians than Georgians living there in the capital of Georgia! He went on to tell me that in the Caucasus, ethnic groups often overlapped their national boundaries as finally constituted. This was particularly so in the case of the Armenians, who were the victims of genocidal persecution and dispersal by Turkey. As a result, there were more Armenians in Azerbaidzhan and Georgia than in the Armenian Republic itself.<br />
<br />
In the old days, Georgian nationalism was directed more against the Armenians than against the Russians. The Armenians had a larger merchant class. They dominated commerce and were an obstacle to the growth of the weak Georgian bourgeoisie who retaliated by whipping up national animosity against the Armenians. Hence, national hatred was often directed against rival national groups rather than against the dominant Czarist power, and the Czarist government exploited these animosities fully.<br />
<br />
The area was known for bloody battles between the various ethnic groups, But all that ended with the revolution, Kolya said, and with the establishment of the Trans-Caucasian Federation. based on national equality and voluntary consent. <br />
<br />
Within the federation, which was composed of three republics (Georgia, Azerbaidzhan and Armenia), the Georgian republic had three minority distriets; Abkhazia and Azaria as autonomous republics, and Yugo-Osetia as an autonomous region, National languages and cultures were flourishing under the new regime.<br />
<br />
“As you will see, here in Tbilisi we have Georgian, Armenian and Russian theaters,” Kolya told me.<br />
<br />
Kolya hailed an izvozchik and we rode to his apartment, located on one of the broad tree-lined avenues of the city. Arriving there, we were happily greeted by his family, His wife, an attractive young schoolteacher, received me warmly and told me that Kolya had written her about me. They had two beautiful children, a boy of about three and a girl about five. They seemed fascinated with my appearance and couldn't take their eyes off me. I was undoubtedly the first Black man they had ever seen. <br />
<br />
On being told by Kolya to “shake hands with the black uncle,” the boy hesitantly extended his little hand. ,<br />
<br />
I took it and gently shook it. When he withdrew it, he looked at his hand to see whether some of the black had come off and seemed rather surprised that it hadn’t.<br />
<br />
“No, it won’t come off,” I said, and we all laughed. I had experienced this reaction from Russian children in Moscow, and it never failed to amuse me.<br />
<br />
The Tseretelis lived in a clean and neatly-furnished three-room apartment on the second floor of the building, with a balcony over the sidewalk. As if reading my thoughts, Kolya said, “Don’t worry, we all usually sleep in one room; the other is for my brother who stays here with us. He is out of town, so you can stay in his room.”<br />
<br />
Kolya was anxious to cheek in at the Party office where he worked, so we left our baggage and walked to his office a short distance away. I was interested in the people we passed. They looked better dressed than the Russians back in Moscow, their costumes were gayer. Perhaps it was due to the milder climate,<br />
<br />
Kolya served as the deputy secretary of the Agitprop Department of the Tbilisi Committee of the Communist Party. He introduced me to his fellow workers in the department; they all seemed glad to see him and remarked how well he looked after his rest. They were speaking Georgian; Kolya asked them to speak in Russian in deference to me, They all seemed to be multilingual. Kolya, I knew, besides his native Georgian, spoke Russian, Armenian and some French. The comrades insisted on calling a conference. Like most Party officials, they were well-informed on both domestic and international questions and were an educated audience.<br />
<br />
They asked me my impressions of their country, and they also had questions about the situation in the United States, about the conditions of Blacks. Kolya told them that I was a student at the Lenin School in Moscow and that formerly I had been at KUTVA. They knew about KUTVA as they too had sent students there. They were interested in the work I had done in preparation for the forthcoming Sixth Congress, and they were familiar with Stalin's report to the Fifteenth Party Congress from that December, where he described the international situation. They asked me questions about the international situation and the war danger and we exchanged opinions.<br />
<br />
Kolya explained that I was only going to bein town for acouple of days. It was Friday then, and I was scheduled to leave on Sunday. As I remember, we took a car from the pool and two or three people from the office accompanied us on a sightseeing tour along the banks of the river.<br />
<br />
We returned to Kolya’s home where his wife had a delicious big meal waiting for us: shashlik, fruits and pastries. We sat up until late that night telling stories.<br />
<br />
The next day we saw a number of places of interest, bathed in the famous hot sulfur springs, went up to the summit of Mount David and saw the old church on the mountain, which dated back centuries, and the mausoleum of famous Georgian poets and patriots. All in all we spent a very enjoyable weekend together.<br />
<br />
On Sunday, Kolya and his wife took me to the station and put me on the train for Moscow. Three days later I was back home. I saw Kolya once again when he was on a visit to Moscow and I took him out to dinner.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 9 ==<br />
<br />
=== Sixth Congress of the Comintern: A Blow Against the Right ===<br />
The Sixth World Congress of the Comintern, held in Moscow in July and August of 1928, was a historic turning point in the world communist movement. Early in July the first U.S. delegates arrived, anxious to get the “lay of the land” and to scout the political situation in the capital of world revolution. As I recall, Lovestone’s group staked out headquarters at the Lux Hotel, while the Foster-Cannon opposition gathered at the Bristol, a short distance further up the street.<br />
<br />
A number of us from the Lenin School were on hand when our comrades in the Foster group arrived. We got together to talk with a number of them, though Foster, Cannon and Bittelman were not present. They were anxious to get a report on the situation in the Soviet Party: Which leaders were involved in the right opposition? What was Bukharin doing? Where did he stand?<br />
<br />
We gave them a rundown on the situation as we saw it. The issues in the discussion included industrialization, the five-year plan, collectivization, the drive against the Kulaks and the war danger.<br />
<br />
We told them about disagreements in the CPSU. There was talk of a hidden right faction involving such leaders as Rykov, Tomsky and possibly Bukharin. Thus far, however, there were only rumors and speculations. The fight was not yet out in the open, but was confined to the Politburo and the Central Committee. A plenum of the Central Committee had been called on the eve of the Sixth Congress and was at that moment in session. We told them that we could undoubtedly find out at the congress if there were any new developments,<br />
<br />
On their part, our fellow oppositionists ran down the latest developments in the inner-Party struggle at home. We already knew of the findings of a special American Commission which had been set up at the Eighth Plenum of the CI in May 1927. The commission’s final resolution had called for the unconditional abolition of all factionalism. Both sides ignored the resolution. however, as the most vicious factionalism continued in the Party. At the Fifth Convention of the CPUSA in the fall of 1927, the Lovestone-Pepper bunch were able to out-maneuver the Foster-Cannon opposition and win control of the organizational apparatus.<br />
<br />
Firmly in the saddle of power and riding high, their support came from the belief on the part of the membership that the Lovestone group had the endorsement of the Comintern—a myth assiduously cultivated by the Lovestone cohorts. They were playing a deceitful game of double-bookkeeping, both with respect to the Comintern as well as to the membership at home. Their method was to give lip service to the fight against the right danger. while in practice undermining its application and attempting to pin the label of “right” on the opposition. Typical of this duplicity was their sabotage of the line of the Red International of Labor Unions’ (RILU) Fourth Congress, which had called for the formation of the new unions in industries and areas where the workers were unorganized.<br />
<br />
In the U.S., the new upsurge in class struggle, combined wit refusal of the AFL craft-type union caters to ieee ie majority of industrial workers, demanded that the communists take the lead and organize the unions themselves. ;<br />
<br />
At this point in the discussion it was pointed out that Foster himself was still not clear on the question of the formation of the new unions. Other members of the grouping admitted that they had also vacillated on the question when it was first raised—after the decisions of the Fourth RILU Congress-—but it appeared that they now had a better grasp of the matter.<br />
<br />
On the question of the estimate of the international situation, they pointed out that their record was clear, whereas the leadership definitely underestimated the economic crisis and radicalization of the workers. They admitted that they were late in pressing the question of independent unions, but now they had finally decided to launch textile, mining and needle trades industrial unions. Lovestone had jumped on the bandwagon at the last minute as a loud trumpeter of the “new unions” line in an attempt to clear his record before the World Congress.<br />
<br />
On the whole, our comrades were full of fight and optimistic at the outcome of placing their case before the World Congress. They seemed sure that they would get a favorable hearing. The strategy was to expose the Lovestone-Pepper leadership as the embodiment of the right danger in the U.S. Party and to explode the myth of their Comintern support, thus laying the basis for the victory of the opposition at the next Party convention. This strategy was pressed at the numerous caucus meetings of the opposition bloc which I attended before and during the congress.<br />
<br />
But all was not well within the ranks of the opposition; that much was evident at the first meeting of our caucus. Foster, the leader of the minority, came under sharp attack for his vacillation on the question of the new unions from his immediate co-workers, Bittelman, Cannon, Browder and Johnstone. Foster had not been alone in his resistance to the new policy. Most of the members of the minority had vacillated on, if not openly resisted, the decisions of the Ninth Plenum and of the Fourth Congress of the RILU on this question.<br />
<br />
But Foster had been the most stubborn, clinging to the old policy based on the organized workers, rather than the unorganized, which placed main emphasis on work within the old reactionary-dominated AFL unions. This policy, which Lozovsky had caricatured as “dancing a quadrille,..around the AFL and its various unions,” regarded the organization of unions independent of the AFL as “dual unionism”--a heresy left over from the days of the IWW.<br />
<br />
Just a month before, in the May Plenum of the CC of the CPUSA, Foster had written a trade union resolution which was supported by Lovestone, While it called for the building of independent textile and miners’ unions, it still reflected many illusions as to the gains communists could make within the AFL. Foster could not bring himself to fully criticize his earlier mistakes, which left Lovestone free to use Foster as a cover for his rightist position.<br />
<br />
All of this was bad for the minority; it blurred the image that it sought to present to the congress—that of consistent fighters against the right danger. There was a heated exchange at the first meeting of the minority caucus. As I recall, Foster contended that he had not in principle been against the new turn, but against those who interpreted it as a signal for desertion of the work in the old unions, It was clear that at this point Foster had lost leadership (at least temporarily) of his own group. Bittelman was chosen to make the report for the minority in the American Commission of the congress,<br />
<br />
With tempers still frayed, we passed on to a brief exchange on the Afro-American question and the proposed new line on self-determination, which they all knew was coming up for fulldress discussion at the congress. I gave a brief outline of the position and how I had been led to it by the study of the Garvey movement.<br />
<br />
Then someone raised the inevitable question, Wouldn't this be construed as an endorsement of Black separation? Does it not conflict with the struggle against segregation?<br />
<br />
Foster objected to that implication, maintaining that selfdetermination didn’t necessarily mean separation. He drew an analogy to our trade union policy with respect to Blacks, He pointed out the necessity to fight for the organization of Blacks and whites in one union and against all segregation, But in unions where Jim Crow bars exclude Blacks, Foster said, we support their right to organize their own separate unions, In such situations, the organization of Black unions should be regarded as a step toward eventual unity and not an advocacy of separation.<br />
<br />
It was evident that Foster had studied the question and was attempting to relate it to his own practical experience. While his analogy was oversimplified, he was clearly taking a correct stand.<br />
<br />
Bittelman, as I recall, seemed the clearest of all. Perhaps this was as a result of his Russian revolutionary background and some acquaintance with the Bolshevik policy on the national question. He pointed out the necessity of making a distinction between the right of separation and separation itself. Separation or independence is only one of the options; there were various forms of federation as Soviet experience had shown. The central question was one of building unity of Black and white workers against U.S. capitalism and this could be achieved only by recognition of the right of self-determination.<br />
<br />
I was happy about the support given to the position by Foster and Bittelman, As the main theoretician of the minority, Bittelman had a great deal of influence. Certainly there was unclarity among the caucus members, but by and large I was favorably impressed by this first airing of the question. After all, I reasoned, the proposed new line did represent a radical shift from past policy. There seemed to be a modesty among these people and a sincere desire to give the matter a full hearing.<br />
<br />
I felt that on the whole my comrades were an honest lot, Despite factional considerations, they were motivated by the overriding desire to achieve clarity on a question which up to that point had frustrated the Party’s best efforts.<br />
<br />
In the caucus meetings, I had my first close-up view of some of the leaders with whom I was to work in the future. Mostly from the midwest, with genuine roots in the American labor tradition, they were a pretty impressive bunch. Most had broad mass experience—especially in the trade union field. The roots of the Lovestone group were much more grounded among former functionaries and propagandists of the Socialist Party.<br />
<br />
William Z. Foster, leader of the minority bloc, was also the leader in the Party’s trade union work. A self-educated man, he had worked at a number of trades, including longshoreman, seaman, lumberjack, street-car conductor and railroad worker Born in Massachusetts, he spent his early childhood in Philadelphia and came into prominence as a trade union leader in Chicago.<br />
<br />
He had been a left socialist, then, for a brief period, joined with the Wobblies. He soon clashed with them on the issue of dual unionism. Foster himself opted for the French syndicalist policy of boring from within the established unions. He joined the Communist Party in the summer of 1921 and brought an entire group of trade unionists with him.<br />
<br />
In Chicago, Foster was deeply involved in trade union work. He had served as business agent for the Brotherhood of Railroad Car Men of America; was a founder of the TUEL; initiated the nationwide drive to organize the stockyard workers in 1917; and was leader of the 1919 steel strike, the attempt to organize 365,000 steelworkers. It was in this strike that he became a nationally known left trade union figure.<br />
<br />
The first time I saw Foster in action was at the Fourth Party Convention in Chicago in the summer of 1925. I remember him angrily pacing with clenched fists back and forth across the platform behind Ruthenberg as the latter berated him from the rostrum. Here in the caucus, he was again an angry man, but under the lashing of his friends and co-factionalists.<br />
<br />
Jack Johnstone, a Scotsman, still had the Scot’s burr in his Speech. An ex-Wobbly and close co-worker of Foster, he had been one of the young radical Chicago trade unionists. A member of the Chicago Federation of Labor from the Painters Union, Johnstone was a leader in the TUEL. I had met him at the Fourth RILU Congress. His name was familiar to me because of his role as a leader in the organization of the Chicago stockyard workers in which my sister had been involved. Johnstone was the organizer of the drive for the Chicago Federation of Labor and later became secretary of the Chicago Stockyards Council with 55,000 white and Black members.<br />
<br />
On the eve of the 1919 riots, he had helped to organize a parade of white stockyard unionists through the Southside in solidarity with the Black workers. I had the pleasure of working with Johnstone later in Pittsburgh and in Chicago, where he was industrial organizer for the district. He was a quiet, unassuming guy with a wry sense of humor.<br />
<br />
Earl Browder of Wichita, Kansas, served his ideological apprenticeship as a radical trade unionist in the socialist and cooperative movements. Arrested in 1917 on charges of defying the draft law, he spent three years in the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas.<br />
<br />
I had known Browdcr briefly in Moscow while he was rep to the Profintern, before he went on a two year mission to the Far East for that organization. We KUTVA students would often visit him at his room in the Lux Hotel where he would play checkers with Golden, who usually won. He told us that when he was at Leavenworth, he had met a number of former members of the Black Twenty-fourth Infantry who had been involved in the mutiny-riot in Houston, Texas, in the summer of 1917. He told us that they often played baseball together in prison. <br />
<br />
At the time, Browder seemed to me to be a quiet, modest, unassuming man. But at this caucus mecting, something had happened which seemed to have transformed him into a “new’ Browder. Though long associated with Foster, he now seemed bent on not only asserting his independence, but on establishing his own claim to leadership.<br />
<br />
At one point in the heated discussion on trade union policy, he exclaimed sarcastically: “You expect to get the support of the Comintern, but you're all divided among yourselves! There’s a Cannon group, a Bittelman Group, a Foster Group—well, I'm for the Browder Group!”<br />
<br />
No one seemed to take his remark seriously, but less than a year later Browder was to emerge as secretary of the Party.<br />
<br />
James P. Cannon was also from Kansas—a tall, raw-boned midwesterner of Irish descent. He came from the same trade union background as the other caucus leaders; he had been a traveling organizer for the Wobblies and an editor of a number of labor papers. Hc was a supporter of Trotsky, although he didn’t admit it at the congress. Later he split from the Party and helped form the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party. <br />
<br />
Bil} Dunne was a man of impressive credentials. Raised in Minnesota, Dunne entered the trade union movement as an electrician. Then in Butte, Montana, during World War I, he edited the Butte Daily Bulletin (official organ of the Montana Federation of Labor and the Butte Central Labor Council).<br />
<br />
Dunne had been secretary of a local of electricians, vice-president of the Montana Federation of Labor and a member of the state legislature (on the Democratic ticket, which in Butte was labor controlled). He helped organize the Socialist Party Branch of Butte and brought it into the Communist Labor Party in 1919.<br />
<br />
I got to know Bill quite well; he was in the Soviet Union for some months before the Sixth Congress as a Profintern rep. I first met him through Clarence Hathaway, and both were associated with the Cannon sub-group. Bill was familiar with the emerging line on self-determination and supported it. He had written a number of articles on Black workers in the mid-twenties.<br />
<br />
To me, he was the most colorful figure in our caucus anda man of unusual brilliance. Keen-witted, sharp in debate, he had an extraordinary sense of humor. Of Irish and French-Canadian parentage, Bill was short and heavy-set, with black bushy eyebrows. He cut a romantic figure onthe streets of Moscow in his Georgian rabochka and sheathed dagger at his waist. I had aclose friendship with Bill which lasted over a number of years.<br />
<br />
Alexander Bittelman was a Russian Jew who had emigrated to the United States when in his early twenties. A little fellow. Bittelman was both ascetic and scholarly. He had been in the socialist movement in Russia and continued on in his political work in the U.S. A serious Marxist student, Bittelman was the main theoretician for the Foster group.<br />
<br />
=== THE LOVESTONE CAUCUS ===<br />
The Lovestone-Pepper caucus was meeting at the same time. They too were mapping out plans for the battle on the floor of the congress. Lovestone also had his troubles—most involved the shedding of his opportunist reputation for that of “crusader against the right danger.”<br />
<br />
Most of the “big guns” were on the scene: Lovestone, Pepper, Weinstone and Wolfe. Gitlow, Bedacht and others were left at home as caretakers; Gitlow ostensibly to carry on the Party’s election campaign (in which he was vice-presidential candidate).<br />
<br />
While I was the only Black in the minority caucus, the Lovestone-Pepper caucus claimed the allegiance, if not the ardent support, of a number of leading Black comrades. In the nine months since the convention, the Lovestone-Pepper leadership had attempted to patch its fences in the work among Blacks. Otto Huiswood, now a member of the Central Committee and district organizer in Buffalo, was the first Black district organizer. Richard B. Moore was assigned to the International Labor Defense, and Cyril P. Briggs was editor of The Crusader News Service, which was subsidized by the Party.<br />
<br />
But none of these could be called ardent supporters of Lovestone. They were all dissatisfied with the status of Afro-American work, which was reflected in the small number of Black cadre in the Party. In general, it was still difficult to draw a hard and fast distinction between the factions on questions concerning Afro-American work.<br />
<br />
Blacks in the Lovestone delegation included H.V. Phillips and Fort-Whiteman (both directly from the United States) and students from the graduating group at KUTVA—Otto, Farmer and Williams (Golden had already left for home). The group also included William L. Patterson, the young attorney who had worked with the Party on the Sacco-Vanzetti case and who had been sent to KUTVA just before the congress.<br />
<br />
James Ford, who worked in the Profintern and was to become an outstanding Party leader in the thirties, stood aloof from both groups as I remember. His sympathies seemed to be with the Foster-Cannon opposition, however.<br />
<br />
Among the Blacks attending the congress, I was the only one supporting the new line on self-determination. The others insisted that “it was a race question, not a national question,” implying that the solution lay through assimilation under socialism. Probing deeper, I found that most were hung up on a purist and non-Marxist concept of the class struggle which ruled out all strivings towards nationality and Black identity as divisive, running counter to internationalism and Black and white unity.<br />
<br />
It was an American version of the “pure proletarian revolution” concept; a domestic manifestation of the old deviation in the socialist and communist movements against which Lenin, Stalin and others had fought in the development of the Bolshevik policy on the national and colonial question.<br />
<br />
Recalling that I myself had held the same view just a few months back, I felt that the resistance of Blacks in the Party to self-determination would be overcome through exposure in the discussions at the congress of the proposed new line. I had no doubt that they would come to see, as I had, the grand irony of a situation in which we Blacks, who so vociferously complained about our white comrades underestimating the revolutionary significance of the Afro-American question, were guilty of the same sin. For the revolutionary significance of the struggle for Black rights lay precisely in the recognition of its character as essentially that of the struggle of an oppressed nation against U.S. imperialism,<br />
<br />
At this point, the opposition to the idea of Black self-determination was to receive theoretical support from an unexpected source, This opposition came from Professor Sik, my old teacher at KUTVA, who was still teaching the Black students there, Sik contended that bourgeois race ideology, which fostered racial prejudices, was the prime factor in the oppression of U.S. Blacks. Therefore, their fight for equal rights should be regarded not as that of an oppressed nation striving for equality via self-determination but, on the contrary, as the fight of an oppressed racial minority (similar to the Jews under cezarism) for assimilation as equals into U.S. society. <br />
<br />
Sik undoubtedly thought that he was presenting original views, but stripped of their pseudo-Marxist phraseology, they were the old bourgeois-liberal reformist views. He slurred over the socioeconomic factors that lay at the base of the question, factors which call for the completion of the agrarian-democratic revolution in the South, His perspective divested the Black movement of its independent revolutionary thrust, reducing it to a bourgeois liberal opposition to race prejudice.<br />
<br />
However, Sik’s thesis continued to be used as a crutch for the right opposition over the next year or so; it appeared in the Communist International (organ of the Comintern) in the midst of the Sixth World Congress. But the pressure for a turn to the left in this work was to flush it out into the open along with other right-wing views on the question. <br />
<br />
Foremost among these were the views of Jay Lovestone. His view of Southern Blacks as a “reserve of capitalist reaction’ provided a theoretical rationale for the Party’s chronic underestimation of the question. This was clear in his report to the Fifth Party Convention in which he contended that: <blockquote>'''The migration of Negroes from the South to the North is another means of proletarianization, consequently the existence of this group asa reserve of capitalist reaction is likewise being undermined.'''</blockquote>Lovestone held that the masses of Blacks in the South become potentially revolutionary only through migration to the industrial centers in the north and participation in class struggle along with white workers. This viewpoint, which was later to become a cornerstone for his theory of “American exceptionalism,” was first outlined in his report for the Fifth Convention of the Party and again in his report in the Daily Worker in February 1928. But these articles passed unnoticed at the time. It was only on the eve of the Sixth World Congress and under the pressure of the new line that we became alerted to Lovestone’s views.<br />
<br />
The general meeting of the American delegation took place the day before the opening of the congress. All factions were represented but, as I recall, there were no fireworks. By that time, lines were clearly drawn and neither faction was trying to convince the other. On our part, we were saving our ammunition for the battle on the floor of the congress and its commissions.<br />
<br />
Apparently there had been some objections in the Lovestone group to the proposed new line on self-determination. To mollify these people, Lovestone stated that he stood for the right of self-determination of oppressed peoples everywhere, surely he said, no communist could oppose this right. I assumed that he regarded the slogan as some sort of showcase principle; something to be declared but which did not commit its advocates to any special line of action. Lovestone knew which way the wind was blowing and was clearly trying to straddle the fence on the issue.<br />
<br />
The delegates at this meeting were assigned to the various commissions; there was no struggle over the assignments as it was understood that all commissions had to include members of both factions. These commissions included the American Negro/ South African Commission, Colonial Commission, Trade Union Commission, and Program Commission.<br />
<br />
=== THE SIXTH WORLD CONGRESS ===<br />
On July 17, 1928, 532 delegates representing fifty-seven parties and nine organizations assembled in the Hall of Trade Unions. The delegation from the United States was a large one— twenty-nine delegates, including twenty voting and nine advisor delegates. The Sixth Congress convened under the slogan of "War Against the Right Danger and the Rightist Conciliators.”<br />
<br />
The period since the February plenum of the Comintern had been marked by the emergence of a clearly defined right opportunist deviation in most of the parties, They advanced the perspective of continuous capitalist recovery and the easing of the class struggle. In the realm of tactics this meant a continuation of the old “united front from above” and a reliance on social reformist trade union leaders. In the U.S., the right was to find its ease exponents in the Lovestone-Pepper leadership, which emphesized the strength of U.S. capitalism and its ability to postpone the crisis.<br />
<br />
A right opposition had also begun to develop in the CPSU, headed by Bukharin; Rykov, chairman of the Council of People's Commissions; and Tomsky, heading the Soviet Trade Unions. This group opposed the programs of the Stalinist majority of the Central Committee with respect to the goals of the new Five Year Plan, which called for intensified industrialization, collectivization, and the drive against the kulaks. The right deviation inthe CPSU and in the other parties of the Comintern had a common source—overestimation of the strength of world capitalism. The congress was faced with the need to answer these critics by deepening its analysis of the period and by spelling out more clearly the policy flowing from it.<br />
<br />
In the Soviet Party, the disagreement had come to a head prior to its plenum of July 1928, which adjourned just before the Sixth Congress. The differences, however, were hushed up by a resolution unanimously adopted by both groups which stated that there were no differences in the leadership of the CPSU. The agreement undoubtedly expressed the desire of the Soviet leadership to keep the congress from becoming an arena for discussion of Soviet problems before they had been finally thrashed out within their own Party.<br />
<br />
The delegates, however, were not unaware of the struggle in the Soviet Party. They gathered in an atmosphere charged with rumor and speculation about differences within the CPSU. The questions in our minds were: Who represented the right danger in the CPSU, the leading Party of the CI? What was the role of Bukharin? What had been the outcome of the discussions in the plenum of the CPSU? How would the congress be affected? We did not have long to wait for answers to these questions. Differences developed over sections of Bukharin’s ''Report on the International Situation and Tasks of the Comintern''.<br />
<br />
In his report which was distributed on July 18, at the second session of the congress, Bukharin analyzed the post-World War I international situation, dividing it into three periods. He defined the first (1917-1923) as one of revolutionary upsurge; the second (1924-1927) as a period of partial stabilization of capitalism; and the third (1928 on) as one of capitalist reconstruction. Bukharin made no clear distinction between the second and third periods; the latter was simply a continuation of the second. According to his characterization, there was nothing new at the present time to shake capitalist stabilization. On the contrary, capitalism was continuing to “reconstruct itself.”<br />
<br />
On this question Bukharin was challenged by his own Soviet delegation which submitted a series of twenty amendments to the thesis. These characterized the third period as one in which partial stabilization was coming to an end. Later, in his criticism of Bukharin’s position, Stalin pointed out the decisive importance of a correct estimate of the third period. The question involved here was: “Are we passing through a period of decline of the revolutionary movement...or are we passing through a period when the conditions are maturing for a new revolutionary upsurge, a period of preparation of the working class for future class battles? It is on this that the tactical line of the Communist Parties depends"<br />
<br />
At first, all of this was somewhat confusing to us. In his opening report Bukharin had himself declared the right deviation the greatest danger” to the Comintern. But in his characterization of the third period as one of virtual capitalist recovery he had adopted the main thesis of the right. He had also put himself in the awkward position of being rejected by his own delegation. But as Stalin was later to point out, it was his own fault for failing to discuss his report in advance with the Soviet delegation, as was customary. Instead he distributed his report to all delagations simulataniously. <br />
<br />
In accordance with our battle plan to expose to Lovestone leadership as the embodiment of the right deviation in the American Party, our caucus took the offensive. Even before the discussion on Bukharin’s report began, our minority had submitted a document entitled “The Right Danger and the American Party.” It was signed by J.W. Johnstone, M. Gomez, W.F Dunne, J.P. Cannon, W.Z. Foster, A. Bittelman and G Siskind. <br />
<br />
The document contained a bill of particulars in which we sought to point out that the rightist tendencies and mistakes of the Lovestone-Pepper leadership added up to a right line.<br />
<br />
Our attack, however, was hobbled by blemishes in the stateside record of our own caucus. At that point it would have been hard to discern any principled political differences between the majority or minority, Nevertheless, differences were developing on the estimation of the third period and U.S. imperialism.<br />
<br />
Pepper and Lovestone exaggerated the might of U.S. impetialism and spoke only of the weakness of the U.S. labor movement and the class struggle in this country. But the minority had also wavered on the question of building independent trade unions, the logical follow-through of the correct estimate of the objective situation in terms of practical policy.<br />
<br />
On the Negro question, the minority record up to that point had been no better than that of the majority. This fact was quickly pointed out by Otto and others. Both groups had shared the same mistakes. As Foster later observed, both factions had “traditionally considered the Negro question as that of a persecuted racial minority of workers and as basically a simple trade union matter.” It was this orientation which explains the Party's shortcomings in this field of work. But now, the tentative endorsement by our caucus of the proposed new line on the Afro-American question strengthened its position vis-a-vis the majority leadership.<br />
<br />
The prospects for our minority were brightened by the difficulties of Lovestone’s friend and mentor, Bukharin. Corridor rumors concerning his right-wing proclivities were now being confirmed by his differences with his own Soviet delegation on the character of the third period.<br />
<br />
The congress was now settling down to work. A number of commissions were formed to discuss and formulate resolutions on the main subjects confronting the eongress. Among them were: 1) A Commission on Program, to complete the drafting of a program for the Comintern; 2) one on the Trade Union question, to apply the struggle against right opportunism to the trade union field; and 3) a commission on the Colonial Question which discussed strategy and tactics of the liberation movements in the colonies and semi-colonies and the tasks of the Comintern. There were also several commissions on the special problems of individual parties.<br />
<br />
My major concern, however, was the Negro Commission, which was to take up the problem of the U.S. Blacks and the South African question. Although set up as an independent commission, in reality it was a subcommittee of the Colonial Commission. The resolutions formulated by it were included in the final draft of the congress’s thesis on the Revolutionary Movement in the Colonies. The Negro Commission was set up on August 6, at the twenty-third session of the congress. It was a memorable day, particularly for us Black communists—a day to which we all had looked forward. At last there was to be a full-dress discussion on the question.<br />
<br />
We listened attentively as the German comrade Remmele, chairman of the session, read off on behalf of the presidium the list of members and officers who would comprise the commission, It was an impressive list and indicated the high priority given the question by the congress. Thirty-two delegates, representing eighteen countries, including the United States, South Africa. Great Britain, the Soviet Union, France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Turkey, India, Palestine and Syria were members of the commission. Impressive also were its officers: the chairman, Ottomar Kuusinen, was a member of the Cl Secretariat and chairman of the Colonial Commission; the vice-chairman Petrovsky (Bennett) was also chairman of the Anglo-American Secretariat; and the recording secretary, Mikhailov (Williams), was a former Cl representative to the American Party. <br />
<br />
The delegates from the U.S, included five Blacks: myself, Jones (Otto Hall), Farmer (Roy Mahoney), James Ford and I believe, Harold Williams; plus two white comrades, Bittelman and Lovestone. Others included Sidney Bunting of South Africa; Fokin and Nasanov, representing the Young Communist International; the Swiss, Humbert-Droz, a top Cl official; Heller, from the Communist fraction of the Profintern; and several members of the Soviet delegation to the congress.<br />
<br />
Participation in commission meetings was not limited to its members, however. Among the important figures who spoke inthe discussions were Manuilsky, a CI official, and the Ukrainian, Skrypnik, both members of the Soviet delegation. The hall was always crowded with interested observers,<br />
<br />
The first order of business before the Commission was the Negro question, It was introduced by Petrovsky, who, as I recall stressed the need for a radical turn in the policy of the American Party with respect to its work among Blacks. He referred to the Negro Subcommittee, set up earlier in the year by the Anglo-American Seerctariat, which was given the task of preparing materials on the question for the Sixth Congress.<br />
<br />
Petrovsky described the two positions which emerged from this subcommittee.<br />
<br />
One held that the weaknesses of the Party’s Negro work was a result of an incorrect line. The partisans of this position regarded Blacks in the South as an oppressed nation and recommended that the right of self-determination be raised as an orientation slogan in their struggle for equality.<br />
<br />
The other position, he said, held that the question was one of a “racial minority” whose immediate and ultimate demands were embraced by the slogan of complete economic, social and political equality, The supporters of this position attributed the weaknesses in the Party’s Afro-American work to the underestimation of the importance of work among Blacks, This resulted, in turn, from the survivals of racial prejudices within the ranks of the Party and its leadership. This position did not challenge the Party’s line, but called for its more energetic application.<br />
<br />
As I recall, Petrovsky stated that he himself favored the position on self-determination. He did not see it as a negation of the slogan of social equality which, he said, would remain the main slogan for the Black masses. But in the Black Belt, where Blacks are in the majority, in addition to the slogan of cquality the Party must raise another slogan—the right of self-determination. For here, equality without the right of Blacks to enforce it is but an empty phrase.<br />
<br />
At the same time he expressed agreement with the comrades who contended that the hangovers of racial prejudice in the Party were a main obstacle to the Party’s effective work among Blacks. He stressed the need to fight against the ideology of white chauvinism, a principle block to the unity of Black and white workers.<br />
<br />
Petrovsky then referred the comrades to the material before them. It included the document by Nasanov and myself, summarizing our position in support of the — self-determination thesis. The document contained a criticism of current Party activities and policies and condemned Pepper’s May 30th resolution, which had made no reference to the Party’s tasks in the South. It also criticized the completely northern orientation of the American Negro Labor Congress, as contained in the policy statements of its leaders, Lovett Fort-Whiteman and H.V. Phillips. Finally, it criticized Lovestone’s characterization of Southern Blacks as “reserves of capitalist reaction.”<br />
<br />
Other documents presented to the commission were a statement by Dunne and Hathaway supporting the self-determination viewpoint and a document by Sik opposing the proposed new line. Sik argued that Blacks were a racial minority whose immediate and ultimate demands were embraced by the slogan of full social equality. <br />
<br />
Later in the discussion, Pepper submitted a document containing his proposals for a “Negro Soviet Republic” in the South, arguing that Southern Blacks were not just a nation but virtually a colony within the body of the United States of America.<br />
<br />
Among the American delegates who spoke in favor of the proposed new line were Bittelman, Foster and Dunne. As I remember, all were self-critical. Bittelman, however, emphasized the dual role of the Black working class envisioned by the new line: first, its role as a basic and constituent element of the American working class and, second, its leadership of the national liberation movement of Black people.<br />
<br />
I do not remember Lovestone speaking. If he did, he did not openly attack the proposed new line, for that would not have been his style. It was clear to all, however, that he had strong reservations. Sam Darey of the Young Communist League was, as I remember, the only white comrade who openly opposed the proposed new line.<br />
<br />
But the strongest opposition to the self-determination thesis both in the commission and on the floor of the congress was from the Black comrades James Ford and Otto Hall. In their arguments it was evident that they relied heavily on Professor Sik and his “new” theory on “race problems.” Up to that point, neither Nasanov nor I had paid much attention to Sik. But now after listening to Otto and Ford we suddenly realized the danger his theories posed to clarity on this vital question.<br />
<br />
Sik had evidently been working hard on his thesis which he was now proselytizing with almost evangelie zeal. He had, if not a captive audience, at least a willing one among the Black students at KUTVA where he taught (of all subjects!) Leninism. Now suddenly it seemed that Sik had become cast in the role of chief theoretician of the opposition to the proposed new policy; in their speeches Otto and Ford repeated verbatim many of his arguments.<br />
<br />
For example, both Otto and Ford insisted that U.S. Negroes were a racial minority rather than an oppressed nation or an oppressed national minority. (They used these two latter terms interchangeably at the time.) They ruled out all national movements among U.S. Blacks as reactionary. According to Ford, such movements were led by the “chauvinistic” Black bourgeoisie who wanted a freer hand to exploit the Black masses. These movements, he argued, “play into the hands of the bourgeoisie by arresting the revolutionary class movement of the Negro masses and further widening the gulf between the white and similar oppressed groups.” He also averred that Blacks lack the characteristics of a nation. There was not the question of one nation oppressing and exploiting another nation, “In the United States,” Ford continued, “we find no economic system separating the two races. The interests of the Negro and white workers are the same. The Negro peasant and the white peasant interests are the same.” The only problem, he contended, was one of racial differences of the color of the skin, barriers set up by the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Otto sharpened the argument and contended that Blacks were “not developing any characteristies of a national minority...there exists no national entity as such among...Negroes.” Continuing along the same line, Otto saw no community of interest between the Black bourgeoisie and the Black toilers, whom, he argued, “are completely separated (from each other) as far as class interests are concerned.” In sum, he contended that “historical development has tended to create in him (the Negro) the desire to be considered a part of the American nation.”<br />
<br />
What then were the objectives of Black liberation? They were, according to Sik, the striving of Blacks for intermingling and amalgamation. I was astounded and dismayed. This seemed to me to be a bourgeois liberal-assimilationist position cloaked in pseudo-Marxist rhetoric.<br />
<br />
A few days before on the floor of the congress, Ford and Otto complained bitterly about the rampant white chauvinism in the Party and the widespread underestimation of the significance of Afro-American work. Could they not see that they were playing into the hands of the white chauvinist downgraders of the Black movement? They had conceded them their main premise: that the movement for Black equality in itself had no revolutionary potential.<br />
<br />
Sik’s theory had stripped the struggle for equality of all revolutionary content; it involved no radical social change, that is, completion of the land and democratic revolution and securing of political power in the South. It was just a struggle against racial ideology.<br />
<br />
How was it possible for Otto and Ford and other Black comrades to fall into this trap? They had separated racism, the most salient external manifestation of Black oppression, from its socio-economic roots, reducing the struggle for equality to a movement against prejudice. It was a theory which even liberal reformists could support.<br />
<br />
And why did they downgrade the revolutionary nature of the Black struggle for equality? I could only assume that it was an attempt on their part to fit the Afro-American question into the simplistic frame of “pure proletarian class struggle.” This theory ruled out all nationalist movements as divisive and distracting from the struggle for socialism. Lovestone’s idea of the Black peasantry in the South being a “reserve of capitalist reaction” was the logical outcome of this kind of thinking.<br />
<br />
What was clear to me was that our thesis of self-determination had correctly elevated the fight for Black rights to a revolutionary position, whereas the proponents of Sik’s theories attempted to downgrade the movement, seeing it as a minor aspect of the class struggle. Our thesis put the question in the proper perspective: that is, as a struggle attacking the very foundation of American imperialism, an integral part of the struggle of the American working class as a whole,<br />
<br />
The sad fact was that Otto, Ford and other partisans of Sik’s theory seemed completely unaware that they had come to a practical agreement with those white chauvinists who denied the revolutionary character of the Black liberation struggle in the false name of socialism.<br />
<br />
Nasanov, sitting beside me, undoubtedly had similar thoughts. He muttered something in Russian that sounded like, “Lord forgive them, for they know not what they do.”<br />
<br />
During an interval in the Negro Commission sessions, I cornered Otto in the corridor and accused him and Ford of downgrading the liberation struggle and playing into the hands of the white chauvinist element in the Party, How, I asked him, did he expect to fight those responsible for the neglect of work among Blacks when he accepted their main premise-—that the struggle of Blacks was not of itself revolutionary and that it only becomes so when they (the Blacks) fight directly for socialism?<br />
<br />
Otto indignantly denied this and accused me of allowing the question to be used as a factional football by the Foster group. I conceded that they were not all clear, But, I added heatedly, at least they had begun to recognize that their position had been wrong and they were trying to change it.<br />
<br />
We broke off the discussion; it was obviously useless to pursue the matter further, We were both getting emotional. No doubt our relationship had become rather strained as a result of our political differences, I was terribly saddened by this growing rift between my brother and me, True, I no longer thought of him as my political mentor, but nevertheless I felt he was a serious and dedicated revolutionary.<br />
<br />
What, I wondered, were the pressures that pushed Black proletarian comrades like Otto and Ford into this position? Foremost was their misguided but honest desire to amalgamate Black labor into the general labor movement. Nationalism, they felt, was a block to labor unity. They failed to recognize the revolutionary element in Black nationalism. I myself had held the same position only a few months earlier, but then I hadn’t studied Leninism under Sik.<br />
<br />
I remember running into Nasanov. We walked down the hall arm in arm and he asked me if I was going to speak. I said, “I don’t know, should I?”<br />
<br />
Knowing my shyness, he laughed and said, “We've got them on the run. We’ve submitted our resolution and supporting documents.”<br />
<br />
We were then accosted by Manuilsky whom I had met before. He wanted to know if I was the only Black supporting the self-determination position. I told him that thus far I was.<br />
<br />
“How did that happen?” he asked. That was a question I was still trying to answer myself. But before I could reply he said, “Oh, I know, They are all good class-conscious comrades, But I understand them. We Bolsheviks had the same type of deviation within the party.” He turned away to greet somebody else.<br />
<br />
And well he should understand, I reflected, for Manuilsky had been one of the leading Ukrainian Communists referred to in our class on Leninism, who, during the Revolution in the Ukraine, had been, guilty of the same deviation.<br />
<br />
He had been one of those whom the Bolsheviks had called “abstract Marxists,” those unable to relate Marxism to the concrete experience of their own people. On that occasion he resisted the resolution of the CC drafted by Lenin which made necessary concessions to Ukrainian nationalism; these included a softer line on the ku/aks and the establishment of Ukrainian as the national language.<br />
<br />
What about Comrade Pepper’s new slogan for a “Negro Soviet Republic?” Had he undergone a sudden conversion to the cause of Black nationhood? Was this the same Pepper who had completely ignored the South in his May thesis and who had, during the Program Commission at the Fifth Congress of the CI (1924), asserted that Blacks in the US wanted nothing to do with the slogan of self-determination?<br />
<br />
Sudden shifts in position were not new to Pepper who, as we have seen, was a man unrestrained by principles. Lominadze had branded Pepper on the floor of the congress as a man of “inadequate firmness of principle and backbone. He always agrees with those who are his seniors even if a minute ago he defended an utterly different viewpoint.”<br />
<br />
The Commission rejected Pepper’s slogan on the grounds that, first, it actually negated the principle of the right of self-determination by making the Party’s support of it contingent upon the acceptance by Blacks of the Soviet governmental form. Secondly, it was an opportunist attempt to skip over the intermediate stage of preparation and mobilization of the Black masses around their immediate demands.<br />
<br />
Pepper's position was actually an attempt to outflank the new position from the “left.” Clearly he sought to grab the spotlight, to upstage the move towards a new policy. Perhaps he thought that the left-sounding term “Soviet” would make the new stress on the national character of the question more palatable to his factional cohorts of the pure revolutionary persuasion.<br />
<br />
Otto seemed to have nibbled on the bait; at least he felt it did not contradict his position. In his previously quoted speech he stated, “There is no objection on our part on (sic) the principle ofa Soviet Republic for Negroes in America. The point we are concerned with here is how to organize these Negroes at present on the basis of their everyday needs for the revolution.”<br />
<br />
In this ease, however, Pepper had overreached himself, having jumped over the bandwagon instead of on it.<br />
<br />
Despite Pepper’s defeat in the commission, he still had a card or two up his sleeve. This we were to find to our surprise and anger when we received the October 1928 issue of The Communist, official organ of the CPUSA. Prominent among the articles was Pepper’s on “American Negro Problems,” which presented his call for a “Negro Soviet Republic.” But that was not all; the article was also published simultaneously in pamphlet form by the American Party. Neither the article nor the pamphlet was labeled as a discussion paper, which gave them the appearance of being official statements of the new policy.<br />
<br />
Pepper's article had originally appeared in the Communist International, organ of the Comintern, as one of a series of discussion articles. The other articles were one by Ford and Patterson (Wilson), “The Comintern Programme and the Racial Problem” by Sik, and “The Negro Problem and the Tasks of the CPUSA,” by me.<br />
<br />
Of these, Sik’s was the only one to appear in the English edition of the magazine. This was because the English edition had suspended publication for technical reasons from September to December.<br />
<br />
But Pepper also sent his article to The Communist, organ of the American Party, where it appeared in October 1928. Because the official resolutions of the congress were not published until January of the following year, Pepper’s distorted version of the new line was the first document available to American Party members, The result was considerable confusion and misunderstanding.<br />
<br />
Particularly aggravating was that Pepper filched the basic facts of our analysis-—-national character, Black Belt territory, etc, — distorting them into a vulgar caricature of our thesis. This latest piece of chicanery did nothing to enhance Pepper’s image in Moscow where it was already on the wane. It was, however, wellreceived in the U.S. where he still had considerable influence.<br />
<br />
=== ESSENCE OF THE NEW LINE ===<br />
The Cl’s new line on the Afro-American question was released by the ECCI in two documents. The first was the full resolution of the commission, which addressed itself to the concrete issues raised in the discussion, The second was a summary of the full resolution, worked out in the commission under the direction of Kuusinen, for incorporation in the congress thesis on the “Revolutionary Movement in the Colonies and Semi-Colonies.”<br />
<br />
The resolution rejected the assimilationist race theories upon which the line of the Party had been based. It defined the Black movement as “national revolutionary” in character on the grounds that “the various forms of oppression of Negroes....concentrated mainly in the so-called ‘Black Belt’ provide the necessary conditions for a national revolutionary movement.”<br />
<br />
Stressing the agrarian roots of the problem it declared that Southern Blacks “are....not reserves of capitalist reaction,” as Lovestone had contended, but they were on the contrary, “reserves of the revolutionary proletariat” whose “objective position facilitates their transformation into a revolutionary force under the leadership of the proletariat.”<br />
<br />
The new line committed the Party to champion the Black struggle for “complete and real equality.....for the abolition of all kinds of racial, social, and political inequalities.” It called for an “energetic struggle against any exhibition of white chauvinism” and for “active resistance to lynching.”<br />
<br />
At the same time, the resolution stressed the need for Black revolutionary workers to resist “petty bourgeois nationalist tendencies” such as Garveyism. It declared that the industrialization of the South and the growth of the Black proletariat was the “most important phenomenon of recent years.” The enlargement of this class, it asserted, offers the possiblity of consistent revolutionary leadership of the movement.<br />
<br />
It called upon the Party to “strengthen its work among Negro proletarians,” drawing into its ranks the most conscious elements, It was also to fight for the acceptance of Black workers into unions from which they are barred, but this fight did not exclude the organization of separate trade unions when necessary. It called for the concentration of work in the South to organize the masses of soil-tillers, And finally, the new line committed the Party to put forth the slogan of the right of self-determination.<blockquote>'''In those regions of the South in which compact Negro masses are living, it is essential to put forward the slogan of the Right of Self-determination.,.a radical transformation of the Agrarian structure of the Southern States is one of the basic tasks of the revolution. Negro Communists must explain to the Negro workers and peasants that only their close union with the white proletariat and joint struggle with them against the American bourgeoisie can lead to their liberation from barbarous exploitation, and that only the victorious proletarian revolution will completely and permanently solve the agrarian and national question of the Southern United States in the interests of the overwhelming majority of the Negro population of the country.'''</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== South Africa ===<br />
There was keen interest as the Commission moved to the next point on the agenda—South Africa. Here again it was a fight against the denial of the national liberation movement in the name of socialism, the same right deviation on new turf. In the South African setting, where four-fifths of the population were black colonial slaves, the deviation was particularly glaring.<br />
<br />
It was true that in the past year or so the South African Party had intensified its work among the natives, a “turn to the masses,” As the Simons noted, by 1928 there were 1,600 African members out of a total of 1,750 in the Party, The year before there were only 200 African members.<br />
<br />
‘The Party had pursued a vigorous policy in the building of Black trade unions, in conducting strikes, and in fighting the most vicious forms of national oppression—pass laws and the like, The Party’s official organ, The South African Worker, had been revived on a new basis. More than half the articles were now written in three Bantu languages: Xhosa, Zulu and Tsotho.<br />
<br />
Sidney Bunting, leader of the South African Party, had emerged as a stalwart fighter for Native rights in the defense of Thibedi, a framed-up Native communist leader. As a result about a hundred Natives had been recruited into the Party, and two were now on the Central Committee. On the whole, the Party was making a turn toward the Native masses, But it still lacked the theory which would enable it to tap their tremendous revolutionary potential.<br />
<br />
As did most of the white leading cadre, Bunting exhibited a paternalism with respeet to the Natives. This paternalism was rooted in an abiding laek of faith in the revolutionary potential of the Native movement. They saw the South Afriean revolution in terms of the direct struggle for socialism. This white leadership, brought up in the old socialist traditions and comprised mainly of European immigrants, had not yet absorbed Lenin’s teachings on the national and colonial questions,<br />
<br />
These shortcomings had been brought sharply to the attention of the Comintern by La Guma. The result was the resolution on the South Afriean question which La Guma, Nasanov and I had worked on the previous winter. It reeommended that the Party put forward and work for an independent Native South African Republic with full and equal rights for all races as a stage towarda Workers and Peasants Republic. This was to be accompanied by the slogan “Return the land to the Natives.”<br />
<br />
The resolution was not only rejected by the Party leadership, but they had now sent a lily-white delegation to the congress to fight for its repeal, The delegation consisted of Sidney Bunting, Party chairman, his wife Rebecca, and Edward Roux, a young South Afriean communist leader who was then studying at Oxford. Whatever their hopes were on arrival in Moscow, they now seemed dejected and subdued. Having sat through the discussion on the Afro-American question, they undoubtedly saw the handwriting on the wall.<br />
<br />
From the start, the South African delegation was on the defensive, having been confronted by other delegates with the inevitable question: Where are the Natives?<br />
<br />
What answer could they give? It was evident to all that theirs was a mission on which Natives could not be trusted, even those “brought up in the old tradition,” to use the phrase of Roux.<br />
<br />
We Blacks asked about La Guma and they replied, “Oh, he was here just a short while ago and had his say, We felt that the other viewpoint should be represented.”<br />
<br />
After copies of the ECCI resolution on South Africa had been distributed, the South African delegates took the floor before the entire congress to challenge the line of the resolution, The South Afriean revolution, they argued, was a socialist revolution with no intermediate stage, an argument which posed a sort of South African exceptionalism.<br />
<br />
‘The argument ran that South Afriea was not a colonial country. Bunting then contended that “South Africa is, owing to its climate, what is called a ‘white man’s country’ where whites can and do live not merely as planters and officials, but as a whole nation of all classes, established there for centuries, of Dutch and English composition,”<br />
<br />
Bunting’s statement came under attack on the floor of the congress, notably by Bill Dunne. Bunting defended himself, holding that his description was solely factual and was not an “advocacy of ‘White South Africa, .. . the very view we have combatted for the last thirteen years.”<br />
<br />
In essence, Bunting’s views liquidated the struggle of the black peasantry in South Africa. He deelared that they were “being rapidly proletarianized,” and further that “the native agrarian masses as such have not yet shown serious signs of revolt.” Hence the slogan of “Return the land to the Natives ” would antagonize white workers with its implication of a “black race dictatorship.”<br />
<br />
Rebecca Bunting spoke in the commission sessions. Addressing herself to the land question, she denied that the land belonged to the Bantu in the first place. Both the Bantu from central Africa and the Afrikaaners coming up from Capetown had forced the aboriginal Hottentots and Bushmen off their land. Thus, there was no special Native land question.<br />
<br />
The real question on Rebecca Bunting’s mind, however, was not of land, but of the position of the white minority in a Native South African Republic, She came right to the point. Who will guarantee equality for the whites in an independent Native Republic? Their slogan, as you know, is “Drive the whites into the sea.” We listened to her in amazement and a laugh went through the audience.<br />
<br />
The cat was finally let out of the bag, and a mangy, chauvinistic creature it was. Manuilsky stepped forward, his eyes twinkling, “Comrade Bunting has raised a serious question, one not to be sneezed at. What is to become of the whites? My answer to that would be that if the white Party members do not raise and energetically fight for an independent Native Republic, then kto znaet? (Who knows?) They may well be driven into the sea!” That brought the house down.”<br />
<br />
The commission finally affirmed the resolution for a Native South African Republic, It was then passed onto the floor of the congress where the fight continued and our position was eventually accepted.<br />
<br />
=== THE REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT IN THE COLONIES ===<br />
Upon the adjournment of the Negro Commission, many of us moved into the sessions of the Colonial Commission. We found there no peaceful, harmonious gathering, but acrimonious debate. Kuusinen’s report and draft thesis on the Revolutionary Movement in the Colonies was under sharp attack. The point of controversy was the nature and objective of imperialist colonial policy.<br />
<br />
The draft thesis held that the colonial policy of imperialism was directed toward “repressing and retarding” by all possible means the free economic and cultural development of the colonies and retaining them as backward, agrarian appendages of the imperialist metropolitan countries. This policy, the draft thesis maintained, is an essential condition for the super-exploitation of the colonial masses. Thus, it pointed out:<blockquote>'''The objective contradiction between the colonial policy of world imperialism and the independent development of the colonial peoples is by no means done away with, neither in China, nor in India, nor in any other of the colonial and semicolonial countries; on the contrary, the contradiction only becomes more acute and can be overcome only by the victorious, revolutionary struggle of the toiling masses in the colonies.'''</blockquote>Accordingly, the primary question for the colonies was their liberation.<br />
<br />
The opponents of the draft thesis, on the other hand, took the view that imperialism had shifted its policy from one of hindering the economic development of the colonies to one of promoting industrialization under the joint auspices of the imperialists and native bourgeoisie. This was shown particularly in the more advanced colonies such as India and Indonesia, they argued.<br />
<br />
It was the old social democratic theory of decolonization. It implied that the main contradiction between imperialism and the colonies was being eased, the colonial revolution was thereby heing defused. The main components of that revolution, the national liberation struggle and the agrarian revolution, were being eliminated through industrialization. Thus, the perspective before the peoples of those colonies was not national liberation, but rather a long-range struggle for socialism.<br />
<br />
I was amazed to find that leading the attack on the draft thesis was none other than our Comrade Petrovsky. He who had seemed to be such a stalwart warrior against the right on the Afro-American and South African question had now become the chief advocate of the blatantly rightist “decolonization theory.” But that wasn’t all. He had rallied behind him most of the British delegation in his attack upon the draft thesis. It was quite a scandal!<br />
<br />
Here was the British Party, in the homeland of the world’s greatest imperialist power, championing the idea that Britain was taking the lead in decolonizing her empire, The tragedy was that the British delegation seemed totally unaware of the chauvinist implication of their stance.<br />
<br />
It became clear to us in the discussion that the British Party’s position with regard to the colonies pre-dated the congress. This was merely the first occasion for its full airing. Petrovsky had been CI representative to Britain and had played no small role in the development of the “decolonization” theory.<br />
<br />
The partisans of decolonization were utterly routed both in the commission and on the floor of the congress. Lozovsky, Remmele, Murphy, Manuilsky, Katayama and Kuusinen all took the floor in rebuttal. In an early session of the congress, Katayama pointed to the “criminal neglect” of the British Party with regard to Ireland and India in the past, and of the Dutch and American Parties with regard to the Philippines and Indonesia, “The mother countries must correct this inactivity on their part, and give every assistance to the revolutionary movement in these colonial countries,” he said.<br />
<br />
I was impressed by the speeches of Kuusinen and Murphy, the sole Britisher who really spoke out against the position taken by his delegation. Murphy accused his comrades of “presenting a Menshevik picture of the colonial problem and drawing ultra-leftist conclusions.”<br />
<br />
He assailed the contention that the British were out to decolonize India jointly with the native bourgeoisie. “The need of the hour in every colonial country,” he continued, “is a strong independent Communist Party which understands how to expose the bourgeoisie and destroy their influence over the masses through the correct exploitation of the differences between them and win the masses in the numberless crises which precede the revolutionary overthrow of all counter-revolutionary forces.”<br />
<br />
Kuusinen, a mild-mannered little man with a dry, rasping voice, took the floor for the concluding blast. His summary, as I remember it, was a two-hour long devastating attack on the “decolonizers.” He compared their position with that of the notorious Austrian social-imperialist, Otto Renner, who had put forth the perspective of world industrialization under capitalism, postponing the world socialist revolution “till the proletariat will become the great majority even inthe colonies.” Kuusinen pointed out that such views “embellished the ‘progressive’ role of imperia!ism....as if the colonial world were to be decolonized and industrialized in a peaceful manner by imperialism itself.”<br />
<br />
Kuusinen further contended that “the development of native capital is not being denied in the thesis.” But rather than there being an equal partnership in exploitation between the colonial bourgeoisie and imperialism, “imperialism does in fact restrict the industrialization of the colonies, prevent the full development of the productive forces.” It is under such conditions that the class interests of the national bourgeoisie “demand the industrialization of the country,” and in as much as the national bourgeoisie stands up for its class interests, “for the economic independence of the country, for its liberation from the imperialist yoke, then it plays a certain progressive role, while imperialism plays a substantially reactionary role,”<br />
<br />
It was a brilliant and definitive presentation, I thought. Slowly gathering up his papers, Kuusinen looked out over the audience, “Yes, comrades,” he said, “industrial development is taking place in the colonies, but very slowly, comrades, very slowly. Infact, just as slowly as the bolshevization of the British Party Politburo under the leadership of Comrade Petrovsky.”<br />
<br />
He then picked up his papers and stepped down from the rostrum. A momentary silence followed, then an outburst of laughter and prolonged applause.<br />
<br />
=== PEPPER GETS HIS LUMPS ===<br />
The struggle against the Lovestone-Pepper leadership faction sharpened as the congress progressed. Their position of overestimating the strength and stability of U.S. capitalism and of underestimating the radicalization of the workers came under sharp attack. Our opposition group (Bittelman, Foster, Dunne, Cannon and Johnstone) came down hard on Pepper, taking advantage of his growing unpopularity at the congress. The attack on the Lovestone-Pepper faction was supported by leading and influential members of other delegations: notably Lozovsky, president of the Red International of Labor Unions, Lominadze from the Russian Delegation and Hans Neumann from the German Communist Party.<br />
<br />
It was a pleasure to see how they zeroed in on Pepper. At last, he was getting his well-deserved lumps.<br />
<br />
Lozovsky began by criticizing the CC of the CPUSA for having “instigated opposition to the decision of the Fourth RILU Congress on the question of new unions.” But the thrust of his attack was not on the position itself, but on the dishonesty of the U.S. Central Committee which, on its arrival in Moscow, claimed support for the RILU Congress decisions.<br />
<br />
“Of course, every Central Committee has the right to declare its disagreement with decisions adopted by the RILU, but there must be the courage to declare this....You cannot change a negative attitude...into a positive one on the way from New York to Moscow.”<br />
<br />
Lozovsky reiterated earlier criticism of the Party leadership; its passivity in organizing the unorganized, its incorrect attitude toward Black workers and toward the AFL. Then he focused in on Pepper, blasting his articles in The Communist (“America and the Tactics of the Cl: Certain Basic Questions of our Perspective,” May 1928.)<br />
<br />
“Comrade Pepper sees nothing but the power of American capitalism,” he charged, “and discovering America anew although this discovery was made long ago, completely passed over those vital points in my articles on the eve of the Fourth RILU Congress.”<br />
<br />
Then, in a concluding salvo, Lozovsky accused Pepper of having “frequently lost his bearings in European affairs... Today, as you have been able to convince yourselves from his speech here, he is all at sea in American affairs. He could truly be named: themuddler of the two hemispheres.”<br />
<br />
Lominadze also kept Pepper under constant attack during the congress, scoring some devastating blows. He called Pepper's speech “an advertisement for the power of American imperialism,” and stated that if it were printed in the paper, it could be mistaken for a “speech of any of the candidates of the Republican and Democratic parties.” He then blasted Pepper’s articles in The Communist which listed the obstacles to the growth of the Party. According to Pepper, Lomindaze said, “everything is hindering us, capitalists are hindering us by exploiting the workers, the existence of capitalism itself hinders us, and of perspectives there are none at all.”<br />
<br />
As the historic congress was drawing to a close, Jack Johnstone read into the minutes for our opposition caucus a statement expressing our disagreement with the section concerning the United States in Bukharin’s draft thesis.<br />
<br />
Among many points made in this statement, the most important were that Bukharin failed to emphasize the instability of American imperialism and recognize the contradictions confronting it; he failed to condemn the opportunist errors in Afro-American work and did not “state clearly that the main danger in our Party is from the Right.”<br />
<br />
This statement was signed by Dunne, Gomez, Johnstone, Siskind, Epstein and Bittelman; significant was the fact that Browder, Cannon and Foster did not sign.<br />
<br />
Although he basically agreed with the statement and opposed Lovestone and Pepper, Browder continued to hold his position of not identifying himself fully with the opposition caucus, Cannon's reasons for not supporting the statement were unclear at the time, but within a few months, he had become the organizer and leader of the Trotskyist movement in the U.S. I feel Foster was, at the time, still assessing the political lines in the struggle against the right deviation—and for this reason did not sign the document.<br />
<br />
=== CONCLUSION ===<br />
The Sixth Congress called for a sharpened fight of the working class and the colonial masses against imperialism. It set the stage for an all-out war against the main obstacle to the left turn. The right accommodationists and their conciliators in all the parties of the CI--all provided ideological ammunition for this struggle. The correctness of these documents were verified by the events of the following decade—world economic crisis, the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World War II.<br />
<br />
The war against the right got into full swing immediately following the congress. In the next few months the Lovestone-Pepper cohorts were to expand further their right opportunistic thesis of American exceptionalism, elements of which they were developing before and during the congress.<br />
<br />
In substance, the theory held that while the third period of growing capitalist crisis and intensification of class struggles was valid for the rest of the world, it did not apply to the United States. In the U.S. capitalism was on the upgrade and the prospects were for an easing of the class struggle. An era of industrial expansion lay ahead.<br />
<br />
The next few months were also to reveal Lovestone’s ties with the international right conspiracy led by Bukharin. This conspiracy, which we had only suspected during the congress, was finally exposed at the November 1929 joint meeting of the Political Bureau and Presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. From this point on, the conspiracy of the “Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites” went underground to plot the overthrow of socialism in the Soviet Union. In 1937, Bukharin was convicted as one of the main leaders of this treasonous conspiracy and was executed.<br />
<br />
One of the most positive and enduring contributions of the Sixth Congress was the program on the question of U.S, Blacks. It pointed out that all the objective conditions exist in the Black Belt South for a national revolutionary movement of Black people against American imperialism. It established the essentially agrarian-democratic character of the Black liberation movement there. Under conditions of modern imperialist oppression, it could fulfill itself only by the achievement of democratic land redivision and the right of self-determination for the Afro-American people in the Black Belt. Thus, the new line brought the issue of Black equality out of the realm of bourgeois humanitarianism. It was no longer the special property of philanthropists and professional uplifters who sought to strip the Black struggle of its revolutionary implications.<br />
<br />
The new position grounded the issue of Black liberation firmly in the fight of the American people for full democratic rights and in the struggle of the working class for socialism. The struggle for equality is in and of itself a revolutionary question, because the special oppression of Black people is a main prop of imperialist domination over the entire working class and the masses of exploited American people. Therefore, Blacks and the working class as a whole are mutual allies.<br />
<br />
The fight of Blacks for national liberation, quite apart from humanitarian considerations, must be supported as it is a special feature of the struggle for the emancipation of the whole American working class. It is the historic task of American labor, as it advances on the road toward socialism, to solve the problems of land and freedom which the bourgeois democratic revolution of the Civil War and Reconstruction left unfinished.<br />
<br />
The slogan of self-determination is a slogan of unity. Its overriding purpose was and still is to unite the white and Black exploited masses, working and oppressed people of all nationalities, in all three stages of the revolutionary movement; from the day-to-day fight against capital, through the revolutionary battle for state power, to the task of building and consolidating socialist society. The new line clearly stated that this unity could be built only on the basis of the struggle for complete equality, by removing all grounds for suspicion and distrust and building mutual confidence and voluntary inter-relations between the white masses of the oppressor nation and the Black masses of the oppressed nation.<br />
<br />
This line committed the Communist Party to an uncompromising fight among its members and in the ranks of labor generally to burn out the root of the ruling class theories of white chauvinism which depicts Blacks as innately inferior. The mobilization of the white workers in the struggle for Black rights is a precondition for freeing the Black workers from the stifling influences of petty bourgeois nationalism with its ideology of self-isolation. Only thus, the program pointed out, can the historic rift in the ranks of American labor be breached and a solid front of white and Black workers be presented to the common enemy, American imperialism.<br />
<br />
Of course, weaknesses were inevitable in this first resolution, The document was open to the interpretation that the emerging Black nation was limited only to the territory of absolute majority and that the slogan of right of self-determination was primarily dependent on the continued existence of an area of absolute Black majority.<br />
<br />
The document should have made clear that one cannot hold absolutely to the national territorial principle in the application of the right of self-determination. The very nature of imperialism attacks and deforms the characteristics of nationhood. Imperialism has, to a large extent, driven Afro-American people from the rural areas to the cities of the north and South,<br />
<br />
Another weakness was the underestimation of the nationality factor in the struggle for equality and democratic rights in the north, Thus, the program failed to advance any slogans for local autonomy which would guarantee and protect the rights of Blacks in the north, The need for such a program has been most clearly demonstrated in recent years by the growth and development of the movement for community control of the schools and police in northern cities.<br />
<br />
But on the whole, the resolution was a strong one. Its significance was that it drew a clear line between the revolutionary and the reformist positions—between the line of effective struggle and futile accommodation.<br />
<br />
The document was not a complete and definite statement, but a new departure, a revolutionary turning point in the treatment of the Afro-American question.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 10 ==<br />
<br />
=== Lovestone Unmasked ===<br />
Otto, Harold Williams and Farmer, having completed their course at KUTVA, left the Soviet Union after the Sixth Congress. The African, Bankole, remained for further training to prepare him for work in the Gold Coast (Ghana). At KUTVA there was another contingent of Black students from the U.S. Along with Maude White, there were now William S. Patterson (Wilson), Herbert Newton, Marie Houston and many more were to come,<br />
<br />
I was then thirty and had recently completed my last YCL assignment as a delegate to the Fifth Congress of the Young Communist International (YCI). Along with my studies at the Lenin School, I was continuing my work in the Comintern. I was then vice-chairman of the Negro Subcommission of the Eastern (colonial) Secretariat, and Nasanov was chairman, The subcommission was established as a “watch-dog” committee to check on the application of the Sixth Congress decisions with reference to the Black national question in the U.S. and South Africa. According to our reports, the South Africans were applying the line of the Sixth Congress and so we devoted most of our attention to the work in the United States. <br />
<br />
In the U.S., the minority girded itself for a long struggle against the Lovestone-Pepper leadership, which had emerged from the Sixth Congress battered, but not beaten. This leadership still enjoyed the majority support within the Party. This was due primarily to the widely prevalent belief within the Party that this leadership was favored by the Comintern. Lovestone was loud in his protestations of support for the line of the Sixth Congress and attempted to pin the right-wing label on the minority. This deception was successful for a short time.<br />
<br />
The CI’s support for Lovestone seemed confirmed by a letter from the ECCI dated September 7, 1928, a week after the adjournment of the Sixth Congress. The letter contained two documents. The first was the final draft of paragraph forty-nine of the “Thesis on the International Situation and Tasks of the Communist International,” which dealt with the U.S. Party. The second was a “Supplementary Decision” by the Political Secretariat of the Executive Committee of the Communist International which denied the minority’s charge that the Lovestone-Pepper leadership represented a right line in the Party.<br />
<br />
Paragraph forty-nine commended the Party, saying, “it has displayed more lively activity and has taken advantage of symptoms of crisis in American industry....A number of stubborn and fierce class battles (primarily the miners’ strike) found in the Communist Party a stalwart leader. The campaign against the execution of Sacco and Vanzetti was also conducted under the leadership of the Party.”<br />
<br />
It also criticized the Party, stating that “the Party has not with sufficient energy conducted work in the organization of the unorganized and of the Negro Movement, and...it does not conduct a sufficiently strong struggle against the predatory policy of the United States in Latin America.” It concluded by stating, “These mistakes, however, cannot be ascribed to the Majority leadership alone....the most important task that confronts the Party is to put an end to the factional strife which is not based on any serious differences on principles...” The thesis pointed out that while some rightist errors had been committed by both sides, “the charge against the majority of the Central Committee of the U.S, Party of representing a right line is unfounded.”<br />
<br />
The letter evoked great jubilation among Lovestone-Pepper cohorts and was given widest publicity. A self-laudatory statement from the Central Committee was published alongside the Cl letter in the October 3, 1928, Daily Worker. It boasted that the letter proved that the CI “is continuing its policy of supporting politically the present Party leadership.”<br />
<br />
Of course we in the minority resented Lovestone’s interpretation of the Cl’s letter. We felt that the Cl’s criticisms of all factionalism and its rejection of our specific charge against the Lovestone-Pepper leadership were not equivalent to a political endorsement for Lovestone. The Comintern called for unity in the Party on the basis of the Sixth Congress’s decisions. We could hardly expect the CI to come out in support of the minority; it was not a cohesive ideological force itself. The subsequent defection of Cannon to Trotskyism further demonstrated the lack of ideological cohesion in the minority. Then there was the hard fact that Lovestone still held the majority of the U.S. Party.<br />
<br />
Differences of principle between the minority and the Lovestone leadership had begun to develop only a half year before at the Fourth Congress of the RILU in March 1928. These arose over the question of trade unions; but even here they were clouded by factionalism and vacillation on the part of the minority. There was, therefore, substance to the CI’s charges that both groups had placed factional consideration above principles.<br />
<br />
About the same time, the Party was shocked by the defection of James Cannon and his close associates Max Shachtman and Marty Abern. They were exposed as hidden Trotskyists and expelled from the Party. Cannon’s treachery was first exposed by the minority. This frustrated Lovestone’s attempt to pin the label of Trotskyism on our group. Nevertheless, Lovestone sought to use the Trotsky issue to divert the Party from the struggle against the main right danger. Later, the Comintern was to criticize the minority for its lack of vigilance and its failure to disassociate itself “at the right time” from Cannon’s Trotskyism.<br />
<br />
Lovestone was cocky and over-confident. He was looking forward to wiping out the minority as a political force in the U.S. Party at the next convention. Even the recall to Moscow of Pepper, his main advisor and co-factionalist, shortly after the return of the U.S. delegation, seemed not to shake his self-confidence. (Pepper had originally come to the U.S. as a Comintern worker and was thus directly subject to its discipline.)<br />
<br />
His recall was undoubtedly an indication of Lovestone’s declining support within the Comintern. The Lovestone leadership supported Pepper’s protest against recall. The CI did not press the issue at the time and Pepper remained in the U.S. Shortly thereafter he returned to his former position in Party leadership. But the incident was not forgotten; it was to be added on the debit side of the ledger at Lovestone’s final accounting.<br />
<br />
Then came the first blow. It was a letter from the Political Secretariat dated November 21, 1928. The letter expressed sharp displeasure at the factional manner in which Lovestone had used the previous letter of September 7. It pointed to the non-self-critical and self-congratulatory character of the statements issued by the majority in response to the September letter and expressed emphatic disapproval of the claim by Lovestone that the Comintern was “continuing its policy of supporting politically the present leadership.” “This formulation,” the new letter asserted, “could lead to the interpretation that the Sixth Congress has expressly declared its confidence in the majority in contrast to the minority. But this is not so.”<br />
<br />
The letter also called for the postponement of the Party Convention until February 1929. Clearly Lovestone had overreached himself. Coming on the eve of the U.S. Central Committee Plenum, the letter threw the Lovestoneites into dismay and consternation. How do we explain the sharpened tone of this letter? It was a by-product of the heightened counter-offensive against the international right and its conciliators which had gotten underway after the Sixth Congress of the Comintern, It was a warning tremor of the quake that was to come. <br />
<br />
Internationally the right had crystallized at the congress and, immediately following, it had burgeoned forth in the USSR and other leading parties of the Comintern. In Germany it was expressed in illusions regarding the social democrats and in resistance to the organization of left unions. In France it was reflected in opposition to the election slogan of “class against class.” In Britain it surfaced as a non-critical attitude towards the Labor Party and a refusal to put up independent candidates. This new thrust of the right was met by a strong counter-offensive. In Germany it led to the expulsion of the Brandler-Thaelheimer right liquidationists. The Cl intervened there on behalf of Thaelmann against the conciliators Ewart and Gerhart Eisler.<br />
<br />
In the Soviet Union, the right line of Bukharin and his friends had encouraged resistance on the part of the kulaks and capitalist elements to the five-year plan, industrialization and collectivivation. They resisted the state monopoly on foreign trade. This was reflected in mass sabotage, terrorism against collective farmers, party workers and governmental officials in the countryside, burning down of the collective farms and state granaries. In the same year (1928), a widespread conspiracy of wreckers was exposed in the Shackty District of the Donetz Coal Basin. The conspirators had close connections with former mine owners and foreign capitalists. Their aim was to disrupt socialist development. As a result, the counter-offensive could no longer be postponed, and the CPSU was obliged to take sharp action against the menacing right and its leaders--Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky.<br />
<br />
The opening gun against the right came in October 1928, at a plenary meeting of the Moscow Committee of the CPSU. At first, Bukharin was not mentioned by name. Other meetings followed. In early February 1929, at a joint meeting of the Politburo and Presidium of the Central Control Commission (CCC), Bukharin was exposed as a leader of the hidden right.<br />
<br />
In the Comintern itsclf, the struggle unfolded after the Sixth Congress. As Bukharin came under attack, his leadership became increasingly tenuous. De facto leadership of the CI passed to the pro-Stalin forces and Bukharin became little more than a figurehead. His lieutenants, the Swiss Humhert-Droz and the Italian Celler, also came under attack.<br />
<br />
Against this background, it was inevitable that Lovestone too, would be smoked out in the open.<br />
<br />
We students held what amounted to a dual-party membership— enabling us to keep abreast of the situation in both the CPSU and the CPUSA. From our vantage point in Moscow, we had a clearer view of the developments in the CI than did our counterparts at home. As members of the CPSU we participated inthe fight of the school against the right. Molotov himself, Stalin's closest aide. came to the school to report on the decisions of the February 1929, joint meeting of the Central Commission of the CC of the CPSU and the Moscow Party organization, Along with Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky were exposed as leaders of a clandestine right in the Soviet Party.<br />
<br />
Molotov had moved into the Cl immediately after the Sixth Congress—a clear political move to offset Bukharin’s leadership, Therefore, he spoke authoritatively on the ramifications of the international right and of Bukharin supporters in the fraternal German, French, Italian and other parties, He didn’t mention the CPUSA or Lovestone in his report, but we students did in discussion on the floor following his report.<br />
<br />
The Lenin School was a strong point in the struggle against the Bukharin right, just as it had been in the struggle against the Trotsky-Zinoviev left. The school reflected in microcosm the struggle raging throughout the Cl for the implementation of the Sixth Congress line against the right opposition, Here we had the right on the run. They were in the minority and at a decided disadvantage from the start, for the entire school administration and faculty from Kursanova (the director) down were stalwart supporters of the Central Committee of the CPSU and its majority grouped around Stalin.<br />
<br />
Indeed, Lovestone had made a fatal mistake in allowing so many able comrades of the minority in the CPUSA to go to the Lenin School. He had undoubtedly already realized this, My group was now in its second year. The students who had preceded us, including Hathaway, were back in the U.S, and Hathaway quickly became an outstanding leader of the minority group upon his return.<br />
<br />
We all had many friends in the Russian Party and in the Cl, especially among the second level leadership—people important in international work. Some of us were sent on brief international missions—-for example, the Krumbeins were sent to China and also to Britain. Rudy Baker, another student from the ULS., was also sent to China. A number of us American students were invited to participate in meetings of the Profintern, the Anglo-American Secretariat and even the ECCT itself on occasions where American questions were discussed.<br />
<br />
I remember one such meeting that I attended as part of a group from the Lenin School. I had been sent by the school to extend greetings to a joint meeting of the Central Control Commission of the CC of the CPSU and its Moscow organization held January-February 1929, as mentioned above. Although I felt no need for an interpreter, as my Russian was adequate, Gus Sklar was sent with me. He was a fellow student and one of the few supporters of Lovestone at the school. A Russian-American, he was completely bilingual and a very affable fellow.<br />
<br />
In my brief speech of greetings I hailed the victorious struggle of the CPSU against the right and right-conciliators under the leadership of Comrade Stalin as setting an example for us in the American Party. “We have our own right deviationists,” I said, “Bukharin’s friends in the American Party---the Pepper-Lovestone leadership.” I described the leadership’s theory of American exceptionalism and its underestimation of the radicalization of the American working class and oppressed Blacks. I ended my speech in a typical Russian manner: “Long live the CPSU and its Bolshevik Central Committee led by Comrade Stalin.”<br />
<br />
I listened attentively as poor old Gus honestly and accurately translated my speech. It certainly was a factional speech but was greeted with applause by the Moscow officials and workers in the audience.<br />
<br />
Gus left the hall and proceeded immediately to the Lux Hotel to inform Lovestone’s crony, Bertram Wolfe. Wolfe had recently replaced J. Louis Engdahl as U.S. representative to the CI. He had been sent by Lovestone in the hope of improving communication between Moscow and the American Party.<br />
<br />
I recall that he was particularly riled by this speech. Several days later there was a meeting of the ECCI on the preparations for the American Party’s Sixth Convention to which a number of us students were invited as usual. Wolfe, while giving his report, voiced a number of complaints. Citing my speech, he questioned the seeming lack of respect accorded the legitimate representative of the American Party. “How is it,” he wondered, “that Haywood, a mere student, extends greetings to the Soviet Party. Why is it that he is given a platform at such an important meeting to launch a factional attack on the U.S. Communist Party? Why is it that when I report here, Lenin School students are always called on to give minority reports?”<br />
<br />
These complaints were met with stony-faced silence by the members of the secretariat.<br />
<br />
=== CURTAINS FOR LOVESTONE ===<br />
From Moscow, we students followed events in the U.S, with avid interest. Our line of communication was in good repair, as our stateside friends kept us well posted. We knew a showdown was imminent. Finally, the Sixth Convention of the CPUSA convened on March I, 1929.<br />
<br />
It was attended by two special CI emissaries with plenipotentiary powers, the German, Philip Dengel, and the British Communist leader, Harry Pollitt. They brought with them two sets of directives: the first was public in the form of the final draft of the CI’s open letter to the convention, and the second, confidential organizational proposals designed to ensure the carrying out of the directives of the open letter. The contents of the open letter were known, it had been circulated as a draft. We students at the Lenin School had participated in the discussions in the Cl in which the letter was formulated.<br />
<br />
The open letter continued the balanced criticism of both groups along the lines of paragraph forty-nine of the Thesis of the Sixth Congress and the Supplementary Thesis. It held that both groups were guilty of unprincipled factionalism; it pointed to the absence of differences on principle between them. It said both were guilty of right mistakes, However, there was something new in the open letter. It pointed out that the source of the right mistakes of both groups lay in the idea of American exceptionalism. “Both sides,” it continued, “are inclined to regard American imperialism as isolated from world capitalism. as independent from it and developing according to its own laws.”<br />
<br />
To us in the minority, it seemed the scales were now tipped slightly but definitely against Lovestone. Though both sides were guilty of this error, it was the Lovestone faction which had articulated it into a full blown theory and which, I felt, held to it the most strongly.<br />
<br />
“This mistake of the majority is closely related to its great overestimation of the economic might and the powerful technical development of the United States.” In this regard the open letter emphasized that it is “absolutely wrong to regard this technical revolution as a ‘second industrial revolution’ as is done in the majority thesis.” It was a “serious error,” it stated, to infer that the remnants of feudalism were being wiped out in the South and that a new bourgeoisie with a new proletariat were being formed.<br />
<br />
“Such overestimation (of the results of the development of technique) would play into the hands of all advertisers of the successes of bourgeois science and technique who seek to deafen the proletariat by raising a lot of noise about technical progress and showing that there is no general crisis of capitalism; that capitalism is still vigorous in the U.S. and that thanks to its extremely rapid development, it is capable of pulling Europe out of its crisis.” The letter contended that “technical transformation” and rationalization lead “to further deepening and sharpening of the general crisis of capitalism.”<br />
<br />
With regards to the minority it criticized Bittelman’s “apex theory ” and stated that the “sharpening of the general crisis of capitalism is to be expected not because American imperialism ceases to develop but on the contrary it is to be expected because American imperialism is developing and surpasses other capitalist countries in its development, which leads to an extreme accentuation of all antagonisms.” The “apex theory” is the view that U.S. imperialism had reached its peak of development and would soon be brought to its knees, primarily by the weight of its own internal contradictions.<br />
<br />
The letter went on to condemn the factionalism in the Party, stating, “so long as these two groups exist in the Party...the further healthy ideological development of the Party is excluded.”<br />
<br />
It concluded by putting forth four principal conditions essential to the Party's “transformation into a mass Communist Party...the decisive significance of which neither the majority...nor the minority have understood.” The four conditions were: “1) correct perspective in the analysis of the general crisis of capitalism and American imperialism which is a part of it; 2) To place in the center of the work of the Party the daily necds of the American working class; 3) Freeing the Party from its immigrant narrowness and seclusion and making the American workers its wide basis, paying due attention to work among Negroes; and 4) Liquidation of factionalism and drawing workers into the leadership.”<br />
<br />
Clearly the letter put an end to any basis for Lovestone’s claim of CI support.<br />
<br />
What then were the CI’s proposals for a new, non-factional leadership? These were contained in the confidential organizational proposals brought by the two CI reps, Dengel and Pollitt. The proposals called for the temporary withdrawal of Lovestone and Bittelman—considered the two main factionalists—from the U.S. and requested that they be placed at the disposal of the Cl for assignment to international work, It advised the appointment of William Z. Foster as the new general secretary. Pepper was again ordered to Moscow immediately and forbidden to attend the convention.<br />
<br />
Formal acceptance of the line of the open letter posed no difficulties for an unprincipled opportunist of Lovestone’s caliber. In fact, the letter was endorsed by both factions. But the organizational proposals, which threatened to snatch power from Lovestone, were another matter, The crucial question for Lovestone and company was to retain contol of the Party, With his huge majority in the Party, he felt he was in a position to bargain with the CL. But the situation called for some fast footwork.<br />
<br />
While loudly proclaiming full agreement with the political directive and proposing its unqualified acceptance, he directed his main thrust at the organizational Proposals, claiming they contradicted the political directive. Defying the CI reps, he and his partisans carried the fight to the convention floor, There they launched an unbridled campaign of defamation and character assassination against Foster, who was then favored by the CI to replace Lovestone, The minority, on its part, charged Lovestone with support of the deposed Bukharin.<br />
<br />
Not to be outdone, the Lovestoncites supported a resolution denouncing Bukharin and calling for his ouster as head of the Comintern. Lovestone had no compunction in dumping his former political patron. Tempers flared; fistfights erupted on the convention floor. A group of so-called proletarian delegates organized by Lovestone sent a cable to the CI pleading for a reversal of the organizational proposals, and that the convention be allowed to choose its own general secretary, subject of course to the CI’s approval. <br />
<br />
The situation was so tense that the CI responded by conceding the right of the convention to elect its own leadership-—-and thus its general secretary-—with the exception of Lovestone, They still insisted on Lovestone’s and Bittelman’s withdrawal to Moscow. Other than that, the convention with its Lovestone majority was free to elect its own leadership.<br />
<br />
Lovestone made his crony Gitlow general secretary. The CI also insisted on Pepper's return to Moscow. The convention ended up with the appointment of several Lovestone loyalists as a “proletarian delegation,” which would travel to Moscow and plead the majority case in the Comintern. The members of the delegation were mainly Party functionaries chosen for political reliability. Led by the majority leaders Lovestone, Gitlow and Bedacht, they went to Moscow to seek the repeal of Lovestone’s assignment to Moscow and his prohibition from CPUSA leadership.<br />
<br />
=== THE SCENE SHIFTS TO MOSCOW ===<br />
Since the Sixth Congress, Lovestone had succeeded in covering his flanks on the Afro-American question. He had proposed Huiswood as candidate for the ECCI (of which he was now a member). Five Blacks—Huiswood, Otto Hall, Briggs, Edward Welsh and John Henry—were elected to the new Central Committee, Lovestone’s “proletarian delegation” arrived in Moscow on April 7, 1929, its ten members included two Black comrades, Edward Welsh and Otto Huiswood. I assumed that the line-up of leading Black comrades with the Lovestone crowd represented an alliance of convenience and had little to do with ideology. Up to that time there had been no serious discussion in the Party of the Sixth Congress resolution on the Negro question.<br />
<br />
Foster and Weinstone also arrived to place the case of the minority before the American Commission. Weinstone had switched over to the minority during the Sixth Party Convention and now supported the Cl organizational proposals. Bittelman was also on hand, having acceded without protest to his reassignment to Comintern work.<br />
<br />
The American Commission convened a week later, on April 14, 1929, in a large rectangular hall in the Comintern building. More than a hundred participants and spectators were on hand. The commission itself was an impressive group and included leading Marxists from Germany, Britain, France, Czechoslovakia and China. Among the delegates from the USSR were Stalin, Molotov and Manuilsky. There were also top officials of the Comintern and Profintern: Kuusinen, Gusev, Mikhailov (Williams), Lozoysky, Béla Kun, Kolarov, Kitarov (secretary of the YCI) and Bell. Kuusinen was chairman of the commission and Mikhailov was secretary.<br />
<br />
Among the invited guests was our large contingent from the Lenin School. I sat and looked over the “proletarian delegation” as we waited for the meeting to start. I knew Huiswood, having met him at the founding convention of the American Negro Labor Congress in 1925, but I didn’t know Welsh-—-he was a newcomer, having been in the Party only a few months.<br />
<br />
There was Alex Noral, a farmer from the west coast whom I had met in Moscow the year before. There he had worked in the Crestintern (the Peasant International) representing American farmers, There was Mother Bloor whom I had met previously; she was a plump, kindly-looking elderly woman, formerly with the Foster faction. She always had a twinkle in her eye and her gentle look belied her true character as a staunch, fierce, proletarian fighter. A veteran of many labor battles, she was an impressive agitator. I wondered what she was doing in Lovestone’s crowd. There were three others in the delegation whom I didn’t know: William Miller, Tom Myerscough and William J. White.<br />
<br />
The commission sessions were to last nearly a month. Gitlow led off stating the case for the majority. A large man, his face screwed up ina perennial frown, he was an ill-tempered sort. He harangued the audience for two hours, pouring invective on the minority, particularly Foster. Boasting that the overwhelming majority of the Party supported his group, he praised Lovestone, contrasting the great (so-called) “contributions” of Lovestone with the shortcomings and failures of Foster.<br />
<br />
Woven throughout was the implication that the Party would be destroyed if the Comintern’s decisions were not reversed. He attacked Lozovsky, Profintern chairman, as being virtually a member of the minority faction. He wound up his pitch by calling for a reversal of the Cl organizational directives to the CPUSA Sixth Convention, stating that the removal of Lovestone from leadership would be a damaging blow to the Party.<br />
<br />
Foster replied in a more moderate tone, scoring the Pepper-Lovestone leadership and their theory of American exceptionalism as representing the right deviation in the U.S. Party. He expressed outrage at the smear campaign launched against him by the Lovestone group which he said was designed to line up the Party against the Cl decisions. He called for support of the Comintern.<br />
<br />
Bittelman spoke, emphasizing that the downward swing of the U.S. economy was already taking place and life itself refuted the Lovestone-Pepper optimistic prognosis. Wolfe complained about discriminatory treatment by the ECCI, how his status as official representative of the CPUSA was not recognized and how he was excluded from important discussions on the American question.<br />
<br />
At last, members of the “proletarian delegation” took the floor and spoke, damning Foster and praising Lovestone. After speaking, each one was questioned by members of the commission. The questions were designed to bring out their understanding of the issues involved. Nothing came out but a parroting of Gitlow and Lovestone.<br />
<br />
There ‘was an undercurrent of belligerency and hostility to the commission and the Comintern. Loyalty to Lovestone was a hailmark of the delegation. I was particularly embarrassed by Ed Welsh. He was a tall, handsome, young Black. Welsh, I learned, had been in the Party only a few months, but was a staunch henchman of Lovestone, who had placed him on the Central Committee.<br />
<br />
As he mounted the platform, anger, defiance and disrespect for the commission was written plainly on his face. He launched into a most vicious tirade against Lozovsky, the chairman of the Profintern. Manuilsky, a Soviet member of the ECCI who was sitting in front of the rostrum, was so shocked at the virulence of this attack against a person of Lozovsky’s stature that he started to rise to his feet in protest.<br />
<br />
Welsh waved him down with his hand, shouting, “Aw, sit down you!”<br />
<br />
Manuilsky flopped back in his chair in open-mouth amazement.<br />
<br />
Tom Myerscough, a mine organizer from the Pittsburgh area, also spoke. He was a tough-looking, blustering ex-miner. He strode up to the platform and declared that he spoke three languages, “English, profane, and today I’m gonna speak cold turkey.”<br />
<br />
The running translation came to an abrupt halt and there was a momentary confusion as the translators stumbled over this slang term.<br />
<br />
In the end, Myerscough’s “cold turkey” turned out to be just another rehash of Lovestone’s charges.<br />
<br />
The commission then brought up its big guns. Comintern and Profintern officials—Gusev, Kolarov, Lozovsky, Béla Kun, Heller and Bell. They continued with a balanced criticism of both groups, but as the meeting went on more and more emphasis was placed on the mistakes of the majority.<br />
<br />
Lozovsky, his eyes twinkling, stepped up joyously to the attack. It was evident that he welcomed this opportunity to settle old scores. He'd been subject to insults and slanders from Lovestone and company for several years, and now the day of reckoning had come. He directed his main barbs against Lovestone and Pepper, dwelling at length on the “strange case” of Comrade Pepper and his fictitious travels.<br />
<br />
Pepper was first called back to Moscow in September 1928; the call was repeated in the organizational proposals of February 1929, and he was ordered to take no part in the U.S. Party convention. Pepper dropped out of sight, giving the impression that he was on his way back to Moscow. Pepper’s account of what then happened was that he went to Mexico to seek transportation by ship to the Soviet Union. When no satisfactory arrangements could be made, he returned to New York and from there went on to Moscow. But during the period he was supposedly in Mexico, he was seen in New York at the time of the Party convention there.<br />
<br />
Pepper had returned, we heard, but was not present at any of the sessions. His case was before the International Control Commission. (An arm of the CI, the ICC was composed of representatives of seventeen parties. Its functions were to supervise the finances of the ECCI and deal with questions of discipline referred to it by member parties.)<br />
<br />
Lozovsky dwelt at length on Pepper’s mysterious travels; how it was the longest trip on record from New York to Moscow, how he had somehow managed the impossible feat of being in two places at the same time. He spoke of how Pepper had faced a big decision: either to return to Moscow or remain in the United States---which meant dropping out of the Party. It took him a long while to make up his mind, Lozovsky observed.<br />
<br />
Kolarov, a huge Bulgarian, took the floor. He referred to Myerscough’s “cold turkey” speech with heavy humor. He conceded that he lacked the linguistic skills of some of his American comrades, and since he didn’t know anything about this “cold turkey,” he was just going to speak plain Russian.<br />
<br />
Stalin made his first speech at the commission on May 6. Foster had introduced me to him at the beginning of the commission sessions. I guess Foster had wanted him to know he also had some Black supporters. I had met Stalin before, but I doubt that the great man had remembered me from our first meeting.<br />
<br />
I was now to hear him speak for the first time. Garbed in his customary tan tunic and polished black boots, he stepped to the rostrum. Very informally leaning on the stand with a pipe in one hand, he began speaking in a calm, measured, scarcely audible voice. We had to strain to hear him.<br />
<br />
Stalin emphasized two main points, charging both the majority and minority factions with American exceptionalism and unprincipled factionalism: “Both groups are guilty of the fundamental error of exaggerating the specific features of American capitalism. You know that this exaggeration lies at the root of every opportunist error committed both by the majority and minority groups.” Stalin followed this with a rhetorical question: “What are the main defects in the practice of the leaders of the majority and the minority?... Firstly, that in their day-to-day work they, and particularly the leaders of the majority, are guided by motives of unprincipled factionalism and place the interests of their faction higher than the interests of the Party.<br />
<br />
“Secondly, that both groups, and particularly the majority, are so infected with the disease of factionalism that they base their relations with the Comintern, not on the principle of confidence, but on a policy of rotten diplomacy, a policy of diplomatic intrigue.” As an example he cited the way in which both factions speculated on the “existing and non-existing differences within the CPSU,” adding that they are “competing with each other and chasing after each other like horses in a race.”<br />
<br />
He presented a six-point program for a solution to the problems faced by the American Party. This included approval “in the main” of the ECCI proposals to the Sixth Convention of the CPUSA (except that relating to the candidacy of Foster); sending of an open letter to all Party members “emphasizing the question of eradicating all factionalism”; condemning the refusal of the majority leaders to carry out the ECCI proposals at the Party convention; ending immediately the situation in the American Party in which important questions of developing the mass movement, “questions of the struggle of the working class against the capitalists,” were “replaced by petty questions of the factional struggle.”<br />
<br />
Stalin concluded by calling for a reorganization of the CPUSA by the secretariat of the ECCI, with emphasis on advancing those workers “who are capable of placing the interests and the unity of the Party above the interests of individual groups.” Finally, that Lovestone and Bittelman be made available for work in the Comintern so that everyone clearly understands that “the Comintern intends to fight factionalism in all seriousness.”<br />
<br />
Stalin’s remarks indicated why the CI considered the development of the American Party so crucial and why it spent so much time in resolving its problems: “The American Communist Party is one of those few communist parties in the world upon which history has laid tasks of a decisive character from the point of view of the world revolutionary movement....The three million new unemployed in America are the first swallows indicating the ripening of the economic crisis in America...1 think the moment is not far off when a revolutionary crisis will develop in America.”<br />
<br />
As Stalin was speaking, I looked across and saw Lovestone with a leer on his face. Earlier on during a break in the session, I had run into him in the corridor.<br />
<br />
“Hello, Harry,” he called to me, “you ought to come over to our side; we could use a bright young fellow like you.”<br />
<br />
Rather taken aback at the man’s gall, | said something like, “You've got your own Negroes!”<br />
<br />
“Oh, that trash!” he said with a deprecating wave of his hand, obviously referring to Huiswood and Welsh.<br />
<br />
Shocked by his crudeness, I was strongly tempted to ask how much he thought I was worth, but I was afraid he might have taken me seriously. <br />
<br />
The session continued as Molotov followed Stalin, speaking along basically the same line. He stressed the need to put an end to the factionalism which had corroded the Party and held back the growth of the working class movement. He concluded by calling on the CPUSA to “get on a new track....to ensure the liquidation of factionalism not in words but in deeds, and to ensure the transformation of its organization” so that the Party could prepare itself for the sharpening struggles and crises to come.<br />
<br />
It was now clear from the speeches of Stalin, Molotov and other members of the commission which way the wind was blowing. For the majority, Stalin’s specch was definitely an ill omen. Even though the subcommittee of the commission (Molotov, Gusev and Kuusinen) had not yet reported out a draft of the commission’s findings, Lovestone and company decided to force a showdown. From this point on, they begana series of veiled threats against the Comintern.<br />
<br />
On May 9, three days before the subcommittee’s draft was presented, the Lovestoneites issued a declaration which accused the ECCI of supporting the minority against the majority and “rewarding Comrade Foster with its confidence.” Gambling that they would still be able to control the Party at home, the Lovestoneites arrogantly challenged the leadership of the Cl. As a cover for their own splitting activities, they accused the ECCI of trying to split the American Party.<br />
<br />
This was clearly the rhetoric of splitting, and was so considered by the members of the commission. It could only be interpreted as a threat to take the U.S. Party out of the CL.<br />
<br />
On May 12, the last meeting of the full commission was called into session. Kuusinen, as chairman, reported the findings and decisions of the subcommittee. Their report was in the form of a draft address from the ECCI to the membership of the CPUSA which had been circulated the day before. Addressed over the heads of the Party leadership, it singled out the Lovestone faction for its sharpest attack. In this respect, it went much beyond previous criticisms, such as those of the “Open Letter to the Sixth Convention.” It now said that exceptionalism was “the ideological lever of the right errors in the American Communist Party,” adding that exceptionalism:<blockquote>'''found its clearest exponents in the persons of Comrades Pepper and Lovestone, whose conception was as follows: There is a crisis of capitalism but not of American capitalism, a swing of the masses leftwards but not in America. There is the necessity of accentuating the struggle against reformism but not in the United States, there is a necessity for struggling against the right danger, but not in the American Communist Party.'''</blockquote>The address charged the Lovestone leadership with “misleading honest proletarian Party members who uphold the line of the Comintern,” and “playing an unprincipled game with the question of the struggle against the right danger.” It termed Lovestone’s declaration of May 9 to be a “most factional and entirely impermissible anti-Party declaration,” stating that it “represents a direct attempt at preparing a condition necessary for paralyzing the decisions of the Comintern and for a split in the Communist Party of America.”<br />
<br />
The draft address concluded with five points:<br />
<br />
1) A call for dissolution of both factions; <br />
<br />
2) Temporary removal of Lovestone and Bittelman from work in the CPUSA;<br />
<br />
3) Rejection of the minority demand for a special convention; <br />
<br />
4) A call for the re-organization of the secretariat of the CC of the CPUSA on a non-factiona! basis;<br />
<br />
5) The turning of Pepper’s case over to the International Control Commission.<br />
<br />
Presenting the draft address, Kuusinen appealed to the Lovestone delegation:<blockquote>'''We call upon the comrades to turn back from this road unconditionally....Our subcommission deems it necessary to call quite definitely upon the delegation as a whole, and upon every individual member of the delegation, to state with absolute clearness whether they are prepared to submit to the decisions of the Comintern on the American question and to carry them out implicitly without reservations. Yes or no? It will substantially depend upon your answer, what character the measures of the Comintern upon the American question shall eventually assume. From your declaration we see plainly that it is no longer a question of factionalism of the leaders of the Majority of the CC against the Minority group, but it is already a factional attitude towards the Executive of the Comintern.'''</blockquote>The majority delegates, after provoking this showdown with the ECCI, refused to give a straight answer to the question posed by Kuusinen—whether or not they would accept the decisions of the Comintern. They backed away, postponing a confrontation until May 14. In the meantime, the majority leaders were secretly taking steps to split the Party.<br />
<br />
A cable drafted immediately after the May 12 meeting and telegraphed from Berlin on May 15 was secretly sent to “caretakers” at home, instructing them that the “....draft decision means destruction of Party....take no action, any proposals by anybody.” The cable went on to state, “situation astounding, outrageous, can’t be understood until arrival” and “possibility entire delegation being forcibly detained.”<br />
<br />
The cable then instructed the majority cohorts at home to: “Start wide movements in units and press for return of complete delegation.,.take no action on any...Cl instructions....Carefully check up all units, all property, all connections, all mailing lists of auxiliaries, all sub-lists, district lists, removing some offices and unreliables, Check all checking accounts, all organizations, seeing that authorized signers are exclusively reliables, appointing secretariat for auxiliaries and treasury dis-authorize present signatory, Instantly finish preparations sell buildings especially eliminating (Weinstone) trusteeship. Remove Mania Reiss.”<br />
<br />
=== LOVESTONE’S MOMENT OF TRUTH ===<br />
May 14, the night of the big showdown, finally arrived. The Presidium of the ECCI—the highest body of the Comintern— convened to hear the report of the commission and render the final decision on the American question. The Red Hall of the Comintern building was jam-packed with participants and on-lookers, among them top flight leaders of the Comintern and Profintern, political workers of both these organizations and leaders of many affiliate parties.<br />
<br />
We Americans constituted a sizeable group. In addition to the ten delegates, it seemed as though Moscow’s entire American Communist colony was present. Aside from our large Lenin School contingent, which had attended the sessions from the beginning, there were now students from the Eastern University (KUTVA): Maude White, Patterson, Marie Houston, Bennett and Herbert Newton.<br />
<br />
Lovestone’s moment of truth had arrived. During the month of sessions, tension had been steadily building; we waited with eager anticipation for the outcome of the final session.<br />
<br />
Finally the meeting was gaveled to order and Kuusinen, the chairman of the commission read its findings. They were in the form of an address from the Executive Committee of the Comintern to all members of the Communist Party USA. He concluded by pointing out that the majority delegates had yet to answer the question he had posed inthe commission on the twelfth of the month. The floor was then thrown open for discussion.<br />
<br />
An angry, scowling Ben Gitlow mounted the platform and read another declaration signed by the American “proletarian” delegation. Although presented in a more diplomatic form than the previous declaration, this new statement continued the same factional and anti-Party attack. As later characterized by the ECCI, it was a “direct attempt to nullify the decisions of the Cl and pave the way for an open split in the CPUSA."<br />
<br />
The declaration opened with some formal phrases asserting the adherence of its signers to discipline, loyalty and devotion to the Comintern, and claiming to speak for the “overwhelming majority of the membership” of the Party.<br />
<br />
It went on to charge the new draft letter to be<blockquote>'''Contrary to the letter and spirit of the line of the Sixth (Comintern) Congress...our acceptance of this draft letter would only promote demoralization, disintegration and chaos in the Party. This is the only logical outcome of the line of the draft letter... There are valid reasons for our being unable to accept this new draft letter, to assume responsibility before the Party membership for the execution of this letter, to endorse the inevitable irreparable damage that the line of this new draft letter is bound to bring to our Party.”'''</blockquote>The audience sat in stunned silence at this outright defiance of the Comintern. It was a clear declaration of war.<br />
<br />
Following Gitlow’s tirade, members of the Presidium and leaders of other parties took the floor and attacked the declaration, pointing out its anti-Party splitting character. They pleaded with the rank-and-file members of the delegation to remain loyal to the Comintern. This plea was joined by a number of our Lenin School students; Zack, Cowl and Lena Davis all spoke.<br />
<br />
During this part of the discussion, Stalin took the floor for the second time, In his usual calm, deliberate manner he delivered a scathing blast at the majority leaders—Lovestone, Gitlow and Bedacht. He characterized the May 9 declaration as “superfactional” and “anti-Party.” The May 14 declaration was “still more factional and anti-Party than that of May 9th.” He called the new declaration a deceitful maneuver, drawn up “craftily... by some sly attorney, by some petty-fogging lawyer.”<blockquote>'''On the one hand, the declaration avows complete loyalty to the Comintern, the unshakeable fidelity of the authors of the declaration to the Communist International....On the other hand, the declaration states that its authors cannot assume responsibility for carrying out the decision of the Presidium of the Executive Committee....If you please, on the one hand, complete loyalty; on the other, a refusal to carry out the decision of the Comintern, And this is called loyalty to the Comintern}... What sort of loyalty is that? What is the reason for this duplicity? This hypocrisy? Is it not obvious that this weighty talk of loyalty and fidelity to the Comintern is necessary to Comrade Lovestone in order to deceive the membership?!'''<br />
<br />
'''It cannot be denied that our American comrades, like all Communists, have the right to disagree with the draft of the decision of the Commission and have the right to oppose it... But... we must put the question squarely to the members of the American delegation, When the draft assumes the force of an obligatory decision of the Comintern, do they consider themselves entitled not to submit to that decision?'''!</blockquote>Stalin then dwelt at length on the evils of factionalism and his barbs hit us in the minority as well as the majority, He held up the American Party as an example of the havoc factionalism can wreak. He stated that factionalism:<blockquote>'''weakens communism, weakens the communist offensive against reformism, undermines the struggle of communism, against social-democracy...weakens the Party spirit, it dulls the revolutionary sense...interferes with the training of the Party in the spirit of a policy of principles...undermining its iron discipline...completely nullifies all positive work done in the Party.'''</blockquote>He warned the majority against playing “trumps with percenlages,” and denied their claim of majority support in the U.S. Party:<blockquote>'''You had a majority because the American Communist Party until now regarded you as the determined supporters of the Communist International.,..But what will happen if the American workers learn that you intend to break the unity of ranks of the Comintern?...You will find yourselves completely isolated... You may be certain of that.'''</blockquote>Stalin’s speech really struck home to me. I had been a member of a faction for the whole five years I had been in the Party; I had been recruited simultaneously into the Party and into a faction, Thus, when Lovestone took over, I had shifted from the Ruthenberg faction to the Foster faction, but after the past month of discussion there was no getting around the fact that factionalism had harmed the Party’s work. It was clear the Party could not make the turn to the left and, in particular, develop the Black movement without the elimination of factionalism.<br />
<br />
It was now after midnight, and the Presidium was finally called to vote on the draft address. It was accepted with one vote against, cast by its only American member, Gitlow. A poll was then taken of each of the majority delegates, Each was called to the platform aud asked directly if he or she accepted the decision, yes or no?<br />
<br />
There was a ripple of excitement when Bedacht, a majority leader and hitherto staunch supporter of Lovestone, broke with the majority and declared that he accepted the decision of the Presidium and would carry it out, He was joined by Noral, the west coast farmers’ organizer.<br />
<br />
Lovestone stood by the majority declaration. Six others, including Welsh, answered that while disagreeing with the decision they would follow communist discipline and accept it until it could be raised at the next Party convention. Gitlow spoke last. He declared that not only did he disagree with the decision, but that he would actively fight against it when he returned to the U.S.<br />
<br />
Again Stalin took the floor, evidently dissatisfied with the hedging of most of the American delegation. In a quiet voice he pointed out that the American comrades apparently “do not fully realize that to defend one’s convictions when the decision had not yet been taken is one thing, and to submit to the will of the Comintern after the decision has been taken is another.” He said it involved the ability of communists to act collectively and is “summed up as the readiness to conform the will of the individual comrades to the will of the collective.”<br />
<br />
He denied that the American Communist Party would perish if the Comintern persisted in its opposition to Lovestone’s line, arguing rather that “only one small factional group will perish.” The Presidium decision, he concluded, was important because “it will make it easier for the American Communist Party to put an end to unprincipled factionalism, create unity in the Party and finally enter on the broad path of mass political work.”<br />
<br />
The historic meeting was finally adjourned at 3 A.M. the morning of the fifteenth. It was nearly summer and, as we passed into the street, the early dawn shone on Moscow’s gilded church domes. We Lenin School students headed towards our dormitory off the Arbot. At first we were all quiet, each one engrossed in his or her own thoughts, trying to piece together what had happened and assess what it meant for the Party. Breaking the silence, someone asked me if I had witnessed the incident between Stalin and Welsh as we were leaving the hall.<br />
<br />
“No,” I said, “what happened?”<br />
<br />
It seemed that on the way out, Stalin passed Welsh who was standing in the aisle talking to Lovestone. Stalin, in a friendly gesture, extended his hand to Welsh, as if to say “we have our disagreements, but we're still comrades.”<br />
<br />
Welsh rudely rejected the proferred hand and in a loud voice said to Lovestone, “What the hell does that fellow want?” There was something strange about Welsh I didn’t like. His attachment to Lovestone seemed to transcend any communist or political principles, I wasn’t really too surprised at this incident, remembering the earlier one with Manuilsky. But I was glad I hadn’t seen it.<br />
<br />
The Lovestone drama was drawing to a close. The Comintern moved with dispatch to head off the threatened split. On May 17, two days after the Presidium meeting, the Political Secretariat of the CI removed Lovestone, Gitlow, and Wolfe from all positions of leadership in the Comintern and in the Party. At the same time all three were detained in the Soviet Union to await the formal disposition of their cases, Lovestone was warned that to leave the Soviet Union without permission of the Comintern would be considered a violation of communist discipline. Bedacht, Weinstone and Foster, who supported the address, were immediately sent home. Mikhailov (Williams) was also sent to the States as CI rep.<br />
<br />
The Comintern cabled the 3,000 word address to the CPUSA. It was received by Lovestone’s caretakers Minor and Stachel, who immediately disassociated themselves from Lovestone. Along with the leading ten man majority caucus, they pledged to follow the Comintern decisions. The Central Committee met the same day and unanimously called upon the delegates remaining in Moscow to cease all opposition to the CI. <br />
<br />
On May 20, five days after the meeting of the CI Presidium, the address was published in the Daily Worker and became the property of the entire Party membership. Lovestone’s doubledealing and deception were now apparent to all. The mandate from the Sixth Convention had limited him to seek review of the Cl decisions, not to defy them.<br />
<br />
In the following days, there was a flood of letters and resolutions from former Lovestone supporters denouncing him, repudiating the actions of their former leaders in Moscow, and unconditionally supporting the Comintern, On May 24, Huiswood, Noral and Mother Bloor, who were still in Moscow, issued a statement. They maintained that they still disagreed with the CI, but had no intention of resisting.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee set up interim leadership composed of William Z. Foster, Robert Minor, W.W. Weinstone and Max Bedacht as acting secretary. The new leadership immediately inaugurated a mass campaign to educate the rank-and-file Party members about the political issues involved in the struggle. This campaign swiftly swung the vast majority of the Party behind the CI. On June 22, the U.S. Party was notified by the CI that Lovestone had left Moscow in violation of the Comintern decision and without meeting his promise to submit for publication a political declaration retracting his opposition. Gitlow and Wolfe had left before. Upon his return to the U.S., Lovestone continued his splitting maneuvers. By the end of June, all three were expelled from the Party.<br />
<br />
Thus Lovestone’s attempt to split the Party failed completely. It was repudiated by almost his entire following. His boasted ninety percent majority shrank to two percent. Only a couple hundred bitter-end right wing factionalists remained loyal to him and were expelled along with him.<br />
<br />
The political and organizational linc of the Sixth Congress was soon vindicated. Scarcely three months after the expulsion of the Lovestoneites came the stock market crash of October 1929— signaling the onset of the great economic crisis which was to engulf the entire capitalist world and exacerbate the already deepening general crisis of capitalism. The crisis shattered the bourgeois liberal myth of American exceptionalism perpetrated by Lovestone and Pepper.<br />
<br />
With the elimination of the six-year-old factional struggle and its chief perpetrators, unity was at last achieved. The Party was now in a position to carry through the left turn called for by the Sixth Congress, now capable of leading the great class and liberation struggles of the next decade.<br />
<br />
The political degeneration of the Lovestone leaders was rapid and predictable, Lovestone formed a so-called Communist Party Opposition Group, declaring its purpose to be the “re-establishment of communism in America.” He kept up the pretense of being a Marxist-Leninist for a few years but when his anti-Party campaign proved ineffectual, the group fell apart and Lovestone embarked on an open anti-communist course.<br />
<br />
He later placed himself in the service of the reactionary trade unionists Matthew Woll and David Dubinsky, with whom he helped sponsor the AFL-CIO anti-communist crusades. In 1963 Lovestone moved up to international prominence as director of the AFL-CIO's Department of International Affairs and George Meany’s “Foreign Minister.” The International Affairs Department had its own network of ambassadors, administrators and intelligence agents and collaborated closely with the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in reactionary subversion of trade union movements in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe.<br />
<br />
John Pepper was expelied from the Party by the International Control Commission, not for his political crimes, but for lying with respect to the trip to Mexico which he never made and for falsifying an expense account for a fictitious trip to Korea. He wound up working for the Gosplan (State General Planning Commission in the Soviet Union). I occasionally saw him on Tverskaya on his way to or from work. What a come-down for Pepper! From the glamor of international politics to a burcaucrat’s desk in the Planning Commission.<br />
<br />
Edward Welsh remained Lovestone’s man-Friday. Many years later, in the early fifties, I ran into him on the street in New York City. We immediately recognized each other. Surprised and curious, I asked if he were still with Lovestone. He said he was, adding that he knew I was still with the Party. Neither of us had more to say; there was an awkward pause, we said goodbye and went our own ways.<br />
<br />
Back at the Lenin School, we of the former minority were elated by the decisions of the commission and the news of the complete rout of the Lovestoneites at home. The political and organizational decisions of the Comintern were accepted unanimously at a meeting of American students held shortly after the close of the commission. Factionalism was condemned and the unity of American students achieved. It was at this meeting that the last two Lovestone holdouts, Gus Sklar and H.V. Phillips, finally capitulated.<br />
<br />
=== THE CRIMEA REVISITED ===<br />
[[Category:Library]]<br />
[[Category:Library works by Harry Haywood]]<br />
[[Category:Library works about the United States of America]]<br />
[[Category:Library works about the Soviet Union]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:Black_Bolshevik&diff=63718Library:Black Bolshevik2024-03-05T18:04:27Z<p>RedCustodian: /* BIG BILL HAYWOOD */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Library work|title=Black Bolshevik: Autobiography Of An Afro-American Communist|image=https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1328767045i/704092.jpg|author=Harry Haywood|publisher=Liberator Press|published_date=January 1, 1978|published_location=Chicago Illinois|type=Book|isbn=9780930720537|source=[https://archive.org/details/black-bolshevik-autobiography-of-an-afro-american-communist/mode/2up archive.org]}}<br />
<br />
''Black Bolshevik'' is the autobiography of [[Harry Haywood]], published January 1, 1978. The son of former slaves who became a leading member of the [[Communist Party of the United States of America|Communist Part USA]] and a pioneering theoretician on the Afro-American struggle.<br />
<br />
The author's first-hand accounts of the Chicago race riot of 1919, the Scottsboro Boys' defense, communist work in the South, the [[Spanish Civil War]], the battle against the revisionist betrayal of the Party, and other history-shaping events are must reading for all who are interested in Black history and the working class struggle.<br />
<br />
It was dedicated to his family; his third wife, son and daughter. <br />
<br />
"To My Family,<br />
<br />
Gwen, Haywood, Jr., and Becky" <br />
<br />
== Acknowledgement ==<br />
There have been many friends and comrades who have, directly or indirectly, helped me with the writing of this book. Unfortunately, they are too numerous to all be named here.<br />
<br />
There are a number of young people who have helped with the editorial, research and typing tasks and helped the project along through political discussions. Special thanks to Ernie Allen, who gave yeoman help with the early chapters. Others whose assistance was indispensable include Jody and Susan Chandler, Paula Cohen, Stu Dowty and Janet Goldwasser, Paul Elitzik, Pat Fry, Gary Goff, Sherman Miller, John Schwartz, Lyn Wells and Carl Davidson. Others who gave me assistance are Renee Blakkan and Nathalie Garcia.<br />
<br />
Over the past years, I have had discussions with several veteran comrades and friends who have helped immeasurably in jogging my memory and filling in the gaps where my own experience was lacking, I extend my warmest appreciation to Jesse Gray, Josh Lawrence, Arthur and Maude (White) Katz, John Killens, Ruth Hamlin, Frances Loman, Al Murphy, Joan Sandler, Delia Page and Jack and Ruth Shulman.<br />
<br />
A political autobiography is necessarily shaped by experiences over the years and by comrades who helped and influenced me in the long battle for self-determination and against revisionism. My earliest political debts are to the first core of Black cadres in the CPUSA: Cyril Briggs, Edward Doty, Richard B. Moore and to my brother Otto Hall, all former members of the African Blood Brotherhood.<br />
<br />
To Harrison George, outstanding son of the working class, charter member of the CPUSA, former editor of the Daily Worker and the Peoples' World, who gave his all to the Communist movement and died alone, victimized for his “premature" anti- revisionism.<br />
<br />
A special tribute to my comrades in the battles against revisionism within the CPUSA and after: Al Lannon, veteran director of the Waterfront Section and member of the Central Committee of the CPUSA; Charles Loman, executive secretary of the Brooklyn Party Organization; Isidore Beagun, executive secretary of the Bronx Party Organization; Allen and Pearl Lawes, Al and Ruth Hamlin, Olga and Victor Agosto. And to my wife, Gwendolyn Midlo Hall, my closest collaborator from 1953 through 1964 in the writing of manuscripts as well as in the Apolitical battles, who has since established her own reputation as historian and essayist.<br />
<br />
A tribute to Ed Strong, former communist youth leader and director of the Southern Negro Youth Congress, whose premature death in the mid-fifties cut short his uncompromising stand within the Central Committee for the right of self-determination for the Black nation.<br />
<br />
To the editors of Soulbook Magazine, who published my writings in 1965-66 and invited me to Oakland, California, in the spring of 1966 during the formative stages of the Black Panther movement.<br />
<br />
To Vincent Harding, who provided me with funds to return to the U.S. from Mexico in 1970 and gave me technical and material assistance to begin this autobiography.<br />
<br />
Thanks to John Henrik Clarke and Francisco and Elizabeth Cattlett de Mora for their enthusiasm and moral support.<br />
<br />
To Robert Warner, Director of the Michigan Historical Collections, for his help and his sensitivity to the need to collect and preserve historically relevant materials from the Black movement in the United States.<br />
<br />
== Prologue ==<br />
On July 28, 1919,1 literally stepped into a battle that was to last the rest of my life. Exactly three months after mustering out of the Army, I found myself in the midst of one of the bloodiest race riots in U.S. history. It was certainly a most dramatic return to the realities of American democracy. <br />
<br />
It came to me then that I had been fighting the wrong war. The Germans weren’t the enemy -the enemy was right here at home. These ideas had been developing ever since I landed home in April, and a lot of other Black veterans were having the same thoughts. <br />
<br />
I had a job as a waiter on the Michigan Central Railroad at the time. In July, I was working the Wolverine, the crack Michigan Central train between Chicago and New York. We would serve lunch and dinner on the run out of Chicago to St. Thomas, Canada, where the dining car was cut off the train. The next morning our cars would be attached to the Chicago-bound train and we would serve breakfast and lunch into Chicago.<br />
<br />
On July 27, the Wolverine left on a regular run to St. Thomas. Passing through Detroit, we heard news that a race riot had broken out in Chicago. The situation had been tense for some time. Several members of the crew, all of them Black, had bought revolvers and ammunition the previous week when on a special to Battle Creek, Michigan. Thus, when we returned to Chicago at about 2:00 P.M. the next day (July 28). we were apprehensive about what awaited us.<br />
<br />
The whole dining car crew, six waiters and four cooks, got off at the Twelfth Street Station in Chicago. Usually we would stay on the car while it backed out to the yards, but the station seemed a better route now. We were all tense as we passed through the station on the way to the elevated which would take us to the Southside and home. Suddenly a white trainman accosted us. “Hey, you guys going out to the Southside?”<br />
<br />
“Yeah, so what?” I said, immediately on the alert, thinking he might start something.<br />
<br />
“If I were you I wouldn’t go by the avenue” He meant Michigan Avenue which was right in front of the station.<br />
<br />
“Why?”<br />
<br />
“There’s a big race riot going on out there, and already this morning a couple of colored soldiers were killed coming in unsuspectingly. If I were you I’d keep off the street, and go right out those tracks by the lake.”<br />
<br />
We took the trainman’s advice, thanked him, and turned toward the tracks. It would be much slower walking home, but if he were right, it would be safer. As we turned down the tracks toward the Southside of the city, towards the Black ghetto, I thought of what I had just been through in Europe and what now lay before me in America.<br />
<br />
On one side of us lay the summer warmness of Lake Michigan. On the other was Chicago, a huge and still growing industrial center of the nation, bursting at its seams; brawling, sprawling Chicago, “hog butcher for the nation” as Carl Sandburg had called it<br />
<br />
As we walked, I remembered the war. On returning from Europe, I had felt good to be alive. I was glad to be back with my family—Mom, Pop and my sister. At twenty-one, my life lay before me. What should I do? The only trade I had learned was waiting tables. I hadn’t even finished the eighth grade. Perhaps I should go back to France, live there and become a French citizen? After all, I hadn’t seen any Jim Crow there.<br />
<br />
Had race prejudice in the U.S. lessened? I knew better. Conditions in the States had not changed, but we Blacks had. We were determined not to take it anymore. But what was I walking into?<br />
<br />
Southside Chicago, the Black ghetto, was like a besieged city. Whole sections of it were in ruins. Buildings burned and the air was heavy with smoke, reminiscent of the holocaust from which I had recently returned.<br />
<br />
Our small band, huddled like a bunch of raw recruits under machine gun fire, turned up Twenty-sixth Street and then into the heart of the ghetto. At Thirty-fifth and Indiana, we split up to go our various ways; I headed for home at Forty-second Place and Bowen. None of us returned to work until the riot was over, more than a week later.<br />
<br />
The battle at home was just as real as the battle in France had been. As I recall, there was full-scale street fighting between Black and white. Blacks were snatched from streetcars and beaten or killed; pitched battles were fought in ghetto streets; hoodlums roamed the neighborhood, shooting at random. Blacks fought hack.<br />
<br />
As I saw it at the time, Chicago was two cities. The one was the Chamber of Commerce’s city of the “American Miracle,” the Chicago of the 1893 World Columbian Exposition. It was the new industrial city which had grown in fifty years from a frontier town to become the second largest city in the country. <br />
<br />
The other, the Black community, had been part of Chicago almost from the time the city was founded. Jean Baptiste Pointe DuSable, a Black trapper from French Canada, was the first settler. Later came fugitive slaves, and after the Civil War- more Blacks, fleeing from post-Reconstruction terror, taking jobs as domestics and personal servants. <br />
<br />
The large increase was in the late 1880s through World War 1, as industry in the city expanded and as Blacks streamed north following the promise of jobs, housing and an end to Jim Crow lynching. The Illinois Central tracks ran straight through the deep South from Chicago to New Orleans, and the Panama Limited made the run every day. <br />
<br />
Those that took the train north didn’t find a promised land. They found jobs and housing, all right, but they had to compete with the thousands of recent immigrants from Europe who were also drawn to the jobs in the packing houses, stockyards and steel mills. <br />
<br />
The promise of an end to Jim Crow was nowhere fulfilled. In those days, the beaches on Lake Michigan were segregated. Most were reserved for whites only. The Twenty-sixth Street Beach, close to the Black community, was open to Blacks—but only as long as they stayed on their own side.<br />
<br />
The riot had started at this beach, which was then jammed with a late July crowd. Eugene Williams, a seventeen-year-old Black youth, was killed while swimming off the white side of the beach. The Black community was immediately alive with accounts of what had happened—that he had been murdered while swimming., that a group of whites had thrown rocks at him and killed him, and that the policeman on duty at the beach had refused to make any arrests.<br />
<br />
This incident was the spark that ignited the flames of racial animosity which had been smoldering for months. Fighting between Blacks and whites broke out on the Twenty-sixth Street beach after Williams’s death. It soon spread beyond the beach and lasted over six days. Before it was over, thirty-eight people—Black and white—were dead, 537 injured and over 1,000 homeless.<br />
<br />
The memory of this mass rebellion is still very sharp in my mind. It was the great turning point in my life, and I have dedicated myself to the struggle against capitalism ever since. In the following pages of my autobiography, I have attempted to trace the development of that struggle in the hopes that today’s youth can learn from both our successes and failures. lt is for the youth and the bright future of a socialist USA that this book has been written.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 ==<br />
<br />
=== A Child of Slaves ===<br />
I was born in South Omaha, Nebraska, on February 4, 1898— the youngest of the three children of Harriet and Haywood Hall. Otto, my older brother, was born in May 1891; and Eppa, my sister, in December 1896. <br />
<br />
The 1890s had been a decade of far-reaching structural change in the economic and political life of the United States. These were fateful years in which the pattern of twentieth century subjugation of Blacks was set. A young U.S. imperialism was ready in 1898 to shoulder its share of the “white man’s burden” and take its "manifest destiny” beyond the Pacific Coast and the Gulf of Mexico. In the war against Spain, it embarked on its first "civilizing” mission against the colored peoples of the Philippines and the “mixed breeds” of Cuba and Puerto Rico. In the course of the decade and a half following the Spanish-American War, the two-faced banner of racism and imperialist “benevolence” was carried to the majority of the Caribbean countries and the whole of Latin America.<br />
<br />
“The echo of this industrial imperialism in America,” said W. E. B. DuBois, “was the expulsion of Black men from American democracy, their subjection to caste control and wage slavery.” In 1877, the Hayes-Tilden agreement had successfully aborted the ongoing democratic revolution of Reconstruction in the South. Blacks were sold down the river, as northern capitalists, with the assistance of some former slaveholders, gained full economic and political control in the South. Henceforward, it was assured that the future development of the region would be carried out in complete harmony with the interests of Wall Street. The following years saw the defeat of the Southern based agrarian populist movement, with its promise of Black and white unity against the power of monopoly capital. The counter-revolution against Reconstruction was in full swing.<br />
<br />
Beginning in 1890, the Southern state legislatures enacted a series of disenfranchisement laws. Within the next sixteen years, these laws were destined to completely abrogate the right of Blacks to vote. This same period saw the revival of the notorious Black Codes, the resurgence of the hooded terror of the Ku Klux Klan and the defeat for reelection in 1905 of the last Black congressman surviving the Reconstruction period. Jim Crow laws enforcing segregation in public facilities were enacted by Southern states and municipal governments. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Jim Crow in the Plessy vs. Ferguson decision in 1896, declaring that legislation is powerless to eradicate “racial instinets” and establishing the principle of “separate but equal.” This decision was only reversed in 1954, when the U.S. Supreme Court held that separate facilities were inherently unequal.<br />
<br />
At the time when I was born, the Black experience was mainly a Southern one. The overwhelming majority of Black people still resided in the South. Most of the Black inhabitants of South Omaha were refugees from the twenty-year terror of the post-Re construction period. Omaha itself, despite its midwestern location, did not escape the terror completely, as indicated by the lynching of a Black man, Joe Coe, by a mob in 1891. Many people had relatives and families in the South. Some had trekked up to Kansas in 1879 under the leadership of Henry Adams of Louisiana and Moses “Pap” Singleton of Tennessee, and many had then continued further north to Omaha and Chicago.<br />
<br />
My parents were born slaves in 1860. They were three years old at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation. My Father was born on a plantation in Martin County, Tennessee, north of Memphis. The plantation was owned by Colonel Haywood Hall, whom my Father remembered as a kind and benevolent man. When the slaves were emancipated in 1863, my Grandfather, with the consent of Mr. Hall, took both the given name and surname of his former master.<br />
<br />
I never knew Grandfather Hall, as he died before I was born. According to my Father and uncles, he was—as they said in those days—“much of a man” He was active in local Reconstruction polities and probably belonged to the Black militia. Although Tennessee did not have a Reconstruction government, there were many whites who supported the democratic aims that were pursued during the Reconstruction period.<br />
<br />
But Tennessee was also the home of the Ku Klux Klan, where it was first organized after the Civil War. In the terror that followed the Hayes-Tilden agreement, these “night riders” had marked my Grandfather out as a “bad nigger” for lynching. At first they were deterred because of the paternalism of Colonel Hall. Many of Hall’s former slaves still lived on his plantation after the war ended, and the colonel had let it be known that he would kill the first “son-of-a-bitch” that trespassed on his property and tried to terrorize his “nigrahs.”<br />
<br />
But the anger of the night riders, strengthened by corn liquor, finally overcame their fear of Colonel Hall. My Father, who was about fifteen at the time, described what happened. One night the Klansmen rode onto the plantation and headed straight for Grandfather’s cabin. They broke open the door and one poked his head into the darkened cabin. “Hey, Hall’s nigger-where are you?"<br />
<br />
My Grandfather was standing inside and fired his shotgun point blank at the hooded head. The Klansman, half his head blown off, toppled onto the floor of the cabin, and his companions mounted their horses and fled. Grandmother, then pregnant, fell against the iron bed.<br />
<br />
Grandfather got the family out of the cabin and they ran to the “big house” for protection. It was obvious they couldn’t stay in Tennessee, so the Colonel hitched up a wagon and personally drove them to safety, outside of Martin County. Some of Grandfather’s family were already living in Des Moines, Iowa, so the Hall family left by train for Des Moines the following morning. The shock of this experience was so great that Grandmother gave birth prematurely to their third child—my Uncle George who lived to be ninety-five. Grandmother, however, became a chronic invalid and died a few years after the flight from Tennessee.<br />
<br />
Father was only in his teens when the family left for Des Moines, so he spent most of his youth there. In the late 1880s, he left and moved to South Omaha where there was more of a chance to get work. He got a job at Cudahy’s Packing Company, where he worked for more than twenty years—first as a beef-lugger (loading sides of beef on refrigerated freight cars), and then as a janitor in the main office building. Not long after his arrival, he met and married Mother—Harriet Thorpe—who had come up from Kansas City, Missouri, at about the same time.<br />
<br />
Father was powerfully built—of medium height, but with tremendous breadth (he had a forty-six-inch chest and weighed over 200 pounds). He was an extremely intelligent man. With little or no formal schooling, he had taught himself to read and write and was a prodigious reader. Unfortunately, despite his great strength, he was not much of a fighter, or so it seemed to me. In later years, some of the old slave psychology and fear remained. He was an ardent admirer of Booker T. Washington who, in his Atlanta compromise speech of 1895, had called on Blacks to submit to the racist status quo,<br />
<br />
Uncle George was the opposite. He would brook no insult and had been known to clean out a whole barroom when offended. The middle brother, Watt, was also a fighter and was especially dangerous if he had a knife or had been drinking. I remember both of them complaining of my Father’s timidity.<br />
<br />
My Mother’s family also had great fighting spirit. Her father, Jerry Thorpe, was born on a plantation near Bowling Green, Kentucky. He was illiterate, but very smart and very strong. Even as an old man, his appearance made us believe the stories that were told of his strength as a young man. When he was feeling fine and happy, his exuberance would get the best of him and he’d grab the largest man around, hoist him on his shoulders, and run around the yard with him.<br />
<br />
Grandfather Thorpe was half Creek Indian and had an Indian profile with a humped nose and high cheekbones. His hair was short and curly and he had a light brown complexion. He had a straggly white beard that he tried to cultivate into a Van Dyke. He said his father was a Creek Indian and his mother a Black plantation slave. No one knew his exact age, but we made a guess based on a story he often told us.<br />
<br />
He was about six or seven years old when, he said, “The stars fell”<br />
<br />
“When was that, Grandpa?”<br />
<br />
“Oh, one night the stars fell, I remember it very clearly. The skies were all lit up by falling stars. People were scared almost out of I heir wits. The old master and mistress and all the slaves were running out on the road, falling down on their knees to pray and ask forgiveness. We thought the Judgement Day had surely come. Glory Hallelujah! It was the last fire! The next day, the ground was all covered with ashes!”<br />
<br />
At first we thought all of that was just his imagination, something he had fantasized as a child and then remembered as a real event. But when my older brother Otto was in high school, he got interested in astronomy and came across a reference to a meteor shower of 1833. We figured out that was what Grandfather Thorpe had been talking about, so we concluded that he was born around 1825 or 1826.<br />
<br />
Grandfather Thorpe was filled with stories, many about slavery.<br />
<br />
“Chillen, I’ve got scars I’ll carry to my grave.” He would show us the welts on his back from slave beatings (my Grandmother also had them). Most of his beatings came from his first master in Kentucky. But he was later sold to a man in Missouri, whom he said treated him much better. This may have been due in part to his value as a slave—he was skilled both as a carpenter and cabinetmaker.<br />
<br />
Grandfather had many stories to tell about the Civil War. He was in Missouri at the time, living in an area that was first taken by a group known as Quantrell's raiders (a guerrilla-like band of irregulars who fought for the South) and then by the Union forces.<br />
<br />
When the Union soldiers first came into the plantations, they would call in slaves from the fields and make them sit down in the great drawing room of the house. They would then force the master and mistress and their family to cook and serve for the slaves. Grandfather told us that the soldiers would never eat any of the food that was served, because they were afraid of getting poisoned.<br />
<br />
The master on the plantation was generally decent when it became clear that the Union forces were going to control the area for awhile. At that time, Grandfather and my Grandmother Ann lived on adjacent plantations somewhere near Moberly, Missouri. Grandfather was allowed to visit Ann on weekends. Often on Sundays when he went to make a visit, he was challenged by Union guards. They would roughly demand to know his mission. My Grandfather and Grandmother got married, with the agreement of their two masters, and eventually had a family of five daughters and two sons. Grandfather Thorpe was given a plot of land in return for his services as a carpenter, but the family soon moved into Moberly. As the children reached working age, the family began to break up, but the girls always remained very close. They came back to visit frequently and never broke family ties as the boys had.<br />
<br />
My Mother, Harriet, was born when Grandmother was a slave on the plantation of Squire Sweeney in Howard County, Missouri. After the family moved into Moberly, Mother worked for a white family in town. She later went to St. Joseph, Missouri, to work for another white family. One day, while she was at work in St. Joseph, she heard a shot and then screams from down the street. She ran out to see what had happened. There was a great commotion and a crowd of people was gathering in front of the house next door.<br />
<br />
The family living there went by the name of Howard—a man, wife and two children. Both the man and his wife were church members; they appeared to be a most respectable couple. Mrs. Howard had been very active in church affairs and socials. Her husband was frequently absent because, she said, he was a traveling salesman and his work took him out of town for long periods of time.<br />
<br />
What the neighbors were not aware of was that “Mr. Howard” was none other than the legendary Jesse James. He was shot in the hack while hanging a picture in his house. The man who killed him was Robert Ford—a member of Jesse's own gang who had turned 11 a it or for a bribe offered by the Burns Detective Agency.<br />
<br />
When my Mother did the laundry, I remember she would often ring the “Ballad of Jesse James"—a song which became popular niter his death.<br />
<br />
'''Jesse James was a man—he killed many a man,'''<br />
<br />
'''The man that robbed that Denver train.'''<br />
<br />
'''It was a dirty little coward Who shot Mr. Howard,'''<br />
<br />
'''And they laid Jesse James in his grave.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh the people held their breath When they heard of Jesse's death,'''<br />
<br />
'''And they wondered how he came to die.'''<br />
<br />
'''He was shot on the sly By little Robert Ford,'''<br />
<br />
'''And they laid poor Jesse in his grave.'''<br />
<br />
In 1893, my Mother went to Chicago to visit her sister and see the Exposition. She said she saw Frank James, Jesse's brother, lie was out of prison then, a very dignified old man with a long white beard. He had been hired to ride around as an attraction at one of the exhibitions.<br />
<br />
Mother kept moving up to the north by stages. After the job in St. Joseph, she found work in St. Louis. She arrived to Find the city in a tense situation- the whole town was on the verge of a race riot. The immediate cause was the murder of an Irish cop named Brady. The Black community was elated, for Brady was a “nigger-hating cop" who carved notches on his pistol to show the number of Blacks he had killed. Brady finally met his end at the hands of a "bad" Black man who ran a gambling house in Brady's district.<br />
<br />
The gambling, of course, was illegal. But as was often the case, The cops were paid off with a “cut" from the takings of the house. As the story was told to me, Brady and the gambler met on the street one day and got into an argument. Brady accused the gambler of not giving him his proper “cut." This was denied vehemently. Brady then threatened to close the place down. The Black man told him, “Don’t you come into my place when the game’s going on!” He then turned and walked off. The scene was witnessed by several Blacks, and the news of how the gambler had defied Brady spread immediately throughout the Black district.<br />
<br />
This was bad stuff for Brady. It might lead to “niggers gettin’ notions,” as the cops put it. A few days passed, and Brady made his move. He went to the gambling house when the game was on and was shot dead.<br />
<br />
Some anonymous Black bard wrote a song about it all:<br />
<br />
'''Brady, why didn’t you run,'''<br />
<br />
'''You know you done wrong.'''<br />
<br />
'''You came in the room when the game was going on!''' <br />
<br />
'''Brady went below looking mighty curious.'''<br />
<br />
'''Devil said, " Where you from?”'''<br />
<br />
'''"I'm from East St. Louis .”'''<br />
<br />
'''"East St. Louie, come this way I’ve been expecting you every day!”'''<br />
<br />
The song was immediately popular in the Black community and became a symbol of rebellious feelings. Mother said that when she arrived in St. Louis, Blacks were singing this song all over town. The police realized the danger in such “notions” and began to arrest anyone they caught singing it. Forty years later. I was pleasantly surprised to hear Carl Sandburg sing the same song as part of his repertoire of folk ballads of the midwest. I had not heard it since Mother had sung it to us.<br />
<br />
Mother later moved to Kansas City, Missouri, and then to South Omaha. Her marriage there to my Father was her second. As a very young girl in Moberly, she had married John Harvey, but he was, to use her words, “a no-good yellah nigger, who expected me to support him.” They had one child, Gertrude, before he deserted her.<br />
<br />
Gertie came to Omaha some time after my Mother, and married my Father’s youngest brother, George. I have a feeling that Mother promoted this match; the two hard-working, sober Hall brothers must have been quite a catch!<br />
<br />
As I remember Mother in my childhood years, she was a small, brown-skinned woman, rather on the plumpish side, with large and beautiful soft brown eyes. She had the humped, Indian nose of the Thorpe family.<br />
<br />
My first memory of her is hearing her sing as she did housework. She had a melodious contralto voice and what seemed to me to be an endless and varied repertoire. Much of what I know about this period, I learned from her songs. These included lullabies (“Go to Sleep You Little Pickaninny, Mamma’s Gonna Swat You if You Don’t”) and many spirituals and jubilee songs. There were also innumerable folk ballads, and the popular songs of her day like "Down at the Ball” and “Where Did You Get That Hat?” Then there was the old song the slaves sang about their masters fleeing the Union Army—“The Year of Jubilo.”<br />
<br />
'''Oh darkies, have you seen the Massah with the mustache on his face?'''<br />
<br />
'''He was gwine down de road dis mornin’ like''' <br />
<br />
'''he's gwine to leave dis place.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, de Massah run, ha ha!'''<br />
<br />
'''And the darkies sing, ho ho!'''<br />
<br />
'''It must be now the Kingdom cornin' and de year of Jubilo!'''<br />
<br />
Mother never went to school a day in her life, but she had a phenomenal memory and was a virtual repository of Black folklore. My brother Otto taught her to read and write when she when forty years old. She told stories of life on the plantations, of the “hollers” they used. When a slave wanted to talk to a friend on n neighboring plantation, she would throw back her head and half sing, half yell: “Oh, Bes-sie, I wa-ant to see you.” Often you could hear one of the “hollers” a mile away.<br />
<br />
When Mother was a girl, camp meetings were a big part of her life. She had songs she remembered from the meetings, like “I Don’t Feel Weary, No Ways Tired,” and she would imitate the preachers with all of their promises of fire and brimstone. Later, when we lived in South Omaha, she was very active in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. As a means of raising funds, she used to organize church theatricals. Otto would help her read the plays; she would then direct them and usually play the leading role herself. She was a natural mimic. I heard her go through entire plays from beginning to end, imitating the voices (even the male ones) and the actions of the performers.<br />
<br />
In addition to caring for Otto, Eppa and myself, Mother got jobs catering parties for rich white families in North Omaha. She would bring us back all sorts of goodies and leftovers from these parties. Sometimes she would get together with her friends among the other domestics, and they would have a great time panning their employers and exchanging news of the white folks’ scandalous doings.<br />
<br />
Mother had the great fighting spirit of her family. She was a strong-minded woman with great ambition for her children, especially for us boys. Eppa, who was a plain Black girl, was sensitive but physically tough, courageous, and a regular tomboy.<br />
<br />
Worried about her future, Mother insisted that she learn the piano and arranged for her to take lessons at twenty-five cents each. Though she learned to play minor classics such as “Poet and Peasant,” arias from such operas as Aida and II Trovatore, accompanied the choir and so on, Eppa never liked music very much and was not consoled by it the way Mother was.<br />
<br />
As a wife, Mother had a way of making Father feel the part of the man in the house. She flattered his ego and always addressed him as “Mr. Half’ in front of guests and us children.<br />
<br />
=== LIFE IN SOUTH OMAHA ===<br />
'''You ask what town I love the best.''' <br />
<br />
'''South Omaha, South Omaha!'''<br />
<br />
'''The fairest town of all the rest,'''<br />
<br />
'''South Omaha, South Omaha!'''<br />
<br />
'''Where yonder's Papillion’s limp stream'''<br />
<br />
'''To where Missouri’s waters gleam.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, fairest town, oh town of mine,''' <br />
<br />
'''South Omaha, South Omaha!'''<br />
<br />
In the early part of the century, the days of my youth, South Omaha was an independent city. In 1915, it was annexed to become part of the larger city of Omaha. Like many midwestem towns, the city took its name from the original inhabitants of the area. In this case, it was the Omaha Indians of the Sioux tribal family. The area was a camping ground of the Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1804. It grew in importance when it became a licensed trading post and an important outfitting point during the Colorado Gold Rush. But the main growth of South Omaha came in the 1880s as the meat packing industry developed.<br />
<br />
In 1877, the first refrigerated railroad cars were perfected. This made it possible to slaughter livestock in the midwest and ship the meat to the large markets in eastern cities. As a result, the meat packing industry grew tremendously in the midwest.<br />
<br />
The city leaders saw the opportunity and encouraged the expanding packing industry to settle there—offering them special tux concessions and so forth. The town, situated on a plateau back from the “big muddy” (the Missouri River), began to grow. Soon it was almost an industrial suburb of Omaha and was one of the three largest packing centers in the country. All of the big packers of the time—Armour, Swift, Wilson and Cudahy—had big branches there. Cudahy’s main plant was in South Omaha.<br />
<br />
The industry brought with it growing railroad traffic. As a boy, I watched the dozens of lines of cars as they carried livestock in from the west and butchered meat to ship out to the east. The Burlington; the Chicago and Northwestern; the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific; the Illinois Central; the Rock Island; the Union Pacific—all of these lines had terminals there. By 1910, Omaha was the fourth largest railway center in the country.<br />
<br />
When I was born in 1898, South Omaha was a bustling town of about 20,000. Most of these 20,000 people were foreign-born and first generation immigrants. The two largest groups were the Irish and the Bohemians (or Czechs). There was a sprinkling of other Slavic groups—Poles, Russians, Serbs—as well as Germans, Greeks and Italians.<br />
<br />
The Bohemians were the largest ethnic group in town. They lived mainly in the southern part of town, towards the river, in the Brown Park and Albright sections. One thing that impressed me was their concern with education. They were a cultured group of people. I can’t remember any of them being illiterate and they had their own newspaper. They were involved in the political wheelings and dealings of the town and were successful at it. At one time, both the mayor and chief of police were Bohemians.<br />
<br />
The Irish were the second largest group, scattered throughout the town. The newly arrived poor "shanty” Irish would first settle on Indian Hill, near the stockyards. There were two classes of Irish the "shanty” Irish on the one hand, and the "old settlers” or "lace curtain” Irish on the other. This second group, who had settled only one generation before, was mostly made up of middle class, white collar, civil service and professional workers who lived near North Omaha. There were also a few Irish who were very rich; managers and executives who lived in Omaha proper. They had become well assimilated into the community. The tendency was for the poorer Irish to live in South Omaha, and those who had "made it” to one degree or another would move up to North Omaha or Omaha proper.<br />
<br />
There were only a few dozen Black families in South Omaha, scattered throughout the community. There was no Black ghetto and, as I saw it, no "Negro problem.” This was due undoubtedly to our small numbers, although there was a relatively large number of Blacks living in North Omaha. The Black community there had grown after Blacks were brought in as strikebreakers during the 1894 strike in the packing industry, but no real ghetto developed until after World War I.<br />
<br />
Our family lived in the heart of the Bohemian neighborhood in South Omaha. Nearly all our neighbors were Bohemians. They came from many backgrounds; there were workers and peasants, professionals, artists, musicians and other skilled artisans, all fleeing from the oppressive rule of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.<br />
<br />
They were friendly people, and kept up their language and traditions. On Saturdays, families would gather at one of the beer gardens to sing and dance. I remember watching them dance scottisches and polkas, listening to the beautiful music of their bands and orchestras, or running after their great marching bands when they were in a parade. On special occasions, they would bring out their colorful costumes. Much of their community life centered around the gymnastic clubs—Sokols or Turners’ Halls— which they had established.<br />
<br />
There were differences in how the ethnic groups related to each other and to the Blacks in town. In those days, Indian Hill was the stomping ground of teenage Irish toughs. One day, a mob of predominantly Irish youths ran the small Greek colony out of town when one of their members allegedly killed an Irish cop. I remember seeing the Greek community leaving town one Sunday afternoon. There were men, women and children (about 100 in all) walking down the railroad tracks, carrying everything they could hold. Some of their houses had been burned and a few of them had been beaten up in town.<br />
<br />
We should have seen the danger for us in this, but one Black man even boasted to my Father about how he had helped run the Greeks out. My Father called him a fool. “What business did you have helping that bunch of whites? Next time it might be you they run out!’’ The incident was an ominous sign of tensions that were lo come many years later.<br />
<br />
At the time, however, our family got along well with all the immigrant families in our immediate neighborhood. I loved the sweet haunting melodies of the Irish folk ballads; “Rose of Tralce,” "Mother Machree” and many of the popular songs, like “My Irish Molly-O” and “Augraghawan, I Want to Go Back to Oregon.”<br />
<br />
There was a Bohemian couple living next door. On occasion, Mr. Rehau would get a bit too much under his belt. He’d come home and really raise hell. When this happened, Mrs. Rehau scurried to Officer Bingham, the Black cop, to get some help. I remember one afternoon when Bingham came to lend a hand in laming him. The Bohemian was a little guy compared to him. Officer Bingham threw him down out in the yard and plunked himself down on Rehau’s back.<br />
<br />
Dust flew as he kicked and thrashed and tried to get out from under the Black man. Bingham just “rode the storm” and when Rehau raised his head, he’d smack him around until the rebellion subsided.<br />
<br />
“Had enough?" he’d yell at his victim. “You gonna behave now and mind what Mrs. Rehau says?" All the while, she was running around them, waving her apron.<br />
<br />
“Beat him some more, Mr, Bingham, please! Make him be good.”<br />
<br />
Finally, either Bingham got tired or Mr. Rehau just gave out and peace returned to the neighborhood.<br />
<br />
“Police and community relations" were less tense then. The cops knew how to control a situation without using guns. Often this meant they'd get into actual fist fights. In those days, there was a big Black guy in town named Sam, a beef lugger like my Father. Sam was a nice quiet guy, but on occasion he'd go on a drunk and fight anyone within arm’s length (which was a big area). The cops generally handled it by fighting it out with him.<br />
<br />
But I remember one time Sam really caused a row. He was outside a bar on J Street, up in Omaha proper. During the course of his drunk, he’d beaten up five or six of the regular cops. This called for extreme measures. Briggs, the chief of police, came to the scene to restore law and order. He marched up to Sam and threw out his chest, “Now Sam, it's time for you to behave, you hear?" He even pulled out his thirty-eight to show he meant business.<br />
<br />
But Sam wasn’t ready to behave. He came at Briggs, intending to lay him out like he’d done with the other officers, Briggs backed up, one step at a time. “Sam, you stop. You hear me Sam? Time to stop, now." Sam forced Briggs all the way back to his carriage. Once Briggs was in, he delivered his final threat: “Sam, you come down to City Hall on Monday and see me. This just can’t happen this way."<br />
<br />
Briggs drove off. Monday morning came and Sam went down to City Hall. He was fined for being drunk and disorderly. He didn’t fight the court and willingly paid the fine. It seemed like an unwritten agreement. The cops wouldn’t shoot when Sam went on a spree. When it was over, Sam would go and pay his fine and that would end the whole business.<br />
<br />
Our family was the only Black family in our neighborhood, and we were pretty well insulated from the racist pressures of the outside world. As children we were only very dimly aware of what DuBois called the “veil of color between the races.”<br />
<br />
I First became aware of the veil, not from anything that happened in the town, but from what my parents and grandparents told me of how Southern whites had persecuted Blacks and of how they had suffered under slavery. I remember Grandfather and Grandmother Thorpe showing me the scars they had on their backs from the overseer’s lash. I remember Pa reading newspaper accounts of the endless reign of lynch terror in the South, and about the 1908 riots in Springfield, Illinois.<br />
<br />
In 1908, Jack Johnson, the first Black heavyweight champion, defeated the “great white hope.” Jim Jeffries. Pa said that it was the occasion for a new round of lynchings in the South. There were other great Black fighters—Sam Langford, Joe Jeanett and Sam McVey for instance—but Johnson was the first Black heavyweight to be able to fight for the championship and the first to win it.<br />
<br />
He was conscious that he was a Black man in a racist world. “I’m Black, they never let me forget it. Pm Black, Til never forget it.” Jeffries had been pushed as the hope of the white race to reclaim the heavyweight crown from Johnson. When Johnson knocked out Jeffries, it was a symbol of Black defiance and self-assertion. To Blacks, the victory meant pride and hope. It was a challenge to the authority of bigoted whites and to them it called for extra measures to “keep the niggers in their place.”<br />
<br />
To us children, Black repression seemed restricted to the South, outside the orbit of our immediate experience. As I saw it then, there was no deliberate plot of white against Black. I thought there were two kinds of white folk: good and bad, and the latter were mainly in the South. Most of those I knew in South Omaha were good people. Disillusionment came later in my life.<br />
<br />
The friendly interracial atmosphere of South Omaha was illustrated by the presence of Officer Bingham and Officer Ballou, two Black cops in the town’s small police force. Bingham was a big, Black and jolly fellow. His beat was our neighborhood. Ballou was a tall, slim, ramrod straight and light brown-skinned Black. He was a veteran of the Black Tenth Cavalry. He had fought in the Indian wars against Geronimo and had participated in the chase for Billy the Kid. Ballou was also a veteran of the Spanish- American War. All the kids, Black and white, regarded him with a special awe and respect. Both Black officers were treated as respectable members of the community, liked by the people because they had their confidence. While they wore guns, they never seemed to use them. These cops fought tough characters with fists and clubs, pulling a gun only rarely, and then only in self- defense. It seemed that a large part of their duty was to keep the kids out of mischief.<br />
<br />
“Officer Bingham,” the Bohemian woman across the alley would call, “would you please keep an eye on my boy Frontal. See he don’t make trouble.”<br />
<br />
“Don’t worry, Mrs. Brazda. He’s a good boy.”<br />
“<br />
<br />
Has Haywood been a good boy?”<br />
<br />
“Oh yes, Mrs. Hall. He’s all right.’’And he would stop for a chat.<br />
My sister Eppa, a lad called Willy Starens and I were the only Black kids in the Brown Park Elementary School. My brother Otto had already graduated and was in South Omaha High. Our schoolmates were predominantly Bohemians, with a sprinkling of Irish, German and a few Anglo-Americans. My close childhood chums included two Bohemian lads, Frank Brazda and Jimmy Rehau; an Anglo-Irish kid, Earl Power; and Willy Ziegler, who was of German parentage. We were an inseparable fivesome, in and out of each other’s homes all the time.<br />
<br />
During my first years in school, I was plagued by asthma, and was absent from school many months at a time. The result was that I was a year behind. I finally outgrew this infirmity and became a strong, healthy boy. By the time I reached the eighth grade, I had become one of the best students in my class, sharing this honor with a Bohemian girl, Bertha Himmel. Both of us could solve any problem in arithmetic, both were good at spelling, and at interschool spelling bees our school usually won the first prize. My self-confidence was encouraged by my teachers, all of whom were white and yet uniformly kind and sympathetic.<br />
<br />
Of course, like all kids, I had plenty of fights. But race was seldom involved. Occasionally, I would hear the word “nigger.” While it evoked anger in me, it seemed no more disparaging than the terms “bohunk,” “sheeny,” “dago,” “shanty Irish” or “poor white trash.” All were terms of common usage, interchangeable as slurring epithets on one’s ethnic background, and usually employed outside the hearing of the person in question.<br />
<br />
In contrast to the daily life of the neighborhood, however, the virus of racism was subtly injected into the classroom at the Brown Park School I attended. The five races of mankind illustrated in our geography books portrayed the Negro with the receding forehead and prognathous jaws of a gorilla. There was a complete absence of Black heroes in the history books, supporting the inference that the Black man had contributed nothing to civilization. We were taught that Blacks were brought out of the savagery of the jungles of Africa and introduced to civilization through slavery under the benevolent auspices of the white man.<br />
<br />
In spite of my Father’s submissive attitude, it is to him that I must give credit for scotching this big lie about the Negro’s past. His attitude grew out of his concern for our survival in a hostile environment. He felt most strongly that the Negro was not innately inferior, He perceived that his children must have some sense of self-respect and confidence to sustain them until that distant day when, through “obvious merit and just dessert,” Blacks would receive their award of equality and recognition.<br />
<br />
Father possessed an amazing store of knowledge which he had culled from his readings. He would tell us about the Black civilizations of ancient Egypt, Ethiopia and Cush. He would quote from the Song of Solomon: “I am Black and comely, oh ye daughters of Jerusalem.” He would tell us about Black soldiers in the Civil War; about the massacre of Blacks at Fort Pillow and the battle cry they used thereafter, “Remember Fort Pillow! Remember Fort Pillow!”2 He knew about the Haitian Revolution, the defeat of Napoleon’s Army by Toussaint L’Ouverture, Dessalines and Jean Christophe. He told us about the famous Zulu chief Shaka in South Africa; about Alexandre Dumas, the great French romanticist, and Pushkin, the great Russian poet, who were both Black.<br />
<br />
Father said that he had taught himself to read and write. He had an extensive library, which took up half of one of the walls in our subject. They included such titles as The Decisive Battles of the World The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, and many histories of England, France, Germany and Russia. He had Stanley in Africa, and a number of biographies of famous men, including Napoleon, Caesar and Hannibal (who Father said was a Negro). He had Scott’s Ivanhoe and his Waverly novels; Bulwer Lytton; Alexandre Dumas’ novels and the Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, and Up From Slavery by Booker T. Washington.<br />
<br />
On another wall there was a huge picture of the charge of the Twenty-fifth Black Infantry and the Tenth Cavalry at San Juan Hill, rescuing Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders. There were pictures of Frederick Douglass and, of course, his hero, Booker T. Washington. He would lecture to us on history, displaying his .extensive knowledge. He was a great admirer of Napoleon. He would get into one of his lecturing moods and pace up and down with his hands behind his back before the rapt audience of my sister Eppa and myself. Talking about the Battle of Waterloo, he would say:<br />
<br />
“Wellington was in a tough spot that day. Napoleon was about to whip him; the trouble was Blucher hadn’t shown up.”<br />
<br />
“Who was he, Pa?”<br />
<br />
“He was the German general who was supposed to reinforce Wellington with 13,000 Prussian troops. Wellington was getting awful nervous, walking up and down behind the lines and saying, 4Oh! If Blucher fails to come! Where is Blucher?”<br />
<br />
“Did he Finally get there, Pa?”<br />
<br />
“Yes, son, he finally got there and turned the tide of battle. And if he hadn’t shown up and Napoleon had won, the whole course of history would have been changed.”<br />
<br />
It was through Father that I entered the world of books. I developed an unquenchable thirst to learn about people and their history. I remember going to the town library when I was nine or ten and asking, “Do you have a history of the world for children?” My first love became the historical novel. I loved George Henty’s books; they always dealt with the exploits of a sixteen-year-old during an important historical period. Through Henty’s heroes, I too was with Bonnie Prince Charlie, with Wellington in rite Spanish Peninsula, with Gustavus Adolphus at Lutsen in the Thirty Years War, with Clive in India and Under Drake's Flag around the world. I was also fascinated by romances of the feudal period such as When Knighthood Was in Flower and Ivanhoe. I read Twain’s Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer, and the works of H. Rider Haggard.<br />
<br />
I went through a definite Anglophile stage, in part due to the influence of a Jamaican named Mr. Williams who worked as assistant janitor with my Father. Mr. Williams was a huge Black man with scars all over his face. He was a former stoker in the British Navy. I was attracted by his strange accent and haughty demeanor. Evidently he saw in me an appreciative audience. I would listen with open mouth and wonder at the stories of the strange places he had seen, of his adventures in faraway lands. He was a real British patriot, a Black imperialist, if such was possible.<br />
<br />
He would declare, “The sun never sets on the British Empire,” and then sing “Rule Brittania, Brittania Rule the Waves.” He quoted Napoleon as allegedly saying, “Britain is a small garden, but she grows some bitter weeds,” and “Give me French soldiers and British officers, and I will conquer the world.” I pictured myself as a British sailor, and read Two Years Before the Mast and Battle of Trafalgar.<br />
<br />
“Do you think they would let me join the British Navy?” I asked Mr. Williams.<br />
<br />
“No, my lad,” he answered, “You have to be a British citizen or subject to do that.” I was quite disappointed.<br />
But it was not only British romance that fascinated me. At about the age of twelve I became a Francophile. I read all of Dumas’ novels and quite a number of other novels about France. I had begun to read French history, which to me turned out to be as interesting as the novels and equally romantic. I read about Joan of Arc, the Hundred Years’ War, Francis I, about Catherine de Medici, the Huguenots and Admiral Coligny, the Due de Guise, the massacre of St. Bartholomew Eve or the night of the long knives; then the French Revolution, A Tale of Two Cities, the guillotining of Charlotte Corday and the assassination of Marat.<br />
<br />
Occasionally, the ugly reality of race would intrude upon the dream world of my childhood. I distinctly remember two such occasions. One was when a white family from Arkansas moved across the alley from us. Mr. Faught, the patriarch of the clan, was a typical red-necked peckerwood. He would sit around the store front, chawing tobacco, telling how they treated “niggers” down his way.<br />
<br />
“They were made to stay in their place- -down in the cotton patch—not in factories taking white men’s jobs.”<br />
<br />
As I remember, his racist harangues did not make much of an impression on the local white audience. Apparently at that time there was no feeling of competition in South Omaha because there were so few Blacks. I would also imagine that his slovenly appearance did not jibe with his white supremacist pretensions.<br />
<br />
One day a substitute teacher took over our class. I was about ten years old. The substitute was a Southerner from Arkansas. During history class she started talking about the Civil War. The slaves, she said, did not really want freedom because they were happy as they were. They would have been freed by their masters in a few years anyway. Her villain was General Grant, whom she contrasted unfavorably with General Robert E. Lee.<br />
<br />
“Lee was a gentleman,” she put forth, “But Grant was a cigar-smoking liquor-drinking roughneck.”<br />
<br />
She didn’t like Sherman either, and talked about his “murdering rampage” through Georgia. I wasn't about to take all of this and challenged her.<br />
<br />
“I don’t know about General Grant’s habits, but he did beat Lee. Besides, Lee couldn’t have been much of a gentleman; he owned slaves!”<br />
<br />
Livid with rage, she shouted, “That’s enough —what I could say about you!”<br />
<br />
“Well, what could you say?” I challenged.<br />
She apparently saw that wild racist statements wouldn’t work in this situation, and that I was trying to provoke her to do something like that. She cut short the argument, shouting, “That’s enough”<br />
<br />
“Yes, that’s enough,” I sassed.<br />
During the heated exchange, I felt that I had the sympathy of most of my classmates. After school, some gathered around me and said, “You certainly told her off?”<br />
<br />
When I told Mother she supported me. “You done right, son,” she said.<br />
<br />
But Father was not so sure. “You might have gotten into trouble.”<br />
<br />
I feel now that one of the reasons for my self-confidence during my childhood years, and why the racist notions of innate Black inferiority left me cold, was my older brother Otto. His example belied such claims. He was the most brilliant one in our family, and probably in all of South Omaha. He had skipped a grade both in grade school and in high school, and was a real prodigy. He was a natural poet, and won many prizes in composition. His poem on the charge of the Twenty-fifth Black Infantry and Tenth Cavalry at San Juan Hill was published in one of the Omaha dailies. Otto was praised by all of his teachers. “An unusual boy,” they said, “clearly destined to become a leader of his race.”<br />
<br />
One day, one of his teachers and a Catholic priest called on Mother and Father to talk about Otto’s future. Otto was about fourteen at the time. They suggested that he might be good material for the priesthood, and that there was a possibility of his getting a scholarship for Creighton University, Omaha’s famous Jesuit school. The teacher suggested that if this were agreed to, he should take up Latin. My parents were extremely flattered, despite the fact that they were good Methodists (AME). Even Father, who did not seem ambitious for his children, was impressed.<br />
<br />
But when the proposition was placed before Otto, he vehemently disagreed. He did not want to become a priest nor did he want to study Latin. He wanted, he said, to be an architect! Doctors, dentists, teachers and preachers -these were the professions for an ambitious Black in those days.<br />
<br />
“An architect!” they exclaimed in amazement. “Who ever heard of a Black architect?”<br />
<br />
“Who ever heard of a Black priest?” Otto retorted. (At that time there were only two or three Black priests in the entire U.S.)<br />
<br />
“But Otto,” Mother argued,“you’ll have the support of a lot of prominent white folks. They’ll help you through college.”<br />
<br />
But Otto would have none of it. Undoubtedly, my parents thought that they could finally wear down his opposition and that he would become more amenable in time. They did force him to take Latin, a subject he hated.<br />
<br />
Otto stayed in school, but no longer seemed interested in his studies. He dropped out of school suddenly in his senior year. He was sixteen. He left home and got a job as a bellhop in a hotel in North Omaha’s Black community. This move cut completely the few remaining tics he had with his white age group in South Omaha.<br />
<br />
Otto’s drop-out from high school evidently signified that he had given up the struggle to be somebody in the white world. He had become disillusioned with the white world and therefore sought identity with his own people. During my childhood years, our relationship had never been close. There was, of course, the age gap—he was seven years older. But even in later years, when we were closer and had more in common, we never talked about our childhood. I don’t know why. As a child I had been proud of his academic feats and boasted about them to my friends.<br />
<br />
At the time he left high school Otto was the only Black in South Omaha High and was about to become its first Black graduate. Highly praised by his teachers and popular among his fellow students, he was a real showpiece in the school.<br />
<br />
What caused him to drop out of school in his senior year? Thinking back on it, I don’t believe that it had anything to do with the attempt to make him a priest. I think that he had won that battle a couple of years before. At least, I never heard the matter mentioned again.<br />
<br />
Otto undoubtedly had had high aspirations at one time, as evidenced by his desire to become an architect. Somewhere along the line they disappeared. Perhaps a contributing factor was the accumulating effect of Otto’s malady. On occasion, Mother would remind us that Otto had water on the brain, and that he was different from Eppa and myself. At the time, he seemed smarter than us, more independent and in rebellion against Pa’s lack of encouragement, moral support and his parental authority. Certainly in adult life Otto used to sleep about ten hours a day and very often fell asleep in meetings. He seemed to lack the ability of prolonged concentration, although whatever brain damage he may have suffered never affected the quickness of his mind and ability to grasp the nub of any question or the capacity for leadership which he showed on a number of occasions.<br />
<br />
But more debilitating, probably, than any physical disease was the generation gap of that era—between parents of slave backgrounds and children born free, particularly in the north. Otto’s dropping out of school and his later radical political development were undoubtedly related to a conflict more intense than the ones of today.<br />
<br />
Father was an ardent follower of Booker T. Washington. His ambitions for his sons were very modest, to put it mildly. He undoubtedly would have been satisfied if we could become good law-abiding citizens with stable jobs. He thought of jobs a notch or two above his own station, like a postal employee, a skilled tradesman, or a clerk in the civil service. The offer of a scholarship for the priesthood was, therefore, simply beyond his expectations, and I guess that the old man was deeply disappointed at Otto’s rejection of it.<br />
<br />
Otto was quite independent and would not conform to Father’s idea of discipline. For example, he was completely turned off on the question of religion, and Father could not force him to go to church I don’t remember Otto ever going to church with the family. Father claimed that Otto was irresponsible and wild. As a result, there was mutual hostility between them. The results were numerous thrashings when Otto was young and violent quarrels between them as he grew older. Mother would usually defend Otto. Grandpa Thorpe, himself a strict disciplinarian, would warn Mother: “Hattie, you mark my words, that boy is going to lan’ in the pen.”<br />
<br />
At some point, Otto came to the conclusion that there was no use in continuing his education. He must have felt that it was irrelevant. Opportunities for educated Blacks were few, even in North Omaha’s Black community where there were only a few professionals. In that community there were a few preachers, one doctor, one dentist and one or two teachers. Black businesses consisted of owners of several undertaking establishments, a couple of barber shops and a few pool rooms. The only other Blacks in any sort of middle class positions were a few postal employees, civil service workers, pullman porters and waiters.<br />
<br />
Then too, Otto had passed through the age of puberty and was becoming more and more conscious of his race. Along with the natural detachment and withdrawal from childhood socializing with girls—in his case white girls who were former childhood sweethearts—Otto experienced a withdrawal and non-socialization because of his race. He ended up quite alone because there were not many Black kids his age in South Omaha. There wasn’t much contact with the Black kids from North Omaha either. As a very sensitive person on the verge of manhood, I imagine he began to feel these changes keenly.<br />
<br />
After he dropped out of school in 1908, Otto was soon attracted to the “sportin’ life”...the pool halls and sporting houses of North<br />
Omaha. He wanted to be among Black people; he was anxious to get away from Father. Thus, he left home and got jobs as a bellhop, shoeshine boy, and busboy. He began to absorb a new way of life, stepping fully into the social life of the Black community in North Omaha. He’d evidently heeded the “call of the blood” and gone back to the race. It was not until a few years later, when I had similar experiences, that I understood that Otto had arrived at the first stage in his identity crisis and had gone to where he felt he belonged.<br />
<br />
He would come home quite often, though, flaunting his new clothes, a “box-backed” suit—“fitting nowhere but the shoulders,” high-heeled Stacey Adams button shoes, and a stetson hat. He’d give a few dollars to Mother and some dimes to me and my sister. Sometimes he would bring a pretty girl friend with him. But most of the time, he would bring a young man, Henry Starens, who was a piano player. He played a style popular in those days, later to be known as boogie-woogie, in which the piano was the whole orchestra. He played Ma Rainey’s famous blues, “Make Me a Pallet on Your Floor, Make It Where Your Man Will Never Know,” and the old favorite, “Alabama Bound.”<br />
<br />
'''Alabama Bound'''<br />
<br />
'''I'm Alabama Bound.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, babe, don't leave me here,'''<br />
<br />
'''Just leave a dime for beer.'''<br />
<br />
A boy of ten at the time, I was tremendously impressed. There is no doubt that Otto’s experience served to weaken some of my childish notions about making it in the white world.<br />
<br />
=== HALLEY’S COMET AND MY RELIGION ===<br />
On May 4, 1910, Halley’s Comet appeared flaring down out of the heavens, its luminous tail switching to earth. It was an ominous sight.<br />
<br />
A rash of religious revival swept Omaha. Prophets and messiahs appeared on street comers and in churches preaching the end of the world. Hardened sinners “got religion.” Backsliders renewed their faith. The comet, with its tail moving ever closer to the earth, seemed to lend credence to forecasts of imminent cosmic disaster.<br />
<br />
Both my Mother and Father were deeply religious. Theirs was that “old time religion,” the fire-and-brimstone kind which leaned heavily on the Old Testament. It was the kind that accepted the Bible and all its legends as the literal gospel truth. We children had the “fear of the Lord” drilled into us from early age. My image of God was that of a vengeful old man who demanded unquestioned faith, strict obedience and repentant love as the price of salvation;<br />
<br />
'''I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.'''<br />
<br />
Every Sunday, rain or shine, the family would attend services at the little frame church near the railroad tracks. For me, this was a tortuous ordeal. I looked forward to Sundays with dread. We would spend all of eight hours in church. We would sit through the morning service, then the Sunday school, after which followed a break for dinner. We returned at five for the Young People’s Christian Endeavor and finally the evening service. It was not just boredom. Fear was the dominant emotion, especially when our preacher, Reverend Jamieson, a big Black man with a beautiful voice, would launch into one of his fire-and-brimstone sermons. He would start out slowly and in a low voice, gradually raising it higher he would swing to a kind of sing-song rhythm, holding his congregation rapt with vivid word pictures. They would respond with “Hallelujah! ” “Ain’t it the truth! ” “Preach it, brother!”<br />
<br />
He would go on in this manner for what seemed an interminable time, and would reach his peroration on a high note, winding up with a rafter-shaking burst of oratory. He would then pause dramatically amidst moans, shouts and even screams of some of the women, one or two of whom would fall out in a dead faint. Waiting for them to subside he would then, in a lowered, scarcely audible voice, reassure his flock that it was not yet too late to repent and achieve salvation. All that was necessary was to: “Repent sinners, and love and obey the Lord. Amen.” Someone would then rise and lead off with an appropriate spiritual such as:<br />
<br />
'''Oh, my sins are forgiven and my soul set free-ah,'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, glory Halelua-a-a-a'''<br />
<br />
'''Just let me in the kingdom when the world is all a'fi-ah.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh Glory Halelu!'''<br />
<br />
'''I don't feel worried, no ways tiahd,'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, glory Halelu!'''<br />
<br />
I remember the family Bible, a huge book which lay on the center table in the front room. The first several pages were blank, set aside for recording the vital family statistics: births, deaths, marriages. The book was filled with graphic illustrations of biblical happenings. Leafing through Genesis (which we used to call “the begats”), one came to Exodus and from there on a pageant of bloodshed and violence unfolded. Portrayed in striking colors were the interminable tribal wars in which the Israelites slew the Mennonites and Pharoah’s soldiers killed little children in march of Moses. There was the great God, Jehovah himself, whitebearded and eyes flashing, looking very much like our old cracker neighbor, Mr. Faught.<br />
<br />
Just a couple of weeks before Halley’s comet appeared, Mother had taken us to see the silent film, Dante’s Inferno, through which I sat with open mouth horror. Needless to say, this experience did not lessen my apprehension.<br />
<br />
The comet continued its descent, its tail like the flaming sword of vengeance. Collision seemed not just possible, but almost certain. What had we poor mortals done to incur such wrath of the Lord?<br />
<br />
My deportment underwent a change. I did all my chores without complaint and helped Mama around the house. This was so unlike me that she didn’t know what to make of it. I overheard her telling Pa about my good behavior and how helpful I had become lately. But I hadn’t really changed. I was just scared. I was simply trying to carry out another one of God’s commandments, “Honor thy lather and thy mother that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.'’<br />
<br />
Then one night, when the whole neighborhood had gathered as usual on the hill to watch the comet, it appeared to have ceased its movement towards the earth. We were not sure, but the next night we were certain. It had not only ceased its descent, but was definitely withdrawing. In a couple more nights, it had disappeared. A wave of relief swept over the town.<br />
<br />
“It’s not true!” I thought to myself. “The fire and brimstone, the leering devils, the angry vengeful God. None of it is true.”<br />
<br />
It was as if a great weight had been lifted from my mind. It was the end of my religion, although I still thought that there was most likely a supreme being. But if God existed, he was nothing like the God portrayed in our family Bible. I was no longer terrified of him. Later, at the age of fourteen or fifteen, I read some of the lectures of Robert G. Ingersoll and became an agnostic, doubting the existence of a god. From there, I later moved to positive atheism.<br />
<br />
Two years later, the great event was the sinking of the Titanic.This was significant in Omaha because one of the Brandeis brothers, owners of the biggest department store in North Omaha, went down with her. In keeping with the custom of Blacks to gloat over the misfortunes of whites, especially rich ones, some Black bard composed the "Titanic Blues":<br />
<br />
'''When old John Jacob As tor left his home,'''<br />
<br />
'''He never thought he was going to die.'''<br />
<br />
'''Titanic fare thee well'''<br />
<br />
'''I say fare thee well.'''<br />
<br />
But disaster was more frequently reserved for the Black community. On Easter Sunday 1913, a tornado struck North Omaha. It ripped a two-block swath through the Black neighborhood, leaving death and destruction in its wake. Among the victims were a dozen or so Black youths trapped in a basement below a pool hall where they had evidently been shooting craps. Mother did not fail to point out the incident as another example of God's wrath. While I was sorry for the youths and their families (some of them were friends of Otto), the implied warning left me cold. My God-fearing days had ended with Halley's Comet.<br />
<br />
Misfortune, however, was soon to strike our immediate family. It happened that summer, in 1913. My Father fled town after being attacked and beaten by a gang of whites on Q Street, right outside the gate of the packing plant. They told him to get out of town or they would kill him.<br />
<br />
I remember vividly the scene that night when Father staggered through the door. Consternation gripped us at the sight. His face was swollen and bleeding, his clothes torn and in disarray. He had a frightened, hunted look in his eyes. My sister Eppa and I were alone. Mother had gone for the summer to work for her employers, rich white folks, at Lake Okoboji, Iowa. <br />
<br />
"What happened?" we asked.<br />
<br />
He gasped out the story of how he had been attacked and beaten.<br />
<br />
"They said they were going to kill me if I didn't get out of town."<br />
<br />
We asked him who "they" were. He said that he recognized some of them as belonging to the Irish gang on Indian Hill, but there were also some grown men.<br />
<br />
"But why, Pa? Why should they pick on you?"<br />
<br />
"Why don't we call the police?"<br />
<br />
"That ain't goin' to do no good. We just have to leave town."<br />
<br />
"But Pa," I said, "how can we? We own this house. We've got friends here. If you tell them, they wouldn't let anybody harm us."<br />
<br />
Again the frightened look crossed his face.<br />
<br />
"No, we got to go."<br />
<br />
"Where, where will we go?"<br />
<br />
"We'll move up to Minneapolis, your uncles Watt and George are there. I'll get work there. I'm going to telegraph your Mother to come home now."<br />
<br />
He washed his face and then went into the bedroom and began packing his bags. The next morning he gave Eppa some money and said, "This will tide you over till your Mother comes. She'll be here in a day or two. I'm going to telegraph her as soon as I get to the depot. I'll send for you all soon."<br />
<br />
He kissed us goodbye and left.<br />
<br />
Only when he closed the door behind him did we feel the full impact of the shock. It had happened so suddenly. Our whole world had collapsed. Home and security were gone. The feeling of safety in our little haven of interracial goodwill had proved elusive. Now we were just homeless "niggers" on the run.<br />
<br />
The crudest blow, perhaps, was the shattering of my image of lather. True enough, I had not regarded him as a hero. Still, however, I had retained a great deal of respect for him. He was undoubtedly a very complex man, very sensitive and imaginative. Probably he had never gotten over the horror of that scene in the cabin near Martin, Tennessee, where as a boy of fifteen he had seen his father kill the Klansman. He distrusted and feared poor whites, especially the native born and, in Omaha, the shanty Irish.<br />
<br />
Mother arrived the next day. For her it was a real tragedy. Our home was gone and our family broken up. She had lived in Omaha for nearly a quarter of a century. She had raised her family there and had built up a circle of close friends. With her regular summer job at Lake Okoboji and catering parties the rest of the year, she had helped pay for our home. Now it was gone. We would be lucky if we even got a fraction of the money we had put into it, not to speak of the labor. Now she was to leave all this. Friends and neighbors would ask why Father had run away.<br />
<br />
Why had he let some poor white trash run him out of town? He had friends there. Ours was an old respected family. He also had influential white patrons. There was Ed Cudahy of the family that owned the packing plant where he worked. The Cudahys had become one of the nation's big three in the slaughtering and meat packing industry. Father had known him from boyhood. There was Mr. Wilkins, general manager at Cudahy's, whom Father had known as an office boy, and who now gave Father all his old clothes.<br />
<br />
A few days later, Mr. Cannon, a railroad man in charge of a buffet car on the Omaha and Minneapolis run and an old friend of the family, called with a message from Father. He said that Father was all right, that he had gotten a job for himself and Mother at the Minneapolis Women's Club. Father was to become caretaker and janitor, Mother was to cater the smaller parties at the club and to assist at the larger affairs. They were to live on the place in a basement apartment.<br />
<br />
The salary was ridiculously small (I think about $60 per month for both of them) and the employers insisted that only one of us children would be allowed to live at the place. That, of course, would be Eppa. He said that Father had arranged for me to live with another family. This, he said, would be a temporary arrangement. He was sure he could find another job, and rent a house where we could all be together again. As for me, Father suggested that since I was fifteen, I could find a part-time job to help out while continuing school. Mr. Cannon said that he was to take me back to Minneapolis with him, and that Mother and Eppa were to follow in a few days.<br />
<br />
With regards to our house, Mr. Cannon said that he knew a lawyer, an honest fellow, who for a small commission would handle its sale. Mother later claimed that after deducting the lawyer's commission and paying off a small mortgage, they only got the paltry sum of $300! This was for a five-room house with electricity and running water.<br />
<br />
The next day, Mr. Cannon took me out to his buffet car in the railroad yards. He put me in the pantry and told me to stay there, and if the conductor looked in: "Don't be afraid, he's a friend of mine." Our car was then attached to a train which backed down to the station to load passengers. I looked out the window as we left Omaha. I was not to see Omaha again until after World War I, when I was a waiter on the Burlington Railroad.<br />
<br />
My childhood and part of my adolescence was now behind me. I felt that I was practically on my own. What did the world hold for me—a Black youth?<br />
<br />
Arriving in Minneapolis, I went to my new school. As I entered the room, the all-white class was singing old darkie plantation songs. Upon seeing me, their voices seemed to take on a mocking, derisive tone. Loudly emphasizing the Negro dialect and staring directly at me, they sang:<br />
<br />
'''"Down in De Caunfiel—HEAH DEM darkies moan'''<br />
<br />
'''All De darkies AM a weeping'''<br />
<br />
'''MASSAHS in DE Cold Cold Ground"'''<br />
<br />
They were really having a ball.<br />
<br />
In my state of increased racial awareness, this was just too much for me. I was already in a mood of deep depression. With the breakup of our family, the separation from my childhood friends, and the interminable quarrels between my Mother and Father (in which I sided with Mother), I was in no mood to be kidded or scoffed at.<br />
<br />
That was my last day in school. I never returned. I made up my mind to drop out and get a full-time job.<br />
<br />
I was fifteen and in the second semester of the eighth grade.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 ==<br />
<br />
=== A Black Regiment in World War I ===<br />
'''On the Negroes this double experience of deliberate and devilish persecution from their own countrymen, coupled with a taste of real democracy and world-old culture, was revolutionizing. They began to hate prejudice and discrimination as they had never hated it before. They began to realize its eternal meaning and complications., .they were filled with a bitter, dogged determination never to give up the fight for Negro equality in America....A new, radical Negro spirit has been born in France, which leaves us older radicals far behind. Thousands of young Black men have offered their lives for the Lilies of France and they return ready to offer them again for the Sunflowers of Afro-America. W.E.B. DuBois, June 1919'''<br />
<br />
Despite my bitter encounter with racism in school, I liked Minneapolis. I was impressed by the beauty of this city with its many lakes and surrounding pine forests. The racial climate in 1913 was not as bad as my early experience in school would indicate, either. Blacks seemed to get along well, especially with the Scandinavian nationalities, who constituted the most numerous ethnic grouping in the city. <br />
<br />
Upon quitting school, I became a part of the small Black community and completely identified with it. I found friends among Black boys and girls of my age group, attended parties, dances, picnics at Lake Minnetonka, and ice skated in the winter time. Here, as in Omaha, a ghetto had not yet fully formed, though I here were the beginnings of one in the Black community on the north side.<br />
<br />
Included in the Black community and among my new friends were a relatively large number of mulattos, the progeny of mixed marriages between Scandinavian women and Black men. This phenomenon dated back to the turn of the century. At that time it was the fashion among wealthy white families to import Scandinavian maids. Many of these families had Black male servants— butlers, chauffeurs, etc.—and the small Black population was preponderantly male. The result was a rash of inter-marriages between the Scandinavian maids and the Black male house servants. The interracial couples formed a society called Manasseh which held well-known yearly balls. As a whole the children of this group were a hot-headed lot and seemed even more racially conscious than the rest of us.<br />
<br />
It was in Minneapolis that I too reached a heightened stage of racial awareness. This was hastened, no doubt, by the tragic events in South Omaha and the fact that I was now an adolescent and there was the problem of girls. I had noticed that it was in the period of pubescence that a Black boy, raised even in communities of relative racial tolerance, was first confronted with the problem of race. It had been so with my brother Otto in Omaha, and now it was so with me.<br />
<br />
During the first year after dropping out of school I worked as a bootblack, barber shop porter, bell hop and busboy, continuing in the last long enough to acquire the rudiments of the waiter's trade. At the age of sixteen, I got a j ob as dining car waiter on the Chicago Northwestern Railway. The first run was also my first trip to the big city, where I had four aunts (my Mother's sisters). All through my childhood my Mother had told stories about her first visit there at the time of the Chicago Exposition. Upon arrival, one of the older waiters on the car, Lon Holliday, took me to see the town. I'm sure he looked forward to showing a young "innocent" the ropes. After a visit to my aunts, he took me to a notorious dive on the Southside. It was the back room of a saloon at Thirty-second and State Street.<br />
<br />
The piano man was playing "boogie woogie" style, popular in those days. The few couples on the floor were "walking the dog," "balling the jack," and so on. Then one of the dancers, a woman, called to the pianist, "Oh, Mr. Johnson, please play 'Those Dirty Motherfuckers.'" He enthusiastically complied and sang a number of verses of the bawdy tune. I almost sank through the floor in embarrassment and even amazement. Lon, who was watching, burst out laughing and he said, "Boy, you ain't seen nothing yet!"<br />
<br />
He then took me to the famous "Mecca Flats" on Federal Street, where a rent party was in process. There he introduced me to a young woman, whom he evidently knew, and slipped her some money, saying, "Take care of my young friend here; be sure you get him back on the car in the morning. We leave for Minneapolis at 10:00 A.M."<br />
<br />
The railroads were a way to see the country and in the months that followed I took advantage of that, working for different lines, on different runs as far west as Seattle. On one run in Montana called the Loop, the dining car shuttled between Great Falls and Butte by way of Helena, stopping at each town overnight. It was known as the "outlaw run" and I soon found out why. It attracted a number of characters wanted by police in other cities, searching for an escape or a temporary hideout.<br />
<br />
While laying over in Butte one night, our chef murdered the parlor car porter—cut his throat while he was sleeping in the parlor car. They had been feuding for days. I went through the parlor car that morning and was the first to see the ghastly sight. The police came, but the chef had disappeared. My enthusiasm for the job was gone. It might have been me, I thought, for I had had a number of arguments with the chef about my orders.<br />
<br />
I quit and headed back to Minneapolis, arriving there shortly after war broke out in Europe in 1914.1 was sixteen and had been avidly following the news, reading of the invasions of Belgium, France, the Battle of the Marne, etc. <br />
<br />
One day, walking along Hennepin Avenue I saw a Canadian recruiting sergeant. He was wearing the uniform of the Princess Pat Regiment, bright red jacket and black kilt. A handsome fellow, I thought, looking like Bonnie Prince Charlie himself. He noticed me looking at him and asked, "You want to join up with the Princess Pat, my lad? We've got a number of Black boys like you in the regiment. You'll find you're treated like anyone else up there. We make no difference between Black and white in Canada."<br />
<br />
Imagining myself in the red jacket and black kilt, I said, "Sure,I'll join."<br />
<br />
Then looking at me closely, he asked, "How old are you?"<br />
<br />
"Eighteen," I lied.<br />
<br />
"Your parents living?"<br />
<br />
"Yes."<br />
<br />
"Well, you've got to get their consent."<br />
<br />
"Oh, they'll agree," I said.<br />
<br />
"They live in the city?"<br />
<br />
"Yes."<br />
<br />
"Well, you come back here tomorrow and bring one of them with you and I'll sign you up."<br />
<br />
"Okay," I said, but I knew that my parents would never agree. And well it was, too, for I later learned that this regiment was among the first victims of the German mustard gas attack at Ypres, and what was left of them was practically wiped out at bloody Paschendale on the Sommes front.<br />
<br />
Life in Minneapolis was beginning to bore me. I was anxious to get back to Chicago, "the big city," so I moved there and stayed with my Aunt Lucy at Forty-third and State. In 1915 my parents, at the urging of my Mother, also moved to Chicago, and I then stayed with them.<br />
<br />
In Chicago I got a job as a busboy at the Tip Top Inn, then considered the finest restaurant in town. It was owned by old man Hieronymous, a famous chef, and was noted for its French cuisine and service. In the trade it was taken for granted that if you had been a waiter at the Tip Top Inn you could work anywhere in the country. After a few months I was promoted to waiter and felt that I had perfected my skills. During the next three years I worked at a number of places: the Twentieth Century Limited, the New York Central's crack train; the Wolverine (Michigan Central); the Sherman House; the old Palmer House; and the Auditorium.<br />
<br />
During this time in Chicago I saw Casey Jones, a Black man and a legendary character known to at least four generations of Black Chicagoans. As I remember, he was partially paralyzed, probably from cerebral palsy. He would go through the streets with trained chickens, which he put through various capers, shouting, "Crabs, crabs, I got them!" He had a defect in his speech which he exploited. The audience would literally fall out at his rendering of the popular sentimental ballad, "The Curse of an Aching Heart":<br />
<br />
'''You made me what I am today,'''<br />
<br />
'''I hope you're satisfied.'''<br />
<br />
'''You dragged and dragged me down until'''<br />
<br />
'''a The heart within me died.'''<br />
<br />
'''Although you're not true,'''<br />
<br />
'''May God bless you,'''<br />
<br />
'''That's the curse of an aching heart!'''<br />
<br />
Then there was the beloved comedian, String Beans, who often appeared at the old Peking Theater at Thirty-first and State Street. The Dolly Sisters also appeared there; they were very famous at the time. Teenan Jones'slush night spot was at Thirty-fifth and State Street. Then at the Panama, another night club, I would listen to Mamie Smith sing "Shimmy-sha-Wobble, That's All," a very popular song and dance at the time.<br />
<br />
Once, when I wanted to go back to Minneapolis to visit, I caught the Pioneer Limited—riding the rods—out of the station on the west side. This was my first experience in hoboing. I rode the rods as far as Beloit, Wisconsin.<br />
<br />
At Beloit I got off, but was afraid to get back on because a yard dick was going around the cars. I stayed there overnight—a fairly cold night as I remember. I met a white man, a "professional" hobo, who took me in tow and told me about the trains leaving in the morning. He said we could catch a train that would pull us right into Minneapolis. It was a passenger train, and we could "ride the blinds in," that is, the space between the two Pullman cars.<br />
<br />
We rode the blinds, reaching La Crosse, Wisconsin. On the way he warned, "You know, there's a bad dick up there in La Crosse. We gotta watch out for him." When the train pulled to a stop in La Crosse both of us hopped off. Other guys were flying out of the train from all sides—from the rods, the blinds, and there were some on top, too. But this notorious yard dick caught us. He was a rough character, and let us know it as he lined us up.<br />
<br />
"Hey, up there!"<br />
<br />
I was at the end of the line of about a dozen guys and was the only Black there. I had my hands in my pocket.<br />
<br />
"Take yer hands outta yer pockets!"<br />
<br />
I took my hands out of my pockets.<br />
<br />
The engine's fireman was looking out, watching all of this. He called to the yard dick, "Say, Jim, let me have that young colored boy over there to slide down coal for me into Minneapolis."<br />
<br />
The dick looked at me and scowled, "All right, you, get up there!"<br />
<br />
He shouted to the fireman, "But see that he works!"<br />
<br />
"I'll see to that; he'll work."<br />
<br />
I scrambled on the engine tender and slid coal all the way to Minneapolis, where I got off at the station.<br />
<br />
Among my new friends in Chicago were several members of the Eighth Illinois, Black National Guard Regiment. They would regale me with tall stories of their exploits on the Mexican border in the summer of 1916 when the regiment took part in a "show of force" against the Mexican Revolution. None of us, of course, knew the real issues involved.<br />
<br />
I remember reading of the exploits of the famous Black Tenth Cavalry Regiment, which was a part of the force sent by General Funston across the border in pursuit of Pancho Villa. They had been ambushed by Villa and a number of them killed. The papers, on that occasion, had been full of accounts of the heroic Black cavalrymen and their valiant white officers. The Eighth, however, had been in the rear near San Antonio, Texas, and saw no action during the abortive campaign.<br />
<br />
Intrigued by their experiences, I joined the Eighth Regiment in the winter of 1917. I was nineteen. The regiment, officered by Blacks from the colonel on down (many of them veterans of the four Black Regular Army regiments), gave me a feeling of pride. They had a high esprit de corps which emphasized racial solidarity. I didn't regard it just as a part of a U.S. Army unit, but as some sort of a big social club of fellow race-men. Still, I knew that we would eventually get into the war. That did not bother me; on the contrary, romance, adventure, travel beckoned. I saw possible escape from the inequities and oppression which was the lot of Blacks in the U.S. I was already a Francophile. I had read and heard about the fairness of the French with respect to the race issue. It seems now, as I look back upon it, that patriotism was the least of my motives. I was avidly following all the news of the war and it seemed certain that the U.S. was going to get involved, despite protestations of President Wilson to the contrary.<br />
<br />
Already the press was whipping up war sentiment. Tin PanAlley joined in with a rash of jingoistic songs: "Don't Bite the Hand That's Feeding You," "Let's All Be American Now," ad nauseum. All this left us cold. However, the song that brought tears to my eyes was "Joan of Arc":<br />
<br />
'''Joan of Arc, Joan of Arc,'''<br />
<br />
'''Do your eyes from the skies see the foe?'''<br />
<br />
'''Can't you see the drooping Fleur de Lys,'''<br />
<br />
'''Can't you hear the tears of Normandy?'''<br />
<br />
'''Joan of Arc, Joan of Arc,'''<br />
<br />
'''Let your spirit guide us through.'''<br />
<br />
'''Awake old France to victory!'''<br />
<br />
'''Joan of Arc, we're calling you.'''<br />
<br />
Truly, nothing was sacred to Tin Pan Alley!<br />
<br />
The Lusitania was sunk; the U.S. declared war in April 1917. Our regiment was federalized on July 25, 1917, and in the late summer we were on our way to basic training at Camp Logan, near Houston, Texas.<br />
<br />
A demagogic promise was widely circulated that things would be better if Blacks fought loyally. For example, there was the statement of President Wilson: "Out of this conflict you must expect nothing less than the enjoyment of full citizenship rights." This propaganda was immediately belied by the mounting wave of new lynchings in the South, which claimed thirty-eight victims in 1917 and fifty-eight in 1918. Worst of all was the East St. Louis riot in September 1917; at least forty Blacks were massacred in a bloody pogrom that lasted several days.<br />
<br />
Then there was the mutiny-riot of the Twenty-fourth Infantry in Houston, Texas, where our regiment was to receive its basic training. Company G of our outfit was already in Houston at the time, having been sent on as an advance detachment to prepare the camp for our occupation. It was through them that I learned exactly what had happened.<br />
<br />
Black soldiers of the Twenty-fourth Infantry, an old Regular Army regiment, had for months been subjected to insults and abuse by Houston police and civilians. The outfit had stationed its military police in Houston, who were, in theory, supposed to cooperate with local police in maintaining law and order among soldiers on leave. Instead, the Black military police found themselves the object of abuse, insults and beatings by local police. This treatment of Black MPs by racist cops was evidently encouraged by the fact that they (the Blacks) were unarmed.<br />
<br />
A report of the special on-the-spot investigator for the NAACP published in the Crisis, its organ, reads:<br />
<br />
'''In deference to the southern feeling against the arming of Negroes and because of the expected cooperation of the City Police Department, members of the provost guard were not armed, thus creating a situation without precedent in the history of this guard. A few carried clubs, but none of them had guns, and most of them were without weapons of any kind. They were supposed to call on white police officers to make arrests. The feeling is strong among the colored people of Houston that this was the real cause of the riot.'''<br />
<br />
'''On the afternoon of August 23, two policemen, Lee Sparks and Rufe Daniels—the former known to the colored people as a brutal bully—entered the house of a respectable colored woman in an alleged search for a colored fugitive accused of crap-shooting. Failing to find him, they arrested the woman, striking and cursing her and forcing her out into the street only partly clad. While they were waiting for the patrol wagon a crowd gathered about the weeping woman who had become hysterical and was begging to know why she was being arrested.'''<br />
<br />
'''In this crowd was a colored soldier, Private Edwards. Edwards seems to have questioned the police officers or remonstrated with them. Accounts differ on this point, but they all agree that the officers immediately set upon him and beat him to the ground with the butts of their six-shooters, continuing to beat and kick him while he was on the ground, and arrested him. In the words of Sparks himself: "I beat that nigger until his heart got right. He was a good nigger when I got through with him."'''<br />
<br />
'''Later Corporal Baltimore, a member of the military police, approached the officers and inquired for Edwards, as it was his duty to do. Sparks immediately opened fire and Baltimore, being unarmed, fled....They followed...beat him up, and arrested him. It was this outrage which infuriated the men of the Twenty-fourth Infantry to the point of revolt.'''<br />
<br />
When word of this outrage reached the camp, feeling ran high. It was by no means the first incident of the kind that had occurred.<br />
<br />
The white officers, feeling that the men would seek revenge, ordered them disarmed. The arms were stacked in a tent guarded by a sergeant. A group of men killed the sergeant, seized their rifles, and under the leadership of Sergeant Vida Henry, an eighteen-year veteran, marched on Houston in company strength.<br />
<br />
When the soldiers left camp their slogan was "On to the Police Station!" They entered town by way of San Felipe Street which ran through the heart of the Black community. The fact that they took this route and avoided the more direct one which lead through a white neighborhood disproved the charge by local newspapers and the police that they were out to shoot up the town and kill all whites. Their target was clearly the Houston cops. On the way to the station they shot every person who looked like a cop.<br />
<br />
Finally meeting resistance, a battle ensued which ended with seventeen whites, thirteen of them policemen, killed. The alarm went out and a whole division of white troops, which was stationed in the camp, was sent in to round up the mutineers. Finally cornered, the men threw down their arms and surrendered, with the exception of Sergeant Vida Henry, who committed suicide rather than be taken. <br />
<br />
The whole battalion of the Twenty-fourth Infantry, including the mutineers, was hurriedly placed aboard a guarded troop train and sent to Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Immediately upon arrival there, those involved were given a drum-head court martial. Thirteen were executed and forty-one others were sentenced to life imprisonment.<br />
<br />
The bodies of all the executed men were sent home to their families for burial. I remember reading of the funeral of Corporal Baltimore in some little town in Illinois.<br />
<br />
Our regiment entrained for Camp Logan with our ardor considerably dampened by these events. Indeed, we left Chicago in an angry and apprehensive mood which lasted all the way to Texas. We passed through East St. Louis in the middle of the night. Those of us who were awake were brooding about the massacre of our kinsmen which had recently taken place there. The regiment traveled in three sections, a battalion each, in old style tourist cars (sort of second-class Pullmans).<br />
<br />
The next morning we arrived in Jonesboro, Arkansas, our first stop on the other side of the Mason-Dixon line. We were in enemy territory. For many of us it was our first time in the South. Jonesboro was a division point—all three sections of the train pulled up on sidings while the engines were being changed and the cars serviced.<br />
<br />
It was a bright, warm and sunny Sunday morning. It seemed like the whole town had turned out at the station platform to see the strange sight of armed Black soldiers. Whites were on one side of the station platform and Blacks on the other. We pulled into the station with the windows open and our 1903 Springfield rifles on the tables in plain view of the crowd.<br />
<br />
We were at our provocative best. We threw kisses at the white girls on the station platform, calling out to them: "Come over here, baby, give me a kiss!" "Look at that pretty redhead over there, ain't she a beaut!" And so forth.<br />
<br />
A passenger train pulled up beside us on the next track. There, peering out the open window, was a real stereotype of an Arkansas red-neck. The sight of him was provocation enough for Willie Morgan, a huge Black in our company who was originally from Mississippi. Morgan was sitting directly across from the white man. He undoubtedly retained bitter memories of insults and persecutions from the past and quickly took advantage of what was perhaps his first opportunity to bait a cracker in his own habitat.<br />
<br />
He reached a big ham-like hand through the window, grabbed the fellow's face and shouted, "What the hell you staring at, you peckerwood motherfucker?" The man pulled back, his hat flew off. Bending down, he recovered it and then moved quickly to the other side of his car, a frightened and puzzled look on his face. Our whole car let out a big roar.<br />
<br />
Then a yard man, walking along the side of the car, asked, "Where are you boys going?"<br />
<br />
"Goin' to see your momma, you cracker son-of-a-bitch!" came the reply.<br />
<br />
The startled man looked up in amazement.<br />
<br />
All of us were hungry. We had been given only a couple of apples for breakfast and now noticed that there were a number of shops and stores in the streets behind the station. I believe our first thought was to buy some food. The vestibule guards would not allow us to take our rifles off the cars, so we left them on our seats and proceeded to the stores in groups. As the stores became crowded, and as the storekeepers were busy serving some of our group, others started to snatch up any article in sight.<br />
<br />
Cases of Coca-Cola, ginger ale and near-beer went back to the cars. The path to the train was strewn with loot dropped by some of the fellows. In the stores, some bought as others stole—this spontaneously evolved pattern was employed in raids on all stores in Jonesboro and at other train stops along the road to Houston.<br />
<br />
The only serious confrontation that took place that day<br />
<br />
involved the group I was with. We crowded into a little store and a fellow named Jeffries, one of my squad buddies, approached the storekeeper who was standing behind the counter. Putting his money down, he demanded a coke. Whereupon the guy said, 'Til serve you one, but y'all can't drink it in heah."<br />
<br />
"Why?" Jeffries asked, innocently.<br />
<br />
"Cause we don't serve niggahs heah."<br />
<br />
Just as we were about to jump him and wreck the place, Jeffries, a comedian, decided to play it straight. He turned to us and said, "Now wait, fellahs, let me handle this. What the man is saying is that you don't know your place."<br />
<br />
Turning to the storekeeper he put his money down and with feigned meekness said, "All right, mister, give me a coke. I know my place, I'll drink it outside."<br />
<br />
"Thank goodness this nigger's got some sense," the storekeeper must have thought as he placed a coke on the counter. Jeffries snatched up the bottle and immediately hit him on the head, knocking him out cold.<br />
<br />
We then proceeded to wreck the place. We took everything in sight. Rushing back to the train, I heard a loud crash—a plate glass window someone had smashed as a parting gift to the niggerhating storekeeper.<br />
<br />
Up to this time we had not seen any of our officers. They had been up front in the first-class Pullmans. Many of them, we suspected, were sleeping off the after effects of the parties held on the eve of our departure. Major Hunt and Captain Hill now appeared and gave orders to the non-coms and the vestibule guards to allow no one else to leave the train.<br />
<br />
We waved goodbye to the Blacks on the station platform. They looked frightened, sad and cowed. We were leaving, but they had to stay and face the wrath of the local crackers. <br />
<br />
The train headed to Texarkana, where the scene was repeated though on a smaller scale. In Texarkana the train stopped only a few minutes and we raided one store near the railroad station. I was the last one out, running to the train with a box of pilfered Havana cigars in my hand. Nearing the train, I passed a couple of local whites talking about the raid. One said to the other, "You see all those niggers taking that man's stuff?"<br />
<br />
"Yeah, I see it."<br />
<br />
"Well, what are we going to do about it?"<br />
<br />
I reached the train just as it was pulling out, relieved not to have been left behind to find out the answer. The next stop was Tyler, deep in the heart of Texas, scene of our most serious confrontation. Here we confronted the law in the person of the county sheriff. Tyler seemed to be a larger town than the others. It was a division point and all three sections pulled up on the sidings. As in Jonesboro, a large crowd had gathered at the station; Blacks on one side, whites on the other. Again, with our guns in view, we started flirting with the white women, throwing kisses at them and so on.<br />
<br />
We were very hungry. There had been some foul-up in logistics so there wasn't any food on the train. All we had that day was a couple of sandwiches and some coffee. We piled off the train and headed for the stores, elbowing whites out of the way. We didn't carry our guns but many of us wore sheathed bayonets.<br />
<br />
Major Hunt finally appeared but he was only able to stop a few of us. By that time most of us were already ransacking the stores in the immediate vicinity of the station. The path back to the station was strewn with bottles of soft drinks, hams, fruits, wrappers from the candy and cigarettes, etc. The major was frantically blowing his whistle and calling the fellows to come back to the cars. Finally we all got back and were eating our pilfered food, drinking our near-beer and soda.<br />
<br />
Suddenly a large white man stepped forward out of the crowd. He wore a khaki uniform, a Sam Brown belt and a Colt forty-five in his holster. He approached Major Hunt and identified himself as the sheriff. (Or he might have been chief of police.) He said he intended to search the train and recover the stolen goods.<br />
<br />
The major, a short, heavy-set Black man, said: "No, you don't. This is a military train. Any searching to be done will be done by our officers."<br />
<br />
"I know," he said, "I want to accompany you."<br />
<br />
"No you don't. You won't set foot on this train."<br />
<br />
The sheriff hesitated and looked around at the crowd of white and Black. It was clearly a bitter pill for him to swallow, having for the first time in his life to take low to a Black man in front of his white constituents, as well as setting a bad example for the Blacks. He pushed the unarmed major aside and walked forward.<br />
<br />
"Come on you peckerwood son-of-a-bitch!" we hollered from the car.<br />
<br />
He approached the vestibule of our car where Jimmy Bland, a mean, grey-eyed and light-skinned Black was on guard.<br />
<br />
"Back! Get back or I'll blow you apart!" Jimmy pushed the sheriff in the belly with the barrel of his rifle. To further impress upon him that the gun was loaded, he threw the bolt and ejected a bullet. The sheriff, who had doubled over from the blow, straightened up. his face ghastly white. He gasped out something to the effect that he was going to report this affair to the government and walked away. We all let out a tremendous roar.<br />
<br />
We arrived in Houston the next day, five days after the mutiny of the Twenty-fourth. We were informed that five dollars would be docked from each man's pay to cover the damage incurred on the trip down. I believe we all felt that it was a small price to pay for the lift in morale that resulted from our forays on the trip.<br />
<br />
We were greeted by our comrades from Company G of our battalion on arriving at Camp Logan. They had been there at the time of the mutiny-riot and gave us a detailed account of what had happened. We expected to be confronted by the hostile white population, but to our surprise, the confrontation with the Twenty-fourth seemed to have bettered the racial climate of this typical Southern town. Houston in those days was a small city of perhaps 100,000 people, not the metropolis it has now become. The whites, especially the police, had learned that they couldn't treat all Black people as they had been used to treating the local Blacks.<br />
<br />
I can't remember a single clash between soldiers and police during our six-month stay in the area. On the contrary, if there were any incidents involving our men, the local cops would immediately call in the military police. There was also a notable improvement in the morale of the local Black population, who were quick to notice the change in attitude of the Houston cops. The cops had obviously learned to fear retaliation by Black soldiers if they committed any acts of brutality and intimidation in the Black community.<br />
<br />
Houston Blacks were no longer the cowed, intimidated people they had been before the mutiny. They were proud of us and it was clear that our presence made them feel better. A warm and friendly relationship developed between our men and the Black community. The girls were especially proud of us. Local Blacks would point out places where some notorious, nigger-hating cop had been killed.<br />
<br />
"See those bullet holes in the telephone pole over there," they'd say. "That's where that bad cop, old Pat Grayson, got his."<br />
<br />
"Those Twenty-fourths certainly were sharpshooters!"<br />
<br />
I occasionally took my laundry to an elderly woman who had known Corporal Baltimore. She told me what a nice young man he was.<br />
<br />
"I hear he was hanged," she said.<br />
<br />
"That's right," I replied.<br />
<br />
Tears came to her eyes and she cluck-clucked. "He left some of his laundry here; you're about his size, you want it?"<br />
<br />
"Yes, I'll take it."<br />
<br />
She handed me several pairs of khaki trousers and some underwear and shirts all washed and starched and insisted that I pay only the cost of the laundry.<br />
<br />
In Camp Logan, our Black Regiment, a part of the Thirty-third Illinois National Guard Division, went into intensive training. We had high esprit de corps. Our officers lost no opportunity to lecture us on the importance of race loyalty and race pride. They went out to disprove the ideas spread by the white brass to the effect that Black soldiers could be good, but only when officered by whites.<br />
<br />
Our solidarity was strengthened when the Army attempted to remove Colonel Charles R. Young from the regiment. Young was the first Black West Point graduate and the highest ranking Black officer in the Regular Army. He wanted to go overseas very badly, but it was quite clear that they did not want a Black officer of his rank over there. He was examined by an Army medical board and found unfit for overseas service. We all knew it was a fraud. It was in all the Black papers and was known by Blacks throughout the country.<br />
<br />
We men didn't let our officers down. We were out to show the whites that not only were we as good in everything as they, but better. In Camp Logan, our regiment held division championships in most of the sports: track, boxing, baseball, etc. We had the highest number of marksmen, sharpshooters and expert riflemen. Of course, there was no socializing between Blacks and whites, but it was clear that we had the respect, if not the friendship, of many of the white soldiers in the division.<br />
<br />
In fact, despite all the efforts of the command, there was a certain degree of solidarity between Black and white soldiers in our division. In Spartanburg, North Carolina, white soldiers from New York came to the defense of their Black fellows of the Fifteenth New York when the latter were attacked by Southern whites. Many of us felt that in the case of a showdown in town with the local crackerdom, we could get support from some of the white members of our division who happened to be around. At least, we felt they would not side with the crackers against us.<br />
<br />
The high morale of the regiment, the new tolerance (at least on the part of the local white establishment), the new spirit of Houston Blacks were all displayed during the parade of our division in downtown Houston. About two months before our departure, we received notice from headquarters that the regiment was to participate in a parade. We were to pass in review before Governor Howden of Illinois, our host governor of Texas, high brass from the War Department and other notables.<br />
<br />
We spent a couple of days getting our clothes and equipment into shape. We washed and starched our khaki uniforms, bleached our canvas leggings snow white, cleaned and polished our rifles and side arms, shined our shoes to a mirror gloss. On the day of the parade, we marched the five miles into town, halting just before we reached the center of the city. We wiped the dust from our rifles and shoes and continued the march.<br />
<br />
Executing perfectly the change from squad formation to platoon front, we entered the main square. With our excellent band playing the Illinois March, we passed the reviewing stand with our special rhythmic swagger which only Black troops could affect. We were greeted by a thunderous ovation from the crowds, especially the Blacks.<br />
<br />
I believe all of Black Houston turned out that day. The next morning, the Houston Post, a white daily, headlined a story about the parade and declared that "the best looking outfit in the parade was the Negro Eighth Illinois."<br />
<br />
Given final leave, we bid good-bye to our girls and friends in Houston. After that, security was clamped down and no one was allowed to leave the camp. A few days later, we boarded the train and were on our way to a port of embarkation. We didn't know where we were headed but suspected it was New York. Instead, five days later, we wound up in Camp Stewart near Newport News, Virginia.<br />
<br />
In Newport News, we barely escaped a serious confrontation with some local crackers and the police. The first batches of our fellows given passes to the town were subjected to the taunts and slurs of the local cops.<br />
<br />
"Why don't you darkies stay in camp? We don't want you downtown making trouble."<br />
<br />
Several fights ensued. Some of the men from our regiment were arrested and others literally driven out of town. They returned to the barracks, some of them badly beaten, and told us what had happened. A repetition of the riot of the Twenty-fourth Infantry at Houston was narrowly averted, as a number of us grabbed our guns and were about to head downtown. We were turned back, however, by our officers, who intervened and pleaded with us to return to our barracks. Among them was Lt. Benote Lee, whom we all loved and respected.<br />
<br />
"Don't play into the hands of these crackers," he said. "We'll be leaving any day now. All they want is to get us in trouble on the eve of our departure."<br />
<br />
"How about our guys who were arrested?" we asked.<br />
<br />
"Don't worry. We'll get them out."<br />
<br />
We returned to the barracks and, sure enough, our comrades were returned the next day, escorted by white MPs. We spent the next days on standby orders, apparently waiting for our ship to arrive. After that, all leaves were cancelled.<br />
<br />
It was on the same day, I believe, that we first learned that we had been separated from our Thirty-third Illinois Division. Henceforth, we were to be known as the 370th Infantry.<br />
<br />
One morning shortly after this, we looked down into the harbor and saw three big ships. We knew then that we would soon be on our way. The following morning the regiment marched down to the dockside to board ship. Yet another incident occurred at the dock. We lined up in company front facing the harbor and halted a few yards from the fence which ran the entire length of the dock.<br />
<br />
Facing us in front of the fence were several groups of loitering white native males, probably dockworkers. They stared at us as if we were some strange species. Our captain apparently wanted to move the company closer to the fence and gave the command, "Forward march." But he "forgot" to call "halt." That was all we needed.<br />
<br />
We were still angry about the beating of our comrades in downtown Newport News a few days before. We marched directly into the whites, closing in on them, cursing and cuffing them with fists and rifle butts, kicking and kneeing them; in short, applying the skills of close order combat we had learned during our basic training. Of course, we didn't want to kill anybody, we just wanted to rough them up a bit.<br />
<br />
We were finally stopped by the excited cries of our officers, "Halt! Halt!" We withdrew, opening up a path through which our victims ran or limped away. Then at the command of "Attention! Right face!" we marched along the dock in columns of two's and finally boarded the ship.<br />
<br />
=== ON TO FRANCE ===<br />
We sailed for France in early April 1918, on the old USS Washington, a passenger liner converted into a troop ship. I have crossed the Atlantic many times since, but I can truthfully say that I have never experienced rougher seas. Our three ships sailed out of Newport News without escort. Of course, we were worried; there were rumors of German submarines. Our anxiety was relieved when in mid-ocean we picked up two escort vessels, one of which was the battle cruiser Covington. When we reached the war zone, about three days out of Brest, a dozen destroyers took over, circling our ships all the way into port.<br />
<br />
It took us sixteen days in all to reach Brest, France, where we arrived on April 22. We were so weak on landing that one-half of the regiment fell out while climbing the hill to the old Napoleon Barracks where we were quartered. Immediately upon our arrival, we were put to work cleaning up ourselves and our equipment, notwithstanding our weakened condition.<br />
<br />
The next morning we passed in review before some U.S. and French big brass. The following day we boarded a train. We crossed the whole of France from east to west and detrained at Granvillars, a village in French Alsace, close to the Swiss frontier. There we found out that we had been brigaded with and were to be an integral part of the French Army. <br />
<br />
The reason we were separated from the white Americans was, as the white brass put it, "to avoid friction." But the American command of General Pershing was not satisfied just to separate us; they tried to extend the long arm of Jim Crow to the French. The American Staff Headquarters, through its French mission, tried to make sure that the French understood the status of Blacks in the United States. Their Secret Information Bulletin Concerning Black American Troops is now notorious, though I did not learn of it until after I had returned from France. The Army of Democracy spoke to its French allies:<br />
<br />
It is important for French officers who have been called upon to exercise command over black American troops, or to live in close contact with them, to have an exact idea of the position occupied by Negroes in the United States. The increasing number of Negroes in the United States (about 15,000,000) would create for the white race in the Republic a menace of degeneracy were it not that an impassable gulf has been made between them....<br />
<br />
Although a citizen of the United States, the black man is regarded by the white American as an inferior being with whom relations of business or service only are possible. The black is constantly being censured for his want of intelligence and discretion, his lack of civic and professional conscience, and for his tendency toward undue familiarity.<br />
<br />
The vices of the Negro are a constant menace to the American who has to repress them sternly. For instance, the black American troops in France have, by themselves, given rise to as many complaints for attempted rape as the rest of the army....<br />
<br />
Conclusion:<br />
<br />
1. We must prevent the rise of any pronounced degree of intimacy between French officers and black officers. We may be courteous and amiable with these last, but we cannot deal with them on the same plane as with the white American officers without deeply wounding the latter. We must not eat with them, must not shake hands or seek to talk or meet with them outside the requirements of military service.<br />
<br />
2. We must not commend too highly the black American troops, particularly in the presence of [white] Americans....<br />
<br />
3. Make a point of keeping the native cantonment population from "spoiling" the Negroes. [White] Americans become greatly incensed at any public expression of intimacy between white women with black men....Familiarity on the part of white women with black men is furthermore a source of profound regret to our experienced colonials, who see in it an overweening menace to the prestige of the white race.<br />
<br />
Apparently this classic statement of U.S. racism was ineffectual with the French troops and people, even though it was supplemented by wild stories circulated by the white U.S. troops. These included the claim that Blacks had tails like monkeys, which was especially told to women, including those in the brothels.<br />
<br />
Our regiment was not sorry to be incorporated into the French military. In fact, most of us thought it was the best thing that could have happened. The French treated Blacks well—that is, as human beings. There was no Jim Crow. At the time, I thought the French seemed to be free of the virulent U.S. brand of racism.<br />
<br />
The American Command not only wanted its front line to be all white, it also wanted all regiment commanders (even those under the French) to be white. Consequently, our Black colonel, Franklin A. Dennison; our lieutenant colonel, James H. Johnson; and two of our majors (battalion commanders) were replaced by white officers. Colonel Dennison was sent back to the States, kicked upstairs, given the rank of brigadier general, and placed in command of the Officer Training Camp for Colored Men at Fort Des Moines, Iowa. Although our first reaction was anger, we became reconciled to the shift.<br />
<br />
Our new white colonel, T. A. Roberts, seemed to be warm, paternalistic and deeply concerned about the welfare of his men. He would often make the rounds of the field kitchens, tasting the food and admonishing the cooks about ill-prepared food. He even gave instructions on how the various dishes should be cooked. Naturally, this made a great hit with the men. Our confidence in him was high because we felt that he was a professional soldier who knew his business.<br />
<br />
I remember the day the new colonel took over. The regiment formed in the village square. Colonel Roberts introduced himself. He seemed quite modest. He said that he was honored to be our new commander and that he knew the record of our regiment dating back to 1892 and its exploits during the Spanish-American War.<br />
<br />
"Since West Point," he said, "I have always served with colored troops—the Ninth and Tenth Cavalry." He then turned to Captain Patton, our Black regiment adjutant. "Captain Patton knows me, he was one of my staff sergeants in the old Tenth Cavalry." Patton nodded.<br />
<br />
The colonel smiled and pointed to our top sergeant. "Over there is Mark Thompson. I remember him when he was company clerk in Troop C of the Tenth Cavalry." He went on to point out a dozen or so officers and non-coms with whom he had served in the Ninth or Tenth Cavalry. "These men will tell you where I stand with respect to the race issue and everything else. We are going into the lines soon and I am sure that the men of this regiment will pile up a record of which your people and the whole of America will be proud."<br />
<br />
The process of integration into the French Army was thorough. The American equipment with which we had trained at home was taken away and we were issued French weapons—rifles, carbines, machine guns, automatic rifles, pistols, helmets, gas masks and knapsacks. We were even issued French rations—with the exception of the wine, which our officers apparently felt we could not handle. We got all the wine we wanted anyway from the French troops. They were issued a liter (about a quart) a day and for a few centimes could buy more at the canteen.<br />
<br />
The regiment was completely reorganized along French lines, with a machine gun company to every battalion. My Company E of the Second Battalion was converted into Machine Gun Company No. 2. We entered a six-week period of intensive training under French instructors to master our new weapons. Our main weapon was the old air-cooled Hotchkiss. And we had to master the enemy's gun, the water-cooled Maxim.<br />
<br />
The period of French training was not an easy one. It was a miserable spring—dark and dreary, and it rained incessantly the whole time we were there. There was a lot of illness—grippe, pneumonia and bronchitis. We lost a number of men, several from our company. The men were in a sullen mood as the time approached for the regiment to move up to the front.<br />
<br />
Disgruntlement was often voiced in the now familiar form of "What are we doing over here? Germans ain't done nothing to us. It's those crackers we should be fighting." While we were lined up in the square one day, our captain took the occasion to comment on these sentiments.<br />
<br />
"Well," he said, "I've been hearing all this stuff about guys saying that they weren't going to fight the Germans. Well, we certainly can't make you fight if you don't want to. But I'll tell you one thing we can and will do is take you up to the front where the Germans are, and you can use your own judgment as to whether you fight them or not."<br />
<br />
In early June 1918, we entered the trenches at the St. Mihiel Salient near the Swiss frontier as a part of the Tenth Division of the French Army under General Mittelhauser. We were intermingled with the French troops in the Tenth Division so that our officers and men might observe and profit by close association with veteran soldiers. At that time St. Mihiel was a quiet sector. Except for occasional shelling, desultory machine gun and rifle fire, nothing much occurred. We lost no men.<br />
<br />
It was here, however, that we made our first acquaintance with two pests—the rat and the louse—whom thereafter were our inseparable companions for our entire stay at the front. Undoubtedly there were more rats than men; there were hordes of them. Regiments and battalions of rats. They were the largest rats I had ever seen. We soon became tired of killing them; it seemed a wasted effort. Some of the rats became quite bold, even impudent. They seemed to say, "I've got as much right here as you have." They would walk along, pick up food scraps and eat them right there in front of you! The dark dug-outs were their real havens. When we slept we would keep our heads covered with blankets as protection against rat bites. This may seem flimsy protection, but we were so conditioned that we would awake at any attempt on the part of a rat to bite through the blanket. I have often wondered why there were so few rat bites. Probably the rats felt that it was not worthwhile fooling with live humans when there were so many dead ones around. We soon got used to the rats and learned to live with them.<br />
<br />
It was the same with the lice. I woke up lousy after my first sleep in a dug-out. My reaction to the pests took the following progression: first, I was besieged by interminable itching, followed by depression. Then I began to lose appetite and weight, finally becoming quite ill. All this was within a period of a few days. Most of the fellows exhibited the same symptoms. <br />
<br />
One might say that our illness was mainly psychological, but it was nonetheless real. Since this was a quiet front, I had no difficulty in getting permission to go back to the rear for a few hours. Foolishly, I thought if I could get cleaned up just once, I would feel a lot better. I got some delousing soap, took a bath and washed my clothes. I then returned to the front, stood machine gun watch and then went into the dug-out for a nap. Needless to say, I woke up lousy again.<br />
<br />
I told my troubles to an old French veteran who had been assigned to my machine gun squad. "Oh, it's nothing! You must forget all about it,' he said. "You'll get used to it. I've been at the front for nearly four years and I've been lousy all the time, except when I was in the hospital or at home on leave."<br />
<br />
I took his advice which was all to the good, because I was not to be rid of these pests until six months later during my sojourn in hospitals at Mantes-sur-Seine and Paris after the Armistice. Even then, it was only a temporary respite, for I was reinfected upon rejoining my regiment at the embarkation port of Brest. After a brief stay with the regiment, I was returned to the hospital, again deloused, only to be reinfected again on the hospital ship returning to the States. I parted company with my last louse at the debarkation hospital at Grand Central Palace in New York City.<br />
<br />
We remained in the St. Mihiel sector about two weeks. We were then withdrawn and moved into a sector in the Argonne Forest near Verdun, site of the great battles of 1916; we arrived there in late July 1918. We were still brigaded with the Tenth French Division. The area around Verdun was a vast cemetery with a half million crosses of those who had perished in that great holocaust, each bearing the legend, Mort Pour La France. <br />
<br />
The Argonne at that time was also a quiet sector. But it was here that we suffered our first casualty, Private Robert M. Lee of Chicago. The incident occurred during machine gun target practice. The first and second line trenches ran along parallel hills about a hundred yards apart. The French had set up a make-shift range in the valley in between the trenches. Behind the gun there was a two or three foot rise in the earth, on which a number of us French and Blacks were sitting, chewing the rag, awaiting our turn at the machine gun. <br />
<br />
Suddenly, there was a short burst of machine gun fire. It was not from our guns. Bullets whizzed over our heads—they seemed to be coming from behind the target. All of us scrambled to get into the communication trench which opened on the valley. Second Lieutenant Binga DesMond, our platoon commander (and the University of Chicago's great sprinting star), fell from the embankment on top of me. Fortunately, he was not hit. But even with his 180 pounds on my back, I am sure I made that ten or fifteen yards to the communication trench, crawling on my hands and knees, as fast as he could have sprinted the distance!<br />
<br />
The fire was coming from behind the target. What obviously had happened was that the Germans had cased the position of our guns and had somehow got around behind the target and waited for a pause in our target practice to open fire on us. We never found out how they did it, for none of us knew the exact topography of the place. The French of course knew it, but they had assured us that the place was safe and that they had been using the range for months.<br />
<br />
We were crouched down, panting, in the communication trench for about five minutes after the German guns ceased fire. The French lieutenant (bless his soul) then sent a French gun crew out to get the gun. To our great surprise they also brought back Robert M. Lee. He was quite dead, with bullets right through the heart. He had evidently been hit by the first burst and had fallen forward in front of the embankment. All of us were deeply saddened by the incident.<br />
<br />
No one spoke as we bore his body back to the rear. He was only nineteen, a very sweet fellow, and he was our first casualty. We buried him down in the valley, beside the graves of those fallen at Verdun. The funeral was quite impressive. He was given a hero's burial, with representatives both from our regiment and our French counterparts. We were especially impressed by the appearance of General Mittelhauser who came down from Division Headquarters to express condolences and appreciation to the Black troops now under his command.<br />
<br />
=== THE SOISSONS SECTOR ===<br />
Despite the fact that we had been in aa quiet sector, it was still the front lines with its daily tensions of anticipated attack. In the middle of August, we were pulled out of the Argonne sector and sent to rest behind the lines near Bar-le-Duc. We were deeply pleased by the hospitality and kindness extended to us by the townspeople there. They invited us into their homes and plied us with food and wine. Half-jokingly they told us to come back after the war and we could have our pick of the girls. As we did throughout our stay in France, we deported ourselves well. For pleasures of the flesh, there were a number of legal houses of prostitution, or “houses of pleasure” as they were called by the French, It was with regret that we left that area.<br />
<br />
By this time, we had become an integral part of the French Army. Along with our French equipment, training and so forth, we had affected the style of the French poilu (doughboy). The flaps of our overcoats were buttoned back in order to give us more leg room while on the march, as was their style. Like the French infantry, we used walking sticks, which helped to ease the burden of our seventy pounds of equipment. French peasants along the road, hearing our strange language and noticing our color, would often mistake us for French colonials. Not Senegalese, who were practically all black but Algerians, Moroccans or Sudanese, We would swing along the road to the tune of our favorite marching song:<br />
<br />
'''My old mistress promised me, Raise a ruckus tonight,'''<br />
<br />
'''When she died she'd set me free, Raise a ruckus tonight.'''<br />
<br />
'''She lived so long her head got bald, Raise a ruckus tonight.'''<br />
<br />
'''She didn’t get to set me free at all, Raise a ruckus tonight!'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, come along, little children come along, While the moon is shining bright;'''<br />
<br />
'''Get on board on down the river flow, Gonna’ raise a ruckus tonight.'''<br />
<br />
But we had not escaped the long arm of American racism. We were rudely confronted with this reality upon our arrival in a small town on the Compiégne front in the department of Meuse. We entrained here for our next front. The regiment was confronted dramatically with the effects of the racist campaign launched by the American high brass,<br />
<br />
Upon entering the town, the regiment was drawn up in battalion formation in the square, Before being assigned to billets, we were informed by the battalion commander that a Black soldier from a labor battalion had been court martialed and hanged in the very square where we were standing, It had happened just a few weeks before our arrival. His crime was the raping of a village girl. His body had been left hanging there for twenty-four hours, as a demonstration of American justice,<br />
<br />
“As a result,” he told us, “you may find the town population hostile, In case this is so,” the major warned, “you are not to be provoked or to take umbrage at any discourtesies, but are to deport yourselves as gentlemen at all times,” In any case, we were to be there only for a few days, during which time we were to remain close to our barracks, Then, in a lowered voice, he muttered, “This is what i have been told to tell you.”<br />
<br />
We kept close to our billets the first day or so, but then gradually ventured further into town. At first, the townsfolk seemed to be aloof, but the coolness was gradually broken down, probably as a result of our correct deportment, especially our attitude towards the children (with whom we always immediately struck up friendships). Friendly relations were finally established with the villagers. When we asked about the hanging, they shrugged the matter off,<br />
<br />
“So what? That was only one soldier. The others were nice enough,” When asked why they had been so aloof when we first arrived, they said it was the result of the warnings of the white officers. “They didn’t want us to fraternize with the Blacks.”<br />
<br />
Continuing the conversation, they seemed puzzled about why the sentence had been so severe and the body barbarously left exposed in the square. “Trés brutale, trés horrible!” they exclaimed. With regard to the girl, “Ah, she had been raped many times before,” one of them jeered.<br />
<br />
After two weeks of rest, the regiment began to move by stages toward the front lines again. A few days later, we boarded a train consisting of a long line of box-cars. Each car was marked: “Quarante hommes ou huit chevaux.” (Forty men or eight horses.)<br />
<br />
The last couple of months had been quiet and relatively pleasant, with the exception of the Lec incident and the events just related. But now, we felt, we were going into the thick of it. The premonition was confirmed the very next morning when we woke (that is, those of us who had been able to sleep in such crowded conditions),<br />
<br />
We were passing through Chateau-Thierry. There could be no doubt about it, eventhough part of the sign had been blown away and only the word “Thierry” remained. The woods around the station and Belleau Woods, a few miles further on, looked like they had been hit by a cyclone: broken and uprooted trees, gaping shell holes, men from the Graves Registration walking around with crosses, Black Pioneers removing ammunition, All were grim reminders of the great battles that had been fought there by American troops only several weeks before.<br />
<br />
We were on the Soissons front, where we became part of the famous Armée Mangin, General Mangin (le boucher or the butcher as he was called by the French) was commander of the Tenth Army of France, among whom were a number of shock troops; Chausseurs Alpines, Chausseurs d’Afrique (Algerians and Moroccans), Senegalese riflemen and the Foreign Legion. His army was pivotal in breaking the Hindenburg Lineabout Soissons. On this front, we were brigaded with the Fifty-ninth French Division, under the command of General Vincendon.<br />
<br />
We bypassed Thierry and Belleau Woods and detrained at the village of Villers-Cotteréts, the birthplace of Alexandre Dumas. ‘The atmosphere was charged with expectancy, Observation balloons hung like giant sausages on the horizon. Big guns rumbled ominously in the distance, A steady stream of ambulances carrying wounded jammed the roads leading from the front. Obviously a big battle was in progress not too far away. But it turned out that we were not going into that sector. We left the village and marched west to Crépy-en-Valois. Turning north through the Compiégne Forest, we reached the Aisne River at a point near Vie-sur-Aisne and continued on to Resson-le-Long where we established our depot company. The march from the railhead to Resson took about three days. It was a forced march and covered about twenty-five kilometers (fifteen miles) a day.<br />
<br />
This was pretty rough after the restless night we had spent on the crowded train. As one of the company wags observed, “One thing bout these kilomeeters, they sho’ will kill you if you keep on meetin’ “em.”<br />
<br />
Our regiment spent six months in the lines in all. We took part in the fifty-nine day drive of Mangin’s Tenth Army which ended on the day of the Armistice. During that period, one or another of our units was always under fire or fighting. Our toughest battles were at the Death Valley Jump Off near the Aisne Canal, the taking of Mont Singes (Monkey Mountain which was later renamed Hill 370 in honor of our regiment), fighting at a railroad embankment northwest of Guilleminet Farm, and the advance into the Hindenburg Line at the Oise-Aisne Triangle.<br />
<br />
It was in the battles on the Hindenburg Line that we met the strongest enemy resistance and sustained most of our losses. The enemy resistance was broken in these battles and they began a general withdrawal, at first orderly and accompanied by brief rearguard actions. Finally, there was the flight to the Belgian frontier, destroying roads and railroads on orders to impede our advance. After Laon, their flight was so precipitous that we had difficulty maintaining contact. We entered many villages which they had left the day before.<br />
<br />
Our outfit was the first allied troops to enter the fortified city of Laon, wresting it from the Germans after four years of war. We were greeted with tremendous elation by the population, who had lived under German occupation the whole of that period.<br />
<br />
The regiment was highly praised by the French. It won twenty-one Distinguished Service Crosses, sixty-eight Croix de Guerre and one Distinguished Service Medal. In the whole two months’ drive, casualties were 500 killed and wounded-—a total of about one-fifth of the regiment. These casualties were light when compared with those of Black regiments on other fronts. For example, the 37] st Infantry of drafted men lost 1,065 out of 2,384 men in three days’ fighting during the great September defensive on the Compiégne Front. I believe that the German resistance on these other fronts, east and west of Soissons, was more stubborn than on our front.<br />
<br />
All of our Black regiments were fortunate to have been brigaded with the French. In this respect, the American High Command did us a big favor, unintentionally, lam sure. For as far as we were able to observe, the French made no discrimination in the treatment of Black officers and men, with whom they fraternized freely. They regarded us as brothers-in-arms.<br />
<br />
Similarly, the French people in the villages in which we stopped or were stationed were uniformly courteous and friendly, and we made many friends, I must say that we were also on our best behavior. I don’t remember a single incident of misbehavior on the part of our men toward French villagers. The latter were quick to notice this and to contrast our gentlemanly deportment with the rudeness of the white Americans. Many of the white soldiers made no effort to hide their disdain for the French(whom they regarded as inferiors) and commonly referred to them as “frogs.”<br />
<br />
But even as we fought, we were being stabbed in the back by the American High Command. We were not to learn, however, until our return to the States of the slanderous, racist document issued by the American General Staff Headquarters through its brainwashed French Mission (the Secret Information Concerning Black American Troops referred to earlier).<br />
<br />
We learned also that the hanging of the Black soldier on the Compiégne Front was not an isolated incident, but part of a deliberate campaign conducted by higher and lower echelons in the American Command to influence French civilians against Blacks. The campaign focused on the effort to build up the Black rapist scare among them.<br />
<br />
Such was a memorandum issued by headquarters of the Ninety-second Division (a Black division officered largely by whites) on August 21, 1918. Its purpose was to “prevent the presence of colored troops from being a menace to women,” The memorandum read in part:<br />
<br />
On account of increasing frequency of the crime of rape, or attempted rape, in this Division, drastic preventive measures have become necessary... Until further notice, there will be a check of all troops of the 92nd Division every hour daily between reveille and 11 P.M,, with a written record showing how each check was made, by whom, and the result...the one mile limit regulation will be strictly enforced at all times, and no passes will be issued except to men of known reliability.<br />
<br />
This was followed the next day by another memorandum saying that the commander-in-chief of the American Expeditionary Forces “would send the 92nd Division back to the States or break it up into labor battalions as unfit to bear arms in France, if efforts to prevent rape were not taken more seriously.”<br />
<br />
As a result, Dr. Robert R. Moton of Tuskegee was sent by President Wilson and the secretary of war to investigate the charges. He found only one case of rape in the whole division of 15,000 men. Two other men who were from labor battalions in the Ninety-second area were convicted. One of these was hanged, and I’m sure that this was the unfortunate soldier whom we saw on the Compiégne Front. General headquarters was forced to admit that the crime of rape, as later stated by Moton, “was no more prevalent among coloured soliders than among white, or any other soldiers.”<br />
<br />
This whole racist smear of Black troops, I was to conclude later, represented but an extension to France of the anti-Black racist campaign then current in the States, It was designed to maintain Black subjugation and prevent its erosion by liberal racial attitudes of the French. Back in the States, the campaign was marked by an upturn of lynchings during the war years, with thirty-eight Black victims in 1917 and half again that number in the following year. Even then, things were working up to the bloody riots of 1919.<br />
<br />
In contrast to all of this, the appreciation of the French for Black soldiers from the U.S. was shown by the accolade given by the French division commander, General Vincendon, to our regiment. On December 19, 1918, we were transferred from the French Army back to the American Army. On that day, General Order 4785, directed to the Fifty-ninth Division of the Army of France, was read to the officers and men of the 370th. It commended us for our contributions to France. remember being struck by the poetry of the language, it was all beautifully French to me:<br />
<br />
We at first, in September at Mareuil-sur-Ourcg, admitted your fine appearance under arms, the precision of your review, the suppleness of your evolutions that presented to the eye the appearance of silk unrolling its waves...<br />
<br />
Further on in remembering our dead, the communique read:<br />
<br />
The blood of your comrades who fell on the soil of France, mixed with the blood of our soldiers, renders indissoluble the bonds of affection that unite us.<br />
<br />
=== THE ROAD HOME ===<br />
The road back from Soissons lay through the old battlefields where we had fought a couple of months before. Near Anizy-le Chateau there were crosses marking the graves of some of our comrades who had died in the fighting there. We paused before the graves, seeking out those of the comrades we knew. We all had the same thoughts: “What rotten luck that they should die almost in sight of victory.”<br />
<br />
Among the crosses, there was one marked “Sergeant Theodore Gamelin.” Gamelin hadn’t died in combat. 1 remember the incident clearly, We were all lined up in some hastily dug trenches that morning, waiting for the “over the top” signal. The cooks had just distributed reserved rations. These consisted of a half-loaf of French bread (not the crispy white kind, but a coarse grayish loaf baked especially for the troops, which we called “war bread”) and a big bar of chocolate. Somehow, Gamelin had missed out on these rations. Jump-off time was drawing near. He looked around and his eyes fixed upon a private named Brown, who was sitting on the firing step, putting his rations in a knapsack. Now, Private Brown was one of those quiet, meek little fellows. He always took low, was never known to fight. But Brown was the type of man, I have observed, who can become dangerous. This is particularly true in a combat situation where one doesn’t know whether one will live five minutes longer. Gamelin, a big bullying type, an amateur boxer and very unpopular with his men, called to Brown:<br />
<br />
“Give me some of that bread, Brown. I didn’t get my rations.”<br />
<br />
“Now, that’s just too bad, sergeant,” Brown responded, “I’m not going to give you any of this bread. It’s not my fault you missed your rations.”<br />
<br />
Gamelin, with one hand on his pistol, moved as though he were going to seize the bread. Brown had his rifle lying across his lap. He simply raised it and coolly pulled the trigger. The sergeant fell dead!<br />
<br />
The platoon commander heard the commotion and ran to the spot, inquiring about what had happened. The men told him that Gamelin was trying to take Brown’s reserve rations and had made a move toward his pistol. Brown, they said, had shot in self-defense,<br />
<br />
Obviously nothing could be done about Brown in those circumstances. So the lieutenant said, “Consider yourself under arrest, Brown. We will take this matter up after this action.”<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, Brown was killed a few days later, The memory of this incident was on our minds as we viewed Gamelin’s grave, His helmet hung on a cross, which ironically bore the inscription “Sergeant Theodore Gamelin—Mort Pour La France (Died for France), September 1918.”<br />
<br />
Thad gone through six months at the front without a scratch or a day of illness. But as we neared Soissons, I began to feel faint and light-headed, By the time we reached the city, I had developed quite a high fever, It was the period of the first great flu epidemic which wreaked havoc among U.S. troops in France. I reported to the infirmary and lined up with a group of about fifty men. The medical sergeant took our temperatures and then tied tags to our coats. I looked at mine and it read “influenza.” We were evacuated to a field hospital near Soissons, where I remained for about five days. After that, we boarded a hospital train and were told that we were going to the big base hospital in Paris, Now, I liked that.<br />
<br />
I had never seen Paris and was most anxious to visit the famed city before going home. There were two of us in the compartment, another soldier from the regiment and myself, I felt a little drowsy, sol told my compartment mate that I was going to take a little nap and to wake me up when the chow came around, I “awoke” five days later in a French hospital at Mantes-sur-Seine, near Paris.<br />
<br />
They had put me off the train as an emergency case just before Paris. I came out of a coma to find a number of strange people around my bed—nurses who were Catholic nuns, doctors and a number of patients, They were all smiling. “Thank God, young man,” said the doctor, “we thought we were going to lose you. You've been in a coma for five days, but you’re going to be all right now.”<br />
<br />
“Where am I? Is this Paris?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“No, this is Mantes-sur-Seine, close to Paris. They had to put you off here as an emergency case.”<br />
<br />
“What’s wrong with me?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“Qh, you've had a little kidney infection and it has affected your heart.”<br />
<br />
“That sounds bad,” I said.<br />
<br />
“Well, you’re young and have a remarkable constitution. You'll pull through all right—you’re out of danger now,” he assured me.<br />
<br />
I remained in the hospital for about a month, receiving the kindest and most solicitous attention from nurses, doctors and patients. All seemed to regard me as their special charge, No one spoke English, but I got along all right. It was like a crash course in French, They told me I had a beautiful accent. They brought in an old lady to talk English with me, but she bored me to death, Really, my French was better than her English. She came once and didn’t return,<br />
<br />
I was feeling much better when the head sister came to me one evening to tell me I was to leave the next morning for Paris and the American hospital at Neuilly.<br />
<br />
“You've never been to Paris, have you?” she asked.<br />
<br />
“No,” I said. ,<br />
<br />
“Well, you’ve got a treat coming’<br />
<br />
I was filled with great expectations, The next morning, after embracing all my fellow patients and exchanging warm goodbyes with the doctor and sisters, the head nurse (or sister) took me out in front of the hospital where an American ambulance was waiting.<br />
<br />
“Hop in, buddy,” said the driver.<br />
<br />
“Haywood, be sure to write us when you get back to Chicago,” said the sister. “Remember we are your friends and want to know how you are getting along.”<br />
<br />
I promised that I would. As we pulled out, she stood on the road waving a white handkerchief and continued to wave it as long as we were in sight. I never wrote them, hut often thought of them.<br />
<br />
Paris, you wondrous city! I was feeling good that morning as we pulled into the hospital at Neuilly. The hospital was situated on the Avenue Neuilly near the Boulevard de la Grande Armée, only a few blocks from the Arc de Triomphe. It was a veritable palace. I was assigned to a ward in which there were only four guys, three Australians and one white American from Wisconsin. They greeted me and gave mea run-down on the situation. They were having a hall seeing Paris, taking in all the events, theaters, race tracks, boxing and girls, I don’t believe that I saw a real sick man in that hospital. There were some of course, but they must have been secluded in some out of sight wards. We were all convalescents in our ward. A couple were recuperating from wounds received at the front,<br />
<br />
“What do you do for money?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“Oh, we don’t worry about that—-just stick around a while and we'll show you the ropes,”<br />
<br />
Under their tutelage, it didn’t take me long to catch on. At that time there were dozens of rich American women, including a number from the social register in Paris. They were under the auspices of the Red Cross and had taken over the hospital and its patients as their special “war duty.” They would organize excursions, get tickets for shows, sports events, etc. Coming to the hospital in relays, they would leave huge boxes of chocolates and other goodies.<br />
<br />
We were showered with gifts—Gillette razors, Waterman fountain pens, and even some serviceable wrist watches if you asked for them. They would come in waves. Scarcely had one group left when another would come, leaving the same gifts. The guys had it down perfect. They always left one man on watch in the ward. He was there in case the gals would come in while the others were out and receive all the presents and gifts for them. He would point to the three un oceupied beds (there were only five of us in an eight bed ward) and pretend that their occupants were out in the streets. He would suggest that the presents be left for them, also. Old Wisconsin Slim was the real genius in all this, He even hung a couple of crosses over the unoccupied beds to give more substance to the fiction that they were occupied,<br />
<br />
Every morning we would gather all our presents, take them to the gate, and sell them fora good price to the French who gathered there to buy them. We would then return to the ward and divide the “swag.” Razors and fountain pens seemed to be rare in France at that time. The going rate for razors was about ten francs ($2) and for Waterman fountain pens even more. All this was carried out under the benign gaze of the hospital authorities.<br />
<br />
Discipline was lax, almost nonexistent. We could stay out for two days at a time. The attitude seemed to be: let the boys have a good time, they deserve it. Besides, it’s essential for their convalescence, When we would get a little money together (about once a week), we would run out to Montmartre and the famous Rue Pigalle, “Pig Alley,” to see the girls.<br />
<br />
As an old Francophile, I was also interested in French history and culture. I got a guidebook and spent days walking all over Paris, visiting all the historical places about which I had read, mentally reconstructing the events.<br />
<br />
Time was passing rapidly. I had been in the hospital about two months when an administrator called me into his office.<br />
<br />
“Well, Corporal Hall,” he said. “I hope you've been having a good time in Paris.”<br />
<br />
“Oh yes,” I replied.<br />
<br />
“That’s good,” he said, “We're sending you back to your regiment tomorrow.”<br />
<br />
“Where are they?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“They’re in Brest, waiting to embark for the voyage home.”<br />
<br />
The next morning I got on the train at the Gare Ouest and arrived in Brest that evening. In Brest, I strolled around a bit on the waterfront and finally sat down at a sidewalk cafe. I was in no hurry to get back into the old regimental harness, I was about to order a drink when suddenly a big white MP appeared. Glowering at me, he said, “Where’s your pass, soldier?”<br />
<br />
“Here it is. I’ve just got back from the hospital in Paris and I'm going to my outfit up on the hill,” I explained.<br />
<br />
He grabbed it, glanced at it and shouted, “Well, get going up that hill right now. You're not supposed to hang around here.”<br />
<br />
I left without my drink and started climbing the hill to the old Napoleon barracks where we had been eleven months before. It seemed like that had been years ago, so much had been crowded into the brief intervening period.<br />
<br />
T rejoined my outfit. They were living in tents in what seemed to me like a swamp. The weather was miserable, a steady cold rain. The mud was ankle deep. I was greeted warmly by my comrades. I don’t think that more than half the old boys of my company were left. The rest were dead, wounded, or ill in hospitals all over France.<br />
<br />
A couple of bottles of cognac were produced. The guys started reminiscing about what they were going to do when they got home. The news from home was bad. Discrimination and Jim Crow were rampant, worse than before. Blacks were being lynched everywhere. “Now, they want us to go to war with Japan,” observed one of the fellows. (The Hearst newspapers at the time were again raising the specter of the “yellow peril.”)<br />
<br />
“Well,” someone said, “they won’t get me to fight their yellow peril. If it comes to that, I'll join the Japs. They are colored.” There was unanimous agreement on that point.<br />
<br />
I bunked down that night and awoke the next morning with a high fever. I went to the infirmary and again was evacuated to a hospital. I immediately began to worry whether I would be able to return with my outfit. As I was waiting on the side of the road to hitch a ride to the hospital, I heard footsteps behind me. I turned and there was Colonel Roberts, our white commander whom I had not seen for months.<br />
<br />
I started to spring to my feet and salute, but he motioned me to remain seated. “Corporal, you're from our regiment, aren’t you?”<br />
<br />
“Yes, sir,” I said, “I'm sick and going to the hospital.”<br />
<br />
“What’s the matter?”<br />
<br />
“I guess I got the flu.”<br />
<br />
“Well,” he said, “you’re in no condition to walk that distance.” He hailed a passing truck and instructed the driver to take me to the hospital. “Take care, son; we’re going home soon. Try to come hack with us.” That’s the last time I saw Colonel Roberts.<br />
<br />
A month later, while in the hospital, I picked up the Paris edition of the Herald Tribune. The headline read: “The 370th Infantry (the old Eighth Illinois) returns and is given hero’s welcome in victory parade down State Street.” I felt pretty bad, because I could imagine my old Mother standing there waiting for me to pass by, Since I hadn’t written in months, she would probably assume the worst.<br />
<br />
I had been away from the States for quite a while, in free France so to speak, and I had become less used to the American nigger-hating way of life. But I was thrown abruptly back into reality as soon as I crossed the threshold of the American Army hospital in Brest.<br />
<br />
It seemed to be manned by an all Southern staff: doctors, nurses, etc. All of them spoke with broad Southern accents. I was assigned a bed at one end of the ward. When I looked around, I could see only Blacks were in that end. Whites were at the other end. There were no screens, no Jim Crow signs. The Jim Crow was de facto, but nonetheless real. I also noticed that there was a large space between the Black and white sections.<br />
<br />
After a cursory entrance examination, the doctor seemed to think that I didn’t have the flu, and upon hearing my recent medical history, he decided that it was a relapse of the old illness.<br />
<br />
Thad no sooner gotten settled when J heard a nurse bawling out a Black soldier for being so dirty. The poor fellow had just come in from some mud hole like the one in which my regiment was situated, where there was no opportunity to bathe.<br />
<br />
“You don’t see any of our white boys that dirty!” she shouted, her eyes flashing indignantly at what she, a white lady, was forced to put up with, For the first time, it occurred to me that our Black regiment had been put in a worse location than the whites. Now, that’s pretty hard stuff for a front-line veteran to take. If I had been ill when I came in, I was really sick now. I could feel my blood pressure and-fever mount.<br />
<br />
There was a Black sergeant from my outfit in the same ward, He was a tall, dignified and proud looking man, convalescing from a previous illness. He wasn’t a bed patient and was therefore supposed to make his own bed. This he did, but he never seemed to do it to the satisfaction of the nurse, who kept berating him.<br />
<br />
“Make it over, that’s not good enough.”<br />
<br />
“I've already made it, and I’m not going to do it again.”<br />
<br />
“Don’t talk back to me,” she shouted. “Make that bed!”<br />
<br />
“I’m not going to,” he said.<br />
<br />
“You dare disobey my order?” she yelled.<br />
<br />
“I'm a front-line soldier and you don’t have to yell at me.”<br />
<br />
She turned and walked to the office and returned with the ward doctor, a little pip-squeak of a man. Ina stentorian voice he said:<br />
<br />
“Make that bed, soldier.” The sergeant didn’t move. The doctor looked at his watch and said, “I’m giving you two minutes to start making that bed. If you don’t, I’m going to prefer charges against you for disobeying your superior officers.”<br />
<br />
You could see that the proud sergeant was thinking it over and coming to a decision. I could almost read his mind; it seemed that he was thinking that this wasn’t the time to die. He only had a couple more months to go.<br />
<br />
He finally burst into tears, but he got up and made the bed. I’ve seen this sort of situation before, and I feel almost certain that had there been a loaded gun around, the sergeant might have started shooting. It would have been reported in the news as “Another nigger runs amuck.” All of us, including some of the whites, breathed a sigh of relief at this peaceful culmination of what could have been a dangerous incident. At least the nurse never bothered the sergeant after that. Undoubtedly, she sensed the inherent danger of any further provocation.<br />
<br />
After my stay in Paris, I was seized periodically by moods of depression. These deepened and became chronic during my stay at the Brest hospital, especially after witnessing such humiliating incidents. I felt that I could never again adjust myself to the conditions of Blacks in the States after the spell of freedom from racism in France, I did not want to go back and my feeling was shared by many Black soldiers.<br />
<br />
I thought of remaining in France, getting my discharge there and possibly becoming a French citizen. But I did not know how to go about this. Besides, I was ill, and there was my Mother whom! wanted to see again. Probably, some day, if I got well, I would come back—or so I thought as I lay in the hospital at Brest.<br />
<br />
Finally, the day came. We were discharged from the hospital, given casual’s pay (one month’s pay), which in my case amounted to $33, and boarded the ship for home. There was no change in the Jim Crow pattern. We were merely transferred from a Jim Crow hospital to a Jim Crow hospital ship. We Blacks found ourselves quartered in a separate section of the ship. The segregation, however, did not extend to the mess hall or the lavatories (heads). I guess that would have been too much trouble. But the ship’s military command passed up no opportunity to let us know our place.<br />
<br />
For example, on the first day out we were given tickets for mess—~-breakfast, lunch and supper. We were supposed to present them to a checker who stood at the foot of the stairway leading up to the mess hall. A Black soldier who had evidently misplaced his ticket tried to slip by the checker unnoticed, but he was not quick enough. A cracker officer who was standing by the checker hollered: “Hey, Nigger, come back here!”<br />
<br />
The guy kept going and tried to merge into a group of us Blacks who had already passed through. Again the officer shouted, “Nigger, come back here. You, I mean. I mean the tall one over there. That nigger knows who I’m calling.” The soldier finally turned and walked back. Purple with rage, protected by his bars and white skin, the officer said, “Listen, you Black son of a bitch, where is your ticket?” Clearly, the officer had already gauged his man and concluded that there was no fight in him,<br />
<br />
“I couldn’t find it,” said the soldier.<br />
<br />
“Well, why didn’t you say that in the first place instead of tryin’ toslip through heah? Well, you go on back and try to find it. If you can’t, see the sergeant in charge. Don’t evah try that trick again,” said the officer. His anger seemed to ebb and a glow of self-satisfaction spread across his face. He had done his chore for the day. He had put a nigger in his place.<br />
<br />
The seas were rough again. It was a small ship, leased from the Japanese. Most of us were seasick. The sailors were having a ball at our expense, When one of us would rush to the rail to vomit, one of them would holler, “A dollar he comes.”<br />
<br />
One night, the ship tilted sharply and a number of us were thrown out of our bunks, The bunks were in tiers and I was in a top one, I got a pretty hard bump. The next morning on deck the sailors were talking loudly among themselves (for our benefit of course),<br />
<br />
“Gee,” said one, “this is the roughest sea I’ve ever seen. This old pile is about to come apart, The Japs leased us the worst ship they had.”<br />
<br />
“It just might be sabotage,” another one suggested,<br />
<br />
“I hope we make it, but I’m not so sure,” said another,<br />
<br />
Not being seamen, most of us were taking this seriously, A Black soldier turned to me and said, “You know man, after all I’ve been through, if this ship were to sink now almost in sight of home, I would get off and walk the water like the good Lord,”<br />
<br />
Another voice, that of a white sergeant from Florida who had been rather friendly to us: “You know,” he drawled, “this reminds me of old Sam down home.”<br />
<br />
Here it comes, we thought, one of those nigger jokes.<br />
<br />
“He was up theah on the gallows with a rope around his neck and the sheriff said, ‘Well Sam, is there anything you want to say before you die?<br />
<br />
“All T got to say sheriff, said Sam, ‘this sho’ would be a lesson to me,’ ”<br />
<br />
The voyage proceeded uneventfully, with one exception, The gamblers among us were out to get the soldiers’ casual pay. The law of concentration of money into fewer and fewer hands was in process, This was taking place in one of the endless crap games which started in the Bay of Biscay and wound up at Sandy Hook,<br />
<br />
IT never really gambled, even in the Army with room and board guaranteed, If you were broke, you could always borrow some money. The lender knew you couldn’t run out on him. His only risk was that you might become a casualty. But motivated by nothing more than sheer boredom, I got into the game this time.<br />
<br />
After all, what good was $33 going to do me? To my surprise, I hit a streak of luck and over a period of a week in and out of the game, I ran my paltry grub stake up to the tremendous sum of $1200, That was the high point, after which time my luck began to peter out. Nevertheless, I left the ship with $500. It was my last gambling venture,<br />
<br />
That morning, we lined up at the rail as our ship passed Sandy Hook and pulled into New York Harbor, It was my first view of the New York skyline, Overcome with emotion, tears welled up in my eyes, Embarrassed, I looked around and found that I was not alone. The guy next to me was obviously crying,<br />
<br />
Our landing was a memorable one, Ship stacks were blasting, foghorns blowing, bells were ringing and fire boats were sending up great sprays of water, Passengers in ferryboats were waving and shouting greetings.<br />
<br />
Upon docking, we were met by two reception committees of young women. A white one to receive the white soldiers and a Black one to greet us, This time segregation didn’t bother us at all, we were so pleased to see the pretty Black girls, They drew us aside as we came down the gang plank, ushered us into waiting ambulances, and drove us to Grand Central Palace which had been converted into a deharkation hospital, Leaving us in the lobby, they said goodbye and promised to come back soon and show us around.<br />
<br />
A woman from the Red Cross took our home addresses to notify our families of our arrival. We were then escorted into a large room and told to strip off our clothes. Leaving them in the room, we then went through the delousing process. We were sprayed with some sort of chemical and washed off under showers. We were then given pajamas and a bathrobe and shown to our Jim Crow ward.<br />
<br />
The next day, after a physical examination, we were paid off, receiving all of our back pay, In my case, it was for twelve months, amounting to about $450, This, plus the $500 I had won on the ship, seemed to me a small fortune, the largest amount of money I had ever had in my life. J was, so to speak, chafing at the bit, raring to get out and up to famed Harlem.<br />
<br />
On the ship, I had met a Black sergeant named Patterson, who was from the 369th, the old Fifteenth New York. He had also won a considerable sum in the crap game. He suggested that we team up and go to Harlem together. He said he knew his way around there since that was where he lived before he joined the Army.<br />
<br />
After the pay off, we were still without clothes. But a clothing salesman came around to take orders for new uniforms. Patterson and I ordered suits, for which we were measured. In a couple of hours the man was back with two brand new whip cord uniforms with chevrons and service stripes sewed on. We had also ordered shoes, which were promptly delivered, We then sneaked out of the hospital.<br />
<br />
After we banked most of our money downtown, we took the subway up to 125th Street and visited several “Buffet Flats” (a current euphemism for a high-class whorehouse), drinking and looking over the girls. Patterson seemed to be an old friend of all the madams. They greeted him like a long lost brother. We finally wound up in one real classy joint where we stayed for four days, playing sultan-in-a-harem with the girls.<br />
<br />
We returned to the hospital, expecting to be sharply reprimanded and restricted to quarters, but the doctor on his rounds merely asked, “Where have you boys been?” Before we could answer, he simply said, “I suggest that you stick around a day or two, we have some tests to make.”<br />
<br />
From New York, we left for Camp Grant near Rockford, Illinois, where we were demobilized out of the service, I was discharged on April 29, 1919. After a cursory examination, I was pronounced physically fit. “What about my chronic endocarditis and chronic nephritis?” I protested,<br />
<br />
“Oh, you're all right, you’ve overcome it all. You’re young and fit as a fiddle,” the doctor answered me. From Camp Grant I returned home to Chicago to see my parents.<br />
<br />
=== REUNION WITH OTTO ===<br />
Not too long after my discharge, I came home one evening to find Otto. He had just arrived after mustering out of the service at Camp Grant. We were all happy to see him, especially Mother. He showed us his honorable discharge.<br />
<br />
“You know,” he said, “I’m lucky to get this.”<br />
<br />
He then told stories about his harrowing experiences in a stevedore battalion in the South and then in France. The main mass of Black draftees had been relegated to these labor units, euphemistically called “service battalions,” “engineers,” “pioneer infantry,” ete.<br />
<br />
Regardless of education or ability, young Blacks were herded indiscriminately into these stevedore outfits and faced the drudgery and hard’ work with no possibility of promotion beyond the rank of corporal. With few exceptions, the officers were KKK whites, as also were the sergeants. Many of them were plantation riding boss types, especially recruited for these jobs. Southern newspapers openly carried want ads calling for white men who had “experience in handling Negroes,” Black draftees were not only subjected to the drudgery of hard labor, but insults, abuse, and in many cases blows from white officers and sergeants.<br />
<br />
Otto told us his worst experience was in Camp Stewart in Newport News, Virginia, where he was stationed during the terribly cold winter of 1917-18, For a considerable period after their arrival, they were forced to live in tents without floors or stoves. In most cases, they had only a blanket, some not even that.<br />
<br />
New arrivals to the camp were forced to stand around fires outside all night or sleep under trees for partial protection from the weather, For months there were no bathing facilities nor clothing for the men, These conditions were subsequently changed as a result of protests by the men and reports by investigators.<br />
<br />
His outfit landed in the port of St. Lazare, France, and during the great advance participated in the all-out effort to keep the front-lines supplied in the “race to Berlin.” They worked from dawn to nightfall unloading supplies, including all kinds of railroad equipment, engines, tractors and bulldozers. They built and repaired roads, warehouses and barracks. Discipline was strict; guys were thrown in the guardhouse on the most flimsy pretexts. A Black soldier seen on the street with a French woman was likely to be arrested by the MPs. <br />
<br />
“The spirit of St. Lazare,” said one officer, “is the spirit of the South.”<br />
<br />
Needless to say, Otto often found himself in the guard house as a result of fights, AWOLs, etc. How he escaped general court martial or imprisonment I don’t know.<br />
<br />
His outfit was finally moved to the American military base at Le Mans, about a hundred miles from Paris. Things were somewhat better there. There were even a few “reliable” Black corporals who were allowed weekend passes to visit Paris, Otto was assigned to mess duty as a cook,<br />
<br />
When he applied for leave, he was refused, however, “Well, I didn’t intend to come this close to Paris without seeing it,” he said, “so I went AWOL.”<br />
<br />
He did not see much of it, however, before he was arrested by MPs. I was surprised to learn that he had been in Paris during the period that I was in the hospital in Neuilly. Most of his time in the great city was spent in the Hotel St. Anne, the notorious American military jail run by the sadistic Marine captain, “hard-boiled Smith.”<br />
<br />
Here now, bitter and disillusioned, Otto continued his rebellion, It led him first to the Garvey movement where he served for a brief period as an officer in Garvey’s Black Legion, Then in succession, Wobblies, or Industrial Workers of the World ([WW), the African Blood Brotherhood and finally the Communist Party—joining soon after its unity convention in 1921. After returning from the service, Otto stayed at home only a short time and then moved in with some of his new friends.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 ==<br />
<br />
=== Searching for Answers ===<br />
Back home in Chicago, I was soon working again as a waiter on the Michigan Central Railroad. As I have already mentioned, the first day of the bloody Chicago race riot (July 28, 1919) came while I was working on the Wolverine run up through Michigan, When arrived home from work that afternoon, the whole family greeted me emotionally. We were all there except for Otto. The disagreements I had had with my Father in the past were forgotten, Both my Mother and sister were weeping. Everyone was keyed up and had been worrying about my safety in getting from the station to the house.<br />
<br />
Following our brief reunion, I tore loose from the family to find out what was happening outside. I went to the Regimental Armory at Thirty-fifth and Giles Avenue because I wanted to find some of my buddies from the regiment. The street, old Forrest Avenue, had recently been renamed in honor of Lt. Giles, a member of our outfit killed in France. I knew they would be planning an armed defense and I wanted to get in on the action. I found them and they told me of their plans. It was rumored that Irishmen from west of the Wentworth Avenue dividing line were planning to invade the ghetto that night, coming in across the tracks by way of Fifty-first Street. We planned a defensive action to meet them.<br />
<br />
it was not surprising that defensive preparations were under way. There had been clashes before, often when white youths in “athletic clubs” invaded the Black community. These “clubs” were really racist gangs, organized by city ward heelers and precinct captains,<br />
<br />
Once of the guys from the regiment took us to the apartment of a friend, It had a good position overlooking Fifty-first Street near State. Someone had brought a Browning submachine gun; he’d gotten it sometime before, most likely from the Regimental Armory. We didn’t ask where it had come from, or the origin of the 1903 Springfield rifles (Army issue) that appeared. We set to work mounting the submachine gun and set up watch for the invaders, Fortunately for them, they never arrived and we all returned home in the morning, The following day it rained and the National Guard moved into the Black community, so overt raids by whites did not materialize.<br />
<br />
Ours was not the only group which used its recent Army training for self-defense of the Black community. We heard rumors about another group of veterans who set up a similar ambush, On several occasions groups of whites had driven a truck at breakneck speed up south State Street, in the heart of the Black ghetto, with six or seven men in the back firing indiscriminately at the people on the sidewalks,<br />
<br />
The Black veterans set up their ambush at Thirty-fifth and State, waiting in a car with the engine running, When the whites on the truck came through, they pulled in behind and opened up with a machine gun, The truck crashed into a telephone pole at Thirty-ninth Street, most of the men in the truck had been shot down and the others fled, Among them were several Chicago police officers—“off duty,” of course!<br />
<br />
I remember standing before the Angeles Flats on Thirty-fifth and Wabash where the day before four Blacks had been shot by police. It appeared that enraged Blacks had set fire to the building and were attacking some white police officers when the latter fired on them.<br />
<br />
Along with other Blacks, I gloated over the mysterious killing of two Black cops with a history of viciousness in the Black community, They had been found dead in an alley between State and Wabash, Undoubtedly they had been killed by Blacks who had taken advantage of the confusion to settle old scores with these Black enforcers of the white man’s law.<br />
<br />
Bewilderment and shock struck the Black community as well. I had seen Blacks standing before the burned-out buildings of their former homes, trying to salvage whatever possible, Apparent on their faces was bewilderment and anger.<br />
<br />
The Chicago rebellion of 1919 was a pivotal point in my life, Always I had been hot-tempered and never took any insults lying down. This was even more true after the war. I had walked out of a number of jobs because of my refusal to take any crap from anyone, My experiences abroad in the Army and at home with the police left me totally disillusioned about being able to find any solution to the racial problem through the help of the government; for I had seen that official agencies of the country were among the most racist and most dangerous to me and my people.<br />
<br />
I began to see that I had to fight; I had to commit myself to struggle against whatever it was that made racism possible. Racism, which erupted in the Chicago riot—and the bombings and terrorist attacks which preceded it---must be eliminated. My spirit was not unique--it was shared by many young Blacks at that time, The returned veterans and other young militants were all fighting back. And there was a lot to fight against, Racism reached a high tide in the summer of 1919, This was the “Red Summer” which involved twenty-six race riots across the country—“red” for the blood that ran in the streets, Chicago was the bloodiest.<br />
<br />
The holocaust in Chicago was the worst race riot in the nation’s post-war history. But riots took place in such widely separate places as Long View, Texas, Charleston, South Carolina; Elaine, Arkansas, Knoxville, Tennessee, and Omaha, Nebraska. The flareup of racial violence in Omaha, my old home town, followed the Chicago riots by less than two months, It resulted in the lynching of Will Brown, a packing house worker, for an alleged assault on a white woman, When Omaha’s mayor, Edward P. Smith, sought to intervene, he was seized by the mob. They were close to hanging the mayor from a trolley pole when police cut the rope and rushed him to a hospital, badly injured.<br />
<br />
The common underlying cause of riots in most of the northern cities was the racial tension caused by the migration of tens of thousands of Blacks into these centers and the competition for jobs, housing and the facilities of the city. Rather than being at a temporary peak, this outbreak of racism was more like the rising of a plateau—-it never got any higher, but it never really went down, either. Writing in the middle of a riot in Washington, D.C., that summer, the Black poet Claude McKay caught the bitter and belligerent mood of many Blacks:<br />
<br />
'''If we must die, let it not be like hogs'''<br />
<br />
'''Hunted and penned in an inglorious spot,''' <br />
<br />
'''While round us bark the mad and hungry dogs,''' <br />
<br />
'''Making their mock at our accursed lot.'''<br />
<br />
'''if we must die, O let us nobly die'''<br />
<br />
'''So that our precious blood may not be shed'''<br />
<br />
'''Jn vain; then even the monsters we defy'''<br />
<br />
'''Shall be constrained to honor us though dead!'''<br />
<br />
'''* Okinsmen! We must meet the common foe!''' <br />
<br />
'''Though far outnumbered let us show us brave,''' <br />
<br />
'''And for their thousand blows deal one death blow!''' <br />
<br />
'''What though before us lies the open grave?'''<br />
<br />
'''Like men we'll face the murderous, cowardly pack,''' <br />
<br />
'''Pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back!''' <br />
<br />
‘The war and the riots of the “Red Summer” of 1919 left me bitter and frustrated. I felt that I could never again adjust to the situation of Black inequality. But how had it come about? Who was responsible?<br />
<br />
Chicago in the early twenties was an ideal place and time for the education of a Black radical. As a result of the migration of Blacks during World War I, the Chicago area came to have the largest concentration of Black proletarians in the country. It was a major point of contact for these masses with the white labor movement and its advanced, radical sector. In the thirties it was to become a main testing ground for Black and white labor unity.<br />
<br />
The city itself was the core of a vast urban industrial complex. Sprawling along the southeast shore of Lake Michigan, the area includes five Illinois counties and two in Indiana. The latter contains such industrial towns as East Chicago, Gary and Hammond. This metropolitan area contains the greatest concentration of heavy industry in the country.<br />
<br />
By the second half of the twentieth century, it had forged into the lead of the steel-making industry, surpassing the great Monongahela Valley of Pittsburgh in the production of primary metals; including steel mill, refining and non-ferrous metals operations. There was the gigantic U.S. Steel Corporation in Gary, the Inland Steel Company plant in East Chicago and the U.S. Steel South Works, These are now the three largest steel works in the United States. The steel mills of the Chicago area supply more than 14,000 manufacturing plants,<br />
<br />
Chicago was at that time, and remains today, the world’s largest railway center. It ranks first in the manufacture of railroad equipment, including freight and passenger cars, Pullmans, locomotives and specialized rolling stock.<br />
<br />
The core city itself was most famous for its wholesale slaughter and meat packing industry. Chicago was known as the meat capital of the world, or in Carl Sandburg’s more homely terms, “hog butcher for the nation.”<br />
<br />
The city’s colossal wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few men, who comprised the industrial, commercial and financial oligarchy. Among these were such giants as Judge Gary of the mighty U.S. Steel; Cyrus McCormick of International Harvester, the meat packers Philip D, Armour, Gustavus Swift and the Wilson brothers; George Pullman. of the Pullman Works; Rosenwald of Montgomery Ward; General Wood of Sears and Roebuck; the “merchant prince” Marshall Field; and Samuel Insull of utilities. These were the real rulers, Ostensible political power rested in the notoriously corrupt, gangster ridden, county political machine headed by Mayor William Hale (Big Bill) Thompson, who carried on the tradition exposed as early as 1903 by Lincoln Steffens in his book, The Shame of the Cities.<br />
<br />
The glitter and wealth of Chicago’s Gold Coast was based on the most inhuman exploitation of the city’s largely foreign-born working force. A scathing indictment of the horrible conditions in Chicago's meat packing industry was contained in Upton Sinclair’s novel, The Jungle, published in 1910. It was inevitable that the wage slave would rebel, that Chicago should become the scene of some of the nation’s bloodiest battles in the struggle between labor and capital, The first of these clashes was the railroad strike of 1877 which erupted in pitched battles between strikers and federal troops,<br />
<br />
Then in 1886 came the famous Haymarket riot which grew out of a strike for the eight-hour day at the McCormick reaper plant. During a protest rally, a bomb was thrown which killed one policeman and injured six others. ‘This led to the arrest of eight anarchist leaders; four were hanged, one committed suicide or was murdered in his cell, and the others were sentenced to life imprisonment. Obviously being tried and executed simply because they were labor leaders, these innocent men became a cause célebre of international labor, Thousands of visitors made yearly pilgrimages to the city where monuments to the executed men were raised, Haymarket became a rallying word for the eight-hour day. The martyrs were memorialized by the designation of the first of May as International Labor Day. <br />
<br />
Several years later the city was the scene of the great Pullman strike led by Eugene V. Debs and his radical but lily-white American Railway Union, which precipitated a nationwide shutdown of railroads in 1894. Again the federal troops were called in and armed clashes between workers and troops ensued. ‘These battles were merely high points in the city’s long history of labor radicalism. It was the national center of the early anarcho-socialist movements. In 1905, the Industrial Workers of the World (the IWW or Wobblies) was founded there. The IWW maintained its headquarters and edited its paper, Solidarity, there. In 1921, Chicago was to become the site of the founding convention of the Workers (Communist) Party, USA, which maintained its headquarters and the editorial offices of the Daily Worker there from 1923 to 1927.<br />
<br />
Blacks, however, played little or no role in the turbulent early history of the Chicago labor movement. This was so simply because they were not a part of the industrial labor force. Prior to World War I, Blacks were employed mainly in the domestic or personal service occupations, untouched by labor organizations. They were not needed in industry where the seemingly endless tide of cheap European immigrant labor—Irish, Scots, English, Swedes, Germans, Poles, East Europeans and Italians—sufficed to fill the city’s manpower needs.<br />
<br />
The only opportunity Blacks had of entering basic industry was as strikebreakers. Thus, in the early part of the century, Blacks were brought in as strikebreakers on two important occasions, the stockyards strike of 1904 and the city-wide teamsters’ strike in 1905. In the first instance, Blacks were discharged as soon as the strike was broken. After the teamsters’ strike, a relatively large number of Blacks remained. As a result of the defeat of the 1904 strike, the packing houses remained virtually unorganized for thirteen more years, and the animosities which developed toward the Black strikebreakers became a part of the racial tension of the city.<br />
<br />
At the outbreak of World War I, the situation with respect to Chicago’s Black labor underwent a basic change, Now Blacks were needed to fill the labor vacuum caused by the war boom and the quotas on foreign immigration. Chicago's employers turned to the South, to the vast and untapped reservoir of Black labor eager to escape the conditions of plantation serfdom--exacerbated by the cotton crisis, the boll weevil plague and the wave of lynchings. The “great migrations” began and continued in successive waves through the sixties. <br />
<br />
During the war, the occupational status of Blacks thus shifted from largely personal service to basic industry. In the tens of thousands, Blacks flocked to the stockyards and steel mills. During the war, the Black population went from 50,000 to 100,000. Successive waves of Black migration were to bring the Black population to over a million within the next fifty years. Black labor, getting its first foothold in basic industry during the war, had now become an integral part of Chicago’s industrial labor force.4<br />
<br />
With the tapping of this vast reservoir of cheap and unskilled labor, there was no longer any need for the peasantry of eastern and southern Europe. There was, however, a difference between the position of Blacks and that of the European immigrants. The latter, after a generation or two, could rise to higher skilled and better paying jobs, to administrative and even managerial positions. They were able to leave the ethnic enclaves and disperse throughout the city—to become assimilated into the national melting pot, The Blacks, to the contrary, found themselves permanently relegated to a second-class status in the labor force, with a large group outside as a permanent surplus labor pool to be replenished when necessary from the inexhaustible reservoir of Black, poverty-ridden and land-starved peasantry of the South.<br />
<br />
‘The employers now had in hand a new source of cheap labor, the victims of racist proscription, to use as a weapon against the workers’ movement. Indeed, this went hand in hand with the Jim Crow policies of the trade union leaders, who had been largely responsible for keeping Blacks out of basic industry in the first place. <br />
<br />
These labor bureaucrats premised their racism on the doctrine of a natural Black inferiority, The theory of an instinctive animosity between the races was a powerful instrument for an anti-union, anti-working class, divide and rule policy. The use of racial differences was found to be a much more effective dividing instrument than the use of cultural and language differences between various white ethnic groups and the native born. As we know, ethnic conflicts proved transient as the various European nationalities became assimilated into the general population. Blacks, on the other hand, remain to this day permanently unassimilable under the present system.<br />
<br />
Such were conditions in the days when I undertook my search for answers to the question of Black oppression and the road to liberation. Living conditions were pretty rough then, and I had gone back to my old trade of waiting tables in order to make some sort of living.<br />
<br />
But I was restless, moody, short-tempered-—-qualities ill-suited to the trade, Naturally, I had trouble holding a job. My trouble was not with the guests so much as with my immediate superiors; captains, head waiters and dining car stewards, most of whom were white. In less than a month after the Chicago riot, I lost my job on the Michigan Central as a result of a run-in with an inspector.<br />
<br />
The dining car inspectors were a particularly vicious breed. Their job was to see that discipline was maintained and service kept up to par. These inspectors, whom we called company spies, would board the train unexpectedly anywhere along the route, hoping to catch a member of the crew violating some regulation or not giving what they considered proper service. They would then reprimand the guilty party personally, or if the offense was sufficiently serious, would turn him in to the main office to be laid off or fired. Usually the inspector’s word was law from which there was no appeal. The dining car crew had no unions in those days.<br />
<br />
This particular inspector (his name was McCormick) had taken a dislike to me. He had made that clear on other occasions. The feeling was mutual. Perhaps he sensed my independent attitude. He probably felt I was not sufficiently impressed by him and did not care about my job. He was right on both counts. <br />
<br />
He boarded the Chicago-bound train one morning in Detroit, We were serving breakfast. It was just one of those days when everything went wrong. People were lined up at each end of the diner, waiting to be served. Service was slow. The guests were squawking and I was in a mean mood myself. I was cutting bread in the pantry when McCormick peered in and shouted, “Say, Hall, that silver is in terrible condition.”<br />
<br />
The silver! What the hell is this man talking about dirty silver when I’ve got all these people out there clamoring for their breakfast. 2<br />
<br />
“I’ve been noticing you lately,” he continued. “It looks as though you don’t want to work. If you don't like your job why in hell don't you quit?”<br />
<br />
I took that as downright provocation. “Damn you and your job!” I exploded, advancing on him.<br />
<br />
He turned pale and ran out of the pantry. A friend of mine in the crew grabbed me by the wrist.<br />
<br />
“What the hell’s the matter with you, Hall? Are you crazy?” It was only then that I realized that I had been waving the bread knife at the inspector.<br />
<br />
In a few minutes, the brakeman and the conductor came into the pantry. MeCormick brought up the rear,<br />
<br />
“That’s the one,” he said pointing at me.<br />
<br />
Addressing me, the conductor said, “The inspector here says you threatened him with a knife. Is that true?”<br />
<br />
I denied it, stating that I had been cutting bread when the argument started and had a knife in my hand. I wasn’t threatening him with it. My friend (who had grabbed my wrist) substantiated my story.<br />
<br />
“Well,” said the conductor, “you’d better get your things and ride to Chicago in the coach. We don’t want any more trouble here, and the inspector has said he doesn’t want you in the dining car.”<br />
<br />
I went up forward in the coach. I got off the train in Chicago at Sixty-third and Stony Island. I didn’t go to the downtown station, thinking that the cops might be waiting there.<br />
<br />
So much for my job with the Michigan Central.<br />
<br />
I went back to working sporadically in restaurants, hotels and on trains. I didn’t stay anywhere very long. The first job that I regarded as steady was the Illinois Athletic Club, where I remained for several months, 1 was beginning to settle down a little and participate in the social life of the community, attending dances, parties and visiting cabarets. The Royal Gardens, a night club on Thirty-first Street, was one of my favorite hangouts. King Oliver and Louis Armstrong were often featured there. At the Panama, on Thirty-fifth Street between State and Wabash, we went to see our favorite comedians-—Butter Beans and Susie.<br />
<br />
It was on one of these occasions that I met my first wife, Hazel. She belonged to Chicago’s Black social elite, such as it was. Her father had died and her family was on the downgrade. Her mother was left with four children, three girls and a boy, of whom Hazel was the oldest. The other children were still teenagers, and Hazel and her mother had supported them by doing domestic work and catering for wealthy whites. I was twenty-one and she was twenty five.<br />
<br />
Hazel was attractive, a high school graduate. She spoke good English and, as Mother said, “had good manners.” She worked for Montgomery Ward, then owned by the philanthropic Rosenwald family, the first big company to hire Blacks as office clerks. She had a nice singing voice and used to sing around at parties. Her friends were among the Black upper strata and the family belonged to the Episcopal Church on Thirty-eighth and Wabash which at that time was the church of the colored elite. We were married in 1920. I was all decked out in a rented swallowtail coat, striped pants, spats and a derby. The ceremony was impressive. Photos appeared in the Chicago Defender.<br />
<br />
In a short time, the romance wore off. Hazel’s ambition to get ahead in the world, “to be somebody,” clashed with my love of freedom. I soon had visions of myself, a quarter century hence-making mortgage payments on a fancy house, installments on furniture, and trapped in a drab, lower middle-class existence, surrounded by a large and quarrelsome family.<br />
<br />
The worst of it was having to put up with being kicked around on the job and taking all that crap from headwaiters and captains. I had been working at the Athletic Club for several months before I got married. Then nobody had bothered me. When I asked for time off to get married, the white headwaiter and the captain seemed delighted. “Sure Hall, that’s fine. Congratulations, Take a couple of weeks off.”<br />
<br />
Upon my return, I immediately felt a change in their attitude, Now that I was married, they felt they had me where they wanted me. They became more and more demanding. One day at lunch I had some difficulty getting my orders out of the kitchen, and the guests were complaining—not an unusual occurrence in any restaurant. Instead of helping me out and calming down the guests, or seeing what the hang-up was in the kitchen, the captain started shouting at me in front of the guests. “What’s the matter with you, Hall? Why don’t you bring these people’s orders?”<br />
<br />
“Can’t you see that I’m tied up in the kitchen?” I said. “Why don’t you go out and see the chef instead of hollering at me!”<br />
<br />
All puffed up, he yelled out, “Don’t give me any of your lip or I'll snatch that badge off you!”<br />
<br />
I jerked my badge off, threw both badge and side towel into his face, and shouted, “Take your badge and shove it!”<br />
<br />
I was moving on him when a friend of mine, Johnson, a waiter at the next station, jumped between us, I turned away, walked down the steps, through the kitchen and into the dressing room. Johnson followed me into the dressing room a few minutes later. “Hurry up and get out of here. They’re calling the cops.” I changed and left.<br />
<br />
My marriage went down the drain along with the job. That was a period of post-war crisis. Jobs were hard to find, and especially so for me since I had been blacklisted from several places because of my temper. 1 was no longer the same man that Hazel married, and the truth of the matter was that I wanted it that way. Her hangups were typical of Black aspirants for social status—strivers, we called them-—-who never really doubted the validity of the prejudice from which they suffered. Hazel slavishly accepted white middle class values. I, on the other hand, was looking around trying to figure out how best to maladjust<br />
<br />
=== MY REBELLION ===<br />
For me, the break-up of our marriage in the spring of 1920 destroyed my last ties with the old conventional way of life. I was completely disenchanted with the middle class crowd into which Hazel was trying to draw me. But more important, I not only rejected the status quo, I was determined to do something about it--to make my rebellion count.<br />
<br />
I sought answers to a number of questions: What was the nature of the forces behind Black subjugation? Who were its main beneficiaries? Why was racism being entrenched in the north in this period? How did it differ from the South? Could the situation be altered and, if so, what were the forces for change and the program?<br />
<br />
l renewed my search for a way to go, pressed by a driving need for a world view which would provide a rational explanation of society and a clue to securing Black freedom and dignity. My search was to continue during what must have been the most virulent and widespread racist campaign in U.S. history, The forces of racist bigotry unleashed during the riots of the “Red Summer” of 1919 were still on the march through the twenties. Indeed, they had intensified and extended their campaign. <br />
<br />
The whole country seemed gripped in a frenzy of racist hate. Anti-Black propaganda was carried in the press, in magazine articles, literature and in theater. D.W. Griffith’s obscene movie, The Birth of a Nation, which glorified the Ku Klux Klan and pictured Blacks as depraved animals, was shown to millions.5 Thomas Dickson’s two novels, The Klansman (upon which Griffith’s picture was based) and The Leopard's Spots (an earlier book on the theme of the white man’s burden) were best sellers. Racist demagogues of the stripe of “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman of South Carolina, Vardeman of Mississippi, and “Cotton” Ed Smith of South Carolina, were in demand on northern lecture platforms.<br />
<br />
Closely behind the trumpeters of race-hate rode their cavalry, A revived Ku Klux Klan now extended to the north and made its appearance in twenty-seven states.6 This organization, embracing millions, headed the list of a whole rash of super-patriotic groups who were anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, anti-foreign-born and anti-Black. The apostles of white, Anglo-Saxon and Nordic supremacy included in their galaxy of ethnic outcasts Asians (the “yellow peril”), Latin Americans and other foreign-born from southern and eastern Europe. Their hate propaganda pitted Protestants against Catholics, Christians against Jews, native against foreign-born, and all against the Blacks, upon whom was fixed the stigma of inherent and eternal inferiority.<br />
<br />
It seemed as though the prophets of the “lost cause” were out to reverse their military defeat at Appomattox by the cultural subversion of the north. That they were receiving encouragement by powerful northern interests was self-evident. Tin Pan Alley added its contribution to the attack with a spate of Mammy songs, and along the same vein, “That’s Why Darkies Were Born”:<blockquote>'''Someone had to pick the cotton,''' <br />
<br />
'''Someone had to plant the corn,'''<br />
<br />
'''Someone had to slave and be able to sing,''' <br />
<br />
'''That's why darkies were born.'''<br />
<br />
'''Though the balance is wrong,'''<br />
<br />
'''Sull your faith must be strong,'''<br />
<br />
'''Accept your destiny brothers, listen to me.'''</blockquote>A main objective of the racist assault was the academic establishment. The old crude forms of racist propaganda proved inadequate in an age of advancing science. The hucksters of race hate conducted raids upon the sciences, especially upon the new disciplines-—anthropology, ethnology and psychology--in an attempt to establish a scientific foundation for the race myth.<br />
<br />
The new “science of race” evolved and flourished during the period, Spadework for this grotesque growth had been done in the middle of the last century by the Frenchman, Count Arthur D. Gobineau, in his work, The Inequality of the Human Races (1851-1853), It was carried on by his disciple, the Englishman turned German, Houston Chamberlain, who asserted that racial mixture was a natural crime. In the U.S, early efforts in this field were the works of Knott and Glidden. Also, there was Ripley's Races of Mankind.<br />
<br />
Carrying on in this pseudo-scientific tradition during the war and postwar years were the popular theorists Lathrop Stoddard, The Rising Tide of Color: Against White World Supremacy (1923) and Madison Grant, The Passing of a Great Race: The Racial Basis of European History (1916). The cornerstone of this pseudo-scientific structure was Social Darwinism which was an attempt to subvert Darwin’s theory of evolution and arbitrarily apply natural selection in plant and animal society to human society. According to the Social Darwinists, led by Herbert Spencer, the British sociologist, history was a continuous struggle for existence between races. In this struggle, the Nordic, Anglo-Saxon, or Aryan civilizations naturally survived as the fittest.<br />
<br />
The racists had a field day in history, long the area in which the heroes of the “lost cause” had their greatest, most effective concentration. They had held chairs in some of the nation’s most prestigious universities—Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Harvard, etc, Among such historians was William Archibald Dunning, who during his long tenure at Columbia miseducated generations of students by his distortions of the Reconstruction, Civil War and slave periods.7<br />
<br />
In the academic world this pseudoscience of racism held sway with only a few open challengers. The latter seemed to be isolated voices in the wilderness, as the counter-offensive was slow in getting underway. In anthropology there was Franz Boaz’s antiracist thrust, Mind of Primitive Man. This was written in 1911, and not widely known at the time. The works of his students and colleagues-—-most notably Melville Hershovitz, The Myth of the Negro Past, Jane Weltfish, Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead and Otto Klineburg-—-were not to appear until the next decade.<br />
<br />
In history, the movement for revision was then decades away. It only became a trend with the Black Revolt of the sixties, Black scholars had pioneered the reexamination: W.E.B. DuBois, his tour de force, Black Reconstruction, and the epilogue, “Propaganda of History,” which contained a bitter indictment of the white historical establishment, was not to appear until the mid-thirties. J.A. Rogers, popular Black historian, had not yet appeared on the scene, Young Carter Woodson, who had founded his Association for the Study of Negro History in 1915, only began to publish the Journal of Negro History in 1916. His own important historical works were yet to come. <br />
<br />
‘Thus, from its tap-roots in the Southern plantation system, the anti-Black virus had spread throughout the country, shaping the pattern of Black-white relationships in the industrial urban north as well. The dogma of the inherent inferiority of Blacks had permeated the national consciousness to become an integral part of the American way of life. Racist dogma, first a rationale for chattel slavery and then plantation peonage, was now carried over to the north as justification for a new system of de facto segregation.<br />
<br />
Black subjugation, city-style Jim Crow, became fixed by the twenties, and continues up to the present day. Its components were the residential segregation of the ghetto with its inferior education, slums and the second class status of Black workers in the labor force where they were relegated to the bottom rung of the occupational ladder and prevented by discrimination from moving into better skills and higher paid jobs.<br />
<br />
Although its purpose was not clear to me then, I later realized that the virulent racism of the period served to justify and bulwark the structure of Black powerlessness which was developing in every northern city where we had become a sizable portion of the work force,<br />
<br />
At the time the racist deluge simply revealed great gaps in my own education and knowledge. I knew that the propaganda was a tissue of lies, but I felt the need for disproving them on the basis of scientific fact. I rejected racism—the lie of the existence in nature of superior and inferior races--and its concomitant fiction of intuitive hostility between races. For one thing, it ran counter to my own background of experience in Omaha.<br />
<br />
Religion as an explanation for the riddles of the universe I had rejected long before. I knew that our predicament was not the result of some divine disposition and therefore that racial oppression was neither a spiritual or natural phenomenon. It was created by man, and therefore must be changed by man, How? Well, that was the question to be explored. I had only a smattering of knowledge of natural and social sciences, much of which I had gathered through reading the lectures of Robert G. Ingersoll. It was through him that I discovered Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution through natural selection.<br />
<br />
Armed with a dictionary and a priori knowledge gleaned from Ingersoll’s popularizations, I was able to make my way through Origin of the Species. Darwin showed the origin of the species to be a result of the process of evolution and not the mysterious act of a divine creation. Here at last was a scientific refutation of religious dogma. I had at last found a basis for my atheism which had before been based mainly upon practical knowledge.<br />
<br />
Continuing my search, I found myself attracted to other social iconoclasts or image-destroyers, and to their attacks upon established beliefs. I remember staying up all night reading Max Nordau’s Conventional Lies of Our Civilization, being thrilled by his castigation of middle class hypocrisy, prejudices and philistinism. Moving on to the contemporary scene, I discovered H.L. Mencken, “The Sage of Baltimore,” and his “smart set” crowd.<br />
<br />
For a short while, I was an avid reader of the Mercury which he helped to establish in 1920 as a forum for his views, I was particularly delighted by his critical potshots at some of the most sacred cultural cows of what he called “the American Babbitry,” “boobocracy,” “anthropoid majority’--Menckenian sobriquets for middle class commoners. Mencken enjoyed a brief popularity among young Black radicals of the day who saw in his searing diatribes against WASP cultural idols ammunition with which to blast the claims of white supremacists. The novelty soon wore off as it became clear that Mencken’s type of iconoclasm posed no real challenge to the prevailing social structure, In fact, it was reactionary. He sought to replace destroyed idols with even more reactionary oncs, as I soon found out. <br />
<br />
Mencken’s philosophical mentor was none other than the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, prophet of the superman, of the aristocratic minority destined to rile over the unenlightened hoardes of Untermenschen—-the “perenially and inherently unequal majority of mankind.” Most Blacks then, including myself, who flirted with Mencken never accepted him fully. The one exception was George Schuyler of the Pittsburgh Courier, who took Mencken's snobbery and reactionary politics and made a career of them which has lasted for forty years.<br />
<br />
What confused me most were the contentions of the Social Darwinists, who claimed to be the authentic continuators of Darwin’s theories. Darwin had not dealt with the question of race per se, But it had seemed to me that his theory of evolution precluded the myth of race. How could Darwin's theory which had helped me finally and irrevocably throw aside the veil of mysticism and put the understanding of the descent of man within my grasp—how could this be used as an endorsement of racism? Perhaps I had been wrong? Was I reading into Darwin more than, what he implied?<br />
<br />
It was my brother Otto who finally cleared me up on this point. He and I were running in different circles, but we would meet from time to time and exchange notes. Otto pointed out that Social Darwinists had distorted Darwin by mechanically transferring the laws of existence among plants and animals to the field of social and human relations. Human society had its own laws, he asserted. Ah, what were those laws? That was the subject that I wanted to explore.<br />
<br />
“You ought to quit reading those bourgeois authors and start reading Marx and Engels,” Otto told me, suggesting also that I read Henry Lewis Morgan’s Ancient Society and the works of Redpath. ’<br />
<br />
About this time I got a job as a clerk at the Chicago Post Office. I heard that jobs were available and that veterans were given preference. Following the advice of friends, I approached S.L. Jackson of the Wabash Avenue YMCA, who at that time was a Black Republican stalwart with connections in the Madden political machine. Jackson gave me a note to some Post Office official in charge of employment. I passed the civil service examination, in which veterans were given a ten percent advantage, and was employed as a substitute clerk.<br />
<br />
The Post Office job in those days carried considerable prestige. It was almost the only clerical job open to Blacks. Postal workers, along with waiters, Pullman porters and tradesmen, were traditionally considered a part of the Black middle class. A number of prominent community leaders came from this group. Many officers of the old Eighth Illinois were postal employees, a good percentage of them mail-carriers.<br />
<br />
The Post Office became a refuge for poor Black students and unemployed university graduates, For some of the latter it was a sort of way-station on the road to their professional careers. Others remained, settling for regular Post Office careers. But even here opportunities were limited. Blacks held only a few supervisory positions, as advancement depended solely on the discretion of the white postmaster.<br />
<br />
On the job I found the work extremely boring. It consisted of standing before a case eight hours a night, sorting mail. All substitutes were relegated to the night shift. It took years to get on the day shift which was preempted by the veteran employees: On the other hand, I found the company of my new young fellow workers very stimulating.<br />
<br />
In those days the organization of Black postal employees was the Phalanx Forum. Before the war, the organization had played an important political and social role in the community. It was dominated by the conservative crowd of social climbers and political aspirants, who were the most active group among postal employees and had close ties with the local Republican machine.<br />
<br />
Their leadership was completely incffective with respect to the job issues of Black rank-and-file employees, and it had little or no influence over the younger group of new employees, which included many veterans and students. The gap between the old, conservative crowd and the new, youthful element was sharp. Among the latter a radical sentiment was growing.<br />
<br />
I was immediately attracted to this group among whom I was to find friends who seemed to be impelled by the same motivations as myself-—to find new answers to the problems afflicting our people. Most of those with whom I fraternized considered the postal job as temporary, a step to other careers. Our interest at the time, therefore, was not so much with the immediate economic or onthe-job needs of Black postal workers, but with the “race problem” generally. The drive for unionization of postal employees was to come later.<br />
<br />
The issue to which we addressed ourselves was the current campaign of white racist propaganda: how to counter it on the basis of scientific truth. We saw the network of racist lies as clearly aimed at justifying Black subjugation and destroying our dignity as a people. On this question we had long, endless discussions on the job while sorting mail, at rest, during lunch breaks and on Sundays when some of us would meet. I soon identified with what I considered the more vocal segment. Among our group of aspirant intellectuals there was a medical student, a couple of law students, a dentist (whom we all called “Doc”), students of education and some intellectually oriented workers like myself. On one Sunday when we had gathered, it was suggested, I think by Joc Mabley, that we organize ourselves as an informal discussion group, and that our purpose would be to answer the racist lies on the basis of scientific truth. The idea was instantly agreed upon.<br />
<br />
The discussion circle was loosely organized, not more than a dozen participants in all, and bent on finding answers. The moving spirits of the group were John Heath, Joe Mabley and “Doc.”<br />
<br />
Heath was a tall, light-complexioned man with high cheekbones. He was a graduate student in the field of education, anda man whose sterling character and keen intellect we all respected. Then there was Joc Mabley, a brilliant, small Black man. He had large velvety eyes and was a college dropout. He was married and had a family-—two or three children—and had settled down to a regular Post Office job, He and Doe were the only regular postal workers in our group—the rest of us being suhstitutes. Doc had set up an office on the Southside and was trying hard to build upa clientele while working night shifts.<br />
<br />
Originally we had planned to meet every Sunday at noon as the most convenient time for the fellows on our shift. The meeting places were to alternate between the homes or apartments of the members. When we got to procedure, the group would choose a topic of discussion and ask for volunteers or assign a member to make introductory reports, He would then have a week to prepare the report, Our original plans included the eventual organization of a forum in which the issues of the day could be debated, and the holding of social affairs. All of this proved to be too ambitious, We found it impractical to have weekly meetings and finally agreed that twice a month was more feasible. The forum idea never got off the ground.<br />
<br />
Among us I think we had most of the answers on the question of race, that is, to all but the big lie, the onc that was most convincing to the white masses and is the cornerstone on which the whole structure stood or fell: the assertion that Blacks have no history.<br />
<br />
A leading formulator of the lie at that time was John Burgess, professor of political science and history at Columbia University:<blockquote>T'''he claim that there is nothing in the color of the skin from the point of view of political ethics is a great sophism. A black skin means membership in a race of men which has never of itself’ succeeded in subjecting passion to reason, has never, therefore, created any civilization of any kind.'''</blockquote>We wanted to refute the slanders on the basis of scientific truth. For this, we needed more ammunition and better weapons, particularly in the field of history. It was ahout this time that I met George Wells Parker, a brilliant young Black graduate student from Omaha’s Creighton University. I was introduced to him by my brother Otto, who had known him in Omaha. He was in Chicago to visit relatives and to conduct research for his dissertation. His major was history, I believe. We found him a virtual storehouse of knowledge on the race question, especially Black history. His major objective in life was apparently to refute the prevalent racist lies and to huild Black dignity and pride, He possessed wide knowledge and seemed to have read everything.<br />
<br />
Parker called our attention to the writings of the great anthropologist Franz Boas; the Egyptologist Virchow; to Max Mueller (philologist who formulated the Aryan myth and then rejected it); to the Frenchman Jean Finot; to Sir Harry Johnstone (British authority on African history); and to the Italian Giuseppe Serg and his theory of the Mediterranean races, arefutation of the Aryan mythology. Proponents of this myth claimed all civilizations—Indian, Near East, Egyptians—as Aryan, One wonders why the Chinese were left out, but then that would have been too palpable a fraud! It was Parker who called our attention to Herodotus (ancient Greek historian) who had described the Egyptians of his time (around 400 B.C.) as “Black and with woolly hair.”<br />
<br />
Otto and I introduced Parker to friends and acquaintances, and I, of course, to our discussion circle. He spoke before numerous groups. Everywhere there was hunger for his knowledge. Weeven brought him before the Bugs Club Forum in Washington Park, where he led a discussion on the race question. <br />
<br />
This brilliant young man returned to Omaha to resume his studies. The next winter he was dead. We heard it was the result of a mental breakdown. Thus was a brilliant career cut short and a potentially great scholar lost. Surviving, I believe, was only one brief paper and some notes.<br />
<br />
=== GARVEY’S BACK TO AFRICA MOVEMENT ===<br />
But time and tide did not stand still to wait for our answers to the social problems of the day, or for the results of our intellectual researches. While we sought arguments with which to counter the racist thrust, the masses were forging their own weapons. Their growing resistance was finally to erupt on the political scene in the grcatest mass movement of Blacks since Reconstruction,<br />
<br />
Great masses of Blacks found the answer in the Back to Africa program of the West Indian Marcus Garvey. Under his aegis this movement was eventually diverted from the encmy at home into utopian Zionistic channels of peaceful return to Africa and the establishment of a Black state in the ancestral land.<br />
<br />
The organizational course of the movement was Garvey’s Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA). He first launched this organization in Jamaica, British West Indies, in 1914. Coming to the USA, he founded its first section in New York City in 1917. The organization grew rapidly during the war and the immediate post-war period, At its height in the early twenties, it claimed a membership of half a million. While estimates of the organization's membership vary-—from half a million to a million—it was the largest organization in the history of U.S. Blacks. There can be no doubt that its influence extended to millions who identified wholly or partially with its programs.<br />
<br />
What in Garvey’s program attracted these masses?<br />
<br />
Garvey was a charismatic leader and in that tradition best articulated the sentiments and yearnings of the masses of Black people. In his UNIA he also created the vehicle for their organization, Equally important, he was a master at understanding how to use pageantry, ritual and ceremony to provide the Black peasantry with psychological relief from the daily burdens of their oppression. His apparatus included such high sounding titles as potentate, supreme deputy potentate, knights of the Nile, knights of distinguished service, the order of Ethiopia, the dukes of Nigeria and Uganda. There were Black gods and Black angels and a flag of black, red and green: “Black for the race, Red for their blood and Green for their hopes.”<br />
<br />
The movement’s program was fully outlined in the historic Declaration of Rights of the Negro Peoples of the World, adopted at the first convention of the organization in New York City August 13, 1920. In the manner of the Nation of Islam and its publication Muhammad Speaks (Bilalian News), the program of Garvey combined a realistic assessment of the conditions facing Blacks with a fantasy and mystification about the solution. Along with the Back to Africa slogan, the document contained a devastating indictment of the plight of the Black peoples in the United States. Expressing the militancy of its delegates, it called for opposition to the incquality of wages betwecn Blacks and whites, it protested their cxclusion from unions, their deprivation of land, taxation without representation, unjust military service, and Jim Crow laws.<br />
<br />
Anticipating the Black Power Revolt of the sixties, the document called for “complete control of our social institutions without the interference of any other race or races.” Reflecting the rising worldwide anti-colonial movement of the period, it called for self-determination of peoples and repudiated the loosely formed League of Nations, declaring its decisions “null and void as far as the Blacks were concerned because it seeks to deprive them of their independence.” This latter point was in reference to the assignment of mandates to European powers over African territories wrested from the Germans.<br />
<br />
Through this atmosphere of militancy, expressing the desire of the masses to defend their rights at home, ran the incongruent theme of Back to Africa. Declared Garvey:<blockquote>'''Being satisfied to drink of the dregs from the cup of human progress will not demonstrate our fitness as a people to exist alongside others, but when of our own initiative we strike out to build industries, governments, and ultimately empires (sic), then and only then, will we as a race prove to our Creator and to man in general that we are fit to survive and capable of shaping our own destiny.'''<br />
<br />
'''Wake up, Africa! Let us work toward the one glorious end of a free, redeemed, and mighty nation. Let Africa be a bright star among the constellation of nations.'''</blockquote>Who were Garvey’s followers?<br />
<br />
Garvey's Zionistic message was beamed mainly to the submerged Black peasantry, especially its uprooted vanguard, the new migrants in such industrial centers as New York City, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago and St. Louis. These masses made up the rank and file of the movement. They were embittered and disillusioned by racist terror and unemployment, and saw in Garvey’s program of Back to Africa the fulfillment of their yearnings for land and freedom to be guaranteed by a government of their own.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, Garveyism was the trend of a section of the ghetto lower middle classes, small businessmen, shopkeepers, property holders who were pushed to the wall, ruined or threatened with ruin by the ravages of the post-war crisis, Also attracted to Garveyism were the frustrated and unemployed Black intelligentsia: professionals, doctors, lawyers with impoverished clientele, storefront preachers who had followed their flocks to the promised land of the north, and poverty stricken students.<br />
<br />
Garveyism reflected the desperation of these strata before the ruthless encroachments of predatory white corporate interests upon their already meager markets. It reflected an attempt by them to escape from the sharpening racist oppression, the terror of race riots, the lynchings, economic and social frustrations. It was from these strata that the movement drew its leadership cadres.<br />
<br />
The immediate pecuniary interests of this element were expressed in the form of ghetto enterprises, the organization of a whole network of cooperative enterprises, including grocery stores, laundries, restaurants, hotels and printing plants. The most ambitious was the Black Star Steamship Line. Several ships were purchased and trade relations were established with groups in the West Indies and Africa, including the Republic of Liberia.<br />
<br />
The New York City division comprised a large segment of the intensely nationalistic West Indian immigrants. West Indians were prominent in the leadership, in Garvey's close coterie, and in the organization’s inner councils. There can be no doubt of the considerable influence of this element on the organization. But the attempt on the part of some writers to brand the movement as a foreign import with no indigenous roots is superficial and without foundation in fact. It is clear that Garveyism had both a social and economic base in Black society of the twenties. Nor was Garvey’s nationalism a new trend among Blacks—nationalist currents had repeatedly emerged, going back even before the Civil War.<br />
<br />
A key role in the movement was also played by deeply disillusioned Black veterans who had fought an illusory battle to “make the world safe for democracy” only to return to continued and even harsher slavery. Veterans were involved in the setting up of the skeleton army for the future African state, and in such paramilitary organizations as the Universal African Legion, the Universal Black Cross Nurses, the African Motor Corps and the Black Eagle Flying Corps. Many Black radicals—even some socialistically inclined—were swept into thé Garvey movement, attracted by its militancy.<br />
<br />
Despite his hostility toward local communists, Garvey seemed to regard the Soviet experience with some favor-at least in the early years of his movement. This probably reflected the sentiments of many of his followers. As late as 1924, in an editorial in the Negro World, he publicly mourned the passing of Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union, calling him “probably the world’s greatest man between 1917 and ...1924.” On that occasion, he sent a cable to Moscow “expressing the sorrow and condolence of the 400,000,000 Negroes of the world.”<br />
<br />
‘The Garvey movement revealed the wide rift between the policies of the traditional upper class of the NAACP and associates, and the life needs of the sorely oppressed people. It represented a mass rejection of the policies and programs of this leadership, which during the war had built up false hopes and now offered no tangible proposals for meeting the rampant anti-Black violence and joblessness of the post-war period. This mood was expressed by Garvey, who denounced the whole upper class leadership, claiming that they were motivated solely by the drive for assimilation and banked their hopes for equality on the support of whites—all classes of whom, he contended, were the Black man’s enemy. The policy of this leadership, he maintained, was a policy of compromise.<br />
<br />
It was in these conditions that Garvey, as thespokesman for the new ghetto petty bourgeoisie, seized leadership of the incipient Black revolt and diverted it into the blind alley of utopian escapism.<br />
<br />
My contact with the movement was limited. [ had never seen Garvey. I had missed his appearance in 1919 at the Eighth Regiment Armory. I never visited the organization’s Liberty Hall headquarters. In Chicago, the movement seemed to spring up overnight, I first took serious notice of it in 1920. I listened to its orators on street corners, watched its spectacular parades through the Southside streets, The black, red and green flag of the movement was carried at the head of the parade. The parades were lively and snappy; marching were the African Legion and the Universal Black Cross Nurses in their spotless white uniforms and white veils, All marched in step with a band. It was quite impressive, but to me it was unreal and had little or no relevance to the actual problems that confronted Blacks.<br />
<br />
From the first, the Garvey movement met heavy opposition in Chicago, The powerful Chicago Defender, edited by Robert S. Abbott, took the lead. If not the world’s greatest weekly as its masthead proclaimed, it had great influence among Chicago and Sofithern Blacks, due to its role in promoting the migration to the north. It was widely read in the South where a daily newspaper of Athens, Georgia, called it “the greatest disturbing element that has yet entered Georgia.” The Defender was relentless in its attack, throwing scorn and contempt on the movement and Garvey himself.<br />
<br />
In addition to The Defender’s attacks, the so-called Abyssinia Affair in the summer of 1920 served to discredit the movement. The Star Order of Ethiopia and Ethiopian Missionaries to Abyssinia was an extremist split off from Chicago’s UNIA branch. The leaders of the group held a parade and rally on Thirty-fifth and Indiana. Speakers clad in loud African costume called upon the crowd to return to their African ancestral land.<br />
<br />
To show their scorn for the U.S., they burned an American flag, and when white policemen sought to intervene, the Abyssinians shot and killed two white men and wounded a third. This incident was blown up in the white press as an armed rebellion of Blacks. It was condemned on ali sides in the Black community and by its leaders, including the editors of The Defender, who helped authorities in capturing the Abyssinian dissidents.<br />
<br />
Despite its repudiation by the official Garvey organization, the Abyssinian affair served to muddy the Garvey image in Chicago. I was working on the New York Central at the time and heard a graphic account of the affair from my aunts when I arrived intown the next day. They lived right around the corner on Indiana Avenue.<br />
<br />
Despite the hostile Black press and the Abyssinian affair, the UNIA grew. At its height, it claimed a Chicago membership of 9,000 devoted followers. This is probably exaggerated, but there is no doubt that the sympathizers numbered in the tens of thousands.<br />
<br />
Our Sunday discussion group underestimated the significance of the Garvey movement and the strength it was later to reveal. We regarded it as a transient phenomenon. We applauded some of the cultural aspects of the movement—Garvey’s emphasis on race pride, dignity, self-reliance, his exultation of things Black. This was all to the good, we felt. However, we rejected in its entirety the Back to Africa program as fantastic, unreal and a dangerous diversion which could only lead to desertion of the struggle for our rights in the USA. This was our country, we strongly felt, and Blacks should not waive their just claims to equality and justice in the land to whose wealth and greatness we and our forefathers had made such great contributions.<br />
<br />
Finally, we could not go along with Garvey’s idea about inherent racial antagonisms between Black and white. This to us seemed equivalent to ceding the racist enemy one of his main points. While it is true that I personally often wavered in the direction of race against race, I was not prepared to accept the idea as a philosophy. It did not jibe with my experience with whites.<br />
<br />
While rejecting Garvey’s program, our ideas for a viable alternative were still vague and unformed. The most important effect the Garvey movement had on us was that it put into clear focus the questions to which we sought answers.<br />
<br />
Who were the enemies of the Black freedom struggle? While Garvey claimed the cntire white race was the enemy, it did not escape us that he was inconsistent, being soft on white capitalists. His main target was clearly white labor and the trade union movement. According to Garvey:<blockquote>'''It seems strange and a paradox, but the only convenient friend the Negro worker or laborer has, in America, at the present time, is the white capitalist. The capitalist being selfish---seeking only the largest profit out of labor-—is willing and glad to use Negro labor wherever possible on a scale “reasonably” below the standard white union wage....but, if the Negro unionizes himself to the level of the white worker... the choice and preference of employment is given to the white worker...'''<br />
<br />
'''If the Negro takes my advice he will organize by himself and always keep his scale of wage a little lower than the whites until he is able to become, through proper leadership, his own employer; by doing so he will keep the good will of the white employer and live a little longer under the present scheme of things.'''</blockquote>There was no doubt that Garvey was voicing the sentiments of the vast mass of new migrant workers. And it was not that we had any compunction about strikebreaking in industries from which Blacks were barred. In fact, that had been one of the ways Blacks broke into industries such as stockyards and steel. We were also keenly aware of the Jim Crow policies of the existing trade union leadership and of the anti-Black prejudices rampant among white workers. But in casting Blacks permanently into the role of strikebreakers, Garvey was helping to further divide an already polarized situation and playing into the hands of businessmen, bankers, factory owners and the reactionary leadership of the trade unions,<br />
<br />
My own experience with unions in the waiters’ trade was bad. Old waiters would tell us how in the first part of the century they had listened to the siren call of white union leaders. They had gone out on strike, ostensibly to better their conditions, only to find their jobs immediately taken by whites. This had been quite a serious blow because at that time, Black waiters had had jobs in most of the best hotels and in a number of fine restaurants. It is therefore understandable that in 1920, we Black waiters felt not the slightest pang of conscience in taking over the jobs of white waiters on strike at the Marygold Gardens (the old Bismark Gardens) on the Northside, one of the swankiest night spots in Chicago, It was also probably the best waiter’s job in town; in fact, so good that some of the German captains who remained on the job used to drive to and from work in Cadillacs. The strike was broken after several months, and Blacks were turned out.<br />
<br />
Strikebreaking to me was not a philosophy or principle as Garvey contended, but an expedient forced upon Blacks by the Jim Crow policies of the bosses and the unions.<br />
<br />
Even as Garvey was putting forward such views, times were beginning to change. Large numbers of Blacks had been brought into industry during the war and had joined unions, especially in steel and the packing houses. A new industrial unionism was developing and raising the slogan of Black and white labor unity.<br />
<br />
My sister Eppa’s experiences in 1919 at Swift Packing Company were a case in point, She was one of the first Black women to join the union during the organizing drive of the Stockyards Labor Council, which was headed by two communists-—-William Z. Foster and Jack Johnstone. The drive was supported by John Fitzpatrick, chairman of the Chicago Federation of Labor and a bitter foe of the Jim Crow machine of Samuel Gompers’ AFL. Despite inevitable racial tensions fostered by the employers, Eppa had seen the basic unity of interest between all workers and felt strongly that the union was the best place to fight for the interests of Black workers.<br />
<br />
In looking back at our study of the Garvey movement, it must be evaluated in light of the fact that it was our first confrontation with nationalism as a mass movement. Our mistake, which I was to find out later through my own experience and study of nationalist movements, resulted from the failure to understand the contradictory nature of the nationalism of oppressed peoples. This contradiction or dualism was inherent in the inter-class character of these movements once they assume a popular mass form.<br />
<br />
‘They comprise various classes and social groupings with conflicting interests, tendencies and motives, all gathered under the unifying banner of national liberation, each with its own concept of that goal and how it should be attained. These conflicts, at first submerged, surface as the movement develops.<br />
<br />
‘They are expressed in two main currents (tendencies) within the movement. First of all, there is the nationalism which reflects the interests of the basic masses~-workers and peasants—-determined to fight for liberation against the oppressor of the nation. Then there is the nationalism of the Black bourgeoisie who, while at time in conflict with the white oppressors, tend toward compromise and accommodation to protect their own weak position.<br />
<br />
From the very beginning this dualism was reflected in the Garvey movement. A highly vocal and aggressively dominant current within the movement was the drive of the small business, professional and intellectual elements for a Black controlled economy. They sought fulfillment of this goal through withdrawal to Africa where they envisioned establishment of their own State, their right to exploit their own masses free from the overwhelming competition of dominant white capital. (A historical example of this can be seen in Liberia.) They thought they could accomplish this, presumably with the acquiescence of the American white rulers, and even the active support of some.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, there was a grass-roots nationalism of the masses, the uprooted, dispossessed soil-tillers of the South; their poverty-ridden counterparts in the slum ghettos of the cities. ‘These masses saw in the Black nationalist state fulfillment of their age-old yearnings for land, equality and freedom through power in their own hands to guarantee and protect these freedoms. It was this indigenous, potentially revolutionary nationalism that Garvey diverted with his Back to Africa slogan.<br />
<br />
We failed to recognize the objective conflict of interests between these class components of the movement, equating the social and political aims of the ghetto nationalists, the bourgeoisie, to that of the masses~-condemning the whole as reactionary, escapist and utopian.<br />
<br />
These were the internal contradictions upon which the movement was to flounder and finally collapse. They were brought to a head by the subsiding of the post-war economic depression, the ushering in of the “boom,” and subsequent easing of the plight of Blacks, the partial adjustment of migrants to their new environment and their partial absorption into industry.<br />
<br />
The main contradiction inherent in the Garvey movement from its very beginning had been the conflict between the needs of the masses to defend and advance their rights in the USA and the fantastic Back to Africa schemes of the Garvey leadership. Garvey’s emphasis on these fantastic schemes reflected his resolution of the conflict in favor of business interests and against the interests of the masses. The resources and energy of the organization were increasingly diverted to support racial business enterprises such as the Black Star Line and the Negro Factories Corporation. The concentration on selling stock for the Black Star Steamship Line by the UNIA leadership from 1921 on neglected the immediate needs of the masses and began to erode the base of support.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, Garvey’s response to the crisis in the movement exposed the dangerously reactionary logic of a program based upon complete separation of the races and its acceptance of the white racist doctrine of natural racial incompatibility. Pursuing the logic of this idea against the backdrop of the organization's decline inevitably drove Garvey into an alliance of expediency with the most rabid segregationists and race bigots of the period.<br />
<br />
Thus, in 1922, Garvey sought the support of Edward Young Clark, the imperial giant of the Ku Klux Klan. This “meeting of the minds” between Garvey and the Klan was not fortuitous. It was an open secret that it took place on the basis of Garvey’s agreement to soft-pedal the struggle for equality in the U.S. in return for help in the settlement of Blacks in Africa. This ideological kinship arose from the mutual acceptance of the racist dogma of natural incompatibility of races, race purity and so forth.<br />
<br />
In 1924 Garvey went so far seeking support for his Back to Africa program as to invite John Powell, organizer of the AngloSaxon Clubs, and other prominent racists to speak at UNIA headquarters. Garvey also publicly praised the KKK. According to W.E.B. DuBois, the Kian issued circulars defending Garvey and declared that the opposition to him was from the Catholic Church. In the late thirties, Senator Bilbo of Mississippi introduced a bill to deport thirteen million Blacks to Africa and received the support of the remnants of the Garvey organization.<br />
<br />
The final curtain was to drop on the Garvey episode with the failure of the Black Star Linc. The movement was torn by factionalism and splits, with some of the leadership and remaining rank and file demanding that the domestic fight for equal rights be emphasized over the Back to Africa scheme of Garvey. The internal struggle drove many out of the organization and others into a multitude of splinter groups, each a variation of Garveyism itself. Taking advantage of this disarray, the government moved in.<br />
<br />
In 1925, Garvey was framed on charges of using the mail to defraud in connection with the sale of stocks for the Black Star Line and was sent to the Atlanta federal prison for two years. He was deported to the West Indies upon release from prison. This debacle marked the end of Garveyism as an important mass movement, although the offshoots continued to exist in numbers of smaller groups advocating Garvey’s theory.<br />
<br />
At the time, I had taken Garvey’s peculiar brand as representing nationalism in general and had simply rejected the whole ideology as a foreign import with no roots in the conditions of U.S. Blacks, Seeing only the negative features of nationalism in the UNIA, I was blind to the progressive and potentially revolutionary aspects which were to prove so important in my own later development.<br />
<br />
Thus, the great movement that Garvey built passed into history. But nationalism, as a mass trend, persisted in the Black freedom struggle. Existing side by side with the assimilationist trend, it was eclipsed by the latter in so-called normal times while flaring up in times of stress and crisis.<br />
<br />
The Garvey movement was the U.S. counterpart of the vast upsurge of national and colonial liberation struggles which swept the world during the war and post-war period. In this period, masses of Blacks had come to consider themselves as an oppressed nation. Garvey’s ability to capture leadership of this nationalist upsurge by default was the result of the immaturity of the revolutionary forces, Black and white. The collapse of the Garvey movement proved conclusively that the petty bourgeois ghetto nationalist current, left to itself, led only to a hopeless blind alley. Unfortunately the forces which could give Black nationalism revolutionary content and direction were only in the process of formation.<br />
<br />
The Black working class and its spokesmen had not yet arrived on the scene as an independent force in the Black community and, therefore, was not capable of challenging either the assimilationist leadership of the NAACP or the ghetto nationalism of Garvey. Its counterparts among radical, class-conscious white labor were waging an uphill fight against the Jim Crow-minded AFL bureaucracy led by the Gompers machine. ‘These radical sections of white labor were not yet clear as to the significance of the Black freedom struggle as a revolutionary force in its own right and regarded it simply as a part of the general labor question. Coalescence of these two forces was then a decade away, destined not to take place until the crisis of the thirties.<br />
<br />
The preceding analysis is hindsight. I didn't realize the significance of Garvey’s movement until a few years later, when, as a student in Moscow, I was assigned to a commission to prepare a resolution on the Negro question in the USA for the Sixth Congress of the Communist International in 1928. It was in the course of these discussions that I came to the recognition of nationalism as an authentic and potentially revolutionary trend in the movement.<br />
<br />
The assimilationist programs of the NAACP had been easy to reject. Garvey was somewhat more difficult. But while the Garvey movement was forcing me to a consideration of nationalism (which at the time I also rejected) I could not help but notice the other political developments of the period.<br />
<br />
Most conspicuous was the concerted and vicious attack being carried out against white radicals and the trade union movement. The same forces appeared to be behind the Palmer raids of 1919 and 1920, behind the wave of racism and behind the violent union and strike busting which took place. The foreigners who were being deported, the radicals who were imprisoned and the workers throughout the country who were attacked by Pinkerton “private armies,” were white as well as Black. In Chicago, the strikes at the stockyards and the steel mills in the area particularly attracted my attention.<br />
<br />
For me, the Garvey movement, the racists’ assault and the attacks on labor and the radical movement sharpened my political perceptions. The racial fog lifted and the face and location of the enemy was clearly outlined. I began to see that the main beneficiaries of Black subjugation also profited from the social oppression of poor whites, native and foreign-born.<br />
<br />
The enemy was those who controlled and manipulated the levers of power; they were the super-rich, white moneyed interests who owned the nation’s factories and banks, and thus controlled its wealth, They were known by many names: the corporate elite; the industrial, financial (and robber) barons; ete. Chicago was the home base of a significant segment of this ruling class. <br />
<br />
Here the chain of command was clear: on the political side, it extended from city hall down to the lowliest wardheeler and precinct captain and was tied in at all levels with organized crime, On the economic side, it was represented by such employer organizations as the Chicago Chamber of Commerce, by trade associations and by top management in the giant industrial plants, railroads, big commercial establishments, banks, utilities and insurance firms, Their chain of command extended down to the foremen and department heads, and on-the-job supervisors. <br />
<br />
These levers of power also controlled education, the media, the arts and all law enforcement agencies, both military and police, At the bottom of this pyramid and hearing its weight were the working people who toiled in the steel mills, the packing plants, the railway yards, and the thousands of other sweatshops. Lowliest among these were the Blacks, pushed to the very bottom by the “divide and rule” policy of the corporate giants and their henchmen, and the complimentary Jim Crow policies and practices of the AFL trade union bureaucracy.<br />
<br />
=== PASSAGES ===<br />
Our postal discussion circle, which had held together scarcely three months, was breaking up. Heath, our chairman and recognized leader, was leaving. He had played the greatest role in keeping the group together. Now he had taken a job at some college in Virginia, his native state.<br />
<br />
Differences had already developed in the group, and with Heath gone, the possibilities for reconciling them seemed slim. These differences, as I recall, were not of a political or ideological nature. ‘They were seldom expressed in the open, but were reflected in the opposition of some members to proposals for enlarging the group and moving it into the outside political arena. This opposition evidently reflected the desire of some members to retain the group as a narrow discussion circle with membership restricted by tacit understanding to those whom they, considered their intellectual peers. It seemed to me they sought to reduce it to a sort of elitist mutual admiration society. As a result of this sectarian attitude, the group hardly grew beyond its original membership of a dozen or so.<br />
<br />
There was no doubt, though, that our association had been mutually beneficial. All of us had grown in political understanding and awareness. But up to the time of Heath’s departure, we had advanced no program for putting our newly acquired political understanding into practice. Our original plans for the organization of a forum to debate the issues of the day never got off the ground. We had not developed a program for involvement in the struggles of the community, nor, for that matter, in the immediate on-the-job problems of Black postal employees. We never even got around to deciding on a name for the group. One suggestion, that we call ourselves the “New Negro Forum,” was never acted upon.<br />
<br />
Heath, Mabley, Doe and myself were beginning to feel the pull from the outside, the need for a broader political arena of activity, to play a more active role in the community. We were the ones who most often attended radical forums and lectures and kept abreast of what was going on in the Southside community. We often went to the Bugs Club in Washington Park (Chicago’s equivalent of London's Hyde Park), and the Dill Pickle Club on the Northside which was run by the anarchist Jack Jones.<br />
<br />
Heath had gone. Mabley refused the chairmanship, pleading that he was tied down by his family and could not take on additional responsibilities. Doe refused to accept the honor; he was similarly tied down by his job and dental practice. But the real reason for their refusal, which they were to confide to me later, was that they had lost confidence in the group. Without Heath, they saw no future role for it. Like myself, they were attracted to the broader movement, I also declined, giving as my excuse that I was quitting the Post Office in a few days and was going back to my old job on the railroad. A chairman pro-tem was chosen; I don’t remember who.<br />
<br />
I continued my reading along the lines which Otto had suggested. Among the books I read were Henry Morgan’s Ancient Society (which Engels had used as the basis for Origins of the Family), Gustavus Meycr’s History of the Great American Fortunes, John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook the World and Jack London’s The Iron Heel.<br />
<br />
I also kept abreast of world events, reading about Lenin and Trotsky in revolutionary Russia. I followed the post-war colonial rebellions of Sun Yat-sen’s China, Gandhi in India, Ataturk in Turkey, the rebellion of the Riff tribes in Morocco led by Abdul Krim. There were rumblings in black Africa—strikes and demonstrations against colonial oppression. One heard such names as Kadelli and Gumede of the South African National Congress, and of Sandino in Nicaragua who fought the U.S. Marines for many years,<br />
<br />
My fect were getting itchy. I was fed up with the Post Office and the excruciatingly monotonous nature of the work. At the same time, the night shift cramped my social life as well as my growing need for broader political activity. I quit the job without regret.<br />
<br />
Soon after, I started work as a waiter on the Santa Fe’s Chief, the company’s crack train running to Los Angeles. It was an eightday run: three days to the coast, with a two-day layover in Los Angeles and three days back. Our crew would make three trips a month, and a layover one trip (eight days) in Chicago. This schedule gave me approximately twelve free days a month in Chicago---time enough for both political and social life. It was a hard job, but good money for those days and exciting after the drab routine of the Post Office.<br />
<br />
Los Angeles, “Sweet Los,” as we used to call it. The Santa Fe boys, all “big spenders,” were very popular with the girls. A bevy would show up to meet us at the station every trip.<br />
<br />
I was to remain on that run three years, which up to that time was the longest I had ever remained on one job. Upon my return from the first trip, I called Mabley and he informed me that he thought the discussion circle had dissolved. Only one or two guys showed up at the next scheduled meeting, and the pro-tem chairman himself was absent. It was dead.<br />
<br />
My political development continued nevertheless, The runs on the Santa Fe gave ample time for discussion with my fellow crew members. Most of them, though somewhat older, were as aware as those at the Post Office with whom I had worked. I also continued to read, now studying The Communist Manifesto, Engels’ Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, and Marx’s Value, Price and Profit.<br />
<br />
The first stage of my political search was near an end. In the years since I had mustered out of the Army, I had come from being a disgruntled Black ex-soldier to being a self-conscious revolutionary looking for an organization with which to make revolution.<br />
<br />
For three years I had listened in lecture halls, at rallies and in Washington Park to a spate of orators each claiming to meet the challenge of the times. They included the great “people’s lawyer” Clarence Darrow; Judge Fisher of the reform movement; the socialist leader Victor Berger and sundry other members of his party; the anarchist Ben Reichman, Ben Fletcher, the Black IWW orator and organizer, and assorted Garveyites. Although some had their points—for example, the fighting spirit and sincerity of the IWW impressed me-—I rejected them all.<br />
<br />
In the spring of 1922, I approached my brother Otto, whom I knew had joined the Workers (Communist) Party shortly after its inception in 1921. I told him that I wanted to join the Party.<br />
<br />
The fact that Otto was in the Party and had advised me from time to time on my reading had undoubtedly influenced my decision, I had a generally favorable impression of the Black communists I knew; men like Otto, the Owens brothers and Edward Doty. I was also impressed by whites like Jim Early, Sam Hammersmark, Robert Minor and his wife, Lydia Gibson. What added great weight to my favorable impression of the communists, however, was their political identity with the successful Bolshevik Revolution.<br />
<br />
At the time it happened, I had been taken totally unaware of its significance, I first heard of it during an incident that occurred in France in August 1918. My regiment, while marching into positions on the Soissons sector, had paused fora rest. On one side of the road there was a high barbed wire fence and behind it loitered groups of soldiers in strange uniforms. Upon closer observation, it became clear that they were prisoners. They spoke in a strange tongue, but we understood from their gestures that they were asking for cigarettes, A number of us immediately responded, offering them some from our packs.<br />
<br />
When we asked who they were, one of them replied in halting English that they were Russian Cossacks. He explained that their division, which had been fighting on the western front, had been withdrawn from the lines, disarmed and placed in quarantine, They were considered unreliable, he said, because of the revolution in Russia. At the time, I was not even sure of the meaning of the word revolution—some kind of civil disorder I conjectured. Giving the matter no further thought, we resumed our march. It was not until I had returned from France that I began reading about the Russian Revolution. From then on, I followed its course, and despite the distorted view in the U.S. press, its significance slowly dawned on me.<br />
<br />
Here, I felt, was a tangible accomplishment and real power. Along with other Black radicals, I was impressed-—just as a later generation came to look at China, Cuba and Vietnam as models of successful struggle against tyranny, colonialism and oppression.<br />
<br />
Thus, I was particularly attracted to the communists. True, the Party was largely white in its racial composition, with only a handful of Black members. I felt, nevertheless, that it comprised the best and most sincerely revolutionary and internationally minded elements among white radicals,and therefore formed the basis for the revolutionary unity of Blacks and whites. This was so, I believed, because it was a part of a world revolutionary movement uniting Chinese, Africans and Latin Americans with Europeans and North Americans through the Third Communist International.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks had destroyed the czarist rule, established the first workers’ state, and breached the world system of capitalism over a territory comprising more than one-sixth of the earth’s surface. Most impressive as far as Blacks were concerned was that the revolution had laid the basis for solving the national and racial questions on the basis of complete freedom for the numerous nations, colonial peoples and minorities formerly oppressed by the czarist empire. Moscow had now become the focus of the colonial revolution. In the turbulence of those days, there seerned every reason to think that the energy unleashed in Russia would carry the revolution throughout the world.<br />
<br />
In the U.S., the deluge of lies and distortions by the media, the red baiting, the Palmer raids, had not been able to hide this monumental achievement of the Russian Bolsheviks. The uninformed Black man in the street could reason that a phenomenon that evoked such fear and hatred on the part of the white supremacist rulers “couldn't be all bad.” As for me, the socialist victory confirmed my belief in the Bolshevik variety of socialism as a way out for U.S. Blacks.<br />
<br />
I found the theory behind this achievement all there in Lenin’s State and Revolution. He developed and applied the theories of Marx and Engels on the role of the state and the dictatorship of the proletariat. This work was the single most important book I had read in the entire three years of my political search and was decisive in leading me to the Communist Party. In this work, Lenin clarified the nature of the state and the means by which to overthrow it. His approach seemed practical and realistic; it was no longer just abstract theory.<br />
<br />
Using Origins of the Family as a departure point, Lenin demystified and desanctified the myth of the state in capitalist society as an impartial monitor of human affairs. Rather, he exposed the state in capitalist society--and its apparatus of military, police, courts and prisons—as an instrument of ruling class domination, a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
It thus followed that the job of forcibly replacing the state power of the dominant class with that of the proletariat was the paramount and indispensable task of socialist revolution. As far as I could seé, the Soviet example appeared to offer a completely clear solution to the problems facing American workers, both Black and white. I saw the elimination of racism and the achievement of complete equality for Blacks as an inevitable by product of a socialist revolution in the United States, It was at this point that I became fully resolved to make my own personal commitment to the fight for a socialist United States.<br />
<br />
The first part of my odyssey was over.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
=== An Organization of Revolutionaries ===<br />
Otto was pleased when I first told him of my desire to join the Party in the summer of 1922. He said that he had known that that i had been ready to join for some time, but he suggested that i should wait a while before joining. When I asked why, he told me about an unpleasant situation that had arisen in the Party’s Southside branch.<br />
<br />
Most of the few Black members were concentrated in this English-speaking branch, but it seemed that a number of recent Black recruits had dropped out. They resented the paternalistic attitude displayed toward them by some of the white comrades who, Otto said, treated Blacks like children and seemed to think that the whites had all the answers, It was only a temporary situation, he assured me. The matter had been taken up before the Party District Committee; if it was not resolved there, they would take it to the Central Committee.<br />
<br />
“And if you don’t get satisfaction there?” I queried.<br />
<br />
“Well, then there’s the Communist International!” he teplied emphatically. “It’s as much our Party as it is theirs.”<br />
<br />
I was properly impressed by his sincerity and by the idea that we could appeal our case to the “supreme court” of international communism, which included such luminaries as the great Lenin.<br />
<br />
‘The Blacks who had remained in the Party had decided not to bring any new members into the branch until the matter was satisfactorily settled. I was rather surprised to hear all of this.<br />
<br />
Clearly, membership in the Party did not automatically free whites from white supremacist ideas. Nor, for that matter, did it free Blacks from their distrust of whites. Throughout my lifetime, I found that interracial solidarity--even in the Communist Party— required a continuous ideological struggle.<br />
<br />
Otto suggested that until the matter was cleared up I should join the African Blood Brotherhood. The ABB was a secret, all-Black, revolutionary organization to which some of the Black Party members belonged---including Otto. I later learned that the matter of white paternalism was eventually resolved to the satisfaction of the Black comrades. I don’t recall the details; I think that Arne Swabeck (the district organizer) or Robert Minor from the Central Committee finally came down and lectured the branch on the evils of race prejudice and threatened disciplinary action to the point of expulsion of comrades guilty of bringing bourgeois social attitudes into the Party.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, I took Otto’s advice and joined the African Blood Brotherhood. He took me to see Edward Doty, then commander of the Brotherhood’s Chicago Post. Vouched for by Otto and Doty, I was taken to a meeting of the membership committee and went through the induction ceremonies. This consisted of an African fraternization ritual requiring the mixing of blood between the applicant and one of the regular members. The organization took its name from this ritual. Doty performed the ceremony; he pricked our index fingers with a needlc (I hoped it was sterilized!) and when drops of blood appeared, he rubbed them together.<br />
<br />
Now a Blood Brother, I proceeded to take the Oath of Loyalty which contained a clause warning that divulging of any of the secrets of the organization was punishable by death. I was deeply impressed by all this; the atmosphere of great secrecy appealed to my romantic sense. There were two degrees of membership; one was automatically conferred upon joining and the second, which I took a few days later, involved the performance of some service for the organization. In my case, as I recall, it was a trivial task—-the selling of a dozen or so copies of its magazine, The Crusader.<br />
<br />
At the time that I joined the African Blood Brotherhood, I knew little about the organization other than the fact that it wasin some way associated with the Communist Party. I do remember having read a copy or two of The Crusader before I joined the group.<br />
<br />
Some of the history of the ABB I got from Otto and other post members, but most of it I found out much later when I met and worked with Cyril P. Briggs, the original founder of the group. The African Blood Brotherhood was founded in New York City in 1919 by a group of Black radicals under the leadership of Briggs. A West Indian (as were most of the founders), he was a former editor of the Amsterdam News, a Black New York newspaper. He quit in disagrcement over policy with the owner, who attempted to censor his anti-war editorials. Briggs’s own magazine. The Crusader, was established in 1919. The Brotherhood was organized around the magazine with Briggs as its executive head presiding over a supreme council.<br />
<br />
The group was originally conceived as the African Blood Brotherhood “for African liberation and redemption” and was later broadened to “for immediate protection and ultimate liberation of Negroes everywhere.” As it was a secret organization, it never sought broad membership. National headquarters were in New York. Its size never exceeded 3,000. But its influence was many times greater than this; the Crusader at one time claimed a circulation of 33,000.' There was also The Crusader News Service which was distributed to two hundred Black newspapers.<br />
<br />
Briggs, his associates--Richard B. Moore, Grace Campbell and others—-and The Crusader were among the vanguard forces for the New Negro movement, an ideological current which reflected the new mood of militancy and social awareness of young Blacks of the post-war period. In New York, the New Negro movement also included the radical magazine, The Messenger, edited by Chandler Owen and A. Philip Randolph, and The Emancipator, edited by W.A. Domingo. Many of the groups were members of the Socialist Party or close to it politically. They espoused “economic radicalism,” an over-simplificd interpretation of Marxism which, nevertheless, enabled them to see the economic and social roots of racial subjugation. Historically, theirs was the first serious attempt by Blacks to adopt the Marxist world view and the theory of class struggle to the problems of Black Americans.<br />
<br />
Within this broad grouping, however, there were differences which emerged later. Briggs was definitely a revolutionary nationalist; that is, he saw the solution of the “race problem” in the establishment of independent Black nation-states in Africa, the Caribbean and the United States, In America, he felt this could be achieved only through revolutionizing the whole country. This meant he saw revolutionary white workers as allies. These were elements of a program which he perceived as an alternative to Garvey’s plan of mass exodus.<br />
<br />
A self-governing Black state on U.S. soil was a novel idea for which Briggs sent up trial balloons in the form of editorials in the Amsterdam News in 1917, of which he was then editor. Shortly after the entrance of the United States into World War I, he wrote an editorial entitled “Security of Life for Poles and Serbs—Why Not for Colored Americans?”<br />
<br />
Briggs, however, had no definite idea for the location of the future “colored autonomous state,” suggesting at various times Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California or Nevada: Later, after President Wilson had put forth his fourteen points in January 1918, Briggs equated the plight of Blacks in the United States to nations occupied by Germany and demanded:<br />
<br />
'''With what moral authority or justice can President Wilson demand that eight million Belgians be freed when for his entire first term and to the present moment of his second term he has not lifted a finger for justice and liberty for over TEN MILLION colored people, a nation within a nation, a nationality oppressed and jim-crowed, yet worthy as any other people of a square deal or failing that, a separate political existence?'''<br />
<br />
He continued this theme in The Crusader. One year after the founding of the Brotherhood, Briggs shifted from the idea of a Black state on U.S. soil to the advocacy of a Black state in Africa, South America or the Caribbean, where those Blacks who wanted to could migrate. In this, he was undoubtedly on the defensive, giving ground to the overwhelming Garvey deluge then sweeping the national Black community. In 1921, Briggs was to link the struggle for equal rights of U.S. Blacks with the establishment of a Black state in Africa and elsewhere:<br />
<br />
Just as the Negro in the United States can never hope to win equal rights with his white neighbors until Africa is liberated and a strong Negro state (or states) erected on that continent, so, too, we can never liberate Africa unless, and until, the American Section of the Negro Race is made strong enough to play the part for a free Africa that the Irish in America now play for a free Ireland.<br />
<br />
The Brotherhood rejected Garvey’s racial separatism. They knew that Blacks needed allies and tied the struggle for equal rights to that of the progressive section of white labor. In the 1918-1919 elections, the Brotherhood supported the Socialist Party candidates, The Crusader and the ABB were ardent supporters of the Russian Revolution; they saw it as an opportunity for Blacks to identify with a powerful international revolutionary movement. It enabled them to overcome the isolation inherent in their position as a minority people in the midst of a powerful and hostile white oppressor nation. Thus, The Crusader called for an alliance with the Bolsheviks against race prejudice. In 1921, the magazine made its clearest formulation, linking the struggles of Blacks and other oppressed nations with socialism:<blockquote>'''The surest and quickest way, then, in our opinion, to achieve the salvation of the Negro is to combine the two most likely and feasihle propositions, viz.: salvation for all Negroes through the establishment of a strong, stable, independent Negro State (along the lines of our own race genius) in Africa and elsewhere: and salvation for all Negroes (as well as other oppressed people) through the establishment of a Universal Socialist Co-operative commonwealth.'''</blockquote>The split in the world socialist movement as a result of the First World War led to the formation of the Third (Communist) International in 1919. This split was reflected in the New Negro movement as well. Randolph and Owens, the whole Messenger crowd, remained with the social democrats of the Second International who were in opposition to the Bolshevik revolution. Members of The Crusader group--Briggs, Moore and others gravitated toward the Third International and eventually joined its American affiliate, the Communist Party. They were followed in the next year or two by Otto Hall, Lovett Fort-Whiteman and others.<br />
<br />
The decline of the African Blood Brotherhood in the early twenties and its eventual demise coincided with the growing participation of its leadership in the activities of the Communist Party. By 1923-24, the Brotherhood had ceased to exist as an autonomous, organized cxpression of the national revolutionary trend. Its leading members became communists or close sympathizers and its posts served as one of the Party’s recruiting grounds for Blacks.<br />
<br />
I first met Briggs upon my return from Russia in 1930. We were to strike up a lasting friendship--one that went beyond the comradeship of the Party and which extended over more than three decades, until his death in 1967. Throughout those years, we were associated on numerous projects and found ourselves on the same side of many political issues.<br />
<br />
When I first met Briggs, he conformed to the impression that I had been given of him: a tall, impressive-looking man—so light in complexion that he was often mistaken for white. He had a large head and bushy black eyebrows. He was a man possessed of great physical and moral courage, which I was to observe on many occasions. Briggs also had a fiery temper, which was usually controlled in the case of comrades or friends.<br />
<br />
He had one outstanding physical defect--he was a heavy stutterer. He stuttered so much that it often took him several scconds to get out the first word of a sentence, When he took the floor at meetings we would all listen attentively; no one would interrupt him because we knew he always had something important and pertinent to say. While he spoke we would cast our eyes down and look away from him to avoid making him feel self-conscious, though he never seemed to be.<br />
<br />
We noticed that he stuttered less when he was angry, One such occasion was when Garvey rejected Briggs’s offer of cooperation. The wily Garvey saw through the maneuver for what it was-—an attempt by Briggs to gain a position from which he could better attack him. Garvey lashed out at Briggs, calling him a “white man trying to pass himself off as a Negro.”<br />
<br />
Friends told me that this attack sent Briggs into such a rage that he mounted a soapbox at Harlem's 135th Strect and Lenox Avenue and assailed Garvey for two hours without a stutter, branding him a charlatan and a fraud. Not content with this verbal lashing of his enemy, Briggs hauled Garvey into court on the charge of defamation of character. He won the case, forcing Garvey to make a public apology and pay a fine of one dollar.<br />
<br />
Briggs’s real forte, however, was as a kecn polemicist, a veritable master of invective. His speech handicap was a pity, because aside from the stutter he had all the qualities of a good orator. Closely associated with Briggs was Richard B. Moore, a fine orator who did much public speaking for the ABB.<br />
<br />
What were the reasons for the decline of the ABB and its eventual absorption by the Communist Party? Why did Briggs fail to develop the program for Black self-determination in the USA? In the fifties, I had a series of talks with Briggs and asked his opinion on these questions.<br />
<br />
His overall appraisal of the role of the Brotherhood was that it was a forerunner of the contemporary national revolutionary trend and a very positive thing. “Of course, we didn’t stop Garvey,” he said, but “we were beginning to develop a revolutionary alternative. We did put a crimp in his sails,” Briggs added.<br />
<br />
For a while, the ABB had been a rallying center for left opposition to Garvey. Its membership included class-conscious Black workers and revolutionary intcllectuals and drew membership from both disillusioned Garveyites and radicals who never took to Garvey’s program in the first place. The main reason for de-emphasizing the idea of Black nationhood in the United States, Briggs stated, was the unfavorable relationship of forces then existing.<br />
<br />
Garvey, with his Back to Africa program, had preempted the leadership of the mass movement and corralled most of the militants. His hold over the masses was strengthened by the anti-Black violence of the Red Summer of 1919. This gave further credence to Garvey’s contention that the U.S. was a white man’s country where Blacks could never achieve equality. Indeed, for these masses, his program for a Black state in Africa to which American Blacks could migrate seemed far less utopian than the idea of a Black state on U.S. soil.<br />
<br />
As for the South, Briggs did not feel that such a region of entrenched racism could be projected realistically as a territorial focus of a Black nationalist state. It would not have been so accepted by the masses who were in flight from the area. For himself, he reasoned, the very idea of self-determination in the United States presupposed the support of white revolutionaries. That meant a revolutionary crisis in the country as a whole, and in that day no such prospect was in sight. In fact, white revolutionary forces were then small and weak, the target of the vicious anti-red drives of the government and employers.<br />
<br />
In other words, he felt that Black self-determination in the United States was an idea whose time had not yet come. The communists didn’t have all the answers, and neither did we, Briggs indicated. Whites, as well as a number of Black radicals, undoubtedly underestimated the national element; socialism alone was seen as the solution. Briggs was impressed, however, by the sincerity and revolutionary ardor of the communists and by the fact that they were a detachment of Lenin’s Third Communist International. He felt that the future of the revolution in the United States and of Black liberation lay in multinational communist leadership.<br />
<br />
Though the ABB ceased to exist as an organized, independent expression of the national revolutionary current, the tendency itself remained, awaiting the further maturing of its main driving force, the Black proletariat. By the end of the decade, the national revolutionary sentiment was to find expression in the program of the Communist Party.<br />
<br />
By the time I joined the Brotherhood’s Chicago post in the summer of 1922, The Crusader had dropped much of its original national revolutionary orientation. Although I was then unaware of it, Briggs and the supreme council were presiding over the absorption of the organization into the Communist Party.<br />
<br />
In Chicago, the decline of the organization was slower than elsewhere, Perhaps this was because it had a strong base among Black building-tradesmen, plumbers, electricians and bricklayers. Edward Doty, a plumber by trade, was simultaneously the ABB post commander and a leader and founder of the American Consolidated Trades Council (ACTC). The council was a federation of independent Black unions and groups in the building trades industry who had formed their own unions forthe double purpose of protecting Black workers on the job and counteracting the discriminatory policies of the white AFL craft unions dominant in the field.<br />
<br />
Doty, a tall, muscular man, was born in Mobile, Alabama, and had come north in 1912 at the age of seventeen, According to him, most of the Black steamfitters and plumbers had learned their trades in the stockyards during the industrial boom and labor shortage that accompanied World War I. Some, however, had gotten their training at Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. Active in the Brotherhood along with Doty were such outstanding leaders of the Black workers’ struggle as Herman Dorsey (an electrician) and Alexander Dunlap (a plumber).<br />
<br />
Besides the tradesmen, other members of the ABB post included a number of older radicals such as Alonzo Isabel, Norval Allen, Gordon Owens, H.V. Phillips, Otto Hall and several others. Together with Doty, they made up the communist core of the Brotherhood. <br />
<br />
My experiences in the ABB marked my first association with Black communists. I had met some of them before, at forums and lectures; I had heard Owens speak at the Bugs Club and Dill Pickle forums, but I had never worked together with any of them before.” ‘They were mostly workers from the stockyards and other industries. One or two, like myself, were from the service trades. Like Otto, several of them had previously been in the Garvey movement. There was no doubt that they represented a politically advanced section of the Black working class. They were the types who today would be called “political activists,” the people who kept abreast of the issues in the Southside community and participated in local struggles.<br />
<br />
I was interested to learn their backgrounds and how they had come to the revolutionary movement. I found that some of them had been among Chicago's first Marxist-oriented Black radicals and had been associated with the Free Thought Society. This society was formed immediately after the war and held regular forums. I believe its leader and founder was a young man named Tibbs. He was one of the earliest of Chicago’s Black radicals. A victim of police harassment and persecution, Tibbs was arrested during the Palmer raids in 1919 and spent several years in jailona fake charge of stealing automobile tires. This continual perseeution reduced his political effectiveness, which was as the authorities intended.<br />
<br />
In 1920, members of the Free Thought Society took an active part in the campaign of the Independent Non-Partisan League, sponsored by The Whip and its editors. This coalition ran a full slate of candidates in the Republican primary of that year, in which they challenged the old guard Republicans of the second ward Republican organization as well as the so-called New People’s Movement of Oscar DePriest.’<br />
<br />
The election platform called for abolition of all discrimination, for public ownership of utilities, civil service reform, women’s suffrage, children’s welfare service and “organization of labor into one union.” While they were not successful in turning back the Republican old guard, the campaign resulted in appreciable gains for some of the league’s candidates,<br />
<br />
At that time, the main efforts of the ABB were directed at mobilizing community support for the Black ACTC tradesmen. While retaining a secret character, its members participated as individuals in campaigns on local issues. They collaborated with the Trade Union Education League (TUEL) of which Doty was a member, in its drive to organize the stockyards. The TUEL supported the demands of the ACTC. At that time, it was led by William Z. Foster and Jack Johnstone. Later to become the Trade Union Unity League, it was a gathering of the revolutionary and progressive forces within trade unions to fight against the reactionary labor bureaucracy and their collaborationist policies and Jim Crowism.<br />
<br />
Other members of the Brotherhood participated in the cainpaign against high rents that was waged in the Southside community. This was a fight in which a white Party member, Bob Minor, and his wife, Lydia Gibson, played leading roles.<br />
<br />
I found my experience in the Brotherhood both stimulating and rewarding. In addition to learning a lot from the communists with whom I was associated, it was here I forged my first active association with Black industrial workers. I found them literate, articulate and class conscious, a proud and defiant group which had been radicalized by. the struggles against discriminatory practices of the unions and employers. They understood the meaning of solidarity and the need for militant organization to obtain their objectives. In this, they were quite different from the people with whom I had been associated at the post office, as well as writers whom I so commonly found to be stamped with a hustler mentality. Doty and his followers in the Trades Council were pioneers in the struggle for the rights of Black workers, a struggle which has continued over half a century and remains unfinished to this day.<br />
<br />
‘The older tradesmen finally fought their way into the unions, the electricians in 1938 and the plumbers in 1947. In the early fifties, Doty became the first Black officer in the plumbers’ union. But these gains were only token! The bars are still up against Blacks and other minority workers seeking jobs in the ninety billion dollar-a-year industry.<br />
<br />
=== THE YOUNG COMMUNIST LEAGUE ===<br />
My sojourn in the African Blood Brotherhood was brief about six months. I felt the need to move on. My original goal was the Communist Party. While I was in the ABB, the problem of white chauvinism in the Southside branch had been cleared up. Joining the Party was no longer a problem, after all, the Brotherhood had been but a stopover.<br />
<br />
I was about to apply for admission when H.V. Phillips asked me to join the Young Workers (Communist) League, the youth division of the Communist Party. Phillips, I learned, was a member of the district and national committees of the League. When I told him I was just about to join the Party, he said: “That’s all right, but youre a young fellow and should be among the youth. Besides, more of us Blacks are needed in the League.”<br />
<br />
I thought the matter over. “Why not? It’s all the same, they’re all communists.”<br />
<br />
The next day Phillips took me to meet John Harvey, a white youth who was district organizer of the League. Harvey told me that I had been highly recommended to them by Phillips and others. He expressed delight at my decision to join and said that it fit right in with their plans since they were anxious to move forward with work among Black youth, but were handicapped by the faet that they had only a few Black members.<br />
<br />
I expressed doubt that I could be considered a youth at the age of twenty-five.<br />
<br />
They replied that there were a number of members my age and older in the organization. All that was needed, they assured me, was for one to have the “youth angle.”<br />
<br />
“What is that?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“Oh, that simply means the ability to understand youth and their problems and to be able to communicate with them.”<br />
<br />
I was not sure I had all of these qualities, but the proposition appealed to me, So I joined the YCL in the winter of 1923. The League at that time was a close-knit fraternity of idealistic and dedicated young people determined to build a new world for future generations. When we sang the Youth International at meetings, we actually felt ourselves to be as the song proclaimed, “the youthful guardsmen of the proletariat.”<br />
<br />
The organization was small, with only several hundred members. As I recall, Phillips and myself were the only Blacks. I was still working on the Santa Fe and on layovers I spent most of the time getting acquainted with my new comrades, attending classes, meetings and social gatherings. I was impressed by what seemed to me to be a high level of political development and by their use of Marxist terminology. It made me keenly aware of my own sketchy knowledge of Marxism and the revolutionary movement and spurred me to close the gap. A partial explanation for their political sophistication, I felt, was the fact that a large number of them, perhaps a majority, were “red diaper” babies—their parents being old revolutionaries, either members of the Party or its supporters. On the whole, they were a spirited, intelligent group, and as far as I could discern exhibited not a trace of race prejudice. Many went on to become leaders of the Party.<br />
<br />
There was our district organizer, John Harvey, a lanky youth and one of the few WASPs; Max Shachtman, a brilliant young orator and editor of the League’s theoretical organ, the Young Worker, who was later to become first a Trotskyist and then a rabid, professional anti-communist. There was Valeria Meltz, an able young leader, and her brother; their ethnie background was Russian-American, as was that of Jim Sklar (Keller). His brothers Gus and Boris were old stalwarts in the Russian Federation and were well known. There was also Nat Kaplan (Ganley) and Gil Green. Gil was about sixteen at the time; we used to call him “the kid.” He went on to become national chairman of the YCL and later a national leader in the Party. I met a number of the League's national leaders: Johnny Williamson, a Scottish-American and national secretary, Herbert Zam, Sam Darcy, Marty Abern, Phil Herbert and others, many of whom were to become national leaders of the Party.<br />
<br />
There was no searcity of places for meetings or for social affairs. We were on friendly terms with Jane Addams and her people at Hull House, where we sometimes met. Other times we used the halls of various language groups. We participated in and supported the activities of the Anti-Imperialist League, headed by Manny Gomez, the Party’s Latin American specialist. The main eampaign at the time: was against the invasion of Nicaragua by the U.S. Marines.<br />
<br />
I was particularly impressed by Bob Mazut, a young Russian representative of the Young Communist International (YCI) to the League, A small, dark-complected and soft-spoken young man, Mazut hailed from Soviet Georgia, His mild manner belied his impressive background, Only twenty-five when I met him, he had fought in the Revolution and Civil War, first as a Red Partisan and then in the Red Army, in which he advanced to the rank of colonel. He spoke what we called “political English,” and we were always amused by some of his expressions. For example, | remember how we used to kid Mazut about his being sweet on a certain girl comrade, “She likes you very much,” someone would say, “but she’s a little overawed by you.”<br />
<br />
He replied very seriously, “How can I liquidate her suspicions of me?”<br />
<br />
He took particular interest in me. I believe Phillips and I were the first Blacks he had ever really known and for us he was the first real Soviet communist we had met. I asked questions about Russia and told him I wanted to go there and see it for myself. “You undoubtedly will,” he said in a matter-of-fact tone, as if the matter were settled,<br />
<br />
On one occasion he told me of a discussion he had had on the eve of his departure from Russia, Zinoviey, then president of the Communist International, had asked him to look closely into the Afro-American question in the United States, and to see if he could find any confirmation for his belief and that of other Russian leaders that the right of self-determination was the appropriate slogan for Black rebellion. Zinoviev added that he had long believed that the question would become the “Achilles heel of American imperialism,” I told Mazut that I liked the part about the “Achilles heel,” but I didn’t feel that the slogan of self-determination was applicable for U.S. Blacks, It was my understanding that the principle had to do with nations, and Blacks were not a national but a racial minority. To me, it smacked of Garvey’s separatism,<br />
<br />
Mazut nevertheless raised the question of self-determination for discussion in a meeting of the Chicago District Committe of the YCL. Desirous of getting the committee’s reaction to the question, he was literally shouted down by the white comrades, “Blacks are Americans,” they said. “They want equality, not separation.” Phillips and I, the only Black members of the committee, were non-committal, And that was the end of that, They did not pursue the matter further.<br />
<br />
In order to move forward in work with Black youth, we struck upon the idea of organizing an interracial youth forum on the Southside. The organizing committee consisted of Chi (Dum Ping), a Chinese student at the University of Chicago; a young woman official of the colored YMCA; Phillips, a white League member; and myself, During this period, J was still working on the Santa Fe, but on my layovers | devoted all my time to the forum. We had rented a small hall, decorated it and got out our publicity—leaflets, posters and an‘ad in the Chicago Defender, Our first speaker was to be John Harden, a Black radical orator, It was our first effort at mass work among young Blacks and with our youthful enthusiasm, we were certain of success. But the venture proved to be abortive.<br />
<br />
I can still remember our shock when we came to our mecting place to find it wrecked. Furniture was smashed, posters ripped from the walls. There was no doubt in our minds that this was the work of the police who had unleashed their stool pigeons against us. Some of our non-communist friends dropped out, and the project collapsed. The idea of a forum was abandoned---temporarily, we hoped. A less ambitious plan was then agrced to.<br />
<br />
If we could enlarge our cadres by a few more Blacks, we thought, we would have a better base from which to approach mass work. It was therefore suggested that Phillips and I approach some of our acquaintances and try to recruit them directly into the League. I eliminated my waiter friends, all of whom were too old, and approached one of my former colleagues, a postal worker, who had been in our study circle and whom I considered a likely prospect. I remember that he sat very quictly while I delivered a long lecture on the League’s program and activities and the need to get support among Black youth.<br />
<br />
Finally interrupting me, he blurted out, “I’m sorry, Hall, but I find being Black trouble enough, but to be Black and red at the same time, well that’s just double trouble, and when you mix in the whites, why that’s triple trouble.”<br />
<br />
At first I was rather shocked by his off-hand rebuff, considering it to be an expression of cynical opportunism. I felt that he had backslid, even from his position at the post office, but he continued in a more serious tone. Apparently he felt a deep distrust for whites and their motives. He regarded the YCL as just another organization of white “do-gooders” and saw me as their captive Negro. When I interrupted to say something about socialism, he cut me short. He said that he too was for socialism as a final solution, but that was a long way off and he would not put it beyond the whites in the United States to distort socialism in a manner in which they could remain top dogs. In any case, he believed Blacks would have to be on guard. In the meantime, he believed Blacks should retain their own organizations under their own leadership. Alliances, yes—but we ourselves must decide the terms and conditions, he said.<br />
<br />
Our exchange had gotten off on the wrong foot. I was deeply chagrined by his charge that I was a captive of the whites and that the League was a white organization. For me, that meant that he felt that I was a “white folks’ nigger.” As I recall, I retorted by calling him a Black racialist who saw everything in terms of Black and white.<br />
<br />
“Why not?” he replied. “Being a Negro, how else should I see things?”<br />
<br />
After this flare-up, our tempers cooled off and we continued our discussion in calmer tones. But I was definitely on the defensive, trying to explain why I was in the League and that it was not an organization of white “do-gooders” as he had charged. It was a revolutionary, interracial vanguard organization, I asserted. Sure, we only had a few Blacks now, but our numbers would grow, I argued.<br />
<br />
He was still skeptical and repeated that he was for socialism, but a special road toward this goal he felt was necessary for Black Americans, under their own leadership and organization.<br />
<br />
“Do you mean a Black party?” I queried.<br />
<br />
“Why not?” he rejoined. “It might be necessary as a safeguard for our interests.”<br />
<br />
I had no answers to his position. There was a logic to it which I hadn't thought about.<br />
<br />
We finally parted on friendly terms, promising to keep in touch. I left, realizing that I’d come out the worst in our exchange. I felt that I had failed in my first effort to recruit a good Black man to the League and that we still had some study to do with regards to Black nationalism.<br />
<br />
My friend had been, as I recalled, a bitter critic of Garvey, and therefore assumed that he was hostile to Black nationalism. But now it seemed that he expressed some of Garvey’s racial separatism. Thinking the matter over, I finally camc to the conclusion that the main reason for my inability to counter his arguments was that I sensed that they contained a good measure of truth. What was most disturbing was the sense that his position was less isolated from the masses of Blacks than was my own.<br />
<br />
Up to that point, I had failed to understand the contradictory nature of Black nationalism. I had rejected it totally as a reactionary bourgeois philosophy which, in the conditions of the U.S., had found its logical expression in Garvey’s Back to Africa program. It was therefore a diversion from the struggle for economic, social and political equality-—-the true goal of Blacks in the United States. The fight for equality, I felt, was revolutionary in that it was unattainable within the framework of U.S. capitalist society. Nationalism, moreover, was divisive and played into the hands of the reactionary racists. This, of course, did not exclude the acceptance of some of its features, such as race pride and selfreliance, which were not inconsistent with, but an essential element in, the fight for equality.<br />
<br />
While rejecting nationalism, I also rejected the bourgeois assimilationist position of the NAACP and its associates, and their blind acceptance of white middle class values and culture. What confused me were attempts to amalgamate what I felt were two mutually contradictory elements-—--socialism and the class struggle on the one hand, and nationalism on the other. Or was the contradiction more apparent than real, I wondered. My friend’s nationalism did not go to the point of advocacy of a separate Black nation, He demanded only autonomy in leadership and organization of the Black freedom movement. Was this inconsistent with the concept of equality and class unity? Had not Blacks the right to formulate their conditions for unity? For me, this was the first time I had encountered these questions.<br />
<br />
I attempted to reflect on my short experience in the YCL. Was there not a basis for Black distrust of even white revolutionaries? ‘The situation in the League was not as idyllic as I had first thought. There was a certain underestimation of the importance of the Black struggle against discrimination and for equal rights among both the youth and the adults of the communist movement. Behind that, I sensed there was a feeling that the Black struggle was not itself really revolutionary, but was sort of a drag on the “pure” class struggle.<br />
<br />
This was no doubt a legacy of the old Socialist Party, Evensuch a revolutionary as Debs had said: <blockquote>'''“We have nothing special to offer the Negro, and we cannot make separate appeals to all the races, The Socialist Party is the party of the working-class, regardless of color.” And regarding the Afro-American question: “Social equality, forsooth ... is pure fraud and serves to mask the real issue, which is not social equality, but economic freedom.” “The Socialist platform has not a word in reference to ‘social equality.’ ”'''</blockquote>Evidently, there were a number of theoretical matters still to be cleared up on the question of the struggle for Black equality and freedom.<br />
<br />
I joined the Party itself in the spring of 1925, recruited by Robert Minor, with the consent of the League. I had quit the Santa Fe the summer before, and, totally committed to the communist cause, I then decided to devote more time to the work and to eventually becoming a professional revolutionary. I took extra jobs on weekends and worked banquets and an occasional extra trip on the road. I was living at home with my Mother, Father and sister, who had an infant child, David. All were employed, with my Mother accepting occasional catering jobs.<br />
<br />
Minor, whom I had known for some time, was a reconstructed white Southerner from Texas, a direct descendant of Sam Houston (first Governor of the Lone Star State), He was a former anarchist and one of the great political cartoonists of his day. His powerful cartoons were carried in the Sz. Louis Post-Dispatch, and later on in the old Masses (a cultural magazine of the left) and in the Daily Worker. Among his many talents, he was a journalist of no small ability. Having travelled widely in Europe as a news correspondent during the First World War, Minor had visited Russia during the revolutionary period and had met and spoken with Lenin.<br />
<br />
With these impressive credentials, he was now a member of the Party’s Central Committee and responsible for its Negro work. This was understood as an interim assignment, eventually to be taken over by a Black comrade as soon as one could be developed to fill the position. The person then being groomed for the job was Lovett Fort-Whiteman, who was then in Russia taking a crash course in communist leadership. He had been an associate of Briggs on The Crusader and also worked with Randolph and Owens on The Messenger. Later, as I recall, his selection was the cause for some disgruntlement among the Black comrades.<br />
<br />
Why was Fort-Whiteman chosen in preference to such wellknown and capable Blacks as Richard B. Moore, Otto Huiswood or Cyril P. Briggs, all of whom had revolutionary records superior to Fort-Whiteman’s? At that time, there were no Blacks on the Central Committee, and even when Fort-Whiteman returned from Russia in 1925 to take charge of Afro-American work, Minor remained responsible to the Central Committee. While not as flamboyant as Fort-Whiteman, these Black leaders had records comparable to, or better than, those of many whites on the Central Committee.<br />
<br />
Be that as it may, of all the white comrades, Minor was best fitted for the assignment because of his wide knowledge of and close interest in the question. His intense hatred of his Southern racist background came through in some of the most powerful cartoons of the day. He had wide acquaintances among Black middle class intellectuals. Bob and his wife Lydia had turned their Southside apartment into a virtual salon where Black and white friends would gather to discuss the issues of the day. There I met various Black notables, including Dean Pickens, national field secretary of the NAACP, and Abraham Harris, then secretary of the Minneapolis Urban League. Harris would later become Chairman of the Economies Department of Howard University, and then a full professor of the same subject at the University of Chicago.<br />
<br />
=== THE FOURTH CONVENTION OF THE CPUSA ===<br />
It was the period immediately before the Fourth National Convention of the Communist Party. The factional fight was at its height, with the Party split between two warring camps: the Ruthenberg-Pepper group vs. the Foster-Bittelman group. The atmosphere was rife with charges and counter-charges of “right opportunism” and “left sectarianism.” This factionalism had spilled over into the League, which reflected the alignments then current within the Party.<br />
<br />
I had stood aloof from these factions, as I did not clearly understand the issues. The question of Blacks did not seem to be directly involved. I assumed it was a clash mainly between personalities and narrow group interests, and did not reflect political principles. Each side accused the other of responsibility for the “Farmer-Labor fiasco” which left the Party isolated in its first major attempt to form a united front. I could sce no differences among the factions on the question of bolshevization of the Party.<br />
<br />
The Comintern had recently called upon the Party to bolshevize its ranks. Among other things, this called for the reorganization of the Party on the basis of shop and street units, and the elimination of the foreign language clubs as federated organizations within the Party. These clubs remained close to the Party, however, and followed its leadership.<br />
<br />
I was inclined to favor the Ruthenberg-Pepper group because most of the Party’s Black members--Doty, Elizabeth Griffin, Alonzo Isabel, Otto and my sister Eppa—were in that group. This, I suspected, was partly due to the influence of Bob Minor and Lydia Gibson—their work on the Southside in the tenants’ struggle of 1924, their support of Doty’s Consolidated Trades Council, and their consistent advocacy in the Party of the importance of work among Blacks. (Most of this occurred after I had Ieft the ABB and joined the YCL.)<br />
<br />
Upon joining the Party, I immediately became part of the Ruthenberg group. Under Minor’s tutelage, I was to undergo intensive indoctrination. According to the Ruthenberg faction, Foster, Bittelman, Jack Johnstone and their allies(Cannon, Dunne and Shachtman) were opportunist, narrow-minded trade unionists lacking in Marxist theory and hence in the ability to lead a Marxist party. They said that Foster’s group, which possessed a majority of the delegates, was out to steamroll the convention and toss Ruthenberg, Pepper and Lovestone out of the leadership.<br />
<br />
For most of us, the clincher was that the Foster group lacked the confidence of the Communist International. This latter charge, it seemed to me, was confirmed by the decisions of the Fourth Party Convention the following summer, I was a delegate to this convention from the YCL. I was to witness the intervention of the Cl in the person of its on-the-spot representative, Comrade Green (Gusev), an old Bolshevik friend and co-worker of Lenin and Stalin. For obvious security reasons, only the leaders of both factions had direct contact with him. His job was to suppress factionalism and to unite the Party on the basis of the Comintern line. I must say that he tackled this task with an expertise that was remarkable to behold.<br />
<br />
First, he set up what was called a Parity Committee, composed of an equal number of top leaders of both factions, with himself as a neutral chairman. Since the two factions were evenly represented on the committee, his was the deciding vote. I remember that there was widespread speculation among the delegates as to which faction he would support. We didn’t have long to wait.<br />
<br />
The convention had been in session about a week. The atmosphere was charged, passions inflamed, a split seemed imminent. Indeed, our caucus leaders had difficulty in preventing a walkout by some of the more hot-headed members. A message finally arrived in the form of a cable from the CI (which undoubtedly was sent at Gusev’s urging). The cable was presented to the Parity Committee by Gusev. It demanded that “under no circumstances” should the Foster majority “be allowed to suppress the Ruthenberg group... because,” it went on to say, “the Ruthenberg group is more loyal to the decisions of the Communist International and stands closer to its views. It has the majority or strong minority in most districts and the Foster group uses excessively mechanical and ultra-factional methods,” It further demanded that the Ruthenberg group “get not less than forty percent of the Central Executive Committee” and insisted as “an ultimatum” to the majority “that Ruthenberg retains post of Secretary...categorically insist upon Lovestone’s Central Executive Committee membership...demand retention by Ruthenberg group of co-editorship on central organ,”<br />
<br />
The results were greeted with great jubilation by our group. Foster refused to accept the majority of the incoming Central Committee under these circumstances (in which his loyalty was questioned) and ceded leadership to the Ruthenberg group. The result was that the Ruthenberg-Pepper group retained key positions on the new Central Committee--Ruthenberg as general secretary, Lovestone as organizational secretary, Bedacht as agitprop head.<br />
<br />
Despite factionalism, the convention marked a step forward in the work among Blacks, Although its decisions threw no new light on the question, the platform adopted did contain the most elaborate statement the Party had thus far made.<br />
<br />
It subscribed to full equality in the relationship between Black and white workers, It advocated the right to vote, abolition of Jim Crowism in law and custom, including segregation and intermarriage laws. The main thrust of the program, however, was directed towards building Black and white labor unity on the job and in the union, Toward this end the platform asserted that:<blockquote>'''Our Party must work among the unorganized Negro workers destroying whatever prejudice may exist against trade unions, which has been cultivated by white capitalists..(and) the Negro petty-bourgeoisie... Our Party must make itself the foremost spokesman for the real abolition of all discrimination of the as yet largely unorganized Negro workers in the same union with the white workers on the same basis of equality of membership, equality of right to employment in all branches of work and equality of pay.'''</blockquote>The Party called for the inclusion of Black workers in the existing unions. It came out against racial separatism and dual unionism, but it declared its intention to organize Blacks into separate unions wherever they were barred from existing organizations and to use the separation as a battering ram against Black exclusion. Emphasizing the relationship between these partial demands and ultimate goals, the platform declared that the accomplishment of the above aims was not an end in itself and that on the contrary, it was the struggle for their accomplishment that was even more important: <blockquote>'''In the course of the struggle with such demands we will demonstrate...that these aspirations can be realized only as a result of the successful class struggle against capitalism and with the establishment of the rule of the working class in the Soviet form.'''</blockquote>It must be remembered that by this time the attempts to infiltrate the Garvey movement had proven unsuccessful and that the African Blood Brotherhood, the sole revolutionary Black organization in the field, had been dissolved. To meet the necd for an organizational vehicle to put our program into effect, the Party and the Trade Union Educational League sponsored the American Negro Labor Congress (ANLC). <br />
<br />
In the meantime, Lovett Fort-Whiteman, our man in Moscow, returned to head up the Negro work and to prepare the launching of the ANLC. H.V. Phillips, Edwards, Doty and I were assigned to the organizing committce for the congress, drafting and circulating the call, and approaching organizations for delegates. As I remember, most of the Blacks in the Party were assigned to work on the congress. Otto was not involved in these activities, as immediately after the Fourth Party Convention, he had left for Moscow with the first batch of Black students. <br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman was truly a fantastic figure. A brown-skinned man of medium height, Fort-Whiteman’s high cheekbones gave him somewhat of an Oriental look. He had affected a Russian style of dress, sporting a robochka (a man’s long belted shirt) which came almost to his knees, ornamental belt, high boots and a fur hat. Here was a veritable Black Cossack who could be seen sauntering along the streets of Southside Chicago. Fort-Whiteman was a graduate of Tuskegec and, as I understood, had had some training as an actor, He had been a drama critic for The Messenger and for The Crusader. There was no doubt that he was a showman; he always seemed to be acting out a part he had chosen for himself.<br />
<br />
Upon his return from the Soviet Union, he held a number of press conferences in which he delineated plans for the American Negro Labor Congress, and as a Black communist fresh from Russia, he made good news copy.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman had taken responsibility for lining up enter tainment for the opening night of the congress. Characteristically, with his Russian affectations, he arranged for a program of Russian ballet and theater. The rest of us didn’t question what he was doing, and the incongruity of the program didn’t occur to us until the opening night.<br />
<br />
The mecting took place in a hall on Indiana Avenue near Thirty~ first Street, in the midst of the Black ghetto, When I arrived it was packed—-perhaps 500 people or so. Inside, I was suddenly attracted by a commotion at the door. Asa member of the steering committee, I walked over to see what was the matter. Something was amiss with the “Russian ballet” which was about to enter the hall. A young blonde woman in the “ballet” had been shocked by the complexion of most of the audience, which she had apparently expected to be of another hue. Loudly, in a broad Texas accent, she exclaimed, “Ah’m not goin’ ta dance for these niggahs!”<br />
<br />
Somebody shouted, “Throw the cracker bitches out!” and the “Russian” dance group hurriedly left the hall.<br />
<br />
The Russian actors remained to perform a one-act Pushkin play. They, at least, were genuine Russians from the Russian Federation, But alas, it was in Russian. Of itself, the play was undoubtedly interesting, but its relevance to a Black workers’ congress was, to say the least, unclear. Although Pushkin was a Black man, he wrote as a Russian, and the characters portrayed were Russian. More significant, however, and perhaps an indication of our sectarian approach, was the fact that no Black artist appeared on the program.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman made the keynote speech outlining the purposes and tasks of the congress. He was a passable orator and received a good response. Otto Huiswood, an associate of Briggs and one of the first Blacks to join the Party, also spoke. Richard B. Moore brought the house down with an impassioned speech which reached its peroration in Claude McKay's poem, “If We Must Die.” I was spellbound by Moore; I had never heard such oratory.<br />
<br />
That night, Phillips and I left the hall in high spirits. In fact, I was literally walking on air. At last, I felt, we were about to get somewhere in our work among Blacks. Phillips, a bit more sober than I, remarked, “Let’s wait and sec the report of the credentials committee.”<br />
<br />
His caution was justified, for the big letdown came the following morning. The first working session of the congress convened with about forty Black and white delegates, mainly communists and close sympathizers, The crowd of 500 at the opening night rally had been mainly community people. I think it was Phillips who remarked that there was hardly a face in the working session that he didn’t recognize; most participants, sadly, were from the Chicago arca.<br />
<br />
The organizing committee had prepared draft resolutions for the congress to consider. As we had anticipated a much larger turnout, we had made plans for a credentials committee, resolutions committee, etc. But in light of the small attendance, these resolutions and preparations took on an Alice-in-Wonderland quality. For example, according to the constitution, the group’s purpose was to “unify the efforts...of all organizations of Negro workers and farmers as well as organizations composed of both Negro and white workers and farmers."<br />
<br />
Despite our efforts and work, the ANLC never got off the ground. Few local units were formed, resolutions and plans were never carried into action. Only its official paper, the Negro Champion, subsidized by the Party, continued for several years. Among the post-mortems undertaken on the organization was the one made by James Ford in his book, The Negro and the Democratic Front, He commented that “for the period of its existence, it (the ANLC) was almost completely isolated from the basic masses of the Negro people." Disappointment and disillusionment followed and personal differences surfaced among our group. The fact was that the congress had failed, and with it, the first efforts to build a left-led united front among Blacks.<br />
<br />
There was a natural tendency to find seapegoats for the failure. Moore and Huiswood, the able delegates from New York, seemed to have come to Chicago witha chip on their shoulders. They made no attempt to hide their contempt for Fort-Whiteman, whom they had known in New York. They openly alluded to him as “Minor’s man Friday.” At the time, I was a bit shocked at what I felt was an attempt to malign these comrades. This was especially true of Bob Minor, whom I regarded with respect and affection. He was sort of a father figure to me.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman, on the other hand, was still an unknown quantity. My feelings about him were rather mixed. I was both repelled and fascinated by the excessive flamboyance of the man. But much later, I recalled overhearing a conversation between him and Minor during the preparations for the congress. Minor informed Fort-Whiteman that Ben Fletcher, the well-known Black IWW Leader, had expressed a desire to participate in the congress, It was evident that Bob was pleased by the response of such an important Black labor leader. Fletcher, as an IWW organizer, had played a leading role in the successful organization of Philadelphia longshoremen, His attendance would undoubtedly have attracted other Blacks in the labor movement.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman, however, vehemently opposed the idea and exclaimed, “I don’t want to work with him; I know him. He’s the kind of fellow who'll try to take over the whole show.” That ended the discussion; Fletcher was not invited. .<br />
<br />
I didn’t know Fletcher at the time, but as I reflected back onthe incident some time later, it was clear to me that had he been allowed to participate, Fort-Whiteman would have been overshadowed. I was too new to pass judgment on Fort-Whiteman’s qualifications, but I did wonder why he was chosen over such stalwarts as Moore and Huiswood. Huiswood, as a delegate to the Fourth Congress of the Comintern in 1922, was the first Black American to attend a congress of that body. (Claude McKay was also a special fraternal delegate to that congress.) Together with other delegates, Huiswood visited Lenin and became the first Black man to meet the great Bolshevik. He later became the first Black to serve as a candidate member of the Executive Committee of the Communist International.<br />
<br />
On the whole, I was very optimistic during my early years in the Party—confident we were building the kind of party that would eventually triumph over capitalism.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 5 ==<br />
<br />
=== A Student in Moscow ===<br />
Otto’s delegation of Black students to the Soviet Union caused quite a stir in the States. The FBI kept an eye on their activities and, in late summer 1925, their departure was sensationalized in the New York Times.! The article attributed a statement to Lovett Fort-Whiteman to the effect that he had sent ten Blacks to the Soviet Union to study bolshevism and prepare for careers in the communist “diplomatic service.” The article concluded with a statement calling for action against such “subversive activity.”<br />
<br />
At the time, we all felt that any Black applying for a passport would be subjected to close scrutiny. Therefore, when I learned that I too would soon be studying in Moscow, I applied for a first names of my Mother (Harriet) and Father (Haywood). This name was to stick with me the rest of my life.<br />
<br />
Several weeks after I received my passport, I heard the FBI had been making inquiries about me. By that time, I had become known as one of the founders of the ANLC. Therefore, as the time for my departure drew near, I hid out at the home of comrades on Chicago's Westside until arrangements were made. I went to the national office of the Communist Party, then in Chicago, and was informed by Ruthenberg or Lovestone that I should get ready to leave, Political credentials, typed on silk, were sewn into the lining of my coat sleeve. In order to avoid going through the port of New York, I left by way of Canada.<br />
<br />
In the manner of the old Underground Railroad, I was passed on from one set of comrades to the next: from Detroit, Rudy Baker, the district organizer, forwarded me on to the Canadian Party headquarters in Toronto where Jim MacDonald and Tim Buck were in charge. They sent me on to Montreal where comrades housed me and booked passage for me to Hamburg, Germany. Boarding ship in Quebec in the late spring of 1926, I sailed on the Canadian Pacific liner, the old Empress of Scotland. From Hamburg, I took a train to Berlin, arriving on a Saturday afternoon,<br />
<br />
Thad the address of Hazel Harrison the wife of a Chicago friend of mine who was a concert pianist studying in Berlin, where she had had her professional debut. (Years later, she was to head the Music Department at Howard University.) At that time, she was living at a boarding house near the Kurfurstendamm and I stopped there for the remainder of the weekend.<br />
<br />
This was the first time I had been in Berlin, Germany was then emerging from post-war crisis, during which currency inflation had reached astronomical heights, resulting in the virtual expropriation of a large section of the middle class. It was common to see shabbily dressed men still trying to keep up appearances by wearing starched white collars under their patched clothing,<br />
<br />
The owners of the boarding house, two middle-aged widows who were friends of Hazel’s, showed me a trunk filled with paper notes—-old German marks which were now worthless. This had probably represented a life’s savings.<br />
<br />
Hazel and her two friends took me out to the Tiergarten—the famous Berlin Zoo. I was attracted by the sight of three lion cubs that had been mothered by a German police dog. The cubs were getting big, and it was clear that the “mother” was no longer able to control them. We watched for some time, fascinated. I turned around and realized that there was a crowd around us. At first I thought they were looking at the cubs, but then it became clear that Hazel and I were the center of attention. Blacks were rare in Berlin in those days-—there were only half a dozen or so, mostly from the former German colonies of the Cameroons.<br />
<br />
Monday morning I took a cab to the headquarters of the German Party, at Karl Marx House on Rosenthallerstrasse. It was a dour, fortress-like structure, with high walls surrounding the main building which was set in the middle. I entered into the anteroom just inside the walls, in which there were a number of sturdy looking young men lounging around. When I came in, they jumped up and stood eyeing me suspicously.<br />
<br />
They were unarmed, but I knew their weapons were within arms’ reach, This was a symbol of the times for it was not long after the Beer Hall Putsch of Hitler’s brownshirts in Munich, and the battle for the streets of Berlin had already begun. I presented my credentials to a man named Walters, who was undoubtedly the head of security.<br />
<br />
It was on this occasion that I first met Ernst Thaelmann, a former Hamburg longshoreman and then leader of the German Communist Party. He was passing through the gate and Walters stopped him and introduced us. Thaelmann spoke fairly good English (probably acquired in his work as a seaman) and we chatted. a while. He asked after Foster, Ruthenberg and others. Wishing me good luck, he passed on his way.<br />
<br />
Walters gave me some spending money and arranged for me to stay with some German comrades, a young couple who had an elaborate apartment. The husband ran a haberdashery store on Friedrichstrasse and was a commander in the Rote Front (the red front)---the para-military organization which the communists had organized for defense of workers against the fascists.<br />
<br />
One day while walking down the Kurfurstendamm, I saw a cabaret billboard advertising the Black jazz band of Leland and Drayton and their Charleston dancers. It was a well-known band back. in the States. I had little money, but I couldn’t resist the temptation to stop in and hear them. I sat down at a table and ordered a beer. ‘To my dismay, the waiter said they didn’t sell beer, just wine. So | took the wine card and chose the cheapest bottle I could find.<br />
<br />
A number of band members and dancers came over to my table and asked where I was going. When I told them I was a student going to Moscow, they said they had just returned from a six-month tour in Russia, They were the first Black jazz group that had gone to the Soviet Union. I asked if they had met Otto and the other Black students there. Yes, they had met them all and they had had good times together. So we all sat down to exchange news.<br />
<br />
As we talked, I began to worry about the bill, and said I was low on money. “Oh, don’t worry about that,” someone said and ordered more wine. But when it came time to pay for the drinks, I got stuck with the whole tab and had to walk several miles across town to get home.<br />
<br />
After a month in Berlin, my visa came through. I was on my way to Stettin, a city on the Baltic Sea which bordered Poland and where I boarded a small Soviet ship. After three days of some of the roughest seas I have ever experienced, we landed in Leningrad. It was April 1926, and we were already in the season of the “white nights,” when daylight lasted until late into the evening.<br />
<br />
As we entered the Gulf of Finland the following morning, we passed the naval fortress of Kronstadt about twenty miles out from Leningrad (the site of the anti-Soviet mutiny of 1920). The ship finally docked in Leningrad. Upon landing, I presented my visa and passport to the authorities, Addressing me in English, a man in civilian dress said, “Oh, you’re going to the Comintern school in Moscow?”<br />
<br />
“Yes,” I replied.<br />
<br />
He immediately took me in charge and got my baggage through customs. I assumed he was a member of the security police. We left the customs building and got into an old beat-up Packard. As we drove away from the docks, he informed me that the Moscow train would not leave until eight that evening. He put me up at a hotel where I could rest and go out to see the city.<br />
<br />
Leningrad (old St. Petersburg) was built by Czar Peter the Great in the sixteenth century and now renamed for the architect of the new socialist society. As I walked down the now famous Nevsky Prospekt, I thought of John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook the World, trying to recapture some of the dramatic scenes in that classic. I passed the Peter and Paul Fortress and then the Winter Palace---once the home of the czars and now a museum of the people. The storming of the Winter Palace in 1917 had been the crucial event in the taking of St. Petersburg by the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
The people I saw passing me on the street were plainly dressed. Many of the men wore the traditional robochka and high boots; others were in European dress. Most people were dressed neatly, though shabhily, and all appeared to be well-fed. They were bright and cheerful, It seemed they went ahout with a purpose—a sharp contrast to the atmosphere of hopelessness that had pervaded Berlin, People in Leningrad looked at me---and I looked at them. By this time, I had become used to being stared at and took it as friendly curiosity. After all, a Black man was seldom seen in those parts.<br />
<br />
After several hours, I returned to my hotel. My friend from the security police showed up promptly at seven with my train ticket and took me to the station to put me on the train to Moscow. Filled with excitement and anticipation, I got little sleep on the train and awoke early to see the Russian landscape flowing by my window— pine forests, groves of birch trees and swamps. I was in the midst of the great Russian steppes.<br />
<br />
When we arrived in Moscow at Yaroslavsky Station, some of my traveling companions hailed a droshky and told the driver to take me to the Comintern.<br />
<br />
Moscow at last! We drove from the station into the vast sprawling city--once the capital of old Russia and now of the new. It was a bright, sunny morning and the sun glistened off the golden church domes in the “city of a thousand churches.” It seemed a maze of narrow, cobblestone streets, intersected by broad boulevards. While Leningrad had been a distinctly European city, Moscow seemed a mixture of the Asiatic and the European—a bizarre and strange combination to me, but a cheerful one. Moscow was more Russian than the cosmopolitan Leningrad. Crowds swarmed in the streets in many different styles of dress.<br />
<br />
We arrived at the Comintern, which was housed in an old eighteenth century structure on Ulitsa Komintern near the Kremlin, across the square from Staraya Konyushnya (the old stables of the czar). I paid the driver and entered the building. The guard at the door checked my credentials and directed me upstairs to a small office on the third floor. After producing my bonafides, I was told to take a seat, to wait for my comrades who would soon becoming for me.<br />
<br />
About half an hour later, Otto and another Black man entered the room. I was overjoyed at the sight of him and his friend, who turned out to be a fellow student, Harold Williams. We embraced Russian style, and I began to feel more at home in this strange jand.<br />
<br />
Otto asked about the family. An expression of sadness crossed his face, however, when I asked him about the rest of the Black students, He then informed me of Jane Golden’s serious illness. She was at that moment in a uremic coma from a kidney ailment and was not expected to live. Her husband was at her side at the hospital. (Though both were from Chicago, I had not met them before.)<br />
<br />
The situation had saddened the whole Black student body, and for that matter, the whole school. In the course of her brief sojourn, Jane had become very popular. Otto described her in glowing terms—a real morale booster, whose spirit had helped all of them through the period of initial adjustment.<br />
<br />
I was impressed. Here was a Black woman, not a member of the Communist Party, who had so easily become accustomed to the new Soviet socialist society. It seemed to me that there must be thousands of Black women like her in the U.S.<br />
<br />
After we had greeted each other, we caught a droshky over to the school in order that I might register officially. In the course of the ride, the driver lashed his horse and cursed at him. I asked Otto what he was saying, and he gave a running translation: “Get up there, you son-of-a-bitch. I feed you oats while I myself eat black bread! Your sire was no good, you bastard, your momma was no good too!” This verbal and physical abuse, Otto told me, was typical of most Russian droshky drivers.<br />
<br />
We finally arrived at the school administration which was housed in another old seventeenth century structure, built before the Revolution. It had been a finishing school for daughters of the aristocracy. Before that, it had been a boys’ school where, rumor has it, the great Pushkin had studied.<br />
<br />
Otto introduced me to the university rector with what sounded to my untrained ear like fluent Russian. We then went to the office of the chancellor, where I was duly registered. I was now a student at the Universitet Trydyashchiysya Vostoka Imeni Stalina (the University of the Toilers of the East Named for Stalin)---Russian acronym KUTVA, Otto and I then walked to the dormitory a few blocks away where I met the other two Black students, Bankole and Farmer,<br />
<br />
We all immediately took a streetcar to the hospital which was located on the other side of the Moscow River. There we were met by Golden and some other students who informed us that Jane Golden had just passed away that morning, Golden seemed to be in a state of shock and the doctors had given him some sedatives. We went into the hospital morgue to view her body. Bankole broke down in uncontrollable tears, I learned afterwards that Jane had been a close friend—a kind of mother to him during the period of his adjustment to this new land.<br />
<br />
We took Golden home to the dormitory. The school collective and its leaders immediately took over the funeral arrangements. The body lay in state in the school auditorium for twenty-four hours, during which time the students thronged past.<br />
<br />
The funeral was held the following day and the whole school turned out. The cortege seemed a mile long as it flowed past Tverskaya towards the cemetery. The students would not allow the casket to be placed upon the cart, but organizing themselves in relays every fifty yards, insisted on carrying it the distance of several miles on their shoulders,<br />
<br />
A good portion of the American colony in Moscow was assembled at the cemetery. The chairman of the school collective, a young Georgian, delivered a stirring eulogy at the graveside. One of the students who was standing next to me made a running translation sotto voce which went something like this:<br />
<br />
The first among her race to come to the land of socialism...in search of freedom for her oppressed peoples, former slaves... to find out how the Soviets had done it. We were happy to receive her and her comrades...condolences to her bereaved husband, our Comrade Golden, and to the rest of the Negro Students,..the whole university has suffered a great loss. Rest in peace, Jane Golden. You were with us only a short time, but all of us have benefitted from your presence and comradeship,<br />
<br />
Turning to Golden, he said:<br />
<br />
We Soviet people and comrades of oppressed colonial and dependent countries must carry on. We pledge our undying support to the cause of your people’s freedom. Long live the freedom fight of our Negro brothers in America! Long live the Soviet Union and its Communist Party, beacon light of the struggle for freedom of all oppressed peoples.<br />
<br />
Golden had borne himself well at the graveside, but we didn't want him to return to his room in the students’ dormitory, which would only remind him of his grievous loss. So we went to the apartment of MacCloud, an old Wobbly friend of ours from Philadelphia, who had attended the funeral and who lived in the Zarechnaya District, across the river. He was a close friend of Big Bill Haywood and had followed the great working class leader to the Soviet Union, There we tried to drown our sorrows in good old Russian vodka, which was in plentiful supply.<br />
<br />
Jane Golden’s funeral and the school collective’s response to her death made a profound impression on me, Through these events, crammed into the first three days of my stay in the Soviet Union, I came to know something about my fellow students and the new socialist society into which I had entered<br />
<br />
=== THE BOLSHEVIKS FIGHT FOR EQUALITY OF NATIONS ===<br />
KUTVA was a unique university. At the time I entered, its student body represented more than seventy nationalities and ethnic groups. It was founded by the Bolsheviks for the special purpose of training cadre from the many national and ethnic groups within the Soviet Union—the former colonial dependencies of the czarist empire—and also to train cadres from colonies and subject nations outside the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
The school was divided into two sections-—inner and outer. At the inner section there were Turkmenians, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Bashkirs, Yakuts, Chuvashes, Kazaks, Kalmucks, Buryat-Mongols and Inner and Outer Mongolians from Soviet Asia. From the Caucasus there were Azerbaidzhanis, Armenians, Georgians,<br />
<br />
Abkhazians and many other national and ethnic groups I had never heard of before, There were Tartars from the Crimea and the Volga region,<br />
<br />
The national and ethnic diversity found within the Soviet Union is hard to imagine. The Revolution had opened up many areas, for example through the Trans-Caucasus Road, and as late as 1928, the existence of new groups was still being “discovered.” These nationalities were all former colonial dependencies of the czars and were referred to as the “Soviet East,” “peoples of the East,” and “borderland countries,” The inner section comprised the main and largest part of the student body in the university.<br />
<br />
We Blacks were of course part of the outer section at the school. It included Indians, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, Persians, Egyptians, Arabs and Palestinian Jews from the Middle East, Arabs from North Africa, Algerians, Moroccans, Chinese and several Japanese (hardly a colonial people, but as revolutionaries, identified with the East).<br />
<br />
The Chinese, several hundred strong, comprised the largest group of the outer section, This was obviously because China, bordering on the USSR, was in the first stage of its own antiimperialist revolution, a revolution receiving direct material and political support from the Soviet Union. While KUTVA trained the communist cadres from China, there was also the Sun Yat-sen University, just outside of Moscow, which trained cadres for the Kuomintang.<br />
<br />
Among its students was the daughter of the famous Christian general, Chang Tso-lin, Several Chinese, including Chiang Kaishek’s son, studied in Soviet military schools during this period. A number of the Chinese students from KUTVA were massacred by Chiang’s troops at the Manchurian border when they returned to China shortly after Chiang’s bloody betrayal of the revoiution in 1927, Otto told me that a former girlfriend of his was among this group. As I remember, there were no Latin Americans at KUTVA during the time I was there, and the sole black African was Bankole, The student body was continually expanding, however, and later included many students from these and other areas.<br />
<br />
We students studied the classic works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. But unlike the past schooling we had known, this whole body of theory was related to practice. Theory was not regarded as dogma, but as a guide to action.<br />
<br />
In May 1925, Stalin had delivered an historic speech at the school, outlining KUTV A’s purpose and its main task. His lecture was the subject of continuous discussion and study. It was our introduction to the Marxist theory on the national question and its development by Lenin and Stalin.<br />
<br />
How did the Bolsheviks transform a territory embracing onesixth of the earth’s surface—known as the “prison-house of nations” under the Czar-—into a family of nations, a free union of peoples? What was the policy pursued by the Soviets which enabled them to forge together more than a hundred different stages of social development into such extraordinary unity of effort for the building of a multinational socialist state—the kind of unity that enabled them to win the civil war within and to defeat the intervention of seventeen nations, including the United States, from without.<br />
<br />
The starting point for us was to understand that the formation of peoples into nations is an objective law of social development around which the Bolsheviks, particularly Lenin and Stalin, had developed a whole body of theory. According to this theory, a nation is an historically constituted stable community of people, based on four main characteristics; a common territory, a common economic life, a common language and a common psychological makeup (national character) manifested in common features in a national culture, Since the development of imperial ism, the liberation of the oppressed nations has become a question whose final resolution would only come through proletarian revolution.<br />
<br />
The guiding principle of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on the national question was to bring about the unity of the laboring masses of the various nationalities for the purpose of waging a joint struggle—first to overthrow czarism and imperialism, and then to build the new society under a working class dictatorship. The accomplishment of the latter required the establishment of equality before the law for all nationalities —with no special privileges for any one people-—and the right of the colonies and subject nations to separate.<br />
<br />
This principle was incorporated into the law of the land in the Declaration of Rights of the People of Russia, passed a few days after the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks. Of course, the declaration of itself did not eliminate national inequality, which as Stalin had observed, “rested on economic inequality, historically formed.” To eliminate this historically based economic and cultural inequality imposed by the czarist regimes upon the former oppressed nations, it was required that the more developed nations assist these formerly oppressed nations and peoples to catch up with the Great Russians in economic and cultural development,<br />
<br />
In pursuance of this aim, the new government was organized on a bicameral basis. One body was chosen on the basis of population alone, the other, the Council of Nationalities, consisted of representatives from each of the national territorial units.the autonomous Soviet republics, autonomous regions and national areas, Any policy in regard to the affairs of these formerly oppressed nations could be carried through only with the approval of the Council of Nationalities. The Communist Party, through its members, was involved in both bodies and worked to see that its policy of full equality and the right of self-determination was implemented,<br />
<br />
As this theory was put into practice, we learned that national cultures could be expressed with a proletarian (socialist) content and that there was no antagonistic contradiction, under socialism, between national cultures and proletarian internationalism. Under the Soviets, the languages and other national characteristics of the many nationalities were developed and strengthened with the aim of drawing the formerly oppressed nationalities into full participation in the new society. Thus, the Bolsheviks upheld the principle of “proletarian in content, national in form.” Through this policy, they hoped to draw all nationalities together, acquainting each with the achievements of the others, leading to a truly universal culture, a joint product of all humanity.<br />
<br />
This is in sharp contrast to imperialism’s policy of forcibly arresting and distorting the free development of nations in order to maintain their economic and cultural backwardness as an essential condition for the extraction of superprofits. Thus, the oppressed nations can achieve liberation only through the path of revolutionary struggle to overthrow imperialism and in alliance with the working class of the oppressor nations. Stalin, proceeding from the experience and practice of the Soviet Union, emphasized the need for the formation and consolidation of a united revolutionary front between the working class of the West and the rising revolutionary movements of the colonies.--a united front based on a struggle against a common enemy. The precondition for forming such unity is that the proletariat of the oppressor nations gives:<blockquote>'''direct and determined support to the liberation movement of the oppressed peoples against the imperialism of its “own country,” for “no nation can be free if it oppresses other nations.” (Engels)... This support implies the advocacy, defense and implementation of the slogan of the right of nations to secession, to independent existence as states'''.</blockquote>Without this cooperation of peoples based on mutual confidence and fraternal interrelations, it will be impossible to establish the material basis for the victory of socialism.<br />
<br />
The test of all this theory was being proven in practice in the Soviet Union. The experience of the Bolsheviks demonstrably proved to us that socialism offered the most favorable conditions for the full development of oppressed nations and peoples.<br />
<br />
At the time of the Revolution, there were many nationalities within the borders of the Soviet Union in which the characteristics of nationhood had not yet fully matured, and in fact had been suppressed by the czars. It was the Soviet system itself which became a powerful factor in the consolidation of these nationalities into nations, as socialist industry and collective farming created the economic basis for this consolidation.<br />
<br />
I observed this firsthand in the Crimea and the Caucasus during my visits there in the summers of 1927 and 1928. The language and culture which had been stifled under the czarist regime were now being developed. The language of the Crimean people was a Turko-Tartar language, but before the Revolution, almost all education, such as there was, was in the Russian language. Now there were schools established which used the native language. Otto and other students made similar observations when they traveled to different areas of the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, | was having my own problems with the Russian language. On first hearing it, the language had sounded most strange to me. I could hardly understand a word and wondered if I would ever be able to master it. As the youngest Black American, I applied myself seriously to its study. The first hurdle was the Cyrillic alphabet—-its uniquely different characters intimidated me. But the crash course at KUTVA, lasting about an hour and a half per day, soon broke down this initial barrier.<br />
<br />
In addition, I studied on my own for a couple of hours each day. I would set out to memorize twenty new words a day, Then at night, | would write them out on a sheet of paper and pin them above the mirror in my room. I would then go over them again in the morning while shaving, and during the day I would make sure to use them in conversation with the Russians.<br />
<br />
English grammar had always seemed irrelevant to me, but I soon came to appreciate the logic of Russian grammar. In fact, I learned most of my English grammar through the study of Russian. Its rules were consistent and understandable. ‘The language soon ceased to be mysterious and revealed itself as being beautifully and simply constructed. In six months | was able to read Pravda with the help of a dictionary.<br />
<br />
=== KUTVA: STRUCTURE AND STUDIES ===<br />
The school structure was fairly complicated, but, as I saw it, thoroughly democratic. There was the collective, the general body which ineluded everybody in the school—from the rector, faculty, students, clerical and maintenance workers to the scrubwoman. The leading body of the collective was the bureau—-composed of representatives clected by the various groups in the university. There was also a Communist Party organization which played the leadership role at all levels.<br />
<br />
Originally established by the Council of Nationalities, KUTVA was now a Party school, administered by the Educational Department (AGITPROP) of the Central Committee of the CPSU. There was a direct representative of the Party, called a “Party strengthener,” in the school administration, Together with the rector and a representative of the students, he was part of the “troika” which constituted the top leadership of the school.<br />
<br />
Students had the rights of citizens, voting and participating in local elections, The school discussed and dealt with all the issues which Soviet workers and peasants discussed at their work places. As with all students who pursued courses in higher education in the Soviet Union, we at KUTVA received full room and board, clothes and a small stipend for spending money. There was, of course, no tuition, We used to attend workers’ cultural clubs and do volunteer work, like working Saturdays to help build the Moscow subways. Education for us was not an ivory tower, but a true integration into the Soviet society, where we received firsthand knowledge from our experiences.<br />
<br />
The curriculum (which was a three-year course) was based on Marxism-Leninism; that is, the teachings of Marx and Engels as developed by Lenin. It included dialectical and historical materialism, the Marxist world concept; the Marxist theory of class struggle as the motive force of human events, the economic doctrines of Marx: value and surplus value, as a key to understanding history by revealing the economic law of motion of modern capitalist societies, Lenin’s analysis of imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism; theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat and its Soviet state form; the problems of socialist construction; Lenin’s theory on the peasant question-—the alliance of workers and peasants as the base for Soviet power; the national and colonial questions; and the role of the party as vanguard of the proletariat. We also studied the specifie history of the CPSU.<br />
<br />
Our favorite teacher was Endré Sik, who taught courses on Leninism and the history of the Soviet Party. Sik was a striking young man. His distinguishing feature was a large shock of white hair, unusual for a manso young---he was probably in his thirties. He was soft-spoken and modest. We all loved Sik; he was an outgoing person who radiated warmth.<br />
<br />
Sik was a Hungarian, a politieal refugee living in Russia, He had been a soldier in the Austro-Hungarian Army during the First World War. Captured by the Russians, he was converted to Bolshevism while in a Russian prison camp. On his release, he had gone baek to Hungary and participated in the short-lived (133 days) Hungarian Soviet government of 1919 of Béla Kun, Withthe defeat of the Béla Kun government, Sik—along with hundreds of other revolutionaries—fled to the Soviet Union. Hungarian exiles made up one of Moscow’s largest foreign colonies. In Moscow, Sik pursued an academic career. He was a graduate of the Institute of Red Professors and like many Hungarian intellectuals, he was multilingual.<br />
<br />
For all his good nature, Sik seemed tired and harassed. He was teaching in many schools, in addition to activity in the Hungarian community. Seven years after the defeat of the Hungarian Soviet, the exiled revolutionaries were bitterly divided and factionalized, laying blame on each other for the failure of the revolution,<br />
<br />
Sik beeame deeply interested in the question of Blacks in the United States and undertook a serious study of the question. He read all the books available and also asked the Black students at KUTVA to join with him. Unfortunately for our personal relationship, Sik and I were to find ourselves on opposite sides of the fenee in the discussion of Black Americans which took place at the Sixth Congress of the Communist International in June 1928.<br />
<br />
Our teacher of Marxist economics was a young man by the name of Rubenstein, a Russian economist in the Gosplan (Governmental Planning Commission). The star pupil in that class turned out to be our modest friend Golden. Golden, who had known nothing about Marxism before eoming to the Soviet Union, was able to grasp the intricacies of Marx’s Capital and Value, Price and Profit seemingly without effort.<br />
<br />
A class that stands out in my memory was one on how tomakea revolution, to seize power onee the situation was ripe. This course eonsisted of a series of Jeetures by a young Red Army officer. He had been a heroie figure in the Moscow uprising of 1917 and the subsequent seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in that city. A tall, handsome young man of bourgeois background, he had been a lieutenant in the army of the Kerensky government. Like many other soldiers, he had been won over by the Bolsheviks on the basis of their demands, which reflected the needs of the people. peace, bread and land. To him, the Moscow uprising against Kerensky, led by the Bolsheviks, was a model for the coming seizure of power in the big cities of the capitalist world.<br />
<br />
He had a large map of Moscow on the wall and would use it to illustrate how it had been done. The eall for the uprising, he said, had come to the Moseow Communist Party by telephone from Leningrad, where the revolutionary workers, sailors and army under the leadership of Lenin had overthrown the Kerensky government and seized power in that eity.<br />
<br />
In Moscow, the Party organization, already prepared, issued a call to the people for an uprising. His regiment, stationed on the outskirts of the eity, together with red guards (workers’ militia), responded and began to march towards the center of the city. The White Guardists were concentrated in the Arbot and in the Kremlin, Here he pointed out, in Russian and other European cities, the working class districts were centered around factories on the outskirts of the city and Moseow was cireled by workers suburbs. Together with defected units of other regiments and with red guards, they marehed towards Moscow’s central area, whence fighting spread throughout the city--even into the trans-Moscow district. The reds finally wiped out the White Guardist strongholds, and the Kremlin, which had changed hands two times before in the fighting, finally surrendered,<br />
<br />
Moscow was ours!<br />
<br />
=== CLASSMATES AT KUTVA ===<br />
Beeausc of the language problem, we students from outside the Soviet Union were subdivided into three main language groups: English, French and Chinese. English and French were the dominant languages of the many colonial areas represented at the university. Spanish was later added when Latin American students began to arrive. In addition to ourselves, the English-speaking group included East Indians, Koreans, Japanese and Indonesians. I had many close friends in this latter group.<br />
<br />
One of the most interesting and brilliant was an Indian student by the name of Sakorov. (They all took Russian names because of the severe repression which they faced back home.) A former machinist in a Detroit auto plant, Sakorov had been sent to the school by the American Party.<br />
<br />
Originally from Bombay, Sakorov had gone to sea on a British ship at the age of twelve and had been subjected to very oppressive conditions his whole career at sea. He eventually jumped ship in Baltimore and wound up working in an auto plant in Detroit. Of all the group of students, he was the closest to us Blacks, He knew first hand the plight of Blacks in the United States, and as a dark skinned Indian, he had experienced much of the same type of racial abuse while there, After he left the school, he returned to India, where he became one of the founders of the Indian Communist Party.<br />
<br />
Later, more Indian students were to come, including one sixteen year old—a tall, lanky boy who took the name of Volkoy. He had been born in California; his parents were Sikhs who had migrated to the U.S. and worked as agricultural workers in the Imperial Valley of California. They were part of a foreign contingent of the Ghadr Party, a revolutionary nationalist party of Sikhs which had been organized in 1916. The Party would pick out young men to be future leaders; Volkov was chosen and sent to Japan for education and stayed there a year. Then he was sent to study in the Soviet Union, perhaps by the Japanese Party. He spoke Japanese and English.<br />
<br />
Among the Indian students was a group of about half a dozen Sikhs, former professional soldiers, survivors of the Hong Kong massacre of 1926. On the pretext of quelling an “imminent mutiny,” the British colonel of the regiment stationed in Hong Kong had called the unarmed Sikh soldiers into the regimental square and turned machine guns on them. (All regiments in the Indian Army included a British machine gun company as a safeguard against mutiny.) Several hundred were killed or wounded. As I understood it, the massacre was engineered to quell the protests over conditions which were being raised by members of the Ghadr Party and its supporters.<br />
<br />
The group who arrived in Moscow were among the few who escaped over the walls; they had fled to Shanghai where they were taken in charge by M.N. Roy, an Indian and then Comintern representative to China. Roy sent them to Moscow. These students, some of them older grey-bearded men, had spent their whole lives in the British Indian Army, They represented a special problem for the school, because most of them had had very little education of any kind. They were not brought into our class, but were put into a special group under the tutelage of Volkov, Sakorov and other of the regular Indian students,<br />
<br />
It was my good fortune to meet many of these Indian students again in 1942, when I was in Bombay as a merchant seaman, Most of them were leading figures in the Indian revolutionary movement. Sakorov had been a defendant in one of the Merut trials, having been charged with “conspiracy against the king,” Since his return to India, he had spent eleven years in prison. Nada, another former schoolmate, was president of the Indian Friends of the Soviet Union and very active among the students and youth,<br />
<br />
There were several Koreans and Japanese at the school, and two Indonesians. I remember Dirja particularly well. A Dutcheducated Indonesian intellectual, he was an old revolutionary who had spent many years in prison. There was another Indonesian, a young man (whose name I cannot recall), who later emerged as a communist leader and was killed in the Indonesian revolt of 1946.<br />
<br />
Kemal Pasha (a party name conferred on him by Sakorov) was a grey-eyed Moroccan from the Riffian tribe of Abdul Krim, I met Kemal Pasha again in Paris during the Spanish Civil War. There were also two whites in the group-June Kroll, then the wife of an American communist leader, Carl Reeves; and Max Halff, a young English lad of Russian-Jewish parentage.<br />
<br />
=== BLACKS IN MOSCOW ===<br />
We students were a fairly congenial lot and in particular I got to know the other Black students quite well. Golden was a handsome, jet-Black man; a former Tuskegee student and a dining car waiter, He was not a member of the Communist Party, but was a good friend of Lovett Fort-Whiteman, head of the Party's Afro-American work.<br />
<br />
Golden told me that his coming to the Soviet Union had been accidental. He had run into Fort-Whiteman, a fellow student at Tuskegee, on the streets of Chicago, Fort-Whiteman had just returned from Russia and was dressed in a Russian blouse and hoots.<br />
<br />
As Golden related it: “I asked Fort-Whiteman what the hell he was wearing, Had he come off the stage and forgotten to change clothes? He informed me that these were Russian clothes and that he had just returned from that country.”<br />
<br />
Golden at first thought it was a put-on, but became interested as Fort-Whiteman talked about his experiences. “Then out of the blue, he asks me if I want to go to Russia as a student. At first, I thought he was kidding, but man, I would have done anything to get off those dining cars! I was finally convinced that he was serious. ‘But I’m married,’ I told him. ‘What about my wife? ‘Why, bring her along too!’ he replied. He took me to his office at the American Negro Labor Congress, an impressive set-up with a secretary, and I was convinced, Fort-Whiteman gave me money to get passports, and the next thing I knew, a couple of weeks later we were on the boat with Otto and the others on the way to Russia. And here I am now.”<br />
<br />
He had a keen sense of humor and kidded the rest of us a lot, particularly Otto, His Southern accent carried over into Russian, and we teased him about being the only person who spoke Russian with a Mississippi accent,<br />
<br />
Then there was Bankole, an African who spent most of his time with the Black Americans. He was an Ashanti, from the Gold Coast (now Ghana) and his family was part of the African elite.<br />
<br />
The son of a wealthy barrister, his family had sent him to London University to study journalism, From there, he had gone to Carnegie Tech in Pittsburgh.<br />
<br />
He had been on the road to becoming a perennial student and had planned to continue at McGill University in Montreal, but was recruited to the Young Communist League in Pittsburgh. In the States, he was confronted with a racism more blatant than any he had met before. I gathered that this had struck him sharply and had been largely responsible for his move to the left,<br />
<br />
My brother Otto had become sort of a character in the school, He was popular among the students, who immediately translated his pseudonym “John Jones” into the Russian “Ivan Ivanovich,” Otto had ahsolutely no tolerance for red tape, and he had hecome a mortal enemy of the apparatchiki (petty bureaucrats) in the school. He had built a reputation for making their lives miserable, and when they saw him coming, they would huddle in a corner; “Here comes Ivan Ivanovich. Ostorozhno (watch out)! Bolshoi skandal budyet (this guy will make a big scandal)!”<br />
<br />
Harold Williams of Chicago was a West Indian and former seaman in the British merchant marine, He had adopted the name of Dessalines, one of the three leaders of the Haitian revolution of the 1790s. Williams had little formal education and some difficulty in grasping theory, but was instinctively a class-conscious guy.<br />
<br />
Finally, there was Mahoney, whose name in the USSR was Jim Farmer. Farmer was a steelworker from East Liverpool, Ohio, a Communist Party member and had played a leading role in local struggles in the steel mills.<br />
<br />
There were only eight of us Blacks in a city of 4,500,000 people. In addition to the six students, there were also two Black American women who had long residence (since before the Revolution) in Moscow.<br />
<br />
I only knew one of the women, Emma Harris. We first met on the occasion of the death of Jane Golden. Emma was a warm, outgoing and earthy middle-aged woman, originally from Georgia. It was evident that she had once been quite handsome—of the type that in the old days we called a “teasin’ brown.” Emma had first come to Moscow as a member of a Black song and dance group, a lowly hoofer in the world of cheap vaudeville. Having been deserted by its manager, the group was left stranded in Moscow.<br />
<br />
While the others had evidently made their way back to the States, Emma had decided to stay. She had liked the country. Here, being Black wasn’t a liability, but on the contrary, a definite asset, With her drive and ambition to be “somebody,” Emma parlayed this asset into a profitable position. She married a Russian who installed her, it seems, as a madam of a house of prostitution. It was no ordinary house, she once explained to me. “Our clients were the wealthy and nobility.” To the former hoofer, this was status.<br />
<br />
Such was Emma’s situation in November 1917, when the Russian Bolsheviks and Red Guards moved in from the proletarjan suburbs of Moscow to capture the bourgeois inner city and the Kremlin. During some mopping-up operations, Emma’s house was raided by the Cheka (the security police). A bunch of White Guardists had holed up there and the whole group was arrested, including Emma. They were taken to the Lubyanka Prison and some of the more notorious White Guardists were summarily executed.<br />
<br />
Emma remained in a cell for a few days. Finally she was called up before a Cheka official. He told her that they were looking into her case. Many of the people who had been arrested at her place were counter-revolutionaries and conspirators against the new Soviet state, and some had been shot. Emma disclaimed knowledge of any conspiracy and stated that she was engaged in “legitimate” business and had nothing to do with the politics of her clients.<br />
<br />
“You know the only reason we didn’t shoot you was because you are a Negro woman,” the official said. To her surprise, he added, “You are free to go now. I advise you to try to find some useful work. Keep out of trouble.”<br />
<br />
When we met Emma, she had become a textile worker. She lived with a young Russian woman--also a textile worker, whom I suspected was a reformed prostitute—in a two-room apartment in an old working class district near Krasnaya Vorota (Red Gate). Soon after the first Black students arrived, she sought them out and grected them like long lost kinfolk.<br />
<br />
At least once a month, we students would pool part of the small stipends we received and give Emma money to shop for and prepare some old home cooking for us. On these occasions, she would regale us with stories from her past life. At times one could detect a fleeting expression of sadness, of nostalgia, for her old days of affluence. One could see that she had never become fully adjusted to the new life under the Soviets. While not openly hostile, it was clear that she was not an ardent partisan of the new regime. Knowing our sentiments, she avoided political discussion and kept her views to herself. Our feelings toward her were warmest when we first arrived, but as we developed more ties with the Russians, we went by to see her less often. But we did continue to visit her periodically; she was a sort of mother figure for us, and we all felt sorry for her. She was getting old and often expressed a desire to return to the States. She was finally able to return home after World War II.<br />
<br />
Needless to say, Blacks attracted the curiosity of the Muscovites. Children followed us in the streets. If we paused to grect a (riend, we found ourselves instantly surrounded by curious crowds-—unabashedly staring at us. Once, while strolling down Tverskaya, Otto and I stopped to greet a white American friend and immediately found ourselves surrounded by curious Russians. It was a friendly curiosity which we took in stride. A young Russian woman stepped forward and began to upbraid and lecture the crowd.<br />
<br />
“Why are you staring at these people? They're human beings the same as us. Do you want them to think that we’re savages? Era ne kulturnya! (That is uncultured!)” The last was an epithet and in those days a high insult.<br />
<br />
“Eta ne po-Sovietski! (It’s not the Soviet way!)” she scolded them,<br />
<br />
At that point, someone in the crowd calmly responded: “Well, citizeness, it’s a free country, isn’t it?”<br />
<br />
We were not offended, but amused. We understood all this for what it was.<br />
<br />
There was one occasion when Otto, Farmer, Bankole and I were walking down Tverskaya. Bankole, of course, stood out—attracting more attention than the rest of us with his English cut Savile Row suit, monocle and cane—a black edition of a British aristocrat. We found ourselves being followed by a group of Russian children, who shouted: “Jass Band....Jass Band!”<br />
<br />
Otto, Farmer and I were amused at the incident and took it in stride. Bankole, however, shaking with rage at the implication, jerked around to confront them. His monocle fell off as he shouted: “Net Jass Band! Net Jass Band!” As he spoke, he hit his cane on the ground for emphasis.<br />
<br />
Evidently, to these kids, a jazz band was not just a group of musicians, but a race or tribe of people to which we must belong. They obviously thought we were with Leland and Drayton, the musicians I had met in Berlin, They had been a big hit with the Muscovites. We pulled Bankole away, “C'mon man, cut it out, ‘They don’t mean anything.”<br />
<br />
In the Soviet Union, remnants of national and racial prejudices from the old society were attacked by education and law. It was a crime to give or receive direct or indirect privileges, or to exercise discrimination because of race or nationality. Any manifestation of racial or national superiority was punishable by law and was regarded as a serious political offense, a social crime.<br />
<br />
During my entire stay in the Soviet Union, I encountered only one incident of racial hostility, It was on a Moscow streetear. Several of us Black students had boarded the car on our way to spend an evening with our friend MacCloud. It was after rush hour and the car was only about half filled with Russian passengers. As usual, we were the objects of friendly curiosity. At one stop, a drunken Russian staggered aboard. Seeing us, he muttered (but loud enough for the whole car to hear) something about “Black devils in our country.”<br />
<br />
A group of outraged Russian passengers thereupon seized him and ordered the motorman to stop the ear. It was a citizen's arrest, the first I had ever witnessed. “How dare you, you scum, insult people who are the guests of our country!”<br />
<br />
What then occurred was an impromptu, on-the-spot meeting, where they debated what to do with the man. I was to see many of this kind of “meeting” during my stay in Russia.<br />
<br />
It was decided to take the culprit to the police station which, the conductor informed them, was a few blocks ahead, Upon arrival there, they hustled the drunk out of the car and insisted that we Blacks, as the injured parties, come along to make the charges.<br />
<br />
At first we demurred, saying that the man was obviously drunk and not responsible for his remarks. “No, citizens,” said a young man (who had done most of the talking), “drunk or not, we don’t allow this sort of thing in our country. You must come with us to the militia (police) station and prefer charges against this man.”<br />
<br />
‘The car stopped in front of the station. The poor drunk was hustled off and all the passengers came along. The defendant had sobered up somewhat by this time and began apologizing before we had even entered the building. We got to the commandant of the station.<br />
<br />
The drunk swore that he didn’t mean what he'd said. “I was drunk and angry about something else. I swear to you citizens that I have no race prejudice against those Black gospoda (gentlemen).”<br />
<br />
We actually felt sorry for the poor fellow and we accepted his apology. We didn’t want to press the matter.<br />
<br />
“No,” said the commandant, “we'll keep him overnight. Perhaps this will be a lesson to him<br />
<br />
=== BIG BILL HAYWOOD ===<br />
In addition to the students at KUTVA and the two Black women, there was a sizeable American colony in Moscow during my stay there. There were political representatives of the Communist Party USA to the Comintern, the Profintern, the Crestintern and to the departments, bureaus and secretaries of these organizations—holding jobs as translators, stenographers and researchers <br />
<br />
Soviet cultural and publishing organizations also employed U.S, citizens, and in addition to the political groups, there were a number of technical and skilled workers who came as specialists to work for the new Soviet state. I got to know a number of the Americans during my stay, both official reps and others in the colony.<br />
<br />
Big Bill Haywood was perhaps the most famous of these. He was organizer and founder of the IWW, and a great friend of all Blacks in Moscow. At the time I met him he was in his late fifties and quite ill, suffering from diabetes. Physically, he was only the shell of the man he had once been. He called himself a political refugee from American capitalism, As a sick man, he had fled the U.S. to avoid a ten-year frame-up prison sentence which he knew he would never have survived, Bill was blind in one eye, over which he wore a black patch. I had imagined the loss of his eye had happened in a fight with company or police thugs and was rather disappointed to learn that it was the result of a childhood accident.<br />
<br />
In the Soviet Union he had participated in the organization of the Kuzbas Colony. This project was to reopen and operate industry in the Kuznetsk Basin in the Urals, closed during the Civil War period. The colony was located about a thousand miles from Moscow in an area of enormous coal deposits, vital to socialist industrialization. The district, with its mines and deserted chemical plants, had been established by the Soviet government as an autonomous colony. Big Bill had brought a number of American skilled workers, many of whom were old Wobblies, to reopen the plants and mines,<br />
<br />
Big Bill became a member of the CPUSA at its founding convention in 1921, and while in the Soviet Union he was a member of the CPSU. Bill and his devoted wife, a Russian office worker, lived in the Lux Hotel---a Comintern hostelry.<br />
<br />
His room had become a center for the gathering of American radicals, especially old Wobblies passing through or working in the Soviet Union. Here they would gather on a Saturday night and reminisce about old times and discuss current problems. Often a bunch of us Black students were present, Sometimes these sessions would carry on all night until Sunday morning. There were only a few chairs in the room, and Bill would sit in a huge armchair surrounded by people sitting on the floor. For us Blacks, listening to Big Bill was like a course on the American labor movement. He was a bitter enemy of racism, which he saw as the mainstay of capitalist domination over the U.S. working class, a continuous brake on labor unity, This attitude was reflected in the preamble of the IWW constitution, he told us, It read: “No working man or woman shall be excluded from membership in unions because of creed or color.” This was borne out in practice,<br />
<br />
The IWW was the first labor organization in modern times to invade the South and break down racial barriers in that benighted region. He recounted his experiences in the organizing drives among Southern lumber workers in Louisiana and Texas. This resulted in the organization of the Brotherhood of Timber Workers in 1910, an independent union in the lumber camps of Louisiana, Texas and Arkansas, At its height this union had 25,000 members, half of them Black.<br />
<br />
Big Bill described how the IWW broke down discrimination at the first convention of this union, He had come from the national IWW office to speak to the convention. They were all white, he said, and he inquired why no colored men were present. He was told that the Louisiana state law prohibited meetings of Black and white—the Negro brothers were meeting in another hall nearby. Bill recalled that he then told them: “Damn the law! It’s the law of the lumber bosses. Its objective is to defeat you and to keep you divided and you're not going to get anywhere by obeying the dictates of the bosses. You've got to meet together.” And the latter is exactly what they did, he told us.<br />
<br />
I remember that a few days after one of these gatherings we telephoned to tell him that we were coming over, only to learn from his wife that he had had a stroke and was in the Kremlin hospital. She said that he was getting along OK, but couldn’t see visitors. After several weeks he returned home. Still weak, he received many of his friends, and many of the delegates to the Fourth Congress of the Profintern which was in Moscow at the time. Big Bill had been a leading participant in this organization since its inception.<br />
<br />
Then suddenly, he was back in the hospital, where he died May 18, 1928. The whole American colony turned out for the funeral. There were delegations from the Russian Communist Party, of which he was a member, and from the various international organizations in which he had played a role. The Fourth Congress of the RILU adjourned its sessions, and representatives of trade unions from all over the world attended the funeral.<br />
<br />
I'm sure for all us Black students, our meeting and friendship with this great man were among the most memorable experiences of our stay in Moscow, A stalwart son of the American working class, Bill’s life and battles represented its best traditions. To Blacks, he was a man who would not only stand up with you, but if need be, go down with you. This was the iron test in the fight against the common enemy, U.S, capitalism. Big Bill obviously understood from his own experience the truth of the Marxian maxim that in the U.S., “labor in the white skin can never be free as long as in the Black it is branded.”<br />
<br />
=== Ina ===<br />
I first met my second wife, Ekaterina—-Ina—in December 1926, We were both at a party at the home of Rose Bennett, a British woman who had married M. Petrovsky (Bennett), the chairman of the Anglo-American Commission of the Comintern and formerly Cl representative to Great Britain,<br />
<br />
Ina was one of a group of ballet students whom Rose had invited to meet some of us KUTVA students, She was a small young woman of nineteen or twenty, shy and retiring, and sat off removed from the party. After that party, we met several times, and she told me about herself,<br />
<br />
She was born in Vladikavkaz (in northern Caucasus), the daughter of the mayor of the town, It was one of those towns that was taken and re-taken during the Civil War, one time by the whites, then by the reds. On one occasion when the town fell to the reds, her father was accused of collaborating with the whites, The reds came and arrested him and she never saw him again, Ina was about eleven at the time; she later learned that her father had been executed,<br />
<br />
Her uncle was a famous artist in Moscow and after her father’s execution they went there to live. Ina told me of her trip to Moscow at the height of famine and a typhus epidemic; they rode in freight cars several days through the Ukraine, and saw people dying along the road. Her uncle took charge of them and got them an apartment on Malaya Bronaya. He investigated the case of her father and discovered that a mistake had been made, and her father was posthumously exonerated. As a sort of compensation, she and her mother were regarded as “social activists,” and Ina entered school to study ballet. She later transferred from the ballet school to study English in preparation for work as a translator. We lived together in the spring of 1927 and got married the following fall, after my return from the Crimea.<br />
<br />
In January 1927, I was stunned by the news of the death of my Mother. One morning, when I was at Ina’s house, Otto burst in. Overcome by emotion, he could hardly talk, but managed to blurt out, “Mom’s dead!” He had a letter from our sister Eppa, with a clipping of Mother’s obituary from the Chicago Defender.<br />
<br />
Under the headline “Funeral of Mrs. Harriet Hall,” was her picture and an article which described her, a domestic worker, asa “noted club woman.” She had been a member of the Black Eastern Star and several other lodges and burial societies. The article mentioned that she was survived by her husband, daughter and two sons, the latter in Moscow.<br />
<br />
I was overcome with grief and guilt at not being home. Deeply shocked, I had always assumed that I would return to see Mother again, Born a slave, her world had been confined to the midwest and upper South, She had once told me, “Son, I sure would like to see the ocean,” and I had glibly promised, “Oh, I'll take you there someday, Momma.” I felt that I had been her favorite; | was the responsible one, and yet I hadn’t been able to do what I had promised, Worse yet, I wasn’t even there when she died. It took me some time to get over the shock.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
=== Trotsky’s Day in Court ===<br />
Apart from our academic courses, we received our first tutelage in Leninism and the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the heat of the inner-party struggle then raging between Trotsky and the majority of the Central Committee led by Stalin. We KUTVA students were not simply bystanders, but were active participants in the struggle. Most of the students—and all of our group from the U.S,—-were ardent supporters of Stalin and the Central Committee majority.<br />
<br />
It had not always been thus. Otto told me that in 1924, a year before he arrived, a majority of the students in the school had been supporters of Trotsky. Trotsky was making a play for the Party youth, in opposition to the older Bolshevik stalwarts, With his usual demagogy, he claimed that the old leadership was betraying the revolution and had embarked on a course of “Thermidorian reaction," In this situation, he said, the students and youth were “the Party’s truest barometer,”<br />
<br />
But by the time the Black American students arrived, the temporary attraction to Trotsky had been reversed. The issues involved in the struggle with Trotsky were discussed in the school, They involved the destiny of socialism in the Soviet Union. Which way were the Soviet people to go? What was to be the direction of their economic development? Was it possible to build a socialist economic system? These questions were not only theoretical ones, but were issues of life and death. The economic life of the country would not stand still and wait while they were being debated.<br />
<br />
The Soviet working class, under the leadership of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, had vanquished capitalism over one-sixth of the globe; shattered its economic power; expropriated the capitalists and landlords; converted the factories, railroads and banks into public property; and was beginning to build a state-owned socialist industry. The Soviet government had begun to apply Lenin’s cooperative plans in agriculture and begun to fully develop a socialist economic system. This colossal task had to be undertaken by the workers in alliance with the masses of working peasantry.<br />
<br />
From the October Revolution through 1921, the economic system was characterized by War Communism. Basic industry was nationalized, and all questions were subordinated to the one of meeting the military needs engendered by the civil war and the intervention of the capitalist countries.<br />
<br />
But by 1921, the foreign powers who had attempted to overthrow the Soviets had largely been driven from Russia’s borders, It was then necessary to orient the economy toward a peace-time situation. The NEP (New Economic Policy) formulated at the Tenth Party Congress in 1921 was the policy designed to guide the transition from War Communism to the building of socialism. It replaced a system of surplus appropriation with a tax in kind which would be less of a burden on the peasantry, The NEP was a temporary retreat from socialist forms: smaller industries were leased to private capital to run; peasants were allowed to sell their agricultural surplus on free markets, central control over much of the economy was lessened. All of this was necessary to have the economy function on a peace-time basis, It was a measure designed to restore the exchange of commodities between city and country which had been so greatly disrupted by the civil war and intervention. It was a temporary retreat from the attack on all remnants of capitalism, a time for the socialist state to stabilize its base area, to gather strength for another advance. A year later at the Eleventh Party Congress, Lenin declared that the retreat was ended and called on the Party to “prepare for an offensive on private capital.” <br />
<br />
Lenin was incapacitated by a series of strokes in 1923 and couldno longer participate in the active leadership of the Party. It was precisely at this time, taking advantage of Lenin's absence, that Trotsky made his bid for leadership in the Party. Trotsky had consistently opposed the NEP and its main engineer, Lenin— attacking the measures designed to appease the peasantry and maintain the coalition between the peasants and the workers,<br />
<br />
From late 1922 on, Trotsky made a direct attack on the whole Leninist theory of revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. He denied the possibility (and necessity) of building socialism in one country, and instead characterized that theory as an abandonment of Marxist principles and a betrayal of the revolutionary movement. He postulated his own theory of “permanent revolution,” and contended that a genuine advance of socialism in the USSR would become possible only as a result of a socialist victory in the other industrially developed states.<br />
<br />
While throwing around a good deal of left-sounding rhetoric, Trotsky’s theories were thoroughly defeatist and class-collaborationist. For instance, in the postscript to Program for Peace, written in 1922, he contended that “as long as the hourgeoisie remains in power in the other European countries, we shall be compelled, in our struggle against economic isolation, to strive for agreement with the capitalist world; at the same time it may be said with certainty that these agreements may at best help us to mitigate some of our economic ills, to take one or another step forward, but real progress of a socialist economy in Russia will become possible only after the victory of the proletariat in the major European countries.”<br />
<br />
At the base of this defeatism was Trotsky’s view that the peasantry would be hostile to socialism, since the proletariat would “have to make extremely deep inroads not only into feudal but also into bourgeois property relations.” Thus Trotksy contended that the working class would:<blockquote>'''come into hostile collision not only with all the bourgeois groupings which supported the proletariat during the first Stages of its revolutionary struggle, but also with the broad masses of the peasaniry with whose assistance it came into power. The contradictions in the position of a workers’ government in a backward country with an overwhelmingly peasant population could be solved only ...in the arena of the world proletarian revolution.'''</blockquote>Therefore, it would not be possible to build socialism in a backward, peasant country like Russia. The mass of peasants would exhaust their revolutionary potential even before the revolution had completed its bourgeois democratic tasks—the breakup of the feudal landed estates and the redistribution of the land among the peasantry. This line, which underestimated the role of the peasantry, had been put forward by Trotsky as early as 1915 in his article “The Struggle for Power.” There he claimed that imperialism was causing the revolutionary role of the peasantry to decline and downgraded the importance of the slogan “Confiscate the Landed Estates.”<br />
<br />
As it was pointed out in our classes, Trotsky portrayed the peasantry as an undifferentiated mass. He made no distinction between the masses of peasants who worked their own land (the muczhiks) and the exploiting strata who hired labor (the kulaks). His conclusions openly contradicted the strategy of the Bolsheviks, developed by Lenin, of building the worker-peasant alliance as the basis for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Further, they were at complete variance with any realistic economic or social analysis.<br />
<br />
Trotsky’s entire position reflected a lack of faith in the strength and resources of the Soviet people, the vast majority of whom were peasants. Since it denied the revolutionary potential of the peasantry, the success of the revolution could not come from internal forces, but had to depend on the success of proletarian revolutions in the advanced nations of Western Europe. In the absence of such revolutions, the revolutionary process within the Soviet Union itself would have to be held in abeyance, and the proletariat, which had seized power with the help of the peasantry, would have to hold state power in conflict,with all other classes.<br />
<br />
Behind Trotsky’s revolutionary rhetoric was a simplistic socialdemocratic view which regarded the class struggle for socialism as solely labor against capital. This concept of class struggle did no regard the struggle of peasant against landlord, or peasant against the Czar, as a constituent part of the struggle for socialism. This was reflected as early as 1905, in Trotsky’s slogan, “No Czar, but a Workers’ Government,” which, as Stalin had said, was “the slogan of revolution without the peasantry.”<br />
<br />
Given the state of the revolutionary forces at the time, the position was dangerously defeatist. For instance, 1923 marked a period of recession for the revolutionary wave in Europe; it was a year of defeat for communist movements in Germany, Italy, Poland and Bulgaria. What then, Stalin asked, is left for our revolution? Shall it “vegetate in its own contradictions and rot away while waiting for the world revolution”? To that question, Trotsky had no answer. Stalin’s reply was to build socialism in the Soviet Union. The Soviet working class, allied with the peasantry, had vanquished its own bourgeoisie politically and was fully capable of doing the job economically and building up a socialist society.<br />
<br />
Stalin’s position did not mean the isolation of the Soviet Union. The danger of capitalist restoration still existed and would exist until the advent of classless society. The Soviet people understood that they could not destroy this external danger by their own efforts, that it could only be finally destroyed as a result of a victorious revolution in at Icast several of the countries of the West. The triumph of socialism in the Soviet Union could not be final as long as the external danger existed. Therefore, the success of the revolutionary forces in the capitalist West was a vital concern of the Soviet people.<br />
<br />
Trotsky’s scheme of permanent revolution downgraded not only the peasantry as a revolutionary force, but also the national liberation movements of oppressed peoples within the old Czarist Empire. Thus, in “The Struggle for Power,” he wrote that “imperialism does not contrapose the bourgeois nation to the old regime, but the proletariat to the bourgeois nation.”<br />
<br />
While Trotsky de-emphasized the national colonial question in the epoch of imperialism, Lenin, on the other hand, stressed its new importance. “Imperialism,” said Lenin, means the progressively mounting oppression of the nations of the world by a handful of Great Powers; it means a period of wars between the latter to extend and consolidate the oppression of nations.”<br />
<br />
It was not until sometime later that I was able to fully grasp the implications of Trotsky’s concept of permanent revolution on the international scene. The most dramatic example was in Spain during the Spanish Civil War, 1936-39. The Trotskyist organivation had infiltrated the anarchist movement in Catalonia and incited revolt against the Loyalist government under the slogans of “Socialist Republic” and “Workers’ Government.” The Loyalist government, headed by Juan Negrin, a liberal Republican, was a coalition of all democratic parties. It included socialists, communists, liberal Republicans and anarchists—all in alliance against fascist counter-revolution led by Franco and backed by Hitler and Mussolini. The attempted coup against the Loyalist Government was typical of the Trotskyist attempts to short-circuit the bourgeois-democratic stage of the revolutionary process. The result was a “civil war within a civil war” and, had their strategy succeeded, it would have split the democratic coalition—effec~ tively giving aid to the fascists.<br />
<br />
In the United States I was to witness how Trotsky’s purist concept of class struggle led logically to a denial of the struggle for Black liberation as a special feature of the class struggle, revolutionary in its own right. As a result, American Trotskyists found themselves isolated from that movement during the great upsurge of the thirties. But all this was to come later.<br />
<br />
At the time I was at KUTVA, Trotskyism had not yet emerged as an important tendency on the international scene. | did not foresee its future role as a disruptive force on the fringes of the international revolutionary movement. At that point, I wasn’t clear myself on a number of these theoretical questions. It was somewhat later when my understanding of the national and colonial question-—-particularly the Afro-American question— deepened, that the implications of Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution became fully obvious to me.<br />
<br />
We students felt that Trotsky’s position denigrated the achievement of the Soviet Revolution. We didn’t like his continual harping about Russia’s backwardness and its inability to build socialism, or his theory of permanent revolution. The Soviet Union was an inspiration for all of us, a view confirmed by our experience in the country. Everything we could see defied Trotsky’s logic,<br />
<br />
His writings were readily available throughout the school, and the issues of the struggle were constantly on the agenda in our collective. These were discussed in our classes, as they were in factories, schools and peasant organizations throughout the country,<br />
<br />
About once a month the collective would meet and a report would be given by Party representatives-.-sometimes local, some+ times from the rayon (region of the city) and Moscow district, and sometimes from the Central Committee itself, They would report on the latest developments in the inner-party struggles—Trotsky’s and Lenin's views on the question of the peasantry; the NEP, how it had proved its usefulness and how it was now being phased out; Trotsky’s position on War Communism and Party rules; the dictatorship of the proletariat, and whether it could be a dictatorship in alliance with the peasantry or one over the peasantry. An open discussion would be held after the report. By that time the Trotskyists at KUTVA had dwindled to a small group of bitter-enders.<br />
<br />
The struggle raged over a period of five years (1922-27) during which time the Trotsky bloc had access to the press and Trotsky’s works were widely circulated for everyone to read. Trotsky was not defeated by bureaucratic decisions or Stalin’s control of the Party apparatus—as his partisans and Trotskyite historians claim. He had his day in court and finally lost because his whole position flew in the face of Soviet and world realities, He was doomed to defeat because his views were incorrect and failed to conform to objective conditions, as well as the needs and interests of the Soviet people.<br />
<br />
It was my great misfortune to be out of the dormitory when the Black students were invited to attend a session of the Seventh Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, then meeting in the Kremlin in the late fall of 1926, I was out in the street at the time and couldn’t be found, so they went without me. I missed a historic occasion, my only chance to have seen Trotsky in action. I was bitterly disappointed. When I arrived back at the dormitory, Sakorov, my Indian friend, told me where they had gone. Returning in the early hours of the morning, they found me waiting for them. They described the session and the stellar performance of Trotsky.<br />
<br />
Stalin made the report for the Russian delegation. Trotsky then asked for two hours to defend his position; he was given one. He spoke in Russian, and then personally translated and delivered his speech in German and then in French. In all, he held the floor for about three hours.<br />
<br />
Otto said it was the greatest display of oratory he had ever heard. But despite this, Trotsky and his allies (Zinoviev and Kamenev) suffered a resounding defeat, obtaining only two votes out of the whole body. The delegates from outside the Soviet Union didn’t accept Trotsky’s view that socialism in one country was a betrayal of the revolution. On the contrary, the success of the Soviet Union in building socialism was an inspiration to the international revolution,<br />
<br />
Otto told me that this point was made again and again in the course of the discussion. Ercoli (Togliatti), the young leader of the Italian Party, summed it up well a few days later when he defended the achievements of the Russian Party and revolution as “the strongest impetus for the revolutionary forces of the world.”<br />
<br />
The American Party united across factional lines in support of Stalin, The Trotsky opposition, already defeated within the Soviet Union, was now shattered internationally. From there on out, it was downhill for Trotsky. I witnessed Trotsky’s opposition bloc degenerate from an unprincipled faction within the Party to a counter-revolutionary conspiracy against the Party and the Soviet state. We learned of secret, illegal meetings held in the Silver Woods outside Moscow, the establishment of factional printing presses~all in violation of Party discipline. Their activities reached a high point during the November 7, 1927 anniversary of the Revolution.<br />
<br />
At that Tenth Anniversary, Trotsky’s followers attempted to stage a counter-demonstration in opposition to the traditional celebration. I remember vividly the scene of our school contingent marching on its way to Red Square. As we passed the Hotel Moscow, Trotskyist leaflets were showered down on us, and orators appeared at the windows of the hotel shouting slogans of “Down with Stalin.”<br />
<br />
They were answered with catcalls and booing from the crowds in the streets below. We seized the leaflets and tore them up. This attempt to rally the people against the Party was a total failure and struck no responsive chord among the masses. It was equivalent to rebellion and this demonstration was the last overt act of the Trotskyist opposition.<br />
<br />
During the next month Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev were expelled---along with seventy-five of their chief supporters. They, along with the lesser fry, were sent in exile to Siberia in Central Asia. Trotsky was sent to Alma Alta in Turkestan from where, in 1929, he was allowed to go abroad, first to Turkey and eventually to Mexico.<br />
<br />
Later, many of Trotsky’s followers criticized themselves and were accepted back into the Party, But among them was a hard core of bitter-enders, who “criticized” themselves publicly only in order to continue the struggle against Stalin’s leadership from within the Party, Their bitterness fed on itself and they emerged later in the thirties as part of a conspiracy which wound up onthe side of Nazi Germany.<br />
<br />
Throughout this whole struggle, we Black students at the school had been ardent supporters of the position of Stalin and the Central Committee. Most certainly we were Stalinists--whose policies we saw as the continuation of Lenin’s. Those today who use the term “Stalinist” as an epithet evade the real question: that is, were Stalin and the Central Committee correct? I believe history has proven that they were correct.<br />
<br />
=== RUTHENBERG’S DEATH ===<br />
In March 1927, the American community in Moscow was shocked by the news of the death of Ruthenberg, general secretary of the CPUSA. His death came suddenly, from a ruptured appendix. His last request had been that he be buried in the Kremlin walls in Moscow—a request acceded to by the Russian Communist Party, His ashes were carried to Moscow by J. Louis Engdahl, a member of the Central Committee of the U.S. Party.<br />
<br />
The Moscow funeral was impressive. The procession entered Red Square led by a detachment of Red Cavalry. The square was crowded with thousands of Soviet workers, including the entire work force of the Ruthenberg Factory, which had been named in his honor.<br />
<br />
We half dozen Black students, together with other members of the American colony, marched into the square immediately behind the urn, We followed it until we stood directly in front of the Lenin Mausoleum. On top of the mausoleum was the speakers’ platform, There stood Bukharin, who had recently succeeded Zinoviev as head of the Communist International: Béla Kun, leader of the abortive Hungarian Soviet of 1919; Sen Katayama, the veteran Japanese Communist; and others.<br />
<br />
Bukharin delivered the main eulogy, followed by several speakers. Suddenly I noticed Bukharin whispering to Robert Minor, who was standing beside him. Bukharin pointed down towards our group of Blacks who were gathered below the mausoleum.<br />
<br />
As Minor came down the steps toward us, I was a bit apprehensive, anticipating his mission. Sure enough, addressing my brother Otto, he said, “Comrade Bukharin wants one of the Negro comrades to say a few words.”<br />
<br />
Otto pointed at me and said, “Let Harry speak.”<br />
<br />
I felt trapped, not wanting to start an argument on such a solemn occasion, I reluctantly agreed to speak. and followed Minor back up the steps of the mausoleum, Béla Kun, a polished orator, was speaking, I was to follow. I tried to gather my thoughts, but I was not much of a speaker and certainly not prepared,<br />
<br />
Generalities did not come easy to me, and besides, I hadn’t really known Ruthenberg, I had only met him formally on the occasion of my departure for Moscow when he had shaken my hand and wished me luck. But what could I say about him, specifically in relation to the Blacks?<br />
<br />
I stood there amidst this array of internationally famous revolutionary leaders, and as I looked down on the thousands of faces in Red Square, panic suddenly seized me. Here was my turn to speak, but I found myself unable to utter a coherent sentence.<br />
<br />
I remember saying something about “our great lost leader.” This being my first experience in front of a mike, the words seemed to come back and hit me in the face. Finally, after a minute or two of floundering around | said, “That's all!” and turned away from the mike in disgust and humiliation. The words “that’s all” resounded through the square loud and clear, to my further discomfiture.<br />
<br />
And then came the moment for the translation. The translator was a young Georgian named Tival, one of Stalin’s secretaries. He was one of those people who speak half a dozen languages fluently, Tival got right into the job of translation, assuming an orator’s stance. He had a strong roaring voice, surprising for one of such diminutive stature.<br />
<br />
Swinging his arms, apparently emphasizing points that I was supposed to have made, I must admit that he made a pretty good speech for me. Speaking two or three times longer than my two minutes of rambling, he ‘preceded each point by emphasizing, “Tovarishch Haywood skazal” (Comrade Haywood said).<br />
<br />
The next morning, I went to the school cafeteria for breakfast, And there sat our little group of Black students. Golden had them laughing at something. He saw me and waved the day’s copy of Pravda. The headline was “Pokhorony Tovarishcha Ruthenberga” (Funeral of Comrade Ruthenberg).<br />
<br />
Golden began reading with a straight face, but using that peculiar language of his--Russian with a Mississippi accent. The article quoted from the main speeches and went on to say, Tovarishch Harry Haywood, Americanski Negr, tozhe bystupal (Negro American comrade Harry Haywood also stepped forward with a speech).”<br />
<br />
And Golden read one paragraph after another of the speech Tival gave for me, each paragraph starting with “Tovarishch Haywood skazal...Tovarishch Haywood skazal...Tovarisheh Haywood skazal.”<br />
<br />
Finally Golden looked up from that paper at me, and he said, “Man, you know you ain’t skazaled a goddamned thing!”<br />
<br />
Back home in the U.S., the death of Ruthenberg had signalled another flareup in the factional struggle within the Party. Following the intervention of the Cl at the Fourth Party Convention, there was a period of uneasy peace between the factions. But now a struggle for succession to Ruthenberg’s position as general secretary was raging hot and heavy.<br />
<br />
Lovestone, who had been organizational secretary, was supported by the Ruthenberg stalwarts—-Max Bedacht, Ben Gitlow and John Pepper. Since Ruthenberg’s death, Lovestone (as heir apparent) had pre-empted the interim job of acting secretary. In opposition, William W. Weinstone was the candidate supported by the Foster-Cannon bloc which included Alexander Bittelman and Jack Johnstone.<br />
<br />
Weinstone had formerly been a member of the Ruthenberg faction, but following Ruthenberg’s death, he sought the position of general secretary himself. His move offered an opportunity for the Foster-Cannon group to oppose Lovestone, whom they bitterly detested, with a candidate they believed had more of a chance of winning than did one of their old stalwarts.<br />
<br />
We Blacks in Moscow were isolated from much of this struggle. We were sort of observers from the sidelines, and with the exception of Otto (who had entered the Party immediately after its founding convention), we didn’t have any of the old factional loyalties or political axes to grind. We generally favored the Ruthenberg leadership, although we could hardly be called ardent supporters.<br />
<br />
Ruthenberg’s leadership had been endorsed by the CI, which gave his followers credence in our view. But Lovestone was something else again. On this, even Otto agreed. Lovestone had a reputation for being a factionalist par excellence, involved in the dirty infighting that took place. He was regarded as a hatchet man for the Ruthenberg group.<br />
<br />
None of us in Moscow could discern any principled political differences between the two groups on the question uppermost in our minds-—the question of Black liberation. Though we had not yet fully succeeded in relating our newly acquired Marxist-Leninist perspective to the question of Blacks in the U.S., we were sure— and our studies had confirmed---that Blacks were a potentially powerful revolutionary force in the struggle against U.S. capital, Clearly the common enemy could not be defeated without a revolutionary alliance of Blacks and the class-conscious elements of the working class, It was crucial to us that Party policy be directed towards consummating that alliance. We felt, however, that both factions underestimated the revolutionary potential of Blacks and we were determined not to allow ourselves to become a political football between the two.<br />
<br />
There had been no progress in this area since the folding of the American Negro Labor Congress in 1925, The collapse of the ANLC for us confirmed the Party’s isolation from the Black thasses, According to James Ford, a young Black Party leader, there were only about fifty Blacks in the Party at this time.<br />
<br />
Something was definitely wrong, At the time, we were inclined to attribute the Party’s shortcomings simply to an underestimation of the importance of Afro-American work. We were not, at that point, able to discern any theoretical tendencies within the Party which served to rationalize this underestimation, We felt it was due simply to hangovers of racial prejudices of white Party members and leaders.<br />
<br />
In Moscow, we had been in constant communication with Black comrades in the U.S. We had, in fact, set ourselves up as a sort of unofficial lobby to keep the situation with respect to Blacks continuously before the attention of the Russians and other Comintern leaders. They, for the most part, were sympathetic to our grievances.<br />
<br />
In May 1927, Jay Lovestone (while still acting secretary of the Party) showed up in Moscow at the CI’s Eighth Plenum. During his stay, he invited us Black students to his room at the Lux Hotel to give us an informal report on the Party’s work among Blacks. He had heard, of course, of our discontent and wanted to mollify us. He also knew that the question was coming up for serious discussion at the Sixth Congress of the Communist International, which was to take place the following year. There was no doubt he was out to mend his political fences.<br />
<br />
I had my first close look at the man when we gathered in his room. He tried to give us the impression of being very frank and self-critical, He said the Party leadership, involved in factional struggles, had neglected Black struggles, had neglected AfroAmerican work, an “important phase” of the Party’s activities. But this factional phase had now at long last come to a close and the Party (under his leadership) had now hegun seriously to tackle the job of overcoming this tremendous lag in the work.<br />
<br />
He told us that Otto Huiswood had been placed on the Central Committee and assigned as organizer for the Buffalo (western New York) district, We thought it was about time! Richard B. Moore had been placed as New England organizer for the International Labor Defense, “I cite this,” Lovestone said, “only as an earnest example of the determination of the Central Committee to remedy our default on this most important question.”<br />
<br />
Assuming a modest air, he turned to me and said, “Last but not least, we have decided that you, Harry, as one of our bright young Negroes, are to be transferred to the Lenin School. We've had our eye on you, Harry, for some time.”<br />
<br />
I was delighted at this news. The Lenin School had been established only the year before (1926) as a select training school for the development of leading cadres of the parties in the Communist International. But though I was delighted, I was also suspicious of the man, his cold eyes belied the warmth and modesty he tried to express. It seemed like a bid to buy me out. Otto, however, seemed to have been impressed.<br />
<br />
Though Lovestone was a teetotaler, he had a big bottle of vodka in his room for us students. He had brought us presents-—-which was true of most visitors from the States. It was understood that a visitor would not return to the U.S. with extra things that the students in Moscow could use. Most people, and Lovestone was no exception, came prepared with things to give away. During the course of the evening, Otto had seized a few pair of socks, and Lovestone had given him a tin of pipe tobacco (and cigarettes for us all). As we were leaving, Otto looked over Lovestone’s shoes.<br />
<br />
“Say, Jay,” he said, “you and me wear the same size shoes, don’t we? You got another pair with you?”<br />
<br />
“Sure, Otto, sure,” said Lovestone, and produced an extra pair.<br />
<br />
On our way home, walking down Tverskaya Boulevard towards the dormitory, we exchanged our impressions of the evening. Golden started off: “Oh, he’s full of crap. There’s no sincerity in the man.”<br />
<br />
Otto responded, “I think you’re wrong, Golden, I think you're wrong.”<br />
<br />
Golden said, “I saw his eyes. That’s something you didn’t see, Otto. You had too much vodka. You know I’ve always told you to go light on it—-you know you can’t handle the stuff, You remember what Vesey’s lieutenant said when the slaves rebelled in Virginia: “Beware of those wearing the old clothes of the master, for they will betray you!’ ”<br />
<br />
I never saw Otto so furious! He turned on Golden with his fists clenched, but thought better of it. Golden was too big, I laughed, and he turned towards me, but I was his brother, At that moment a drunk Russian staggered into view and suddenly bumped into him.<br />
<br />
Otto let his fist go and knocked the poor man down. There was a great commotion and a crowd of Russians gathered around. Some Chinese students from our school were across the street, and thinking we were being attacked by “hooligans,” rushed to our defense. We helped the man to his feet and, in the confusion, attempted to explain to the crowd what had happened. Otto said he had thought the drunk was attacking him, and it was thus that we managed to pass the thing off and return to our dorm.<br />
<br />
Lovestone was a consummate factionalist, utterly uninhibited by scruples or principles. He finally won out in the struggle to succeed Ruthenberg, but the mantle of Ruthenberg fit him poorly; the cloven hoof was always visible. His victory was aided by the ineptitude of the Foster-Cannon-Weinstone bloc, which made several tactical blunders (of which Lovestone took full advantage). Lovestone’s friendship with Bukharin was perhaps a factor in his victory, Nikolai Bukharin had succeeded Zinoviev as the president of the Comintern. He was an erstwhile ally of Stalin in the struggle against the Trotskyist “Left” and was later to emerge as a leader of the right deviation within the Soviet Party and the Communist International. As head of the Comintern, he already had begun to line up forces for his next battle which was to break out following the Sixth Congress of the CI in 1928. His man in the U.S. was none other than Jay Lovestone.<br />
<br />
As I have indicated, we KUTVA students in Mosccow were removed from much of the bitterness of the post-Ruthenberg struggle, and at the time, were not fully aware of its intensity. I was to be filled in with a blow-by-blow account of what went on at home by some of my classmates at the Lenin School, which | entered the following autumn.<br />
<br />
=== VACATION IN THE CRIMEA ===<br />
The month of August, vacation time, drew near. Our group of Black students split up and all of us (with the exception of Bankole) left Moscow, Bankole was reluctant to leave his Russian girl friend and remained in the city. Golden’s girl friend, a pretty Kazakhstanian girl, took him home to meet her people in Kazakhstan, an autonomous republic in southwest Asia, inhabited by a Turko-Mongolian people.<br />
<br />
As for myself, I asked for and received permission to spend my vacation in the Crimea. At the Chancellor’s office, I was given money, a railroad ticket and a document entitling me to stay one month at a rest home in Yalta. I was on my own and for the first time since my arrival fourteen months before, I was separated from my fellow Black students, But I had no misgivings. By this time, I had acquired a considerable knowledge of the country and had overcome the main hurdles in the language and could speak and read Russian with some fluency. In fact, I looked forward to my journey with pleasurable expectations, I was not to be disappointed.<br />
<br />
The Autonomous Republic of Crimea is a square-shaped peninsula jutting out into the Black Sea. At that time, it was one of the two Tartar autonomous republics; the other was Tartaria, on the Volga. I immediately fell in love with the country——its lush subtropical climate and its people. The Tartars were a darkskinned Mongolic people, descendants of the Golden Horde of Genghis Khan. When I arrived in Sevastopol, the largest city and seaport, I was struck by the dazzling brilliance of the sun against the pastel-colored buildings, the deep blue of the sea and the verdant Crimean mountains rising behind the city. Tall and stately cypress trees lined the streets. It was a busy seaport; all types of shipping could be found in the harbor from small fishing boats to Black Sea passenger liners and ocean-going freighters of the Soviet trading fleet,<br />
<br />
As a history buff, I stopped over for a couple of days to take in the historic sites of the city and its environs, There was the Panarama, a life-like display graphically depicting the battle of Sevastopol during the Crimean War, 1854-66. (The war was fought mainly on the Crimean peninsula between Russian forces on the one hand; British, French and Turkish allies on the other.). In this battle, the allies sought to knock out the strong Russian naval base in Sevastopol through an invasion by land and bombardment by sea. The Russians lost the war, but Sevastopol remained Russian.<br />
<br />
I drove out to Balaklava, a small village nestling on the sea a few miles southeast of Sevastopol, the scene of the disastrous charge of the British “Light Brigade,” led by Lord Cardigan and immortalized by Tennyson in his poem. Looking at the scene brought back memories of childhood school days when our class recited Tennyson’s poem aloud. I stood on Voronsov Heights overlooking the Valley of Death into which rode the six hundred. I walked over the grounds and viewed the graves of the victims of this blunder of the British officer caste. Fourteen years later, Sevastopol was to be the site of one of the most destructive and bloody battles of World War II.<br />
<br />
My automobile ride to Yalta, about sixty kilometers further along the coast, was not only exciting, but in some parts, a frightening experience. It was mostly along a narrow road, cut out of the side of mountains, on which two cars could barely pass. In some places, one could look down to what appeared to me to be a sheer drop of two or three thousand feet into the sea below, The chauffeurs driving powerful Packards, Cadillacs and Espano-Swiss sped along the road with its many curves at breakneck speed. The obvious fact that they were expert drivers was not enough to allay my fears nor those of the other passengers.<br />
<br />
Nearing Yalta, we passed Lavadaya, a beautiful palace built by an Italian architect during the reign of Alexander the Third. It was situated on a high cliff overlooking the sea. Later, it became the summer home of Czar Nicholas II. Now, under the Soviets, it had been converted into a rest home for local peasant leaders. The palace later housed President Roosevelt and Premier Churchill during the Yalta conference in 1945,<br />
<br />
At last I arrived in Yalta, center of the great Crimean resort area which extended along the coast and behind which rose the Crimean Mountains. Yalta was a town of rest homes and sanitaria, mostly owned by Soviet trade unions, I was put up at a rest home which mainly housed employees of the Moscow city administration.<br />
<br />
Immediately after registering, I put on my bathing trunks and donned the gorgeous Ashanti robe which Bankole had lent meand stepped out for a dip in the sea. I stepped out into the main street which ran alongside the seashore and headed for the beach. Although many of the Tartars of the area were dark-skinned, Blacks were rarely seen, even in these southern climes.<br />
<br />
As I passed along I could hear remarks like, “Kak khorosho zagorelsya (How beautifully sunburnt he is)!” It was a remark I was to hear often. It was good natured, and I sensed in it a trace of envy.<br />
<br />
The crowds were mainly vacationers from the north, who after the long, weary and cold sub-arctic winters of central Russia had fled to this semi-tropical paradise to soak up a little sunshine. Here they formed a cult of sun-worshippers bent on acquiring a suntan to display upon their return home.<br />
<br />
A crowd of small boys followed me out to the public beach a few blocks away. Perhaps they associated me with some of the South Sea Island characters they had seen in movies and waited expectantly for an exhibition of my aquatic skills. I doffed my gorgeous robe and stepped into the water, walked out a few feet and sat down. I tumed to see expressions of amazement, disappointment, and even pity, Their bewilderment was quite natural, for I myself had never met a Russian who didn't know how to swim, These children regarded swimming to be a natural human attribute; to them, an adult who couldn't swim was regarded as sort of a cripple.<br />
<br />
One day, while walking to the beach in Yalta, | was approached by a uniformed officer of the OGPU (federal police), “Bonjour, camarade, vous étes Sénégalais?” he asked in French.<br />
<br />
He seemed a bit surprised when I responded in Russian, telling him that I was an American Black and a student at KUTVA in Moscow.<br />
<br />
He said that he had noticed me several times on the streets and wondered if I were Senegalese, He had fought beside Senegalese riflemen during the world war. His Cossack regiment, he explained, was a part of a small Russian expeditionary force sent to fight with the French Army on the Western Front.<br />
<br />
I told him that I had also fought in the war with an American Black regiment and how | had seen Russian troops in a prison camp on my way to the Soissons front in the late summer of 1918. I asked him if he had been in that camp.<br />
<br />
He shrugged and said that it was quite possible. “They scattered us around in a number of camps; they didn’t want too many of us together in one place,” he said.<br />
<br />
“Our Russian force,” he went on, “was small and had no real military significance.” It had been sent by the Czar as a demonstration of solidarity and friendship between Russia and Francesort of a morale booster for the French people.<br />
<br />
“Be that as it may,” he said, “it didn’t boost our morale any to be there. In France, we fought in some of the toughest battles in the war, on the Champagne front and the Marne salient, and we suffered heavy casualties. Our fellows were homesick and confused, and didn’t know what they were fighting for so far away from Mother Russia.<br />
<br />
“There was much grumbling and always an undercurrent of discontent, All of this was heightened towards the latter part of the war by the bad news of Russian defeats on the Eastern Front. This all came to a head with the news of the fall of the Czar. Shortly after that we were withdrawn from the front by the French, as an unreliable element. Behind the lines, we were surrounded and disarmed by Senegalese troops, and quite a number who resisted were killed or wounded. To say that we were ‘unreliable’ was an understatement; by that time, we were downright mutinous!”<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik Party had active nuclei in the regiments. “I myself was a member of the Party,” said my new-found friend. “We followed the course of the Revolution through French newspapers and were able to glean the truth behind their distortions. We also had contact with some of the French left-socialists and with Bolshevik exiles before they returned home after the outbreak of the February Revolution. After the Armistice was signed, we were sent to Morocco and eventually Soviet ships came to take us to Odessa and home.<br />
<br />
“The French used the Senegalese against us,” he said. “We learned later of a mutiny among the Senegalese troops in which they were shot up and disarmed by the French Blue Devils.” I had just been reading André Barbusse and was surprised to learn how widespread mutiny had been in the French Army.<br />
<br />
“Well, c’est la guerre,” he said, “especially so an imperialist war. After all, what interest had the Senegalese in defending French imperialism? What interest did we Russian workers and muzhiks (peasants) have in fighting the Czar’s wars?”<br />
<br />
We parted, with both of us wanting to meet again, but he had to leave town that evening and I never saw him again.<br />
<br />
Often, we visited the local vineyards and wine cellars and tasted the local wines. It was wine country and Crimean wines were of the first quality, from the sweet ports, tokays and muscatels, to the dry red and white wines. On these outings there was always someone who had a guitar or accordion, and we sat late into the nights singing Russian folk songs and gypsy romans (love songs).<br />
<br />
The Crimea was not just a vacationers’ haven, although tourism occupied a large place in its economy. At that time, the economy was mainly agricultural. Vineyards were constantly expanding in the mountain valleys along the southern coast. Tobacco of fine quality was grown, and there was also an important fishing industry. On the east coast of the peninsula near Kerch, there was an area of rich iron ore deposits and mines. This was to serve as the basis for the construction of the gigantic Kerch metallurgical, chemical and engineering works, contemplated in the first five year plan. It was a plan which sought to quadruple the basic capital of the republic.<br />
<br />
With the renaissance of national cultures which accompanied the Soviet policy on the national question, the Turkic language spoken by the Tartars—which I understood was closely related to; modern Turkish—was being revived and taught in schools, A Latinized alphahet was introduced, replacing the old Arabic script. Tartar literature and culture flourished through this encouragement.<br />
<br />
I met the Party secretary for the county, a young Tartar who took me to visit a kolkhoz (collective farm), a vineyard in this case. A hundred or more peasant families were in the collective, all winegrowers. As in all collective farms, its members were required to sell a definite amount to the government at fixed prices and were allowed to sell the surplus on the free markets.<br />
<br />
Each family had a special plot of land which they cultivated for their own food supply. The chairman of the collective was a huge Ukrainian fellow, who showed us around and explained the wine growing process. The cultivation of grapes and making of the wine required special knowledge, which the government supplied.<br />
<br />
The members of the collective used up-to-date wineries owned by the state and managed by expert vintners. There I was to view the intricate process of wine-making, the pressing of the grapes, the fermenting process and the bottling itself. As I remember, this particular collective specialized in dry wines—both red and white. The Crimeans insisted that their wines were as good as the French. Not being a connoisseur, I wouldn’t know, but all I can say is that they tasted good to me.<br />
<br />
When I returned to Moscow in the fall, Otto told me of the discovery he had made on one of his trips to the southern region of the Caucasus. He had originally gone there on the invitation of one of our fellow students, a young woman from the Abkhazian Republic, a part of Georgia. After meeting some of us, she commented that they too had some Black folk down near her area in a village not very far from Sukhum, the capital of the republic on the Black Sea.<br />
<br />
She invited Otto down to visit the region over his summer vacation, and there he met the people. He described them as being of definite black ancestry—notwithstanding a history of intertarriage with the local people. But the starsata (old man) of the tribe was Black beyond a doubt. His story went some generations back, when he and the others joined the Turkish army as Numidian mercenaries from the Sudan. After several forays into this region they deserted the Army and had settled there. The starsata himself had been in the Czar’s Cavalry with the Dikhi (wild) Division of the Caucasus Cossacks.<br />
<br />
‘The people in the village wanted to know what was happening to “our brothers over the mountains.” Otto related to them the troubles we had gone through, described the travels “over the mountains and across the hig sea.” As the evening wore on and the local hrandy was consumed, toast after toast was drunk to “our little brother from over the hills.” Otto descrihed to them the conditions of Blacks in the U.S.—the lynchings, racism and brutality. Incensed, a few jumped up and pulled out their daggers. “You should make a revolution.”<br />
<br />
“Why don’t you revolt?”<br />
<br />
“Why do you put up with it?”<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
We were not the only ones surprised to learn about this group; it was news to the Russians in Moscow too! Several of these tribesmen later visited Moscow as a result of Otto’s visit. <br />
<br />
== Chapter 7 ==<br />
<br />
=== The Lenin School ===<br />
Following my summer in the Crimea, I returned to Moscow in the fall of 1927 to attend the Lenin School. The school was located off the Arbot on what is now called Ambassadors’ Row, a few blocks down the inner ring of boulevards from the KUTVA dormitories.<br />
<br />
The Lenin School, which was set up by the Comintern, opened in Moscow in May 1926, The plans for the school, formally called the International Lenin Course, had been reported on the previous year by Béla Kun, then head of the Educational (Agitprop) Department of the Comintern, Accordingly, the school was to train sixty to seventy qualified students both in theoretical and practical subjects, which included observations of Soviet trade unions and collective farm work, It offered a full three‘year course and a short course of one year.<br />
<br />
It was a school of great prestige and influence within the international communist movement, Its students, mainly party functionaries of district and section level and some secondary national Icaders who could be spared for the period of study, were generally at a higher level of political development than the students at KUTVA.<br />
<br />
I was the first Black to be assigned to the school, Others followed later; including H.V. Phillips in 1928, Leonard Patterson in the thirties, and Nzula—a Zulu intellectual and national secretary of the South African Communist Party.<br />
<br />
The American students who entered the Lenin School in the fall of 1927 were an impressive lot, They included prominent Party leaders from the national and district level. Outstanding in the group was Charles Krumbcin, a member of the Central Commitice of the Party and formerly in charge of trade union work in Chicago and district organizer for Chicago. A steamfitter by trade and a charter member of the Party, he was one ofa group of young trade unionists who made up the Chicago Party leadership in the twenties. They were the best representatives of the radical tradition of that city’s labor movement. <br />
<br />
Modesty and honesty were hallmarks of Charlie’s character, and he was a man of exceptional organizational and administrative ability. He was a founder of the Trade Union Education League (TUEL) and played a key role in the Chicago Federation of Labor. We developed a close and lasting friendship, and I learned a lot from him about Party history and the background of the revolutionary movement in the United States.<br />
<br />
Margaret Cowl, Charlie's wife, was a capable Party leader and organizer. She had worked in the TUEL and was recognized particularly for her leadership in the struggle for unity of Pennsylvania’s anthracite coal miners in 1927. Later she was to head up the Party’s Women’s Commission and play an active role in the movement for a Woman’s Charter, a broad united front movement launched in 1936 which asserted the rights of women to full equality in all spheres of activity. Margaret also energetically mobilized support for the struggles of women wage workers in the needle trades, textile, electrical and other industries.<br />
<br />
Joseph Zack had emigrated to the U.S. from Eastern Europe shortly after the First World War. Active in the first communist organization in New York, he had been section organizer of Yorktown and served on the Party’s Trade Union Commission. Zack was one of Foster’s leading trade union cadres in New York and had also been one of the first New York Party members assigned to work among Blacks, He was a bitter enemy of Lovestone, but was also critical of Foster. In 1932, he was expelled from the Party for refusing to abide by democratic centralism and by the forties had become an informant for the Dies Committee on Un-American Propaganda Activities.<br />
<br />
Morris Childs, a Chicagoan, was a leader in trade union and Party work. He became Illinois D.O. in the thirties at the same time that I was chairman of the Cook County Committee and secretary of the Southside region. While at the Lenin School, he served as the representative of the American students to the School Bureau.<br />
<br />
Rudy Baker, a Yugoslav comrade who later became D.O. in Pittsburgh and in Detroit, and Lena Davis (Sherer), a good friend of mine who was organizational secretary for New York in the thirties, were also at the school. All of these students were members of the Foster group. As far as I can recall, the sole Lovestone supporter in our class was Gus Sklar of Chicago, a leader in the Russian Federation.<br />
<br />
Poor Gus was alone in the midst of Fosterites, and it must have been an unhappy experience for him. When Lovestone was expelled from the Party in 1929, Gus remained in the Soviet Union and never returned to the U.S. He served as an officer in the Red Army and was killed in the defense of Moscow during the Second World War.<br />
<br />
The American students at the Lenin School were all experienced leaders of the U.S. Party, One might ask why so many were spared from U.S. work at a time when the Party’s position among the masses was so weak.<br />
<br />
Actually, these students were victims of Lovestone’s purge of the Party apparatus following his victory at the Fifth Party Convention in 1927. Part of Lovestone’s strategy was to weaken his opposition on the home front by “exiling” some of its leaders to the Lenin School. His plan backfired however. In Moscow, these “exiles,” as they jokingly called themselves, were to become an effective lobby against Lovestone both in the Comintern and in the CPSU. The political winds were changing.<br />
<br />
From the ashes of the defeated Trotskyist “left ” rose an equally dangerous, organized and secret rightist opposition headed by none other than Lovestone’s patron in the Comintern, Nikolai Bukharin. On the home front, this rightist opposition had its social base among the capitalists, the landlords and the kulaks (upper peasantry) and pushed a line that would have lopsidedly developed industry along consumer lines, to the detriment of the vast masses of Soviet people. Internationally, Bukharin greatly underestimated the war danger and the potentially revolutionary situation then developing on a world scale. At the same time, he greatly overestimated the strength and resiliency of imperialism.<br />
<br />
The Lenin School students helped to legitimize the antiLovestone struggle in the U.S. Party by linking it up with the fight against the right deviation, then only in its incipient stage, The Lenin School was to become a strong point in the fight against this danger.<br />
<br />
There were several other American students who had entered the Lenin School the year before. This group included Clarence Hathaway, Tom Bell, Max Salzman and Car! Reeves (the son of Mother Bloor). Of this group, Hathaway had the most imposing credentials. A machinist from Minneapolis and one of the leading people in the Trade Union Education League, Hathaway proved to be a valuable asset in the Party’s trade union work.<br />
<br />
He was a fine organizer and speaker, particularly effective in debates, and combined these talents with a good grasp of Marxist-Leninist theory. Clearly destined for top leadership in the Party, he later served as D.O. of the New York District, became an editor of the Daily Worker and a member of the Political Bureau. Tom Bell, Hathaway’s close friend, remained in the Soviet Union, married a Russian woman and died sometime before World War Il.<br />
<br />
William Kruse of Chicago was the principal Lovestonite in the school. For a brief period he filled in as acting rep from the Party to the Comintern in the absence of a permanent Party rep. Later, he was D,O. in Chicago under Lovestone’s leadership and was expelled from the Party with Lovestone in 1929.<br />
<br />
The students were organized at the school by language groups, as we had been at KUTVA. In this case, the languages were English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Russian and, later, Chinese. The whole school was a collective, comprising students, teachers, administrators and employees, The leading body was the Party Bureau, which included delegates from the various groups, including the employees. All students transferred membership from their home party to the CPSU, and were directly subject to its discipline. Party meetings were held about once a month.<br />
<br />
Our rector was a handsome, energetic woman named Kursanova. She was a leading communist educator and was married to the old Bolshevik propagandist and CC member, E. Yaroslavsky. She was about forty at the time and had an impressive background, including civil war experiences as a machine-gunner in a detachment of Siberian partisans. Kursanova had also been a delegate to the Bolshevik Conference in April 1917 which adopted Lenin’s famous April Theses.<br />
<br />
In addition to the Americans, others in the English-speaking section included British, Irish, Australians, a New Zealander, two Chinese, two Japanese and two Canadians—Leslie Morris and Stewart Smith, The British group included Springhall, Tanner, Black (a Welshman), Margaret Pollitt and George Brown. My special friend among the British was Springhall, known to all as “Springy,” with whom I roomed at the Lenin School.<br />
<br />
Springy was a British naval veteran of the First World War. He had come from a poor family and his parents had chosen him fora naval career. This latter act, it seemed, was a common practice among British lower class families with several sons. At the age of twelve, therefore, he had been “given” to His Majesty's Navy to be trained as a sailor, He served through the First World War and after the Armistice was involved in a mutiny or near-mutiny among members of the fleet who protested being sent to Leningrad to intervene against the Bolshevik Revolution. At the time, Springy was about twenty-one years old. As a result of the mutiny, he was cashiered from the Navy. Apparently, the admiralty was deterred from taking any harsher measures against the mutineers because of the widespread sympathy their action had evoked among British workers.<br />
<br />
Springy was popular with everybody, particularly among the women on the technical staff. After leaving the Lenin School, he returned to England where he rose rapidly in Party leadership. He also fought in Spain as a member of the Fifteenth International Brigade and was wounded at Jarama.<br />
<br />
At the beginning of World War II, he served as organizational secretary of the British Party. During the early stages of the war, Springy was charged by the Churchill government with subversive activity among the armed forces. This was during the period prior to the German invasion of the Soviet Union, when the war was still an imperialist war and we communists opposed it.<br />
<br />
There was no defense against the charge of subversion in wartime England, and Springy was sentenced to seven years in prison, After his release, he went to China, where he did editorial work on English language publications until his death from cancer in 1953. Springy died in a Moscow hospital, where he had been sent by his Chinese comrades to make sure that everything possible could be done to save him. His ashes were returned to China and interred with a memorial stone in the Revolutionary Martyrs’ Cemetery outside Peking.<br />
<br />
Springy introduced me to the gifted English writer, historian and Marxist scholar, Ralph Fox. A promising young theoretician, Fox was then researching material for one of his books at the Marx-Engels Institute. He died at the age of thirty-seven, fighting the fascists on the Cordova Front during the Spanish Civil War. By the end of his brief life span, he had already published a tremendous body of work.<br />
<br />
I got a lot out of my friendship with Fox. Profiting greatly from his wide-ranging knowledge, I often consulted him on theoretical and political questions which arose during my stay at the school.<br />
<br />
Springy and I were frequent visitors at the apartment of Fox and his wife Midge. It was there that I first met Karl Radek. A Polish expatriate, he had been an active leader in the Polish Social Democratic Party and a member of the Zimmerwald Left (those internationalists who broke off from the Second International in 1915 and were instrumental in founding the Third International). In 1915-16, Radek—along with Rosa Luxemburg—publicly disagreed with Lenin on the question of self-determination of subject nations. Radek later changed his position and fully united with the Bolshevik point of view in 1917.<br />
<br />
Radek was part of the group that returned with Lenin to Russia via Germany in the famous “sealed coach.” He was a member of the Bolshevik Central Committee and Politburo. At the time that I met him in 1928, Radek was still under a shadow politically. He had been a leading member of the Trotsky-Zinoviev opposition and was expelled from the CPSU along with the other leaders of the bloc at the Sixteenth Congress of the CPSU in December 1927. Exiled to the Urals, he publicly repudiated his earlier position and was readmitted to the Party a few months later in 1928. He was assigned as editor of Izvestia and later became the chief foreign affairs commentator in the leading Soviet papers, He was also a member of the Soviet delegation to the Comintern.<br />
<br />
Radek, as I remember him, was a little man, appearing to be somewhat of a dandy in his English tweed jacket, plus-fours and cane, But to me, the most striking thing about him was his beard. It stretched from ear to ear, under his chin and cheeks, giving him a simian look.<br />
<br />
His English, though accented, was fluent, When we first met, he immediately engaged me in a conversation about conditions of Blacks in the United States, which branched off into questions of Black literature, writers and the Harlem Renaissance. To my amazement, it was clear that he knew more about the latter subject than I did. I was embarrassed when he asked my opinion about certain Black writers with whom he was familiar but whom I had never even read. I found out later that Claude MeKay had been a sort of a protégé of Radek’s during the poet’s stay in the Soviet Union,<br />
<br />
In 1937, along with several others in the Trotskyite “Left Opposition,” Radek was convicted of treason, of acting as an “agency” of German and Italian fascism and giving assistance to those who might invade the Soviet Union. He was sent to prison where he died in the forties.<br />
<br />
Springy introduced me to many other young Britons in Moscow: such men as William Rust, who later became editor of the British Worker, Walter Tapsell, editor of the Young Worker; and George Brown. Both Brown and Tapsell were in my brigade in the Spanish Civil War and were killed in battle. Brown was killed at Brunete while I was there.<br />
<br />
Our English-speaking section at the Lenin School included five young Irishmen, all members of the Irish Workers League, a communist-oriented group organized by Big Jim Larkin in 1923. It seems that the Irish Communist Party, founded in 1921 by Young Roderick Connolly (son of James Connolly), had collapsed. I was told that its failure was due to a lack of Marxist-Leninist theory and the inability of its members to relate their views on socialism to the specific conditions in Ireland. But there was certainly no lack of revolutionary enthusiasm and motivation among the young people I met at the Lenin School, some of whom had been members of the Irish Communist Party. The group had been sent to the Lenin School as a step towards rebuilding the Irish Party.<br />
<br />
All five were protégés of the famous Irish revolutionary, Big Jim Larkin—most definitely a man of action and organization, not of theory. A tall, bulky man with a huge, hawk-like nose and bushy eyebrows, Larkin was one of the most colorful figures of the Irish labor movement. From his base among Dublin dockworkers, his activities as a labor leader had ranged over three continents~-from the British Isles, to Argentina, to the U.S.—and at the time that I met him, spanned more than three decades. He had been a founding member of the U.S. Party and was a member of both the Executive Committees of the Communist International and the Red International of Labor Unions (RILU or the Profintern). He was often in Moscow, where I saw him frequently.<br />
<br />
The Irish students came from the background of the 1916 Easter Rebellion and the revolutionary movement reflected in the lives of men like Larkin and James Connolly. Among them were Sean Murray and James Larkin, Jr. (Big Jim's son). All of them had been active in the post-war independence and labor struggles. I was closest to Murray, the oldest of the group, who was a roommate of mine.<br />
<br />
This was my first encounter with Irish revolutionaries and their experiences excited me. As members of oppressed nations, we had a lot in common. I was impressed by their idealism and revolutionary ardor and their implacable hatred of Britain’s imperialist rulers, as well as for their own traitors. But what impressed me most about them was their sense of national pride—not of the chauvinistic variety, but that of revolutionaries aware of the international importance of their independence struggle and the role of Irish workers.<br />
<br />
Then too, they were a much older nation. Their fight against Britain had at that time been going on for 750 years. They were fond of quoting the observations of Marx and Engels on the Irish movement, such as Marx’s letter to Engels in which he said: “English reaction in England had its roots in the subjugation of Ireland.” Another favorite was: “No nation can be free if it oppresses other nations.”!<br />
<br />
But most of all, they liked to point out Lenin’s defense of the Easter Uprising in his reply to Karl Radek, who had called the rebellion a putsch and discounted the significance of the struggle of small nations in the epoch of imperialism. Lenin admonished Radek, stating that “a struggle capable of going to the lengths of insurrection and street fighting, of breaking down the iron discipline of the army and martial law,” on the doorstep of the imperialist metropolis itself, would be a blow against imperialism more significant than that in a remote colony.<br />
<br />
I was shortly to find these observations applicable to the liberation movement of U.S. Blacks. As a result of my association with the Irish, I became deeply intcrested in the Irish question, seeing in it a number of parallels to U.S. Blacks. In retrospect, I am certain that this interest heightened my receptivity to the idea of a Black nation in the United States. <br />
<br />
=== TEACHERS AND CLASSES ===<br />
The teaching method at the school was a combination of lectures and discussions. About once a week the instructor would give a lecture to the entire English-speaking group, all twenty-five or thirty of us. Readings would be assigned, and when material was not available in English, it would be translated especially for us. I had one advantage in this regard because by this time I could read Russian fluently. Following the iccture, the instructor would delineate a number of sub-topics. Several days later, we would all get together again and one person from each group would report on its work. The instructors were often available for consultation during the time the groups were discussing and researching their topics.<br />
<br />
There were no grades given, nor were there any examinations. At the end of the term we would have evaluation sessions, where everyone met and discussed each other’s work, including that of the teachers. It was a process of comradely criticism and self-criticism.<br />
<br />
I found the classes exciting and challenging and the students on the whole sharp and on a high political level. I was under pressure to keep up. The English in general seemed to be a notch above most of us in political economy. This, I believe, was due to the existence of a large number of Labour Party schools which were spread throughout Britain.<br />
<br />
Our instructor for Marxist political economy was Alexandrov, an economist for the Gosplan, the state planning agency. In our class, he was often challenged on some aspect of Marxian economics, He would often have sharp exchanges with one of the British students, I believe it was Black, over differences in interpretations of Marxian economics,<br />
<br />
Black was a perfect foil for Alexandrov, who scemed to enjoy these tilts and invited the whole class to participate. Summing up the discussion, Alexandroy would brand Black’s position as “undialectical, mechanistic, and rooted in vulgar economism and Fabianism.” Black was stubborn, however, and prodded by Alexandrov, kept up his critical attitude for the whole first term, It was only during the evaluations at the end of the term that Black conceded that some of his positions had been in error,<br />
<br />
Perhaps the most prominent among my teachers was Ladislaus Rudas, a noted Hungarian Marxist philosopher and scholar. Like many Hungarian intellectuals, he spoke several languages fluently. He had been a leader of the short-lived Hungarian Soviet and had come to Moscow along with Béla Kun and the other Hungarian refugees. He taught historical and dialectical materialism and his class was one of the most interesting, It prescnted history, my favorite subject, but with a different content: a Marxist-Leninist interpretation, portraying not just the role of individuals but of classes.<br />
<br />
We had lengthy discussions on the French Revolution; the petty bourgeois dictatorship under Robespierre and the Jacobins; Saint Just and the extreme left, the Thermidor and Napoleon— “the man on the white horse.” The English Revolution and Cromwell, the Levellers, the Long Parliament. The Dutch revolution and Prince Egmont. We had extended discussions on the American revolutions---the War of Independence, the Civil War and Reconstruction.<br />
<br />
These discussions brought out our lack of knowledge of our own U.S, history; there was a complete absence of materials which presented U.S. history from a Marxist standpoint. All I can remember is the so-called Marxist analysis in the works of James Oneal (The Workers in American History) and A.M. Simons’s Social Forces in American History.<br />
<br />
The former I never read, but the work by Simons stands out in my memory for its gratuitous slur on U.S. Blacks, Simons claimed that the Black man did not revolt against slavery during the Civil War: “His inaction in time of crisis, his failure to play any part in the struggle that broke his shackles, told the world that he was not of those who to free themselves would strike a blow.”<br />
<br />
I had read about the slave revolts of Gabriel, Nat Turner, and John Brown’s heroic raid on Harper’s Ferry with his band of whites, free Blacks and escaped slaves. I knew of the role of Black soldiers in the Civil War who had to overcome the opposition of the Union Army in order to fight. Simons’s book skipped over all of this,<br />
<br />
I had come across Charles and Mary Beard’s The Rise of American Civilization, The Beards were economic determinists who had characterized the Civil War as the Second American Revolution. The idea seemed novel at the time, all of which points up how widespread had been the distortion of the period by U.S. bourgeois historians.<br />
<br />
My sub-group, which included Springy and the Irishman Sean Murray, had chosen the Civil War and the Reconstruction period as our subject, with myself as the reporter. Our group had long discussions, after which we consulted Rudas, who by that time had evidently done some homework of his own on the matter. He called our attention to the writings of Marx and Engels, their correspondence on the Civil War, and Mary’s series of articles in the New York Herald Tribune. After the discussions, I submitted a paper to the class, which evoked considerable discussion. On the whole it was well-received by my fellow classmates and commended by Rudas.<br />
<br />
Perhaps our most interesting and stimulating course was on Leninism and the history of the CPSU, taught by the historian I. Mintz. A former Red Army officer, he was at the time assigned to work on a history of the CPSU. Mintz was a young Ukrainian Jew, a soft-spoken and mild-mannered little man. He had a way of illustrating his subject through his own personal experiences during the Revolution and the Civil War in the Ukraine. His appearance contrasted sharply with his role and bloody experiences in the battle for the Ukraine. His was a thrilling story, involving a meteoric rise from leader of partisans to commander of a Red Army brigade. They had fought against a whole array of anti-Soviet and interventionist forces: the White Guardist Deniken; the Cossack Hepmans, Kornilov and Kaledin; Makhno’s anarchists (who were sometimes with and sometimes against the Red Army); General Petlura and sundry gangs of marauders and pogromists; and the remnants of the German garrisons in the Ukraine.<br />
<br />
In connection with our studies of the Bolshevik agrarian policy during the Civil War, Mintz told us of his involvement in the settling of the question of land redistribution in a Ukrainian district. This district had been reconquered by his Red Army unit from Denikin in the early winter of 1920. He gave us a general rundown of the agrarian situation at the time, the class forces in the countryside, their shifting alignment during the course of the Revolution, and the evolution of Bolshevik agrarian policy.<br />
<br />
Kerensky’s provisional government had done nothing to solve the agrarian problem, to relieve the land hunger of the masses of peasantry. Though Kerensky’s program had promised confiscation of the big estates, once in power, the government reneged on even that level of reform.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks exhorted the peasants to await the decision of the Constituent Assembly. Thus, at the time of the outbreak of the Revolution, the vast majority of the cultivatable land was still concentrated in the estates of the big landlords. The peasantry, constituting four-fifths of the population of the old Czarist Empire, was composed of three different strata. The well-to-do peasant not only owned enough land to support himself in good fashion, but also often hired labor to work his land. This group comprised only about four to five percent of the total. The poor peasant was without sufficient land to support himself and his family and often hired himself out as a laborer to the landlord or to a well-to-do peasant. The landless peasant subsisted entirely from the sale of his labor to the landlord or well-to-do peasant.<br />
<br />
Under the slogan “Land, Bread and Peace,” the Bolsheviks cgmbined the seizure of power in the cities with the land revolution underway in the countryside. Allied with the Social Revolutionaries (SRs), the traditional party of the peasantry, the land was taken over in two phases, The first phase, nationalization and confiscation, was incorporated in the Land Decree of the All Russian Congress of Soviets, November 8, 1917. This stamped the seal of governmental endorsement on the land seizures and called for their extension.<br />
<br />
In September 1917, Lenin declared Bolshevik support for the land program of the SRs, while pointing out that only a proletarian revolution could put even this program into practice. The SR program called for equal distribution of land among the peasants while the Bolsheviks favored collective, and eventually state-owned farms. But since the SR program represented the understanding of the majority of peasants, Lenin’s policy was to resolve this difference by “teaching the masses, and in turn learning from the masses, the practical expedient measures for bringing about such a transition.”<br />
<br />
The day after seizing power, the Bolsheviks put this policy into practice with their November 8, 1917, Decree on Land which made the SR program into law. Within three weeks, the SRs' left wing—representing the poorer peasants—had split from the rest of the party and entered a coalition government with the Bolsheviks. In the following years, Lenin held to the basie position he stated when presenting the November 8 decree:<blockquote>'''As a democratic government, we cannot ignore the decision of the masses of the people, even though we may disagree with it. In the fire of experience, applying the decree in practice, and carrying it out locally, the peasants will themselves realize where the truth lies... We must be guided by experience, we must allow complete freedom to the creative faculties of the masses.'''</blockquote>It was against this background that Mintz related some of his experiences in the Ukraine. He told us that the Party in the Ukraine had not fully grasped the lessons of the agrarian revolution in Great Russia. He spoke of one occasion when his outfit had attempted to arbitrarily carry out the collectivization of all the big estates in territory occupied by their division of the Red Army; their efforts met with the stiff resistance of the local peasants, even though the peasants supported Soviet power.<br />
<br />
The peasants insisted on the redistribution of all the estates, breaking them up among the individual peasant families, rather than taking over the large estates collectively, This occurred during the fall months of 1919, on the eve of Denikin’s final defeat, when Soviet power in the form of an “independent Ukrainian Republic” was about to be established.<br />
<br />
It was a time when Lenin, in order to allay anti-Russian distrust and suspicion among the Ukrainian peasantry, had insisted that certain concessions be made. Both Russian and Ukrainian were to be used on an equal footing, and attempts to push back the Ukrainian language to a secondary status were to be denounced. Lenin demanded that all officials in the new republic be able to speak Ukrainian and called for the distribution of large farms among the peasants. State farms were to be created “in strictly limited numbers and of limited size and in each casein conformity with the instruments of the surrounding peasantry.”<br />
<br />
Despite this, Mintz said, many of us Ukrainian Bolsheviks tended to downplay the nationality element in our own country. “In my own case, I had long since ceased to consider myself a Jew.” Most of them were what was called at that time “abstract internationalists”; super-internationalists who, in the name of internationalism, renounced the national element in the struggle of the Ukrainian masses.<br />
<br />
“But we were not alone in this deviation,” Mintz told us. “Although Lenin’s policy was eventually adopted by the Central Executive Committee, it was sharply opposed by leading Ukrainian Bolsheviks such as Rakovsky and Manuilsky. What it finally came down to, in the case of our army division, was that as a result of the opposition of the peasants in the area, we were foreed to give up our plan for collectivization; we thus had to settle for having only one of the estates being set aside as a Soviet farm.”<br />
<br />
The first part of each summer at the Lenin School was spent in practical work that related to our studies. In the course of my practical work program in the early summer of 1928, I had my first close-up ohservation of the peasant question in the USSR. I visited a peasant village in an agricultural district to talk with the people and make observations. Though hardly more than 100 versts (about 66 miles) from Moscow, it was truly in “darkest Russia,” a provincial place, isolated from the city. Few inhabitants had been as far away as Moscow.<br />
<br />
After taking a train to the nearest station, I then had to take a droshky another twenty versts to the county seat. Arriving in the morning, I was let down in the middle of the village square. I looked around to get my bearings, and in no time at all, a crowd had gathered to stare at me.<br />
<br />
‘The crowd grew larger by the minute; it seemed as if the whole village had turned out in the square, I could overhear remarks: “Who is he?”<br />
<br />
“Why is he so Black?”<br />
<br />
“What nice teeth!”<br />
<br />
“Look, his palms are white!”<br />
<br />
“He seems sympatichno,” remarked some.<br />
<br />
Someone else who perhaps had done a little reading said, “Oh, he’s probably from Africa. There the sun is so hot that people who have lived there for thousands of years become black.” The crowd seemed to accept this explanation.<br />
<br />
I stuck out my hand to a young man standing nearby. “Zdravstvuyte,” I said. “Could you direct me to the town committee?” He seemed to be surprised that I could speak Russian, but getting himself together, he directed me toa building across the square.<br />
<br />
“Who are you? Where did you come from?” the young man asked.<br />
<br />
“I'm an American Negro from the United States,” I replied.<br />
<br />
Someone in the crowd remarked, “I told you he was of the Negro tribe.” <br />
<br />
Someone else spoke up, “I thought all people in the United States were white.” <br />
<br />
That gave me the chance to get off on my international propaganda spiel, and I jumped right in. “Oh no,” I replied. “There are twelve million Blacks in the U.S.—ahout one-tenth of the population.” I went on to tell them about Blacks inthe South, and the modern-day remnants of the plantation system: sharecropping, Jim Crow and lynch terror.<br />
<br />
Someone remarked, “Oh, Like it was with us under the old regime.” Many of the villagers nodded their heads in agreement with this.<br />
<br />
Just then I noticed an old woman with a cane, slowly making her way through the crowd toward where I was. The young people gave way before her, in deference to her age. When she reached the center, I watched the changes in expression on her old wrinkled face as she gazed at me. First it registered amazement at such a sight; then comprehension when she had “cased” the whole situation,<br />
<br />
Then she spit on the ground and slammed her cane down, “Idite domoi! Go home!” she told me. “Wash your face! You should be ashamed of yourself, trying to fool the people around here!” Waving her cane at me, she then turned scornfully away. In all her ninety-odd years, she had never before seen a Black man!<br />
<br />
=== TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION ===<br />
The first time I met Stalin was at a social gathering in the Kremlin during the World Congress of the Friends of the Soviet Union. The congress coincided with the Tenth Anniversary celebrations in the fall of 1927. The congress sessions were held at the Dom Soyusov (House of the Trade Unions), It was the greatest international gathering I had ever witnessed. There were probably more than one thousand delegates, representing countries from six continents, The most impressive delegation was the huge one (about one hundred people) from China which was headed by the young and beautiful widow of Sun Yat-sen. (Today she is vice-chairman of the National People’s Republic of China.) <br />
<br />
I was surprised and delighted to meet my old friend Chi (Dum Ping), a former Chinese student at the University of Chicago with whom I had worked in the organization of the ill-fated Interracial Youth Forum on the Southside in 1924. He had since gone back to China and was now one of the translators for the Chinese delegation. It was Chi who introduced me to Madame Sun Yatsen. She spoke English with an American accent, which was not surprising since she had been educated in the United States.<br />
<br />
Among the other notables we were to meet were the young Cuban revolutionary, Antonio Mella, later murdered in Mexico City by Machado’s assassins. He was a tall, wiry youth, who always had a guitar slung over his back. There was Henri Barbusse, a pale, wan man, a victim of tuberculosis, He was a great literary figure in France and wrote a biography of Stalin. There was the american novelist Theodore Dreiser, father of American realism who was there with his secretary, Ruth Epperson Kennel, a young American woman. <br />
<br />
A special friend of us Black students was Josiah Gumede, the elderly president of the African National Congress and a descendant of Zulu chiefs. We took him in charge. Every morning we would call for him at his room at the National Hotel on Tverskaya (now Gorky Street) and escort him to the congress sessions. We also accompanied him on the rounds of parties held by the various delegations. He must have been about sixty at the time, but was big, strong and healthy and never seemed to tire.<br />
<br />
The gala occasion for the whole congress was the Evening of National Culture, It consisted of an elaborate pageant of folk dances from the various Soviet republics and autonomous regions. The dancers were all in their traditional costumes, a striking array of color and diversity. On this occasion, our Soviet hosts went all out for their foreign guests.<br />
<br />
The hall in the Dom Soyusov had been converted into a huge banquet room. We were seated before tables loaded with various kinds of liquor, including of course, the best vodka and zakuskas; appetizers of all kinds—cheeses, herrings, caviar, cold sturgeon and cold meats. Then came dinner, from soup to dessert.<br />
<br />
The banquet finally ended. Most of us were in somewhat of a stupor from food and drink, Our group, which included our teacher Sik, was leaving the hall amidst the din of a thousand people talking and laughing. On our way out we stopped and chatted with numerous delegates.<br />
<br />
Gumede was the chief attraction; he had given a stirring speech at a session of the congress a few days before. As I recall, we were nearing the door when we were stopped and greeted by the old Cossack cavalryman, Marshall Budenny. He was a short, powerful, bow-legged man, with a large ferocious black mustache. He was also in a merry mood.<br />
<br />
“Tell the chief,” he said, grasping Gumede’s hand, “that we stand ready to come to his support anytime he needs us!”<br />
<br />
“Thank you, thank you,” beamed Gumede.<br />
<br />
At that moment, someone approached us, I believe it was Tival, Stalin’s seeretary, and informed us that we were invited to a party in the Kremlin.<br />
<br />
We walked the short distance across the square to the Kremlin. Once within the Kremlin walls, we were guided into one of the old palaces and then taken upstairs to a small hall. It was a longroom with an arched ceiling reaching almost to the floors on the sides. It looked to me as though it could have been a throne room of one of the old czars.<br />
<br />
There were perhaps fifty people in the room. In the center there was a large table loaded with the traditional zakuskas, fruits and drinks. It was sort of a buffet; chairs were not directly at the table but rather were along the walls on each side.<br />
<br />
There in the center on one side was Stalin, with a number of people seated beside him, He rose, shook our hands, and after we were introduced, welcomed us, “Be our guests.” He was a short, thick-set man, as T remember, dressed in a neat tan suit with a military collar and boots shined to glisten.<br />
<br />
He motioned us to the vacant chairs on the other side of the room. On that side were a number of folk dancers and musicians, presumably participants in the earlier festivities, Somebody introduced Gumede as an African Zulu chief from the congress, and the dancers probably thought we were all from the same tribe. Gumede, however, was the center of attention, surrounded by the daricers, who insisted on being photographed with him.<br />
<br />
They gathered around him—a couple sitting on his lap and others behind him with their arms around him, Stalin, observing all this from the other side of the room, seemed amused. Later on, Stalin got up, bid us all good-night and walked out. As I remember, it was quite a relaxed evening with no political discussion. We left shortly after Stalin departed and were driven home by a chauffeur from the Kremlin car pool.<br />
<br />
Another version of this occasion was given, I believe by Sik, who insisted that Otto had danced with Stalin that evening. I don’t doubt Sik’s word, but I certainly don’t remember seeing it. Otto didn’t remember the incident either, But I do know that in Russia it was not uncommon for one man to dance with another on festive occasions, As I recall, the hall became more crowded, and I was attracted by a group of folk dancers who offered to help us students with our Russian,<br />
<br />
Afterwards Sik kept reminding Otto, “Don’t you remember, Otto, you asked Stalin to dance, and you danced around the hall with him several times, That was a memorable occasion; how could you forget it?”<br />
<br />
As for Gumede, he returned home a firm supporter of the Soviet Union. Everywhere he went, he gave glowing reports of his visit there. In January 1928, he told an ANC rally that “I have seen the new world to come, where it has already begun. I have been to the new Jerusalem."<br />
<br />
One day in December, Otto called me and said he had inst gotten a call to pick up a young Black woman, Maude White, who was to be a student at KUTVA. She was waiting at the station. He asked me if I'd like to go along and I readily agreed, looking forward with pleasure to meeting this woman—the first Black woman since Jane Golden to study in the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
We rented a droshky and proceeded to the station. It was a cold winter night, the temperature was somewhere around thirty-five below zero. When we got there, we saw the young Black woman, She was about nineteen, standing in the unheated station, she was a strikingly pretty, brown-skinned woman with huge dark eyes.<br />
<br />
She had on a seal skin coat, silk stockings and pumps, and by time we got there she was practically hysterical with the cold. "Get me out of here,” she shouted. Otto and I looke at each other, both thinking the same thing—we're going to have a rough time with this one. <br />
<br />
We couldn't have been more wrong. Maude got right into the swing of things at school. She was a very popular suger ae stayed in Moscow for three years. We later learned that she ha been a school teacher before coming to Moscow, On returning to the States, she became an outstanding Party cadre and a life-long friend of mine.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 8 ==<br />
<br />
=== Self-Determination: The Fight for a Correct Line ===<br />
Towards the end of 1927, Nasanov returned to the Soviet Union after a sojourn in the United States as the representative of the Young Communist International. I had known him briefly in the States before my departure for Russia. Nasanov was one of a group of YCI workers who had been sent on missions to several countries. He had considerable experience with respect to the national and colonial question and was considered an expert on these matters.<br />
<br />
Nasanov's observations had convinced him that U.S. Blacks were essentially an oppressed nation whose struggle for equality would ultimately take an autonomous direction and that the content of the Black liberation movement was the completion of the agrarian and democratic revolution in the South—a struggle which was left unresolved by the Civil War and betrayal of Reconstruction. Therefore, it was the duty of the Party to channel the movement in a revolutionary direction by raising and supporting the slogan of the right of self-determination for Afro-Americans in the Black Belt, the area of their greatest concentration.<br />
<br />
Upon his return, Nasanov sought me out and it was he, I believe, who first informed me that I had been elected to the National Committee of the YCL back in the States. In the months ahead, we were to become close friends. Through him, I met a number of YCI people, mostly Soviet comrades who held the same position as Nasanov did on the national question. They seemed to be pushing to have the matter reviewed at the forthcoming Sixth Congress of the Comintern. And as it later became clear to me, they were anxious to recruit at least one Black to support their position.<br />
<br />
As I have indicated before, the position was not entirely new to me. I was present at the meeting of the YCL District Committee in Chicago in 1924 when Bob Mazut (then YCI rep to the U.S.), at the behest of Zinoviev, had raised the question of self-determination At that time, he had been shouted down by the white comrades. (See Chapter Four.)<br />
<br />
Sen Katayama had told us Black KUTVA students that Lenin had regarded U.S. Blacks as an oppressed nation and referred us to his draft resolution on the national and colonial question which was adopted by the Second Congress of the Comintern in 1920. Otto and other Black students had also told me that they got a similar impression from their meeting with Stalin at the Kremlin shortly after their arrival in the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
All of this seemed tentative to me. No one had elaborated the position fully and Nasanov was the first person I met who attempted to argue it definitively. But all of these arguments, and especially Nasanov’s prodding, set me to thinking and confronted me with the need to apply concretely my newly-acquired Marxist-Leninist knowledge on the national-colonial question to the condition of Blacks in the United States,<br />
<br />
To me, the idea of a Black nation within U.S. boundaries seemed far-fetched and not consonant with American reality. I saw the solution through the incorporation of Blacks into U.S. society on the basis of complete equality, and only socialism could bring this to pass. There was no doubt in my mind that the path to freedom for us Blacks led directly to socialism, uncluttered by any interim stage of self-determination or Black political power. The unity of Black and white workers against the common enemy, U.S. capitalism, was the motor leading toward the dual goal of Black. freedom and socialism.<br />
<br />
I felt that it was difficult enough to build this unity, without adding to it the gratuitous assumption of a non-existent Black nation, with its implication of a separate state on U.S. soil. To do so, I felt, was to create new and unnecessary roadblocks to the already difficult path to Black and white unity.<br />
<br />
Socialism, I reasoned, was not in contradiction to the movement for Black cultural identity, expressed in the cultural renaissance of the twenties and in Garvey’s emphasis on race pride and history (which I regarded as one of the positive aspects of that movement), Socialism for U.S. Blacks did not imply loss of cultural identity any more than it did for the Jews of the Soviet Union, among whom I had witnessed the proliferation of the positive features of Jewish culture—theater, literature and language.<br />
<br />
The Jews were not considered a nation because they were not concentrated in any definite territory; they were regarded as a national minority and Birobidzhan was set aside as a Jewish autonomous province. Such a bolstering of self-respect, dignity and self-assertion on the part of a formerly oppressed minority people was a necessary stage in the development of a universal culture which would amalgamate the best features of all national groups. This was definitely the policy of the Soviet Union with regard to formerly oppressed nationalities and ethnic groups.<br />
<br />
Like the Jews, I reasoned, the position of U.S. Blacks was that of an oppressed race, though at the time I am sure I would have been hard-pressed to define precisely what was meant by that phrase. The main factor in the oppression of Jews under the Czar had been the religious factor; the main factor with U.S, Blacks was race. Blacks lacked some of the essential attributes of a nation which had been defined by Stalin in his classic work, Marxism and the National Question.<br />
<br />
Most assuredly, one could argue that among Blacks there existed elements of a special culture and also a common language (English). But this did not add up to a nation, I reasoned. Missing was the all-important aspect of a national territory. Even if one agreed that the Black Belt, where Blacks were largely concentrated, rightfully belonged to them, they were in no geographic position to assert their right of self-determination.<br />
<br />
I could see many analogies between the national problem in the old Czarist Empire and the problem of U.S. Blacks, but the analogy floundered on this question of territory. For the subject nations of the old Czarist Empire were situated either on the border of the oppressing Great Russian nation or were completely outside it. But American Blacks were set down in the very midst of the oppressing white nation, the strongest capitalist power on earth. Faced with this, it was no wonder that most nationalist movements up until then had taken the road of a separate state outside the United States. How then could one convince U.S. Blacks that the right of self-determination was a realistic program?<br />
<br />
Nasanov and his young friends answered my arguments over the course of a series of discussions and were quick to pick out the flaws in my position, They contended that I was guilty of an ahistoric approach with respect to the elements of nationhood. Certainly, some of the attributes of a nation were weakly developed in the case of U.S. Blacks. But that was the case with most oppressed peoples precisely because the imperialist policy of national oppression is directed towards artificially and forcibly retaining the economic and cultural backwardness of the colonial peoples as a condition for their super-exploitation. My mistake had been to ignore Lenin’s dictum that in the epoch of imperialism it was essential to differentiate between the oppressor and the oppressed nations,<br />
<br />
They further contended that I had presented the matter as though self-determination were solely a question for Blacks. | had therefore separated the Black rebellion from the struggle for socialism in the United States. In fact, it was a constituent part of the latter struggle or, more precisely, a special phase of the struggle of the American working class for socialism.<br />
<br />
My argument added up to a defense of the current position of the U.S. Party, albeit I had embellished the position somewhat against Nasanov's criticisms. Up to this point, the Black students had not challenged the Party’s line on Afro-American work, We reasoned that the Party’s default in the work among Blacks was not the result of an incorrect line, but came from a failure to carry out in practice its declared line. We believed that this failure was due to an underestimation of the importance of work among Blacks, which came from an underestimation of the revolutionary potential of the struggle of the Black masses for equality. All this resulted from the persistence of remnants of white racist ideology vathin the ranks of the Party, including some of its leadership.<br />
<br />
Nasanov and some of his friends agreed with us that the American CP did underestimate the revolutionary potential of the Black struggle for equality. But, they maintained, this underestimation came from a fundamentally incorrect social-democratic line, rather than from white chauvinism, They said that I had stood the whole matter on its head: I had presented the incorrect policies as the result of subjective white chauvinist attitudes; whereas, they pointed out that the white chauvinist attitudes persisted precisely because the Party’s line was fundamentally incorrect in that it denied the national character of the question.<br />
<br />
“Our American comrades seem to think that only the direct struggle for socialism is revolutionary,” they told me, “and that the national movement detracts from that struggle and is therefore reactionary.” This, they pointed out, was an American version of the “pure proletarian revolution” concept; they referred me to Lenin’s polemic against Radek on the question of self-determination.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks also criticized my formulation of the matter as primarily a race question. To call the matter a race question, they said, was to fall into the bourgeois liberal trap of regarding the fight for equality as primarily a fight against racial prejudices of whites. This slurred over the economic and social roots of the question and obscured the question of the agrarian democratic revolution in the South, which was pivotal to the struggle for Black equality throughout the country. They pointed out that it was wrong to counterpose the struggle for equality to the struggle for self-determination. For in fact, in the South, self-determination for Blacks (political power in their own hands) was the guarantee of equality.<br />
<br />
=== HISTORY OF THE QUESTION IN THE COMINTERN ===<br />
In these discussions with my young friends, which extended over the course of several months, I became keenly aware of the gaps in my understanding of Marxist-Leninist theory on the national-colonial question. I was to find, as Nasanov and others had indicated, that the idea of Blacks as an oppressed nation was not new in the Comintern. Though Stalin was undoubtedly the person pushing the position at the time, it had not originated with him, but with Lenin himself.<br />
<br />
It first appeared in Lenin’s “Draft Theses on the National Colonial Question” which he submitted to the Second Congress of the Comintern in 1920. The draft, which was later adopted, called upon the communist parties to “render direct aid to the revolutionary movements among the dependent and underprivileged nations (for example, Ireland, the American Negroes, etc.) and in the colonies.<br />
<br />
Some have argued that Lenin’s reference to U.S. Blacks as a subject nation was merely a tentative deduction. When he submitted his draft, he asked the delegates for opinions and suggestions on fifteen points, one of which was “Negroes in America."<br />
<br />
It was recorded, however, that the Colonial Commission of the congress, which Lenin himself headed and in which Sen Katayama was a leading member, held lengthy discussions on the question of U.S, Blacks. <br />
<br />
John Reed, the American author, was a delegate and participated in the discussion, apparently in opposition to Lenin’s formulations. In fact, he made two speeches, one in the commission and one to the congress, contending that the problem of U.S. Blacks was that of “both a strong race movement and a strong proletarian workers’ movement which is rapidly developing in class consciousness.” Equating all national movements among Blacks to Garvey’s Back to Africa separatism, he contended that “a movement which struggles for a separate national existence has no success among the Negroes, like the ‘Back to Africa’ movement, for example.....” and that Blacks “consider themselves above all Americans, they feel at home in the United States. This makes the tasks of communists very much easier."<br />
<br />
But despite Reed’s objections, the reference to American Blacks as an oppressed nation remained in the resolution as finally adopted. For Lenin’s thesis was not something spun out of thin air, but was the result of a serious study of the question. This is clear from his work “New Data on the Laws Governing the Development of Capitalism in Agriculture,” which spoke about the United States,<br />
<br />
In this work, published in 1915 (and based on the U.S. Census of 1910), Lenin viewed the question of Blacks in the South as one of an uncompleted agrarian and bourgeois democratic revolution, He drew attention to the remarkable similarity between the economic positions of the South’s Black tenants and the emancipated serfs in theagrarian centers of Russia, pointing out that both groups were not tenants in the European civilized sense, but “...semi-slaves, share-croppers...”<br />
<br />
Emphasizing the absence of elementary democratic rights among Blacks, he alluded to the South as “the most stagnant area, where the masses are subjected to the greatest degradation and oppression...a kind of prison where (these ‘emancipated’ Negroes) are hemmed in, isolated, and deprived of fresh air.” These kinds of conditions, the lot of the vast majority of U.S. Blacks, undoubtedly led Lenin to conclude that their movement for “emancipation” would take a national revolutionary direction.<br />
<br />
Conclusive proof of Lenin’s thinking at the time with respect to U.S. Blacks can be found in an uncompleted work written in 1917 though not available until 1935. The work, “Statistics and Sociology,” was begun in the early part of 1917, but was interrupted by the February Revolution and never resumed. <br />
<br />
In the section of the manuscript referring to U.S. Blacks, he drew a clear distinction between their positions and that of the foreign-born immigrants, that is between the white foreign-born assimilables and the Black unassimilables.<blockquote>'''In the United States, the Negroes (and also the Mulattos and Indians) account for only 11.1 per cent. They should be classed as an oppressed nation, for the equality won in the Civil War of 1861-1865 and guaranteed by the Constitution of the republic was in many respects increasingly curtailed in the chief Negro areas (the South) in connection with the transition from the progressive, pre-monopoly capitalism of 1860-1870 to the reactionary, monopoly capitalism (imperialism) of the new era."'''</blockquote>Whereas with the white foreign-born immigrants, Lenin observed that the speed of development of capitalism in America has “produced a situation in which vast national differences are speedily and fundamentally, as nowhere else in the world, smoothed out to form a single ‘American nation.’ <br />
<br />
All of this shows that the idea that U.S. Blacks comprise an oppressed nation was neither a temporary nor tentative formulation on Lenin’s part. <br />
<br />
Despite the thesis of the Second Congress, Reed’s views reflecting as they did the position of the young American Party-— were to persist in the U.S. without serious challenge through the Fifth Congress of the Comintern. The Third Congress of 1921 recorded no discussion with respect to the character of the problem. <br />
<br />
The Fourth Congress in 1922 also did not seriously discuss the point. This mecting, however, marked the first appearance of Black delegates to the Comintern. They were Otto Huiswood as regular Party delegate, and the poet Claude McKay as a special fraternal delegate. It was also the first congress to set up a Negro Commission, and extended discussions took place on the thesis brought in by the commission which characterized the position of U.S. Blacks as an aspect of the colonial question. It stressed the special role of American Blacks in support of the liberation struggles of Africa, Central and South America and the Caribbean. <br />
<br />
The thesis of the Fourth Congress did add a new, international dimension to the question, but it did not challenge the Party's basic anti-self-determination position. This position was stressed in a speech by Huiswood (Billings) which called the Afro-American question “another phase of the racial and colonial question,’ an essentially economic problem which was “intensified by the friction which exists between the white and black races,"<br />
<br />
The discussion of the character of the question came up in the Fifth Congress in 1924, this time in connection with the Draft Program of the Communist International. For the first time since the Second Congress, the discussion centered directly on the character of the question as an oppressed nation and the appropriateness of the slogan of the right of self-determination.<br />
<br />
August Thalheimer (the German head of the Commission on the Draft Program) reported that “the slogan of the right of self-determination cannot solve all national questions,” Such is the case in the United States, “where there is an extraordinarily mixed population” and where the “race question” is also involved. Therefore, he pointed out, “the Program Commission was of the opinion that the slogan of right of self-determination must be supplemented by another slogan: ‘Equal Rights for all Nationalities and Races."<br />
<br />
Representing the U.S. at the Fifth Congress, John Pepper supported this anti-self-determination position. According to him, the United States was a country in which the different nationalities could not be separated. Self-determination was not appropriate; Blacks in the U.S, did not want it. “They do not want to set up a separate state inside the U.S.A.,” and they wish to remain inside the U.S,, not leave it for Africa. To the demand of “social equality,” he held that “we should change these words to the following: full equality in every respect.”<br />
<br />
Lovett Fort-Whiteman, the sole Black delegate, apparently supported Pepper’s position and gave his standard speech (which I was to hear a number of times in the States), He stressed the racial aspect of the problem and called for a special communist approach to Blacks.<br />
<br />
There appeared to be no opposition to the draft program, but, after all, it was only the first version. The program in its final form was to be discussed and adopted at the Sixth Congress. Apparently Zinoviev and others in the CI leadership were not satisfied with the formulation that had rejected self-determination for U.S. Blacks. Zinoviev had instructed Bob Mazut to investigate the question while on his assignment to the U.S., immediately following the congress.<br />
<br />
Such was the situation following the Fifth Congress. The question can be raised as to why the U.S. Party’s position was not seriously challenged during this whole period and why the proponents in the Comintern of the self-determination thesis failed to press for their position.<br />
<br />
Their reluctance in this regard, I presume, was because they did not want to push their position against the unanimous opposition of the American Party, including its Black members. After all, the Comintern was a voluntary union of communist parties which operated under democratic-centralism. It was not the policy of the Comintern leadership to arbitrarily force positions on member parties. <br />
<br />
=== 1928; A REEXAMINATION OF THE QUESTION ===<br />
How are we to account then for the renewed interest in the Afro-American question among certain influential leaders of the Comintern on the eve of the Sixth Congress? Why the drive to re open the question? The answer lies in the changed world situation: the sharpened crisis of the world capitalist system, consequent on the breakdown of partial capitalist stabilization, the beginning of a deepening economic depression in Europe; and the continued upsurge of the colonial revolutions in China, India and Indonesia,<br />
<br />
These harbingers of the new period were pointed out by Stalin at the Fifteenth Congress of the CPSU in early December 1927, in which he referred to the “collapsing stabilization” of capitalism. <br />
<br />
It was to be a period of revolutionary struggle. In order to lead these struggles, an attack on right opportunism was required in the practice and work of the communist parties. It was a period in which the national and colonial question was to acquire a new urgency. The CI paid special attention to the fight against those views which liquidated or downplayed the importance of the question. In this context, the Comintern felt that the establishment of a revolutionary line on the Afro-American question was key if the CPUSA was to lead the joint struggle of the Black and white working masses in the coming period.<br />
<br />
The low status of the CP’s Negro work itself was another factor pressing for a radical policy review. There had been no progress in this work, despite the prodding of the Comintern. As already mentioned, the highly touted American Negro Labor Congress had failed to even get off the ground.<br />
<br />
In a speech at the Sixth Congress, James Ford counted nineteen communications from the Comintern to the U.S, Party on Negro work, none of which had been put into effect or brought before the Party. He further observed that “we have no more than 50 Negroes in our Party, out of the 12 million Negroes in America." <br />
<br />
All of these factors strengthened the determination of the Comintern to make the Sixth Congress the arena for a drastic reevaluation of work and policy in this area.<br />
<br />
In the winter of 1928, preparations were already afoot for the Sixth Congress which was to convene the following summer. The Anglo-American Secretariat of the CI set up a special subcommitteee on the Negro question which would prepare a draft resolution for the official Negro Commission of the Congress.<br />
<br />
As I recall, the subcommittce consisted of Nasanov and five students: four Blacks (including my brother Otto and myself) and one white student, Clarence Hathaway, from the Lenin School, In addition, there were some ex-officio members: Profintern rep Bill Dunne and Comintern rep Bob Minor, They seldom attended our sessions. James Ford, who was then assigned to the Profintern, also attended some sessions.<br />
<br />
Our subcommittee met and broke the subject down into topics; each of us accepted one as his assignment to research and report on to the committee as a whole. The high point in the discussion was the report of my brother Otto on Garvey’s Back to Africa movement. In his report, he concluded that the nationalism expressed in that movement had no objective base in the economic, social and political conditions of U.S. Blacks. It was, he asserted, a foreign importation artificially grafted onto the freedom movement of U.S, Blacks by the West Indian nationalist, Garvey.<br />
<br />
U.S. Blacks, Otto concluded, were not an oppressed nation but an oppressed racial minority. The long-range goal of the movement was not the right of self-determination but complete economic, social and political equality to be won through a revolutionary alliance of Blacks and class-conscious white labor in a joint struggle for socialism against the common enemy, U.S. capitalism.<br />
<br />
Up to that point, I was still not certain as regarded tbe applicability of the right of self-determination to the problems of Blacks in the U.S., but my misgivings about the slogan had been shaken somewhat by the series of discussions I had had with my Russian friends. Otto, in his report, had merely restated the CP’s current position. But somehow, against the background of our discussion of the Garvey movement, the inadequacy of that position stood out like a sore thumb. Otto, however, had done more than simply restate the position; he brought out into the open what had been implicit in the Party’s position all along. That is, that any type of nationalism among Blacks was reactionary.<br />
<br />
This view, it occurred to me, was the logical outcome of any position which saw only the “pure proletarian” class struggle as the sole revolutionary struggle against capitalism. The Party had traditionally considered the Afro-American question as that of a persecuted racial minority. They centered their activity almost exclusively on Blacks as workers and treated the question as basically a simple trade union matter, underrating other aspects of the struggle. The struggle for equal rights was seen as a diversion that would obscure or overshadow the struggle for socialism.<br />
<br />
But how could one wage a fight against white chauvinism from that position? I thought at the time that viewing everything in light of the trade union question would lead to a denial of the revolutionary potential of the struggle of the whole people for equality. Otto’s rejection of nationalism as an indigenous trend brought these points out sharply in my mind.<br />
<br />
In the discussion, I pointed out that Otto's position was not merely a rejection of Garveyism but also a denial of nationalism as a legitimate trend in the Black freedom movement, I felt that it amounted to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. With my insight sharpened by previous discussions, I argued further that the nationalism reflected in the Garvey movement was not a foreign transplant, nor did it spring full-blown from the brow of Jove. On the contrary, it was an indigenous product, arising from the soil of Black super-exploitation and oppression in the United States, It expressed the yearnings of millions of Blacks for a nation of their own.<br />
<br />
As I pursued this logic, a totally new thought occurred to me, and for me it was the clincher. The Garvey movement is dead, I reasoned, but not Black nationalism. Nationalism, which Garvey diverted under the slogan of Back to Africa, was an authentic trend, likely to flare up again in periods of crisis and stress. Sucha movement might again fall under the leadership of utopian visionaries who would seek to divert it from the struggle against the main enemy, U.S. imperialism, and on to a reactionary separatist path. The only way such a diversion of the struggle could be forestalled was by presenting a revolutionary alternative to Blacks.<br />
<br />
To the slogan of “Back to Africa,” I argued, we must counterpose the slogan of “right of self-determination here in the Deep South.” Our slogan for the U.S, Black rebellion therefore must be the “right of self-determination in the South, with full equality throughout the country,” to be won through revolutionary alliance with politically conscious white workers against the common enemy-—-U.S. imperialism,<br />
<br />
Nasanov was seated across the table from me during this discussion and, elated at my presentation, he demonstratively rose to shake my hand. I was the first American communist (with perhaps the exception of Briggs) to support the thesis that U.S. Blacks constituted an oppressed nation.<br />
<br />
The next day, Nasanov and I submitted a resolution to the subcommittee incorporating our views. We couldn't get a majority but we had Hathaway’s support, as I remember. It was agreed that the resolution be submitted to the Anglo-American Secretariat as the views of those who subscribed to it, and those who disagreed with it would present their own views.<br />
<br />
The only really persistent opposition in the subcommittee, as I remember, came from Otto; the other students were somewhat ambivalent on the question. I attributed much of this to Sik’s influence, since he had already begun to develop his position which held that the question of U.S. Blacks was a “race” question and that Blacks should not demand seif-determination, but simply full social and political equality. His theories were later used by the Lovestoncites and others who opposed the self-determination position.<br />
<br />
Once my hesitations were overcome, the whole theory fell logicatly into place. Here is the full analysis as I came to understand it. The thesis that called for the right of selfdetermination is supported by a serious economic-historical analysis of U.S. Blacks.<br />
<br />
The evolution of American Blacks as an oppressed nation was begun in slavery. In the final analysis, however, it was the result of the unfinished bourgeois democratic revolution of the Civil War and the betrayal of Reconstruction through the Hayes-Tilden (Gentiemen’s) Agreement of 1877.<br />
<br />
This betrayal was followed by withdrawal of federal troops and the unleashing of counter-revolutionary terror, including the massacre of thousands of Blacks and the overthrow of the Reconstruction governments which had been based on an alliance of Blacks, poor whites and carpetbaggers. The result was that the Black freedmen, deserted by their former Republican allies, were left without land. Their newly-won rights were destroyed with the abrogation of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and they were thrust back upon the plantations of their former masters in a position but little removed from chattel bondage.<br />
<br />
The revolution had stopped short of a solution to the crucial land question, there was neither confiscation of the big plantations of the former slaveholding class, nor distribution of the land among the Negro freedmen and poor whites. It was around this issue of land for the freedmen that the revolutionary democratic wave of Radical Reconstruction beat in vain and finally broke.<br />
<br />
The advent of imperialism, the epoch of trusts and monopolies at the turn of the century, froze the Blacks in their post-Reconstruction position; landless, semi-slaves in the South. It blocked the road to fusion of Blacks and whites into one nation on the basis of equality and put the final seal on the special oppression of Blacks. The path towards equality and freedom via assimilation was foreclosed by these events, and the struggle for Black equality thenceforth was ultimately bound to take a national revolutionary direction.<br />
<br />
Under conditions of imperialist and racist oppression, Blacks in the South were to acquire all the attributes of a subject nation. They are a people set apart by a common ethnic origin, economically interrelated in various classes, united by a common historical experience, reflected in a special culture and psychological makeup. The territory of this subject nation is the Black Belt, an area encompassing the Deep South, which, despite massive outmigrations, still contained (and does to this day) the country’s largest concentration of Blacks.<br />
<br />
Thus, imperialist oppression created the conditions for the eventual rise ofa national liberation movement with its base in the South. The content of this movement would be the completion of the agrarian democratic revolution in the South; that is, the right of self-determination as the guarantee of complete equality throughout the country.<br />
<br />
This new analysis defined the status of Blacks in the north as an unassimilable national minority who cannot escape oppression by fleeing the South. The shadow of the plantation falls upon them throughout the country, as the semi-slave relations in the Black Belt continually reproduce Black inequality and servitude in all walks of life.<br />
<br />
There are certain singular features of the submerged Afro-American nation which differentiate it from other oppressed nations and which have made the road towards national eonsciousness and identity difficult and arduous. Afro-Americans are not only “a nation within a nation,” but a captive nation, suffering a colonial-type oppression while trapped within the geographic bounds of one of the world’s most powerful imperialist countries.<br />
<br />
Blacks were forced into the stream of U.S. history in a peculiar manner, as chattel slaves, and are victims of an excruciatingly destructive system of oppression and persecution, due not only to the economic and social survivals of slavery, but also to its ideological heritage, racism.<br />
<br />
The Afro-American nation is also unique in that it is a new nation evolved from a people forcibly transplanted from their original African homeland. A people comprised of various tribal and linguistic groups, they are a product not of their native African soil, but of the conditions of their transplantation.<br />
<br />
The overwhelming, stifling factor of race, the doctrine of inherent Black inferiority perpetuated by ruling class ideologues, has sunk deep into the thinking of Americans. It has become endemic, permeating the entire structure of U.S. life. Given this, Blacks could only remain permanently unabsorbed in the new world’s “melting pot.”<br />
<br />
The race factor has also left its stigma on the consciousness of the Black nation, creating a powerful mystification about Black Americans which has served to obscure their objective status as an oppressed nation. It has twisted the direction of the Afro-American liberation movement and scarred it while still in its embryonic state.<br />
<br />
Although the objective base for equality and freedom via direct integration was foreclosed by the defeat of Reconstruction andthe advent of the U.S. as an imperialist power, bourgeois assimilationist illusions were continued into the new era. They were nurtured and kept alive by the nascent Black middle class and the liberal detachment of the white bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Conditions, however, were maturing for the rise of a mass nationalist movement. This movement was to burst with explosive force upon the political scene in the period following World War I, with the rise of the Garvey movement. The potentially revolutionary movement of Black toilers was diverted into utopian reactionary channels of a peaceful return to Africa.<br />
<br />
The period of bourgeois democratic revolutions in the United States ended with the defeat of democratic Reconstruction. The issue of Black freedom was carried over into the epoch of imperialism. Its full solution postponed to the next stage of human progress, socialism. The question has remained and become the most vulnerable area on the domestic front of U.S. capitalism, its “Achilles heel”—a major focus of the contradictions in U.S. society.<br />
<br />
Blacks, therefore, in the struggle for national liberation and the entire working class in its struggle for socialism are natural allies. The forging of this alliance is enhanced by the presence of a growing Black industria} working class. with direct and historical connections with white labor.<br />
<br />
This new line established that the Black freedom struggle is a revolutionary movement in its own right, directed against the very foundations of U.S. imperialism, with its own dynamic pace and momentum, resulting from the unfinished democratic and land revolutions in the South. It places the Black liberation movement and the class struggle of U.S. workers in their proper relationship as two aspects of the fight against the common enemy—U.S. capitalism, It elevates the Black movement to a position of equality in that battle.<br />
<br />
The new theory destroys forever the white racist theory traditional among class-conscious white workers which had relegated the struggle of Blacks to a subsidiary position in the revolutionary movement. Race is defined as a device of national oppression, a smokescreen thrown up by the class enemy, to hide the underlying economic and social conditions involved in Black oppression and to maintain the division of the working class.<br />
<br />
The new theory was to sensitize the Party to the revolutionary significance of the Black liberation struggle. During the crisis of the thirties, a significant segment of radicalized white workers would come to see the Blacks as revolutionary allies.<br />
<br />
The struggle for this position had now begun; there remained its adoption by the Comintern and its final acceptance by the U.S. Party. Our draft resolution, which summed up these points, was turned over to Petrovsky (Bennett), Chairman of the AngloAmerican Secretariat. He seemed quite pleased with it, expressed his agreement and suggested some minor changes. He agreed to submit it to the Negro Commission at the forthcoming Sixth Congress.<br />
<br />
I continued to work with Nasanov on preparations for the congress. By that time, we had become quite a team. Our next project was the South African question, a question which also fell under the jurisdiction of the Anglo-American Secretariat.<br />
<br />
We were assigned to work with James La Guma, a South African Colored comrade who had come to Moscow to attend the Tenth Anniversary celebrations and stayed on to discuss with the ECCI and the Anglo-American Secretariat the problems of the South African Party. Specifically, we were to draft a new resolution on the question, restating and elaborating the Comintern line of an independent Native South African Republic, (The word “Native” was in common usage at the time of the Sixth Congress, though today it is considered derogatory and has been replaced with Black republic or Azania.) <br />
<br />
=== SOUTH AFRICA ===<br />
This line, formulated the year before with the cooperation of La Guma during his first visit to the Soviet Union in the spring of 1927, had been rejected by the leadership of the South African Party.<br />
<br />
La Guma, as I recall, was a young brown-skinned man of Malagasy and French parentage. In South Africa, this placed him in the Colored category, a rung above the Natives on the racial ladder established by the white supremacist rulers. Colored persons were defined as those of mixed blood, including descendants of Javanese slaves, mixed in varying degrees with European whites.<br />
<br />
La Guma, however, identified completely with the Natives and their movement. He had been general secretary of the ICU (Industrial and Commercial Union, the federation of Native trade unions) and also secretary of the Capetown branch of the ANC. Later, after his expulsion from the ICU by the red-baiting clique of Clements Kadalie (a Native social democrat), La Guma became secretary of the non-European trade union federation in Cape town.<br />
<br />
La Guma was the first South African communist I had ever met. I was delighted and impressed with him and was to find, in the course of our brief collaboration, striking parallels between the struggles of U.S. Blacks for equality and those of the Native South Africans. In both countries, the white leadership of their respective parties underestimated the revolutionary potential of the Black movement,<br />
<br />
La Guma had made his first trip to Moscow the year before. He and Josiah Gumede, president of the ANC, had come as delegates to the inaugural conference of the League Against Imperialism which had convened in Brussels, Belgium, in February 1927. Gumede attended as a delegate from the ANC, while La Guma was a delegate from the South African Communist Party. It was La Guma’s first international gathering, and he had the opportunity to meet with leaders from colonial and semi-colonial countries and discuss the South African question with them. Madame Sun Yat-sen and Pandit Nehru were among those present, The conference adopted the resolutions of the South African delegates on the right of self-determination through the complete overthrow of imperialism. The general resolutions of the congress proclaimed: “Africa for the Africans, and their full freedom and equality with other races and the right to govern Afriea.”<br />
<br />
After Brussels, La Guma went on a speaking tour to Germany, after which he came to Moscow. Although the Brussels conference had called for the right of self-determination, it left unanswered many specific questions that are raised by that slogan. Were the Natives in South Africa a nation? What was to be done with the whites?<br />
<br />
La Guma was to find the answer to these questions in Moscow, where he consulted with ECCI leaders, including Bukharin, who was then president of the Comintern. He participated with ECCI leaders in the formulation of a resolution on the South Afriean question, calling for the return of the land to the natives and for “an independent native South African republic as a stage towards a workers’ and peasants’ republic with full, equal rights for all races.”<br />
<br />
La Guma returned to South Africa with the resolution in June 1927, Gumede also arrived home in the same month. But the resolution was received hostilely by Bunting and was rejected by the South African Party leadership at its annual conference in December 1927.<br />
<br />
Bunting was a British lawyer who had come to South Africa some years before. An early South African socialist and a founder of the Communist Party, he was the son of a British peer. As Bunting later commented, he nearly used up the small fortune he had inherited in the support of Party work and publications.<br />
<br />
Bunting and his followers insisted that the South African revolution, unlike those in the colonies, was a direct struggle for socialism without any intermediary stages. To the Comintern slogan of a “Native South African Republic,” Bunting counterposed the slogan of a “Workers’ and Peasants’ Republic.” This concept of “pure proletarian revolution” was an echo of what we had found in the U.S. Party with respect to Blacks. But here, the error stood out grotesquely given the reality of the South African situation with its overwhelming Native majority.<br />
<br />
it was against this background that La Guma and Gumede left to go to Moscow to attend the Tenth Anniversary celebrations, and the Congress of the Friends of the Soviet Union. La Guma apparently was not in Moscow on that oceasion; he was probably out on a tour of the provinces. Both he and Gumede travelled widely during their visit to the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
Our purpose at this time was to develop and clarify the line laid down in the resolution formulated the previous year. Our draft, with few changes, was adopted by the Sixth Congress of the Comintern and the ECCI.<br />
<br />
As already noted, Bunting had put forward the slogan of a South African “Workers’ and Peasants’ Government.” Bunting’s formulation denied the colonial character of South Africa, He failed, therefore, to see the inherent revolutionary nature of the Natives’ struggle for emancipation.<br />
<br />
As opposed to this, our resolution began with a definition of South Africa as “a British dominion of the colonial type” whose colonial features included:<br />
<br />
1, The country was exploited by British imperialism, with the participation of the South African white bourgeoisie (British and Boer), with British capital occupying the principal economic position.<br />
<br />
2. The overwhelming majority of the population were Natives and Colored (five million Natives and Colored, with one and a half million whites, according to the 1921 Census).<br />
<br />
3. Natives, who held only one-eighth of the land, were almost completely landless, the great bulk of their land having been expropriated by the white minority.<br />
<br />
4, The “great difference in wages and material conditions of the white and black proletariat,” and the widespread corruption of the white workers by the racist propaganda and ideology of the imperialists.<br />
<br />
These features, we held, determined the character of the South African revolution which, in its first stage, would be a struggle of Natives and non-European peoples for independence and land. As the previous resolution had done, our draft (in the form adopted by the Sixth Congress and the ECCI) held that as a result of these canditions, in order to lead and influence that movement, communists—black and white—must put forth and fight for the general political slogan of “an independent Native South African Republic as a stage towards a workers’ and peasants’ republic, with full, equal rights for all races, black, coloured and white.”<br />
<br />
“South Afriea is a black country,” the resolution went onto say, with a mainly black peasant population, whose land had been expropriated by the white colonizers. Therefore, the agrarian question lies at the foundation of the revolution. The black peasantry, in alliance with and under the leadership of the working class, is the main driving foree. Thus, along with the slogan of a “Native Republic,” the Party must place the slogan “return of the land to the Natives.”<br />
<br />
This latter formulation does not appear in the resolution as finally adopted. Instead, it includes the following two formulations:<br />
<br />
1. Whites must accept the “correct principle that South Africa belongs to the native population.”<br />
<br />
2. “The basic question in the agrarian situation in South Africa is the land hunger of the blacks and . . . their interest is of prior importance in the solution of the agrarian question.”<br />
<br />
With the new resolution completed, La Guma returned to South Africa. In the year since the first resolution, the opposition to the line had intensified and had already come to a head at the December Party Congress—-even before La Guma’s return.<br />
<br />
Bunting put forward his position in a fourteen page document in the early part of 1928. He equated the nationalism of the Boer minority to the nationalism of the Natives and justified his opposition to nationalism on the basis that all national movements were subject to capitalist corruption, and, in the case of South Afriea, a national movement among Natives “would probably only accelerate the fusion, in opposition to it, of the Dutch and British imperialists." Since it would thus only consolidate the forees against it, it was not to be supported.<br />
<br />
Bunting not only underrated nationalism, he played on the whites’ fear of it and raised the specter of blacks being given free reign, with a resulting campaign to drive the whites into thesea. He was echoing the specter that was haunting whites who remembered the song of the Xhosas:<blockquote>'''To chase the white men from the earth''' <br />
<br />
'''And drive them to the sea.'''<br />
<br />
'''The sea that cast them up at first'''<br />
<br />
'''For Ama Xhosa’s curse and bane''' <br />
<br />
'''Howls for the progeny she nursed'''<br />
<br />
'''To swallow them again.'''</blockquote>According to Bunting, the elimination of whites seemed to be implied in the slogan of a “Native Republic.” He regarded the phrase “safeguards for minorities ” as having little meaning, since whites would assume that the existing injustices would be reversed; that, in effect, blacks would do to them what they had been handing out for so long.<br />
<br />
While Bunting had held that all nationalism was reactionary, La Guma distinguished between the revolutionary nationalism of the Natives and the “nationalism” of the Boers (which in reality was simply a quarrel between sections of the ruling class), He argued that the communists must not hold back on the revolutionary demands of the Natives in order to pacify the white workers who are still “saturated with an imperialist ideology” and conscious of the privileges they enjoy at the Natives’ expense. <br />
<br />
Bunting held that the road to socialism would be traveled under white leadership; to La Guma, the securing of black rights was the first step to be taken, As the Simonses described it, “First establish African majority rule, he argued, and unity, leading to socialism, would follow.” La Guma called on communists to “build up a mass party based upon the non-European masses,” put forward the slogan of a Native Republic and thus destroy the traditional subservience to whites among Africans. This argument continued up through the Sixth Congress.<br />
<br />
=== MY STAY IN THE CAUCASUS ===<br />
In the middle of April 1928, I left Moscow for a stay in the Caucasus. The winter had been one of those long, cold, dark Moscow winters, Snow was still on the ground in April, Over the whole season, I had been plagued by recurrent seizures of grippe. Between the demands of school and the preparations for the Sixth Congress, it had been a winter of intense activity, Undoubtedly, this had contributed to my inability to shake off the illness. By the spring, I was pretty run down. <br />
<br />
The school doctor detected a slight anemia and recommended a month in a rest home. So, I was shipped off to Kislovodsk, a famous health resort in the northern Caucasus. I traveled south and east, across the Ukrainian steppe, where spring had already come to Rostov-on-Don, the administrative center for the northerm Caucasus region, Then on to Mincralny Vody (Mineral Water), the gateway to the Caucasus and a major railroad junction. I changed there for Kislovodsk, a short distance further towards the mountains.<br />
<br />
Stepping off the train in Kislovodsk in early morning, I felt better at my first breath of fresh mountain air. The city was located in the foothills on the northern range of the Caucasus. Its mineral springs were famed for their medicinal properties, especially for coronary patients. Formerly a famous watcring-place for the wealthy, it was now enjoyed by all the Soviet people. Kislovodsk was the source of the famous Narzan water which cost forty or fifty kopeks a bottle in Moscow. Here it bubbled from the ground in numerous springs, and you could drink all you wanted.<br />
<br />
Checking in at the sanitarium, I was assigned to a room shared by three others-—two workers and a Party functionary from Tbilisi named Kolya Tsereteli. Kolya was a tall, handsome, swarthy young man. He cut quite a figure in his long Georgian robochka, soft leather boots, high astrakhan cap and ornamental belt, complete with kinjal (dagger). He immediately took me in charge and became my constant companion during my stay there. <br />
<br />
After I had been examined by a doctor who prescribed daily baths, Kolya took me around on a sightseeing tour. The sun was coming up over the parks, cypress trees and places for open air concerts.<br />
<br />
After several weeks, I felt much better and was soon chafing at the bit, bored with the regimen and eager to return to Moscow, At this point Kolya suggested that we might try to arrange my accompanying him to his home in Tbilisi (hot springs) and stay for a week before returning to Moscow. I was delighted and had no difficulty in getting both my release from the sanitarium and permission from the school to make the trip.<br />
<br />
Tbilisi--the Florence of the Caucasus—was a beautiful modern city, stretching for miles along both sides of the Kura River. Ithad spacious avenues lined by stately cypress trees; handsome buildings and apartments, a magnificent cathedral, its great central dome flanked by four cupolas, framed against a background of the mountains of the mighty Caucasus chain, with Mount David rising 2,500 fect above the city.<br />
<br />
It was a mixed population of mainly Georgians, Armenians, Jews and some Turko-Tartars. Kolya explained that there actually were more Armenians than Georgians living there in the capital of Georgia! He went on to tell me that in the Caucasus, ethnic groups often overlapped their national boundaries as finally constituted. This was particularly so in the case of the Armenians, who were the victims of genocidal persecution and dispersal by Turkey. As a result, there were more Armenians in Azerbaidzhan and Georgia than in the Armenian Republic itself.<br />
<br />
In the old days, Georgian nationalism was directed more against the Armenians than against the Russians. The Armenians had a larger merchant class. They dominated commerce and were an obstacle to the growth of the weak Georgian bourgeoisie who retaliated by whipping up national animosity against the Armenians. Hence, national hatred was often directed against rival national groups rather than against the dominant Czarist power, and the Czarist government exploited these animosities fully.<br />
<br />
The area was known for bloody battles between the various ethnic groups, But all that ended with the revolution, Kolya said, and with the establishment of the Trans-Caucasian Federation. based on national equality and voluntary consent. <br />
<br />
Within the federation, which was composed of three republics (Georgia, Azerbaidzhan and Armenia), the Georgian republic had three minority distriets; Abkhazia and Azaria as autonomous republics, and Yugo-Osetia as an autonomous region, National languages and cultures were flourishing under the new regime.<br />
<br />
“As you will see, here in Tbilisi we have Georgian, Armenian and Russian theaters,” Kolya told me.<br />
<br />
Kolya hailed an izvozchik and we rode to his apartment, located on one of the broad tree-lined avenues of the city. Arriving there, we were happily greeted by his family, His wife, an attractive young schoolteacher, received me warmly and told me that Kolya had written her about me. They had two beautiful children, a boy of about three and a girl about five. They seemed fascinated with my appearance and couldn't take their eyes off me. I was undoubtedly the first Black man they had ever seen. <br />
<br />
On being told by Kolya to “shake hands with the black uncle,” the boy hesitantly extended his little hand. ,<br />
<br />
I took it and gently shook it. When he withdrew it, he looked at his hand to see whether some of the black had come off and seemed rather surprised that it hadn’t.<br />
<br />
“No, it won’t come off,” I said, and we all laughed. I had experienced this reaction from Russian children in Moscow, and it never failed to amuse me.<br />
<br />
The Tseretelis lived in a clean and neatly-furnished three-room apartment on the second floor of the building, with a balcony over the sidewalk. As if reading my thoughts, Kolya said, “Don’t worry, we all usually sleep in one room; the other is for my brother who stays here with us. He is out of town, so you can stay in his room.”<br />
<br />
Kolya was anxious to cheek in at the Party office where he worked, so we left our baggage and walked to his office a short distance away. I was interested in the people we passed. They looked better dressed than the Russians back in Moscow, their costumes were gayer. Perhaps it was due to the milder climate,<br />
<br />
Kolya served as the deputy secretary of the Agitprop Department of the Tbilisi Committee of the Communist Party. He introduced me to his fellow workers in the department; they all seemed glad to see him and remarked how well he looked after his rest. They were speaking Georgian; Kolya asked them to speak in Russian in deference to me, They all seemed to be multilingual. Kolya, I knew, besides his native Georgian, spoke Russian, Armenian and some French. The comrades insisted on calling a conference. Like most Party officials, they were well-informed on both domestic and international questions and were an educated audience.<br />
<br />
They asked me my impressions of their country, and they also had questions about the situation in the United States, about the conditions of Blacks. Kolya told them that I was a student at the Lenin School in Moscow and that formerly I had been at KUTVA. They knew about KUTVA as they too had sent students there. They were interested in the work I had done in preparation for the forthcoming Sixth Congress, and they were familiar with Stalin's report to the Fifteenth Party Congress from that December, where he described the international situation. They asked me questions about the international situation and the war danger and we exchanged opinions.<br />
<br />
Kolya explained that I was only going to bein town for acouple of days. It was Friday then, and I was scheduled to leave on Sunday. As I remember, we took a car from the pool and two or three people from the office accompanied us on a sightseeing tour along the banks of the river.<br />
<br />
We returned to Kolya’s home where his wife had a delicious big meal waiting for us: shashlik, fruits and pastries. We sat up until late that night telling stories.<br />
<br />
The next day we saw a number of places of interest, bathed in the famous hot sulfur springs, went up to the summit of Mount David and saw the old church on the mountain, which dated back centuries, and the mausoleum of famous Georgian poets and patriots. All in all we spent a very enjoyable weekend together.<br />
<br />
On Sunday, Kolya and his wife took me to the station and put me on the train for Moscow. Three days later I was back home. I saw Kolya once again when he was on a visit to Moscow and I took him out to dinner.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 9 ==<br />
<br />
=== Sixth Congress of the Comintern: A Blow Against the Right ===<br />
The Sixth World Congress of the Comintern, held in Moscow in July and August of 1928, was a historic turning point in the world communist movement. Early in July the first U.S. delegates arrived, anxious to get the “lay of the land” and to scout the political situation in the capital of world revolution. As I recall, Lovestone’s group staked out headquarters at the Lux Hotel, while the Foster-Cannon opposition gathered at the Bristol, a short distance further up the street.<br />
<br />
A number of us from the Lenin School were on hand when our comrades in the Foster group arrived. We got together to talk with a number of them, though Foster, Cannon and Bittelman were not present. They were anxious to get a report on the situation in the Soviet Party: Which leaders were involved in the right opposition? What was Bukharin doing? Where did he stand?<br />
<br />
We gave them a rundown on the situation as we saw it. The issues in the discussion included industrialization, the five-year plan, collectivization, the drive against the Kulaks and the war danger.<br />
<br />
We told them about disagreements in the CPSU. There was talk of a hidden right faction involving such leaders as Rykov, Tomsky and possibly Bukharin. Thus far, however, there were only rumors and speculations. The fight was not yet out in the open, but was confined to the Politburo and the Central Committee. A plenum of the Central Committee had been called on the eve of the Sixth Congress and was at that moment in session. We told them that we could undoubtedly find out at the congress if there were any new developments,<br />
<br />
On their part, our fellow oppositionists ran down the latest developments in the inner-Party struggle at home. We already knew of the findings of a special American Commission which had been set up at the Eighth Plenum of the CI in May 1927. The commission’s final resolution had called for the unconditional abolition of all factionalism. Both sides ignored the resolution. however, as the most vicious factionalism continued in the Party. At the Fifth Convention of the CPUSA in the fall of 1927, the Lovestone-Pepper bunch were able to out-maneuver the Foster-Cannon opposition and win control of the organizational apparatus.<br />
<br />
Firmly in the saddle of power and riding high, their support came from the belief on the part of the membership that the Lovestone group had the endorsement of the Comintern—a myth assiduously cultivated by the Lovestone cohorts. They were playing a deceitful game of double-bookkeeping, both with respect to the Comintern as well as to the membership at home. Their method was to give lip service to the fight against the right danger. while in practice undermining its application and attempting to pin the label of “right” on the opposition. Typical of this duplicity was their sabotage of the line of the Red International of Labor Unions’ (RILU) Fourth Congress, which had called for the formation of the new unions in industries and areas where the workers were unorganized.<br />
<br />
In the U.S., the new upsurge in class struggle, combined wit refusal of the AFL craft-type union caters to ieee ie majority of industrial workers, demanded that the communists take the lead and organize the unions themselves. ;<br />
<br />
At this point in the discussion it was pointed out that Foster himself was still not clear on the question of the formation of the new unions. Other members of the grouping admitted that they had also vacillated on the question when it was first raised—after the decisions of the Fourth RILU Congress-—but it appeared that they now had a better grasp of the matter.<br />
<br />
On the question of the estimate of the international situation, they pointed out that their record was clear, whereas the leadership definitely underestimated the economic crisis and radicalization of the workers. They admitted that they were late in pressing the question of independent unions, but now they had finally decided to launch textile, mining and needle trades industrial unions. Lovestone had jumped on the bandwagon at the last minute as a loud trumpeter of the “new unions” line in an attempt to clear his record before the World Congress.<br />
<br />
On the whole, our comrades were full of fight and optimistic at the outcome of placing their case before the World Congress. They seemed sure that they would get a favorable hearing. The strategy was to expose the Lovestone-Pepper leadership as the embodiment of the right danger in the U.S. Party and to explode the myth of their Comintern support, thus laying the basis for the victory of the opposition at the next Party convention. This strategy was pressed at the numerous caucus meetings of the opposition bloc which I attended before and during the congress.<br />
<br />
But all was not well within the ranks of the opposition; that much was evident at the first meeting of our caucus. Foster, the leader of the minority, came under sharp attack for his vacillation on the question of the new unions from his immediate co-workers, Bittelman, Cannon, Browder and Johnstone. Foster had not been alone in his resistance to the new policy. Most of the members of the minority had vacillated on, if not openly resisted, the decisions of the Ninth Plenum and of the Fourth Congress of the RILU on this question.<br />
<br />
But Foster had been the most stubborn, clinging to the old policy based on the organized workers, rather than the unorganized, which placed main emphasis on work within the old reactionary-dominated AFL unions. This policy, which Lozovsky had caricatured as “dancing a quadrille,..around the AFL and its various unions,” regarded the organization of unions independent of the AFL as “dual unionism”--a heresy left over from the days of the IWW.<br />
<br />
Just a month before, in the May Plenum of the CC of the CPUSA, Foster had written a trade union resolution which was supported by Lovestone, While it called for the building of independent textile and miners’ unions, it still reflected many illusions as to the gains communists could make within the AFL. Foster could not bring himself to fully criticize his earlier mistakes, which left Lovestone free to use Foster as a cover for his rightist position.<br />
<br />
All of this was bad for the minority; it blurred the image that it sought to present to the congress—that of consistent fighters against the right danger. There was a heated exchange at the first meeting of the minority caucus. As I recall, Foster contended that he had not in principle been against the new turn, but against those who interpreted it as a signal for desertion of the work in the old unions, It was clear that at this point Foster had lost leadership (at least temporarily) of his own group. Bittelman was chosen to make the report for the minority in the American Commission of the congress,<br />
<br />
With tempers still frayed, we passed on to a brief exchange on the Afro-American question and the proposed new line on self-determination, which they all knew was coming up for fulldress discussion at the congress. I gave a brief outline of the position and how I had been led to it by the study of the Garvey movement.<br />
<br />
Then someone raised the inevitable question, Wouldn't this be construed as an endorsement of Black separation? Does it not conflict with the struggle against segregation?<br />
<br />
Foster objected to that implication, maintaining that selfdetermination didn’t necessarily mean separation. He drew an analogy to our trade union policy with respect to Blacks, He pointed out the necessity to fight for the organization of Blacks and whites in one union and against all segregation, But in unions where Jim Crow bars exclude Blacks, Foster said, we support their right to organize their own separate unions, In such situations, the organization of Black unions should be regarded as a step toward eventual unity and not an advocacy of separation.<br />
<br />
It was evident that Foster had studied the question and was attempting to relate it to his own practical experience. While his analogy was oversimplified, he was clearly taking a correct stand.<br />
<br />
Bittelman, as I recall, seemed the clearest of all. Perhaps this was as a result of his Russian revolutionary background and some acquaintance with the Bolshevik policy on the national question. He pointed out the necessity of making a distinction between the right of separation and separation itself. Separation or independence is only one of the options; there were various forms of federation as Soviet experience had shown. The central question was one of building unity of Black and white workers against U.S. capitalism and this could be achieved only by recognition of the right of self-determination.<br />
<br />
I was happy about the support given to the position by Foster and Bittelman, As the main theoretician of the minority, Bittelman had a great deal of influence. Certainly there was unclarity among the caucus members, but by and large I was favorably impressed by this first airing of the question. After all, I reasoned, the proposed new line did represent a radical shift from past policy. There seemed to be a modesty among these people and a sincere desire to give the matter a full hearing.<br />
<br />
I felt that on the whole my comrades were an honest lot, Despite factional considerations, they were motivated by the overriding desire to achieve clarity on a question which up to that point had frustrated the Party’s best efforts.<br />
<br />
In the caucus meetings, I had my first close-up view of some of the leaders with whom I was to work in the future. Mostly from the midwest, with genuine roots in the American labor tradition, they were a pretty impressive bunch. Most had broad mass experience—especially in the trade union field. The roots of the Lovestone group were much more grounded among former functionaries and propagandists of the Socialist Party.<br />
<br />
William Z. Foster, leader of the minority bloc, was also the leader in the Party’s trade union work. A self-educated man, he had worked at a number of trades, including longshoreman, seaman, lumberjack, street-car conductor and railroad worker Born in Massachusetts, he spent his early childhood in Philadelphia and came into prominence as a trade union leader in Chicago.<br />
<br />
He had been a left socialist, then, for a brief period, joined with the Wobblies. He soon clashed with them on the issue of dual unionism. Foster himself opted for the French syndicalist policy of boring from within the established unions. He joined the Communist Party in the summer of 1921 and brought an entire group of trade unionists with him.<br />
<br />
In Chicago, Foster was deeply involved in trade union work. He had served as business agent for the Brotherhood of Railroad Car Men of America; was a founder of the TUEL; initiated the nationwide drive to organize the stockyard workers in 1917; and was leader of the 1919 steel strike, the attempt to organize 365,000 steelworkers. It was in this strike that he became a nationally known left trade union figure.<br />
<br />
The first time I saw Foster in action was at the Fourth Party Convention in Chicago in the summer of 1925. I remember him angrily pacing with clenched fists back and forth across the platform behind Ruthenberg as the latter berated him from the rostrum. Here in the caucus, he was again an angry man, but under the lashing of his friends and co-factionalists.<br />
<br />
Jack Johnstone, a Scotsman, still had the Scot’s burr in his Speech. An ex-Wobbly and close co-worker of Foster, he had been one of the young radical Chicago trade unionists. A member of the Chicago Federation of Labor from the Painters Union, Johnstone was a leader in the TUEL. I had met him at the Fourth RILU Congress. His name was familiar to me because of his role as a leader in the organization of the Chicago stockyard workers in which my sister had been involved. Johnstone was the organizer of the drive for the Chicago Federation of Labor and later became secretary of the Chicago Stockyards Council with 55,000 white and Black members.<br />
<br />
On the eve of the 1919 riots, he had helped to organize a parade of white stockyard unionists through the Southside in solidarity with the Black workers. I had the pleasure of working with Johnstone later in Pittsburgh and in Chicago, where he was industrial organizer for the district. He was a quiet, unassuming guy with a wry sense of humor.<br />
<br />
Earl Browder of Wichita, Kansas, served his ideological apprenticeship as a radical trade unionist in the socialist and cooperative movements. Arrested in 1917 on charges of defying the draft law, he spent three years in the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas.<br />
<br />
I had known Browdcr briefly in Moscow while he was rep to the Profintern, before he went on a two year mission to the Far East for that organization. We KUTVA students would often visit him at his room in the Lux Hotel where he would play checkers with Golden, who usually won. He told us that when he was at Leavenworth, he had met a number of former members of the Black Twenty-fourth Infantry who had been involved in the mutiny-riot in Houston, Texas, in the summer of 1917. He told us that they often played baseball together in prison. <br />
<br />
At the time, Browder seemed to me to be a quiet, modest, unassuming man. But at this caucus mecting, something had happened which seemed to have transformed him into a “new’ Browder. Though long associated with Foster, he now seemed bent on not only asserting his independence, but on establishing his own claim to leadership.<br />
<br />
At one point in the heated discussion on trade union policy, he exclaimed sarcastically: “You expect to get the support of the Comintern, but you're all divided among yourselves! There’s a Cannon group, a Bittelman Group, a Foster Group—well, I'm for the Browder Group!”<br />
<br />
No one seemed to take his remark seriously, but less than a year later Browder was to emerge as secretary of the Party.<br />
<br />
James P. Cannon was also from Kansas—a tall, raw-boned midwesterner of Irish descent. He came from the same trade union background as the other caucus leaders; he had been a traveling organizer for the Wobblies and an editor of a number of labor papers. Hc was a supporter of Trotsky, although he didn’t admit it at the congress. Later he split from the Party and helped form the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party. <br />
<br />
Bil} Dunne was a man of impressive credentials. Raised in Minnesota, Dunne entered the trade union movement as an electrician. Then in Butte, Montana, during World War I, he edited the Butte Daily Bulletin (official organ of the Montana Federation of Labor and the Butte Central Labor Council).<br />
<br />
Dunne had been secretary of a local of electricians, vice-president of the Montana Federation of Labor and a member of the state legislature (on the Democratic ticket, which in Butte was labor controlled). He helped organize the Socialist Party Branch of Butte and brought it into the Communist Labor Party in 1919.<br />
<br />
I got to know Bill quite well; he was in the Soviet Union for some months before the Sixth Congress as a Profintern rep. I first met him through Clarence Hathaway, and both were associated with the Cannon sub-group. Bill was familiar with the emerging line on self-determination and supported it. He had written a number of articles on Black workers in the mid-twenties.<br />
<br />
To me, he was the most colorful figure in our caucus anda man of unusual brilliance. Keen-witted, sharp in debate, he had an extraordinary sense of humor. Of Irish and French-Canadian parentage, Bill was short and heavy-set, with black bushy eyebrows. He cut a romantic figure onthe streets of Moscow in his Georgian rabochka and sheathed dagger at his waist. I had aclose friendship with Bill which lasted over a number of years.<br />
<br />
Alexander Bittelman was a Russian Jew who had emigrated to the United States when in his early twenties. A little fellow. Bittelman was both ascetic and scholarly. He had been in the socialist movement in Russia and continued on in his political work in the U.S. A serious Marxist student, Bittelman was the main theoretician for the Foster group.<br />
<br />
=== THE LOVESTONE CAUCUS ===<br />
The Lovestone-Pepper caucus was meeting at the same time. They too were mapping out plans for the battle on the floor of the congress. Lovestone also had his troubles—most involved the shedding of his opportunist reputation for that of “crusader against the right danger.”<br />
<br />
Most of the “big guns” were on the scene: Lovestone, Pepper, Weinstone and Wolfe. Gitlow, Bedacht and others were left at home as caretakers; Gitlow ostensibly to carry on the Party’s election campaign (in which he was vice-presidential candidate).<br />
<br />
While I was the only Black in the minority caucus, the Lovestone-Pepper caucus claimed the allegiance, if not the ardent support, of a number of leading Black comrades. In the nine months since the convention, the Lovestone-Pepper leadership had attempted to patch its fences in the work among Blacks. Otto Huiswood, now a member of the Central Committee and district organizer in Buffalo, was the first Black district organizer. Richard B. Moore was assigned to the International Labor Defense, and Cyril P. Briggs was editor of The Crusader News Service, which was subsidized by the Party.<br />
<br />
But none of these could be called ardent supporters of Lovestone. They were all dissatisfied with the status of Afro-American work, which was reflected in the small number of Black cadre in the Party. In general, it was still difficult to draw a hard and fast distinction between the factions on questions concerning Afro-American work.<br />
<br />
Blacks in the Lovestone delegation included H.V. Phillips and Fort-Whiteman (both directly from the United States) and students from the graduating group at KUTVA—Otto, Farmer and Williams (Golden had already left for home). The group also included William L. Patterson, the young attorney who had worked with the Party on the Sacco-Vanzetti case and who had been sent to KUTVA just before the congress.<br />
<br />
James Ford, who worked in the Profintern and was to become an outstanding Party leader in the thirties, stood aloof from both groups as I remember. His sympathies seemed to be with the Foster-Cannon opposition, however.<br />
<br />
Among the Blacks attending the congress, I was the only one supporting the new line on self-determination. The others insisted that “it was a race question, not a national question,” implying that the solution lay through assimilation under socialism. Probing deeper, I found that most were hung up on a purist and non-Marxist concept of the class struggle which ruled out all strivings towards nationality and Black identity as divisive, running counter to internationalism and Black and white unity.<br />
<br />
It was an American version of the “pure proletarian revolution” concept; a domestic manifestation of the old deviation in the socialist and communist movements against which Lenin, Stalin and others had fought in the development of the Bolshevik policy on the national and colonial question.<br />
<br />
Recalling that I myself had held the same view just a few months back, I felt that the resistance of Blacks in the Party to self-determination would be overcome through exposure in the discussions at the congress of the proposed new line. I had no doubt that they would come to see, as I had, the grand irony of a situation in which we Blacks, who so vociferously complained about our white comrades underestimating the revolutionary significance of the Afro-American question, were guilty of the same sin. For the revolutionary significance of the struggle for Black rights lay precisely in the recognition of its character as essentially that of the struggle of an oppressed nation against U.S. imperialism,<br />
<br />
At this point, the opposition to the idea of Black self-determination was to receive theoretical support from an unexpected source, This opposition came from Professor Sik, my old teacher at KUTVA, who was still teaching the Black students there, Sik contended that bourgeois race ideology, which fostered racial prejudices, was the prime factor in the oppression of U.S. Blacks. Therefore, their fight for equal rights should be regarded not as that of an oppressed nation striving for equality via self-determination but, on the contrary, as the fight of an oppressed racial minority (similar to the Jews under cezarism) for assimilation as equals into U.S. society. <br />
<br />
Sik undoubtedly thought that he was presenting original views, but stripped of their pseudo-Marxist phraseology, they were the old bourgeois-liberal reformist views. He slurred over the socioeconomic factors that lay at the base of the question, factors which call for the completion of the agrarian-democratic revolution in the South, His perspective divested the Black movement of its independent revolutionary thrust, reducing it to a bourgeois liberal opposition to race prejudice.<br />
<br />
However, Sik’s thesis continued to be used as a crutch for the right opposition over the next year or so; it appeared in the Communist International (organ of the Comintern) in the midst of the Sixth World Congress. But the pressure for a turn to the left in this work was to flush it out into the open along with other right-wing views on the question. <br />
<br />
Foremost among these were the views of Jay Lovestone. His view of Southern Blacks as a “reserve of capitalist reaction’ provided a theoretical rationale for the Party’s chronic underestimation of the question. This was clear in his report to the Fifth Party Convention in which he contended that: <blockquote>'''The migration of Negroes from the South to the North is another means of proletarianization, consequently the existence of this group asa reserve of capitalist reaction is likewise being undermined.'''</blockquote>Lovestone held that the masses of Blacks in the South become potentially revolutionary only through migration to the industrial centers in the north and participation in class struggle along with white workers. This viewpoint, which was later to become a cornerstone for his theory of “American exceptionalism,” was first outlined in his report for the Fifth Convention of the Party and again in his report in the Daily Worker in February 1928. But these articles passed unnoticed at the time. It was only on the eve of the Sixth World Congress and under the pressure of the new line that we became alerted to Lovestone’s views.<br />
<br />
The general meeting of the American delegation took place the day before the opening of the congress. All factions were represented but, as I recall, there were no fireworks. By that time, lines were clearly drawn and neither faction was trying to convince the other. On our part, we were saving our ammunition for the battle on the floor of the congress and its commissions.<br />
<br />
Apparently there had been some objections in the Lovestone group to the proposed new line on self-determination. To mollify these people, Lovestone stated that he stood for the right of self-determination of oppressed peoples everywhere, surely he said, no communist could oppose this right. I assumed that he regarded the slogan as some sort of showcase principle; something to be declared but which did not commit its advocates to any special line of action. Lovestone knew which way the wind was blowing and was clearly trying to straddle the fence on the issue.<br />
<br />
The delegates at this meeting were assigned to the various commissions; there was no struggle over the assignments as it was understood that all commissions had to include members of both factions. These commissions included the American Negro/ South African Commission, Colonial Commission, Trade Union Commission, and Program Commission.<br />
<br />
=== THE SIXTH WORLD CONGRESS ===<br />
On July 17, 1928, 532 delegates representing fifty-seven parties and nine organizations assembled in the Hall of Trade Unions. The delegation from the United States was a large one— twenty-nine delegates, including twenty voting and nine advisor delegates. The Sixth Congress convened under the slogan of "War Against the Right Danger and the Rightist Conciliators.”<br />
<br />
The period since the February plenum of the Comintern had been marked by the emergence of a clearly defined right opportunist deviation in most of the parties, They advanced the perspective of continuous capitalist recovery and the easing of the class struggle. In the realm of tactics this meant a continuation of the old “united front from above” and a reliance on social reformist trade union leaders. In the U.S., the right was to find its ease exponents in the Lovestone-Pepper leadership, which emphesized the strength of U.S. capitalism and its ability to postpone the crisis.<br />
<br />
A right opposition had also begun to develop in the CPSU, headed by Bukharin; Rykov, chairman of the Council of People's Commissions; and Tomsky, heading the Soviet Trade Unions. This group opposed the programs of the Stalinist majority of the Central Committee with respect to the goals of the new Five Year Plan, which called for intensified industrialization, collectivization, and the drive against the kulaks. The right deviation inthe CPSU and in the other parties of the Comintern had a common source—overestimation of the strength of world capitalism. The congress was faced with the need to answer these critics by deepening its analysis of the period and by spelling out more clearly the policy flowing from it.<br />
<br />
In the Soviet Party, the disagreement had come to a head prior to its plenum of July 1928, which adjourned just before the Sixth Congress. The differences, however, were hushed up by a resolution unanimously adopted by both groups which stated that there were no differences in the leadership of the CPSU. The agreement undoubtedly expressed the desire of the Soviet leadership to keep the congress from becoming an arena for discussion of Soviet problems before they had been finally thrashed out within their own Party.<br />
<br />
The delegates, however, were not unaware of the struggle in the Soviet Party. They gathered in an atmosphere charged with rumor and speculation about differences within the CPSU. The questions in our minds were: Who represented the right danger in the CPSU, the leading Party of the CI? What was the role of Bukharin? What had been the outcome of the discussions in the plenum of the CPSU? How would the congress be affected? We did not have long to wait for answers to these questions. Differences developed over sections of Bukharin’s ''Report on the International Situation and Tasks of the Comintern''.<br />
<br />
In his report which was distributed on July 18, at the second session of the congress, Bukharin analyzed the post-World War I international situation, dividing it into three periods. He defined the first (1917-1923) as one of revolutionary upsurge; the second (1924-1927) as a period of partial stabilization of capitalism; and the third (1928 on) as one of capitalist reconstruction. Bukharin made no clear distinction between the second and third periods; the latter was simply a continuation of the second. According to his characterization, there was nothing new at the present time to shake capitalist stabilization. On the contrary, capitalism was continuing to “reconstruct itself.”<br />
<br />
On this question Bukharin was challenged by his own Soviet delegation which submitted a series of twenty amendments to the thesis. These characterized the third period as one in which partial stabilization was coming to an end. Later, in his criticism of Bukharin’s position, Stalin pointed out the decisive importance of a correct estimate of the third period. The question involved here was: “Are we passing through a period of decline of the revolutionary movement...or are we passing through a period when the conditions are maturing for a new revolutionary upsurge, a period of preparation of the working class for future class battles? It is on this that the tactical line of the Communist Parties depends"<br />
<br />
At first, all of this was somewhat confusing to us. In his opening report Bukharin had himself declared the right deviation the greatest danger” to the Comintern. But in his characterization of the third period as one of virtual capitalist recovery he had adopted the main thesis of the right. He had also put himself in the awkward position of being rejected by his own delegation. But as Stalin was later to point out, it was his own fault for failing to discuss his report in advance with the Soviet delegation, as was customary. Instead he distributed his report to all delagations simulataniously. <br />
<br />
In accordance with our battle plan to expose to Lovestone leadership as the embodiment of the right deviation in the American Party, our caucus took the offensive. Even before the discussion on Bukharin’s report began, our minority had submitted a document entitled “The Right Danger and the American Party.” It was signed by J.W. Johnstone, M. Gomez, W.F Dunne, J.P. Cannon, W.Z. Foster, A. Bittelman and G Siskind. <br />
<br />
The document contained a bill of particulars in which we sought to point out that the rightist tendencies and mistakes of the Lovestone-Pepper leadership added up to a right line.<br />
<br />
Our attack, however, was hobbled by blemishes in the stateside record of our own caucus. At that point it would have been hard to discern any principled political differences between the majority or minority, Nevertheless, differences were developing on the estimation of the third period and U.S. imperialism.<br />
<br />
Pepper and Lovestone exaggerated the might of U.S. impetialism and spoke only of the weakness of the U.S. labor movement and the class struggle in this country. But the minority had also wavered on the question of building independent trade unions, the logical follow-through of the correct estimate of the objective situation in terms of practical policy.<br />
<br />
On the Negro question, the minority record up to that point had been no better than that of the majority. This fact was quickly pointed out by Otto and others. Both groups had shared the same mistakes. As Foster later observed, both factions had “traditionally considered the Negro question as that of a persecuted racial minority of workers and as basically a simple trade union matter.” It was this orientation which explains the Party's shortcomings in this field of work. But now, the tentative endorsement by our caucus of the proposed new line on the Afro-American question strengthened its position vis-a-vis the majority leadership.<br />
<br />
The prospects for our minority were brightened by the difficulties of Lovestone’s friend and mentor, Bukharin. Corridor rumors concerning his right-wing proclivities were now being confirmed by his differences with his own Soviet delegation on the character of the third period.<br />
<br />
The congress was now settling down to work. A number of commissions were formed to discuss and formulate resolutions on the main subjects confronting the eongress. Among them were: 1) A Commission on Program, to complete the drafting of a program for the Comintern; 2) one on the Trade Union question, to apply the struggle against right opportunism to the trade union field; and 3) a commission on the Colonial Question which discussed strategy and tactics of the liberation movements in the colonies and semi-colonies and the tasks of the Comintern. There were also several commissions on the special problems of individual parties.<br />
<br />
My major concern, however, was the Negro Commission, which was to take up the problem of the U.S. Blacks and the South African question. Although set up as an independent commission, in reality it was a subcommittee of the Colonial Commission. The resolutions formulated by it were included in the final draft of the congress’s thesis on the Revolutionary Movement in the Colonies. The Negro Commission was set up on August 6, at the twenty-third session of the congress. It was a memorable day, particularly for us Black communists—a day to which we all had looked forward. At last there was to be a full-dress discussion on the question.<br />
<br />
We listened attentively as the German comrade Remmele, chairman of the session, read off on behalf of the presidium the list of members and officers who would comprise the commission, It was an impressive list and indicated the high priority given the question by the congress. Thirty-two delegates, representing eighteen countries, including the United States, South Africa. Great Britain, the Soviet Union, France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Turkey, India, Palestine and Syria were members of the commission. Impressive also were its officers: the chairman, Ottomar Kuusinen, was a member of the Cl Secretariat and chairman of the Colonial Commission; the vice-chairman Petrovsky (Bennett) was also chairman of the Anglo-American Secretariat; and the recording secretary, Mikhailov (Williams), was a former Cl representative to the American Party. <br />
<br />
The delegates from the U.S, included five Blacks: myself, Jones (Otto Hall), Farmer (Roy Mahoney), James Ford and I believe, Harold Williams; plus two white comrades, Bittelman and Lovestone. Others included Sidney Bunting of South Africa; Fokin and Nasanov, representing the Young Communist International; the Swiss, Humbert-Droz, a top Cl official; Heller, from the Communist fraction of the Profintern; and several members of the Soviet delegation to the congress.<br />
<br />
Participation in commission meetings was not limited to its members, however. Among the important figures who spoke inthe discussions were Manuilsky, a CI official, and the Ukrainian, Skrypnik, both members of the Soviet delegation. The hall was always crowded with interested observers,<br />
<br />
The first order of business before the Commission was the Negro question, It was introduced by Petrovsky, who, as I recall stressed the need for a radical turn in the policy of the American Party with respect to its work among Blacks. He referred to the Negro Subcommittee, set up earlier in the year by the Anglo-American Seerctariat, which was given the task of preparing materials on the question for the Sixth Congress.<br />
<br />
Petrovsky described the two positions which emerged from this subcommittee.<br />
<br />
One held that the weaknesses of the Party’s Negro work was a result of an incorrect line. The partisans of this position regarded Blacks in the South as an oppressed nation and recommended that the right of self-determination be raised as an orientation slogan in their struggle for equality.<br />
<br />
The other position, he said, held that the question was one of a “racial minority” whose immediate and ultimate demands were embraced by the slogan of complete economic, social and political equality, The supporters of this position attributed the weaknesses in the Party’s Afro-American work to the underestimation of the importance of work among Blacks, This resulted, in turn, from the survivals of racial prejudices within the ranks of the Party and its leadership. This position did not challenge the Party’s line, but called for its more energetic application.<br />
<br />
As I recall, Petrovsky stated that he himself favored the position on self-determination. He did not see it as a negation of the slogan of social equality which, he said, would remain the main slogan for the Black masses. But in the Black Belt, where Blacks are in the majority, in addition to the slogan of cquality the Party must raise another slogan—the right of self-determination. For here, equality without the right of Blacks to enforce it is but an empty phrase.<br />
<br />
At the same time he expressed agreement with the comrades who contended that the hangovers of racial prejudice in the Party were a main obstacle to the Party’s effective work among Blacks. He stressed the need to fight against the ideology of white chauvinism, a principle block to the unity of Black and white workers.<br />
<br />
Petrovsky then referred the comrades to the material before them. It included the document by Nasanov and myself, summarizing our position in support of the — self-determination thesis. The document contained a criticism of current Party activities and policies and condemned Pepper’s May 30th resolution, which had made no reference to the Party’s tasks in the South. It also criticized the completely northern orientation of the American Negro Labor Congress, as contained in the policy statements of its leaders, Lovett Fort-Whiteman and H.V. Phillips. Finally, it criticized Lovestone’s characterization of Southern Blacks as “reserves of capitalist reaction.”<br />
<br />
Other documents presented to the commission were a statement by Dunne and Hathaway supporting the self-determination viewpoint and a document by Sik opposing the proposed new line. Sik argued that Blacks were a racial minority whose immediate and ultimate demands were embraced by the slogan of full social equality. <br />
<br />
Later in the discussion, Pepper submitted a document containing his proposals for a “Negro Soviet Republic” in the South, arguing that Southern Blacks were not just a nation but virtually a colony within the body of the United States of America.<br />
<br />
Among the American delegates who spoke in favor of the proposed new line were Bittelman, Foster and Dunne. As I remember, all were self-critical. Bittelman, however, emphasized the dual role of the Black working class envisioned by the new line: first, its role as a basic and constituent element of the American working class and, second, its leadership of the national liberation movement of Black people.<br />
<br />
I do not remember Lovestone speaking. If he did, he did not openly attack the proposed new line, for that would not have been his style. It was clear to all, however, that he had strong reservations. Sam Darey of the Young Communist League was, as I remember, the only white comrade who openly opposed the proposed new line.<br />
<br />
But the strongest opposition to the self-determination thesis both in the commission and on the floor of the congress was from the Black comrades James Ford and Otto Hall. In their arguments it was evident that they relied heavily on Professor Sik and his “new” theory on “race problems.” Up to that point, neither Nasanov nor I had paid much attention to Sik. But now after listening to Otto and Ford we suddenly realized the danger his theories posed to clarity on this vital question.<br />
<br />
Sik had evidently been working hard on his thesis which he was now proselytizing with almost evangelie zeal. He had, if not a captive audience, at least a willing one among the Black students at KUTVA where he taught (of all subjects!) Leninism. Now suddenly it seemed that Sik had become cast in the role of chief theoretician of the opposition to the proposed new policy; in their speeches Otto and Ford repeated verbatim many of his arguments.<br />
<br />
For example, both Otto and Ford insisted that U.S. Negroes were a racial minority rather than an oppressed nation or an oppressed national minority. (They used these two latter terms interchangeably at the time.) They ruled out all national movements among U.S. Blacks as reactionary. According to Ford, such movements were led by the “chauvinistic” Black bourgeoisie who wanted a freer hand to exploit the Black masses. These movements, he argued, “play into the hands of the bourgeoisie by arresting the revolutionary class movement of the Negro masses and further widening the gulf between the white and similar oppressed groups.” He also averred that Blacks lack the characteristics of a nation. There was not the question of one nation oppressing and exploiting another nation, “In the United States,” Ford continued, “we find no economic system separating the two races. The interests of the Negro and white workers are the same. The Negro peasant and the white peasant interests are the same.” The only problem, he contended, was one of racial differences of the color of the skin, barriers set up by the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Otto sharpened the argument and contended that Blacks were “not developing any characteristies of a national minority...there exists no national entity as such among...Negroes.” Continuing along the same line, Otto saw no community of interest between the Black bourgeoisie and the Black toilers, whom, he argued, “are completely separated (from each other) as far as class interests are concerned.” In sum, he contended that “historical development has tended to create in him (the Negro) the desire to be considered a part of the American nation.”<br />
<br />
What then were the objectives of Black liberation? They were, according to Sik, the striving of Blacks for intermingling and amalgamation. I was astounded and dismayed. This seemed to me to be a bourgeois liberal-assimilationist position cloaked in pseudo-Marxist rhetoric.<br />
<br />
A few days before on the floor of the congress, Ford and Otto complained bitterly about the rampant white chauvinism in the Party and the widespread underestimation of the significance of Afro-American work. Could they not see that they were playing into the hands of the white chauvinist downgraders of the Black movement? They had conceded them their main premise: that the movement for Black equality in itself had no revolutionary potential.<br />
<br />
Sik’s theory had stripped the struggle for equality of all revolutionary content; it involved no radical social change, that is, completion of the land and democratic revolution and securing of political power in the South. It was just a struggle against racial ideology.<br />
<br />
How was it possible for Otto and Ford and other Black comrades to fall into this trap? They had separated racism, the most salient external manifestation of Black oppression, from its socio-economic roots, reducing the struggle for equality to a movement against prejudice. It was a theory which even liberal reformists could support.<br />
<br />
And why did they downgrade the revolutionary nature of the Black struggle for equality? I could only assume that it was an attempt on their part to fit the Afro-American question into the simplistic frame of “pure proletarian class struggle.” This theory ruled out all nationalist movements as divisive and distracting from the struggle for socialism. Lovestone’s idea of the Black peasantry in the South being a “reserve of capitalist reaction” was the logical outcome of this kind of thinking.<br />
<br />
What was clear to me was that our thesis of self-determination had correctly elevated the fight for Black rights to a revolutionary position, whereas the proponents of Sik’s theories attempted to downgrade the movement, seeing it as a minor aspect of the class struggle. Our thesis put the question in the proper perspective: that is, as a struggle attacking the very foundation of American imperialism, an integral part of the struggle of the American working class as a whole,<br />
<br />
The sad fact was that Otto, Ford and other partisans of Sik’s theory seemed completely unaware that they had come to a practical agreement with those white chauvinists who denied the revolutionary character of the Black liberation struggle in the false name of socialism.<br />
<br />
Nasanov, sitting beside me, undoubtedly had similar thoughts. He muttered something in Russian that sounded like, “Lord forgive them, for they know not what they do.”<br />
<br />
During an interval in the Negro Commission sessions, I cornered Otto in the corridor and accused him and Ford of downgrading the liberation struggle and playing into the hands of the white chauvinist element in the Party, How, I asked him, did he expect to fight those responsible for the neglect of work among Blacks when he accepted their main premise-—that the struggle of Blacks was not of itself revolutionary and that it only becomes so when they (the Blacks) fight directly for socialism?<br />
<br />
Otto indignantly denied this and accused me of allowing the question to be used as a factional football by the Foster group. I conceded that they were not all clear, But, I added heatedly, at least they had begun to recognize that their position had been wrong and they were trying to change it.<br />
<br />
We broke off the discussion; it was obviously useless to pursue the matter further, We were both getting emotional. No doubt our relationship had become rather strained as a result of our political differences, I was terribly saddened by this growing rift between my brother and me, True, I no longer thought of him as my political mentor, but nevertheless I felt he was a serious and dedicated revolutionary.<br />
<br />
What, I wondered, were the pressures that pushed Black proletarian comrades like Otto and Ford into this position? Foremost was their misguided but honest desire to amalgamate Black labor into the general labor movement. Nationalism, they felt, was a block to labor unity. They failed to recognize the revolutionary element in Black nationalism. I myself had held the same position only a few months earlier, but then I hadn’t studied Leninism under Sik.<br />
<br />
I remember running into Nasanov. We walked down the hall arm in arm and he asked me if I was going to speak. I said, “I don’t know, should I?”<br />
<br />
Knowing my shyness, he laughed and said, “We've got them on the run. We’ve submitted our resolution and supporting documents.”<br />
<br />
We were then accosted by Manuilsky whom I had met before. He wanted to know if I was the only Black supporting the self-determination position. I told him that thus far I was.<br />
<br />
“How did that happen?” he asked. That was a question I was still trying to answer myself. But before I could reply he said, “Oh, I know, They are all good class-conscious comrades, But I understand them. We Bolsheviks had the same type of deviation within the party.” He turned away to greet somebody else.<br />
<br />
And well he should understand, I reflected, for Manuilsky had been one of the leading Ukrainian Communists referred to in our class on Leninism, who, during the Revolution in the Ukraine, had been, guilty of the same deviation.<br />
<br />
He had been one of those whom the Bolsheviks had called “abstract Marxists,” those unable to relate Marxism to the concrete experience of their own people. On that occasion he resisted the resolution of the CC drafted by Lenin which made necessary concessions to Ukrainian nationalism; these included a softer line on the ku/aks and the establishment of Ukrainian as the national language.<br />
<br />
What about Comrade Pepper’s new slogan for a “Negro Soviet Republic?” Had he undergone a sudden conversion to the cause of Black nationhood? Was this the same Pepper who had completely ignored the South in his May thesis and who had, during the Program Commission at the Fifth Congress of the CI (1924), asserted that Blacks in the US wanted nothing to do with the slogan of self-determination?<br />
<br />
Sudden shifts in position were not new to Pepper who, as we have seen, was a man unrestrained by principles. Lominadze had branded Pepper on the floor of the congress as a man of “inadequate firmness of principle and backbone. He always agrees with those who are his seniors even if a minute ago he defended an utterly different viewpoint.”<br />
<br />
The Commission rejected Pepper’s slogan on the grounds that, first, it actually negated the principle of the right of self-determination by making the Party’s support of it contingent upon the acceptance by Blacks of the Soviet governmental form. Secondly, it was an opportunist attempt to skip over the intermediate stage of preparation and mobilization of the Black masses around their immediate demands.<br />
<br />
Pepper's position was actually an attempt to outflank the new position from the “left.” Clearly he sought to grab the spotlight, to upstage the move towards a new policy. Perhaps he thought that the left-sounding term “Soviet” would make the new stress on the national character of the question more palatable to his factional cohorts of the pure revolutionary persuasion.<br />
<br />
Otto seemed to have nibbled on the bait; at least he felt it did not contradict his position. In his previously quoted speech he stated, “There is no objection on our part on (sic) the principle ofa Soviet Republic for Negroes in America. The point we are concerned with here is how to organize these Negroes at present on the basis of their everyday needs for the revolution.”<br />
<br />
In this ease, however, Pepper had overreached himself, having jumped over the bandwagon instead of on it.<br />
<br />
Despite Pepper’s defeat in the commission, he still had a card or two up his sleeve. This we were to find to our surprise and anger when we received the October 1928 issue of The Communist, official organ of the CPUSA. Prominent among the articles was Pepper’s on “American Negro Problems,” which presented his call for a “Negro Soviet Republic.” But that was not all; the article was also published simultaneously in pamphlet form by the American Party. Neither the article nor the pamphlet was labeled as a discussion paper, which gave them the appearance of being official statements of the new policy.<br />
<br />
Pepper's article had originally appeared in the Communist International, organ of the Comintern, as one of a series of discussion articles. The other articles were one by Ford and Patterson (Wilson), “The Comintern Programme and the Racial Problem” by Sik, and “The Negro Problem and the Tasks of the CPUSA,” by me.<br />
<br />
Of these, Sik’s was the only one to appear in the English edition of the magazine. This was because the English edition had suspended publication for technical reasons from September to December.<br />
<br />
But Pepper also sent his article to The Communist, organ of the American Party, where it appeared in October 1928. Because the official resolutions of the congress were not published until January of the following year, Pepper’s distorted version of the new line was the first document available to American Party members, The result was considerable confusion and misunderstanding.<br />
<br />
Particularly aggravating was that Pepper filched the basic facts of our analysis-—-national character, Black Belt territory, etc, — distorting them into a vulgar caricature of our thesis. This latest piece of chicanery did nothing to enhance Pepper’s image in Moscow where it was already on the wane. It was, however, wellreceived in the U.S. where he still had considerable influence.<br />
<br />
=== ESSENCE OF THE NEW LINE ===<br />
The Cl’s new line on the Afro-American question was released by the ECCI in two documents. The first was the full resolution of the commission, which addressed itself to the concrete issues raised in the discussion, The second was a summary of the full resolution, worked out in the commission under the direction of Kuusinen, for incorporation in the congress thesis on the “Revolutionary Movement in the Colonies and Semi-Colonies.”<br />
<br />
The resolution rejected the assimilationist race theories upon which the line of the Party had been based. It defined the Black movement as “national revolutionary” in character on the grounds that “the various forms of oppression of Negroes....concentrated mainly in the so-called ‘Black Belt’ provide the necessary conditions for a national revolutionary movement.”<br />
<br />
Stressing the agrarian roots of the problem it declared that Southern Blacks “are....not reserves of capitalist reaction,” as Lovestone had contended, but they were on the contrary, “reserves of the revolutionary proletariat” whose “objective position facilitates their transformation into a revolutionary force under the leadership of the proletariat.”<br />
<br />
The new line committed the Party to champion the Black struggle for “complete and real equality.....for the abolition of all kinds of racial, social, and political inequalities.” It called for an “energetic struggle against any exhibition of white chauvinism” and for “active resistance to lynching.”<br />
<br />
At the same time, the resolution stressed the need for Black revolutionary workers to resist “petty bourgeois nationalist tendencies” such as Garveyism. It declared that the industrialization of the South and the growth of the Black proletariat was the “most important phenomenon of recent years.” The enlargement of this class, it asserted, offers the possiblity of consistent revolutionary leadership of the movement.<br />
<br />
It called upon the Party to “strengthen its work among Negro proletarians,” drawing into its ranks the most conscious elements, It was also to fight for the acceptance of Black workers into unions from which they are barred, but this fight did not exclude the organization of separate trade unions when necessary. It called for the concentration of work in the South to organize the masses of soil-tillers, And finally, the new line committed the Party to put forth the slogan of the right of self-determination.<blockquote>'''In those regions of the South in which compact Negro masses are living, it is essential to put forward the slogan of the Right of Self-determination.,.a radical transformation of the Agrarian structure of the Southern States is one of the basic tasks of the revolution. Negro Communists must explain to the Negro workers and peasants that only their close union with the white proletariat and joint struggle with them against the American bourgeoisie can lead to their liberation from barbarous exploitation, and that only the victorious proletarian revolution will completely and permanently solve the agrarian and national question of the Southern United States in the interests of the overwhelming majority of the Negro population of the country.'''</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== South Africa ===<br />
There was keen interest as the Commission moved to the next point on the agenda—South Africa. Here again it was a fight against the denial of the national liberation movement in the name of socialism, the same right deviation on new turf. In the South African setting, where four-fifths of the population were black colonial slaves, the deviation was particularly glaring.<br />
<br />
It was true that in the past year or so the South African Party had intensified its work among the natives, a “turn to the masses,” As the Simons noted, by 1928 there were 1,600 African members out of a total of 1,750 in the Party, The year before there were only 200 African members.<br />
<br />
‘The Party had pursued a vigorous policy in the building of Black trade unions, in conducting strikes, and in fighting the most vicious forms of national oppression—pass laws and the like, The Party’s official organ, The South African Worker, had been revived on a new basis. More than half the articles were now written in three Bantu languages: Xhosa, Zulu and Tsotho.<br />
<br />
Sidney Bunting, leader of the South African Party, had emerged as a stalwart fighter for Native rights in the defense of Thibedi, a framed-up Native communist leader. As a result about a hundred Natives had been recruited into the Party, and two were now on the Central Committee. On the whole, the Party was making a turn toward the Native masses, But it still lacked the theory which would enable it to tap their tremendous revolutionary potential.<br />
<br />
As did most of the white leading cadre, Bunting exhibited a paternalism with respeet to the Natives. This paternalism was rooted in an abiding laek of faith in the revolutionary potential of the Native movement. They saw the South Afriean revolution in terms of the direct struggle for socialism. This white leadership, brought up in the old socialist traditions and comprised mainly of European immigrants, had not yet absorbed Lenin’s teachings on the national and colonial questions,<br />
<br />
These shortcomings had been brought sharply to the attention of the Comintern by La Guma. The result was the resolution on the South Afriean question which La Guma, Nasanov and I had worked on the previous winter. It reeommended that the Party put forward and work for an independent Native South African Republic with full and equal rights for all races as a stage towarda Workers and Peasants Republic. This was to be accompanied by the slogan “Return the land to the Natives.”<br />
<br />
The resolution was not only rejected by the Party leadership, but they had now sent a lily-white delegation to the congress to fight for its repeal, The delegation consisted of Sidney Bunting, Party chairman, his wife Rebecca, and Edward Roux, a young South Afriean communist leader who was then studying at Oxford. Whatever their hopes were on arrival in Moscow, they now seemed dejected and subdued. Having sat through the discussion on the Afro-American question, they undoubtedly saw the handwriting on the wall.<br />
<br />
From the start, the South African delegation was on the defensive, having been confronted by other delegates with the inevitable question: Where are the Natives?<br />
<br />
What answer could they give? It was evident to all that theirs was a mission on which Natives could not be trusted, even those “brought up in the old tradition,” to use the phrase of Roux.<br />
<br />
We Blacks asked about La Guma and they replied, “Oh, he was here just a short while ago and had his say, We felt that the other viewpoint should be represented.”<br />
<br />
After copies of the ECCI resolution on South Africa had been distributed, the South African delegates took the floor before the entire congress to challenge the line of the resolution, The South Afriean revolution, they argued, was a socialist revolution with no intermediate stage, an argument which posed a sort of South African exceptionalism.<br />
<br />
‘The argument ran that South Afriea was not a colonial country. Bunting then contended that “South Africa is, owing to its climate, what is called a ‘white man’s country’ where whites can and do live not merely as planters and officials, but as a whole nation of all classes, established there for centuries, of Dutch and English composition,”<br />
<br />
Bunting’s statement came under attack on the floor of the congress, notably by Bill Dunne. Bunting defended himself, holding that his description was solely factual and was not an “advocacy of ‘White South Africa, .. . the very view we have combatted for the last thirteen years.”<br />
<br />
In essence, Bunting’s views liquidated the struggle of the black peasantry in South Africa. He deelared that they were “being rapidly proletarianized,” and further that “the native agrarian masses as such have not yet shown serious signs of revolt.” Hence the slogan of “Return the land to the Natives ” would antagonize white workers with its implication of a “black race dictatorship.”<br />
<br />
Rebecca Bunting spoke in the commission sessions. Addressing herself to the land question, she denied that the land belonged to the Bantu in the first place. Both the Bantu from central Africa and the Afrikaaners coming up from Capetown had forced the aboriginal Hottentots and Bushmen off their land. Thus, there was no special Native land question.<br />
<br />
The real question on Rebecca Bunting’s mind, however, was not of land, but of the position of the white minority in a Native South African Republic, She came right to the point. Who will guarantee equality for the whites in an independent Native Republic? Their slogan, as you know, is “Drive the whites into the sea.” We listened to her in amazement and a laugh went through the audience.<br />
<br />
The cat was finally let out of the bag, and a mangy, chauvinistic creature it was. Manuilsky stepped forward, his eyes twinkling, “Comrade Bunting has raised a serious question, one not to be sneezed at. What is to become of the whites? My answer to that would be that if the white Party members do not raise and energetically fight for an independent Native Republic, then kto znaet? (Who knows?) They may well be driven into the sea!” That brought the house down.”<br />
<br />
The commission finally affirmed the resolution for a Native South African Republic, It was then passed onto the floor of the congress where the fight continued and our position was eventually accepted.<br />
<br />
=== THE REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT IN THE COLONIES ===<br />
Upon the adjournment of the Negro Commission, many of us moved into the sessions of the Colonial Commission. We found there no peaceful, harmonious gathering, but acrimonious debate. Kuusinen’s report and draft thesis on the Revolutionary Movement in the Colonies was under sharp attack. The point of controversy was the nature and objective of imperialist colonial policy.<br />
<br />
The draft thesis held that the colonial policy of imperialism was directed toward “repressing and retarding” by all possible means the free economic and cultural development of the colonies and retaining them as backward, agrarian appendages of the imperialist metropolitan countries. This policy, the draft thesis maintained, is an essential condition for the super-exploitation of the colonial masses. Thus, it pointed out:<blockquote>'''The objective contradiction between the colonial policy of world imperialism and the independent development of the colonial peoples is by no means done away with, neither in China, nor in India, nor in any other of the colonial and semicolonial countries; on the contrary, the contradiction only becomes more acute and can be overcome only by the victorious, revolutionary struggle of the toiling masses in the colonies.'''</blockquote>Accordingly, the primary question for the colonies was their liberation.<br />
<br />
The opponents of the draft thesis, on the other hand, took the view that imperialism had shifted its policy from one of hindering the economic development of the colonies to one of promoting industrialization under the joint auspices of the imperialists and native bourgeoisie. This was shown particularly in the more advanced colonies such as India and Indonesia, they argued.<br />
<br />
It was the old social democratic theory of decolonization. It implied that the main contradiction between imperialism and the colonies was being eased, the colonial revolution was thereby heing defused. The main components of that revolution, the national liberation struggle and the agrarian revolution, were being eliminated through industrialization. Thus, the perspective before the peoples of those colonies was not national liberation, but rather a long-range struggle for socialism.<br />
<br />
I was amazed to find that leading the attack on the draft thesis was none other than our Comrade Petrovsky. He who had seemed to be such a stalwart warrior against the right on the Afro-American and South African question had now become the chief advocate of the blatantly rightist “decolonization theory.” But that wasn’t all. He had rallied behind him most of the British delegation in his attack upon the draft thesis. It was quite a scandal!<br />
<br />
Here was the British Party, in the homeland of the world’s greatest imperialist power, championing the idea that Britain was taking the lead in decolonizing her empire, The tragedy was that the British delegation seemed totally unaware of the chauvinist implication of their stance.<br />
<br />
It became clear to us in the discussion that the British Party’s position with regard to the colonies pre-dated the congress. This was merely the first occasion for its full airing. Petrovsky had been CI representative to Britain and had played no small role in the development of the “decolonization” theory.<br />
<br />
The partisans of decolonization were utterly routed both in the commission and on the floor of the congress. Lozovsky, Remmele, Murphy, Manuilsky, Katayama and Kuusinen all took the floor in rebuttal. In an early session of the congress, Katayama pointed to the “criminal neglect” of the British Party with regard to Ireland and India in the past, and of the Dutch and American Parties with regard to the Philippines and Indonesia, “The mother countries must correct this inactivity on their part, and give every assistance to the revolutionary movement in these colonial countries,” he said.<br />
<br />
I was impressed by the speeches of Kuusinen and Murphy, the sole Britisher who really spoke out against the position taken by his delegation. Murphy accused his comrades of “presenting a Menshevik picture of the colonial problem and drawing ultra-leftist conclusions.”<br />
<br />
He assailed the contention that the British were out to decolonize India jointly with the native bourgeoisie. “The need of the hour in every colonial country,” he continued, “is a strong independent Communist Party which understands how to expose the bourgeoisie and destroy their influence over the masses through the correct exploitation of the differences between them and win the masses in the numberless crises which precede the revolutionary overthrow of all counter-revolutionary forces.”<br />
<br />
Kuusinen, a mild-mannered little man with a dry, rasping voice, took the floor for the concluding blast. His summary, as I remember it, was a two-hour long devastating attack on the “decolonizers.” He compared their position with that of the notorious Austrian social-imperialist, Otto Renner, who had put forth the perspective of world industrialization under capitalism, postponing the world socialist revolution “till the proletariat will become the great majority even inthe colonies.” Kuusinen pointed out that such views “embellished the ‘progressive’ role of imperia!ism....as if the colonial world were to be decolonized and industrialized in a peaceful manner by imperialism itself.”<br />
<br />
Kuusinen further contended that “the development of native capital is not being denied in the thesis.” But rather than there being an equal partnership in exploitation between the colonial bourgeoisie and imperialism, “imperialism does in fact restrict the industrialization of the colonies, prevent the full development of the productive forces.” It is under such conditions that the class interests of the national bourgeoisie “demand the industrialization of the country,” and in as much as the national bourgeoisie stands up for its class interests, “for the economic independence of the country, for its liberation from the imperialist yoke, then it plays a certain progressive role, while imperialism plays a substantially reactionary role,”<br />
<br />
It was a brilliant and definitive presentation, I thought. Slowly gathering up his papers, Kuusinen looked out over the audience, “Yes, comrades,” he said, “industrial development is taking place in the colonies, but very slowly, comrades, very slowly. Infact, just as slowly as the bolshevization of the British Party Politburo under the leadership of Comrade Petrovsky.”<br />
<br />
He then picked up his papers and stepped down from the rostrum. A momentary silence followed, then an outburst of laughter and prolonged applause.<br />
<br />
=== PEPPER GETS HIS LUMPS ===<br />
The struggle against the Lovestone-Pepper leadership faction sharpened as the congress progressed. Their position of overestimating the strength and stability of U.S. capitalism and of underestimating the radicalization of the workers came under sharp attack. Our opposition group (Bittelman, Foster, Dunne, Cannon and Johnstone) came down hard on Pepper, taking advantage of his growing unpopularity at the congress. The attack on the Lovestone-Pepper faction was supported by leading and influential members of other delegations: notably Lozovsky, president of the Red International of Labor Unions, Lominadze from the Russian Delegation and Hans Neumann from the German Communist Party.<br />
<br />
It was a pleasure to see how they zeroed in on Pepper. At last, he was getting his well-deserved lumps.<br />
<br />
Lozovsky began by criticizing the CC of the CPUSA for having “instigated opposition to the decision of the Fourth RILU Congress on the question of new unions.” But the thrust of his attack was not on the position itself, but on the dishonesty of the U.S. Central Committee which, on its arrival in Moscow, claimed support for the RILU Congress decisions.<br />
<br />
“Of course, every Central Committee has the right to declare its disagreement with decisions adopted by the RILU, but there must be the courage to declare this....You cannot change a negative attitude...into a positive one on the way from New York to Moscow.”<br />
<br />
Lozovsky reiterated earlier criticism of the Party leadership; its passivity in organizing the unorganized, its incorrect attitude toward Black workers and toward the AFL. Then he focused in on Pepper, blasting his articles in The Communist (“America and the Tactics of the Cl: Certain Basic Questions of our Perspective,” May 1928.)<br />
<br />
“Comrade Pepper sees nothing but the power of American capitalism,” he charged, “and discovering America anew although this discovery was made long ago, completely passed over those vital points in my articles on the eve of the Fourth RILU Congress.”<br />
<br />
Then, in a concluding salvo, Lozovsky accused Pepper of having “frequently lost his bearings in European affairs... Today, as you have been able to convince yourselves from his speech here, he is all at sea in American affairs. He could truly be named: themuddler of the two hemispheres.”<br />
<br />
Lominadze also kept Pepper under constant attack during the congress, scoring some devastating blows. He called Pepper's speech “an advertisement for the power of American imperialism,” and stated that if it were printed in the paper, it could be mistaken for a “speech of any of the candidates of the Republican and Democratic parties.” He then blasted Pepper’s articles in The Communist which listed the obstacles to the growth of the Party. According to Pepper, Lomindaze said, “everything is hindering us, capitalists are hindering us by exploiting the workers, the existence of capitalism itself hinders us, and of perspectives there are none at all.”<br />
<br />
As the historic congress was drawing to a close, Jack Johnstone read into the minutes for our opposition caucus a statement expressing our disagreement with the section concerning the United States in Bukharin’s draft thesis.<br />
<br />
Among many points made in this statement, the most important were that Bukharin failed to emphasize the instability of American imperialism and recognize the contradictions confronting it; he failed to condemn the opportunist errors in Afro-American work and did not “state clearly that the main danger in our Party is from the Right.”<br />
<br />
This statement was signed by Dunne, Gomez, Johnstone, Siskind, Epstein and Bittelman; significant was the fact that Browder, Cannon and Foster did not sign.<br />
<br />
Although he basically agreed with the statement and opposed Lovestone and Pepper, Browder continued to hold his position of not identifying himself fully with the opposition caucus, Cannon's reasons for not supporting the statement were unclear at the time, but within a few months, he had become the organizer and leader of the Trotskyist movement in the U.S. I feel Foster was, at the time, still assessing the political lines in the struggle against the right deviation—and for this reason did not sign the document.<br />
<br />
=== CONCLUSION ===<br />
The Sixth Congress called for a sharpened fight of the working class and the colonial masses against imperialism. It set the stage for an all-out war against the main obstacle to the left turn. The right accommodationists and their conciliators in all the parties of the CI--all provided ideological ammunition for this struggle. The correctness of these documents were verified by the events of the following decade—world economic crisis, the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World War II.<br />
<br />
The war against the right got into full swing immediately following the congress. In the next few months the Lovestone-Pepper cohorts were to expand further their right opportunistic thesis of American exceptionalism, elements of which they were developing before and during the congress.<br />
<br />
In substance, the theory held that while the third period of growing capitalist crisis and intensification of class struggles was valid for the rest of the world, it did not apply to the United States. In the U.S. capitalism was on the upgrade and the prospects were for an easing of the class struggle. An era of industrial expansion lay ahead.<br />
<br />
The next few months were also to reveal Lovestone’s ties with the international right conspiracy led by Bukharin. This conspiracy, which we had only suspected during the congress, was finally exposed at the November 1929 joint meeting of the Political Bureau and Presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. From this point on, the conspiracy of the “Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites” went underground to plot the overthrow of socialism in the Soviet Union. In 1937, Bukharin was convicted as one of the main leaders of this treasonous conspiracy and was executed.<br />
<br />
One of the most positive and enduring contributions of the Sixth Congress was the program on the question of U.S, Blacks. It pointed out that all the objective conditions exist in the Black Belt South for a national revolutionary movement of Black people against American imperialism. It established the essentially agrarian-democratic character of the Black liberation movement there. Under conditions of modern imperialist oppression, it could fulfill itself only by the achievement of democratic land redivision and the right of self-determination for the Afro-American people in the Black Belt. Thus, the new line brought the issue of Black equality out of the realm of bourgeois humanitarianism. It was no longer the special property of philanthropists and professional uplifters who sought to strip the Black struggle of its revolutionary implications.<br />
<br />
The new position grounded the issue of Black liberation firmly in the fight of the American people for full democratic rights and in the struggle of the working class for socialism. The struggle for equality is in and of itself a revolutionary question, because the special oppression of Black people is a main prop of imperialist domination over the entire working class and the masses of exploited American people. Therefore, Blacks and the working class as a whole are mutual allies.<br />
<br />
The fight of Blacks for national liberation, quite apart from humanitarian considerations, must be supported as it is a special feature of the struggle for the emancipation of the whole American working class. It is the historic task of American labor, as it advances on the road toward socialism, to solve the problems of land and freedom which the bourgeois democratic revolution of the Civil War and Reconstruction left unfinished.<br />
<br />
The slogan of self-determination is a slogan of unity. Its overriding purpose was and still is to unite the white and Black exploited masses, working and oppressed people of all nationalities, in all three stages of the revolutionary movement; from the day-to-day fight against capital, through the revolutionary battle for state power, to the task of building and consolidating socialist society. The new line clearly stated that this unity could be built only on the basis of the struggle for complete equality, by removing all grounds for suspicion and distrust and building mutual confidence and voluntary inter-relations between the white masses of the oppressor nation and the Black masses of the oppressed nation.<br />
<br />
This line committed the Communist Party to an uncompromising fight among its members and in the ranks of labor generally to burn out the root of the ruling class theories of white chauvinism which depicts Blacks as innately inferior. The mobilization of the white workers in the struggle for Black rights is a precondition for freeing the Black workers from the stifling influences of petty bourgeois nationalism with its ideology of self-isolation. Only thus, the program pointed out, can the historic rift in the ranks of American labor be breached and a solid front of white and Black workers be presented to the common enemy, American imperialism.<br />
<br />
Of course, weaknesses were inevitable in this first resolution, The document was open to the interpretation that the emerging Black nation was limited only to the territory of absolute majority and that the slogan of right of self-determination was primarily dependent on the continued existence of an area of absolute Black majority.<br />
<br />
The document should have made clear that one cannot hold absolutely to the national territorial principle in the application of the right of self-determination. The very nature of imperialism attacks and deforms the characteristics of nationhood. Imperialism has, to a large extent, driven Afro-American people from the rural areas to the cities of the north and South,<br />
<br />
Another weakness was the underestimation of the nationality factor in the struggle for equality and democratic rights in the north, Thus, the program failed to advance any slogans for local autonomy which would guarantee and protect the rights of Blacks in the north, The need for such a program has been most clearly demonstrated in recent years by the growth and development of the movement for community control of the schools and police in northern cities.<br />
<br />
But on the whole, the resolution was a strong one. Its significance was that it drew a clear line between the revolutionary and the reformist positions—between the line of effective struggle and futile accommodation.<br />
<br />
The document was not a complete and definite statement, but a new departure, a revolutionary turning point in the treatment of the Afro-American question.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 10 ==<br />
<br />
=== Lovestone Unmasked ===<br />
Otto, Harold Williams and Farmer, having completed their course at KUTVA, left the Soviet Union after the Sixth Congress. The African, Bankole, remained for further training to prepare him for work in the Gold Coast (Ghana). At KUTVA there was another contingent of Black students from the U.S. Along with Maude White, there were now William S. Patterson (Wilson), Herbert Newton, Marie Houston and many more were to come,<br />
<br />
I was then thirty and had recently completed my last YCL assignment as a delegate to the Fifth Congress of the Young Communist International (YCI). Along with my studies at the Lenin School, I was continuing my work in the Comintern. I was then vice-chairman of the Negro Subcommission of the Eastern (colonial) Secretariat, and Nasanov was chairman, The subcommission was established as a “watch-dog” committee to check on the application of the Sixth Congress decisions with reference to the Black national question in the U.S. and South Africa. According to our reports, the South Africans were applying the line of the Sixth Congress and so we devoted most of our attention to the work in the United States. <br />
<br />
In the U.S., the minority girded itself for a long struggle against the Lovestone-Pepper leadership, which had emerged from the Sixth Congress battered, but not beaten. This leadership still enjoyed the majority support within the Party. This was due primarily to the widely prevalent belief within the Party that this leadership was favored by the Comintern. Lovestone was loud in his protestations of support for the line of the Sixth Congress and attempted to pin the right-wing label on the minority. This deception was successful for a short time.<br />
<br />
The CI’s support for Lovestone seemed confirmed by a letter from the ECCI dated September 7, 1928, a week after the adjournment of the Sixth Congress. The letter contained two documents. The first was the final draft of paragraph forty-nine of the “Thesis on the International Situation and Tasks of the Communist International,” which dealt with the U.S. Party. The second was a “Supplementary Decision” by the Political Secretariat of the Executive Committee of the Communist International which denied the minority’s charge that the Lovestone-Pepper leadership represented a right line in the Party.<br />
<br />
Paragraph forty-nine commended the Party, saying, “it has displayed more lively activity and has taken advantage of symptoms of crisis in American industry....A number of stubborn and fierce class battles (primarily the miners’ strike) found in the Communist Party a stalwart leader. The campaign against the execution of Sacco and Vanzetti was also conducted under the leadership of the Party.”<br />
<br />
It also criticized the Party, stating that “the Party has not with sufficient energy conducted work in the organization of the unorganized and of the Negro Movement, and...it does not conduct a sufficiently strong struggle against the predatory policy of the United States in Latin America.” It concluded by stating, “These mistakes, however, cannot be ascribed to the Majority leadership alone....the most important task that confronts the Party is to put an end to the factional strife which is not based on any serious differences on principles...” The thesis pointed out that while some rightist errors had been committed by both sides, “the charge against the majority of the Central Committee of the U.S, Party of representing a right line is unfounded.”<br />
<br />
The letter evoked great jubilation among Lovestone-Pepper cohorts and was given widest publicity. A self-laudatory statement from the Central Committee was published alongside the Cl letter in the October 3, 1928, Daily Worker. It boasted that the letter proved that the CI “is continuing its policy of supporting politically the present Party leadership.”<br />
<br />
Of course we in the minority resented Lovestone’s interpretation of the Cl’s letter. We felt that the Cl’s criticisms of all factionalism and its rejection of our specific charge against the Lovestone-Pepper leadership were not equivalent to a political endorsement for Lovestone. The Comintern called for unity in the Party on the basis of the Sixth Congress’s decisions. We could hardly expect the CI to come out in support of the minority; it was not a cohesive ideological force itself. The subsequent defection of Cannon to Trotskyism further demonstrated the lack of ideological cohesion in the minority. Then there was the hard fact that Lovestone still held the majority of the U.S. Party.<br />
<br />
Differences of principle between the minority and the Lovestone leadership had begun to develop only a half year before at the Fourth Congress of the RILU in March 1928. These arose over the question of trade unions; but even here they were clouded by factionalism and vacillation on the part of the minority. There was, therefore, substance to the CI’s charges that both groups had placed factional consideration above principles.<br />
<br />
About the same time, the Party was shocked by the defection of James Cannon and his close associates Max Shachtman and Marty Abern. They were exposed as hidden Trotskyists and expelled from the Party. Cannon’s treachery was first exposed by the minority. This frustrated Lovestone’s attempt to pin the label of Trotskyism on our group. Nevertheless, Lovestone sought to use the Trotsky issue to divert the Party from the struggle against the main right danger. Later, the Comintern was to criticize the minority for its lack of vigilance and its failure to disassociate itself “at the right time” from Cannon’s Trotskyism.<br />
<br />
Lovestone was cocky and over-confident. He was looking forward to wiping out the minority as a political force in the U.S. Party at the next convention. Even the recall to Moscow of Pepper, his main advisor and co-factionalist, shortly after the return of the U.S. delegation, seemed not to shake his self-confidence. (Pepper had originally come to the U.S. as a Comintern worker and was thus directly subject to its discipline.)<br />
<br />
His recall was undoubtedly an indication of Lovestone’s declining support within the Comintern. The Lovestone leadership supported Pepper’s protest against recall. The CI did not press the issue at the time and Pepper remained in the U.S. Shortly thereafter he returned to his former position in Party leadership. But the incident was not forgotten; it was to be added on the debit side of the ledger at Lovestone’s final accounting.<br />
<br />
Then came the first blow. It was a letter from the Political Secretariat dated November 21, 1928. The letter expressed sharp displeasure at the factional manner in which Lovestone had used the previous letter of September 7. It pointed to the non-self-critical and self-congratulatory character of the statements issued by the majority in response to the September letter and expressed emphatic disapproval of the claim by Lovestone that the Comintern was “continuing its policy of supporting politically the present leadership.” “This formulation,” the new letter asserted, “could lead to the interpretation that the Sixth Congress has expressly declared its confidence in the majority in contrast to the minority. But this is not so.”<br />
<br />
The letter also called for the postponement of the Party Convention until February 1929. Clearly Lovestone had overreached himself. Coming on the eve of the U.S. Central Committee Plenum, the letter threw the Lovestoneites into dismay and consternation. How do we explain the sharpened tone of this letter? It was a by-product of the heightened counter-offensive against the international right and its conciliators which had gotten underway after the Sixth Congress of the Comintern, It was a warning tremor of the quake that was to come. <br />
<br />
Internationally the right had crystallized at the congress and, immediately following, it had burgeoned forth in the USSR and other leading parties of the Comintern. In Germany it was expressed in illusions regarding the social democrats and in resistance to the organization of left unions. In France it was reflected in opposition to the election slogan of “class against class.” In Britain it surfaced as a non-critical attitude towards the Labor Party and a refusal to put up independent candidates. This new thrust of the right was met by a strong counter-offensive. In Germany it led to the expulsion of the Brandler-Thaelheimer right liquidationists. The Cl intervened there on behalf of Thaelmann against the conciliators Ewart and Gerhart Eisler.<br />
<br />
In the Soviet Union, the right line of Bukharin and his friends had encouraged resistance on the part of the kulaks and capitalist elements to the five-year plan, industrialization and collectivivation. They resisted the state monopoly on foreign trade. This was reflected in mass sabotage, terrorism against collective farmers, party workers and governmental officials in the countryside, burning down of the collective farms and state granaries. In the same year (1928), a widespread conspiracy of wreckers was exposed in the Shackty District of the Donetz Coal Basin. The conspirators had close connections with former mine owners and foreign capitalists. Their aim was to disrupt socialist development. As a result, the counter-offensive could no longer be postponed, and the CPSU was obliged to take sharp action against the menacing right and its leaders--Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky.<br />
<br />
The opening gun against the right came in October 1928, at a plenary meeting of the Moscow Committee of the CPSU. At first, Bukharin was not mentioned by name. Other meetings followed. In early February 1929, at a joint meeting of the Politburo and Presidium of the Central Control Commission (CCC), Bukharin was exposed as a leader of the hidden right.<br />
<br />
In the Comintern itsclf, the struggle unfolded after the Sixth Congress. As Bukharin came under attack, his leadership became increasingly tenuous. De facto leadership of the CI passed to the pro-Stalin forces and Bukharin became little more than a figurehead. His lieutenants, the Swiss Humhert-Droz and the Italian Celler, also came under attack.<br />
<br />
Against this background, it was inevitable that Lovestone too, would be smoked out in the open.<br />
<br />
We students held what amounted to a dual-party membership— enabling us to keep abreast of the situation in both the CPSU and the CPUSA. From our vantage point in Moscow, we had a clearer view of the developments in the CI than did our counterparts at home. As members of the CPSU we participated inthe fight of the school against the right. Molotov himself, Stalin's closest aide. came to the school to report on the decisions of the February 1929, joint meeting of the Central Commission of the CC of the CPSU and the Moscow Party organization, Along with Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky were exposed as leaders of a clandestine right in the Soviet Party.<br />
<br />
Molotov had moved into the Cl immediately after the Sixth Congress—a clear political move to offset Bukharin’s leadership, Therefore, he spoke authoritatively on the ramifications of the international right and of Bukharin supporters in the fraternal German, French, Italian and other parties, He didn’t mention the CPUSA or Lovestone in his report, but we students did in discussion on the floor following his report.<br />
<br />
The Lenin School was a strong point in the struggle against the Bukharin right, just as it had been in the struggle against the Trotsky-Zinoviev left. The school reflected in microcosm the struggle raging throughout the Cl for the implementation of the Sixth Congress line against the right opposition, Here we had the right on the run. They were in the minority and at a decided disadvantage from the start, for the entire school administration and faculty from Kursanova (the director) down were stalwart supporters of the Central Committee of the CPSU and its majority grouped around Stalin.<br />
<br />
Indeed, Lovestone had made a fatal mistake in allowing so many able comrades of the minority in the CPUSA to go to the Lenin School. He had undoubtedly already realized this, My group was now in its second year. The students who had preceded us, including Hathaway, were back in the U.S, and Hathaway quickly became an outstanding leader of the minority group upon his return.<br />
<br />
We all had many friends in the Russian Party and in the Cl, especially among the second level leadership—people important in international work. Some of us were sent on brief international missions—-for example, the Krumbeins were sent to China and also to Britain. Rudy Baker, another student from the ULS., was also sent to China. A number of us American students were invited to participate in meetings of the Profintern, the Anglo-American Secretariat and even the ECCT itself on occasions where American questions were discussed.<br />
<br />
I remember one such meeting that I attended as part of a group from the Lenin School. I had been sent by the school to extend greetings to a joint meeting of the Central Control Commission of the CC of the CPSU and its Moscow organization held January-February 1929, as mentioned above. Although I felt no need for an interpreter, as my Russian was adequate, Gus Sklar was sent with me. He was a fellow student and one of the few supporters of Lovestone at the school. A Russian-American, he was completely bilingual and a very affable fellow.<br />
<br />
In my brief speech of greetings I hailed the victorious struggle of the CPSU against the right and right-conciliators under the leadership of Comrade Stalin as setting an example for us in the American Party. “We have our own right deviationists,” I said, “Bukharin’s friends in the American Party---the Pepper-Lovestone leadership.” I described the leadership’s theory of American exceptionalism and its underestimation of the radicalization of the American working class and oppressed Blacks. I ended my speech in a typical Russian manner: “Long live the CPSU and its Bolshevik Central Committee led by Comrade Stalin.”<br />
<br />
I listened attentively as poor old Gus honestly and accurately translated my speech. It certainly was a factional speech but was greeted with applause by the Moscow officials and workers in the audience.<br />
<br />
Gus left the hall and proceeded immediately to the Lux Hotel to inform Lovestone’s crony, Bertram Wolfe. Wolfe had recently replaced J. Louis Engdahl as U.S. representative to the CI. He had been sent by Lovestone in the hope of improving communication between Moscow and the American Party.<br />
<br />
I recall that he was particularly riled by this speech. Several days later there was a meeting of the ECCI on the preparations for the American Party’s Sixth Convention to which a number of us students were invited as usual. Wolfe, while giving his report, voiced a number of complaints. Citing my speech, he questioned the seeming lack of respect accorded the legitimate representative of the American Party. “How is it,” he wondered, “that Haywood, a mere student, extends greetings to the Soviet Party. Why is it that he is given a platform at such an important meeting to launch a factional attack on the U.S. Communist Party? Why is it that when I report here, Lenin School students are always called on to give minority reports?”<br />
<br />
These complaints were met with stony-faced silence by the members of the secretariat.<br />
<br />
=== CURTAINS FOR LOVESTONE ===<br />
From Moscow, we students followed events in the U.S, with avid interest. Our line of communication was in good repair, as our stateside friends kept us well posted. We knew a showdown was imminent. Finally, the Sixth Convention of the CPUSA convened on March I, 1929.<br />
<br />
It was attended by two special CI emissaries with plenipotentiary powers, the German, Philip Dengel, and the British Communist leader, Harry Pollitt. They brought with them two sets of directives: the first was public in the form of the final draft of the CI’s open letter to the convention, and the second, confidential organizational proposals designed to ensure the carrying out of the directives of the open letter. The contents of the open letter were known, it had been circulated as a draft. We students at the Lenin School had participated in the discussions in the Cl in which the letter was formulated.<br />
<br />
The open letter continued the balanced criticism of both groups along the lines of paragraph forty-nine of the Thesis of the Sixth Congress and the Supplementary Thesis. It held that both groups were guilty of unprincipled factionalism; it pointed to the absence of differences on principle between them. It said both were guilty of right mistakes, However, there was something new in the open letter. It pointed out that the source of the right mistakes of both groups lay in the idea of American exceptionalism. “Both sides,” it continued, “are inclined to regard American imperialism as isolated from world capitalism. as independent from it and developing according to its own laws.”<br />
<br />
To us in the minority, it seemed the scales were now tipped slightly but definitely against Lovestone. Though both sides were guilty of this error, it was the Lovestone faction which had articulated it into a full blown theory and which, I felt, held to it the most strongly.<br />
<br />
“This mistake of the majority is closely related to its great overestimation of the economic might and the powerful technical development of the United States.” In this regard the open letter emphasized that it is “absolutely wrong to regard this technical revolution as a ‘second industrial revolution’ as is done in the majority thesis.” It was a “serious error,” it stated, to infer that the remnants of feudalism were being wiped out in the South and that a new bourgeoisie with a new proletariat were being formed.<br />
<br />
“Such overestimation (of the results of the development of technique) would play into the hands of all advertisers of the successes of bourgeois science and technique who seek to deafen the proletariat by raising a lot of noise about technical progress and showing that there is no general crisis of capitalism; that capitalism is still vigorous in the U.S. and that thanks to its extremely rapid development, it is capable of pulling Europe out of its crisis.” The letter contended that “technical transformation” and rationalization lead “to further deepening and sharpening of the general crisis of capitalism.”<br />
<br />
With regards to the minority it criticized Bittelman’s “apex theory ” and stated that the “sharpening of the general crisis of capitalism is to be expected not because American imperialism ceases to develop but on the contrary it is to be expected because American imperialism is developing and surpasses other capitalist countries in its development, which leads to an extreme accentuation of all antagonisms.” The “apex theory” is the view that U.S. imperialism had reached its peak of development and would soon be brought to its knees, primarily by the weight of its own internal contradictions.<br />
<br />
The letter went on to condemn the factionalism in the Party, stating, “so long as these two groups exist in the Party...the further healthy ideological development of the Party is excluded.”<br />
<br />
It concluded by putting forth four principal conditions essential to the Party's “transformation into a mass Communist Party...the decisive significance of which neither the majority...nor the minority have understood.” The four conditions were: “1) correct perspective in the analysis of the general crisis of capitalism and American imperialism which is a part of it; 2) To place in the center of the work of the Party the daily necds of the American working class; 3) Freeing the Party from its immigrant narrowness and seclusion and making the American workers its wide basis, paying due attention to work among Negroes; and 4) Liquidation of factionalism and drawing workers into the leadership.”<br />
<br />
Clearly the letter put an end to any basis for Lovestone’s claim of CI support.<br />
<br />
What then were the CI’s proposals for a new, non-factional leadership? These were contained in the confidential organizational proposals brought by the two CI reps, Dengel and Pollitt. The proposals called for the temporary withdrawal of Lovestone and Bittelman—considered the two main factionalists—from the U.S. and requested that they be placed at the disposal of the Cl for assignment to international work, It advised the appointment of William Z. Foster as the new general secretary. Pepper was again ordered to Moscow immediately and forbidden to attend the convention.<br />
<br />
Formal acceptance of the line of the open letter posed no difficulties for an unprincipled opportunist of Lovestone’s caliber. In fact, the letter was endorsed by both factions. But the organizational proposals, which threatened to snatch power from Lovestone, were another matter, The crucial question for Lovestone and company was to retain contol of the Party, With his huge majority in the Party, he felt he was in a position to bargain with the CL. But the situation called for some fast footwork.<br />
<br />
While loudly proclaiming full agreement with the political directive and proposing its unqualified acceptance, he directed his main thrust at the organizational Proposals, claiming they contradicted the political directive. Defying the CI reps, he and his partisans carried the fight to the convention floor, There they launched an unbridled campaign of defamation and character assassination against Foster, who was then favored by the CI to replace Lovestone, The minority, on its part, charged Lovestone with support of the deposed Bukharin.<br />
<br />
Not to be outdone, the Lovestoncites supported a resolution denouncing Bukharin and calling for his ouster as head of the Comintern. Lovestone had no compunction in dumping his former political patron. Tempers flared; fistfights erupted on the convention floor. A group of so-called proletarian delegates organized by Lovestone sent a cable to the CI pleading for a reversal of the organizational proposals, and that the convention be allowed to choose its own general secretary, subject of course to the CI’s approval. <br />
<br />
The situation was so tense that the CI responded by conceding the right of the convention to elect its own leadership-—-and thus its general secretary-—with the exception of Lovestone, They still insisted on Lovestone’s and Bittelman’s withdrawal to Moscow. Other than that, the convention with its Lovestone majority was free to elect its own leadership.<br />
<br />
Lovestone made his crony Gitlow general secretary. The CI also insisted on Pepper's return to Moscow. The convention ended up with the appointment of several Lovestone loyalists as a “proletarian delegation,” which would travel to Moscow and plead the majority case in the Comintern. The members of the delegation were mainly Party functionaries chosen for political reliability. Led by the majority leaders Lovestone, Gitlow and Bedacht, they went to Moscow to seek the repeal of Lovestone’s assignment to Moscow and his prohibition from CPUSA leadership.<br />
<br />
=== THE SCENE SHIFTS TO MOSCOW ===<br />
Since the Sixth Congress, Lovestone had succeeded in covering his flanks on the Afro-American question. He had proposed Huiswood as candidate for the ECCI (of which he was now a member). Five Blacks—Huiswood, Otto Hall, Briggs, Edward Welsh and John Henry—were elected to the new Central Committee, Lovestone’s “proletarian delegation” arrived in Moscow on April 7, 1929, its ten members included two Black comrades, Edward Welsh and Otto Huiswood. I assumed that the line-up of leading Black comrades with the Lovestone crowd represented an alliance of convenience and had little to do with ideology. Up to that time there had been no serious discussion in the Party of the Sixth Congress resolution on the Negro question.<br />
<br />
Foster and Weinstone also arrived to place the case of the minority before the American Commission. Weinstone had switched over to the minority during the Sixth Party Convention and now supported the Cl organizational proposals. Bittelman was also on hand, having acceded without protest to his reassignment to Comintern work.<br />
<br />
The American Commission convened a week later, on April 14, 1929, in a large rectangular hall in the Comintern building. More than a hundred participants and spectators were on hand. The commission itself was an impressive group and included leading Marxists from Germany, Britain, France, Czechoslovakia and China. Among the delegates from the USSR were Stalin, Molotov and Manuilsky. There were also top officials of the Comintern and Profintern: Kuusinen, Gusev, Mikhailov (Williams), Lozoysky, Béla Kun, Kolarov, Kitarov (secretary of the YCI) and Bell. Kuusinen was chairman of the commission and Mikhailov was secretary.<br />
<br />
Among the invited guests was our large contingent from the Lenin School. I sat and looked over the “proletarian delegation” as we waited for the meeting to start. I knew Huiswood, having met him at the founding convention of the American Negro Labor Congress in 1925, but I didn’t know Welsh-—-he was a newcomer, having been in the Party only a few months.<br />
<br />
There was Alex Noral, a farmer from the west coast whom I had met in Moscow the year before. There he had worked in the Crestintern (the Peasant International) representing American farmers, There was Mother Bloor whom I had met previously; she was a plump, kindly-looking elderly woman, formerly with the Foster faction. She always had a twinkle in her eye and her gentle look belied her true character as a staunch, fierce, proletarian fighter. A veteran of many labor battles, she was an impressive agitator. I wondered what she was doing in Lovestone’s crowd. There were three others in the delegation whom I didn’t know: William Miller, Tom Myerscough and William J. White.<br />
<br />
The commission sessions were to last nearly a month. Gitlow led off stating the case for the majority. A large man, his face screwed up ina perennial frown, he was an ill-tempered sort. He harangued the audience for two hours, pouring invective on the minority, particularly Foster. Boasting that the overwhelming majority of the Party supported his group, he praised Lovestone, contrasting the great (so-called) “contributions” of Lovestone with the shortcomings and failures of Foster.<br />
<br />
Woven throughout was the implication that the Party would be destroyed if the Comintern’s decisions were not reversed. He attacked Lozovsky, Profintern chairman, as being virtually a member of the minority faction. He wound up his pitch by calling for a reversal of the Cl organizational directives to the CPUSA Sixth Convention, stating that the removal of Lovestone from leadership would be a damaging blow to the Party.<br />
<br />
Foster replied in a more moderate tone, scoring the Pepper-Lovestone leadership and their theory of American exceptionalism as representing the right deviation in the U.S. Party. He expressed outrage at the smear campaign launched against him by the Lovestone group which he said was designed to line up the Party against the Cl decisions. He called for support of the Comintern.<br />
<br />
Bittelman spoke, emphasizing that the downward swing of the U.S. economy was already taking place and life itself refuted the Lovestone-Pepper optimistic prognosis. Wolfe complained about discriminatory treatment by the ECCI, how his status as official representative of the CPUSA was not recognized and how he was excluded from important discussions on the American question.<br />
<br />
At last, members of the “proletarian delegation” took the floor and spoke, damning Foster and praising Lovestone. After speaking, each one was questioned by members of the commission. The questions were designed to bring out their understanding of the issues involved. Nothing came out but a parroting of Gitlow and Lovestone.<br />
<br />
There ‘was an undercurrent of belligerency and hostility to the commission and the Comintern. Loyalty to Lovestone was a hailmark of the delegation. I was particularly embarrassed by Ed Welsh. He was a tall, handsome, young Black. Welsh, I learned, had been in the Party only a few months, but was a staunch henchman of Lovestone, who had placed him on the Central Committee.<br />
<br />
As he mounted the platform, anger, defiance and disrespect for the commission was written plainly on his face. He launched into a most vicious tirade against Lozovsky, the chairman of the Profintern. Manuilsky, a Soviet member of the ECCI who was sitting in front of the rostrum, was so shocked at the virulence of this attack against a person of Lozovsky’s stature that he started to rise to his feet in protest.<br />
<br />
Welsh waved him down with his hand, shouting, “Aw, sit down you!”<br />
<br />
Manuilsky flopped back in his chair in open-mouth amazement.<br />
<br />
Tom Myerscough, a mine organizer from the Pittsburgh area, also spoke. He was a tough-looking, blustering ex-miner. He strode up to the platform and declared that he spoke three languages, “English, profane, and today I’m gonna speak cold turkey.”<br />
<br />
The running translation came to an abrupt halt and there was a momentary confusion as the translators stumbled over this slang term.<br />
<br />
In the end, Myerscough’s “cold turkey” turned out to be just another rehash of Lovestone’s charges.<br />
<br />
The commission then brought up its big guns. Comintern and Profintern officials—Gusev, Kolarov, Lozovsky, Béla Kun, Heller and Bell. They continued with a balanced criticism of both groups, but as the meeting went on more and more emphasis was placed on the mistakes of the majority.<br />
<br />
Lozovsky, his eyes twinkling, stepped up joyously to the attack. It was evident that he welcomed this opportunity to settle old scores. He'd been subject to insults and slanders from Lovestone and company for several years, and now the day of reckoning had come. He directed his main barbs against Lovestone and Pepper, dwelling at length on the “strange case” of Comrade Pepper and his fictitious travels.<br />
<br />
Pepper was first called back to Moscow in September 1928; the call was repeated in the organizational proposals of February 1929, and he was ordered to take no part in the U.S. Party convention. Pepper dropped out of sight, giving the impression that he was on his way back to Moscow. Pepper’s account of what then happened was that he went to Mexico to seek transportation by ship to the Soviet Union. When no satisfactory arrangements could be made, he returned to New York and from there went on to Moscow. But during the period he was supposedly in Mexico, he was seen in New York at the time of the Party convention there.<br />
<br />
Pepper had returned, we heard, but was not present at any of the sessions. His case was before the International Control Commission. (An arm of the CI, the ICC was composed of representatives of seventeen parties. Its functions were to supervise the finances of the ECCI and deal with questions of discipline referred to it by member parties.)<br />
<br />
Lozovsky dwelt at length on Pepper’s mysterious travels; how it was the longest trip on record from New York to Moscow, how he had somehow managed the impossible feat of being in two places at the same time. He spoke of how Pepper had faced a big decision: either to return to Moscow or remain in the United States---which meant dropping out of the Party. It took him a long while to make up his mind, Lozovsky observed.<br />
<br />
Kolarov, a huge Bulgarian, took the floor. He referred to Myerscough’s “cold turkey” speech with heavy humor. He conceded that he lacked the linguistic skills of some of his American comrades, and since he didn’t know anything about this “cold turkey,” he was just going to speak plain Russian.<br />
<br />
Stalin made his first speech at the commission on May 6. Foster had introduced me to him at the beginning of the commission sessions. I guess Foster had wanted him to know he also had some Black supporters. I had met Stalin before, but I doubt that the great man had remembered me from our first meeting.<br />
<br />
I was now to hear him speak for the first time. Garbed in his customary tan tunic and polished black boots, he stepped to the rostrum. Very informally leaning on the stand with a pipe in one hand, he began speaking in a calm, measured, scarcely audible voice. We had to strain to hear him.<br />
<br />
Stalin emphasized two main points, charging both the majority and minority factions with American exceptionalism and unprincipled factionalism: “Both groups are guilty of the fundamental error of exaggerating the specific features of American capitalism. You know that this exaggeration lies at the root of every opportunist error committed both by the majority and minority groups.” Stalin followed this with a rhetorical question: “What are the main defects in the practice of the leaders of the majority and the minority?... Firstly, that in their day-to-day work they, and particularly the leaders of the majority, are guided by motives of unprincipled factionalism and place the interests of their faction higher than the interests of the Party.<br />
<br />
“Secondly, that both groups, and particularly the majority, are so infected with the disease of factionalism that they base their relations with the Comintern, not on the principle of confidence, but on a policy of rotten diplomacy, a policy of diplomatic intrigue.” As an example he cited the way in which both factions speculated on the “existing and non-existing differences within the CPSU,” adding that they are “competing with each other and chasing after each other like horses in a race.”<br />
<br />
He presented a six-point program for a solution to the problems faced by the American Party. This included approval “in the main” of the ECCI proposals to the Sixth Convention of the CPUSA (except that relating to the candidacy of Foster); sending of an open letter to all Party members “emphasizing the question of eradicating all factionalism”; condemning the refusal of the majority leaders to carry out the ECCI proposals at the Party convention; ending immediately the situation in the American Party in which important questions of developing the mass movement, “questions of the struggle of the working class against the capitalists,” were “replaced by petty questions of the factional struggle.”<br />
<br />
Stalin concluded by calling for a reorganization of the CPUSA by the secretariat of the ECCI, with emphasis on advancing those workers “who are capable of placing the interests and the unity of the Party above the interests of individual groups.” Finally, that Lovestone and Bittelman be made available for work in the Comintern so that everyone clearly understands that “the Comintern intends to fight factionalism in all seriousness.”<br />
<br />
Stalin’s remarks indicated why the CI considered the development of the American Party so crucial and why it spent so much time in resolving its problems: “The American Communist Party is one of those few communist parties in the world upon which history has laid tasks of a decisive character from the point of view of the world revolutionary movement....The three million new unemployed in America are the first swallows indicating the ripening of the economic crisis in America...1 think the moment is not far off when a revolutionary crisis will develop in America.”<br />
<br />
As Stalin was speaking, I looked across and saw Lovestone with a leer on his face. Earlier on during a break in the session, I had run into him in the corridor.<br />
<br />
“Hello, Harry,” he called to me, “you ought to come over to our side; we could use a bright young fellow like you.”<br />
<br />
Rather taken aback at the man’s gall, | said something like, “You've got your own Negroes!”<br />
<br />
“Oh, that trash!” he said with a deprecating wave of his hand, obviously referring to Huiswood and Welsh.<br />
<br />
Shocked by his crudeness, I was strongly tempted to ask how much he thought I was worth, but I was afraid he might have taken me seriously. <br />
<br />
The session continued as Molotov followed Stalin, speaking along basically the same line. He stressed the need to put an end to the factionalism which had corroded the Party and held back the growth of the working class movement. He concluded by calling on the CPUSA to “get on a new track....to ensure the liquidation of factionalism not in words but in deeds, and to ensure the transformation of its organization” so that the Party could prepare itself for the sharpening struggles and crises to come.<br />
<br />
It was now clear from the speeches of Stalin, Molotov and other members of the commission which way the wind was blowing. For the majority, Stalin’s specch was definitely an ill omen. Even though the subcommittee of the commission (Molotov, Gusev and Kuusinen) had not yet reported out a draft of the commission’s findings, Lovestone and company decided to force a showdown. From this point on, they begana series of veiled threats against the Comintern.<br />
<br />
On May 9, three days before the subcommittee’s draft was presented, the Lovestoneites issued a declaration which accused the ECCI of supporting the minority against the majority and “rewarding Comrade Foster with its confidence.” Gambling that they would still be able to control the Party at home, the Lovestoneites arrogantly challenged the leadership of the Cl. As a cover for their own splitting activities, they accused the ECCI of trying to split the American Party.<br />
<br />
This was clearly the rhetoric of splitting, and was so considered by the members of the commission. It could only be interpreted as a threat to take the U.S. Party out of the CL.<br />
<br />
On May 12, the last meeting of the full commission was called into session. Kuusinen, as chairman, reported the findings and decisions of the subcommittee. Their report was in the form of a draft address from the ECCI to the membership of the CPUSA which had been circulated the day before. Addressed over the heads of the Party leadership, it singled out the Lovestone faction for its sharpest attack. In this respect, it went much beyond previous criticisms, such as those of the “Open Letter to the Sixth Convention.” It now said that exceptionalism was “the ideological lever of the right errors in the American Communist Party,” adding that exceptionalism:<blockquote>'''found its clearest exponents in the persons of Comrades Pepper and Lovestone, whose conception was as follows: There is a crisis of capitalism but not of American capitalism, a swing of the masses leftwards but not in America. There is the necessity of accentuating the struggle against reformism but not in the United States, there is a necessity for struggling against the right danger, but not in the American Communist Party.'''</blockquote>The address charged the Lovestone leadership with “misleading honest proletarian Party members who uphold the line of the Comintern,” and “playing an unprincipled game with the question of the struggle against the right danger.” It termed Lovestone’s declaration of May 9 to be a “most factional and entirely impermissible anti-Party declaration,” stating that it “represents a direct attempt at preparing a condition necessary for paralyzing the decisions of the Comintern and for a split in the Communist Party of America.”<br />
<br />
The draft address concluded with five points:<br />
<br />
1) A call for dissolution of both factions; <br />
<br />
2) Temporary removal of Lovestone and Bittelman from work in the CPUSA;<br />
<br />
3) Rejection of the minority demand for a special convention; <br />
<br />
4) A call for the re-organization of the secretariat of the CC of the CPUSA on a non-factiona! basis;<br />
<br />
5) The turning of Pepper’s case over to the International Control Commission.<br />
<br />
Presenting the draft address, Kuusinen appealed to the Lovestone delegation:<blockquote>'''We call upon the comrades to turn back from this road unconditionally....Our subcommission deems it necessary to call quite definitely upon the delegation as a whole, and upon every individual member of the delegation, to state with absolute clearness whether they are prepared to submit to the decisions of the Comintern on the American question and to carry them out implicitly without reservations. Yes or no? It will substantially depend upon your answer, what character the measures of the Comintern upon the American question shall eventually assume. From your declaration we see plainly that it is no longer a question of factionalism of the leaders of the Majority of the CC against the Minority group, but it is already a factional attitude towards the Executive of the Comintern.'''</blockquote>The majority delegates, after provoking this showdown with the ECCI, refused to give a straight answer to the question posed by Kuusinen—whether or not they would accept the decisions of the Comintern. They backed away, postponing a confrontation until May 14. In the meantime, the majority leaders were secretly taking steps to split the Party.<br />
<br />
A cable drafted immediately after the May 12 meeting and telegraphed from Berlin on May 15 was secretly sent to “caretakers” at home, instructing them that the “....draft decision means destruction of Party....take no action, any proposals by anybody.” The cable went on to state, “situation astounding, outrageous, can’t be understood until arrival” and “possibility entire delegation being forcibly detained.”<br />
<br />
The cable then instructed the majority cohorts at home to: “Start wide movements in units and press for return of complete delegation.,.take no action on any...Cl instructions....Carefully check up all units, all property, all connections, all mailing lists of auxiliaries, all sub-lists, district lists, removing some offices and unreliables, Check all checking accounts, all organizations, seeing that authorized signers are exclusively reliables, appointing secretariat for auxiliaries and treasury dis-authorize present signatory, Instantly finish preparations sell buildings especially eliminating (Weinstone) trusteeship. Remove Mania Reiss.”<br />
<br />
=== LOVESTONE’S MOMENT OF TRUTH ===<br />
May 14, the night of the big showdown, finally arrived. The Presidium of the ECCI—the highest body of the Comintern— convened to hear the report of the commission and render the final decision on the American question. The Red Hall of the Comintern building was jam-packed with participants and on-lookers, among them top flight leaders of the Comintern and Profintern, political workers of both these organizations and leaders of many affiliate parties.<br />
<br />
We Americans constituted a sizeable group. In addition to the ten delegates, it seemed as though Moscow’s entire American Communist colony was present. Aside from our large Lenin School contingent, which had attended the sessions from the beginning, there were now students from the Eastern University (KUTVA): Maude White, Patterson, Marie Houston, Bennett and Herbert Newton.<br />
<br />
Lovestone’s moment of truth had arrived. During the month of sessions, tension had been steadily building; we waited with eager anticipation for the outcome of the final session.<br />
<br />
Finally the meeting was gaveled to order and Kuusinen, the chairman of the commission read its findings. They were in the form of an address from the Executive Committee of the Comintern to all members of the Communist Party USA. He concluded by pointing out that the majority delegates had yet to answer the question he had posed inthe commission on the twelfth of the month. The floor was then thrown open for discussion.<br />
<br />
An angry, scowling Ben Gitlow mounted the platform and read another declaration signed by the American “proletarian” delegation. Although presented in a more diplomatic form than the previous declaration, this new statement continued the same factional and anti-Party attack. As later characterized by the ECCI, it was a “direct attempt to nullify the decisions of the Cl and pave the way for an open split in the CPUSA."<br />
<br />
The declaration opened with some formal phrases asserting the adherence of its signers to discipline, loyalty and devotion to the Comintern, and claiming to speak for the “overwhelming majority of the membership” of the Party.<br />
<br />
It went on to charge the new draft letter to be<blockquote>'''Contrary to the letter and spirit of the line of the Sixth (Comintern) Congress...our acceptance of this draft letter would only promote demoralization, disintegration and chaos in the Party. This is the only logical outcome of the line of the draft letter... There are valid reasons for our being unable to accept this new draft letter, to assume responsibility before the Party membership for the execution of this letter, to endorse the inevitable irreparable damage that the line of this new draft letter is bound to bring to our Party.”'''</blockquote>The audience sat in stunned silence at this outright defiance of the Comintern. It was a clear declaration of war.<br />
<br />
Following Gitlow’s tirade, members of the Presidium and leaders of other parties took the floor and attacked the declaration, pointing out its anti-Party splitting character. They pleaded with the rank-and-file members of the delegation to remain loyal to the Comintern. This plea was joined by a number of our Lenin School students; Zack, Cowl and Lena Davis all spoke.<br />
<br />
During this part of the discussion, Stalin took the floor for the second time, In his usual calm, deliberate manner he delivered a scathing blast at the majority leaders—Lovestone, Gitlow and Bedacht. He characterized the May 9 declaration as “superfactional” and “anti-Party.” The May 14 declaration was “still more factional and anti-Party than that of May 9th.” He called the new declaration a deceitful maneuver, drawn up “craftily... by some sly attorney, by some petty-fogging lawyer.”<blockquote>'''On the one hand, the declaration avows complete loyalty to the Comintern, the unshakeable fidelity of the authors of the declaration to the Communist International....On the other hand, the declaration states that its authors cannot assume responsibility for carrying out the decision of the Presidium of the Executive Committee....If you please, on the one hand, complete loyalty; on the other, a refusal to carry out the decision of the Comintern, And this is called loyalty to the Comintern}... What sort of loyalty is that? What is the reason for this duplicity? This hypocrisy? Is it not obvious that this weighty talk of loyalty and fidelity to the Comintern is necessary to Comrade Lovestone in order to deceive the membership?!'''<br />
<br />
'''It cannot be denied that our American comrades, like all Communists, have the right to disagree with the draft of the decision of the Commission and have the right to oppose it... But... we must put the question squarely to the members of the American delegation, When the draft assumes the force of an obligatory decision of the Comintern, do they consider themselves entitled not to submit to that decision?'''!</blockquote>Stalin then dwelt at length on the evils of factionalism and his barbs hit us in the minority as well as the majority, He held up the American Party as an example of the havoc factionalism can wreak. He stated that factionalism:<blockquote>'''weakens communism, weakens the communist offensive against reformism, undermines the struggle of communism, against social-democracy...weakens the Party spirit, it dulls the revolutionary sense...interferes with the training of the Party in the spirit of a policy of principles...undermining its iron discipline...completely nullifies all positive work done in the Party.'''</blockquote>He warned the majority against playing “trumps with percenlages,” and denied their claim of majority support in the U.S. Party:<blockquote>'''You had a majority because the American Communist Party until now regarded you as the determined supporters of the Communist International.,..But what will happen if the American workers learn that you intend to break the unity of ranks of the Comintern?...You will find yourselves completely isolated... You may be certain of that.'''</blockquote>Stalin’s speech really struck home to me. I had been a member of a faction for the whole five years I had been in the Party; I had been recruited simultaneously into the Party and into a faction, Thus, when Lovestone took over, I had shifted from the Ruthenberg faction to the Foster faction, but after the past month of discussion there was no getting around the fact that factionalism had harmed the Party’s work. It was clear the Party could not make the turn to the left and, in particular, develop the Black movement without the elimination of factionalism.<br />
<br />
It was now after midnight, and the Presidium was finally called to vote on the draft address. It was accepted with one vote against, cast by its only American member, Gitlow. A poll was then taken of each of the majority delegates, Each was called to the platform aud asked directly if he or she accepted the decision, yes or no?<br />
<br />
There was a ripple of excitement when Bedacht, a majority leader and hitherto staunch supporter of Lovestone, broke with the majority and declared that he accepted the decision of the Presidium and would carry it out, He was joined by Noral, the west coast farmers’ organizer.<br />
<br />
Lovestone stood by the majority declaration. Six others, including Welsh, answered that while disagreeing with the decision they would follow communist discipline and accept it until it could be raised at the next Party convention. Gitlow spoke last. He declared that not only did he disagree with the decision, but that he would actively fight against it when he returned to the U.S.<br />
<br />
Again Stalin took the floor, evidently dissatisfied with the hedging of most of the American delegation. In a quiet voice he pointed out that the American comrades apparently “do not fully realize that to defend one’s convictions when the decision had not yet been taken is one thing, and to submit to the will of the Comintern after the decision has been taken is another.” He said it involved the ability of communists to act collectively and is “summed up as the readiness to conform the will of the individual comrades to the will of the collective.”<br />
<br />
He denied that the American Communist Party would perish if the Comintern persisted in its opposition to Lovestone’s line, arguing rather that “only one small factional group will perish.” The Presidium decision, he concluded, was important because “it will make it easier for the American Communist Party to put an end to unprincipled factionalism, create unity in the Party and finally enter on the broad path of mass political work.”<br />
<br />
The historic meeting was finally adjourned at 3 A.M. the morning of the fifteenth. It was nearly summer and, as we passed into the street, the early dawn shone on Moscow’s gilded church domes. We Lenin School students headed towards our dormitory off the Arbot. At first we were all quiet, each one engrossed in his or her own thoughts, trying to piece together what had happened and assess what it meant for the Party. Breaking the silence, someone asked me if I had witnessed the incident between Stalin and Welsh as we were leaving the hall.<br />
<br />
“No,” I said, “what happened?”<br />
<br />
It seemed that on the way out, Stalin passed Welsh who was standing in the aisle talking to Lovestone. Stalin, in a friendly gesture, extended his hand to Welsh, as if to say “we have our disagreements, but we're still comrades.”<br />
<br />
Welsh rudely rejected the proferred hand and in a loud voice said to Lovestone, “What the hell does that fellow want?” There was something strange about Welsh I didn’t like. His attachment to Lovestone seemed to transcend any communist or political principles, I wasn’t really too surprised at this incident, remembering the earlier one with Manuilsky. But I was glad I hadn’t seen it.<br />
<br />
The Lovestone drama was drawing to a close. The Comintern moved with dispatch to head off the threatened split. On May 17, two days after the Presidium meeting, the Political Secretariat of the CI removed Lovestone, Gitlow, and Wolfe from all positions of leadership in the Comintern and in the Party. At the same time all three were detained in the Soviet Union to await the formal disposition of their cases, Lovestone was warned that to leave the Soviet Union without permission of the Comintern would be considered a violation of communist discipline. Bedacht, Weinstone and Foster, who supported the address, were immediately sent home. Mikhailov (Williams) was also sent to the States as CI rep.<br />
<br />
The Comintern cabled the 3,000 word address to the CPUSA. It was received by Lovestone’s caretakers Minor and Stachel, who immediately disassociated themselves from Lovestone. Along with the leading ten man majority caucus, they pledged to follow the Comintern decisions. The Central Committee met the same day and unanimously called upon the delegates remaining in Moscow to cease all opposition to the CI. <br />
<br />
On May 20, five days after the meeting of the CI Presidium, the address was published in the Daily Worker and became the property of the entire Party membership. Lovestone’s doubledealing and deception were now apparent to all. The mandate from the Sixth Convention had limited him to seek review of the Cl decisions, not to defy them.<br />
<br />
In the following days, there was a flood of letters and resolutions from former Lovestone supporters denouncing him, repudiating the actions of their former leaders in Moscow, and unconditionally supporting the Comintern, On May 24, Huiswood, Noral and Mother Bloor, who were still in Moscow, issued a statement. They maintained that they still disagreed with the CI, but had no intention of resisting.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee set up interim leadership composed of William Z. Foster, Robert Minor, W.W. Weinstone and Max Bedacht as acting secretary. The new leadership immediately inaugurated a mass campaign to educate the rank-and-file Party members about the political issues involved in the struggle. This campaign swiftly swung the vast majority of the Party behind the CI. On June 22, the U.S. Party was notified by the CI that Lovestone had left Moscow in violation of the Comintern decision and without meeting his promise to submit for publication a political declaration retracting his opposition. Gitlow and Wolfe had left before. Upon his return to the U.S., Lovestone continued his splitting maneuvers. By the end of June, all three were expelled from the Party.<br />
<br />
Thus Lovestone’s attempt to split the Party failed completely. It was repudiated by almost his entire following. His boasted ninety percent majority shrank to two percent. Only a couple hundred bitter-end right wing factionalists remained loyal to him and were expelled along with him.<br />
<br />
The political and organizational linc of the Sixth Congress was soon vindicated. Scarcely three months after the expulsion of the Lovestoneites came the stock market crash of October 1929— signaling the onset of the great economic crisis which was to engulf the entire capitalist world and exacerbate the already deepening general crisis of capitalism. The crisis shattered the bourgeois liberal myth of American exceptionalism perpetrated by Lovestone and Pepper.<br />
<br />
With the elimination of the six-year-old factional struggle and its chief perpetrators, unity was at last achieved. The Party was now in a position to carry through the left turn called for by the Sixth Congress, now capable of leading the great class and liberation struggles of the next decade.<br />
<br />
The political degeneration of the Lovestone leaders was rapid and predictable, Lovestone formed a so-called Communist Party Opposition Group, declaring its purpose to be the “re-establishment of communism in America.” He kept up the pretense of being a Marxist-Leninist for a few years but when his anti-Party campaign proved ineffectual, the group fell apart and Lovestone embarked on an open anti-communist course.<br />
<br />
He later placed himself in the service of the reactionary trade unionists Matthew Woll and David Dubinsky, with whom he helped sponsor the AFL-CIO anti-communist crusades. In 1963 Lovestone moved up to international prominence as director of the AFL-CIO's Department of International Affairs and George Meany’s “Foreign Minister.” The International Affairs Department had its own network of ambassadors, administrators and intelligence agents and collaborated closely with the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in reactionary subversion of trade union movements in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe.<br />
<br />
John Pepper was expelied from the Party by the International Control Commission, not for his political crimes, but for lying with respect to the trip to Mexico which he never made and for falsifying an expense account for a fictitious trip to Korea. He wound up working for the Gosplan (State General Planning Commission in the Soviet Union). I occasionally saw him on Tverskaya on his way to or from work. What a come-down for Pepper! From the glamor of international politics to a burcaucrat’s desk in the Planning Commission.<br />
<br />
Edward Welsh remained Lovestone’s man-Friday. Many years later, in the early fifties, I ran into him on the street in New York City. We immediately recognized each other. Surprised and curious, I asked if he were still with Lovestone. He said he was, adding that he knew I was still with the Party. Neither of us had more to say; there was an awkward pause, we said goodbye and went our own ways.<br />
<br />
Back at the Lenin School, we of the former minority were elated by the decisions of the commission and the news of the complete rout of the Lovestoneites at home. The political and organizational decisions of the Comintern were accepted unanimously at a meeting of American students held shortly after the close of the commission. Factionalism was condemned and the unity of American students achieved. It was at this meeting that the last two Lovestone holdouts, Gus Sklar and H.V. Phillips, finally capitulated.<br />
[[Category:Library]]<br />
[[Category:Library works by Harry Haywood]]<br />
[[Category:Library works about the United States of America]]<br />
[[Category:Library works about the Soviet Union]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:Black_Bolshevik&diff=63717Library:Black Bolshevik2024-03-05T16:31:32Z<p>RedCustodian: /* Lovestone Unmasked */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Library work|title=Black Bolshevik: Autobiography Of An Afro-American Communist|image=https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1328767045i/704092.jpg|author=Harry Haywood|publisher=Liberator Press|published_date=January 1, 1978|published_location=Chicago Illinois|type=Book|isbn=9780930720537|source=[https://archive.org/details/black-bolshevik-autobiography-of-an-afro-american-communist/mode/2up archive.org]}}<br />
<br />
''Black Bolshevik'' is the autobiography of [[Harry Haywood]], published January 1, 1978. The son of former slaves who became a leading member of the [[Communist Party of the United States of America|Communist Part USA]] and a pioneering theoretician on the Afro-American struggle.<br />
<br />
The author's first-hand accounts of the Chicago race riot of 1919, the Scottsboro Boys' defense, communist work in the South, the [[Spanish Civil War]], the battle against the revisionist betrayal of the Party, and other history-shaping events are must reading for all who are interested in Black history and the working class struggle.<br />
<br />
It was dedicated to his family; his third wife, son and daughter. <br />
<br />
"To My Family,<br />
<br />
Gwen, Haywood, Jr., and Becky" <br />
<br />
== Acknowledgement ==<br />
There have been many friends and comrades who have, directly or indirectly, helped me with the writing of this book. Unfortunately, they are too numerous to all be named here.<br />
<br />
There are a number of young people who have helped with the editorial, research and typing tasks and helped the project along through political discussions. Special thanks to Ernie Allen, who gave yeoman help with the early chapters. Others whose assistance was indispensable include Jody and Susan Chandler, Paula Cohen, Stu Dowty and Janet Goldwasser, Paul Elitzik, Pat Fry, Gary Goff, Sherman Miller, John Schwartz, Lyn Wells and Carl Davidson. Others who gave me assistance are Renee Blakkan and Nathalie Garcia.<br />
<br />
Over the past years, I have had discussions with several veteran comrades and friends who have helped immeasurably in jogging my memory and filling in the gaps where my own experience was lacking, I extend my warmest appreciation to Jesse Gray, Josh Lawrence, Arthur and Maude (White) Katz, John Killens, Ruth Hamlin, Frances Loman, Al Murphy, Joan Sandler, Delia Page and Jack and Ruth Shulman.<br />
<br />
A political autobiography is necessarily shaped by experiences over the years and by comrades who helped and influenced me in the long battle for self-determination and against revisionism. My earliest political debts are to the first core of Black cadres in the CPUSA: Cyril Briggs, Edward Doty, Richard B. Moore and to my brother Otto Hall, all former members of the African Blood Brotherhood.<br />
<br />
To Harrison George, outstanding son of the working class, charter member of the CPUSA, former editor of the Daily Worker and the Peoples' World, who gave his all to the Communist movement and died alone, victimized for his “premature" anti- revisionism.<br />
<br />
A special tribute to my comrades in the battles against revisionism within the CPUSA and after: Al Lannon, veteran director of the Waterfront Section and member of the Central Committee of the CPUSA; Charles Loman, executive secretary of the Brooklyn Party Organization; Isidore Beagun, executive secretary of the Bronx Party Organization; Allen and Pearl Lawes, Al and Ruth Hamlin, Olga and Victor Agosto. And to my wife, Gwendolyn Midlo Hall, my closest collaborator from 1953 through 1964 in the writing of manuscripts as well as in the Apolitical battles, who has since established her own reputation as historian and essayist.<br />
<br />
A tribute to Ed Strong, former communist youth leader and director of the Southern Negro Youth Congress, whose premature death in the mid-fifties cut short his uncompromising stand within the Central Committee for the right of self-determination for the Black nation.<br />
<br />
To the editors of Soulbook Magazine, who published my writings in 1965-66 and invited me to Oakland, California, in the spring of 1966 during the formative stages of the Black Panther movement.<br />
<br />
To Vincent Harding, who provided me with funds to return to the U.S. from Mexico in 1970 and gave me technical and material assistance to begin this autobiography.<br />
<br />
Thanks to John Henrik Clarke and Francisco and Elizabeth Cattlett de Mora for their enthusiasm and moral support.<br />
<br />
To Robert Warner, Director of the Michigan Historical Collections, for his help and his sensitivity to the need to collect and preserve historically relevant materials from the Black movement in the United States.<br />
<br />
== Prologue ==<br />
On July 28, 1919,1 literally stepped into a battle that was to last the rest of my life. Exactly three months after mustering out of the Army, I found myself in the midst of one of the bloodiest race riots in U.S. history. It was certainly a most dramatic return to the realities of American democracy. <br />
<br />
It came to me then that I had been fighting the wrong war. The Germans weren’t the enemy -the enemy was right here at home. These ideas had been developing ever since I landed home in April, and a lot of other Black veterans were having the same thoughts. <br />
<br />
I had a job as a waiter on the Michigan Central Railroad at the time. In July, I was working the Wolverine, the crack Michigan Central train between Chicago and New York. We would serve lunch and dinner on the run out of Chicago to St. Thomas, Canada, where the dining car was cut off the train. The next morning our cars would be attached to the Chicago-bound train and we would serve breakfast and lunch into Chicago.<br />
<br />
On July 27, the Wolverine left on a regular run to St. Thomas. Passing through Detroit, we heard news that a race riot had broken out in Chicago. The situation had been tense for some time. Several members of the crew, all of them Black, had bought revolvers and ammunition the previous week when on a special to Battle Creek, Michigan. Thus, when we returned to Chicago at about 2:00 P.M. the next day (July 28). we were apprehensive about what awaited us.<br />
<br />
The whole dining car crew, six waiters and four cooks, got off at the Twelfth Street Station in Chicago. Usually we would stay on the car while it backed out to the yards, but the station seemed a better route now. We were all tense as we passed through the station on the way to the elevated which would take us to the Southside and home. Suddenly a white trainman accosted us. “Hey, you guys going out to the Southside?”<br />
<br />
“Yeah, so what?” I said, immediately on the alert, thinking he might start something.<br />
<br />
“If I were you I wouldn’t go by the avenue” He meant Michigan Avenue which was right in front of the station.<br />
<br />
“Why?”<br />
<br />
“There’s a big race riot going on out there, and already this morning a couple of colored soldiers were killed coming in unsuspectingly. If I were you I’d keep off the street, and go right out those tracks by the lake.”<br />
<br />
We took the trainman’s advice, thanked him, and turned toward the tracks. It would be much slower walking home, but if he were right, it would be safer. As we turned down the tracks toward the Southside of the city, towards the Black ghetto, I thought of what I had just been through in Europe and what now lay before me in America.<br />
<br />
On one side of us lay the summer warmness of Lake Michigan. On the other was Chicago, a huge and still growing industrial center of the nation, bursting at its seams; brawling, sprawling Chicago, “hog butcher for the nation” as Carl Sandburg had called it<br />
<br />
As we walked, I remembered the war. On returning from Europe, I had felt good to be alive. I was glad to be back with my family—Mom, Pop and my sister. At twenty-one, my life lay before me. What should I do? The only trade I had learned was waiting tables. I hadn’t even finished the eighth grade. Perhaps I should go back to France, live there and become a French citizen? After all, I hadn’t seen any Jim Crow there.<br />
<br />
Had race prejudice in the U.S. lessened? I knew better. Conditions in the States had not changed, but we Blacks had. We were determined not to take it anymore. But what was I walking into?<br />
<br />
Southside Chicago, the Black ghetto, was like a besieged city. Whole sections of it were in ruins. Buildings burned and the air was heavy with smoke, reminiscent of the holocaust from which I had recently returned.<br />
<br />
Our small band, huddled like a bunch of raw recruits under machine gun fire, turned up Twenty-sixth Street and then into the heart of the ghetto. At Thirty-fifth and Indiana, we split up to go our various ways; I headed for home at Forty-second Place and Bowen. None of us returned to work until the riot was over, more than a week later.<br />
<br />
The battle at home was just as real as the battle in France had been. As I recall, there was full-scale street fighting between Black and white. Blacks were snatched from streetcars and beaten or killed; pitched battles were fought in ghetto streets; hoodlums roamed the neighborhood, shooting at random. Blacks fought hack.<br />
<br />
As I saw it at the time, Chicago was two cities. The one was the Chamber of Commerce’s city of the “American Miracle,” the Chicago of the 1893 World Columbian Exposition. It was the new industrial city which had grown in fifty years from a frontier town to become the second largest city in the country. <br />
<br />
The other, the Black community, had been part of Chicago almost from the time the city was founded. Jean Baptiste Pointe DuSable, a Black trapper from French Canada, was the first settler. Later came fugitive slaves, and after the Civil War- more Blacks, fleeing from post-Reconstruction terror, taking jobs as domestics and personal servants. <br />
<br />
The large increase was in the late 1880s through World War 1, as industry in the city expanded and as Blacks streamed north following the promise of jobs, housing and an end to Jim Crow lynching. The Illinois Central tracks ran straight through the deep South from Chicago to New Orleans, and the Panama Limited made the run every day. <br />
<br />
Those that took the train north didn’t find a promised land. They found jobs and housing, all right, but they had to compete with the thousands of recent immigrants from Europe who were also drawn to the jobs in the packing houses, stockyards and steel mills. <br />
<br />
The promise of an end to Jim Crow was nowhere fulfilled. In those days, the beaches on Lake Michigan were segregated. Most were reserved for whites only. The Twenty-sixth Street Beach, close to the Black community, was open to Blacks—but only as long as they stayed on their own side.<br />
<br />
The riot had started at this beach, which was then jammed with a late July crowd. Eugene Williams, a seventeen-year-old Black youth, was killed while swimming off the white side of the beach. The Black community was immediately alive with accounts of what had happened—that he had been murdered while swimming., that a group of whites had thrown rocks at him and killed him, and that the policeman on duty at the beach had refused to make any arrests.<br />
<br />
This incident was the spark that ignited the flames of racial animosity which had been smoldering for months. Fighting between Blacks and whites broke out on the Twenty-sixth Street beach after Williams’s death. It soon spread beyond the beach and lasted over six days. Before it was over, thirty-eight people—Black and white—were dead, 537 injured and over 1,000 homeless.<br />
<br />
The memory of this mass rebellion is still very sharp in my mind. It was the great turning point in my life, and I have dedicated myself to the struggle against capitalism ever since. In the following pages of my autobiography, I have attempted to trace the development of that struggle in the hopes that today’s youth can learn from both our successes and failures. lt is for the youth and the bright future of a socialist USA that this book has been written.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 ==<br />
<br />
=== A Child of Slaves ===<br />
I was born in South Omaha, Nebraska, on February 4, 1898— the youngest of the three children of Harriet and Haywood Hall. Otto, my older brother, was born in May 1891; and Eppa, my sister, in December 1896. <br />
<br />
The 1890s had been a decade of far-reaching structural change in the economic and political life of the United States. These were fateful years in which the pattern of twentieth century subjugation of Blacks was set. A young U.S. imperialism was ready in 1898 to shoulder its share of the “white man’s burden” and take its "manifest destiny” beyond the Pacific Coast and the Gulf of Mexico. In the war against Spain, it embarked on its first "civilizing” mission against the colored peoples of the Philippines and the “mixed breeds” of Cuba and Puerto Rico. In the course of the decade and a half following the Spanish-American War, the two-faced banner of racism and imperialist “benevolence” was carried to the majority of the Caribbean countries and the whole of Latin America.<br />
<br />
“The echo of this industrial imperialism in America,” said W. E. B. DuBois, “was the expulsion of Black men from American democracy, their subjection to caste control and wage slavery.” In 1877, the Hayes-Tilden agreement had successfully aborted the ongoing democratic revolution of Reconstruction in the South. Blacks were sold down the river, as northern capitalists, with the assistance of some former slaveholders, gained full economic and political control in the South. Henceforward, it was assured that the future development of the region would be carried out in complete harmony with the interests of Wall Street. The following years saw the defeat of the Southern based agrarian populist movement, with its promise of Black and white unity against the power of monopoly capital. The counter-revolution against Reconstruction was in full swing.<br />
<br />
Beginning in 1890, the Southern state legislatures enacted a series of disenfranchisement laws. Within the next sixteen years, these laws were destined to completely abrogate the right of Blacks to vote. This same period saw the revival of the notorious Black Codes, the resurgence of the hooded terror of the Ku Klux Klan and the defeat for reelection in 1905 of the last Black congressman surviving the Reconstruction period. Jim Crow laws enforcing segregation in public facilities were enacted by Southern states and municipal governments. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Jim Crow in the Plessy vs. Ferguson decision in 1896, declaring that legislation is powerless to eradicate “racial instinets” and establishing the principle of “separate but equal.” This decision was only reversed in 1954, when the U.S. Supreme Court held that separate facilities were inherently unequal.<br />
<br />
At the time when I was born, the Black experience was mainly a Southern one. The overwhelming majority of Black people still resided in the South. Most of the Black inhabitants of South Omaha were refugees from the twenty-year terror of the post-Re construction period. Omaha itself, despite its midwestern location, did not escape the terror completely, as indicated by the lynching of a Black man, Joe Coe, by a mob in 1891. Many people had relatives and families in the South. Some had trekked up to Kansas in 1879 under the leadership of Henry Adams of Louisiana and Moses “Pap” Singleton of Tennessee, and many had then continued further north to Omaha and Chicago.<br />
<br />
My parents were born slaves in 1860. They were three years old at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation. My Father was born on a plantation in Martin County, Tennessee, north of Memphis. The plantation was owned by Colonel Haywood Hall, whom my Father remembered as a kind and benevolent man. When the slaves were emancipated in 1863, my Grandfather, with the consent of Mr. Hall, took both the given name and surname of his former master.<br />
<br />
I never knew Grandfather Hall, as he died before I was born. According to my Father and uncles, he was—as they said in those days—“much of a man” He was active in local Reconstruction polities and probably belonged to the Black militia. Although Tennessee did not have a Reconstruction government, there were many whites who supported the democratic aims that were pursued during the Reconstruction period.<br />
<br />
But Tennessee was also the home of the Ku Klux Klan, where it was first organized after the Civil War. In the terror that followed the Hayes-Tilden agreement, these “night riders” had marked my Grandfather out as a “bad nigger” for lynching. At first they were deterred because of the paternalism of Colonel Hall. Many of Hall’s former slaves still lived on his plantation after the war ended, and the colonel had let it be known that he would kill the first “son-of-a-bitch” that trespassed on his property and tried to terrorize his “nigrahs.”<br />
<br />
But the anger of the night riders, strengthened by corn liquor, finally overcame their fear of Colonel Hall. My Father, who was about fifteen at the time, described what happened. One night the Klansmen rode onto the plantation and headed straight for Grandfather’s cabin. They broke open the door and one poked his head into the darkened cabin. “Hey, Hall’s nigger-where are you?"<br />
<br />
My Grandfather was standing inside and fired his shotgun point blank at the hooded head. The Klansman, half his head blown off, toppled onto the floor of the cabin, and his companions mounted their horses and fled. Grandmother, then pregnant, fell against the iron bed.<br />
<br />
Grandfather got the family out of the cabin and they ran to the “big house” for protection. It was obvious they couldn’t stay in Tennessee, so the Colonel hitched up a wagon and personally drove them to safety, outside of Martin County. Some of Grandfather’s family were already living in Des Moines, Iowa, so the Hall family left by train for Des Moines the following morning. The shock of this experience was so great that Grandmother gave birth prematurely to their third child—my Uncle George who lived to be ninety-five. Grandmother, however, became a chronic invalid and died a few years after the flight from Tennessee.<br />
<br />
Father was only in his teens when the family left for Des Moines, so he spent most of his youth there. In the late 1880s, he left and moved to South Omaha where there was more of a chance to get work. He got a job at Cudahy’s Packing Company, where he worked for more than twenty years—first as a beef-lugger (loading sides of beef on refrigerated freight cars), and then as a janitor in the main office building. Not long after his arrival, he met and married Mother—Harriet Thorpe—who had come up from Kansas City, Missouri, at about the same time.<br />
<br />
Father was powerfully built—of medium height, but with tremendous breadth (he had a forty-six-inch chest and weighed over 200 pounds). He was an extremely intelligent man. With little or no formal schooling, he had taught himself to read and write and was a prodigious reader. Unfortunately, despite his great strength, he was not much of a fighter, or so it seemed to me. In later years, some of the old slave psychology and fear remained. He was an ardent admirer of Booker T. Washington who, in his Atlanta compromise speech of 1895, had called on Blacks to submit to the racist status quo,<br />
<br />
Uncle George was the opposite. He would brook no insult and had been known to clean out a whole barroom when offended. The middle brother, Watt, was also a fighter and was especially dangerous if he had a knife or had been drinking. I remember both of them complaining of my Father’s timidity.<br />
<br />
My Mother’s family also had great fighting spirit. Her father, Jerry Thorpe, was born on a plantation near Bowling Green, Kentucky. He was illiterate, but very smart and very strong. Even as an old man, his appearance made us believe the stories that were told of his strength as a young man. When he was feeling fine and happy, his exuberance would get the best of him and he’d grab the largest man around, hoist him on his shoulders, and run around the yard with him.<br />
<br />
Grandfather Thorpe was half Creek Indian and had an Indian profile with a humped nose and high cheekbones. His hair was short and curly and he had a light brown complexion. He had a straggly white beard that he tried to cultivate into a Van Dyke. He said his father was a Creek Indian and his mother a Black plantation slave. No one knew his exact age, but we made a guess based on a story he often told us.<br />
<br />
He was about six or seven years old when, he said, “The stars fell”<br />
<br />
“When was that, Grandpa?”<br />
<br />
“Oh, one night the stars fell, I remember it very clearly. The skies were all lit up by falling stars. People were scared almost out of I heir wits. The old master and mistress and all the slaves were running out on the road, falling down on their knees to pray and ask forgiveness. We thought the Judgement Day had surely come. Glory Hallelujah! It was the last fire! The next day, the ground was all covered with ashes!”<br />
<br />
At first we thought all of that was just his imagination, something he had fantasized as a child and then remembered as a real event. But when my older brother Otto was in high school, he got interested in astronomy and came across a reference to a meteor shower of 1833. We figured out that was what Grandfather Thorpe had been talking about, so we concluded that he was born around 1825 or 1826.<br />
<br />
Grandfather Thorpe was filled with stories, many about slavery.<br />
<br />
“Chillen, I’ve got scars I’ll carry to my grave.” He would show us the welts on his back from slave beatings (my Grandmother also had them). Most of his beatings came from his first master in Kentucky. But he was later sold to a man in Missouri, whom he said treated him much better. This may have been due in part to his value as a slave—he was skilled both as a carpenter and cabinetmaker.<br />
<br />
Grandfather had many stories to tell about the Civil War. He was in Missouri at the time, living in an area that was first taken by a group known as Quantrell's raiders (a guerrilla-like band of irregulars who fought for the South) and then by the Union forces.<br />
<br />
When the Union soldiers first came into the plantations, they would call in slaves from the fields and make them sit down in the great drawing room of the house. They would then force the master and mistress and their family to cook and serve for the slaves. Grandfather told us that the soldiers would never eat any of the food that was served, because they were afraid of getting poisoned.<br />
<br />
The master on the plantation was generally decent when it became clear that the Union forces were going to control the area for awhile. At that time, Grandfather and my Grandmother Ann lived on adjacent plantations somewhere near Moberly, Missouri. Grandfather was allowed to visit Ann on weekends. Often on Sundays when he went to make a visit, he was challenged by Union guards. They would roughly demand to know his mission. My Grandfather and Grandmother got married, with the agreement of their two masters, and eventually had a family of five daughters and two sons. Grandfather Thorpe was given a plot of land in return for his services as a carpenter, but the family soon moved into Moberly. As the children reached working age, the family began to break up, but the girls always remained very close. They came back to visit frequently and never broke family ties as the boys had.<br />
<br />
My Mother, Harriet, was born when Grandmother was a slave on the plantation of Squire Sweeney in Howard County, Missouri. After the family moved into Moberly, Mother worked for a white family in town. She later went to St. Joseph, Missouri, to work for another white family. One day, while she was at work in St. Joseph, she heard a shot and then screams from down the street. She ran out to see what had happened. There was a great commotion and a crowd of people was gathering in front of the house next door.<br />
<br />
The family living there went by the name of Howard—a man, wife and two children. Both the man and his wife were church members; they appeared to be a most respectable couple. Mrs. Howard had been very active in church affairs and socials. Her husband was frequently absent because, she said, he was a traveling salesman and his work took him out of town for long periods of time.<br />
<br />
What the neighbors were not aware of was that “Mr. Howard” was none other than the legendary Jesse James. He was shot in the hack while hanging a picture in his house. The man who killed him was Robert Ford—a member of Jesse's own gang who had turned 11 a it or for a bribe offered by the Burns Detective Agency.<br />
<br />
When my Mother did the laundry, I remember she would often ring the “Ballad of Jesse James"—a song which became popular niter his death.<br />
<br />
'''Jesse James was a man—he killed many a man,'''<br />
<br />
'''The man that robbed that Denver train.'''<br />
<br />
'''It was a dirty little coward Who shot Mr. Howard,'''<br />
<br />
'''And they laid Jesse James in his grave.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh the people held their breath When they heard of Jesse's death,'''<br />
<br />
'''And they wondered how he came to die.'''<br />
<br />
'''He was shot on the sly By little Robert Ford,'''<br />
<br />
'''And they laid poor Jesse in his grave.'''<br />
<br />
In 1893, my Mother went to Chicago to visit her sister and see the Exposition. She said she saw Frank James, Jesse's brother, lie was out of prison then, a very dignified old man with a long white beard. He had been hired to ride around as an attraction at one of the exhibitions.<br />
<br />
Mother kept moving up to the north by stages. After the job in St. Joseph, she found work in St. Louis. She arrived to Find the city in a tense situation- the whole town was on the verge of a race riot. The immediate cause was the murder of an Irish cop named Brady. The Black community was elated, for Brady was a “nigger-hating cop" who carved notches on his pistol to show the number of Blacks he had killed. Brady finally met his end at the hands of a "bad" Black man who ran a gambling house in Brady's district.<br />
<br />
The gambling, of course, was illegal. But as was often the case, The cops were paid off with a “cut" from the takings of the house. As the story was told to me, Brady and the gambler met on the street one day and got into an argument. Brady accused the gambler of not giving him his proper “cut." This was denied vehemently. Brady then threatened to close the place down. The Black man told him, “Don’t you come into my place when the game’s going on!” He then turned and walked off. The scene was witnessed by several Blacks, and the news of how the gambler had defied Brady spread immediately throughout the Black district.<br />
<br />
This was bad stuff for Brady. It might lead to “niggers gettin’ notions,” as the cops put it. A few days passed, and Brady made his move. He went to the gambling house when the game was on and was shot dead.<br />
<br />
Some anonymous Black bard wrote a song about it all:<br />
<br />
'''Brady, why didn’t you run,'''<br />
<br />
'''You know you done wrong.'''<br />
<br />
'''You came in the room when the game was going on!''' <br />
<br />
'''Brady went below looking mighty curious.'''<br />
<br />
'''Devil said, " Where you from?”'''<br />
<br />
'''"I'm from East St. Louis .”'''<br />
<br />
'''"East St. Louie, come this way I’ve been expecting you every day!”'''<br />
<br />
The song was immediately popular in the Black community and became a symbol of rebellious feelings. Mother said that when she arrived in St. Louis, Blacks were singing this song all over town. The police realized the danger in such “notions” and began to arrest anyone they caught singing it. Forty years later. I was pleasantly surprised to hear Carl Sandburg sing the same song as part of his repertoire of folk ballads of the midwest. I had not heard it since Mother had sung it to us.<br />
<br />
Mother later moved to Kansas City, Missouri, and then to South Omaha. Her marriage there to my Father was her second. As a very young girl in Moberly, she had married John Harvey, but he was, to use her words, “a no-good yellah nigger, who expected me to support him.” They had one child, Gertrude, before he deserted her.<br />
<br />
Gertie came to Omaha some time after my Mother, and married my Father’s youngest brother, George. I have a feeling that Mother promoted this match; the two hard-working, sober Hall brothers must have been quite a catch!<br />
<br />
As I remember Mother in my childhood years, she was a small, brown-skinned woman, rather on the plumpish side, with large and beautiful soft brown eyes. She had the humped, Indian nose of the Thorpe family.<br />
<br />
My first memory of her is hearing her sing as she did housework. She had a melodious contralto voice and what seemed to me to be an endless and varied repertoire. Much of what I know about this period, I learned from her songs. These included lullabies (“Go to Sleep You Little Pickaninny, Mamma’s Gonna Swat You if You Don’t”) and many spirituals and jubilee songs. There were also innumerable folk ballads, and the popular songs of her day like "Down at the Ball” and “Where Did You Get That Hat?” Then there was the old song the slaves sang about their masters fleeing the Union Army—“The Year of Jubilo.”<br />
<br />
'''Oh darkies, have you seen the Massah with the mustache on his face?'''<br />
<br />
'''He was gwine down de road dis mornin’ like''' <br />
<br />
'''he's gwine to leave dis place.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, de Massah run, ha ha!'''<br />
<br />
'''And the darkies sing, ho ho!'''<br />
<br />
'''It must be now the Kingdom cornin' and de year of Jubilo!'''<br />
<br />
Mother never went to school a day in her life, but she had a phenomenal memory and was a virtual repository of Black folklore. My brother Otto taught her to read and write when she when forty years old. She told stories of life on the plantations, of the “hollers” they used. When a slave wanted to talk to a friend on n neighboring plantation, she would throw back her head and half sing, half yell: “Oh, Bes-sie, I wa-ant to see you.” Often you could hear one of the “hollers” a mile away.<br />
<br />
When Mother was a girl, camp meetings were a big part of her life. She had songs she remembered from the meetings, like “I Don’t Feel Weary, No Ways Tired,” and she would imitate the preachers with all of their promises of fire and brimstone. Later, when we lived in South Omaha, she was very active in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. As a means of raising funds, she used to organize church theatricals. Otto would help her read the plays; she would then direct them and usually play the leading role herself. She was a natural mimic. I heard her go through entire plays from beginning to end, imitating the voices (even the male ones) and the actions of the performers.<br />
<br />
In addition to caring for Otto, Eppa and myself, Mother got jobs catering parties for rich white families in North Omaha. She would bring us back all sorts of goodies and leftovers from these parties. Sometimes she would get together with her friends among the other domestics, and they would have a great time panning their employers and exchanging news of the white folks’ scandalous doings.<br />
<br />
Mother had the great fighting spirit of her family. She was a strong-minded woman with great ambition for her children, especially for us boys. Eppa, who was a plain Black girl, was sensitive but physically tough, courageous, and a regular tomboy.<br />
<br />
Worried about her future, Mother insisted that she learn the piano and arranged for her to take lessons at twenty-five cents each. Though she learned to play minor classics such as “Poet and Peasant,” arias from such operas as Aida and II Trovatore, accompanied the choir and so on, Eppa never liked music very much and was not consoled by it the way Mother was.<br />
<br />
As a wife, Mother had a way of making Father feel the part of the man in the house. She flattered his ego and always addressed him as “Mr. Half’ in front of guests and us children.<br />
<br />
=== LIFE IN SOUTH OMAHA ===<br />
'''You ask what town I love the best.''' <br />
<br />
'''South Omaha, South Omaha!'''<br />
<br />
'''The fairest town of all the rest,'''<br />
<br />
'''South Omaha, South Omaha!'''<br />
<br />
'''Where yonder's Papillion’s limp stream'''<br />
<br />
'''To where Missouri’s waters gleam.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, fairest town, oh town of mine,''' <br />
<br />
'''South Omaha, South Omaha!'''<br />
<br />
In the early part of the century, the days of my youth, South Omaha was an independent city. In 1915, it was annexed to become part of the larger city of Omaha. Like many midwestem towns, the city took its name from the original inhabitants of the area. In this case, it was the Omaha Indians of the Sioux tribal family. The area was a camping ground of the Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1804. It grew in importance when it became a licensed trading post and an important outfitting point during the Colorado Gold Rush. But the main growth of South Omaha came in the 1880s as the meat packing industry developed.<br />
<br />
In 1877, the first refrigerated railroad cars were perfected. This made it possible to slaughter livestock in the midwest and ship the meat to the large markets in eastern cities. As a result, the meat packing industry grew tremendously in the midwest.<br />
<br />
The city leaders saw the opportunity and encouraged the expanding packing industry to settle there—offering them special tux concessions and so forth. The town, situated on a plateau back from the “big muddy” (the Missouri River), began to grow. Soon it was almost an industrial suburb of Omaha and was one of the three largest packing centers in the country. All of the big packers of the time—Armour, Swift, Wilson and Cudahy—had big branches there. Cudahy’s main plant was in South Omaha.<br />
<br />
The industry brought with it growing railroad traffic. As a boy, I watched the dozens of lines of cars as they carried livestock in from the west and butchered meat to ship out to the east. The Burlington; the Chicago and Northwestern; the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific; the Illinois Central; the Rock Island; the Union Pacific—all of these lines had terminals there. By 1910, Omaha was the fourth largest railway center in the country.<br />
<br />
When I was born in 1898, South Omaha was a bustling town of about 20,000. Most of these 20,000 people were foreign-born and first generation immigrants. The two largest groups were the Irish and the Bohemians (or Czechs). There was a sprinkling of other Slavic groups—Poles, Russians, Serbs—as well as Germans, Greeks and Italians.<br />
<br />
The Bohemians were the largest ethnic group in town. They lived mainly in the southern part of town, towards the river, in the Brown Park and Albright sections. One thing that impressed me was their concern with education. They were a cultured group of people. I can’t remember any of them being illiterate and they had their own newspaper. They were involved in the political wheelings and dealings of the town and were successful at it. At one time, both the mayor and chief of police were Bohemians.<br />
<br />
The Irish were the second largest group, scattered throughout the town. The newly arrived poor "shanty” Irish would first settle on Indian Hill, near the stockyards. There were two classes of Irish the "shanty” Irish on the one hand, and the "old settlers” or "lace curtain” Irish on the other. This second group, who had settled only one generation before, was mostly made up of middle class, white collar, civil service and professional workers who lived near North Omaha. There were also a few Irish who were very rich; managers and executives who lived in Omaha proper. They had become well assimilated into the community. The tendency was for the poorer Irish to live in South Omaha, and those who had "made it” to one degree or another would move up to North Omaha or Omaha proper.<br />
<br />
There were only a few dozen Black families in South Omaha, scattered throughout the community. There was no Black ghetto and, as I saw it, no "Negro problem.” This was due undoubtedly to our small numbers, although there was a relatively large number of Blacks living in North Omaha. The Black community there had grown after Blacks were brought in as strikebreakers during the 1894 strike in the packing industry, but no real ghetto developed until after World War I.<br />
<br />
Our family lived in the heart of the Bohemian neighborhood in South Omaha. Nearly all our neighbors were Bohemians. They came from many backgrounds; there were workers and peasants, professionals, artists, musicians and other skilled artisans, all fleeing from the oppressive rule of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.<br />
<br />
They were friendly people, and kept up their language and traditions. On Saturdays, families would gather at one of the beer gardens to sing and dance. I remember watching them dance scottisches and polkas, listening to the beautiful music of their bands and orchestras, or running after their great marching bands when they were in a parade. On special occasions, they would bring out their colorful costumes. Much of their community life centered around the gymnastic clubs—Sokols or Turners’ Halls— which they had established.<br />
<br />
There were differences in how the ethnic groups related to each other and to the Blacks in town. In those days, Indian Hill was the stomping ground of teenage Irish toughs. One day, a mob of predominantly Irish youths ran the small Greek colony out of town when one of their members allegedly killed an Irish cop. I remember seeing the Greek community leaving town one Sunday afternoon. There were men, women and children (about 100 in all) walking down the railroad tracks, carrying everything they could hold. Some of their houses had been burned and a few of them had been beaten up in town.<br />
<br />
We should have seen the danger for us in this, but one Black man even boasted to my Father about how he had helped run the Greeks out. My Father called him a fool. “What business did you have helping that bunch of whites? Next time it might be you they run out!’’ The incident was an ominous sign of tensions that were lo come many years later.<br />
<br />
At the time, however, our family got along well with all the immigrant families in our immediate neighborhood. I loved the sweet haunting melodies of the Irish folk ballads; “Rose of Tralce,” "Mother Machree” and many of the popular songs, like “My Irish Molly-O” and “Augraghawan, I Want to Go Back to Oregon.”<br />
<br />
There was a Bohemian couple living next door. On occasion, Mr. Rehau would get a bit too much under his belt. He’d come home and really raise hell. When this happened, Mrs. Rehau scurried to Officer Bingham, the Black cop, to get some help. I remember one afternoon when Bingham came to lend a hand in laming him. The Bohemian was a little guy compared to him. Officer Bingham threw him down out in the yard and plunked himself down on Rehau’s back.<br />
<br />
Dust flew as he kicked and thrashed and tried to get out from under the Black man. Bingham just “rode the storm” and when Rehau raised his head, he’d smack him around until the rebellion subsided.<br />
<br />
“Had enough?" he’d yell at his victim. “You gonna behave now and mind what Mrs. Rehau says?" All the while, she was running around them, waving her apron.<br />
<br />
“Beat him some more, Mr, Bingham, please! Make him be good.”<br />
<br />
Finally, either Bingham got tired or Mr. Rehau just gave out and peace returned to the neighborhood.<br />
<br />
“Police and community relations" were less tense then. The cops knew how to control a situation without using guns. Often this meant they'd get into actual fist fights. In those days, there was a big Black guy in town named Sam, a beef lugger like my Father. Sam was a nice quiet guy, but on occasion he'd go on a drunk and fight anyone within arm’s length (which was a big area). The cops generally handled it by fighting it out with him.<br />
<br />
But I remember one time Sam really caused a row. He was outside a bar on J Street, up in Omaha proper. During the course of his drunk, he’d beaten up five or six of the regular cops. This called for extreme measures. Briggs, the chief of police, came to the scene to restore law and order. He marched up to Sam and threw out his chest, “Now Sam, it's time for you to behave, you hear?" He even pulled out his thirty-eight to show he meant business.<br />
<br />
But Sam wasn’t ready to behave. He came at Briggs, intending to lay him out like he’d done with the other officers, Briggs backed up, one step at a time. “Sam, you stop. You hear me Sam? Time to stop, now." Sam forced Briggs all the way back to his carriage. Once Briggs was in, he delivered his final threat: “Sam, you come down to City Hall on Monday and see me. This just can’t happen this way."<br />
<br />
Briggs drove off. Monday morning came and Sam went down to City Hall. He was fined for being drunk and disorderly. He didn’t fight the court and willingly paid the fine. It seemed like an unwritten agreement. The cops wouldn’t shoot when Sam went on a spree. When it was over, Sam would go and pay his fine and that would end the whole business.<br />
<br />
Our family was the only Black family in our neighborhood, and we were pretty well insulated from the racist pressures of the outside world. As children we were only very dimly aware of what DuBois called the “veil of color between the races.”<br />
<br />
I First became aware of the veil, not from anything that happened in the town, but from what my parents and grandparents told me of how Southern whites had persecuted Blacks and of how they had suffered under slavery. I remember Grandfather and Grandmother Thorpe showing me the scars they had on their backs from the overseer’s lash. I remember Pa reading newspaper accounts of the endless reign of lynch terror in the South, and about the 1908 riots in Springfield, Illinois.<br />
<br />
In 1908, Jack Johnson, the first Black heavyweight champion, defeated the “great white hope.” Jim Jeffries. Pa said that it was the occasion for a new round of lynchings in the South. There were other great Black fighters—Sam Langford, Joe Jeanett and Sam McVey for instance—but Johnson was the first Black heavyweight to be able to fight for the championship and the first to win it.<br />
<br />
He was conscious that he was a Black man in a racist world. “I’m Black, they never let me forget it. Pm Black, Til never forget it.” Jeffries had been pushed as the hope of the white race to reclaim the heavyweight crown from Johnson. When Johnson knocked out Jeffries, it was a symbol of Black defiance and self-assertion. To Blacks, the victory meant pride and hope. It was a challenge to the authority of bigoted whites and to them it called for extra measures to “keep the niggers in their place.”<br />
<br />
To us children, Black repression seemed restricted to the South, outside the orbit of our immediate experience. As I saw it then, there was no deliberate plot of white against Black. I thought there were two kinds of white folk: good and bad, and the latter were mainly in the South. Most of those I knew in South Omaha were good people. Disillusionment came later in my life.<br />
<br />
The friendly interracial atmosphere of South Omaha was illustrated by the presence of Officer Bingham and Officer Ballou, two Black cops in the town’s small police force. Bingham was a big, Black and jolly fellow. His beat was our neighborhood. Ballou was a tall, slim, ramrod straight and light brown-skinned Black. He was a veteran of the Black Tenth Cavalry. He had fought in the Indian wars against Geronimo and had participated in the chase for Billy the Kid. Ballou was also a veteran of the Spanish- American War. All the kids, Black and white, regarded him with a special awe and respect. Both Black officers were treated as respectable members of the community, liked by the people because they had their confidence. While they wore guns, they never seemed to use them. These cops fought tough characters with fists and clubs, pulling a gun only rarely, and then only in self- defense. It seemed that a large part of their duty was to keep the kids out of mischief.<br />
<br />
“Officer Bingham,” the Bohemian woman across the alley would call, “would you please keep an eye on my boy Frontal. See he don’t make trouble.”<br />
<br />
“Don’t worry, Mrs. Brazda. He’s a good boy.”<br />
“<br />
<br />
Has Haywood been a good boy?”<br />
<br />
“Oh yes, Mrs. Hall. He’s all right.’’And he would stop for a chat.<br />
My sister Eppa, a lad called Willy Starens and I were the only Black kids in the Brown Park Elementary School. My brother Otto had already graduated and was in South Omaha High. Our schoolmates were predominantly Bohemians, with a sprinkling of Irish, German and a few Anglo-Americans. My close childhood chums included two Bohemian lads, Frank Brazda and Jimmy Rehau; an Anglo-Irish kid, Earl Power; and Willy Ziegler, who was of German parentage. We were an inseparable fivesome, in and out of each other’s homes all the time.<br />
<br />
During my first years in school, I was plagued by asthma, and was absent from school many months at a time. The result was that I was a year behind. I finally outgrew this infirmity and became a strong, healthy boy. By the time I reached the eighth grade, I had become one of the best students in my class, sharing this honor with a Bohemian girl, Bertha Himmel. Both of us could solve any problem in arithmetic, both were good at spelling, and at interschool spelling bees our school usually won the first prize. My self-confidence was encouraged by my teachers, all of whom were white and yet uniformly kind and sympathetic.<br />
<br />
Of course, like all kids, I had plenty of fights. But race was seldom involved. Occasionally, I would hear the word “nigger.” While it evoked anger in me, it seemed no more disparaging than the terms “bohunk,” “sheeny,” “dago,” “shanty Irish” or “poor white trash.” All were terms of common usage, interchangeable as slurring epithets on one’s ethnic background, and usually employed outside the hearing of the person in question.<br />
<br />
In contrast to the daily life of the neighborhood, however, the virus of racism was subtly injected into the classroom at the Brown Park School I attended. The five races of mankind illustrated in our geography books portrayed the Negro with the receding forehead and prognathous jaws of a gorilla. There was a complete absence of Black heroes in the history books, supporting the inference that the Black man had contributed nothing to civilization. We were taught that Blacks were brought out of the savagery of the jungles of Africa and introduced to civilization through slavery under the benevolent auspices of the white man.<br />
<br />
In spite of my Father’s submissive attitude, it is to him that I must give credit for scotching this big lie about the Negro’s past. His attitude grew out of his concern for our survival in a hostile environment. He felt most strongly that the Negro was not innately inferior, He perceived that his children must have some sense of self-respect and confidence to sustain them until that distant day when, through “obvious merit and just dessert,” Blacks would receive their award of equality and recognition.<br />
<br />
Father possessed an amazing store of knowledge which he had culled from his readings. He would tell us about the Black civilizations of ancient Egypt, Ethiopia and Cush. He would quote from the Song of Solomon: “I am Black and comely, oh ye daughters of Jerusalem.” He would tell us about Black soldiers in the Civil War; about the massacre of Blacks at Fort Pillow and the battle cry they used thereafter, “Remember Fort Pillow! Remember Fort Pillow!”2 He knew about the Haitian Revolution, the defeat of Napoleon’s Army by Toussaint L’Ouverture, Dessalines and Jean Christophe. He told us about the famous Zulu chief Shaka in South Africa; about Alexandre Dumas, the great French romanticist, and Pushkin, the great Russian poet, who were both Black.<br />
<br />
Father said that he had taught himself to read and write. He had an extensive library, which took up half of one of the walls in our subject. They included such titles as The Decisive Battles of the World The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, and many histories of England, France, Germany and Russia. He had Stanley in Africa, and a number of biographies of famous men, including Napoleon, Caesar and Hannibal (who Father said was a Negro). He had Scott’s Ivanhoe and his Waverly novels; Bulwer Lytton; Alexandre Dumas’ novels and the Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, and Up From Slavery by Booker T. Washington.<br />
<br />
On another wall there was a huge picture of the charge of the Twenty-fifth Black Infantry and the Tenth Cavalry at San Juan Hill, rescuing Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders. There were pictures of Frederick Douglass and, of course, his hero, Booker T. Washington. He would lecture to us on history, displaying his .extensive knowledge. He was a great admirer of Napoleon. He would get into one of his lecturing moods and pace up and down with his hands behind his back before the rapt audience of my sister Eppa and myself. Talking about the Battle of Waterloo, he would say:<br />
<br />
“Wellington was in a tough spot that day. Napoleon was about to whip him; the trouble was Blucher hadn’t shown up.”<br />
<br />
“Who was he, Pa?”<br />
<br />
“He was the German general who was supposed to reinforce Wellington with 13,000 Prussian troops. Wellington was getting awful nervous, walking up and down behind the lines and saying, 4Oh! If Blucher fails to come! Where is Blucher?”<br />
<br />
“Did he Finally get there, Pa?”<br />
<br />
“Yes, son, he finally got there and turned the tide of battle. And if he hadn’t shown up and Napoleon had won, the whole course of history would have been changed.”<br />
<br />
It was through Father that I entered the world of books. I developed an unquenchable thirst to learn about people and their history. I remember going to the town library when I was nine or ten and asking, “Do you have a history of the world for children?” My first love became the historical novel. I loved George Henty’s books; they always dealt with the exploits of a sixteen-year-old during an important historical period. Through Henty’s heroes, I too was with Bonnie Prince Charlie, with Wellington in rite Spanish Peninsula, with Gustavus Adolphus at Lutsen in the Thirty Years War, with Clive in India and Under Drake's Flag around the world. I was also fascinated by romances of the feudal period such as When Knighthood Was in Flower and Ivanhoe. I read Twain’s Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer, and the works of H. Rider Haggard.<br />
<br />
I went through a definite Anglophile stage, in part due to the influence of a Jamaican named Mr. Williams who worked as assistant janitor with my Father. Mr. Williams was a huge Black man with scars all over his face. He was a former stoker in the British Navy. I was attracted by his strange accent and haughty demeanor. Evidently he saw in me an appreciative audience. I would listen with open mouth and wonder at the stories of the strange places he had seen, of his adventures in faraway lands. He was a real British patriot, a Black imperialist, if such was possible.<br />
<br />
He would declare, “The sun never sets on the British Empire,” and then sing “Rule Brittania, Brittania Rule the Waves.” He quoted Napoleon as allegedly saying, “Britain is a small garden, but she grows some bitter weeds,” and “Give me French soldiers and British officers, and I will conquer the world.” I pictured myself as a British sailor, and read Two Years Before the Mast and Battle of Trafalgar.<br />
<br />
“Do you think they would let me join the British Navy?” I asked Mr. Williams.<br />
<br />
“No, my lad,” he answered, “You have to be a British citizen or subject to do that.” I was quite disappointed.<br />
But it was not only British romance that fascinated me. At about the age of twelve I became a Francophile. I read all of Dumas’ novels and quite a number of other novels about France. I had begun to read French history, which to me turned out to be as interesting as the novels and equally romantic. I read about Joan of Arc, the Hundred Years’ War, Francis I, about Catherine de Medici, the Huguenots and Admiral Coligny, the Due de Guise, the massacre of St. Bartholomew Eve or the night of the long knives; then the French Revolution, A Tale of Two Cities, the guillotining of Charlotte Corday and the assassination of Marat.<br />
<br />
Occasionally, the ugly reality of race would intrude upon the dream world of my childhood. I distinctly remember two such occasions. One was when a white family from Arkansas moved across the alley from us. Mr. Faught, the patriarch of the clan, was a typical red-necked peckerwood. He would sit around the store front, chawing tobacco, telling how they treated “niggers” down his way.<br />
<br />
“They were made to stay in their place- -down in the cotton patch—not in factories taking white men’s jobs.”<br />
<br />
As I remember, his racist harangues did not make much of an impression on the local white audience. Apparently at that time there was no feeling of competition in South Omaha because there were so few Blacks. I would also imagine that his slovenly appearance did not jibe with his white supremacist pretensions.<br />
<br />
One day a substitute teacher took over our class. I was about ten years old. The substitute was a Southerner from Arkansas. During history class she started talking about the Civil War. The slaves, she said, did not really want freedom because they were happy as they were. They would have been freed by their masters in a few years anyway. Her villain was General Grant, whom she contrasted unfavorably with General Robert E. Lee.<br />
<br />
“Lee was a gentleman,” she put forth, “But Grant was a cigar-smoking liquor-drinking roughneck.”<br />
<br />
She didn’t like Sherman either, and talked about his “murdering rampage” through Georgia. I wasn't about to take all of this and challenged her.<br />
<br />
“I don’t know about General Grant’s habits, but he did beat Lee. Besides, Lee couldn’t have been much of a gentleman; he owned slaves!”<br />
<br />
Livid with rage, she shouted, “That’s enough —what I could say about you!”<br />
<br />
“Well, what could you say?” I challenged.<br />
She apparently saw that wild racist statements wouldn’t work in this situation, and that I was trying to provoke her to do something like that. She cut short the argument, shouting, “That’s enough”<br />
<br />
“Yes, that’s enough,” I sassed.<br />
During the heated exchange, I felt that I had the sympathy of most of my classmates. After school, some gathered around me and said, “You certainly told her off?”<br />
<br />
When I told Mother she supported me. “You done right, son,” she said.<br />
<br />
But Father was not so sure. “You might have gotten into trouble.”<br />
<br />
I feel now that one of the reasons for my self-confidence during my childhood years, and why the racist notions of innate Black inferiority left me cold, was my older brother Otto. His example belied such claims. He was the most brilliant one in our family, and probably in all of South Omaha. He had skipped a grade both in grade school and in high school, and was a real prodigy. He was a natural poet, and won many prizes in composition. His poem on the charge of the Twenty-fifth Black Infantry and Tenth Cavalry at San Juan Hill was published in one of the Omaha dailies. Otto was praised by all of his teachers. “An unusual boy,” they said, “clearly destined to become a leader of his race.”<br />
<br />
One day, one of his teachers and a Catholic priest called on Mother and Father to talk about Otto’s future. Otto was about fourteen at the time. They suggested that he might be good material for the priesthood, and that there was a possibility of his getting a scholarship for Creighton University, Omaha’s famous Jesuit school. The teacher suggested that if this were agreed to, he should take up Latin. My parents were extremely flattered, despite the fact that they were good Methodists (AME). Even Father, who did not seem ambitious for his children, was impressed.<br />
<br />
But when the proposition was placed before Otto, he vehemently disagreed. He did not want to become a priest nor did he want to study Latin. He wanted, he said, to be an architect! Doctors, dentists, teachers and preachers -these were the professions for an ambitious Black in those days.<br />
<br />
“An architect!” they exclaimed in amazement. “Who ever heard of a Black architect?”<br />
<br />
“Who ever heard of a Black priest?” Otto retorted. (At that time there were only two or three Black priests in the entire U.S.)<br />
<br />
“But Otto,” Mother argued,“you’ll have the support of a lot of prominent white folks. They’ll help you through college.”<br />
<br />
But Otto would have none of it. Undoubtedly, my parents thought that they could finally wear down his opposition and that he would become more amenable in time. They did force him to take Latin, a subject he hated.<br />
<br />
Otto stayed in school, but no longer seemed interested in his studies. He dropped out of school suddenly in his senior year. He was sixteen. He left home and got a job as a bellhop in a hotel in North Omaha’s Black community. This move cut completely the few remaining tics he had with his white age group in South Omaha.<br />
<br />
Otto’s drop-out from high school evidently signified that he had given up the struggle to be somebody in the white world. He had become disillusioned with the white world and therefore sought identity with his own people. During my childhood years, our relationship had never been close. There was, of course, the age gap—he was seven years older. But even in later years, when we were closer and had more in common, we never talked about our childhood. I don’t know why. As a child I had been proud of his academic feats and boasted about them to my friends.<br />
<br />
At the time he left high school Otto was the only Black in South Omaha High and was about to become its first Black graduate. Highly praised by his teachers and popular among his fellow students, he was a real showpiece in the school.<br />
<br />
What caused him to drop out of school in his senior year? Thinking back on it, I don’t believe that it had anything to do with the attempt to make him a priest. I think that he had won that battle a couple of years before. At least, I never heard the matter mentioned again.<br />
<br />
Otto undoubtedly had had high aspirations at one time, as evidenced by his desire to become an architect. Somewhere along the line they disappeared. Perhaps a contributing factor was the accumulating effect of Otto’s malady. On occasion, Mother would remind us that Otto had water on the brain, and that he was different from Eppa and myself. At the time, he seemed smarter than us, more independent and in rebellion against Pa’s lack of encouragement, moral support and his parental authority. Certainly in adult life Otto used to sleep about ten hours a day and very often fell asleep in meetings. He seemed to lack the ability of prolonged concentration, although whatever brain damage he may have suffered never affected the quickness of his mind and ability to grasp the nub of any question or the capacity for leadership which he showed on a number of occasions.<br />
<br />
But more debilitating, probably, than any physical disease was the generation gap of that era—between parents of slave backgrounds and children born free, particularly in the north. Otto’s dropping out of school and his later radical political development were undoubtedly related to a conflict more intense than the ones of today.<br />
<br />
Father was an ardent follower of Booker T. Washington. His ambitions for his sons were very modest, to put it mildly. He undoubtedly would have been satisfied if we could become good law-abiding citizens with stable jobs. He thought of jobs a notch or two above his own station, like a postal employee, a skilled tradesman, or a clerk in the civil service. The offer of a scholarship for the priesthood was, therefore, simply beyond his expectations, and I guess that the old man was deeply disappointed at Otto’s rejection of it.<br />
<br />
Otto was quite independent and would not conform to Father’s idea of discipline. For example, he was completely turned off on the question of religion, and Father could not force him to go to church I don’t remember Otto ever going to church with the family. Father claimed that Otto was irresponsible and wild. As a result, there was mutual hostility between them. The results were numerous thrashings when Otto was young and violent quarrels between them as he grew older. Mother would usually defend Otto. Grandpa Thorpe, himself a strict disciplinarian, would warn Mother: “Hattie, you mark my words, that boy is going to lan’ in the pen.”<br />
<br />
At some point, Otto came to the conclusion that there was no use in continuing his education. He must have felt that it was irrelevant. Opportunities for educated Blacks were few, even in North Omaha’s Black community where there were only a few professionals. In that community there were a few preachers, one doctor, one dentist and one or two teachers. Black businesses consisted of owners of several undertaking establishments, a couple of barber shops and a few pool rooms. The only other Blacks in any sort of middle class positions were a few postal employees, civil service workers, pullman porters and waiters.<br />
<br />
Then too, Otto had passed through the age of puberty and was becoming more and more conscious of his race. Along with the natural detachment and withdrawal from childhood socializing with girls—in his case white girls who were former childhood sweethearts—Otto experienced a withdrawal and non-socialization because of his race. He ended up quite alone because there were not many Black kids his age in South Omaha. There wasn’t much contact with the Black kids from North Omaha either. As a very sensitive person on the verge of manhood, I imagine he began to feel these changes keenly.<br />
<br />
After he dropped out of school in 1908, Otto was soon attracted to the “sportin’ life”...the pool halls and sporting houses of North<br />
Omaha. He wanted to be among Black people; he was anxious to get away from Father. Thus, he left home and got jobs as a bellhop, shoeshine boy, and busboy. He began to absorb a new way of life, stepping fully into the social life of the Black community in North Omaha. He’d evidently heeded the “call of the blood” and gone back to the race. It was not until a few years later, when I had similar experiences, that I understood that Otto had arrived at the first stage in his identity crisis and had gone to where he felt he belonged.<br />
<br />
He would come home quite often, though, flaunting his new clothes, a “box-backed” suit—“fitting nowhere but the shoulders,” high-heeled Stacey Adams button shoes, and a stetson hat. He’d give a few dollars to Mother and some dimes to me and my sister. Sometimes he would bring a pretty girl friend with him. But most of the time, he would bring a young man, Henry Starens, who was a piano player. He played a style popular in those days, later to be known as boogie-woogie, in which the piano was the whole orchestra. He played Ma Rainey’s famous blues, “Make Me a Pallet on Your Floor, Make It Where Your Man Will Never Know,” and the old favorite, “Alabama Bound.”<br />
<br />
'''Alabama Bound'''<br />
<br />
'''I'm Alabama Bound.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, babe, don't leave me here,'''<br />
<br />
'''Just leave a dime for beer.'''<br />
<br />
A boy of ten at the time, I was tremendously impressed. There is no doubt that Otto’s experience served to weaken some of my childish notions about making it in the white world.<br />
<br />
=== HALLEY’S COMET AND MY RELIGION ===<br />
On May 4, 1910, Halley’s Comet appeared flaring down out of the heavens, its luminous tail switching to earth. It was an ominous sight.<br />
<br />
A rash of religious revival swept Omaha. Prophets and messiahs appeared on street comers and in churches preaching the end of the world. Hardened sinners “got religion.” Backsliders renewed their faith. The comet, with its tail moving ever closer to the earth, seemed to lend credence to forecasts of imminent cosmic disaster.<br />
<br />
Both my Mother and Father were deeply religious. Theirs was that “old time religion,” the fire-and-brimstone kind which leaned heavily on the Old Testament. It was the kind that accepted the Bible and all its legends as the literal gospel truth. We children had the “fear of the Lord” drilled into us from early age. My image of God was that of a vengeful old man who demanded unquestioned faith, strict obedience and repentant love as the price of salvation;<br />
<br />
'''I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.'''<br />
<br />
Every Sunday, rain or shine, the family would attend services at the little frame church near the railroad tracks. For me, this was a tortuous ordeal. I looked forward to Sundays with dread. We would spend all of eight hours in church. We would sit through the morning service, then the Sunday school, after which followed a break for dinner. We returned at five for the Young People’s Christian Endeavor and finally the evening service. It was not just boredom. Fear was the dominant emotion, especially when our preacher, Reverend Jamieson, a big Black man with a beautiful voice, would launch into one of his fire-and-brimstone sermons. He would start out slowly and in a low voice, gradually raising it higher he would swing to a kind of sing-song rhythm, holding his congregation rapt with vivid word pictures. They would respond with “Hallelujah! ” “Ain’t it the truth! ” “Preach it, brother!”<br />
<br />
He would go on in this manner for what seemed an interminable time, and would reach his peroration on a high note, winding up with a rafter-shaking burst of oratory. He would then pause dramatically amidst moans, shouts and even screams of some of the women, one or two of whom would fall out in a dead faint. Waiting for them to subside he would then, in a lowered, scarcely audible voice, reassure his flock that it was not yet too late to repent and achieve salvation. All that was necessary was to: “Repent sinners, and love and obey the Lord. Amen.” Someone would then rise and lead off with an appropriate spiritual such as:<br />
<br />
'''Oh, my sins are forgiven and my soul set free-ah,'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, glory Halelua-a-a-a'''<br />
<br />
'''Just let me in the kingdom when the world is all a'fi-ah.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh Glory Halelu!'''<br />
<br />
'''I don't feel worried, no ways tiahd,'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, glory Halelu!'''<br />
<br />
I remember the family Bible, a huge book which lay on the center table in the front room. The first several pages were blank, set aside for recording the vital family statistics: births, deaths, marriages. The book was filled with graphic illustrations of biblical happenings. Leafing through Genesis (which we used to call “the begats”), one came to Exodus and from there on a pageant of bloodshed and violence unfolded. Portrayed in striking colors were the interminable tribal wars in which the Israelites slew the Mennonites and Pharoah’s soldiers killed little children in march of Moses. There was the great God, Jehovah himself, whitebearded and eyes flashing, looking very much like our old cracker neighbor, Mr. Faught.<br />
<br />
Just a couple of weeks before Halley’s comet appeared, Mother had taken us to see the silent film, Dante’s Inferno, through which I sat with open mouth horror. Needless to say, this experience did not lessen my apprehension.<br />
<br />
The comet continued its descent, its tail like the flaming sword of vengeance. Collision seemed not just possible, but almost certain. What had we poor mortals done to incur such wrath of the Lord?<br />
<br />
My deportment underwent a change. I did all my chores without complaint and helped Mama around the house. This was so unlike me that she didn’t know what to make of it. I overheard her telling Pa about my good behavior and how helpful I had become lately. But I hadn’t really changed. I was just scared. I was simply trying to carry out another one of God’s commandments, “Honor thy lather and thy mother that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.'’<br />
<br />
Then one night, when the whole neighborhood had gathered as usual on the hill to watch the comet, it appeared to have ceased its movement towards the earth. We were not sure, but the next night we were certain. It had not only ceased its descent, but was definitely withdrawing. In a couple more nights, it had disappeared. A wave of relief swept over the town.<br />
<br />
“It’s not true!” I thought to myself. “The fire and brimstone, the leering devils, the angry vengeful God. None of it is true.”<br />
<br />
It was as if a great weight had been lifted from my mind. It was the end of my religion, although I still thought that there was most likely a supreme being. But if God existed, he was nothing like the God portrayed in our family Bible. I was no longer terrified of him. Later, at the age of fourteen or fifteen, I read some of the lectures of Robert G. Ingersoll and became an agnostic, doubting the existence of a god. From there, I later moved to positive atheism.<br />
<br />
Two years later, the great event was the sinking of the Titanic.This was significant in Omaha because one of the Brandeis brothers, owners of the biggest department store in North Omaha, went down with her. In keeping with the custom of Blacks to gloat over the misfortunes of whites, especially rich ones, some Black bard composed the "Titanic Blues":<br />
<br />
'''When old John Jacob As tor left his home,'''<br />
<br />
'''He never thought he was going to die.'''<br />
<br />
'''Titanic fare thee well'''<br />
<br />
'''I say fare thee well.'''<br />
<br />
But disaster was more frequently reserved for the Black community. On Easter Sunday 1913, a tornado struck North Omaha. It ripped a two-block swath through the Black neighborhood, leaving death and destruction in its wake. Among the victims were a dozen or so Black youths trapped in a basement below a pool hall where they had evidently been shooting craps. Mother did not fail to point out the incident as another example of God's wrath. While I was sorry for the youths and their families (some of them were friends of Otto), the implied warning left me cold. My God-fearing days had ended with Halley's Comet.<br />
<br />
Misfortune, however, was soon to strike our immediate family. It happened that summer, in 1913. My Father fled town after being attacked and beaten by a gang of whites on Q Street, right outside the gate of the packing plant. They told him to get out of town or they would kill him.<br />
<br />
I remember vividly the scene that night when Father staggered through the door. Consternation gripped us at the sight. His face was swollen and bleeding, his clothes torn and in disarray. He had a frightened, hunted look in his eyes. My sister Eppa and I were alone. Mother had gone for the summer to work for her employers, rich white folks, at Lake Okoboji, Iowa. <br />
<br />
"What happened?" we asked.<br />
<br />
He gasped out the story of how he had been attacked and beaten.<br />
<br />
"They said they were going to kill me if I didn't get out of town."<br />
<br />
We asked him who "they" were. He said that he recognized some of them as belonging to the Irish gang on Indian Hill, but there were also some grown men.<br />
<br />
"But why, Pa? Why should they pick on you?"<br />
<br />
"Why don't we call the police?"<br />
<br />
"That ain't goin' to do no good. We just have to leave town."<br />
<br />
"But Pa," I said, "how can we? We own this house. We've got friends here. If you tell them, they wouldn't let anybody harm us."<br />
<br />
Again the frightened look crossed his face.<br />
<br />
"No, we got to go."<br />
<br />
"Where, where will we go?"<br />
<br />
"We'll move up to Minneapolis, your uncles Watt and George are there. I'll get work there. I'm going to telegraph your Mother to come home now."<br />
<br />
He washed his face and then went into the bedroom and began packing his bags. The next morning he gave Eppa some money and said, "This will tide you over till your Mother comes. She'll be here in a day or two. I'm going to telegraph her as soon as I get to the depot. I'll send for you all soon."<br />
<br />
He kissed us goodbye and left.<br />
<br />
Only when he closed the door behind him did we feel the full impact of the shock. It had happened so suddenly. Our whole world had collapsed. Home and security were gone. The feeling of safety in our little haven of interracial goodwill had proved elusive. Now we were just homeless "niggers" on the run.<br />
<br />
The crudest blow, perhaps, was the shattering of my image of lather. True enough, I had not regarded him as a hero. Still, however, I had retained a great deal of respect for him. He was undoubtedly a very complex man, very sensitive and imaginative. Probably he had never gotten over the horror of that scene in the cabin near Martin, Tennessee, where as a boy of fifteen he had seen his father kill the Klansman. He distrusted and feared poor whites, especially the native born and, in Omaha, the shanty Irish.<br />
<br />
Mother arrived the next day. For her it was a real tragedy. Our home was gone and our family broken up. She had lived in Omaha for nearly a quarter of a century. She had raised her family there and had built up a circle of close friends. With her regular summer job at Lake Okoboji and catering parties the rest of the year, she had helped pay for our home. Now it was gone. We would be lucky if we even got a fraction of the money we had put into it, not to speak of the labor. Now she was to leave all this. Friends and neighbors would ask why Father had run away.<br />
<br />
Why had he let some poor white trash run him out of town? He had friends there. Ours was an old respected family. He also had influential white patrons. There was Ed Cudahy of the family that owned the packing plant where he worked. The Cudahys had become one of the nation's big three in the slaughtering and meat packing industry. Father had known him from boyhood. There was Mr. Wilkins, general manager at Cudahy's, whom Father had known as an office boy, and who now gave Father all his old clothes.<br />
<br />
A few days later, Mr. Cannon, a railroad man in charge of a buffet car on the Omaha and Minneapolis run and an old friend of the family, called with a message from Father. He said that Father was all right, that he had gotten a job for himself and Mother at the Minneapolis Women's Club. Father was to become caretaker and janitor, Mother was to cater the smaller parties at the club and to assist at the larger affairs. They were to live on the place in a basement apartment.<br />
<br />
The salary was ridiculously small (I think about $60 per month for both of them) and the employers insisted that only one of us children would be allowed to live at the place. That, of course, would be Eppa. He said that Father had arranged for me to live with another family. This, he said, would be a temporary arrangement. He was sure he could find another job, and rent a house where we could all be together again. As for me, Father suggested that since I was fifteen, I could find a part-time job to help out while continuing school. Mr. Cannon said that he was to take me back to Minneapolis with him, and that Mother and Eppa were to follow in a few days.<br />
<br />
With regards to our house, Mr. Cannon said that he knew a lawyer, an honest fellow, who for a small commission would handle its sale. Mother later claimed that after deducting the lawyer's commission and paying off a small mortgage, they only got the paltry sum of $300! This was for a five-room house with electricity and running water.<br />
<br />
The next day, Mr. Cannon took me out to his buffet car in the railroad yards. He put me in the pantry and told me to stay there, and if the conductor looked in: "Don't be afraid, he's a friend of mine." Our car was then attached to a train which backed down to the station to load passengers. I looked out the window as we left Omaha. I was not to see Omaha again until after World War I, when I was a waiter on the Burlington Railroad.<br />
<br />
My childhood and part of my adolescence was now behind me. I felt that I was practically on my own. What did the world hold for me—a Black youth?<br />
<br />
Arriving in Minneapolis, I went to my new school. As I entered the room, the all-white class was singing old darkie plantation songs. Upon seeing me, their voices seemed to take on a mocking, derisive tone. Loudly emphasizing the Negro dialect and staring directly at me, they sang:<br />
<br />
'''"Down in De Caunfiel—HEAH DEM darkies moan'''<br />
<br />
'''All De darkies AM a weeping'''<br />
<br />
'''MASSAHS in DE Cold Cold Ground"'''<br />
<br />
They were really having a ball.<br />
<br />
In my state of increased racial awareness, this was just too much for me. I was already in a mood of deep depression. With the breakup of our family, the separation from my childhood friends, and the interminable quarrels between my Mother and Father (in which I sided with Mother), I was in no mood to be kidded or scoffed at.<br />
<br />
That was my last day in school. I never returned. I made up my mind to drop out and get a full-time job.<br />
<br />
I was fifteen and in the second semester of the eighth grade.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 ==<br />
<br />
=== A Black Regiment in World War I ===<br />
'''On the Negroes this double experience of deliberate and devilish persecution from their own countrymen, coupled with a taste of real democracy and world-old culture, was revolutionizing. They began to hate prejudice and discrimination as they had never hated it before. They began to realize its eternal meaning and complications., .they were filled with a bitter, dogged determination never to give up the fight for Negro equality in America....A new, radical Negro spirit has been born in France, which leaves us older radicals far behind. Thousands of young Black men have offered their lives for the Lilies of France and they return ready to offer them again for the Sunflowers of Afro-America. W.E.B. DuBois, June 1919'''<br />
<br />
Despite my bitter encounter with racism in school, I liked Minneapolis. I was impressed by the beauty of this city with its many lakes and surrounding pine forests. The racial climate in 1913 was not as bad as my early experience in school would indicate, either. Blacks seemed to get along well, especially with the Scandinavian nationalities, who constituted the most numerous ethnic grouping in the city. <br />
<br />
Upon quitting school, I became a part of the small Black community and completely identified with it. I found friends among Black boys and girls of my age group, attended parties, dances, picnics at Lake Minnetonka, and ice skated in the winter time. Here, as in Omaha, a ghetto had not yet fully formed, though I here were the beginnings of one in the Black community on the north side.<br />
<br />
Included in the Black community and among my new friends were a relatively large number of mulattos, the progeny of mixed marriages between Scandinavian women and Black men. This phenomenon dated back to the turn of the century. At that time it was the fashion among wealthy white families to import Scandinavian maids. Many of these families had Black male servants— butlers, chauffeurs, etc.—and the small Black population was preponderantly male. The result was a rash of inter-marriages between the Scandinavian maids and the Black male house servants. The interracial couples formed a society called Manasseh which held well-known yearly balls. As a whole the children of this group were a hot-headed lot and seemed even more racially conscious than the rest of us.<br />
<br />
It was in Minneapolis that I too reached a heightened stage of racial awareness. This was hastened, no doubt, by the tragic events in South Omaha and the fact that I was now an adolescent and there was the problem of girls. I had noticed that it was in the period of pubescence that a Black boy, raised even in communities of relative racial tolerance, was first confronted with the problem of race. It had been so with my brother Otto in Omaha, and now it was so with me.<br />
<br />
During the first year after dropping out of school I worked as a bootblack, barber shop porter, bell hop and busboy, continuing in the last long enough to acquire the rudiments of the waiter's trade. At the age of sixteen, I got a j ob as dining car waiter on the Chicago Northwestern Railway. The first run was also my first trip to the big city, where I had four aunts (my Mother's sisters). All through my childhood my Mother had told stories about her first visit there at the time of the Chicago Exposition. Upon arrival, one of the older waiters on the car, Lon Holliday, took me to see the town. I'm sure he looked forward to showing a young "innocent" the ropes. After a visit to my aunts, he took me to a notorious dive on the Southside. It was the back room of a saloon at Thirty-second and State Street.<br />
<br />
The piano man was playing "boogie woogie" style, popular in those days. The few couples on the floor were "walking the dog," "balling the jack," and so on. Then one of the dancers, a woman, called to the pianist, "Oh, Mr. Johnson, please play 'Those Dirty Motherfuckers.'" He enthusiastically complied and sang a number of verses of the bawdy tune. I almost sank through the floor in embarrassment and even amazement. Lon, who was watching, burst out laughing and he said, "Boy, you ain't seen nothing yet!"<br />
<br />
He then took me to the famous "Mecca Flats" on Federal Street, where a rent party was in process. There he introduced me to a young woman, whom he evidently knew, and slipped her some money, saying, "Take care of my young friend here; be sure you get him back on the car in the morning. We leave for Minneapolis at 10:00 A.M."<br />
<br />
The railroads were a way to see the country and in the months that followed I took advantage of that, working for different lines, on different runs as far west as Seattle. On one run in Montana called the Loop, the dining car shuttled between Great Falls and Butte by way of Helena, stopping at each town overnight. It was known as the "outlaw run" and I soon found out why. It attracted a number of characters wanted by police in other cities, searching for an escape or a temporary hideout.<br />
<br />
While laying over in Butte one night, our chef murdered the parlor car porter—cut his throat while he was sleeping in the parlor car. They had been feuding for days. I went through the parlor car that morning and was the first to see the ghastly sight. The police came, but the chef had disappeared. My enthusiasm for the job was gone. It might have been me, I thought, for I had had a number of arguments with the chef about my orders.<br />
<br />
I quit and headed back to Minneapolis, arriving there shortly after war broke out in Europe in 1914.1 was sixteen and had been avidly following the news, reading of the invasions of Belgium, France, the Battle of the Marne, etc. <br />
<br />
One day, walking along Hennepin Avenue I saw a Canadian recruiting sergeant. He was wearing the uniform of the Princess Pat Regiment, bright red jacket and black kilt. A handsome fellow, I thought, looking like Bonnie Prince Charlie himself. He noticed me looking at him and asked, "You want to join up with the Princess Pat, my lad? We've got a number of Black boys like you in the regiment. You'll find you're treated like anyone else up there. We make no difference between Black and white in Canada."<br />
<br />
Imagining myself in the red jacket and black kilt, I said, "Sure,I'll join."<br />
<br />
Then looking at me closely, he asked, "How old are you?"<br />
<br />
"Eighteen," I lied.<br />
<br />
"Your parents living?"<br />
<br />
"Yes."<br />
<br />
"Well, you've got to get their consent."<br />
<br />
"Oh, they'll agree," I said.<br />
<br />
"They live in the city?"<br />
<br />
"Yes."<br />
<br />
"Well, you come back here tomorrow and bring one of them with you and I'll sign you up."<br />
<br />
"Okay," I said, but I knew that my parents would never agree. And well it was, too, for I later learned that this regiment was among the first victims of the German mustard gas attack at Ypres, and what was left of them was practically wiped out at bloody Paschendale on the Sommes front.<br />
<br />
Life in Minneapolis was beginning to bore me. I was anxious to get back to Chicago, "the big city," so I moved there and stayed with my Aunt Lucy at Forty-third and State. In 1915 my parents, at the urging of my Mother, also moved to Chicago, and I then stayed with them.<br />
<br />
In Chicago I got a job as a busboy at the Tip Top Inn, then considered the finest restaurant in town. It was owned by old man Hieronymous, a famous chef, and was noted for its French cuisine and service. In the trade it was taken for granted that if you had been a waiter at the Tip Top Inn you could work anywhere in the country. After a few months I was promoted to waiter and felt that I had perfected my skills. During the next three years I worked at a number of places: the Twentieth Century Limited, the New York Central's crack train; the Wolverine (Michigan Central); the Sherman House; the old Palmer House; and the Auditorium.<br />
<br />
During this time in Chicago I saw Casey Jones, a Black man and a legendary character known to at least four generations of Black Chicagoans. As I remember, he was partially paralyzed, probably from cerebral palsy. He would go through the streets with trained chickens, which he put through various capers, shouting, "Crabs, crabs, I got them!" He had a defect in his speech which he exploited. The audience would literally fall out at his rendering of the popular sentimental ballad, "The Curse of an Aching Heart":<br />
<br />
'''You made me what I am today,'''<br />
<br />
'''I hope you're satisfied.'''<br />
<br />
'''You dragged and dragged me down until'''<br />
<br />
'''a The heart within me died.'''<br />
<br />
'''Although you're not true,'''<br />
<br />
'''May God bless you,'''<br />
<br />
'''That's the curse of an aching heart!'''<br />
<br />
Then there was the beloved comedian, String Beans, who often appeared at the old Peking Theater at Thirty-first and State Street. The Dolly Sisters also appeared there; they were very famous at the time. Teenan Jones'slush night spot was at Thirty-fifth and State Street. Then at the Panama, another night club, I would listen to Mamie Smith sing "Shimmy-sha-Wobble, That's All," a very popular song and dance at the time.<br />
<br />
Once, when I wanted to go back to Minneapolis to visit, I caught the Pioneer Limited—riding the rods—out of the station on the west side. This was my first experience in hoboing. I rode the rods as far as Beloit, Wisconsin.<br />
<br />
At Beloit I got off, but was afraid to get back on because a yard dick was going around the cars. I stayed there overnight—a fairly cold night as I remember. I met a white man, a "professional" hobo, who took me in tow and told me about the trains leaving in the morning. He said we could catch a train that would pull us right into Minneapolis. It was a passenger train, and we could "ride the blinds in," that is, the space between the two Pullman cars.<br />
<br />
We rode the blinds, reaching La Crosse, Wisconsin. On the way he warned, "You know, there's a bad dick up there in La Crosse. We gotta watch out for him." When the train pulled to a stop in La Crosse both of us hopped off. Other guys were flying out of the train from all sides—from the rods, the blinds, and there were some on top, too. But this notorious yard dick caught us. He was a rough character, and let us know it as he lined us up.<br />
<br />
"Hey, up there!"<br />
<br />
I was at the end of the line of about a dozen guys and was the only Black there. I had my hands in my pocket.<br />
<br />
"Take yer hands outta yer pockets!"<br />
<br />
I took my hands out of my pockets.<br />
<br />
The engine's fireman was looking out, watching all of this. He called to the yard dick, "Say, Jim, let me have that young colored boy over there to slide down coal for me into Minneapolis."<br />
<br />
The dick looked at me and scowled, "All right, you, get up there!"<br />
<br />
He shouted to the fireman, "But see that he works!"<br />
<br />
"I'll see to that; he'll work."<br />
<br />
I scrambled on the engine tender and slid coal all the way to Minneapolis, where I got off at the station.<br />
<br />
Among my new friends in Chicago were several members of the Eighth Illinois, Black National Guard Regiment. They would regale me with tall stories of their exploits on the Mexican border in the summer of 1916 when the regiment took part in a "show of force" against the Mexican Revolution. None of us, of course, knew the real issues involved.<br />
<br />
I remember reading of the exploits of the famous Black Tenth Cavalry Regiment, which was a part of the force sent by General Funston across the border in pursuit of Pancho Villa. They had been ambushed by Villa and a number of them killed. The papers, on that occasion, had been full of accounts of the heroic Black cavalrymen and their valiant white officers. The Eighth, however, had been in the rear near San Antonio, Texas, and saw no action during the abortive campaign.<br />
<br />
Intrigued by their experiences, I joined the Eighth Regiment in the winter of 1917. I was nineteen. The regiment, officered by Blacks from the colonel on down (many of them veterans of the four Black Regular Army regiments), gave me a feeling of pride. They had a high esprit de corps which emphasized racial solidarity. I didn't regard it just as a part of a U.S. Army unit, but as some sort of a big social club of fellow race-men. Still, I knew that we would eventually get into the war. That did not bother me; on the contrary, romance, adventure, travel beckoned. I saw possible escape from the inequities and oppression which was the lot of Blacks in the U.S. I was already a Francophile. I had read and heard about the fairness of the French with respect to the race issue. It seems now, as I look back upon it, that patriotism was the least of my motives. I was avidly following all the news of the war and it seemed certain that the U.S. was going to get involved, despite protestations of President Wilson to the contrary.<br />
<br />
Already the press was whipping up war sentiment. Tin PanAlley joined in with a rash of jingoistic songs: "Don't Bite the Hand That's Feeding You," "Let's All Be American Now," ad nauseum. All this left us cold. However, the song that brought tears to my eyes was "Joan of Arc":<br />
<br />
'''Joan of Arc, Joan of Arc,'''<br />
<br />
'''Do your eyes from the skies see the foe?'''<br />
<br />
'''Can't you see the drooping Fleur de Lys,'''<br />
<br />
'''Can't you hear the tears of Normandy?'''<br />
<br />
'''Joan of Arc, Joan of Arc,'''<br />
<br />
'''Let your spirit guide us through.'''<br />
<br />
'''Awake old France to victory!'''<br />
<br />
'''Joan of Arc, we're calling you.'''<br />
<br />
Truly, nothing was sacred to Tin Pan Alley!<br />
<br />
The Lusitania was sunk; the U.S. declared war in April 1917. Our regiment was federalized on July 25, 1917, and in the late summer we were on our way to basic training at Camp Logan, near Houston, Texas.<br />
<br />
A demagogic promise was widely circulated that things would be better if Blacks fought loyally. For example, there was the statement of President Wilson: "Out of this conflict you must expect nothing less than the enjoyment of full citizenship rights." This propaganda was immediately belied by the mounting wave of new lynchings in the South, which claimed thirty-eight victims in 1917 and fifty-eight in 1918. Worst of all was the East St. Louis riot in September 1917; at least forty Blacks were massacred in a bloody pogrom that lasted several days.<br />
<br />
Then there was the mutiny-riot of the Twenty-fourth Infantry in Houston, Texas, where our regiment was to receive its basic training. Company G of our outfit was already in Houston at the time, having been sent on as an advance detachment to prepare the camp for our occupation. It was through them that I learned exactly what had happened.<br />
<br />
Black soldiers of the Twenty-fourth Infantry, an old Regular Army regiment, had for months been subjected to insults and abuse by Houston police and civilians. The outfit had stationed its military police in Houston, who were, in theory, supposed to cooperate with local police in maintaining law and order among soldiers on leave. Instead, the Black military police found themselves the object of abuse, insults and beatings by local police. This treatment of Black MPs by racist cops was evidently encouraged by the fact that they (the Blacks) were unarmed.<br />
<br />
A report of the special on-the-spot investigator for the NAACP published in the Crisis, its organ, reads:<br />
<br />
'''In deference to the southern feeling against the arming of Negroes and because of the expected cooperation of the City Police Department, members of the provost guard were not armed, thus creating a situation without precedent in the history of this guard. A few carried clubs, but none of them had guns, and most of them were without weapons of any kind. They were supposed to call on white police officers to make arrests. The feeling is strong among the colored people of Houston that this was the real cause of the riot.'''<br />
<br />
'''On the afternoon of August 23, two policemen, Lee Sparks and Rufe Daniels—the former known to the colored people as a brutal bully—entered the house of a respectable colored woman in an alleged search for a colored fugitive accused of crap-shooting. Failing to find him, they arrested the woman, striking and cursing her and forcing her out into the street only partly clad. While they were waiting for the patrol wagon a crowd gathered about the weeping woman who had become hysterical and was begging to know why she was being arrested.'''<br />
<br />
'''In this crowd was a colored soldier, Private Edwards. Edwards seems to have questioned the police officers or remonstrated with them. Accounts differ on this point, but they all agree that the officers immediately set upon him and beat him to the ground with the butts of their six-shooters, continuing to beat and kick him while he was on the ground, and arrested him. In the words of Sparks himself: "I beat that nigger until his heart got right. He was a good nigger when I got through with him."'''<br />
<br />
'''Later Corporal Baltimore, a member of the military police, approached the officers and inquired for Edwards, as it was his duty to do. Sparks immediately opened fire and Baltimore, being unarmed, fled....They followed...beat him up, and arrested him. It was this outrage which infuriated the men of the Twenty-fourth Infantry to the point of revolt.'''<br />
<br />
When word of this outrage reached the camp, feeling ran high. It was by no means the first incident of the kind that had occurred.<br />
<br />
The white officers, feeling that the men would seek revenge, ordered them disarmed. The arms were stacked in a tent guarded by a sergeant. A group of men killed the sergeant, seized their rifles, and under the leadership of Sergeant Vida Henry, an eighteen-year veteran, marched on Houston in company strength.<br />
<br />
When the soldiers left camp their slogan was "On to the Police Station!" They entered town by way of San Felipe Street which ran through the heart of the Black community. The fact that they took this route and avoided the more direct one which lead through a white neighborhood disproved the charge by local newspapers and the police that they were out to shoot up the town and kill all whites. Their target was clearly the Houston cops. On the way to the station they shot every person who looked like a cop.<br />
<br />
Finally meeting resistance, a battle ensued which ended with seventeen whites, thirteen of them policemen, killed. The alarm went out and a whole division of white troops, which was stationed in the camp, was sent in to round up the mutineers. Finally cornered, the men threw down their arms and surrendered, with the exception of Sergeant Vida Henry, who committed suicide rather than be taken. <br />
<br />
The whole battalion of the Twenty-fourth Infantry, including the mutineers, was hurriedly placed aboard a guarded troop train and sent to Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Immediately upon arrival there, those involved were given a drum-head court martial. Thirteen were executed and forty-one others were sentenced to life imprisonment.<br />
<br />
The bodies of all the executed men were sent home to their families for burial. I remember reading of the funeral of Corporal Baltimore in some little town in Illinois.<br />
<br />
Our regiment entrained for Camp Logan with our ardor considerably dampened by these events. Indeed, we left Chicago in an angry and apprehensive mood which lasted all the way to Texas. We passed through East St. Louis in the middle of the night. Those of us who were awake were brooding about the massacre of our kinsmen which had recently taken place there. The regiment traveled in three sections, a battalion each, in old style tourist cars (sort of second-class Pullmans).<br />
<br />
The next morning we arrived in Jonesboro, Arkansas, our first stop on the other side of the Mason-Dixon line. We were in enemy territory. For many of us it was our first time in the South. Jonesboro was a division point—all three sections of the train pulled up on sidings while the engines were being changed and the cars serviced.<br />
<br />
It was a bright, warm and sunny Sunday morning. It seemed like the whole town had turned out at the station platform to see the strange sight of armed Black soldiers. Whites were on one side of the station platform and Blacks on the other. We pulled into the station with the windows open and our 1903 Springfield rifles on the tables in plain view of the crowd.<br />
<br />
We were at our provocative best. We threw kisses at the white girls on the station platform, calling out to them: "Come over here, baby, give me a kiss!" "Look at that pretty redhead over there, ain't she a beaut!" And so forth.<br />
<br />
A passenger train pulled up beside us on the next track. There, peering out the open window, was a real stereotype of an Arkansas red-neck. The sight of him was provocation enough for Willie Morgan, a huge Black in our company who was originally from Mississippi. Morgan was sitting directly across from the white man. He undoubtedly retained bitter memories of insults and persecutions from the past and quickly took advantage of what was perhaps his first opportunity to bait a cracker in his own habitat.<br />
<br />
He reached a big ham-like hand through the window, grabbed the fellow's face and shouted, "What the hell you staring at, you peckerwood motherfucker?" The man pulled back, his hat flew off. Bending down, he recovered it and then moved quickly to the other side of his car, a frightened and puzzled look on his face. Our whole car let out a big roar.<br />
<br />
Then a yard man, walking along the side of the car, asked, "Where are you boys going?"<br />
<br />
"Goin' to see your momma, you cracker son-of-a-bitch!" came the reply.<br />
<br />
The startled man looked up in amazement.<br />
<br />
All of us were hungry. We had been given only a couple of apples for breakfast and now noticed that there were a number of shops and stores in the streets behind the station. I believe our first thought was to buy some food. The vestibule guards would not allow us to take our rifles off the cars, so we left them on our seats and proceeded to the stores in groups. As the stores became crowded, and as the storekeepers were busy serving some of our group, others started to snatch up any article in sight.<br />
<br />
Cases of Coca-Cola, ginger ale and near-beer went back to the cars. The path to the train was strewn with loot dropped by some of the fellows. In the stores, some bought as others stole—this spontaneously evolved pattern was employed in raids on all stores in Jonesboro and at other train stops along the road to Houston.<br />
<br />
The only serious confrontation that took place that day<br />
<br />
involved the group I was with. We crowded into a little store and a fellow named Jeffries, one of my squad buddies, approached the storekeeper who was standing behind the counter. Putting his money down, he demanded a coke. Whereupon the guy said, 'Til serve you one, but y'all can't drink it in heah."<br />
<br />
"Why?" Jeffries asked, innocently.<br />
<br />
"Cause we don't serve niggahs heah."<br />
<br />
Just as we were about to jump him and wreck the place, Jeffries, a comedian, decided to play it straight. He turned to us and said, "Now wait, fellahs, let me handle this. What the man is saying is that you don't know your place."<br />
<br />
Turning to the storekeeper he put his money down and with feigned meekness said, "All right, mister, give me a coke. I know my place, I'll drink it outside."<br />
<br />
"Thank goodness this nigger's got some sense," the storekeeper must have thought as he placed a coke on the counter. Jeffries snatched up the bottle and immediately hit him on the head, knocking him out cold.<br />
<br />
We then proceeded to wreck the place. We took everything in sight. Rushing back to the train, I heard a loud crash—a plate glass window someone had smashed as a parting gift to the niggerhating storekeeper.<br />
<br />
Up to this time we had not seen any of our officers. They had been up front in the first-class Pullmans. Many of them, we suspected, were sleeping off the after effects of the parties held on the eve of our departure. Major Hunt and Captain Hill now appeared and gave orders to the non-coms and the vestibule guards to allow no one else to leave the train.<br />
<br />
We waved goodbye to the Blacks on the station platform. They looked frightened, sad and cowed. We were leaving, but they had to stay and face the wrath of the local crackers. <br />
<br />
The train headed to Texarkana, where the scene was repeated though on a smaller scale. In Texarkana the train stopped only a few minutes and we raided one store near the railroad station. I was the last one out, running to the train with a box of pilfered Havana cigars in my hand. Nearing the train, I passed a couple of local whites talking about the raid. One said to the other, "You see all those niggers taking that man's stuff?"<br />
<br />
"Yeah, I see it."<br />
<br />
"Well, what are we going to do about it?"<br />
<br />
I reached the train just as it was pulling out, relieved not to have been left behind to find out the answer. The next stop was Tyler, deep in the heart of Texas, scene of our most serious confrontation. Here we confronted the law in the person of the county sheriff. Tyler seemed to be a larger town than the others. It was a division point and all three sections pulled up on the sidings. As in Jonesboro, a large crowd had gathered at the station; Blacks on one side, whites on the other. Again, with our guns in view, we started flirting with the white women, throwing kisses at them and so on.<br />
<br />
We were very hungry. There had been some foul-up in logistics so there wasn't any food on the train. All we had that day was a couple of sandwiches and some coffee. We piled off the train and headed for the stores, elbowing whites out of the way. We didn't carry our guns but many of us wore sheathed bayonets.<br />
<br />
Major Hunt finally appeared but he was only able to stop a few of us. By that time most of us were already ransacking the stores in the immediate vicinity of the station. The path back to the station was strewn with bottles of soft drinks, hams, fruits, wrappers from the candy and cigarettes, etc. The major was frantically blowing his whistle and calling the fellows to come back to the cars. Finally we all got back and were eating our pilfered food, drinking our near-beer and soda.<br />
<br />
Suddenly a large white man stepped forward out of the crowd. He wore a khaki uniform, a Sam Brown belt and a Colt forty-five in his holster. He approached Major Hunt and identified himself as the sheriff. (Or he might have been chief of police.) He said he intended to search the train and recover the stolen goods.<br />
<br />
The major, a short, heavy-set Black man, said: "No, you don't. This is a military train. Any searching to be done will be done by our officers."<br />
<br />
"I know," he said, "I want to accompany you."<br />
<br />
"No you don't. You won't set foot on this train."<br />
<br />
The sheriff hesitated and looked around at the crowd of white and Black. It was clearly a bitter pill for him to swallow, having for the first time in his life to take low to a Black man in front of his white constituents, as well as setting a bad example for the Blacks. He pushed the unarmed major aside and walked forward.<br />
<br />
"Come on you peckerwood son-of-a-bitch!" we hollered from the car.<br />
<br />
He approached the vestibule of our car where Jimmy Bland, a mean, grey-eyed and light-skinned Black was on guard.<br />
<br />
"Back! Get back or I'll blow you apart!" Jimmy pushed the sheriff in the belly with the barrel of his rifle. To further impress upon him that the gun was loaded, he threw the bolt and ejected a bullet. The sheriff, who had doubled over from the blow, straightened up. his face ghastly white. He gasped out something to the effect that he was going to report this affair to the government and walked away. We all let out a tremendous roar.<br />
<br />
We arrived in Houston the next day, five days after the mutiny of the Twenty-fourth. We were informed that five dollars would be docked from each man's pay to cover the damage incurred on the trip down. I believe we all felt that it was a small price to pay for the lift in morale that resulted from our forays on the trip.<br />
<br />
We were greeted by our comrades from Company G of our battalion on arriving at Camp Logan. They had been there at the time of the mutiny-riot and gave us a detailed account of what had happened. We expected to be confronted by the hostile white population, but to our surprise, the confrontation with the Twenty-fourth seemed to have bettered the racial climate of this typical Southern town. Houston in those days was a small city of perhaps 100,000 people, not the metropolis it has now become. The whites, especially the police, had learned that they couldn't treat all Black people as they had been used to treating the local Blacks.<br />
<br />
I can't remember a single clash between soldiers and police during our six-month stay in the area. On the contrary, if there were any incidents involving our men, the local cops would immediately call in the military police. There was also a notable improvement in the morale of the local Black population, who were quick to notice the change in attitude of the Houston cops. The cops had obviously learned to fear retaliation by Black soldiers if they committed any acts of brutality and intimidation in the Black community.<br />
<br />
Houston Blacks were no longer the cowed, intimidated people they had been before the mutiny. They were proud of us and it was clear that our presence made them feel better. A warm and friendly relationship developed between our men and the Black community. The girls were especially proud of us. Local Blacks would point out places where some notorious, nigger-hating cop had been killed.<br />
<br />
"See those bullet holes in the telephone pole over there," they'd say. "That's where that bad cop, old Pat Grayson, got his."<br />
<br />
"Those Twenty-fourths certainly were sharpshooters!"<br />
<br />
I occasionally took my laundry to an elderly woman who had known Corporal Baltimore. She told me what a nice young man he was.<br />
<br />
"I hear he was hanged," she said.<br />
<br />
"That's right," I replied.<br />
<br />
Tears came to her eyes and she cluck-clucked. "He left some of his laundry here; you're about his size, you want it?"<br />
<br />
"Yes, I'll take it."<br />
<br />
She handed me several pairs of khaki trousers and some underwear and shirts all washed and starched and insisted that I pay only the cost of the laundry.<br />
<br />
In Camp Logan, our Black Regiment, a part of the Thirty-third Illinois National Guard Division, went into intensive training. We had high esprit de corps. Our officers lost no opportunity to lecture us on the importance of race loyalty and race pride. They went out to disprove the ideas spread by the white brass to the effect that Black soldiers could be good, but only when officered by whites.<br />
<br />
Our solidarity was strengthened when the Army attempted to remove Colonel Charles R. Young from the regiment. Young was the first Black West Point graduate and the highest ranking Black officer in the Regular Army. He wanted to go overseas very badly, but it was quite clear that they did not want a Black officer of his rank over there. He was examined by an Army medical board and found unfit for overseas service. We all knew it was a fraud. It was in all the Black papers and was known by Blacks throughout the country.<br />
<br />
We men didn't let our officers down. We were out to show the whites that not only were we as good in everything as they, but better. In Camp Logan, our regiment held division championships in most of the sports: track, boxing, baseball, etc. We had the highest number of marksmen, sharpshooters and expert riflemen. Of course, there was no socializing between Blacks and whites, but it was clear that we had the respect, if not the friendship, of many of the white soldiers in the division.<br />
<br />
In fact, despite all the efforts of the command, there was a certain degree of solidarity between Black and white soldiers in our division. In Spartanburg, North Carolina, white soldiers from New York came to the defense of their Black fellows of the Fifteenth New York when the latter were attacked by Southern whites. Many of us felt that in the case of a showdown in town with the local crackerdom, we could get support from some of the white members of our division who happened to be around. At least, we felt they would not side with the crackers against us.<br />
<br />
The high morale of the regiment, the new tolerance (at least on the part of the local white establishment), the new spirit of Houston Blacks were all displayed during the parade of our division in downtown Houston. About two months before our departure, we received notice from headquarters that the regiment was to participate in a parade. We were to pass in review before Governor Howden of Illinois, our host governor of Texas, high brass from the War Department and other notables.<br />
<br />
We spent a couple of days getting our clothes and equipment into shape. We washed and starched our khaki uniforms, bleached our canvas leggings snow white, cleaned and polished our rifles and side arms, shined our shoes to a mirror gloss. On the day of the parade, we marched the five miles into town, halting just before we reached the center of the city. We wiped the dust from our rifles and shoes and continued the march.<br />
<br />
Executing perfectly the change from squad formation to platoon front, we entered the main square. With our excellent band playing the Illinois March, we passed the reviewing stand with our special rhythmic swagger which only Black troops could affect. We were greeted by a thunderous ovation from the crowds, especially the Blacks.<br />
<br />
I believe all of Black Houston turned out that day. The next morning, the Houston Post, a white daily, headlined a story about the parade and declared that "the best looking outfit in the parade was the Negro Eighth Illinois."<br />
<br />
Given final leave, we bid good-bye to our girls and friends in Houston. After that, security was clamped down and no one was allowed to leave the camp. A few days later, we boarded the train and were on our way to a port of embarkation. We didn't know where we were headed but suspected it was New York. Instead, five days later, we wound up in Camp Stewart near Newport News, Virginia.<br />
<br />
In Newport News, we barely escaped a serious confrontation with some local crackers and the police. The first batches of our fellows given passes to the town were subjected to the taunts and slurs of the local cops.<br />
<br />
"Why don't you darkies stay in camp? We don't want you downtown making trouble."<br />
<br />
Several fights ensued. Some of the men from our regiment were arrested and others literally driven out of town. They returned to the barracks, some of them badly beaten, and told us what had happened. A repetition of the riot of the Twenty-fourth Infantry at Houston was narrowly averted, as a number of us grabbed our guns and were about to head downtown. We were turned back, however, by our officers, who intervened and pleaded with us to return to our barracks. Among them was Lt. Benote Lee, whom we all loved and respected.<br />
<br />
"Don't play into the hands of these crackers," he said. "We'll be leaving any day now. All they want is to get us in trouble on the eve of our departure."<br />
<br />
"How about our guys who were arrested?" we asked.<br />
<br />
"Don't worry. We'll get them out."<br />
<br />
We returned to the barracks and, sure enough, our comrades were returned the next day, escorted by white MPs. We spent the next days on standby orders, apparently waiting for our ship to arrive. After that, all leaves were cancelled.<br />
<br />
It was on the same day, I believe, that we first learned that we had been separated from our Thirty-third Illinois Division. Henceforth, we were to be known as the 370th Infantry.<br />
<br />
One morning shortly after this, we looked down into the harbor and saw three big ships. We knew then that we would soon be on our way. The following morning the regiment marched down to the dockside to board ship. Yet another incident occurred at the dock. We lined up in company front facing the harbor and halted a few yards from the fence which ran the entire length of the dock.<br />
<br />
Facing us in front of the fence were several groups of loitering white native males, probably dockworkers. They stared at us as if we were some strange species. Our captain apparently wanted to move the company closer to the fence and gave the command, "Forward march." But he "forgot" to call "halt." That was all we needed.<br />
<br />
We were still angry about the beating of our comrades in downtown Newport News a few days before. We marched directly into the whites, closing in on them, cursing and cuffing them with fists and rifle butts, kicking and kneeing them; in short, applying the skills of close order combat we had learned during our basic training. Of course, we didn't want to kill anybody, we just wanted to rough them up a bit.<br />
<br />
We were finally stopped by the excited cries of our officers, "Halt! Halt!" We withdrew, opening up a path through which our victims ran or limped away. Then at the command of "Attention! Right face!" we marched along the dock in columns of two's and finally boarded the ship.<br />
<br />
=== ON TO FRANCE ===<br />
We sailed for France in early April 1918, on the old USS Washington, a passenger liner converted into a troop ship. I have crossed the Atlantic many times since, but I can truthfully say that I have never experienced rougher seas. Our three ships sailed out of Newport News without escort. Of course, we were worried; there were rumors of German submarines. Our anxiety was relieved when in mid-ocean we picked up two escort vessels, one of which was the battle cruiser Covington. When we reached the war zone, about three days out of Brest, a dozen destroyers took over, circling our ships all the way into port.<br />
<br />
It took us sixteen days in all to reach Brest, France, where we arrived on April 22. We were so weak on landing that one-half of the regiment fell out while climbing the hill to the old Napoleon Barracks where we were quartered. Immediately upon our arrival, we were put to work cleaning up ourselves and our equipment, notwithstanding our weakened condition.<br />
<br />
The next morning we passed in review before some U.S. and French big brass. The following day we boarded a train. We crossed the whole of France from east to west and detrained at Granvillars, a village in French Alsace, close to the Swiss frontier. There we found out that we had been brigaded with and were to be an integral part of the French Army. <br />
<br />
The reason we were separated from the white Americans was, as the white brass put it, "to avoid friction." But the American command of General Pershing was not satisfied just to separate us; they tried to extend the long arm of Jim Crow to the French. The American Staff Headquarters, through its French mission, tried to make sure that the French understood the status of Blacks in the United States. Their Secret Information Bulletin Concerning Black American Troops is now notorious, though I did not learn of it until after I had returned from France. The Army of Democracy spoke to its French allies:<br />
<br />
It is important for French officers who have been called upon to exercise command over black American troops, or to live in close contact with them, to have an exact idea of the position occupied by Negroes in the United States. The increasing number of Negroes in the United States (about 15,000,000) would create for the white race in the Republic a menace of degeneracy were it not that an impassable gulf has been made between them....<br />
<br />
Although a citizen of the United States, the black man is regarded by the white American as an inferior being with whom relations of business or service only are possible. The black is constantly being censured for his want of intelligence and discretion, his lack of civic and professional conscience, and for his tendency toward undue familiarity.<br />
<br />
The vices of the Negro are a constant menace to the American who has to repress them sternly. For instance, the black American troops in France have, by themselves, given rise to as many complaints for attempted rape as the rest of the army....<br />
<br />
Conclusion:<br />
<br />
1. We must prevent the rise of any pronounced degree of intimacy between French officers and black officers. We may be courteous and amiable with these last, but we cannot deal with them on the same plane as with the white American officers without deeply wounding the latter. We must not eat with them, must not shake hands or seek to talk or meet with them outside the requirements of military service.<br />
<br />
2. We must not commend too highly the black American troops, particularly in the presence of [white] Americans....<br />
<br />
3. Make a point of keeping the native cantonment population from "spoiling" the Negroes. [White] Americans become greatly incensed at any public expression of intimacy between white women with black men....Familiarity on the part of white women with black men is furthermore a source of profound regret to our experienced colonials, who see in it an overweening menace to the prestige of the white race.<br />
<br />
Apparently this classic statement of U.S. racism was ineffectual with the French troops and people, even though it was supplemented by wild stories circulated by the white U.S. troops. These included the claim that Blacks had tails like monkeys, which was especially told to women, including those in the brothels.<br />
<br />
Our regiment was not sorry to be incorporated into the French military. In fact, most of us thought it was the best thing that could have happened. The French treated Blacks well—that is, as human beings. There was no Jim Crow. At the time, I thought the French seemed to be free of the virulent U.S. brand of racism.<br />
<br />
The American Command not only wanted its front line to be all white, it also wanted all regiment commanders (even those under the French) to be white. Consequently, our Black colonel, Franklin A. Dennison; our lieutenant colonel, James H. Johnson; and two of our majors (battalion commanders) were replaced by white officers. Colonel Dennison was sent back to the States, kicked upstairs, given the rank of brigadier general, and placed in command of the Officer Training Camp for Colored Men at Fort Des Moines, Iowa. Although our first reaction was anger, we became reconciled to the shift.<br />
<br />
Our new white colonel, T. A. Roberts, seemed to be warm, paternalistic and deeply concerned about the welfare of his men. He would often make the rounds of the field kitchens, tasting the food and admonishing the cooks about ill-prepared food. He even gave instructions on how the various dishes should be cooked. Naturally, this made a great hit with the men. Our confidence in him was high because we felt that he was a professional soldier who knew his business.<br />
<br />
I remember the day the new colonel took over. The regiment formed in the village square. Colonel Roberts introduced himself. He seemed quite modest. He said that he was honored to be our new commander and that he knew the record of our regiment dating back to 1892 and its exploits during the Spanish-American War.<br />
<br />
"Since West Point," he said, "I have always served with colored troops—the Ninth and Tenth Cavalry." He then turned to Captain Patton, our Black regiment adjutant. "Captain Patton knows me, he was one of my staff sergeants in the old Tenth Cavalry." Patton nodded.<br />
<br />
The colonel smiled and pointed to our top sergeant. "Over there is Mark Thompson. I remember him when he was company clerk in Troop C of the Tenth Cavalry." He went on to point out a dozen or so officers and non-coms with whom he had served in the Ninth or Tenth Cavalry. "These men will tell you where I stand with respect to the race issue and everything else. We are going into the lines soon and I am sure that the men of this regiment will pile up a record of which your people and the whole of America will be proud."<br />
<br />
The process of integration into the French Army was thorough. The American equipment with which we had trained at home was taken away and we were issued French weapons—rifles, carbines, machine guns, automatic rifles, pistols, helmets, gas masks and knapsacks. We were even issued French rations—with the exception of the wine, which our officers apparently felt we could not handle. We got all the wine we wanted anyway from the French troops. They were issued a liter (about a quart) a day and for a few centimes could buy more at the canteen.<br />
<br />
The regiment was completely reorganized along French lines, with a machine gun company to every battalion. My Company E of the Second Battalion was converted into Machine Gun Company No. 2. We entered a six-week period of intensive training under French instructors to master our new weapons. Our main weapon was the old air-cooled Hotchkiss. And we had to master the enemy's gun, the water-cooled Maxim.<br />
<br />
The period of French training was not an easy one. It was a miserable spring—dark and dreary, and it rained incessantly the whole time we were there. There was a lot of illness—grippe, pneumonia and bronchitis. We lost a number of men, several from our company. The men were in a sullen mood as the time approached for the regiment to move up to the front.<br />
<br />
Disgruntlement was often voiced in the now familiar form of "What are we doing over here? Germans ain't done nothing to us. It's those crackers we should be fighting." While we were lined up in the square one day, our captain took the occasion to comment on these sentiments.<br />
<br />
"Well," he said, "I've been hearing all this stuff about guys saying that they weren't going to fight the Germans. Well, we certainly can't make you fight if you don't want to. But I'll tell you one thing we can and will do is take you up to the front where the Germans are, and you can use your own judgment as to whether you fight them or not."<br />
<br />
In early June 1918, we entered the trenches at the St. Mihiel Salient near the Swiss frontier as a part of the Tenth Division of the French Army under General Mittelhauser. We were intermingled with the French troops in the Tenth Division so that our officers and men might observe and profit by close association with veteran soldiers. At that time St. Mihiel was a quiet sector. Except for occasional shelling, desultory machine gun and rifle fire, nothing much occurred. We lost no men.<br />
<br />
It was here, however, that we made our first acquaintance with two pests—the rat and the louse—whom thereafter were our inseparable companions for our entire stay at the front. Undoubtedly there were more rats than men; there were hordes of them. Regiments and battalions of rats. They were the largest rats I had ever seen. We soon became tired of killing them; it seemed a wasted effort. Some of the rats became quite bold, even impudent. They seemed to say, "I've got as much right here as you have." They would walk along, pick up food scraps and eat them right there in front of you! The dark dug-outs were their real havens. When we slept we would keep our heads covered with blankets as protection against rat bites. This may seem flimsy protection, but we were so conditioned that we would awake at any attempt on the part of a rat to bite through the blanket. I have often wondered why there were so few rat bites. Probably the rats felt that it was not worthwhile fooling with live humans when there were so many dead ones around. We soon got used to the rats and learned to live with them.<br />
<br />
It was the same with the lice. I woke up lousy after my first sleep in a dug-out. My reaction to the pests took the following progression: first, I was besieged by interminable itching, followed by depression. Then I began to lose appetite and weight, finally becoming quite ill. All this was within a period of a few days. Most of the fellows exhibited the same symptoms. <br />
<br />
One might say that our illness was mainly psychological, but it was nonetheless real. Since this was a quiet front, I had no difficulty in getting permission to go back to the rear for a few hours. Foolishly, I thought if I could get cleaned up just once, I would feel a lot better. I got some delousing soap, took a bath and washed my clothes. I then returned to the front, stood machine gun watch and then went into the dug-out for a nap. Needless to say, I woke up lousy again.<br />
<br />
I told my troubles to an old French veteran who had been assigned to my machine gun squad. "Oh, it's nothing! You must forget all about it,' he said. "You'll get used to it. I've been at the front for nearly four years and I've been lousy all the time, except when I was in the hospital or at home on leave."<br />
<br />
I took his advice which was all to the good, because I was not to be rid of these pests until six months later during my sojourn in hospitals at Mantes-sur-Seine and Paris after the Armistice. Even then, it was only a temporary respite, for I was reinfected upon rejoining my regiment at the embarkation port of Brest. After a brief stay with the regiment, I was returned to the hospital, again deloused, only to be reinfected again on the hospital ship returning to the States. I parted company with my last louse at the debarkation hospital at Grand Central Palace in New York City.<br />
<br />
We remained in the St. Mihiel sector about two weeks. We were then withdrawn and moved into a sector in the Argonne Forest near Verdun, site of the great battles of 1916; we arrived there in late July 1918. We were still brigaded with the Tenth French Division. The area around Verdun was a vast cemetery with a half million crosses of those who had perished in that great holocaust, each bearing the legend, Mort Pour La France. <br />
<br />
The Argonne at that time was also a quiet sector. But it was here that we suffered our first casualty, Private Robert M. Lee of Chicago. The incident occurred during machine gun target practice. The first and second line trenches ran along parallel hills about a hundred yards apart. The French had set up a make-shift range in the valley in between the trenches. Behind the gun there was a two or three foot rise in the earth, on which a number of us French and Blacks were sitting, chewing the rag, awaiting our turn at the machine gun. <br />
<br />
Suddenly, there was a short burst of machine gun fire. It was not from our guns. Bullets whizzed over our heads—they seemed to be coming from behind the target. All of us scrambled to get into the communication trench which opened on the valley. Second Lieutenant Binga DesMond, our platoon commander (and the University of Chicago's great sprinting star), fell from the embankment on top of me. Fortunately, he was not hit. But even with his 180 pounds on my back, I am sure I made that ten or fifteen yards to the communication trench, crawling on my hands and knees, as fast as he could have sprinted the distance!<br />
<br />
The fire was coming from behind the target. What obviously had happened was that the Germans had cased the position of our guns and had somehow got around behind the target and waited for a pause in our target practice to open fire on us. We never found out how they did it, for none of us knew the exact topography of the place. The French of course knew it, but they had assured us that the place was safe and that they had been using the range for months.<br />
<br />
We were crouched down, panting, in the communication trench for about five minutes after the German guns ceased fire. The French lieutenant (bless his soul) then sent a French gun crew out to get the gun. To our great surprise they also brought back Robert M. Lee. He was quite dead, with bullets right through the heart. He had evidently been hit by the first burst and had fallen forward in front of the embankment. All of us were deeply saddened by the incident.<br />
<br />
No one spoke as we bore his body back to the rear. He was only nineteen, a very sweet fellow, and he was our first casualty. We buried him down in the valley, beside the graves of those fallen at Verdun. The funeral was quite impressive. He was given a hero's burial, with representatives both from our regiment and our French counterparts. We were especially impressed by the appearance of General Mittelhauser who came down from Division Headquarters to express condolences and appreciation to the Black troops now under his command.<br />
<br />
=== THE SOISSONS SECTOR ===<br />
Despite the fact that we had been in aa quiet sector, it was still the front lines with its daily tensions of anticipated attack. In the middle of August, we were pulled out of the Argonne sector and sent to rest behind the lines near Bar-le-Duc. We were deeply pleased by the hospitality and kindness extended to us by the townspeople there. They invited us into their homes and plied us with food and wine. Half-jokingly they told us to come back after the war and we could have our pick of the girls. As we did throughout our stay in France, we deported ourselves well. For pleasures of the flesh, there were a number of legal houses of prostitution, or “houses of pleasure” as they were called by the French, It was with regret that we left that area.<br />
<br />
By this time, we had become an integral part of the French Army. Along with our French equipment, training and so forth, we had affected the style of the French poilu (doughboy). The flaps of our overcoats were buttoned back in order to give us more leg room while on the march, as was their style. Like the French infantry, we used walking sticks, which helped to ease the burden of our seventy pounds of equipment. French peasants along the road, hearing our strange language and noticing our color, would often mistake us for French colonials. Not Senegalese, who were practically all black but Algerians, Moroccans or Sudanese, We would swing along the road to the tune of our favorite marching song:<br />
<br />
'''My old mistress promised me, Raise a ruckus tonight,'''<br />
<br />
'''When she died she'd set me free, Raise a ruckus tonight.'''<br />
<br />
'''She lived so long her head got bald, Raise a ruckus tonight.'''<br />
<br />
'''She didn’t get to set me free at all, Raise a ruckus tonight!'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, come along, little children come along, While the moon is shining bright;'''<br />
<br />
'''Get on board on down the river flow, Gonna’ raise a ruckus tonight.'''<br />
<br />
But we had not escaped the long arm of American racism. We were rudely confronted with this reality upon our arrival in a small town on the Compiégne front in the department of Meuse. We entrained here for our next front. The regiment was confronted dramatically with the effects of the racist campaign launched by the American high brass,<br />
<br />
Upon entering the town, the regiment was drawn up in battalion formation in the square, Before being assigned to billets, we were informed by the battalion commander that a Black soldier from a labor battalion had been court martialed and hanged in the very square where we were standing, It had happened just a few weeks before our arrival. His crime was the raping of a village girl. His body had been left hanging there for twenty-four hours, as a demonstration of American justice,<br />
<br />
“As a result,” he told us, “you may find the town population hostile, In case this is so,” the major warned, “you are not to be provoked or to take umbrage at any discourtesies, but are to deport yourselves as gentlemen at all times,” In any case, we were to be there only for a few days, during which time we were to remain close to our barracks, Then, in a lowered voice, he muttered, “This is what i have been told to tell you.”<br />
<br />
We kept close to our billets the first day or so, but then gradually ventured further into town. At first, the townsfolk seemed to be aloof, but the coolness was gradually broken down, probably as a result of our correct deportment, especially our attitude towards the children (with whom we always immediately struck up friendships). Friendly relations were finally established with the villagers. When we asked about the hanging, they shrugged the matter off,<br />
<br />
“So what? That was only one soldier. The others were nice enough,” When asked why they had been so aloof when we first arrived, they said it was the result of the warnings of the white officers. “They didn’t want us to fraternize with the Blacks.”<br />
<br />
Continuing the conversation, they seemed puzzled about why the sentence had been so severe and the body barbarously left exposed in the square. “Trés brutale, trés horrible!” they exclaimed. With regard to the girl, “Ah, she had been raped many times before,” one of them jeered.<br />
<br />
After two weeks of rest, the regiment began to move by stages toward the front lines again. A few days later, we boarded a train consisting of a long line of box-cars. Each car was marked: “Quarante hommes ou huit chevaux.” (Forty men or eight horses.)<br />
<br />
The last couple of months had been quiet and relatively pleasant, with the exception of the Lec incident and the events just related. But now, we felt, we were going into the thick of it. The premonition was confirmed the very next morning when we woke (that is, those of us who had been able to sleep in such crowded conditions),<br />
<br />
We were passing through Chateau-Thierry. There could be no doubt about it, eventhough part of the sign had been blown away and only the word “Thierry” remained. The woods around the station and Belleau Woods, a few miles further on, looked like they had been hit by a cyclone: broken and uprooted trees, gaping shell holes, men from the Graves Registration walking around with crosses, Black Pioneers removing ammunition, All were grim reminders of the great battles that had been fought there by American troops only several weeks before.<br />
<br />
We were on the Soissons front, where we became part of the famous Armée Mangin, General Mangin (le boucher or the butcher as he was called by the French) was commander of the Tenth Army of France, among whom were a number of shock troops; Chausseurs Alpines, Chausseurs d’Afrique (Algerians and Moroccans), Senegalese riflemen and the Foreign Legion. His army was pivotal in breaking the Hindenburg Lineabout Soissons. On this front, we were brigaded with the Fifty-ninth French Division, under the command of General Vincendon.<br />
<br />
We bypassed Thierry and Belleau Woods and detrained at the village of Villers-Cotteréts, the birthplace of Alexandre Dumas. ‘The atmosphere was charged with expectancy, Observation balloons hung like giant sausages on the horizon. Big guns rumbled ominously in the distance, A steady stream of ambulances carrying wounded jammed the roads leading from the front. Obviously a big battle was in progress not too far away. But it turned out that we were not going into that sector. We left the village and marched west to Crépy-en-Valois. Turning north through the Compiégne Forest, we reached the Aisne River at a point near Vie-sur-Aisne and continued on to Resson-le-Long where we established our depot company. The march from the railhead to Resson took about three days. It was a forced march and covered about twenty-five kilometers (fifteen miles) a day.<br />
<br />
This was pretty rough after the restless night we had spent on the crowded train. As one of the company wags observed, “One thing bout these kilomeeters, they sho’ will kill you if you keep on meetin’ “em.”<br />
<br />
Our regiment spent six months in the lines in all. We took part in the fifty-nine day drive of Mangin’s Tenth Army which ended on the day of the Armistice. During that period, one or another of our units was always under fire or fighting. Our toughest battles were at the Death Valley Jump Off near the Aisne Canal, the taking of Mont Singes (Monkey Mountain which was later renamed Hill 370 in honor of our regiment), fighting at a railroad embankment northwest of Guilleminet Farm, and the advance into the Hindenburg Line at the Oise-Aisne Triangle.<br />
<br />
It was in the battles on the Hindenburg Line that we met the strongest enemy resistance and sustained most of our losses. The enemy resistance was broken in these battles and they began a general withdrawal, at first orderly and accompanied by brief rearguard actions. Finally, there was the flight to the Belgian frontier, destroying roads and railroads on orders to impede our advance. After Laon, their flight was so precipitous that we had difficulty maintaining contact. We entered many villages which they had left the day before.<br />
<br />
Our outfit was the first allied troops to enter the fortified city of Laon, wresting it from the Germans after four years of war. We were greeted with tremendous elation by the population, who had lived under German occupation the whole of that period.<br />
<br />
The regiment was highly praised by the French. It won twenty-one Distinguished Service Crosses, sixty-eight Croix de Guerre and one Distinguished Service Medal. In the whole two months’ drive, casualties were 500 killed and wounded-—a total of about one-fifth of the regiment. These casualties were light when compared with those of Black regiments on other fronts. For example, the 37] st Infantry of drafted men lost 1,065 out of 2,384 men in three days’ fighting during the great September defensive on the Compiégne Front. I believe that the German resistance on these other fronts, east and west of Soissons, was more stubborn than on our front.<br />
<br />
All of our Black regiments were fortunate to have been brigaded with the French. In this respect, the American High Command did us a big favor, unintentionally, lam sure. For as far as we were able to observe, the French made no discrimination in the treatment of Black officers and men, with whom they fraternized freely. They regarded us as brothers-in-arms.<br />
<br />
Similarly, the French people in the villages in which we stopped or were stationed were uniformly courteous and friendly, and we made many friends, I must say that we were also on our best behavior. I don’t remember a single incident of misbehavior on the part of our men toward French villagers. The latter were quick to notice this and to contrast our gentlemanly deportment with the rudeness of the white Americans. Many of the white soldiers made no effort to hide their disdain for the French(whom they regarded as inferiors) and commonly referred to them as “frogs.”<br />
<br />
But even as we fought, we were being stabbed in the back by the American High Command. We were not to learn, however, until our return to the States of the slanderous, racist document issued by the American General Staff Headquarters through its brainwashed French Mission (the Secret Information Concerning Black American Troops referred to earlier).<br />
<br />
We learned also that the hanging of the Black soldier on the Compiégne Front was not an isolated incident, but part of a deliberate campaign conducted by higher and lower echelons in the American Command to influence French civilians against Blacks. The campaign focused on the effort to build up the Black rapist scare among them.<br />
<br />
Such was a memorandum issued by headquarters of the Ninety-second Division (a Black division officered largely by whites) on August 21, 1918. Its purpose was to “prevent the presence of colored troops from being a menace to women,” The memorandum read in part:<br />
<br />
On account of increasing frequency of the crime of rape, or attempted rape, in this Division, drastic preventive measures have become necessary... Until further notice, there will be a check of all troops of the 92nd Division every hour daily between reveille and 11 P.M,, with a written record showing how each check was made, by whom, and the result...the one mile limit regulation will be strictly enforced at all times, and no passes will be issued except to men of known reliability.<br />
<br />
This was followed the next day by another memorandum saying that the commander-in-chief of the American Expeditionary Forces “would send the 92nd Division back to the States or break it up into labor battalions as unfit to bear arms in France, if efforts to prevent rape were not taken more seriously.”<br />
<br />
As a result, Dr. Robert R. Moton of Tuskegee was sent by President Wilson and the secretary of war to investigate the charges. He found only one case of rape in the whole division of 15,000 men. Two other men who were from labor battalions in the Ninety-second area were convicted. One of these was hanged, and I’m sure that this was the unfortunate soldier whom we saw on the Compiégne Front. General headquarters was forced to admit that the crime of rape, as later stated by Moton, “was no more prevalent among coloured soliders than among white, or any other soldiers.”<br />
<br />
This whole racist smear of Black troops, I was to conclude later, represented but an extension to France of the anti-Black racist campaign then current in the States, It was designed to maintain Black subjugation and prevent its erosion by liberal racial attitudes of the French. Back in the States, the campaign was marked by an upturn of lynchings during the war years, with thirty-eight Black victims in 1917 and half again that number in the following year. Even then, things were working up to the bloody riots of 1919.<br />
<br />
In contrast to all of this, the appreciation of the French for Black soldiers from the U.S. was shown by the accolade given by the French division commander, General Vincendon, to our regiment. On December 19, 1918, we were transferred from the French Army back to the American Army. On that day, General Order 4785, directed to the Fifty-ninth Division of the Army of France, was read to the officers and men of the 370th. It commended us for our contributions to France. remember being struck by the poetry of the language, it was all beautifully French to me:<br />
<br />
We at first, in September at Mareuil-sur-Ourcg, admitted your fine appearance under arms, the precision of your review, the suppleness of your evolutions that presented to the eye the appearance of silk unrolling its waves...<br />
<br />
Further on in remembering our dead, the communique read:<br />
<br />
The blood of your comrades who fell on the soil of France, mixed with the blood of our soldiers, renders indissoluble the bonds of affection that unite us.<br />
<br />
=== THE ROAD HOME ===<br />
The road back from Soissons lay through the old battlefields where we had fought a couple of months before. Near Anizy-le Chateau there were crosses marking the graves of some of our comrades who had died in the fighting there. We paused before the graves, seeking out those of the comrades we knew. We all had the same thoughts: “What rotten luck that they should die almost in sight of victory.”<br />
<br />
Among the crosses, there was one marked “Sergeant Theodore Gamelin.” Gamelin hadn’t died in combat. 1 remember the incident clearly, We were all lined up in some hastily dug trenches that morning, waiting for the “over the top” signal. The cooks had just distributed reserved rations. These consisted of a half-loaf of French bread (not the crispy white kind, but a coarse grayish loaf baked especially for the troops, which we called “war bread”) and a big bar of chocolate. Somehow, Gamelin had missed out on these rations. Jump-off time was drawing near. He looked around and his eyes fixed upon a private named Brown, who was sitting on the firing step, putting his rations in a knapsack. Now, Private Brown was one of those quiet, meek little fellows. He always took low, was never known to fight. But Brown was the type of man, I have observed, who can become dangerous. This is particularly true in a combat situation where one doesn’t know whether one will live five minutes longer. Gamelin, a big bullying type, an amateur boxer and very unpopular with his men, called to Brown:<br />
<br />
“Give me some of that bread, Brown. I didn’t get my rations.”<br />
<br />
“Now, that’s just too bad, sergeant,” Brown responded, “I’m not going to give you any of this bread. It’s not my fault you missed your rations.”<br />
<br />
Gamelin, with one hand on his pistol, moved as though he were going to seize the bread. Brown had his rifle lying across his lap. He simply raised it and coolly pulled the trigger. The sergeant fell dead!<br />
<br />
The platoon commander heard the commotion and ran to the spot, inquiring about what had happened. The men told him that Gamelin was trying to take Brown’s reserve rations and had made a move toward his pistol. Brown, they said, had shot in self-defense,<br />
<br />
Obviously nothing could be done about Brown in those circumstances. So the lieutenant said, “Consider yourself under arrest, Brown. We will take this matter up after this action.”<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, Brown was killed a few days later, The memory of this incident was on our minds as we viewed Gamelin’s grave, His helmet hung on a cross, which ironically bore the inscription “Sergeant Theodore Gamelin—Mort Pour La France (Died for France), September 1918.”<br />
<br />
Thad gone through six months at the front without a scratch or a day of illness. But as we neared Soissons, I began to feel faint and light-headed, By the time we reached the city, I had developed quite a high fever, It was the period of the first great flu epidemic which wreaked havoc among U.S. troops in France. I reported to the infirmary and lined up with a group of about fifty men. The medical sergeant took our temperatures and then tied tags to our coats. I looked at mine and it read “influenza.” We were evacuated to a field hospital near Soissons, where I remained for about five days. After that, we boarded a hospital train and were told that we were going to the big base hospital in Paris, Now, I liked that.<br />
<br />
I had never seen Paris and was most anxious to visit the famed city before going home. There were two of us in the compartment, another soldier from the regiment and myself, I felt a little drowsy, sol told my compartment mate that I was going to take a little nap and to wake me up when the chow came around, I “awoke” five days later in a French hospital at Mantes-sur-Seine, near Paris.<br />
<br />
They had put me off the train as an emergency case just before Paris. I came out of a coma to find a number of strange people around my bed—nurses who were Catholic nuns, doctors and a number of patients, They were all smiling. “Thank God, young man,” said the doctor, “we thought we were going to lose you. You've been in a coma for five days, but you’re going to be all right now.”<br />
<br />
“Where am I? Is this Paris?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“No, this is Mantes-sur-Seine, close to Paris. They had to put you off here as an emergency case.”<br />
<br />
“What’s wrong with me?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“Qh, you've had a little kidney infection and it has affected your heart.”<br />
<br />
“That sounds bad,” I said.<br />
<br />
“Well, you’re young and have a remarkable constitution. You'll pull through all right—you’re out of danger now,” he assured me.<br />
<br />
I remained in the hospital for about a month, receiving the kindest and most solicitous attention from nurses, doctors and patients. All seemed to regard me as their special charge, No one spoke English, but I got along all right. It was like a crash course in French, They told me I had a beautiful accent. They brought in an old lady to talk English with me, but she bored me to death, Really, my French was better than her English. She came once and didn’t return,<br />
<br />
I was feeling much better when the head sister came to me one evening to tell me I was to leave the next morning for Paris and the American hospital at Neuilly.<br />
<br />
“You've never been to Paris, have you?” she asked.<br />
<br />
“No,” I said. ,<br />
<br />
“Well, you’ve got a treat coming’<br />
<br />
I was filled with great expectations, The next morning, after embracing all my fellow patients and exchanging warm goodbyes with the doctor and sisters, the head nurse (or sister) took me out in front of the hospital where an American ambulance was waiting.<br />
<br />
“Hop in, buddy,” said the driver.<br />
<br />
“Haywood, be sure to write us when you get back to Chicago,” said the sister. “Remember we are your friends and want to know how you are getting along.”<br />
<br />
I promised that I would. As we pulled out, she stood on the road waving a white handkerchief and continued to wave it as long as we were in sight. I never wrote them, hut often thought of them.<br />
<br />
Paris, you wondrous city! I was feeling good that morning as we pulled into the hospital at Neuilly. The hospital was situated on the Avenue Neuilly near the Boulevard de la Grande Armée, only a few blocks from the Arc de Triomphe. It was a veritable palace. I was assigned to a ward in which there were only four guys, three Australians and one white American from Wisconsin. They greeted me and gave mea run-down on the situation. They were having a hall seeing Paris, taking in all the events, theaters, race tracks, boxing and girls, I don’t believe that I saw a real sick man in that hospital. There were some of course, but they must have been secluded in some out of sight wards. We were all convalescents in our ward. A couple were recuperating from wounds received at the front,<br />
<br />
“What do you do for money?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“Oh, we don’t worry about that—-just stick around a while and we'll show you the ropes,”<br />
<br />
Under their tutelage, it didn’t take me long to catch on. At that time there were dozens of rich American women, including a number from the social register in Paris. They were under the auspices of the Red Cross and had taken over the hospital and its patients as their special “war duty.” They would organize excursions, get tickets for shows, sports events, etc. Coming to the hospital in relays, they would leave huge boxes of chocolates and other goodies.<br />
<br />
We were showered with gifts—Gillette razors, Waterman fountain pens, and even some serviceable wrist watches if you asked for them. They would come in waves. Scarcely had one group left when another would come, leaving the same gifts. The guys had it down perfect. They always left one man on watch in the ward. He was there in case the gals would come in while the others were out and receive all the presents and gifts for them. He would point to the three un oceupied beds (there were only five of us in an eight bed ward) and pretend that their occupants were out in the streets. He would suggest that the presents be left for them, also. Old Wisconsin Slim was the real genius in all this, He even hung a couple of crosses over the unoccupied beds to give more substance to the fiction that they were occupied,<br />
<br />
Every morning we would gather all our presents, take them to the gate, and sell them fora good price to the French who gathered there to buy them. We would then return to the ward and divide the “swag.” Razors and fountain pens seemed to be rare in France at that time. The going rate for razors was about ten francs ($2) and for Waterman fountain pens even more. All this was carried out under the benign gaze of the hospital authorities.<br />
<br />
Discipline was lax, almost nonexistent. We could stay out for two days at a time. The attitude seemed to be: let the boys have a good time, they deserve it. Besides, it’s essential for their convalescence, When we would get a little money together (about once a week), we would run out to Montmartre and the famous Rue Pigalle, “Pig Alley,” to see the girls.<br />
<br />
As an old Francophile, I was also interested in French history and culture. I got a guidebook and spent days walking all over Paris, visiting all the historical places about which I had read, mentally reconstructing the events.<br />
<br />
Time was passing rapidly. I had been in the hospital about two months when an administrator called me into his office.<br />
<br />
“Well, Corporal Hall,” he said. “I hope you've been having a good time in Paris.”<br />
<br />
“Oh yes,” I replied.<br />
<br />
“That’s good,” he said, “We're sending you back to your regiment tomorrow.”<br />
<br />
“Where are they?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“They’re in Brest, waiting to embark for the voyage home.”<br />
<br />
The next morning I got on the train at the Gare Ouest and arrived in Brest that evening. In Brest, I strolled around a bit on the waterfront and finally sat down at a sidewalk cafe. I was in no hurry to get back into the old regimental harness, I was about to order a drink when suddenly a big white MP appeared. Glowering at me, he said, “Where’s your pass, soldier?”<br />
<br />
“Here it is. I’ve just got back from the hospital in Paris and I'm going to my outfit up on the hill,” I explained.<br />
<br />
He grabbed it, glanced at it and shouted, “Well, get going up that hill right now. You're not supposed to hang around here.”<br />
<br />
I left without my drink and started climbing the hill to the old Napoleon barracks where we had been eleven months before. It seemed like that had been years ago, so much had been crowded into the brief intervening period.<br />
<br />
T rejoined my outfit. They were living in tents in what seemed to me like a swamp. The weather was miserable, a steady cold rain. The mud was ankle deep. I was greeted warmly by my comrades. I don’t think that more than half the old boys of my company were left. The rest were dead, wounded, or ill in hospitals all over France.<br />
<br />
A couple of bottles of cognac were produced. The guys started reminiscing about what they were going to do when they got home. The news from home was bad. Discrimination and Jim Crow were rampant, worse than before. Blacks were being lynched everywhere. “Now, they want us to go to war with Japan,” observed one of the fellows. (The Hearst newspapers at the time were again raising the specter of the “yellow peril.”)<br />
<br />
“Well,” someone said, “they won’t get me to fight their yellow peril. If it comes to that, I'll join the Japs. They are colored.” There was unanimous agreement on that point.<br />
<br />
I bunked down that night and awoke the next morning with a high fever. I went to the infirmary and again was evacuated to a hospital. I immediately began to worry whether I would be able to return with my outfit. As I was waiting on the side of the road to hitch a ride to the hospital, I heard footsteps behind me. I turned and there was Colonel Roberts, our white commander whom I had not seen for months.<br />
<br />
I started to spring to my feet and salute, but he motioned me to remain seated. “Corporal, you're from our regiment, aren’t you?”<br />
<br />
“Yes, sir,” I said, “I'm sick and going to the hospital.”<br />
<br />
“What’s the matter?”<br />
<br />
“I guess I got the flu.”<br />
<br />
“Well,” he said, “you’re in no condition to walk that distance.” He hailed a passing truck and instructed the driver to take me to the hospital. “Take care, son; we’re going home soon. Try to come hack with us.” That’s the last time I saw Colonel Roberts.<br />
<br />
A month later, while in the hospital, I picked up the Paris edition of the Herald Tribune. The headline read: “The 370th Infantry (the old Eighth Illinois) returns and is given hero’s welcome in victory parade down State Street.” I felt pretty bad, because I could imagine my old Mother standing there waiting for me to pass by, Since I hadn’t written in months, she would probably assume the worst.<br />
<br />
I had been away from the States for quite a while, in free France so to speak, and I had become less used to the American nigger-hating way of life. But I was thrown abruptly back into reality as soon as I crossed the threshold of the American Army hospital in Brest.<br />
<br />
It seemed to be manned by an all Southern staff: doctors, nurses, etc. All of them spoke with broad Southern accents. I was assigned a bed at one end of the ward. When I looked around, I could see only Blacks were in that end. Whites were at the other end. There were no screens, no Jim Crow signs. The Jim Crow was de facto, but nonetheless real. I also noticed that there was a large space between the Black and white sections.<br />
<br />
After a cursory entrance examination, the doctor seemed to think that I didn’t have the flu, and upon hearing my recent medical history, he decided that it was a relapse of the old illness.<br />
<br />
Thad no sooner gotten settled when J heard a nurse bawling out a Black soldier for being so dirty. The poor fellow had just come in from some mud hole like the one in which my regiment was situated, where there was no opportunity to bathe.<br />
<br />
“You don’t see any of our white boys that dirty!” she shouted, her eyes flashing indignantly at what she, a white lady, was forced to put up with, For the first time, it occurred to me that our Black regiment had been put in a worse location than the whites. Now, that’s pretty hard stuff for a front-line veteran to take. If I had been ill when I came in, I was really sick now. I could feel my blood pressure and-fever mount.<br />
<br />
There was a Black sergeant from my outfit in the same ward, He was a tall, dignified and proud looking man, convalescing from a previous illness. He wasn’t a bed patient and was therefore supposed to make his own bed. This he did, but he never seemed to do it to the satisfaction of the nurse, who kept berating him.<br />
<br />
“Make it over, that’s not good enough.”<br />
<br />
“I've already made it, and I’m not going to do it again.”<br />
<br />
“Don’t talk back to me,” she shouted. “Make that bed!”<br />
<br />
“I’m not going to,” he said.<br />
<br />
“You dare disobey my order?” she yelled.<br />
<br />
“I'm a front-line soldier and you don’t have to yell at me.”<br />
<br />
She turned and walked to the office and returned with the ward doctor, a little pip-squeak of a man. Ina stentorian voice he said:<br />
<br />
“Make that bed, soldier.” The sergeant didn’t move. The doctor looked at his watch and said, “I’m giving you two minutes to start making that bed. If you don’t, I’m going to prefer charges against you for disobeying your superior officers.”<br />
<br />
You could see that the proud sergeant was thinking it over and coming to a decision. I could almost read his mind; it seemed that he was thinking that this wasn’t the time to die. He only had a couple more months to go.<br />
<br />
He finally burst into tears, but he got up and made the bed. I’ve seen this sort of situation before, and I feel almost certain that had there been a loaded gun around, the sergeant might have started shooting. It would have been reported in the news as “Another nigger runs amuck.” All of us, including some of the whites, breathed a sigh of relief at this peaceful culmination of what could have been a dangerous incident. At least the nurse never bothered the sergeant after that. Undoubtedly, she sensed the inherent danger of any further provocation.<br />
<br />
After my stay in Paris, I was seized periodically by moods of depression. These deepened and became chronic during my stay at the Brest hospital, especially after witnessing such humiliating incidents. I felt that I could never again adjust myself to the conditions of Blacks in the States after the spell of freedom from racism in France, I did not want to go back and my feeling was shared by many Black soldiers.<br />
<br />
I thought of remaining in France, getting my discharge there and possibly becoming a French citizen. But I did not know how to go about this. Besides, I was ill, and there was my Mother whom! wanted to see again. Probably, some day, if I got well, I would come back—or so I thought as I lay in the hospital at Brest.<br />
<br />
Finally, the day came. We were discharged from the hospital, given casual’s pay (one month’s pay), which in my case amounted to $33, and boarded the ship for home. There was no change in the Jim Crow pattern. We were merely transferred from a Jim Crow hospital to a Jim Crow hospital ship. We Blacks found ourselves quartered in a separate section of the ship. The segregation, however, did not extend to the mess hall or the lavatories (heads). I guess that would have been too much trouble. But the ship’s military command passed up no opportunity to let us know our place.<br />
<br />
For example, on the first day out we were given tickets for mess—~-breakfast, lunch and supper. We were supposed to present them to a checker who stood at the foot of the stairway leading up to the mess hall. A Black soldier who had evidently misplaced his ticket tried to slip by the checker unnoticed, but he was not quick enough. A cracker officer who was standing by the checker hollered: “Hey, Nigger, come back here!”<br />
<br />
The guy kept going and tried to merge into a group of us Blacks who had already passed through. Again the officer shouted, “Nigger, come back here. You, I mean. I mean the tall one over there. That nigger knows who I’m calling.” The soldier finally turned and walked back. Purple with rage, protected by his bars and white skin, the officer said, “Listen, you Black son of a bitch, where is your ticket?” Clearly, the officer had already gauged his man and concluded that there was no fight in him,<br />
<br />
“I couldn’t find it,” said the soldier.<br />
<br />
“Well, why didn’t you say that in the first place instead of tryin’ toslip through heah? Well, you go on back and try to find it. If you can’t, see the sergeant in charge. Don’t evah try that trick again,” said the officer. His anger seemed to ebb and a glow of self-satisfaction spread across his face. He had done his chore for the day. He had put a nigger in his place.<br />
<br />
The seas were rough again. It was a small ship, leased from the Japanese. Most of us were seasick. The sailors were having a ball at our expense, When one of us would rush to the rail to vomit, one of them would holler, “A dollar he comes.”<br />
<br />
One night, the ship tilted sharply and a number of us were thrown out of our bunks, The bunks were in tiers and I was in a top one, I got a pretty hard bump. The next morning on deck the sailors were talking loudly among themselves (for our benefit of course),<br />
<br />
“Gee,” said one, “this is the roughest sea I’ve ever seen. This old pile is about to come apart, The Japs leased us the worst ship they had.”<br />
<br />
“It just might be sabotage,” another one suggested,<br />
<br />
“I hope we make it, but I’m not so sure,” said another,<br />
<br />
Not being seamen, most of us were taking this seriously, A Black soldier turned to me and said, “You know man, after all I’ve been through, if this ship were to sink now almost in sight of home, I would get off and walk the water like the good Lord,”<br />
<br />
Another voice, that of a white sergeant from Florida who had been rather friendly to us: “You know,” he drawled, “this reminds me of old Sam down home.”<br />
<br />
Here it comes, we thought, one of those nigger jokes.<br />
<br />
“He was up theah on the gallows with a rope around his neck and the sheriff said, ‘Well Sam, is there anything you want to say before you die?<br />
<br />
“All T got to say sheriff, said Sam, ‘this sho’ would be a lesson to me,’ ”<br />
<br />
The voyage proceeded uneventfully, with one exception, The gamblers among us were out to get the soldiers’ casual pay. The law of concentration of money into fewer and fewer hands was in process, This was taking place in one of the endless crap games which started in the Bay of Biscay and wound up at Sandy Hook,<br />
<br />
IT never really gambled, even in the Army with room and board guaranteed, If you were broke, you could always borrow some money. The lender knew you couldn’t run out on him. His only risk was that you might become a casualty. But motivated by nothing more than sheer boredom, I got into the game this time.<br />
<br />
After all, what good was $33 going to do me? To my surprise, I hit a streak of luck and over a period of a week in and out of the game, I ran my paltry grub stake up to the tremendous sum of $1200, That was the high point, after which time my luck began to peter out. Nevertheless, I left the ship with $500. It was my last gambling venture,<br />
<br />
That morning, we lined up at the rail as our ship passed Sandy Hook and pulled into New York Harbor, It was my first view of the New York skyline, Overcome with emotion, tears welled up in my eyes, Embarrassed, I looked around and found that I was not alone. The guy next to me was obviously crying,<br />
<br />
Our landing was a memorable one, Ship stacks were blasting, foghorns blowing, bells were ringing and fire boats were sending up great sprays of water, Passengers in ferryboats were waving and shouting greetings.<br />
<br />
Upon docking, we were met by two reception committees of young women. A white one to receive the white soldiers and a Black one to greet us, This time segregation didn’t bother us at all, we were so pleased to see the pretty Black girls, They drew us aside as we came down the gang plank, ushered us into waiting ambulances, and drove us to Grand Central Palace which had been converted into a deharkation hospital, Leaving us in the lobby, they said goodbye and promised to come back soon and show us around.<br />
<br />
A woman from the Red Cross took our home addresses to notify our families of our arrival. We were then escorted into a large room and told to strip off our clothes. Leaving them in the room, we then went through the delousing process. We were sprayed with some sort of chemical and washed off under showers. We were then given pajamas and a bathrobe and shown to our Jim Crow ward.<br />
<br />
The next day, after a physical examination, we were paid off, receiving all of our back pay, In my case, it was for twelve months, amounting to about $450, This, plus the $500 I had won on the ship, seemed to me a small fortune, the largest amount of money I had ever had in my life. J was, so to speak, chafing at the bit, raring to get out and up to famed Harlem.<br />
<br />
On the ship, I had met a Black sergeant named Patterson, who was from the 369th, the old Fifteenth New York. He had also won a considerable sum in the crap game. He suggested that we team up and go to Harlem together. He said he knew his way around there since that was where he lived before he joined the Army.<br />
<br />
After the pay off, we were still without clothes. But a clothing salesman came around to take orders for new uniforms. Patterson and I ordered suits, for which we were measured. In a couple of hours the man was back with two brand new whip cord uniforms with chevrons and service stripes sewed on. We had also ordered shoes, which were promptly delivered, We then sneaked out of the hospital.<br />
<br />
After we banked most of our money downtown, we took the subway up to 125th Street and visited several “Buffet Flats” (a current euphemism for a high-class whorehouse), drinking and looking over the girls. Patterson seemed to be an old friend of all the madams. They greeted him like a long lost brother. We finally wound up in one real classy joint where we stayed for four days, playing sultan-in-a-harem with the girls.<br />
<br />
We returned to the hospital, expecting to be sharply reprimanded and restricted to quarters, but the doctor on his rounds merely asked, “Where have you boys been?” Before we could answer, he simply said, “I suggest that you stick around a day or two, we have some tests to make.”<br />
<br />
From New York, we left for Camp Grant near Rockford, Illinois, where we were demobilized out of the service, I was discharged on April 29, 1919. After a cursory examination, I was pronounced physically fit. “What about my chronic endocarditis and chronic nephritis?” I protested,<br />
<br />
“Oh, you're all right, you’ve overcome it all. You’re young and fit as a fiddle,” the doctor answered me. From Camp Grant I returned home to Chicago to see my parents.<br />
<br />
=== REUNION WITH OTTO ===<br />
Not too long after my discharge, I came home one evening to find Otto. He had just arrived after mustering out of the service at Camp Grant. We were all happy to see him, especially Mother. He showed us his honorable discharge.<br />
<br />
“You know,” he said, “I’m lucky to get this.”<br />
<br />
He then told stories about his harrowing experiences in a stevedore battalion in the South and then in France. The main mass of Black draftees had been relegated to these labor units, euphemistically called “service battalions,” “engineers,” “pioneer infantry,” ete.<br />
<br />
Regardless of education or ability, young Blacks were herded indiscriminately into these stevedore outfits and faced the drudgery and hard’ work with no possibility of promotion beyond the rank of corporal. With few exceptions, the officers were KKK whites, as also were the sergeants. Many of them were plantation riding boss types, especially recruited for these jobs. Southern newspapers openly carried want ads calling for white men who had “experience in handling Negroes,” Black draftees were not only subjected to the drudgery of hard labor, but insults, abuse, and in many cases blows from white officers and sergeants.<br />
<br />
Otto told us his worst experience was in Camp Stewart in Newport News, Virginia, where he was stationed during the terribly cold winter of 1917-18, For a considerable period after their arrival, they were forced to live in tents without floors or stoves. In most cases, they had only a blanket, some not even that.<br />
<br />
New arrivals to the camp were forced to stand around fires outside all night or sleep under trees for partial protection from the weather, For months there were no bathing facilities nor clothing for the men, These conditions were subsequently changed as a result of protests by the men and reports by investigators.<br />
<br />
His outfit landed in the port of St. Lazare, France, and during the great advance participated in the all-out effort to keep the front-lines supplied in the “race to Berlin.” They worked from dawn to nightfall unloading supplies, including all kinds of railroad equipment, engines, tractors and bulldozers. They built and repaired roads, warehouses and barracks. Discipline was strict; guys were thrown in the guardhouse on the most flimsy pretexts. A Black soldier seen on the street with a French woman was likely to be arrested by the MPs. <br />
<br />
“The spirit of St. Lazare,” said one officer, “is the spirit of the South.”<br />
<br />
Needless to say, Otto often found himself in the guard house as a result of fights, AWOLs, etc. How he escaped general court martial or imprisonment I don’t know.<br />
<br />
His outfit was finally moved to the American military base at Le Mans, about a hundred miles from Paris. Things were somewhat better there. There were even a few “reliable” Black corporals who were allowed weekend passes to visit Paris, Otto was assigned to mess duty as a cook,<br />
<br />
When he applied for leave, he was refused, however, “Well, I didn’t intend to come this close to Paris without seeing it,” he said, “so I went AWOL.”<br />
<br />
He did not see much of it, however, before he was arrested by MPs. I was surprised to learn that he had been in Paris during the period that I was in the hospital in Neuilly. Most of his time in the great city was spent in the Hotel St. Anne, the notorious American military jail run by the sadistic Marine captain, “hard-boiled Smith.”<br />
<br />
Here now, bitter and disillusioned, Otto continued his rebellion, It led him first to the Garvey movement where he served for a brief period as an officer in Garvey’s Black Legion, Then in succession, Wobblies, or Industrial Workers of the World ([WW), the African Blood Brotherhood and finally the Communist Party—joining soon after its unity convention in 1921. After returning from the service, Otto stayed at home only a short time and then moved in with some of his new friends.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 ==<br />
<br />
=== Searching for Answers ===<br />
Back home in Chicago, I was soon working again as a waiter on the Michigan Central Railroad. As I have already mentioned, the first day of the bloody Chicago race riot (July 28, 1919) came while I was working on the Wolverine run up through Michigan, When arrived home from work that afternoon, the whole family greeted me emotionally. We were all there except for Otto. The disagreements I had had with my Father in the past were forgotten, Both my Mother and sister were weeping. Everyone was keyed up and had been worrying about my safety in getting from the station to the house.<br />
<br />
Following our brief reunion, I tore loose from the family to find out what was happening outside. I went to the Regimental Armory at Thirty-fifth and Giles Avenue because I wanted to find some of my buddies from the regiment. The street, old Forrest Avenue, had recently been renamed in honor of Lt. Giles, a member of our outfit killed in France. I knew they would be planning an armed defense and I wanted to get in on the action. I found them and they told me of their plans. It was rumored that Irishmen from west of the Wentworth Avenue dividing line were planning to invade the ghetto that night, coming in across the tracks by way of Fifty-first Street. We planned a defensive action to meet them.<br />
<br />
it was not surprising that defensive preparations were under way. There had been clashes before, often when white youths in “athletic clubs” invaded the Black community. These “clubs” were really racist gangs, organized by city ward heelers and precinct captains,<br />
<br />
Once of the guys from the regiment took us to the apartment of a friend, It had a good position overlooking Fifty-first Street near State. Someone had brought a Browning submachine gun; he’d gotten it sometime before, most likely from the Regimental Armory. We didn’t ask where it had come from, or the origin of the 1903 Springfield rifles (Army issue) that appeared. We set to work mounting the submachine gun and set up watch for the invaders, Fortunately for them, they never arrived and we all returned home in the morning, The following day it rained and the National Guard moved into the Black community, so overt raids by whites did not materialize.<br />
<br />
Ours was not the only group which used its recent Army training for self-defense of the Black community. We heard rumors about another group of veterans who set up a similar ambush, On several occasions groups of whites had driven a truck at breakneck speed up south State Street, in the heart of the Black ghetto, with six or seven men in the back firing indiscriminately at the people on the sidewalks,<br />
<br />
The Black veterans set up their ambush at Thirty-fifth and State, waiting in a car with the engine running, When the whites on the truck came through, they pulled in behind and opened up with a machine gun, The truck crashed into a telephone pole at Thirty-ninth Street, most of the men in the truck had been shot down and the others fled, Among them were several Chicago police officers—“off duty,” of course!<br />
<br />
I remember standing before the Angeles Flats on Thirty-fifth and Wabash where the day before four Blacks had been shot by police. It appeared that enraged Blacks had set fire to the building and were attacking some white police officers when the latter fired on them.<br />
<br />
Along with other Blacks, I gloated over the mysterious killing of two Black cops with a history of viciousness in the Black community, They had been found dead in an alley between State and Wabash, Undoubtedly they had been killed by Blacks who had taken advantage of the confusion to settle old scores with these Black enforcers of the white man’s law.<br />
<br />
Bewilderment and shock struck the Black community as well. I had seen Blacks standing before the burned-out buildings of their former homes, trying to salvage whatever possible, Apparent on their faces was bewilderment and anger.<br />
<br />
The Chicago rebellion of 1919 was a pivotal point in my life, Always I had been hot-tempered and never took any insults lying down. This was even more true after the war. I had walked out of a number of jobs because of my refusal to take any crap from anyone, My experiences abroad in the Army and at home with the police left me totally disillusioned about being able to find any solution to the racial problem through the help of the government; for I had seen that official agencies of the country were among the most racist and most dangerous to me and my people.<br />
<br />
I began to see that I had to fight; I had to commit myself to struggle against whatever it was that made racism possible. Racism, which erupted in the Chicago riot—and the bombings and terrorist attacks which preceded it---must be eliminated. My spirit was not unique--it was shared by many young Blacks at that time, The returned veterans and other young militants were all fighting back. And there was a lot to fight against, Racism reached a high tide in the summer of 1919, This was the “Red Summer” which involved twenty-six race riots across the country—“red” for the blood that ran in the streets, Chicago was the bloodiest.<br />
<br />
The holocaust in Chicago was the worst race riot in the nation’s post-war history. But riots took place in such widely separate places as Long View, Texas, Charleston, South Carolina; Elaine, Arkansas, Knoxville, Tennessee, and Omaha, Nebraska. The flareup of racial violence in Omaha, my old home town, followed the Chicago riots by less than two months, It resulted in the lynching of Will Brown, a packing house worker, for an alleged assault on a white woman, When Omaha’s mayor, Edward P. Smith, sought to intervene, he was seized by the mob. They were close to hanging the mayor from a trolley pole when police cut the rope and rushed him to a hospital, badly injured.<br />
<br />
The common underlying cause of riots in most of the northern cities was the racial tension caused by the migration of tens of thousands of Blacks into these centers and the competition for jobs, housing and the facilities of the city. Rather than being at a temporary peak, this outbreak of racism was more like the rising of a plateau—-it never got any higher, but it never really went down, either. Writing in the middle of a riot in Washington, D.C., that summer, the Black poet Claude McKay caught the bitter and belligerent mood of many Blacks:<br />
<br />
'''If we must die, let it not be like hogs'''<br />
<br />
'''Hunted and penned in an inglorious spot,''' <br />
<br />
'''While round us bark the mad and hungry dogs,''' <br />
<br />
'''Making their mock at our accursed lot.'''<br />
<br />
'''if we must die, O let us nobly die'''<br />
<br />
'''So that our precious blood may not be shed'''<br />
<br />
'''Jn vain; then even the monsters we defy'''<br />
<br />
'''Shall be constrained to honor us though dead!'''<br />
<br />
'''* Okinsmen! We must meet the common foe!''' <br />
<br />
'''Though far outnumbered let us show us brave,''' <br />
<br />
'''And for their thousand blows deal one death blow!''' <br />
<br />
'''What though before us lies the open grave?'''<br />
<br />
'''Like men we'll face the murderous, cowardly pack,''' <br />
<br />
'''Pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back!''' <br />
<br />
‘The war and the riots of the “Red Summer” of 1919 left me bitter and frustrated. I felt that I could never again adjust to the situation of Black inequality. But how had it come about? Who was responsible?<br />
<br />
Chicago in the early twenties was an ideal place and time for the education of a Black radical. As a result of the migration of Blacks during World War I, the Chicago area came to have the largest concentration of Black proletarians in the country. It was a major point of contact for these masses with the white labor movement and its advanced, radical sector. In the thirties it was to become a main testing ground for Black and white labor unity.<br />
<br />
The city itself was the core of a vast urban industrial complex. Sprawling along the southeast shore of Lake Michigan, the area includes five Illinois counties and two in Indiana. The latter contains such industrial towns as East Chicago, Gary and Hammond. This metropolitan area contains the greatest concentration of heavy industry in the country.<br />
<br />
By the second half of the twentieth century, it had forged into the lead of the steel-making industry, surpassing the great Monongahela Valley of Pittsburgh in the production of primary metals; including steel mill, refining and non-ferrous metals operations. There was the gigantic U.S. Steel Corporation in Gary, the Inland Steel Company plant in East Chicago and the U.S. Steel South Works, These are now the three largest steel works in the United States. The steel mills of the Chicago area supply more than 14,000 manufacturing plants,<br />
<br />
Chicago was at that time, and remains today, the world’s largest railway center. It ranks first in the manufacture of railroad equipment, including freight and passenger cars, Pullmans, locomotives and specialized rolling stock.<br />
<br />
The core city itself was most famous for its wholesale slaughter and meat packing industry. Chicago was known as the meat capital of the world, or in Carl Sandburg’s more homely terms, “hog butcher for the nation.”<br />
<br />
The city’s colossal wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few men, who comprised the industrial, commercial and financial oligarchy. Among these were such giants as Judge Gary of the mighty U.S. Steel; Cyrus McCormick of International Harvester, the meat packers Philip D, Armour, Gustavus Swift and the Wilson brothers; George Pullman. of the Pullman Works; Rosenwald of Montgomery Ward; General Wood of Sears and Roebuck; the “merchant prince” Marshall Field; and Samuel Insull of utilities. These were the real rulers, Ostensible political power rested in the notoriously corrupt, gangster ridden, county political machine headed by Mayor William Hale (Big Bill) Thompson, who carried on the tradition exposed as early as 1903 by Lincoln Steffens in his book, The Shame of the Cities.<br />
<br />
The glitter and wealth of Chicago’s Gold Coast was based on the most inhuman exploitation of the city’s largely foreign-born working force. A scathing indictment of the horrible conditions in Chicago's meat packing industry was contained in Upton Sinclair’s novel, The Jungle, published in 1910. It was inevitable that the wage slave would rebel, that Chicago should become the scene of some of the nation’s bloodiest battles in the struggle between labor and capital, The first of these clashes was the railroad strike of 1877 which erupted in pitched battles between strikers and federal troops,<br />
<br />
Then in 1886 came the famous Haymarket riot which grew out of a strike for the eight-hour day at the McCormick reaper plant. During a protest rally, a bomb was thrown which killed one policeman and injured six others. ‘This led to the arrest of eight anarchist leaders; four were hanged, one committed suicide or was murdered in his cell, and the others were sentenced to life imprisonment. Obviously being tried and executed simply because they were labor leaders, these innocent men became a cause célebre of international labor, Thousands of visitors made yearly pilgrimages to the city where monuments to the executed men were raised, Haymarket became a rallying word for the eight-hour day. The martyrs were memorialized by the designation of the first of May as International Labor Day. <br />
<br />
Several years later the city was the scene of the great Pullman strike led by Eugene V. Debs and his radical but lily-white American Railway Union, which precipitated a nationwide shutdown of railroads in 1894. Again the federal troops were called in and armed clashes between workers and troops ensued. ‘These battles were merely high points in the city’s long history of labor radicalism. It was the national center of the early anarcho-socialist movements. In 1905, the Industrial Workers of the World (the IWW or Wobblies) was founded there. The IWW maintained its headquarters and edited its paper, Solidarity, there. In 1921, Chicago was to become the site of the founding convention of the Workers (Communist) Party, USA, which maintained its headquarters and the editorial offices of the Daily Worker there from 1923 to 1927.<br />
<br />
Blacks, however, played little or no role in the turbulent early history of the Chicago labor movement. This was so simply because they were not a part of the industrial labor force. Prior to World War I, Blacks were employed mainly in the domestic or personal service occupations, untouched by labor organizations. They were not needed in industry where the seemingly endless tide of cheap European immigrant labor—Irish, Scots, English, Swedes, Germans, Poles, East Europeans and Italians—sufficed to fill the city’s manpower needs.<br />
<br />
The only opportunity Blacks had of entering basic industry was as strikebreakers. Thus, in the early part of the century, Blacks were brought in as strikebreakers on two important occasions, the stockyards strike of 1904 and the city-wide teamsters’ strike in 1905. In the first instance, Blacks were discharged as soon as the strike was broken. After the teamsters’ strike, a relatively large number of Blacks remained. As a result of the defeat of the 1904 strike, the packing houses remained virtually unorganized for thirteen more years, and the animosities which developed toward the Black strikebreakers became a part of the racial tension of the city.<br />
<br />
At the outbreak of World War I, the situation with respect to Chicago’s Black labor underwent a basic change, Now Blacks were needed to fill the labor vacuum caused by the war boom and the quotas on foreign immigration. Chicago's employers turned to the South, to the vast and untapped reservoir of Black labor eager to escape the conditions of plantation serfdom--exacerbated by the cotton crisis, the boll weevil plague and the wave of lynchings. The “great migrations” began and continued in successive waves through the sixties. <br />
<br />
During the war, the occupational status of Blacks thus shifted from largely personal service to basic industry. In the tens of thousands, Blacks flocked to the stockyards and steel mills. During the war, the Black population went from 50,000 to 100,000. Successive waves of Black migration were to bring the Black population to over a million within the next fifty years. Black labor, getting its first foothold in basic industry during the war, had now become an integral part of Chicago’s industrial labor force.4<br />
<br />
With the tapping of this vast reservoir of cheap and unskilled labor, there was no longer any need for the peasantry of eastern and southern Europe. There was, however, a difference between the position of Blacks and that of the European immigrants. The latter, after a generation or two, could rise to higher skilled and better paying jobs, to administrative and even managerial positions. They were able to leave the ethnic enclaves and disperse throughout the city—to become assimilated into the national melting pot, The Blacks, to the contrary, found themselves permanently relegated to a second-class status in the labor force, with a large group outside as a permanent surplus labor pool to be replenished when necessary from the inexhaustible reservoir of Black, poverty-ridden and land-starved peasantry of the South.<br />
<br />
‘The employers now had in hand a new source of cheap labor, the victims of racist proscription, to use as a weapon against the workers’ movement. Indeed, this went hand in hand with the Jim Crow policies of the trade union leaders, who had been largely responsible for keeping Blacks out of basic industry in the first place. <br />
<br />
These labor bureaucrats premised their racism on the doctrine of a natural Black inferiority, The theory of an instinctive animosity between the races was a powerful instrument for an anti-union, anti-working class, divide and rule policy. The use of racial differences was found to be a much more effective dividing instrument than the use of cultural and language differences between various white ethnic groups and the native born. As we know, ethnic conflicts proved transient as the various European nationalities became assimilated into the general population. Blacks, on the other hand, remain to this day permanently unassimilable under the present system.<br />
<br />
Such were conditions in the days when I undertook my search for answers to the question of Black oppression and the road to liberation. Living conditions were pretty rough then, and I had gone back to my old trade of waiting tables in order to make some sort of living.<br />
<br />
But I was restless, moody, short-tempered-—-qualities ill-suited to the trade, Naturally, I had trouble holding a job. My trouble was not with the guests so much as with my immediate superiors; captains, head waiters and dining car stewards, most of whom were white. In less than a month after the Chicago riot, I lost my job on the Michigan Central as a result of a run-in with an inspector.<br />
<br />
The dining car inspectors were a particularly vicious breed. Their job was to see that discipline was maintained and service kept up to par. These inspectors, whom we called company spies, would board the train unexpectedly anywhere along the route, hoping to catch a member of the crew violating some regulation or not giving what they considered proper service. They would then reprimand the guilty party personally, or if the offense was sufficiently serious, would turn him in to the main office to be laid off or fired. Usually the inspector’s word was law from which there was no appeal. The dining car crew had no unions in those days.<br />
<br />
This particular inspector (his name was McCormick) had taken a dislike to me. He had made that clear on other occasions. The feeling was mutual. Perhaps he sensed my independent attitude. He probably felt I was not sufficiently impressed by him and did not care about my job. He was right on both counts. <br />
<br />
He boarded the Chicago-bound train one morning in Detroit, We were serving breakfast. It was just one of those days when everything went wrong. People were lined up at each end of the diner, waiting to be served. Service was slow. The guests were squawking and I was in a mean mood myself. I was cutting bread in the pantry when McCormick peered in and shouted, “Say, Hall, that silver is in terrible condition.”<br />
<br />
The silver! What the hell is this man talking about dirty silver when I’ve got all these people out there clamoring for their breakfast. 2<br />
<br />
“I’ve been noticing you lately,” he continued. “It looks as though you don’t want to work. If you don't like your job why in hell don't you quit?”<br />
<br />
I took that as downright provocation. “Damn you and your job!” I exploded, advancing on him.<br />
<br />
He turned pale and ran out of the pantry. A friend of mine in the crew grabbed me by the wrist.<br />
<br />
“What the hell’s the matter with you, Hall? Are you crazy?” It was only then that I realized that I had been waving the bread knife at the inspector.<br />
<br />
In a few minutes, the brakeman and the conductor came into the pantry. MeCormick brought up the rear,<br />
<br />
“That’s the one,” he said pointing at me.<br />
<br />
Addressing me, the conductor said, “The inspector here says you threatened him with a knife. Is that true?”<br />
<br />
I denied it, stating that I had been cutting bread when the argument started and had a knife in my hand. I wasn’t threatening him with it. My friend (who had grabbed my wrist) substantiated my story.<br />
<br />
“Well,” said the conductor, “you’d better get your things and ride to Chicago in the coach. We don’t want any more trouble here, and the inspector has said he doesn’t want you in the dining car.”<br />
<br />
I went up forward in the coach. I got off the train in Chicago at Sixty-third and Stony Island. I didn’t go to the downtown station, thinking that the cops might be waiting there.<br />
<br />
So much for my job with the Michigan Central.<br />
<br />
I went back to working sporadically in restaurants, hotels and on trains. I didn’t stay anywhere very long. The first job that I regarded as steady was the Illinois Athletic Club, where I remained for several months, 1 was beginning to settle down a little and participate in the social life of the community, attending dances, parties and visiting cabarets. The Royal Gardens, a night club on Thirty-first Street, was one of my favorite hangouts. King Oliver and Louis Armstrong were often featured there. At the Panama, on Thirty-fifth Street between State and Wabash, we went to see our favorite comedians-—Butter Beans and Susie.<br />
<br />
It was on one of these occasions that I met my first wife, Hazel. She belonged to Chicago’s Black social elite, such as it was. Her father had died and her family was on the downgrade. Her mother was left with four children, three girls and a boy, of whom Hazel was the oldest. The other children were still teenagers, and Hazel and her mother had supported them by doing domestic work and catering for wealthy whites. I was twenty-one and she was twenty five.<br />
<br />
Hazel was attractive, a high school graduate. She spoke good English and, as Mother said, “had good manners.” She worked for Montgomery Ward, then owned by the philanthropic Rosenwald family, the first big company to hire Blacks as office clerks. She had a nice singing voice and used to sing around at parties. Her friends were among the Black upper strata and the family belonged to the Episcopal Church on Thirty-eighth and Wabash which at that time was the church of the colored elite. We were married in 1920. I was all decked out in a rented swallowtail coat, striped pants, spats and a derby. The ceremony was impressive. Photos appeared in the Chicago Defender.<br />
<br />
In a short time, the romance wore off. Hazel’s ambition to get ahead in the world, “to be somebody,” clashed with my love of freedom. I soon had visions of myself, a quarter century hence-making mortgage payments on a fancy house, installments on furniture, and trapped in a drab, lower middle-class existence, surrounded by a large and quarrelsome family.<br />
<br />
The worst of it was having to put up with being kicked around on the job and taking all that crap from headwaiters and captains. I had been working at the Athletic Club for several months before I got married. Then nobody had bothered me. When I asked for time off to get married, the white headwaiter and the captain seemed delighted. “Sure Hall, that’s fine. Congratulations, Take a couple of weeks off.”<br />
<br />
Upon my return, I immediately felt a change in their attitude, Now that I was married, they felt they had me where they wanted me. They became more and more demanding. One day at lunch I had some difficulty getting my orders out of the kitchen, and the guests were complaining—not an unusual occurrence in any restaurant. Instead of helping me out and calming down the guests, or seeing what the hang-up was in the kitchen, the captain started shouting at me in front of the guests. “What’s the matter with you, Hall? Why don’t you bring these people’s orders?”<br />
<br />
“Can’t you see that I’m tied up in the kitchen?” I said. “Why don’t you go out and see the chef instead of hollering at me!”<br />
<br />
All puffed up, he yelled out, “Don’t give me any of your lip or I'll snatch that badge off you!”<br />
<br />
I jerked my badge off, threw both badge and side towel into his face, and shouted, “Take your badge and shove it!”<br />
<br />
I was moving on him when a friend of mine, Johnson, a waiter at the next station, jumped between us, I turned away, walked down the steps, through the kitchen and into the dressing room. Johnson followed me into the dressing room a few minutes later. “Hurry up and get out of here. They’re calling the cops.” I changed and left.<br />
<br />
My marriage went down the drain along with the job. That was a period of post-war crisis. Jobs were hard to find, and especially so for me since I had been blacklisted from several places because of my temper. 1 was no longer the same man that Hazel married, and the truth of the matter was that I wanted it that way. Her hangups were typical of Black aspirants for social status—strivers, we called them-—-who never really doubted the validity of the prejudice from which they suffered. Hazel slavishly accepted white middle class values. I, on the other hand, was looking around trying to figure out how best to maladjust<br />
<br />
=== MY REBELLION ===<br />
For me, the break-up of our marriage in the spring of 1920 destroyed my last ties with the old conventional way of life. I was completely disenchanted with the middle class crowd into which Hazel was trying to draw me. But more important, I not only rejected the status quo, I was determined to do something about it--to make my rebellion count.<br />
<br />
I sought answers to a number of questions: What was the nature of the forces behind Black subjugation? Who were its main beneficiaries? Why was racism being entrenched in the north in this period? How did it differ from the South? Could the situation be altered and, if so, what were the forces for change and the program?<br />
<br />
l renewed my search for a way to go, pressed by a driving need for a world view which would provide a rational explanation of society and a clue to securing Black freedom and dignity. My search was to continue during what must have been the most virulent and widespread racist campaign in U.S. history, The forces of racist bigotry unleashed during the riots of the “Red Summer” of 1919 were still on the march through the twenties. Indeed, they had intensified and extended their campaign. <br />
<br />
The whole country seemed gripped in a frenzy of racist hate. Anti-Black propaganda was carried in the press, in magazine articles, literature and in theater. D.W. Griffith’s obscene movie, The Birth of a Nation, which glorified the Ku Klux Klan and pictured Blacks as depraved animals, was shown to millions.5 Thomas Dickson’s two novels, The Klansman (upon which Griffith’s picture was based) and The Leopard's Spots (an earlier book on the theme of the white man’s burden) were best sellers. Racist demagogues of the stripe of “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman of South Carolina, Vardeman of Mississippi, and “Cotton” Ed Smith of South Carolina, were in demand on northern lecture platforms.<br />
<br />
Closely behind the trumpeters of race-hate rode their cavalry, A revived Ku Klux Klan now extended to the north and made its appearance in twenty-seven states.6 This organization, embracing millions, headed the list of a whole rash of super-patriotic groups who were anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, anti-foreign-born and anti-Black. The apostles of white, Anglo-Saxon and Nordic supremacy included in their galaxy of ethnic outcasts Asians (the “yellow peril”), Latin Americans and other foreign-born from southern and eastern Europe. Their hate propaganda pitted Protestants against Catholics, Christians against Jews, native against foreign-born, and all against the Blacks, upon whom was fixed the stigma of inherent and eternal inferiority.<br />
<br />
It seemed as though the prophets of the “lost cause” were out to reverse their military defeat at Appomattox by the cultural subversion of the north. That they were receiving encouragement by powerful northern interests was self-evident. Tin Pan Alley added its contribution to the attack with a spate of Mammy songs, and along the same vein, “That’s Why Darkies Were Born”:<blockquote>'''Someone had to pick the cotton,''' <br />
<br />
'''Someone had to plant the corn,'''<br />
<br />
'''Someone had to slave and be able to sing,''' <br />
<br />
'''That's why darkies were born.'''<br />
<br />
'''Though the balance is wrong,'''<br />
<br />
'''Sull your faith must be strong,'''<br />
<br />
'''Accept your destiny brothers, listen to me.'''</blockquote>A main objective of the racist assault was the academic establishment. The old crude forms of racist propaganda proved inadequate in an age of advancing science. The hucksters of race hate conducted raids upon the sciences, especially upon the new disciplines-—anthropology, ethnology and psychology--in an attempt to establish a scientific foundation for the race myth.<br />
<br />
The new “science of race” evolved and flourished during the period, Spadework for this grotesque growth had been done in the middle of the last century by the Frenchman, Count Arthur D. Gobineau, in his work, The Inequality of the Human Races (1851-1853), It was carried on by his disciple, the Englishman turned German, Houston Chamberlain, who asserted that racial mixture was a natural crime. In the U.S, early efforts in this field were the works of Knott and Glidden. Also, there was Ripley's Races of Mankind.<br />
<br />
Carrying on in this pseudo-scientific tradition during the war and postwar years were the popular theorists Lathrop Stoddard, The Rising Tide of Color: Against White World Supremacy (1923) and Madison Grant, The Passing of a Great Race: The Racial Basis of European History (1916). The cornerstone of this pseudo-scientific structure was Social Darwinism which was an attempt to subvert Darwin’s theory of evolution and arbitrarily apply natural selection in plant and animal society to human society. According to the Social Darwinists, led by Herbert Spencer, the British sociologist, history was a continuous struggle for existence between races. In this struggle, the Nordic, Anglo-Saxon, or Aryan civilizations naturally survived as the fittest.<br />
<br />
The racists had a field day in history, long the area in which the heroes of the “lost cause” had their greatest, most effective concentration. They had held chairs in some of the nation’s most prestigious universities—Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Harvard, etc, Among such historians was William Archibald Dunning, who during his long tenure at Columbia miseducated generations of students by his distortions of the Reconstruction, Civil War and slave periods.7<br />
<br />
In the academic world this pseudoscience of racism held sway with only a few open challengers. The latter seemed to be isolated voices in the wilderness, as the counter-offensive was slow in getting underway. In anthropology there was Franz Boaz’s antiracist thrust, Mind of Primitive Man. This was written in 1911, and not widely known at the time. The works of his students and colleagues-—-most notably Melville Hershovitz, The Myth of the Negro Past, Jane Weltfish, Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead and Otto Klineburg-—-were not to appear until the next decade.<br />
<br />
In history, the movement for revision was then decades away. It only became a trend with the Black Revolt of the sixties, Black scholars had pioneered the reexamination: W.E.B. DuBois, his tour de force, Black Reconstruction, and the epilogue, “Propaganda of History,” which contained a bitter indictment of the white historical establishment, was not to appear until the mid-thirties. J.A. Rogers, popular Black historian, had not yet appeared on the scene, Young Carter Woodson, who had founded his Association for the Study of Negro History in 1915, only began to publish the Journal of Negro History in 1916. His own important historical works were yet to come. <br />
<br />
‘Thus, from its tap-roots in the Southern plantation system, the anti-Black virus had spread throughout the country, shaping the pattern of Black-white relationships in the industrial urban north as well. The dogma of the inherent inferiority of Blacks had permeated the national consciousness to become an integral part of the American way of life. Racist dogma, first a rationale for chattel slavery and then plantation peonage, was now carried over to the north as justification for a new system of de facto segregation.<br />
<br />
Black subjugation, city-style Jim Crow, became fixed by the twenties, and continues up to the present day. Its components were the residential segregation of the ghetto with its inferior education, slums and the second class status of Black workers in the labor force where they were relegated to the bottom rung of the occupational ladder and prevented by discrimination from moving into better skills and higher paid jobs.<br />
<br />
Although its purpose was not clear to me then, I later realized that the virulent racism of the period served to justify and bulwark the structure of Black powerlessness which was developing in every northern city where we had become a sizable portion of the work force,<br />
<br />
At the time the racist deluge simply revealed great gaps in my own education and knowledge. I knew that the propaganda was a tissue of lies, but I felt the need for disproving them on the basis of scientific fact. I rejected racism—the lie of the existence in nature of superior and inferior races--and its concomitant fiction of intuitive hostility between races. For one thing, it ran counter to my own background of experience in Omaha.<br />
<br />
Religion as an explanation for the riddles of the universe I had rejected long before. I knew that our predicament was not the result of some divine disposition and therefore that racial oppression was neither a spiritual or natural phenomenon. It was created by man, and therefore must be changed by man, How? Well, that was the question to be explored. I had only a smattering of knowledge of natural and social sciences, much of which I had gathered through reading the lectures of Robert G. Ingersoll. It was through him that I discovered Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution through natural selection.<br />
<br />
Armed with a dictionary and a priori knowledge gleaned from Ingersoll’s popularizations, I was able to make my way through Origin of the Species. Darwin showed the origin of the species to be a result of the process of evolution and not the mysterious act of a divine creation. Here at last was a scientific refutation of religious dogma. I had at last found a basis for my atheism which had before been based mainly upon practical knowledge.<br />
<br />
Continuing my search, I found myself attracted to other social iconoclasts or image-destroyers, and to their attacks upon established beliefs. I remember staying up all night reading Max Nordau’s Conventional Lies of Our Civilization, being thrilled by his castigation of middle class hypocrisy, prejudices and philistinism. Moving on to the contemporary scene, I discovered H.L. Mencken, “The Sage of Baltimore,” and his “smart set” crowd.<br />
<br />
For a short while, I was an avid reader of the Mercury which he helped to establish in 1920 as a forum for his views, I was particularly delighted by his critical potshots at some of the most sacred cultural cows of what he called “the American Babbitry,” “boobocracy,” “anthropoid majority’--Menckenian sobriquets for middle class commoners. Mencken enjoyed a brief popularity among young Black radicals of the day who saw in his searing diatribes against WASP cultural idols ammunition with which to blast the claims of white supremacists. The novelty soon wore off as it became clear that Mencken’s type of iconoclasm posed no real challenge to the prevailing social structure, In fact, it was reactionary. He sought to replace destroyed idols with even more reactionary oncs, as I soon found out. <br />
<br />
Mencken’s philosophical mentor was none other than the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, prophet of the superman, of the aristocratic minority destined to rile over the unenlightened hoardes of Untermenschen—-the “perenially and inherently unequal majority of mankind.” Most Blacks then, including myself, who flirted with Mencken never accepted him fully. The one exception was George Schuyler of the Pittsburgh Courier, who took Mencken's snobbery and reactionary politics and made a career of them which has lasted for forty years.<br />
<br />
What confused me most were the contentions of the Social Darwinists, who claimed to be the authentic continuators of Darwin’s theories. Darwin had not dealt with the question of race per se, But it had seemed to me that his theory of evolution precluded the myth of race. How could Darwin's theory which had helped me finally and irrevocably throw aside the veil of mysticism and put the understanding of the descent of man within my grasp—how could this be used as an endorsement of racism? Perhaps I had been wrong? Was I reading into Darwin more than, what he implied?<br />
<br />
It was my brother Otto who finally cleared me up on this point. He and I were running in different circles, but we would meet from time to time and exchange notes. Otto pointed out that Social Darwinists had distorted Darwin by mechanically transferring the laws of existence among plants and animals to the field of social and human relations. Human society had its own laws, he asserted. Ah, what were those laws? That was the subject that I wanted to explore.<br />
<br />
“You ought to quit reading those bourgeois authors and start reading Marx and Engels,” Otto told me, suggesting also that I read Henry Lewis Morgan’s Ancient Society and the works of Redpath. ’<br />
<br />
About this time I got a job as a clerk at the Chicago Post Office. I heard that jobs were available and that veterans were given preference. Following the advice of friends, I approached S.L. Jackson of the Wabash Avenue YMCA, who at that time was a Black Republican stalwart with connections in the Madden political machine. Jackson gave me a note to some Post Office official in charge of employment. I passed the civil service examination, in which veterans were given a ten percent advantage, and was employed as a substitute clerk.<br />
<br />
The Post Office job in those days carried considerable prestige. It was almost the only clerical job open to Blacks. Postal workers, along with waiters, Pullman porters and tradesmen, were traditionally considered a part of the Black middle class. A number of prominent community leaders came from this group. Many officers of the old Eighth Illinois were postal employees, a good percentage of them mail-carriers.<br />
<br />
The Post Office became a refuge for poor Black students and unemployed university graduates, For some of the latter it was a sort of way-station on the road to their professional careers. Others remained, settling for regular Post Office careers. But even here opportunities were limited. Blacks held only a few supervisory positions, as advancement depended solely on the discretion of the white postmaster.<br />
<br />
On the job I found the work extremely boring. It consisted of standing before a case eight hours a night, sorting mail. All substitutes were relegated to the night shift. It took years to get on the day shift which was preempted by the veteran employees: On the other hand, I found the company of my new young fellow workers very stimulating.<br />
<br />
In those days the organization of Black postal employees was the Phalanx Forum. Before the war, the organization had played an important political and social role in the community. It was dominated by the conservative crowd of social climbers and political aspirants, who were the most active group among postal employees and had close ties with the local Republican machine.<br />
<br />
Their leadership was completely incffective with respect to the job issues of Black rank-and-file employees, and it had little or no influence over the younger group of new employees, which included many veterans and students. The gap between the old, conservative crowd and the new, youthful element was sharp. Among the latter a radical sentiment was growing.<br />
<br />
I was immediately attracted to this group among whom I was to find friends who seemed to be impelled by the same motivations as myself-—to find new answers to the problems afflicting our people. Most of those with whom I fraternized considered the postal job as temporary, a step to other careers. Our interest at the time, therefore, was not so much with the immediate economic or onthe-job needs of Black postal workers, but with the “race problem” generally. The drive for unionization of postal employees was to come later.<br />
<br />
The issue to which we addressed ourselves was the current campaign of white racist propaganda: how to counter it on the basis of scientific truth. We saw the network of racist lies as clearly aimed at justifying Black subjugation and destroying our dignity as a people. On this question we had long, endless discussions on the job while sorting mail, at rest, during lunch breaks and on Sundays when some of us would meet. I soon identified with what I considered the more vocal segment. Among our group of aspirant intellectuals there was a medical student, a couple of law students, a dentist (whom we all called “Doc”), students of education and some intellectually oriented workers like myself. On one Sunday when we had gathered, it was suggested, I think by Joc Mabley, that we organize ourselves as an informal discussion group, and that our purpose would be to answer the racist lies on the basis of scientific truth. The idea was instantly agreed upon.<br />
<br />
The discussion circle was loosely organized, not more than a dozen participants in all, and bent on finding answers. The moving spirits of the group were John Heath, Joe Mabley and “Doc.”<br />
<br />
Heath was a tall, light-complexioned man with high cheekbones. He was a graduate student in the field of education, anda man whose sterling character and keen intellect we all respected. Then there was Joc Mabley, a brilliant, small Black man. He had large velvety eyes and was a college dropout. He was married and had a family-—two or three children—and had settled down to a regular Post Office job, He and Doe were the only regular postal workers in our group—the rest of us being suhstitutes. Doc had set up an office on the Southside and was trying hard to build upa clientele while working night shifts.<br />
<br />
Originally we had planned to meet every Sunday at noon as the most convenient time for the fellows on our shift. The meeting places were to alternate between the homes or apartments of the members. When we got to procedure, the group would choose a topic of discussion and ask for volunteers or assign a member to make introductory reports, He would then have a week to prepare the report, Our original plans included the eventual organization of a forum in which the issues of the day could be debated, and the holding of social affairs. All of this proved to be too ambitious, We found it impractical to have weekly meetings and finally agreed that twice a month was more feasible. The forum idea never got off the ground.<br />
<br />
Among us I think we had most of the answers on the question of race, that is, to all but the big lie, the onc that was most convincing to the white masses and is the cornerstone on which the whole structure stood or fell: the assertion that Blacks have no history.<br />
<br />
A leading formulator of the lie at that time was John Burgess, professor of political science and history at Columbia University:<blockquote>T'''he claim that there is nothing in the color of the skin from the point of view of political ethics is a great sophism. A black skin means membership in a race of men which has never of itself’ succeeded in subjecting passion to reason, has never, therefore, created any civilization of any kind.'''</blockquote>We wanted to refute the slanders on the basis of scientific truth. For this, we needed more ammunition and better weapons, particularly in the field of history. It was ahout this time that I met George Wells Parker, a brilliant young Black graduate student from Omaha’s Creighton University. I was introduced to him by my brother Otto, who had known him in Omaha. He was in Chicago to visit relatives and to conduct research for his dissertation. His major was history, I believe. We found him a virtual storehouse of knowledge on the race question, especially Black history. His major objective in life was apparently to refute the prevalent racist lies and to huild Black dignity and pride, He possessed wide knowledge and seemed to have read everything.<br />
<br />
Parker called our attention to the writings of the great anthropologist Franz Boas; the Egyptologist Virchow; to Max Mueller (philologist who formulated the Aryan myth and then rejected it); to the Frenchman Jean Finot; to Sir Harry Johnstone (British authority on African history); and to the Italian Giuseppe Serg and his theory of the Mediterranean races, arefutation of the Aryan mythology. Proponents of this myth claimed all civilizations—Indian, Near East, Egyptians—as Aryan, One wonders why the Chinese were left out, but then that would have been too palpable a fraud! It was Parker who called our attention to Herodotus (ancient Greek historian) who had described the Egyptians of his time (around 400 B.C.) as “Black and with woolly hair.”<br />
<br />
Otto and I introduced Parker to friends and acquaintances, and I, of course, to our discussion circle. He spoke before numerous groups. Everywhere there was hunger for his knowledge. Weeven brought him before the Bugs Club Forum in Washington Park, where he led a discussion on the race question. <br />
<br />
This brilliant young man returned to Omaha to resume his studies. The next winter he was dead. We heard it was the result of a mental breakdown. Thus was a brilliant career cut short and a potentially great scholar lost. Surviving, I believe, was only one brief paper and some notes.<br />
<br />
=== GARVEY’S BACK TO AFRICA MOVEMENT ===<br />
But time and tide did not stand still to wait for our answers to the social problems of the day, or for the results of our intellectual researches. While we sought arguments with which to counter the racist thrust, the masses were forging their own weapons. Their growing resistance was finally to erupt on the political scene in the grcatest mass movement of Blacks since Reconstruction,<br />
<br />
Great masses of Blacks found the answer in the Back to Africa program of the West Indian Marcus Garvey. Under his aegis this movement was eventually diverted from the encmy at home into utopian Zionistic channels of peaceful return to Africa and the establishment of a Black state in the ancestral land.<br />
<br />
The organizational course of the movement was Garvey’s Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA). He first launched this organization in Jamaica, British West Indies, in 1914. Coming to the USA, he founded its first section in New York City in 1917. The organization grew rapidly during the war and the immediate post-war period, At its height in the early twenties, it claimed a membership of half a million. While estimates of the organization's membership vary-—from half a million to a million—it was the largest organization in the history of U.S. Blacks. There can be no doubt that its influence extended to millions who identified wholly or partially with its programs.<br />
<br />
What in Garvey’s program attracted these masses?<br />
<br />
Garvey was a charismatic leader and in that tradition best articulated the sentiments and yearnings of the masses of Black people. In his UNIA he also created the vehicle for their organization, Equally important, he was a master at understanding how to use pageantry, ritual and ceremony to provide the Black peasantry with psychological relief from the daily burdens of their oppression. His apparatus included such high sounding titles as potentate, supreme deputy potentate, knights of the Nile, knights of distinguished service, the order of Ethiopia, the dukes of Nigeria and Uganda. There were Black gods and Black angels and a flag of black, red and green: “Black for the race, Red for their blood and Green for their hopes.”<br />
<br />
The movement’s program was fully outlined in the historic Declaration of Rights of the Negro Peoples of the World, adopted at the first convention of the organization in New York City August 13, 1920. In the manner of the Nation of Islam and its publication Muhammad Speaks (Bilalian News), the program of Garvey combined a realistic assessment of the conditions facing Blacks with a fantasy and mystification about the solution. Along with the Back to Africa slogan, the document contained a devastating indictment of the plight of the Black peoples in the United States. Expressing the militancy of its delegates, it called for opposition to the incquality of wages betwecn Blacks and whites, it protested their cxclusion from unions, their deprivation of land, taxation without representation, unjust military service, and Jim Crow laws.<br />
<br />
Anticipating the Black Power Revolt of the sixties, the document called for “complete control of our social institutions without the interference of any other race or races.” Reflecting the rising worldwide anti-colonial movement of the period, it called for self-determination of peoples and repudiated the loosely formed League of Nations, declaring its decisions “null and void as far as the Blacks were concerned because it seeks to deprive them of their independence.” This latter point was in reference to the assignment of mandates to European powers over African territories wrested from the Germans.<br />
<br />
Through this atmosphere of militancy, expressing the desire of the masses to defend their rights at home, ran the incongruent theme of Back to Africa. Declared Garvey:<blockquote>'''Being satisfied to drink of the dregs from the cup of human progress will not demonstrate our fitness as a people to exist alongside others, but when of our own initiative we strike out to build industries, governments, and ultimately empires (sic), then and only then, will we as a race prove to our Creator and to man in general that we are fit to survive and capable of shaping our own destiny.'''<br />
<br />
'''Wake up, Africa! Let us work toward the one glorious end of a free, redeemed, and mighty nation. Let Africa be a bright star among the constellation of nations.'''</blockquote>Who were Garvey’s followers?<br />
<br />
Garvey's Zionistic message was beamed mainly to the submerged Black peasantry, especially its uprooted vanguard, the new migrants in such industrial centers as New York City, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago and St. Louis. These masses made up the rank and file of the movement. They were embittered and disillusioned by racist terror and unemployment, and saw in Garvey’s program of Back to Africa the fulfillment of their yearnings for land and freedom to be guaranteed by a government of their own.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, Garveyism was the trend of a section of the ghetto lower middle classes, small businessmen, shopkeepers, property holders who were pushed to the wall, ruined or threatened with ruin by the ravages of the post-war crisis, Also attracted to Garveyism were the frustrated and unemployed Black intelligentsia: professionals, doctors, lawyers with impoverished clientele, storefront preachers who had followed their flocks to the promised land of the north, and poverty stricken students.<br />
<br />
Garveyism reflected the desperation of these strata before the ruthless encroachments of predatory white corporate interests upon their already meager markets. It reflected an attempt by them to escape from the sharpening racist oppression, the terror of race riots, the lynchings, economic and social frustrations. It was from these strata that the movement drew its leadership cadres.<br />
<br />
The immediate pecuniary interests of this element were expressed in the form of ghetto enterprises, the organization of a whole network of cooperative enterprises, including grocery stores, laundries, restaurants, hotels and printing plants. The most ambitious was the Black Star Steamship Line. Several ships were purchased and trade relations were established with groups in the West Indies and Africa, including the Republic of Liberia.<br />
<br />
The New York City division comprised a large segment of the intensely nationalistic West Indian immigrants. West Indians were prominent in the leadership, in Garvey's close coterie, and in the organization’s inner councils. There can be no doubt of the considerable influence of this element on the organization. But the attempt on the part of some writers to brand the movement as a foreign import with no indigenous roots is superficial and without foundation in fact. It is clear that Garveyism had both a social and economic base in Black society of the twenties. Nor was Garvey’s nationalism a new trend among Blacks—nationalist currents had repeatedly emerged, going back even before the Civil War.<br />
<br />
A key role in the movement was also played by deeply disillusioned Black veterans who had fought an illusory battle to “make the world safe for democracy” only to return to continued and even harsher slavery. Veterans were involved in the setting up of the skeleton army for the future African state, and in such paramilitary organizations as the Universal African Legion, the Universal Black Cross Nurses, the African Motor Corps and the Black Eagle Flying Corps. Many Black radicals—even some socialistically inclined—were swept into thé Garvey movement, attracted by its militancy.<br />
<br />
Despite his hostility toward local communists, Garvey seemed to regard the Soviet experience with some favor-at least in the early years of his movement. This probably reflected the sentiments of many of his followers. As late as 1924, in an editorial in the Negro World, he publicly mourned the passing of Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union, calling him “probably the world’s greatest man between 1917 and ...1924.” On that occasion, he sent a cable to Moscow “expressing the sorrow and condolence of the 400,000,000 Negroes of the world.”<br />
<br />
‘The Garvey movement revealed the wide rift between the policies of the traditional upper class of the NAACP and associates, and the life needs of the sorely oppressed people. It represented a mass rejection of the policies and programs of this leadership, which during the war had built up false hopes and now offered no tangible proposals for meeting the rampant anti-Black violence and joblessness of the post-war period. This mood was expressed by Garvey, who denounced the whole upper class leadership, claiming that they were motivated solely by the drive for assimilation and banked their hopes for equality on the support of whites—all classes of whom, he contended, were the Black man’s enemy. The policy of this leadership, he maintained, was a policy of compromise.<br />
<br />
It was in these conditions that Garvey, as thespokesman for the new ghetto petty bourgeoisie, seized leadership of the incipient Black revolt and diverted it into the blind alley of utopian escapism.<br />
<br />
My contact with the movement was limited. [ had never seen Garvey. I had missed his appearance in 1919 at the Eighth Regiment Armory. I never visited the organization’s Liberty Hall headquarters. In Chicago, the movement seemed to spring up overnight, I first took serious notice of it in 1920. I listened to its orators on street corners, watched its spectacular parades through the Southside streets, The black, red and green flag of the movement was carried at the head of the parade. The parades were lively and snappy; marching were the African Legion and the Universal Black Cross Nurses in their spotless white uniforms and white veils, All marched in step with a band. It was quite impressive, but to me it was unreal and had little or no relevance to the actual problems that confronted Blacks.<br />
<br />
From the first, the Garvey movement met heavy opposition in Chicago, The powerful Chicago Defender, edited by Robert S. Abbott, took the lead. If not the world’s greatest weekly as its masthead proclaimed, it had great influence among Chicago and Sofithern Blacks, due to its role in promoting the migration to the north. It was widely read in the South where a daily newspaper of Athens, Georgia, called it “the greatest disturbing element that has yet entered Georgia.” The Defender was relentless in its attack, throwing scorn and contempt on the movement and Garvey himself.<br />
<br />
In addition to The Defender’s attacks, the so-called Abyssinia Affair in the summer of 1920 served to discredit the movement. The Star Order of Ethiopia and Ethiopian Missionaries to Abyssinia was an extremist split off from Chicago’s UNIA branch. The leaders of the group held a parade and rally on Thirty-fifth and Indiana. Speakers clad in loud African costume called upon the crowd to return to their African ancestral land.<br />
<br />
To show their scorn for the U.S., they burned an American flag, and when white policemen sought to intervene, the Abyssinians shot and killed two white men and wounded a third. This incident was blown up in the white press as an armed rebellion of Blacks. It was condemned on ali sides in the Black community and by its leaders, including the editors of The Defender, who helped authorities in capturing the Abyssinian dissidents.<br />
<br />
Despite its repudiation by the official Garvey organization, the Abyssinian affair served to muddy the Garvey image in Chicago. I was working on the New York Central at the time and heard a graphic account of the affair from my aunts when I arrived intown the next day. They lived right around the corner on Indiana Avenue.<br />
<br />
Despite the hostile Black press and the Abyssinian affair, the UNIA grew. At its height, it claimed a Chicago membership of 9,000 devoted followers. This is probably exaggerated, but there is no doubt that the sympathizers numbered in the tens of thousands.<br />
<br />
Our Sunday discussion group underestimated the significance of the Garvey movement and the strength it was later to reveal. We regarded it as a transient phenomenon. We applauded some of the cultural aspects of the movement—Garvey’s emphasis on race pride, dignity, self-reliance, his exultation of things Black. This was all to the good, we felt. However, we rejected in its entirety the Back to Africa program as fantastic, unreal and a dangerous diversion which could only lead to desertion of the struggle for our rights in the USA. This was our country, we strongly felt, and Blacks should not waive their just claims to equality and justice in the land to whose wealth and greatness we and our forefathers had made such great contributions.<br />
<br />
Finally, we could not go along with Garvey’s idea about inherent racial antagonisms between Black and white. This to us seemed equivalent to ceding the racist enemy one of his main points. While it is true that I personally often wavered in the direction of race against race, I was not prepared to accept the idea as a philosophy. It did not jibe with my experience with whites.<br />
<br />
While rejecting Garvey’s program, our ideas for a viable alternative were still vague and unformed. The most important effect the Garvey movement had on us was that it put into clear focus the questions to which we sought answers.<br />
<br />
Who were the enemies of the Black freedom struggle? While Garvey claimed the cntire white race was the enemy, it did not escape us that he was inconsistent, being soft on white capitalists. His main target was clearly white labor and the trade union movement. According to Garvey:<blockquote>'''It seems strange and a paradox, but the only convenient friend the Negro worker or laborer has, in America, at the present time, is the white capitalist. The capitalist being selfish---seeking only the largest profit out of labor-—is willing and glad to use Negro labor wherever possible on a scale “reasonably” below the standard white union wage....but, if the Negro unionizes himself to the level of the white worker... the choice and preference of employment is given to the white worker...'''<br />
<br />
'''If the Negro takes my advice he will organize by himself and always keep his scale of wage a little lower than the whites until he is able to become, through proper leadership, his own employer; by doing so he will keep the good will of the white employer and live a little longer under the present scheme of things.'''</blockquote>There was no doubt that Garvey was voicing the sentiments of the vast mass of new migrant workers. And it was not that we had any compunction about strikebreaking in industries from which Blacks were barred. In fact, that had been one of the ways Blacks broke into industries such as stockyards and steel. We were also keenly aware of the Jim Crow policies of the existing trade union leadership and of the anti-Black prejudices rampant among white workers. But in casting Blacks permanently into the role of strikebreakers, Garvey was helping to further divide an already polarized situation and playing into the hands of businessmen, bankers, factory owners and the reactionary leadership of the trade unions,<br />
<br />
My own experience with unions in the waiters’ trade was bad. Old waiters would tell us how in the first part of the century they had listened to the siren call of white union leaders. They had gone out on strike, ostensibly to better their conditions, only to find their jobs immediately taken by whites. This had been quite a serious blow because at that time, Black waiters had had jobs in most of the best hotels and in a number of fine restaurants. It is therefore understandable that in 1920, we Black waiters felt not the slightest pang of conscience in taking over the jobs of white waiters on strike at the Marygold Gardens (the old Bismark Gardens) on the Northside, one of the swankiest night spots in Chicago, It was also probably the best waiter’s job in town; in fact, so good that some of the German captains who remained on the job used to drive to and from work in Cadillacs. The strike was broken after several months, and Blacks were turned out.<br />
<br />
Strikebreaking to me was not a philosophy or principle as Garvey contended, but an expedient forced upon Blacks by the Jim Crow policies of the bosses and the unions.<br />
<br />
Even as Garvey was putting forward such views, times were beginning to change. Large numbers of Blacks had been brought into industry during the war and had joined unions, especially in steel and the packing houses. A new industrial unionism was developing and raising the slogan of Black and white labor unity.<br />
<br />
My sister Eppa’s experiences in 1919 at Swift Packing Company were a case in point, She was one of the first Black women to join the union during the organizing drive of the Stockyards Labor Council, which was headed by two communists-—-William Z. Foster and Jack Johnstone. The drive was supported by John Fitzpatrick, chairman of the Chicago Federation of Labor and a bitter foe of the Jim Crow machine of Samuel Gompers’ AFL. Despite inevitable racial tensions fostered by the employers, Eppa had seen the basic unity of interest between all workers and felt strongly that the union was the best place to fight for the interests of Black workers.<br />
<br />
In looking back at our study of the Garvey movement, it must be evaluated in light of the fact that it was our first confrontation with nationalism as a mass movement. Our mistake, which I was to find out later through my own experience and study of nationalist movements, resulted from the failure to understand the contradictory nature of the nationalism of oppressed peoples. This contradiction or dualism was inherent in the inter-class character of these movements once they assume a popular mass form.<br />
<br />
‘They comprise various classes and social groupings with conflicting interests, tendencies and motives, all gathered under the unifying banner of national liberation, each with its own concept of that goal and how it should be attained. These conflicts, at first submerged, surface as the movement develops.<br />
<br />
‘They are expressed in two main currents (tendencies) within the movement. First of all, there is the nationalism which reflects the interests of the basic masses~-workers and peasants—-determined to fight for liberation against the oppressor of the nation. Then there is the nationalism of the Black bourgeoisie who, while at time in conflict with the white oppressors, tend toward compromise and accommodation to protect their own weak position.<br />
<br />
From the very beginning this dualism was reflected in the Garvey movement. A highly vocal and aggressively dominant current within the movement was the drive of the small business, professional and intellectual elements for a Black controlled economy. They sought fulfillment of this goal through withdrawal to Africa where they envisioned establishment of their own State, their right to exploit their own masses free from the overwhelming competition of dominant white capital. (A historical example of this can be seen in Liberia.) They thought they could accomplish this, presumably with the acquiescence of the American white rulers, and even the active support of some.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, there was a grass-roots nationalism of the masses, the uprooted, dispossessed soil-tillers of the South; their poverty-ridden counterparts in the slum ghettos of the cities. ‘These masses saw in the Black nationalist state fulfillment of their age-old yearnings for land, equality and freedom through power in their own hands to guarantee and protect these freedoms. It was this indigenous, potentially revolutionary nationalism that Garvey diverted with his Back to Africa slogan.<br />
<br />
We failed to recognize the objective conflict of interests between these class components of the movement, equating the social and political aims of the ghetto nationalists, the bourgeoisie, to that of the masses~-condemning the whole as reactionary, escapist and utopian.<br />
<br />
These were the internal contradictions upon which the movement was to flounder and finally collapse. They were brought to a head by the subsiding of the post-war economic depression, the ushering in of the “boom,” and subsequent easing of the plight of Blacks, the partial adjustment of migrants to their new environment and their partial absorption into industry.<br />
<br />
The main contradiction inherent in the Garvey movement from its very beginning had been the conflict between the needs of the masses to defend and advance their rights in the USA and the fantastic Back to Africa schemes of the Garvey leadership. Garvey’s emphasis on these fantastic schemes reflected his resolution of the conflict in favor of business interests and against the interests of the masses. The resources and energy of the organization were increasingly diverted to support racial business enterprises such as the Black Star Line and the Negro Factories Corporation. The concentration on selling stock for the Black Star Steamship Line by the UNIA leadership from 1921 on neglected the immediate needs of the masses and began to erode the base of support.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, Garvey’s response to the crisis in the movement exposed the dangerously reactionary logic of a program based upon complete separation of the races and its acceptance of the white racist doctrine of natural racial incompatibility. Pursuing the logic of this idea against the backdrop of the organization's decline inevitably drove Garvey into an alliance of expediency with the most rabid segregationists and race bigots of the period.<br />
<br />
Thus, in 1922, Garvey sought the support of Edward Young Clark, the imperial giant of the Ku Klux Klan. This “meeting of the minds” between Garvey and the Klan was not fortuitous. It was an open secret that it took place on the basis of Garvey’s agreement to soft-pedal the struggle for equality in the U.S. in return for help in the settlement of Blacks in Africa. This ideological kinship arose from the mutual acceptance of the racist dogma of natural incompatibility of races, race purity and so forth.<br />
<br />
In 1924 Garvey went so far seeking support for his Back to Africa program as to invite John Powell, organizer of the AngloSaxon Clubs, and other prominent racists to speak at UNIA headquarters. Garvey also publicly praised the KKK. According to W.E.B. DuBois, the Kian issued circulars defending Garvey and declared that the opposition to him was from the Catholic Church. In the late thirties, Senator Bilbo of Mississippi introduced a bill to deport thirteen million Blacks to Africa and received the support of the remnants of the Garvey organization.<br />
<br />
The final curtain was to drop on the Garvey episode with the failure of the Black Star Linc. The movement was torn by factionalism and splits, with some of the leadership and remaining rank and file demanding that the domestic fight for equal rights be emphasized over the Back to Africa scheme of Garvey. The internal struggle drove many out of the organization and others into a multitude of splinter groups, each a variation of Garveyism itself. Taking advantage of this disarray, the government moved in.<br />
<br />
In 1925, Garvey was framed on charges of using the mail to defraud in connection with the sale of stocks for the Black Star Line and was sent to the Atlanta federal prison for two years. He was deported to the West Indies upon release from prison. This debacle marked the end of Garveyism as an important mass movement, although the offshoots continued to exist in numbers of smaller groups advocating Garvey’s theory.<br />
<br />
At the time, I had taken Garvey’s peculiar brand as representing nationalism in general and had simply rejected the whole ideology as a foreign import with no roots in the conditions of U.S. Blacks, Seeing only the negative features of nationalism in the UNIA, I was blind to the progressive and potentially revolutionary aspects which were to prove so important in my own later development.<br />
<br />
Thus, the great movement that Garvey built passed into history. But nationalism, as a mass trend, persisted in the Black freedom struggle. Existing side by side with the assimilationist trend, it was eclipsed by the latter in so-called normal times while flaring up in times of stress and crisis.<br />
<br />
The Garvey movement was the U.S. counterpart of the vast upsurge of national and colonial liberation struggles which swept the world during the war and post-war period. In this period, masses of Blacks had come to consider themselves as an oppressed nation. Garvey’s ability to capture leadership of this nationalist upsurge by default was the result of the immaturity of the revolutionary forces, Black and white. The collapse of the Garvey movement proved conclusively that the petty bourgeois ghetto nationalist current, left to itself, led only to a hopeless blind alley. Unfortunately the forces which could give Black nationalism revolutionary content and direction were only in the process of formation.<br />
<br />
The Black working class and its spokesmen had not yet arrived on the scene as an independent force in the Black community and, therefore, was not capable of challenging either the assimilationist leadership of the NAACP or the ghetto nationalism of Garvey. Its counterparts among radical, class-conscious white labor were waging an uphill fight against the Jim Crow-minded AFL bureaucracy led by the Gompers machine. ‘These radical sections of white labor were not yet clear as to the significance of the Black freedom struggle as a revolutionary force in its own right and regarded it simply as a part of the general labor question. Coalescence of these two forces was then a decade away, destined not to take place until the crisis of the thirties.<br />
<br />
The preceding analysis is hindsight. I didn't realize the significance of Garvey’s movement until a few years later, when, as a student in Moscow, I was assigned to a commission to prepare a resolution on the Negro question in the USA for the Sixth Congress of the Communist International in 1928. It was in the course of these discussions that I came to the recognition of nationalism as an authentic and potentially revolutionary trend in the movement.<br />
<br />
The assimilationist programs of the NAACP had been easy to reject. Garvey was somewhat more difficult. But while the Garvey movement was forcing me to a consideration of nationalism (which at the time I also rejected) I could not help but notice the other political developments of the period.<br />
<br />
Most conspicuous was the concerted and vicious attack being carried out against white radicals and the trade union movement. The same forces appeared to be behind the Palmer raids of 1919 and 1920, behind the wave of racism and behind the violent union and strike busting which took place. The foreigners who were being deported, the radicals who were imprisoned and the workers throughout the country who were attacked by Pinkerton “private armies,” were white as well as Black. In Chicago, the strikes at the stockyards and the steel mills in the area particularly attracted my attention.<br />
<br />
For me, the Garvey movement, the racists’ assault and the attacks on labor and the radical movement sharpened my political perceptions. The racial fog lifted and the face and location of the enemy was clearly outlined. I began to see that the main beneficiaries of Black subjugation also profited from the social oppression of poor whites, native and foreign-born.<br />
<br />
The enemy was those who controlled and manipulated the levers of power; they were the super-rich, white moneyed interests who owned the nation’s factories and banks, and thus controlled its wealth, They were known by many names: the corporate elite; the industrial, financial (and robber) barons; ete. Chicago was the home base of a significant segment of this ruling class. <br />
<br />
Here the chain of command was clear: on the political side, it extended from city hall down to the lowliest wardheeler and precinct captain and was tied in at all levels with organized crime, On the economic side, it was represented by such employer organizations as the Chicago Chamber of Commerce, by trade associations and by top management in the giant industrial plants, railroads, big commercial establishments, banks, utilities and insurance firms, Their chain of command extended down to the foremen and department heads, and on-the-job supervisors. <br />
<br />
These levers of power also controlled education, the media, the arts and all law enforcement agencies, both military and police, At the bottom of this pyramid and hearing its weight were the working people who toiled in the steel mills, the packing plants, the railway yards, and the thousands of other sweatshops. Lowliest among these were the Blacks, pushed to the very bottom by the “divide and rule” policy of the corporate giants and their henchmen, and the complimentary Jim Crow policies and practices of the AFL trade union bureaucracy.<br />
<br />
=== PASSAGES ===<br />
Our postal discussion circle, which had held together scarcely three months, was breaking up. Heath, our chairman and recognized leader, was leaving. He had played the greatest role in keeping the group together. Now he had taken a job at some college in Virginia, his native state.<br />
<br />
Differences had already developed in the group, and with Heath gone, the possibilities for reconciling them seemed slim. These differences, as I recall, were not of a political or ideological nature. ‘They were seldom expressed in the open, but were reflected in the opposition of some members to proposals for enlarging the group and moving it into the outside political arena. This opposition evidently reflected the desire of some members to retain the group as a narrow discussion circle with membership restricted by tacit understanding to those whom they, considered their intellectual peers. It seemed to me they sought to reduce it to a sort of elitist mutual admiration society. As a result of this sectarian attitude, the group hardly grew beyond its original membership of a dozen or so.<br />
<br />
There was no doubt, though, that our association had been mutually beneficial. All of us had grown in political understanding and awareness. But up to the time of Heath’s departure, we had advanced no program for putting our newly acquired political understanding into practice. Our original plans for the organization of a forum to debate the issues of the day never got off the ground. We had not developed a program for involvement in the struggles of the community, nor, for that matter, in the immediate on-the-job problems of Black postal employees. We never even got around to deciding on a name for the group. One suggestion, that we call ourselves the “New Negro Forum,” was never acted upon.<br />
<br />
Heath, Mabley, Doe and myself were beginning to feel the pull from the outside, the need for a broader political arena of activity, to play a more active role in the community. We were the ones who most often attended radical forums and lectures and kept abreast of what was going on in the Southside community. We often went to the Bugs Club in Washington Park (Chicago’s equivalent of London's Hyde Park), and the Dill Pickle Club on the Northside which was run by the anarchist Jack Jones.<br />
<br />
Heath had gone. Mabley refused the chairmanship, pleading that he was tied down by his family and could not take on additional responsibilities. Doe refused to accept the honor; he was similarly tied down by his job and dental practice. But the real reason for their refusal, which they were to confide to me later, was that they had lost confidence in the group. Without Heath, they saw no future role for it. Like myself, they were attracted to the broader movement, I also declined, giving as my excuse that I was quitting the Post Office in a few days and was going back to my old job on the railroad. A chairman pro-tem was chosen; I don’t remember who.<br />
<br />
I continued my reading along the lines which Otto had suggested. Among the books I read were Henry Morgan’s Ancient Society (which Engels had used as the basis for Origins of the Family), Gustavus Meycr’s History of the Great American Fortunes, John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook the World and Jack London’s The Iron Heel.<br />
<br />
I also kept abreast of world events, reading about Lenin and Trotsky in revolutionary Russia. I followed the post-war colonial rebellions of Sun Yat-sen’s China, Gandhi in India, Ataturk in Turkey, the rebellion of the Riff tribes in Morocco led by Abdul Krim. There were rumblings in black Africa—strikes and demonstrations against colonial oppression. One heard such names as Kadelli and Gumede of the South African National Congress, and of Sandino in Nicaragua who fought the U.S. Marines for many years,<br />
<br />
My fect were getting itchy. I was fed up with the Post Office and the excruciatingly monotonous nature of the work. At the same time, the night shift cramped my social life as well as my growing need for broader political activity. I quit the job without regret.<br />
<br />
Soon after, I started work as a waiter on the Santa Fe’s Chief, the company’s crack train running to Los Angeles. It was an eightday run: three days to the coast, with a two-day layover in Los Angeles and three days back. Our crew would make three trips a month, and a layover one trip (eight days) in Chicago. This schedule gave me approximately twelve free days a month in Chicago---time enough for both political and social life. It was a hard job, but good money for those days and exciting after the drab routine of the Post Office.<br />
<br />
Los Angeles, “Sweet Los,” as we used to call it. The Santa Fe boys, all “big spenders,” were very popular with the girls. A bevy would show up to meet us at the station every trip.<br />
<br />
I was to remain on that run three years, which up to that time was the longest I had ever remained on one job. Upon my return from the first trip, I called Mabley and he informed me that he thought the discussion circle had dissolved. Only one or two guys showed up at the next scheduled meeting, and the pro-tem chairman himself was absent. It was dead.<br />
<br />
My political development continued nevertheless, The runs on the Santa Fe gave ample time for discussion with my fellow crew members. Most of them, though somewhat older, were as aware as those at the Post Office with whom I had worked. I also continued to read, now studying The Communist Manifesto, Engels’ Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, and Marx’s Value, Price and Profit.<br />
<br />
The first stage of my political search was near an end. In the years since I had mustered out of the Army, I had come from being a disgruntled Black ex-soldier to being a self-conscious revolutionary looking for an organization with which to make revolution.<br />
<br />
For three years I had listened in lecture halls, at rallies and in Washington Park to a spate of orators each claiming to meet the challenge of the times. They included the great “people’s lawyer” Clarence Darrow; Judge Fisher of the reform movement; the socialist leader Victor Berger and sundry other members of his party; the anarchist Ben Reichman, Ben Fletcher, the Black IWW orator and organizer, and assorted Garveyites. Although some had their points—for example, the fighting spirit and sincerity of the IWW impressed me-—I rejected them all.<br />
<br />
In the spring of 1922, I approached my brother Otto, whom I knew had joined the Workers (Communist) Party shortly after its inception in 1921. I told him that I wanted to join the Party.<br />
<br />
The fact that Otto was in the Party and had advised me from time to time on my reading had undoubtedly influenced my decision, I had a generally favorable impression of the Black communists I knew; men like Otto, the Owens brothers and Edward Doty. I was also impressed by whites like Jim Early, Sam Hammersmark, Robert Minor and his wife, Lydia Gibson. What added great weight to my favorable impression of the communists, however, was their political identity with the successful Bolshevik Revolution.<br />
<br />
At the time it happened, I had been taken totally unaware of its significance, I first heard of it during an incident that occurred in France in August 1918. My regiment, while marching into positions on the Soissons sector, had paused fora rest. On one side of the road there was a high barbed wire fence and behind it loitered groups of soldiers in strange uniforms. Upon closer observation, it became clear that they were prisoners. They spoke in a strange tongue, but we understood from their gestures that they were asking for cigarettes, A number of us immediately responded, offering them some from our packs.<br />
<br />
When we asked who they were, one of them replied in halting English that they were Russian Cossacks. He explained that their division, which had been fighting on the western front, had been withdrawn from the lines, disarmed and placed in quarantine, They were considered unreliable, he said, because of the revolution in Russia. At the time, I was not even sure of the meaning of the word revolution—some kind of civil disorder I conjectured. Giving the matter no further thought, we resumed our march. It was not until I had returned from France that I began reading about the Russian Revolution. From then on, I followed its course, and despite the distorted view in the U.S. press, its significance slowly dawned on me.<br />
<br />
Here, I felt, was a tangible accomplishment and real power. Along with other Black radicals, I was impressed-—just as a later generation came to look at China, Cuba and Vietnam as models of successful struggle against tyranny, colonialism and oppression.<br />
<br />
Thus, I was particularly attracted to the communists. True, the Party was largely white in its racial composition, with only a handful of Black members. I felt, nevertheless, that it comprised the best and most sincerely revolutionary and internationally minded elements among white radicals,and therefore formed the basis for the revolutionary unity of Blacks and whites. This was so, I believed, because it was a part of a world revolutionary movement uniting Chinese, Africans and Latin Americans with Europeans and North Americans through the Third Communist International.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks had destroyed the czarist rule, established the first workers’ state, and breached the world system of capitalism over a territory comprising more than one-sixth of the earth’s surface. Most impressive as far as Blacks were concerned was that the revolution had laid the basis for solving the national and racial questions on the basis of complete freedom for the numerous nations, colonial peoples and minorities formerly oppressed by the czarist empire. Moscow had now become the focus of the colonial revolution. In the turbulence of those days, there seerned every reason to think that the energy unleashed in Russia would carry the revolution throughout the world.<br />
<br />
In the U.S., the deluge of lies and distortions by the media, the red baiting, the Palmer raids, had not been able to hide this monumental achievement of the Russian Bolsheviks. The uninformed Black man in the street could reason that a phenomenon that evoked such fear and hatred on the part of the white supremacist rulers “couldn't be all bad.” As for me, the socialist victory confirmed my belief in the Bolshevik variety of socialism as a way out for U.S. Blacks.<br />
<br />
I found the theory behind this achievement all there in Lenin’s State and Revolution. He developed and applied the theories of Marx and Engels on the role of the state and the dictatorship of the proletariat. This work was the single most important book I had read in the entire three years of my political search and was decisive in leading me to the Communist Party. In this work, Lenin clarified the nature of the state and the means by which to overthrow it. His approach seemed practical and realistic; it was no longer just abstract theory.<br />
<br />
Using Origins of the Family as a departure point, Lenin demystified and desanctified the myth of the state in capitalist society as an impartial monitor of human affairs. Rather, he exposed the state in capitalist society--and its apparatus of military, police, courts and prisons—as an instrument of ruling class domination, a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
It thus followed that the job of forcibly replacing the state power of the dominant class with that of the proletariat was the paramount and indispensable task of socialist revolution. As far as I could seé, the Soviet example appeared to offer a completely clear solution to the problems facing American workers, both Black and white. I saw the elimination of racism and the achievement of complete equality for Blacks as an inevitable by product of a socialist revolution in the United States, It was at this point that I became fully resolved to make my own personal commitment to the fight for a socialist United States.<br />
<br />
The first part of my odyssey was over.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
=== An Organization of Revolutionaries ===<br />
Otto was pleased when I first told him of my desire to join the Party in the summer of 1922. He said that he had known that that i had been ready to join for some time, but he suggested that i should wait a while before joining. When I asked why, he told me about an unpleasant situation that had arisen in the Party’s Southside branch.<br />
<br />
Most of the few Black members were concentrated in this English-speaking branch, but it seemed that a number of recent Black recruits had dropped out. They resented the paternalistic attitude displayed toward them by some of the white comrades who, Otto said, treated Blacks like children and seemed to think that the whites had all the answers, It was only a temporary situation, he assured me. The matter had been taken up before the Party District Committee; if it was not resolved there, they would take it to the Central Committee.<br />
<br />
“And if you don’t get satisfaction there?” I queried.<br />
<br />
“Well, then there’s the Communist International!” he teplied emphatically. “It’s as much our Party as it is theirs.”<br />
<br />
I was properly impressed by his sincerity and by the idea that we could appeal our case to the “supreme court” of international communism, which included such luminaries as the great Lenin.<br />
<br />
‘The Blacks who had remained in the Party had decided not to bring any new members into the branch until the matter was satisfactorily settled. I was rather surprised to hear all of this.<br />
<br />
Clearly, membership in the Party did not automatically free whites from white supremacist ideas. Nor, for that matter, did it free Blacks from their distrust of whites. Throughout my lifetime, I found that interracial solidarity--even in the Communist Party— required a continuous ideological struggle.<br />
<br />
Otto suggested that until the matter was cleared up I should join the African Blood Brotherhood. The ABB was a secret, all-Black, revolutionary organization to which some of the Black Party members belonged---including Otto. I later learned that the matter of white paternalism was eventually resolved to the satisfaction of the Black comrades. I don’t recall the details; I think that Arne Swabeck (the district organizer) or Robert Minor from the Central Committee finally came down and lectured the branch on the evils of race prejudice and threatened disciplinary action to the point of expulsion of comrades guilty of bringing bourgeois social attitudes into the Party.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, I took Otto’s advice and joined the African Blood Brotherhood. He took me to see Edward Doty, then commander of the Brotherhood’s Chicago Post. Vouched for by Otto and Doty, I was taken to a meeting of the membership committee and went through the induction ceremonies. This consisted of an African fraternization ritual requiring the mixing of blood between the applicant and one of the regular members. The organization took its name from this ritual. Doty performed the ceremony; he pricked our index fingers with a needlc (I hoped it was sterilized!) and when drops of blood appeared, he rubbed them together.<br />
<br />
Now a Blood Brother, I proceeded to take the Oath of Loyalty which contained a clause warning that divulging of any of the secrets of the organization was punishable by death. I was deeply impressed by all this; the atmosphere of great secrecy appealed to my romantic sense. There were two degrees of membership; one was automatically conferred upon joining and the second, which I took a few days later, involved the performance of some service for the organization. In my case, as I recall, it was a trivial task—-the selling of a dozen or so copies of its magazine, The Crusader.<br />
<br />
At the time that I joined the African Blood Brotherhood, I knew little about the organization other than the fact that it wasin some way associated with the Communist Party. I do remember having read a copy or two of The Crusader before I joined the group.<br />
<br />
Some of the history of the ABB I got from Otto and other post members, but most of it I found out much later when I met and worked with Cyril P. Briggs, the original founder of the group. The African Blood Brotherhood was founded in New York City in 1919 by a group of Black radicals under the leadership of Briggs. A West Indian (as were most of the founders), he was a former editor of the Amsterdam News, a Black New York newspaper. He quit in disagrcement over policy with the owner, who attempted to censor his anti-war editorials. Briggs’s own magazine. The Crusader, was established in 1919. The Brotherhood was organized around the magazine with Briggs as its executive head presiding over a supreme council.<br />
<br />
The group was originally conceived as the African Blood Brotherhood “for African liberation and redemption” and was later broadened to “for immediate protection and ultimate liberation of Negroes everywhere.” As it was a secret organization, it never sought broad membership. National headquarters were in New York. Its size never exceeded 3,000. But its influence was many times greater than this; the Crusader at one time claimed a circulation of 33,000.' There was also The Crusader News Service which was distributed to two hundred Black newspapers.<br />
<br />
Briggs, his associates--Richard B. Moore, Grace Campbell and others—-and The Crusader were among the vanguard forces for the New Negro movement, an ideological current which reflected the new mood of militancy and social awareness of young Blacks of the post-war period. In New York, the New Negro movement also included the radical magazine, The Messenger, edited by Chandler Owen and A. Philip Randolph, and The Emancipator, edited by W.A. Domingo. Many of the groups were members of the Socialist Party or close to it politically. They espoused “economic radicalism,” an over-simplificd interpretation of Marxism which, nevertheless, enabled them to see the economic and social roots of racial subjugation. Historically, theirs was the first serious attempt by Blacks to adopt the Marxist world view and the theory of class struggle to the problems of Black Americans.<br />
<br />
Within this broad grouping, however, there were differences which emerged later. Briggs was definitely a revolutionary nationalist; that is, he saw the solution of the “race problem” in the establishment of independent Black nation-states in Africa, the Caribbean and the United States, In America, he felt this could be achieved only through revolutionizing the whole country. This meant he saw revolutionary white workers as allies. These were elements of a program which he perceived as an alternative to Garvey’s plan of mass exodus.<br />
<br />
A self-governing Black state on U.S. soil was a novel idea for which Briggs sent up trial balloons in the form of editorials in the Amsterdam News in 1917, of which he was then editor. Shortly after the entrance of the United States into World War I, he wrote an editorial entitled “Security of Life for Poles and Serbs—Why Not for Colored Americans?”<br />
<br />
Briggs, however, had no definite idea for the location of the future “colored autonomous state,” suggesting at various times Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California or Nevada: Later, after President Wilson had put forth his fourteen points in January 1918, Briggs equated the plight of Blacks in the United States to nations occupied by Germany and demanded:<br />
<br />
'''With what moral authority or justice can President Wilson demand that eight million Belgians be freed when for his entire first term and to the present moment of his second term he has not lifted a finger for justice and liberty for over TEN MILLION colored people, a nation within a nation, a nationality oppressed and jim-crowed, yet worthy as any other people of a square deal or failing that, a separate political existence?'''<br />
<br />
He continued this theme in The Crusader. One year after the founding of the Brotherhood, Briggs shifted from the idea of a Black state on U.S. soil to the advocacy of a Black state in Africa, South America or the Caribbean, where those Blacks who wanted to could migrate. In this, he was undoubtedly on the defensive, giving ground to the overwhelming Garvey deluge then sweeping the national Black community. In 1921, Briggs was to link the struggle for equal rights of U.S. Blacks with the establishment of a Black state in Africa and elsewhere:<br />
<br />
Just as the Negro in the United States can never hope to win equal rights with his white neighbors until Africa is liberated and a strong Negro state (or states) erected on that continent, so, too, we can never liberate Africa unless, and until, the American Section of the Negro Race is made strong enough to play the part for a free Africa that the Irish in America now play for a free Ireland.<br />
<br />
The Brotherhood rejected Garvey’s racial separatism. They knew that Blacks needed allies and tied the struggle for equal rights to that of the progressive section of white labor. In the 1918-1919 elections, the Brotherhood supported the Socialist Party candidates, The Crusader and the ABB were ardent supporters of the Russian Revolution; they saw it as an opportunity for Blacks to identify with a powerful international revolutionary movement. It enabled them to overcome the isolation inherent in their position as a minority people in the midst of a powerful and hostile white oppressor nation. Thus, The Crusader called for an alliance with the Bolsheviks against race prejudice. In 1921, the magazine made its clearest formulation, linking the struggles of Blacks and other oppressed nations with socialism:<blockquote>'''The surest and quickest way, then, in our opinion, to achieve the salvation of the Negro is to combine the two most likely and feasihle propositions, viz.: salvation for all Negroes through the establishment of a strong, stable, independent Negro State (along the lines of our own race genius) in Africa and elsewhere: and salvation for all Negroes (as well as other oppressed people) through the establishment of a Universal Socialist Co-operative commonwealth.'''</blockquote>The split in the world socialist movement as a result of the First World War led to the formation of the Third (Communist) International in 1919. This split was reflected in the New Negro movement as well. Randolph and Owens, the whole Messenger crowd, remained with the social democrats of the Second International who were in opposition to the Bolshevik revolution. Members of The Crusader group--Briggs, Moore and others gravitated toward the Third International and eventually joined its American affiliate, the Communist Party. They were followed in the next year or two by Otto Hall, Lovett Fort-Whiteman and others.<br />
<br />
The decline of the African Blood Brotherhood in the early twenties and its eventual demise coincided with the growing participation of its leadership in the activities of the Communist Party. By 1923-24, the Brotherhood had ceased to exist as an autonomous, organized cxpression of the national revolutionary trend. Its leading members became communists or close sympathizers and its posts served as one of the Party’s recruiting grounds for Blacks.<br />
<br />
I first met Briggs upon my return from Russia in 1930. We were to strike up a lasting friendship--one that went beyond the comradeship of the Party and which extended over more than three decades, until his death in 1967. Throughout those years, we were associated on numerous projects and found ourselves on the same side of many political issues.<br />
<br />
When I first met Briggs, he conformed to the impression that I had been given of him: a tall, impressive-looking man—so light in complexion that he was often mistaken for white. He had a large head and bushy black eyebrows. He was a man possessed of great physical and moral courage, which I was to observe on many occasions. Briggs also had a fiery temper, which was usually controlled in the case of comrades or friends.<br />
<br />
He had one outstanding physical defect--he was a heavy stutterer. He stuttered so much that it often took him several scconds to get out the first word of a sentence, When he took the floor at meetings we would all listen attentively; no one would interrupt him because we knew he always had something important and pertinent to say. While he spoke we would cast our eyes down and look away from him to avoid making him feel self-conscious, though he never seemed to be.<br />
<br />
We noticed that he stuttered less when he was angry, One such occasion was when Garvey rejected Briggs’s offer of cooperation. The wily Garvey saw through the maneuver for what it was-—an attempt by Briggs to gain a position from which he could better attack him. Garvey lashed out at Briggs, calling him a “white man trying to pass himself off as a Negro.”<br />
<br />
Friends told me that this attack sent Briggs into such a rage that he mounted a soapbox at Harlem's 135th Strect and Lenox Avenue and assailed Garvey for two hours without a stutter, branding him a charlatan and a fraud. Not content with this verbal lashing of his enemy, Briggs hauled Garvey into court on the charge of defamation of character. He won the case, forcing Garvey to make a public apology and pay a fine of one dollar.<br />
<br />
Briggs’s real forte, however, was as a kecn polemicist, a veritable master of invective. His speech handicap was a pity, because aside from the stutter he had all the qualities of a good orator. Closely associated with Briggs was Richard B. Moore, a fine orator who did much public speaking for the ABB.<br />
<br />
What were the reasons for the decline of the ABB and its eventual absorption by the Communist Party? Why did Briggs fail to develop the program for Black self-determination in the USA? In the fifties, I had a series of talks with Briggs and asked his opinion on these questions.<br />
<br />
His overall appraisal of the role of the Brotherhood was that it was a forerunner of the contemporary national revolutionary trend and a very positive thing. “Of course, we didn’t stop Garvey,” he said, but “we were beginning to develop a revolutionary alternative. We did put a crimp in his sails,” Briggs added.<br />
<br />
For a while, the ABB had been a rallying center for left opposition to Garvey. Its membership included class-conscious Black workers and revolutionary intcllectuals and drew membership from both disillusioned Garveyites and radicals who never took to Garvey’s program in the first place. The main reason for de-emphasizing the idea of Black nationhood in the United States, Briggs stated, was the unfavorable relationship of forces then existing.<br />
<br />
Garvey, with his Back to Africa program, had preempted the leadership of the mass movement and corralled most of the militants. His hold over the masses was strengthened by the anti-Black violence of the Red Summer of 1919. This gave further credence to Garvey’s contention that the U.S. was a white man’s country where Blacks could never achieve equality. Indeed, for these masses, his program for a Black state in Africa to which American Blacks could migrate seemed far less utopian than the idea of a Black state on U.S. soil.<br />
<br />
As for the South, Briggs did not feel that such a region of entrenched racism could be projected realistically as a territorial focus of a Black nationalist state. It would not have been so accepted by the masses who were in flight from the area. For himself, he reasoned, the very idea of self-determination in the United States presupposed the support of white revolutionaries. That meant a revolutionary crisis in the country as a whole, and in that day no such prospect was in sight. In fact, white revolutionary forces were then small and weak, the target of the vicious anti-red drives of the government and employers.<br />
<br />
In other words, he felt that Black self-determination in the United States was an idea whose time had not yet come. The communists didn’t have all the answers, and neither did we, Briggs indicated. Whites, as well as a number of Black radicals, undoubtedly underestimated the national element; socialism alone was seen as the solution. Briggs was impressed, however, by the sincerity and revolutionary ardor of the communists and by the fact that they were a detachment of Lenin’s Third Communist International. He felt that the future of the revolution in the United States and of Black liberation lay in multinational communist leadership.<br />
<br />
Though the ABB ceased to exist as an organized, independent expression of the national revolutionary current, the tendency itself remained, awaiting the further maturing of its main driving force, the Black proletariat. By the end of the decade, the national revolutionary sentiment was to find expression in the program of the Communist Party.<br />
<br />
By the time I joined the Brotherhood’s Chicago post in the summer of 1922, The Crusader had dropped much of its original national revolutionary orientation. Although I was then unaware of it, Briggs and the supreme council were presiding over the absorption of the organization into the Communist Party.<br />
<br />
In Chicago, the decline of the organization was slower than elsewhere, Perhaps this was because it had a strong base among Black building-tradesmen, plumbers, electricians and bricklayers. Edward Doty, a plumber by trade, was simultaneously the ABB post commander and a leader and founder of the American Consolidated Trades Council (ACTC). The council was a federation of independent Black unions and groups in the building trades industry who had formed their own unions forthe double purpose of protecting Black workers on the job and counteracting the discriminatory policies of the white AFL craft unions dominant in the field.<br />
<br />
Doty, a tall, muscular man, was born in Mobile, Alabama, and had come north in 1912 at the age of seventeen, According to him, most of the Black steamfitters and plumbers had learned their trades in the stockyards during the industrial boom and labor shortage that accompanied World War I. Some, however, had gotten their training at Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. Active in the Brotherhood along with Doty were such outstanding leaders of the Black workers’ struggle as Herman Dorsey (an electrician) and Alexander Dunlap (a plumber).<br />
<br />
Besides the tradesmen, other members of the ABB post included a number of older radicals such as Alonzo Isabel, Norval Allen, Gordon Owens, H.V. Phillips, Otto Hall and several others. Together with Doty, they made up the communist core of the Brotherhood. <br />
<br />
My experiences in the ABB marked my first association with Black communists. I had met some of them before, at forums and lectures; I had heard Owens speak at the Bugs Club and Dill Pickle forums, but I had never worked together with any of them before.” ‘They were mostly workers from the stockyards and other industries. One or two, like myself, were from the service trades. Like Otto, several of them had previously been in the Garvey movement. There was no doubt that they represented a politically advanced section of the Black working class. They were the types who today would be called “political activists,” the people who kept abreast of the issues in the Southside community and participated in local struggles.<br />
<br />
I was interested to learn their backgrounds and how they had come to the revolutionary movement. I found that some of them had been among Chicago's first Marxist-oriented Black radicals and had been associated with the Free Thought Society. This society was formed immediately after the war and held regular forums. I believe its leader and founder was a young man named Tibbs. He was one of the earliest of Chicago’s Black radicals. A victim of police harassment and persecution, Tibbs was arrested during the Palmer raids in 1919 and spent several years in jailona fake charge of stealing automobile tires. This continual perseeution reduced his political effectiveness, which was as the authorities intended.<br />
<br />
In 1920, members of the Free Thought Society took an active part in the campaign of the Independent Non-Partisan League, sponsored by The Whip and its editors. This coalition ran a full slate of candidates in the Republican primary of that year, in which they challenged the old guard Republicans of the second ward Republican organization as well as the so-called New People’s Movement of Oscar DePriest.’<br />
<br />
The election platform called for abolition of all discrimination, for public ownership of utilities, civil service reform, women’s suffrage, children’s welfare service and “organization of labor into one union.” While they were not successful in turning back the Republican old guard, the campaign resulted in appreciable gains for some of the league’s candidates,<br />
<br />
At that time, the main efforts of the ABB were directed at mobilizing community support for the Black ACTC tradesmen. While retaining a secret character, its members participated as individuals in campaigns on local issues. They collaborated with the Trade Union Education League (TUEL) of which Doty was a member, in its drive to organize the stockyards. The TUEL supported the demands of the ACTC. At that time, it was led by William Z. Foster and Jack Johnstone. Later to become the Trade Union Unity League, it was a gathering of the revolutionary and progressive forces within trade unions to fight against the reactionary labor bureaucracy and their collaborationist policies and Jim Crowism.<br />
<br />
Other members of the Brotherhood participated in the cainpaign against high rents that was waged in the Southside community. This was a fight in which a white Party member, Bob Minor, and his wife, Lydia Gibson, played leading roles.<br />
<br />
I found my experience in the Brotherhood both stimulating and rewarding. In addition to learning a lot from the communists with whom I was associated, it was here I forged my first active association with Black industrial workers. I found them literate, articulate and class conscious, a proud and defiant group which had been radicalized by. the struggles against discriminatory practices of the unions and employers. They understood the meaning of solidarity and the need for militant organization to obtain their objectives. In this, they were quite different from the people with whom I had been associated at the post office, as well as writers whom I so commonly found to be stamped with a hustler mentality. Doty and his followers in the Trades Council were pioneers in the struggle for the rights of Black workers, a struggle which has continued over half a century and remains unfinished to this day.<br />
<br />
‘The older tradesmen finally fought their way into the unions, the electricians in 1938 and the plumbers in 1947. In the early fifties, Doty became the first Black officer in the plumbers’ union. But these gains were only token! The bars are still up against Blacks and other minority workers seeking jobs in the ninety billion dollar-a-year industry.<br />
<br />
=== THE YOUNG COMMUNIST LEAGUE ===<br />
My sojourn in the African Blood Brotherhood was brief about six months. I felt the need to move on. My original goal was the Communist Party. While I was in the ABB, the problem of white chauvinism in the Southside branch had been cleared up. Joining the Party was no longer a problem, after all, the Brotherhood had been but a stopover.<br />
<br />
I was about to apply for admission when H.V. Phillips asked me to join the Young Workers (Communist) League, the youth division of the Communist Party. Phillips, I learned, was a member of the district and national committees of the League. When I told him I was just about to join the Party, he said: “That’s all right, but youre a young fellow and should be among the youth. Besides, more of us Blacks are needed in the League.”<br />
<br />
I thought the matter over. “Why not? It’s all the same, they’re all communists.”<br />
<br />
The next day Phillips took me to meet John Harvey, a white youth who was district organizer of the League. Harvey told me that I had been highly recommended to them by Phillips and others. He expressed delight at my decision to join and said that it fit right in with their plans since they were anxious to move forward with work among Black youth, but were handicapped by the faet that they had only a few Black members.<br />
<br />
I expressed doubt that I could be considered a youth at the age of twenty-five.<br />
<br />
They replied that there were a number of members my age and older in the organization. All that was needed, they assured me, was for one to have the “youth angle.”<br />
<br />
“What is that?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“Oh, that simply means the ability to understand youth and their problems and to be able to communicate with them.”<br />
<br />
I was not sure I had all of these qualities, but the proposition appealed to me, So I joined the YCL in the winter of 1923. The League at that time was a close-knit fraternity of idealistic and dedicated young people determined to build a new world for future generations. When we sang the Youth International at meetings, we actually felt ourselves to be as the song proclaimed, “the youthful guardsmen of the proletariat.”<br />
<br />
The organization was small, with only several hundred members. As I recall, Phillips and myself were the only Blacks. I was still working on the Santa Fe and on layovers I spent most of the time getting acquainted with my new comrades, attending classes, meetings and social gatherings. I was impressed by what seemed to me to be a high level of political development and by their use of Marxist terminology. It made me keenly aware of my own sketchy knowledge of Marxism and the revolutionary movement and spurred me to close the gap. A partial explanation for their political sophistication, I felt, was the fact that a large number of them, perhaps a majority, were “red diaper” babies—their parents being old revolutionaries, either members of the Party or its supporters. On the whole, they were a spirited, intelligent group, and as far as I could discern exhibited not a trace of race prejudice. Many went on to become leaders of the Party.<br />
<br />
There was our district organizer, John Harvey, a lanky youth and one of the few WASPs; Max Shachtman, a brilliant young orator and editor of the League’s theoretical organ, the Young Worker, who was later to become first a Trotskyist and then a rabid, professional anti-communist. There was Valeria Meltz, an able young leader, and her brother; their ethnie background was Russian-American, as was that of Jim Sklar (Keller). His brothers Gus and Boris were old stalwarts in the Russian Federation and were well known. There was also Nat Kaplan (Ganley) and Gil Green. Gil was about sixteen at the time; we used to call him “the kid.” He went on to become national chairman of the YCL and later a national leader in the Party. I met a number of the League's national leaders: Johnny Williamson, a Scottish-American and national secretary, Herbert Zam, Sam Darcy, Marty Abern, Phil Herbert and others, many of whom were to become national leaders of the Party.<br />
<br />
There was no searcity of places for meetings or for social affairs. We were on friendly terms with Jane Addams and her people at Hull House, where we sometimes met. Other times we used the halls of various language groups. We participated in and supported the activities of the Anti-Imperialist League, headed by Manny Gomez, the Party’s Latin American specialist. The main eampaign at the time: was against the invasion of Nicaragua by the U.S. Marines.<br />
<br />
I was particularly impressed by Bob Mazut, a young Russian representative of the Young Communist International (YCI) to the League, A small, dark-complected and soft-spoken young man, Mazut hailed from Soviet Georgia, His mild manner belied his impressive background, Only twenty-five when I met him, he had fought in the Revolution and Civil War, first as a Red Partisan and then in the Red Army, in which he advanced to the rank of colonel. He spoke what we called “political English,” and we were always amused by some of his expressions. For example, | remember how we used to kid Mazut about his being sweet on a certain girl comrade, “She likes you very much,” someone would say, “but she’s a little overawed by you.”<br />
<br />
He replied very seriously, “How can I liquidate her suspicions of me?”<br />
<br />
He took particular interest in me. I believe Phillips and I were the first Blacks he had ever really known and for us he was the first real Soviet communist we had met. I asked questions about Russia and told him I wanted to go there and see it for myself. “You undoubtedly will,” he said in a matter-of-fact tone, as if the matter were settled,<br />
<br />
On one occasion he told me of a discussion he had had on the eve of his departure from Russia, Zinoviey, then president of the Communist International, had asked him to look closely into the Afro-American question in the United States, and to see if he could find any confirmation for his belief and that of other Russian leaders that the right of self-determination was the appropriate slogan for Black rebellion. Zinoviev added that he had long believed that the question would become the “Achilles heel of American imperialism,” I told Mazut that I liked the part about the “Achilles heel,” but I didn’t feel that the slogan of self-determination was applicable for U.S. Blacks, It was my understanding that the principle had to do with nations, and Blacks were not a national but a racial minority. To me, it smacked of Garvey’s separatism,<br />
<br />
Mazut nevertheless raised the question of self-determination for discussion in a meeting of the Chicago District Committe of the YCL. Desirous of getting the committee’s reaction to the question, he was literally shouted down by the white comrades, “Blacks are Americans,” they said. “They want equality, not separation.” Phillips and I, the only Black members of the committee, were non-committal, And that was the end of that, They did not pursue the matter further.<br />
<br />
In order to move forward in work with Black youth, we struck upon the idea of organizing an interracial youth forum on the Southside. The organizing committee consisted of Chi (Dum Ping), a Chinese student at the University of Chicago; a young woman official of the colored YMCA; Phillips, a white League member; and myself, During this period, J was still working on the Santa Fe, but on my layovers | devoted all my time to the forum. We had rented a small hall, decorated it and got out our publicity—leaflets, posters and an‘ad in the Chicago Defender, Our first speaker was to be John Harden, a Black radical orator, It was our first effort at mass work among young Blacks and with our youthful enthusiasm, we were certain of success. But the venture proved to be abortive.<br />
<br />
I can still remember our shock when we came to our mecting place to find it wrecked. Furniture was smashed, posters ripped from the walls. There was no doubt in our minds that this was the work of the police who had unleashed their stool pigeons against us. Some of our non-communist friends dropped out, and the project collapsed. The idea of a forum was abandoned---temporarily, we hoped. A less ambitious plan was then agrced to.<br />
<br />
If we could enlarge our cadres by a few more Blacks, we thought, we would have a better base from which to approach mass work. It was therefore suggested that Phillips and I approach some of our acquaintances and try to recruit them directly into the League. I eliminated my waiter friends, all of whom were too old, and approached one of my former colleagues, a postal worker, who had been in our study circle and whom I considered a likely prospect. I remember that he sat very quictly while I delivered a long lecture on the League’s program and activities and the need to get support among Black youth.<br />
<br />
Finally interrupting me, he blurted out, “I’m sorry, Hall, but I find being Black trouble enough, but to be Black and red at the same time, well that’s just double trouble, and when you mix in the whites, why that’s triple trouble.”<br />
<br />
At first I was rather shocked by his off-hand rebuff, considering it to be an expression of cynical opportunism. I felt that he had backslid, even from his position at the post office, but he continued in a more serious tone. Apparently he felt a deep distrust for whites and their motives. He regarded the YCL as just another organization of white “do-gooders” and saw me as their captive Negro. When I interrupted to say something about socialism, he cut me short. He said that he too was for socialism as a final solution, but that was a long way off and he would not put it beyond the whites in the United States to distort socialism in a manner in which they could remain top dogs. In any case, he believed Blacks would have to be on guard. In the meantime, he believed Blacks should retain their own organizations under their own leadership. Alliances, yes—but we ourselves must decide the terms and conditions, he said.<br />
<br />
Our exchange had gotten off on the wrong foot. I was deeply chagrined by his charge that I was a captive of the whites and that the League was a white organization. For me, that meant that he felt that I was a “white folks’ nigger.” As I recall, I retorted by calling him a Black racialist who saw everything in terms of Black and white.<br />
<br />
“Why not?” he replied. “Being a Negro, how else should I see things?”<br />
<br />
After this flare-up, our tempers cooled off and we continued our discussion in calmer tones. But I was definitely on the defensive, trying to explain why I was in the League and that it was not an organization of white “do-gooders” as he had charged. It was a revolutionary, interracial vanguard organization, I asserted. Sure, we only had a few Blacks now, but our numbers would grow, I argued.<br />
<br />
He was still skeptical and repeated that he was for socialism, but a special road toward this goal he felt was necessary for Black Americans, under their own leadership and organization.<br />
<br />
“Do you mean a Black party?” I queried.<br />
<br />
“Why not?” he rejoined. “It might be necessary as a safeguard for our interests.”<br />
<br />
I had no answers to his position. There was a logic to it which I hadn't thought about.<br />
<br />
We finally parted on friendly terms, promising to keep in touch. I left, realizing that I’d come out the worst in our exchange. I felt that I had failed in my first effort to recruit a good Black man to the League and that we still had some study to do with regards to Black nationalism.<br />
<br />
My friend had been, as I recalled, a bitter critic of Garvey, and therefore assumed that he was hostile to Black nationalism. But now it seemed that he expressed some of Garvey’s racial separatism. Thinking the matter over, I finally camc to the conclusion that the main reason for my inability to counter his arguments was that I sensed that they contained a good measure of truth. What was most disturbing was the sense that his position was less isolated from the masses of Blacks than was my own.<br />
<br />
Up to that point, I had failed to understand the contradictory nature of Black nationalism. I had rejected it totally as a reactionary bourgeois philosophy which, in the conditions of the U.S., had found its logical expression in Garvey’s Back to Africa program. It was therefore a diversion from the struggle for economic, social and political equality-—-the true goal of Blacks in the United States. The fight for equality, I felt, was revolutionary in that it was unattainable within the framework of U.S. capitalist society. Nationalism, moreover, was divisive and played into the hands of the reactionary racists. This, of course, did not exclude the acceptance of some of its features, such as race pride and selfreliance, which were not inconsistent with, but an essential element in, the fight for equality.<br />
<br />
While rejecting nationalism, I also rejected the bourgeois assimilationist position of the NAACP and its associates, and their blind acceptance of white middle class values and culture. What confused me were attempts to amalgamate what I felt were two mutually contradictory elements-—--socialism and the class struggle on the one hand, and nationalism on the other. Or was the contradiction more apparent than real, I wondered. My friend’s nationalism did not go to the point of advocacy of a separate Black nation, He demanded only autonomy in leadership and organization of the Black freedom movement. Was this inconsistent with the concept of equality and class unity? Had not Blacks the right to formulate their conditions for unity? For me, this was the first time I had encountered these questions.<br />
<br />
I attempted to reflect on my short experience in the YCL. Was there not a basis for Black distrust of even white revolutionaries? ‘The situation in the League was not as idyllic as I had first thought. There was a certain underestimation of the importance of the Black struggle against discrimination and for equal rights among both the youth and the adults of the communist movement. Behind that, I sensed there was a feeling that the Black struggle was not itself really revolutionary, but was sort of a drag on the “pure” class struggle.<br />
<br />
This was no doubt a legacy of the old Socialist Party, Evensuch a revolutionary as Debs had said: <blockquote>'''“We have nothing special to offer the Negro, and we cannot make separate appeals to all the races, The Socialist Party is the party of the working-class, regardless of color.” And regarding the Afro-American question: “Social equality, forsooth ... is pure fraud and serves to mask the real issue, which is not social equality, but economic freedom.” “The Socialist platform has not a word in reference to ‘social equality.’ ”'''</blockquote>Evidently, there were a number of theoretical matters still to be cleared up on the question of the struggle for Black equality and freedom.<br />
<br />
I joined the Party itself in the spring of 1925, recruited by Robert Minor, with the consent of the League. I had quit the Santa Fe the summer before, and, totally committed to the communist cause, I then decided to devote more time to the work and to eventually becoming a professional revolutionary. I took extra jobs on weekends and worked banquets and an occasional extra trip on the road. I was living at home with my Mother, Father and sister, who had an infant child, David. All were employed, with my Mother accepting occasional catering jobs.<br />
<br />
Minor, whom I had known for some time, was a reconstructed white Southerner from Texas, a direct descendant of Sam Houston (first Governor of the Lone Star State), He was a former anarchist and one of the great political cartoonists of his day. His powerful cartoons were carried in the Sz. Louis Post-Dispatch, and later on in the old Masses (a cultural magazine of the left) and in the Daily Worker. Among his many talents, he was a journalist of no small ability. Having travelled widely in Europe as a news correspondent during the First World War, Minor had visited Russia during the revolutionary period and had met and spoken with Lenin.<br />
<br />
With these impressive credentials, he was now a member of the Party’s Central Committee and responsible for its Negro work. This was understood as an interim assignment, eventually to be taken over by a Black comrade as soon as one could be developed to fill the position. The person then being groomed for the job was Lovett Fort-Whiteman, who was then in Russia taking a crash course in communist leadership. He had been an associate of Briggs on The Crusader and also worked with Randolph and Owens on The Messenger. Later, as I recall, his selection was the cause for some disgruntlement among the Black comrades.<br />
<br />
Why was Fort-Whiteman chosen in preference to such wellknown and capable Blacks as Richard B. Moore, Otto Huiswood or Cyril P. Briggs, all of whom had revolutionary records superior to Fort-Whiteman’s? At that time, there were no Blacks on the Central Committee, and even when Fort-Whiteman returned from Russia in 1925 to take charge of Afro-American work, Minor remained responsible to the Central Committee. While not as flamboyant as Fort-Whiteman, these Black leaders had records comparable to, or better than, those of many whites on the Central Committee.<br />
<br />
Be that as it may, of all the white comrades, Minor was best fitted for the assignment because of his wide knowledge of and close interest in the question. His intense hatred of his Southern racist background came through in some of the most powerful cartoons of the day. He had wide acquaintances among Black middle class intellectuals. Bob and his wife Lydia had turned their Southside apartment into a virtual salon where Black and white friends would gather to discuss the issues of the day. There I met various Black notables, including Dean Pickens, national field secretary of the NAACP, and Abraham Harris, then secretary of the Minneapolis Urban League. Harris would later become Chairman of the Economies Department of Howard University, and then a full professor of the same subject at the University of Chicago.<br />
<br />
=== THE FOURTH CONVENTION OF THE CPUSA ===<br />
It was the period immediately before the Fourth National Convention of the Communist Party. The factional fight was at its height, with the Party split between two warring camps: the Ruthenberg-Pepper group vs. the Foster-Bittelman group. The atmosphere was rife with charges and counter-charges of “right opportunism” and “left sectarianism.” This factionalism had spilled over into the League, which reflected the alignments then current within the Party.<br />
<br />
I had stood aloof from these factions, as I did not clearly understand the issues. The question of Blacks did not seem to be directly involved. I assumed it was a clash mainly between personalities and narrow group interests, and did not reflect political principles. Each side accused the other of responsibility for the “Farmer-Labor fiasco” which left the Party isolated in its first major attempt to form a united front. I could sce no differences among the factions on the question of bolshevization of the Party.<br />
<br />
The Comintern had recently called upon the Party to bolshevize its ranks. Among other things, this called for the reorganization of the Party on the basis of shop and street units, and the elimination of the foreign language clubs as federated organizations within the Party. These clubs remained close to the Party, however, and followed its leadership.<br />
<br />
I was inclined to favor the Ruthenberg-Pepper group because most of the Party’s Black members--Doty, Elizabeth Griffin, Alonzo Isabel, Otto and my sister Eppa—were in that group. This, I suspected, was partly due to the influence of Bob Minor and Lydia Gibson—their work on the Southside in the tenants’ struggle of 1924, their support of Doty’s Consolidated Trades Council, and their consistent advocacy in the Party of the importance of work among Blacks. (Most of this occurred after I had Ieft the ABB and joined the YCL.)<br />
<br />
Upon joining the Party, I immediately became part of the Ruthenberg group. Under Minor’s tutelage, I was to undergo intensive indoctrination. According to the Ruthenberg faction, Foster, Bittelman, Jack Johnstone and their allies(Cannon, Dunne and Shachtman) were opportunist, narrow-minded trade unionists lacking in Marxist theory and hence in the ability to lead a Marxist party. They said that Foster’s group, which possessed a majority of the delegates, was out to steamroll the convention and toss Ruthenberg, Pepper and Lovestone out of the leadership.<br />
<br />
For most of us, the clincher was that the Foster group lacked the confidence of the Communist International. This latter charge, it seemed to me, was confirmed by the decisions of the Fourth Party Convention the following summer, I was a delegate to this convention from the YCL. I was to witness the intervention of the Cl in the person of its on-the-spot representative, Comrade Green (Gusev), an old Bolshevik friend and co-worker of Lenin and Stalin. For obvious security reasons, only the leaders of both factions had direct contact with him. His job was to suppress factionalism and to unite the Party on the basis of the Comintern line. I must say that he tackled this task with an expertise that was remarkable to behold.<br />
<br />
First, he set up what was called a Parity Committee, composed of an equal number of top leaders of both factions, with himself as a neutral chairman. Since the two factions were evenly represented on the committee, his was the deciding vote. I remember that there was widespread speculation among the delegates as to which faction he would support. We didn’t have long to wait.<br />
<br />
The convention had been in session about a week. The atmosphere was charged, passions inflamed, a split seemed imminent. Indeed, our caucus leaders had difficulty in preventing a walkout by some of the more hot-headed members. A message finally arrived in the form of a cable from the CI (which undoubtedly was sent at Gusev’s urging). The cable was presented to the Parity Committee by Gusev. It demanded that “under no circumstances” should the Foster majority “be allowed to suppress the Ruthenberg group... because,” it went on to say, “the Ruthenberg group is more loyal to the decisions of the Communist International and stands closer to its views. It has the majority or strong minority in most districts and the Foster group uses excessively mechanical and ultra-factional methods,” It further demanded that the Ruthenberg group “get not less than forty percent of the Central Executive Committee” and insisted as “an ultimatum” to the majority “that Ruthenberg retains post of Secretary...categorically insist upon Lovestone’s Central Executive Committee membership...demand retention by Ruthenberg group of co-editorship on central organ,”<br />
<br />
The results were greeted with great jubilation by our group. Foster refused to accept the majority of the incoming Central Committee under these circumstances (in which his loyalty was questioned) and ceded leadership to the Ruthenberg group. The result was that the Ruthenberg-Pepper group retained key positions on the new Central Committee--Ruthenberg as general secretary, Lovestone as organizational secretary, Bedacht as agitprop head.<br />
<br />
Despite factionalism, the convention marked a step forward in the work among Blacks, Although its decisions threw no new light on the question, the platform adopted did contain the most elaborate statement the Party had thus far made.<br />
<br />
It subscribed to full equality in the relationship between Black and white workers, It advocated the right to vote, abolition of Jim Crowism in law and custom, including segregation and intermarriage laws. The main thrust of the program, however, was directed towards building Black and white labor unity on the job and in the union, Toward this end the platform asserted that:<blockquote>'''Our Party must work among the unorganized Negro workers destroying whatever prejudice may exist against trade unions, which has been cultivated by white capitalists..(and) the Negro petty-bourgeoisie... Our Party must make itself the foremost spokesman for the real abolition of all discrimination of the as yet largely unorganized Negro workers in the same union with the white workers on the same basis of equality of membership, equality of right to employment in all branches of work and equality of pay.'''</blockquote>The Party called for the inclusion of Black workers in the existing unions. It came out against racial separatism and dual unionism, but it declared its intention to organize Blacks into separate unions wherever they were barred from existing organizations and to use the separation as a battering ram against Black exclusion. Emphasizing the relationship between these partial demands and ultimate goals, the platform declared that the accomplishment of the above aims was not an end in itself and that on the contrary, it was the struggle for their accomplishment that was even more important: <blockquote>'''In the course of the struggle with such demands we will demonstrate...that these aspirations can be realized only as a result of the successful class struggle against capitalism and with the establishment of the rule of the working class in the Soviet form.'''</blockquote>It must be remembered that by this time the attempts to infiltrate the Garvey movement had proven unsuccessful and that the African Blood Brotherhood, the sole revolutionary Black organization in the field, had been dissolved. To meet the necd for an organizational vehicle to put our program into effect, the Party and the Trade Union Educational League sponsored the American Negro Labor Congress (ANLC). <br />
<br />
In the meantime, Lovett Fort-Whiteman, our man in Moscow, returned to head up the Negro work and to prepare the launching of the ANLC. H.V. Phillips, Edwards, Doty and I were assigned to the organizing committce for the congress, drafting and circulating the call, and approaching organizations for delegates. As I remember, most of the Blacks in the Party were assigned to work on the congress. Otto was not involved in these activities, as immediately after the Fourth Party Convention, he had left for Moscow with the first batch of Black students. <br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman was truly a fantastic figure. A brown-skinned man of medium height, Fort-Whiteman’s high cheekbones gave him somewhat of an Oriental look. He had affected a Russian style of dress, sporting a robochka (a man’s long belted shirt) which came almost to his knees, ornamental belt, high boots and a fur hat. Here was a veritable Black Cossack who could be seen sauntering along the streets of Southside Chicago. Fort-Whiteman was a graduate of Tuskegec and, as I understood, had had some training as an actor, He had been a drama critic for The Messenger and for The Crusader. There was no doubt that he was a showman; he always seemed to be acting out a part he had chosen for himself.<br />
<br />
Upon his return from the Soviet Union, he held a number of press conferences in which he delineated plans for the American Negro Labor Congress, and as a Black communist fresh from Russia, he made good news copy.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman had taken responsibility for lining up enter tainment for the opening night of the congress. Characteristically, with his Russian affectations, he arranged for a program of Russian ballet and theater. The rest of us didn’t question what he was doing, and the incongruity of the program didn’t occur to us until the opening night.<br />
<br />
The mecting took place in a hall on Indiana Avenue near Thirty~ first Street, in the midst of the Black ghetto, When I arrived it was packed—-perhaps 500 people or so. Inside, I was suddenly attracted by a commotion at the door. Asa member of the steering committee, I walked over to see what was the matter. Something was amiss with the “Russian ballet” which was about to enter the hall. A young blonde woman in the “ballet” had been shocked by the complexion of most of the audience, which she had apparently expected to be of another hue. Loudly, in a broad Texas accent, she exclaimed, “Ah’m not goin’ ta dance for these niggahs!”<br />
<br />
Somebody shouted, “Throw the cracker bitches out!” and the “Russian” dance group hurriedly left the hall.<br />
<br />
The Russian actors remained to perform a one-act Pushkin play. They, at least, were genuine Russians from the Russian Federation, But alas, it was in Russian. Of itself, the play was undoubtedly interesting, but its relevance to a Black workers’ congress was, to say the least, unclear. Although Pushkin was a Black man, he wrote as a Russian, and the characters portrayed were Russian. More significant, however, and perhaps an indication of our sectarian approach, was the fact that no Black artist appeared on the program.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman made the keynote speech outlining the purposes and tasks of the congress. He was a passable orator and received a good response. Otto Huiswood, an associate of Briggs and one of the first Blacks to join the Party, also spoke. Richard B. Moore brought the house down with an impassioned speech which reached its peroration in Claude McKay's poem, “If We Must Die.” I was spellbound by Moore; I had never heard such oratory.<br />
<br />
That night, Phillips and I left the hall in high spirits. In fact, I was literally walking on air. At last, I felt, we were about to get somewhere in our work among Blacks. Phillips, a bit more sober than I, remarked, “Let’s wait and sec the report of the credentials committee.”<br />
<br />
His caution was justified, for the big letdown came the following morning. The first working session of the congress convened with about forty Black and white delegates, mainly communists and close sympathizers, The crowd of 500 at the opening night rally had been mainly community people. I think it was Phillips who remarked that there was hardly a face in the working session that he didn’t recognize; most participants, sadly, were from the Chicago arca.<br />
<br />
The organizing committee had prepared draft resolutions for the congress to consider. As we had anticipated a much larger turnout, we had made plans for a credentials committee, resolutions committee, etc. But in light of the small attendance, these resolutions and preparations took on an Alice-in-Wonderland quality. For example, according to the constitution, the group’s purpose was to “unify the efforts...of all organizations of Negro workers and farmers as well as organizations composed of both Negro and white workers and farmers."<br />
<br />
Despite our efforts and work, the ANLC never got off the ground. Few local units were formed, resolutions and plans were never carried into action. Only its official paper, the Negro Champion, subsidized by the Party, continued for several years. Among the post-mortems undertaken on the organization was the one made by James Ford in his book, The Negro and the Democratic Front, He commented that “for the period of its existence, it (the ANLC) was almost completely isolated from the basic masses of the Negro people." Disappointment and disillusionment followed and personal differences surfaced among our group. The fact was that the congress had failed, and with it, the first efforts to build a left-led united front among Blacks.<br />
<br />
There was a natural tendency to find seapegoats for the failure. Moore and Huiswood, the able delegates from New York, seemed to have come to Chicago witha chip on their shoulders. They made no attempt to hide their contempt for Fort-Whiteman, whom they had known in New York. They openly alluded to him as “Minor’s man Friday.” At the time, I was a bit shocked at what I felt was an attempt to malign these comrades. This was especially true of Bob Minor, whom I regarded with respect and affection. He was sort of a father figure to me.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman, on the other hand, was still an unknown quantity. My feelings about him were rather mixed. I was both repelled and fascinated by the excessive flamboyance of the man. But much later, I recalled overhearing a conversation between him and Minor during the preparations for the congress. Minor informed Fort-Whiteman that Ben Fletcher, the well-known Black IWW Leader, had expressed a desire to participate in the congress, It was evident that Bob was pleased by the response of such an important Black labor leader. Fletcher, as an IWW organizer, had played a leading role in the successful organization of Philadelphia longshoremen, His attendance would undoubtedly have attracted other Blacks in the labor movement.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman, however, vehemently opposed the idea and exclaimed, “I don’t want to work with him; I know him. He’s the kind of fellow who'll try to take over the whole show.” That ended the discussion; Fletcher was not invited. .<br />
<br />
I didn’t know Fletcher at the time, but as I reflected back onthe incident some time later, it was clear to me that had he been allowed to participate, Fort-Whiteman would have been overshadowed. I was too new to pass judgment on Fort-Whiteman’s qualifications, but I did wonder why he was chosen over such stalwarts as Moore and Huiswood. Huiswood, as a delegate to the Fourth Congress of the Comintern in 1922, was the first Black American to attend a congress of that body. (Claude McKay was also a special fraternal delegate to that congress.) Together with other delegates, Huiswood visited Lenin and became the first Black man to meet the great Bolshevik. He later became the first Black to serve as a candidate member of the Executive Committee of the Communist International.<br />
<br />
On the whole, I was very optimistic during my early years in the Party—confident we were building the kind of party that would eventually triumph over capitalism.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 5 ==<br />
<br />
=== A Student in Moscow ===<br />
Otto’s delegation of Black students to the Soviet Union caused quite a stir in the States. The FBI kept an eye on their activities and, in late summer 1925, their departure was sensationalized in the New York Times.! The article attributed a statement to Lovett Fort-Whiteman to the effect that he had sent ten Blacks to the Soviet Union to study bolshevism and prepare for careers in the communist “diplomatic service.” The article concluded with a statement calling for action against such “subversive activity.”<br />
<br />
At the time, we all felt that any Black applying for a passport would be subjected to close scrutiny. Therefore, when I learned that I too would soon be studying in Moscow, I applied for a first names of my Mother (Harriet) and Father (Haywood). This name was to stick with me the rest of my life.<br />
<br />
Several weeks after I received my passport, I heard the FBI had been making inquiries about me. By that time, I had become known as one of the founders of the ANLC. Therefore, as the time for my departure drew near, I hid out at the home of comrades on Chicago's Westside until arrangements were made. I went to the national office of the Communist Party, then in Chicago, and was informed by Ruthenberg or Lovestone that I should get ready to leave, Political credentials, typed on silk, were sewn into the lining of my coat sleeve. In order to avoid going through the port of New York, I left by way of Canada.<br />
<br />
In the manner of the old Underground Railroad, I was passed on from one set of comrades to the next: from Detroit, Rudy Baker, the district organizer, forwarded me on to the Canadian Party headquarters in Toronto where Jim MacDonald and Tim Buck were in charge. They sent me on to Montreal where comrades housed me and booked passage for me to Hamburg, Germany. Boarding ship in Quebec in the late spring of 1926, I sailed on the Canadian Pacific liner, the old Empress of Scotland. From Hamburg, I took a train to Berlin, arriving on a Saturday afternoon,<br />
<br />
Thad the address of Hazel Harrison the wife of a Chicago friend of mine who was a concert pianist studying in Berlin, where she had had her professional debut. (Years later, she was to head the Music Department at Howard University.) At that time, she was living at a boarding house near the Kurfurstendamm and I stopped there for the remainder of the weekend.<br />
<br />
This was the first time I had been in Berlin, Germany was then emerging from post-war crisis, during which currency inflation had reached astronomical heights, resulting in the virtual expropriation of a large section of the middle class. It was common to see shabbily dressed men still trying to keep up appearances by wearing starched white collars under their patched clothing,<br />
<br />
The owners of the boarding house, two middle-aged widows who were friends of Hazel’s, showed me a trunk filled with paper notes—-old German marks which were now worthless. This had probably represented a life’s savings.<br />
<br />
Hazel and her two friends took me out to the Tiergarten—the famous Berlin Zoo. I was attracted by the sight of three lion cubs that had been mothered by a German police dog. The cubs were getting big, and it was clear that the “mother” was no longer able to control them. We watched for some time, fascinated. I turned around and realized that there was a crowd around us. At first I thought they were looking at the cubs, but then it became clear that Hazel and I were the center of attention. Blacks were rare in Berlin in those days-—there were only half a dozen or so, mostly from the former German colonies of the Cameroons.<br />
<br />
Monday morning I took a cab to the headquarters of the German Party, at Karl Marx House on Rosenthallerstrasse. It was a dour, fortress-like structure, with high walls surrounding the main building which was set in the middle. I entered into the anteroom just inside the walls, in which there were a number of sturdy looking young men lounging around. When I came in, they jumped up and stood eyeing me suspicously.<br />
<br />
They were unarmed, but I knew their weapons were within arms’ reach, This was a symbol of the times for it was not long after the Beer Hall Putsch of Hitler’s brownshirts in Munich, and the battle for the streets of Berlin had already begun. I presented my credentials to a man named Walters, who was undoubtedly the head of security.<br />
<br />
It was on this occasion that I first met Ernst Thaelmann, a former Hamburg longshoreman and then leader of the German Communist Party. He was passing through the gate and Walters stopped him and introduced us. Thaelmann spoke fairly good English (probably acquired in his work as a seaman) and we chatted. a while. He asked after Foster, Ruthenberg and others. Wishing me good luck, he passed on his way.<br />
<br />
Walters gave me some spending money and arranged for me to stay with some German comrades, a young couple who had an elaborate apartment. The husband ran a haberdashery store on Friedrichstrasse and was a commander in the Rote Front (the red front)---the para-military organization which the communists had organized for defense of workers against the fascists.<br />
<br />
One day while walking down the Kurfurstendamm, I saw a cabaret billboard advertising the Black jazz band of Leland and Drayton and their Charleston dancers. It was a well-known band back. in the States. I had little money, but I couldn’t resist the temptation to stop in and hear them. I sat down at a table and ordered a beer. ‘To my dismay, the waiter said they didn’t sell beer, just wine. So | took the wine card and chose the cheapest bottle I could find.<br />
<br />
A number of band members and dancers came over to my table and asked where I was going. When I told them I was a student going to Moscow, they said they had just returned from a six-month tour in Russia, They were the first Black jazz group that had gone to the Soviet Union. I asked if they had met Otto and the other Black students there. Yes, they had met them all and they had had good times together. So we all sat down to exchange news.<br />
<br />
As we talked, I began to worry about the bill, and said I was low on money. “Oh, don’t worry about that,” someone said and ordered more wine. But when it came time to pay for the drinks, I got stuck with the whole tab and had to walk several miles across town to get home.<br />
<br />
After a month in Berlin, my visa came through. I was on my way to Stettin, a city on the Baltic Sea which bordered Poland and where I boarded a small Soviet ship. After three days of some of the roughest seas I have ever experienced, we landed in Leningrad. It was April 1926, and we were already in the season of the “white nights,” when daylight lasted until late into the evening.<br />
<br />
As we entered the Gulf of Finland the following morning, we passed the naval fortress of Kronstadt about twenty miles out from Leningrad (the site of the anti-Soviet mutiny of 1920). The ship finally docked in Leningrad. Upon landing, I presented my visa and passport to the authorities, Addressing me in English, a man in civilian dress said, “Oh, you’re going to the Comintern school in Moscow?”<br />
<br />
“Yes,” I replied.<br />
<br />
He immediately took me in charge and got my baggage through customs. I assumed he was a member of the security police. We left the customs building and got into an old beat-up Packard. As we drove away from the docks, he informed me that the Moscow train would not leave until eight that evening. He put me up at a hotel where I could rest and go out to see the city.<br />
<br />
Leningrad (old St. Petersburg) was built by Czar Peter the Great in the sixteenth century and now renamed for the architect of the new socialist society. As I walked down the now famous Nevsky Prospekt, I thought of John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook the World, trying to recapture some of the dramatic scenes in that classic. I passed the Peter and Paul Fortress and then the Winter Palace---once the home of the czars and now a museum of the people. The storming of the Winter Palace in 1917 had been the crucial event in the taking of St. Petersburg by the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
The people I saw passing me on the street were plainly dressed. Many of the men wore the traditional robochka and high boots; others were in European dress. Most people were dressed neatly, though shabhily, and all appeared to be well-fed. They were bright and cheerful, It seemed they went ahout with a purpose—a sharp contrast to the atmosphere of hopelessness that had pervaded Berlin, People in Leningrad looked at me---and I looked at them. By this time, I had become used to being stared at and took it as friendly curiosity. After all, a Black man was seldom seen in those parts.<br />
<br />
After several hours, I returned to my hotel. My friend from the security police showed up promptly at seven with my train ticket and took me to the station to put me on the train to Moscow. Filled with excitement and anticipation, I got little sleep on the train and awoke early to see the Russian landscape flowing by my window— pine forests, groves of birch trees and swamps. I was in the midst of the great Russian steppes.<br />
<br />
When we arrived in Moscow at Yaroslavsky Station, some of my traveling companions hailed a droshky and told the driver to take me to the Comintern.<br />
<br />
Moscow at last! We drove from the station into the vast sprawling city--once the capital of old Russia and now of the new. It was a bright, sunny morning and the sun glistened off the golden church domes in the “city of a thousand churches.” It seemed a maze of narrow, cobblestone streets, intersected by broad boulevards. While Leningrad had been a distinctly European city, Moscow seemed a mixture of the Asiatic and the European—a bizarre and strange combination to me, but a cheerful one. Moscow was more Russian than the cosmopolitan Leningrad. Crowds swarmed in the streets in many different styles of dress.<br />
<br />
We arrived at the Comintern, which was housed in an old eighteenth century structure on Ulitsa Komintern near the Kremlin, across the square from Staraya Konyushnya (the old stables of the czar). I paid the driver and entered the building. The guard at the door checked my credentials and directed me upstairs to a small office on the third floor. After producing my bonafides, I was told to take a seat, to wait for my comrades who would soon becoming for me.<br />
<br />
About half an hour later, Otto and another Black man entered the room. I was overjoyed at the sight of him and his friend, who turned out to be a fellow student, Harold Williams. We embraced Russian style, and I began to feel more at home in this strange jand.<br />
<br />
Otto asked about the family. An expression of sadness crossed his face, however, when I asked him about the rest of the Black students, He then informed me of Jane Golden’s serious illness. She was at that moment in a uremic coma from a kidney ailment and was not expected to live. Her husband was at her side at the hospital. (Though both were from Chicago, I had not met them before.)<br />
<br />
The situation had saddened the whole Black student body, and for that matter, the whole school. In the course of her brief sojourn, Jane had become very popular. Otto described her in glowing terms—a real morale booster, whose spirit had helped all of them through the period of initial adjustment.<br />
<br />
I was impressed. Here was a Black woman, not a member of the Communist Party, who had so easily become accustomed to the new Soviet socialist society. It seemed to me that there must be thousands of Black women like her in the U.S.<br />
<br />
After we had greeted each other, we caught a droshky over to the school in order that I might register officially. In the course of the ride, the driver lashed his horse and cursed at him. I asked Otto what he was saying, and he gave a running translation: “Get up there, you son-of-a-bitch. I feed you oats while I myself eat black bread! Your sire was no good, you bastard, your momma was no good too!” This verbal and physical abuse, Otto told me, was typical of most Russian droshky drivers.<br />
<br />
We finally arrived at the school administration which was housed in another old seventeenth century structure, built before the Revolution. It had been a finishing school for daughters of the aristocracy. Before that, it had been a boys’ school where, rumor has it, the great Pushkin had studied.<br />
<br />
Otto introduced me to the university rector with what sounded to my untrained ear like fluent Russian. We then went to the office of the chancellor, where I was duly registered. I was now a student at the Universitet Trydyashchiysya Vostoka Imeni Stalina (the University of the Toilers of the East Named for Stalin)---Russian acronym KUTVA, Otto and I then walked to the dormitory a few blocks away where I met the other two Black students, Bankole and Farmer,<br />
<br />
We all immediately took a streetcar to the hospital which was located on the other side of the Moscow River. There we were met by Golden and some other students who informed us that Jane Golden had just passed away that morning, Golden seemed to be in a state of shock and the doctors had given him some sedatives. We went into the hospital morgue to view her body. Bankole broke down in uncontrollable tears, I learned afterwards that Jane had been a close friend—a kind of mother to him during the period of his adjustment to this new land.<br />
<br />
We took Golden home to the dormitory. The school collective and its leaders immediately took over the funeral arrangements. The body lay in state in the school auditorium for twenty-four hours, during which time the students thronged past.<br />
<br />
The funeral was held the following day and the whole school turned out. The cortege seemed a mile long as it flowed past Tverskaya towards the cemetery. The students would not allow the casket to be placed upon the cart, but organizing themselves in relays every fifty yards, insisted on carrying it the distance of several miles on their shoulders,<br />
<br />
A good portion of the American colony in Moscow was assembled at the cemetery. The chairman of the school collective, a young Georgian, delivered a stirring eulogy at the graveside. One of the students who was standing next to me made a running translation sotto voce which went something like this:<br />
<br />
The first among her race to come to the land of socialism...in search of freedom for her oppressed peoples, former slaves... to find out how the Soviets had done it. We were happy to receive her and her comrades...condolences to her bereaved husband, our Comrade Golden, and to the rest of the Negro Students,..the whole university has suffered a great loss. Rest in peace, Jane Golden. You were with us only a short time, but all of us have benefitted from your presence and comradeship,<br />
<br />
Turning to Golden, he said:<br />
<br />
We Soviet people and comrades of oppressed colonial and dependent countries must carry on. We pledge our undying support to the cause of your people’s freedom. Long live the freedom fight of our Negro brothers in America! Long live the Soviet Union and its Communist Party, beacon light of the struggle for freedom of all oppressed peoples.<br />
<br />
Golden had borne himself well at the graveside, but we didn't want him to return to his room in the students’ dormitory, which would only remind him of his grievous loss. So we went to the apartment of MacCloud, an old Wobbly friend of ours from Philadelphia, who had attended the funeral and who lived in the Zarechnaya District, across the river. He was a close friend of Big Bill Haywood and had followed the great working class leader to the Soviet Union, There we tried to drown our sorrows in good old Russian vodka, which was in plentiful supply.<br />
<br />
Jane Golden’s funeral and the school collective’s response to her death made a profound impression on me, Through these events, crammed into the first three days of my stay in the Soviet Union, I came to know something about my fellow students and the new socialist society into which I had entered<br />
<br />
=== THE BOLSHEVIKS FIGHT FOR EQUALITY OF NATIONS ===<br />
KUTVA was a unique university. At the time I entered, its student body represented more than seventy nationalities and ethnic groups. It was founded by the Bolsheviks for the special purpose of training cadre from the many national and ethnic groups within the Soviet Union—the former colonial dependencies of the czarist empire—and also to train cadres from colonies and subject nations outside the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
The school was divided into two sections-—inner and outer. At the inner section there were Turkmenians, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Bashkirs, Yakuts, Chuvashes, Kazaks, Kalmucks, Buryat-Mongols and Inner and Outer Mongolians from Soviet Asia. From the Caucasus there were Azerbaidzhanis, Armenians, Georgians,<br />
<br />
Abkhazians and many other national and ethnic groups I had never heard of before, There were Tartars from the Crimea and the Volga region,<br />
<br />
The national and ethnic diversity found within the Soviet Union is hard to imagine. The Revolution had opened up many areas, for example through the Trans-Caucasus Road, and as late as 1928, the existence of new groups was still being “discovered.” These nationalities were all former colonial dependencies of the czars and were referred to as the “Soviet East,” “peoples of the East,” and “borderland countries,” The inner section comprised the main and largest part of the student body in the university.<br />
<br />
We Blacks were of course part of the outer section at the school. It included Indians, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, Persians, Egyptians, Arabs and Palestinian Jews from the Middle East, Arabs from North Africa, Algerians, Moroccans, Chinese and several Japanese (hardly a colonial people, but as revolutionaries, identified with the East).<br />
<br />
The Chinese, several hundred strong, comprised the largest group of the outer section, This was obviously because China, bordering on the USSR, was in the first stage of its own antiimperialist revolution, a revolution receiving direct material and political support from the Soviet Union. While KUTVA trained the communist cadres from China, there was also the Sun Yat-sen University, just outside of Moscow, which trained cadres for the Kuomintang.<br />
<br />
Among its students was the daughter of the famous Christian general, Chang Tso-lin, Several Chinese, including Chiang Kaishek’s son, studied in Soviet military schools during this period. A number of the Chinese students from KUTVA were massacred by Chiang’s troops at the Manchurian border when they returned to China shortly after Chiang’s bloody betrayal of the revoiution in 1927, Otto told me that a former girlfriend of his was among this group. As I remember, there were no Latin Americans at KUTVA during the time I was there, and the sole black African was Bankole, The student body was continually expanding, however, and later included many students from these and other areas.<br />
<br />
We students studied the classic works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. But unlike the past schooling we had known, this whole body of theory was related to practice. Theory was not regarded as dogma, but as a guide to action.<br />
<br />
In May 1925, Stalin had delivered an historic speech at the school, outlining KUTV A’s purpose and its main task. His lecture was the subject of continuous discussion and study. It was our introduction to the Marxist theory on the national question and its development by Lenin and Stalin.<br />
<br />
How did the Bolsheviks transform a territory embracing onesixth of the earth’s surface—known as the “prison-house of nations” under the Czar-—into a family of nations, a free union of peoples? What was the policy pursued by the Soviets which enabled them to forge together more than a hundred different stages of social development into such extraordinary unity of effort for the building of a multinational socialist state—the kind of unity that enabled them to win the civil war within and to defeat the intervention of seventeen nations, including the United States, from without.<br />
<br />
The starting point for us was to understand that the formation of peoples into nations is an objective law of social development around which the Bolsheviks, particularly Lenin and Stalin, had developed a whole body of theory. According to this theory, a nation is an historically constituted stable community of people, based on four main characteristics; a common territory, a common economic life, a common language and a common psychological makeup (national character) manifested in common features in a national culture, Since the development of imperial ism, the liberation of the oppressed nations has become a question whose final resolution would only come through proletarian revolution.<br />
<br />
The guiding principle of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on the national question was to bring about the unity of the laboring masses of the various nationalities for the purpose of waging a joint struggle—first to overthrow czarism and imperialism, and then to build the new society under a working class dictatorship. The accomplishment of the latter required the establishment of equality before the law for all nationalities —with no special privileges for any one people-—and the right of the colonies and subject nations to separate.<br />
<br />
This principle was incorporated into the law of the land in the Declaration of Rights of the People of Russia, passed a few days after the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks. Of course, the declaration of itself did not eliminate national inequality, which as Stalin had observed, “rested on economic inequality, historically formed.” To eliminate this historically based economic and cultural inequality imposed by the czarist regimes upon the former oppressed nations, it was required that the more developed nations assist these formerly oppressed nations and peoples to catch up with the Great Russians in economic and cultural development,<br />
<br />
In pursuance of this aim, the new government was organized on a bicameral basis. One body was chosen on the basis of population alone, the other, the Council of Nationalities, consisted of representatives from each of the national territorial units.the autonomous Soviet republics, autonomous regions and national areas, Any policy in regard to the affairs of these formerly oppressed nations could be carried through only with the approval of the Council of Nationalities. The Communist Party, through its members, was involved in both bodies and worked to see that its policy of full equality and the right of self-determination was implemented,<br />
<br />
As this theory was put into practice, we learned that national cultures could be expressed with a proletarian (socialist) content and that there was no antagonistic contradiction, under socialism, between national cultures and proletarian internationalism. Under the Soviets, the languages and other national characteristics of the many nationalities were developed and strengthened with the aim of drawing the formerly oppressed nationalities into full participation in the new society. Thus, the Bolsheviks upheld the principle of “proletarian in content, national in form.” Through this policy, they hoped to draw all nationalities together, acquainting each with the achievements of the others, leading to a truly universal culture, a joint product of all humanity.<br />
<br />
This is in sharp contrast to imperialism’s policy of forcibly arresting and distorting the free development of nations in order to maintain their economic and cultural backwardness as an essential condition for the extraction of superprofits. Thus, the oppressed nations can achieve liberation only through the path of revolutionary struggle to overthrow imperialism and in alliance with the working class of the oppressor nations. Stalin, proceeding from the experience and practice of the Soviet Union, emphasized the need for the formation and consolidation of a united revolutionary front between the working class of the West and the rising revolutionary movements of the colonies.--a united front based on a struggle against a common enemy. The precondition for forming such unity is that the proletariat of the oppressor nations gives:<blockquote>'''direct and determined support to the liberation movement of the oppressed peoples against the imperialism of its “own country,” for “no nation can be free if it oppresses other nations.” (Engels)... This support implies the advocacy, defense and implementation of the slogan of the right of nations to secession, to independent existence as states'''.</blockquote>Without this cooperation of peoples based on mutual confidence and fraternal interrelations, it will be impossible to establish the material basis for the victory of socialism.<br />
<br />
The test of all this theory was being proven in practice in the Soviet Union. The experience of the Bolsheviks demonstrably proved to us that socialism offered the most favorable conditions for the full development of oppressed nations and peoples.<br />
<br />
At the time of the Revolution, there were many nationalities within the borders of the Soviet Union in which the characteristics of nationhood had not yet fully matured, and in fact had been suppressed by the czars. It was the Soviet system itself which became a powerful factor in the consolidation of these nationalities into nations, as socialist industry and collective farming created the economic basis for this consolidation.<br />
<br />
I observed this firsthand in the Crimea and the Caucasus during my visits there in the summers of 1927 and 1928. The language and culture which had been stifled under the czarist regime were now being developed. The language of the Crimean people was a Turko-Tartar language, but before the Revolution, almost all education, such as there was, was in the Russian language. Now there were schools established which used the native language. Otto and other students made similar observations when they traveled to different areas of the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, | was having my own problems with the Russian language. On first hearing it, the language had sounded most strange to me. I could hardly understand a word and wondered if I would ever be able to master it. As the youngest Black American, I applied myself seriously to its study. The first hurdle was the Cyrillic alphabet—-its uniquely different characters intimidated me. But the crash course at KUTVA, lasting about an hour and a half per day, soon broke down this initial barrier.<br />
<br />
In addition, I studied on my own for a couple of hours each day. I would set out to memorize twenty new words a day, Then at night, | would write them out on a sheet of paper and pin them above the mirror in my room. I would then go over them again in the morning while shaving, and during the day I would make sure to use them in conversation with the Russians.<br />
<br />
English grammar had always seemed irrelevant to me, but I soon came to appreciate the logic of Russian grammar. In fact, I learned most of my English grammar through the study of Russian. Its rules were consistent and understandable. ‘The language soon ceased to be mysterious and revealed itself as being beautifully and simply constructed. In six months | was able to read Pravda with the help of a dictionary.<br />
<br />
=== KUTVA: STRUCTURE AND STUDIES ===<br />
The school structure was fairly complicated, but, as I saw it, thoroughly democratic. There was the collective, the general body which ineluded everybody in the school—from the rector, faculty, students, clerical and maintenance workers to the scrubwoman. The leading body of the collective was the bureau—-composed of representatives clected by the various groups in the university. There was also a Communist Party organization which played the leadership role at all levels.<br />
<br />
Originally established by the Council of Nationalities, KUTVA was now a Party school, administered by the Educational Department (AGITPROP) of the Central Committee of the CPSU. There was a direct representative of the Party, called a “Party strengthener,” in the school administration, Together with the rector and a representative of the students, he was part of the “troika” which constituted the top leadership of the school.<br />
<br />
Students had the rights of citizens, voting and participating in local elections, The school discussed and dealt with all the issues which Soviet workers and peasants discussed at their work places. As with all students who pursued courses in higher education in the Soviet Union, we at KUTVA received full room and board, clothes and a small stipend for spending money. There was, of course, no tuition, We used to attend workers’ cultural clubs and do volunteer work, like working Saturdays to help build the Moscow subways. Education for us was not an ivory tower, but a true integration into the Soviet society, where we received firsthand knowledge from our experiences.<br />
<br />
The curriculum (which was a three-year course) was based on Marxism-Leninism; that is, the teachings of Marx and Engels as developed by Lenin. It included dialectical and historical materialism, the Marxist world concept; the Marxist theory of class struggle as the motive force of human events, the economic doctrines of Marx: value and surplus value, as a key to understanding history by revealing the economic law of motion of modern capitalist societies, Lenin’s analysis of imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism; theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat and its Soviet state form; the problems of socialist construction; Lenin’s theory on the peasant question-—the alliance of workers and peasants as the base for Soviet power; the national and colonial questions; and the role of the party as vanguard of the proletariat. We also studied the specifie history of the CPSU.<br />
<br />
Our favorite teacher was Endré Sik, who taught courses on Leninism and the history of the Soviet Party. Sik was a striking young man. His distinguishing feature was a large shock of white hair, unusual for a manso young---he was probably in his thirties. He was soft-spoken and modest. We all loved Sik; he was an outgoing person who radiated warmth.<br />
<br />
Sik was a Hungarian, a politieal refugee living in Russia, He had been a soldier in the Austro-Hungarian Army during the First World War. Captured by the Russians, he was converted to Bolshevism while in a Russian prison camp. On his release, he had gone baek to Hungary and participated in the short-lived (133 days) Hungarian Soviet government of 1919 of Béla Kun, Withthe defeat of the Béla Kun government, Sik—along with hundreds of other revolutionaries—fled to the Soviet Union. Hungarian exiles made up one of Moscow’s largest foreign colonies. In Moscow, Sik pursued an academic career. He was a graduate of the Institute of Red Professors and like many Hungarian intellectuals, he was multilingual.<br />
<br />
For all his good nature, Sik seemed tired and harassed. He was teaching in many schools, in addition to activity in the Hungarian community. Seven years after the defeat of the Hungarian Soviet, the exiled revolutionaries were bitterly divided and factionalized, laying blame on each other for the failure of the revolution,<br />
<br />
Sik beeame deeply interested in the question of Blacks in the United States and undertook a serious study of the question. He read all the books available and also asked the Black students at KUTVA to join with him. Unfortunately for our personal relationship, Sik and I were to find ourselves on opposite sides of the fenee in the discussion of Black Americans which took place at the Sixth Congress of the Communist International in June 1928.<br />
<br />
Our teacher of Marxist economics was a young man by the name of Rubenstein, a Russian economist in the Gosplan (Governmental Planning Commission). The star pupil in that class turned out to be our modest friend Golden. Golden, who had known nothing about Marxism before eoming to the Soviet Union, was able to grasp the intricacies of Marx’s Capital and Value, Price and Profit seemingly without effort.<br />
<br />
A class that stands out in my memory was one on how tomakea revolution, to seize power onee the situation was ripe. This course eonsisted of a series of Jeetures by a young Red Army officer. He had been a heroie figure in the Moscow uprising of 1917 and the subsequent seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in that city. A tall, handsome young man of bourgeois background, he had been a lieutenant in the army of the Kerensky government. Like many other soldiers, he had been won over by the Bolsheviks on the basis of their demands, which reflected the needs of the people. peace, bread and land. To him, the Moscow uprising against Kerensky, led by the Bolsheviks, was a model for the coming seizure of power in the big cities of the capitalist world.<br />
<br />
He had a large map of Moscow on the wall and would use it to illustrate how it had been done. The eall for the uprising, he said, had come to the Moseow Communist Party by telephone from Leningrad, where the revolutionary workers, sailors and army under the leadership of Lenin had overthrown the Kerensky government and seized power in that eity.<br />
<br />
In Moscow, the Party organization, already prepared, issued a call to the people for an uprising. His regiment, stationed on the outskirts of the eity, together with red guards (workers’ militia), responded and began to march towards the center of the city. The White Guardists were concentrated in the Arbot and in the Kremlin, Here he pointed out, in Russian and other European cities, the working class districts were centered around factories on the outskirts of the city and Moseow was cireled by workers suburbs. Together with defected units of other regiments and with red guards, they marehed towards Moscow’s central area, whence fighting spread throughout the city--even into the trans-Moscow district. The reds finally wiped out the White Guardist strongholds, and the Kremlin, which had changed hands two times before in the fighting, finally surrendered,<br />
<br />
Moscow was ours!<br />
<br />
=== CLASSMATES AT KUTVA ===<br />
Beeausc of the language problem, we students from outside the Soviet Union were subdivided into three main language groups: English, French and Chinese. English and French were the dominant languages of the many colonial areas represented at the university. Spanish was later added when Latin American students began to arrive. In addition to ourselves, the English-speaking group included East Indians, Koreans, Japanese and Indonesians. I had many close friends in this latter group.<br />
<br />
One of the most interesting and brilliant was an Indian student by the name of Sakorov. (They all took Russian names because of the severe repression which they faced back home.) A former machinist in a Detroit auto plant, Sakorov had been sent to the school by the American Party.<br />
<br />
Originally from Bombay, Sakorov had gone to sea on a British ship at the age of twelve and had been subjected to very oppressive conditions his whole career at sea. He eventually jumped ship in Baltimore and wound up working in an auto plant in Detroit. Of all the group of students, he was the closest to us Blacks, He knew first hand the plight of Blacks in the United States, and as a dark skinned Indian, he had experienced much of the same type of racial abuse while there, After he left the school, he returned to India, where he became one of the founders of the Indian Communist Party.<br />
<br />
Later, more Indian students were to come, including one sixteen year old—a tall, lanky boy who took the name of Volkoy. He had been born in California; his parents were Sikhs who had migrated to the U.S. and worked as agricultural workers in the Imperial Valley of California. They were part of a foreign contingent of the Ghadr Party, a revolutionary nationalist party of Sikhs which had been organized in 1916. The Party would pick out young men to be future leaders; Volkov was chosen and sent to Japan for education and stayed there a year. Then he was sent to study in the Soviet Union, perhaps by the Japanese Party. He spoke Japanese and English.<br />
<br />
Among the Indian students was a group of about half a dozen Sikhs, former professional soldiers, survivors of the Hong Kong massacre of 1926. On the pretext of quelling an “imminent mutiny,” the British colonel of the regiment stationed in Hong Kong had called the unarmed Sikh soldiers into the regimental square and turned machine guns on them. (All regiments in the Indian Army included a British machine gun company as a safeguard against mutiny.) Several hundred were killed or wounded. As I understood it, the massacre was engineered to quell the protests over conditions which were being raised by members of the Ghadr Party and its supporters.<br />
<br />
The group who arrived in Moscow were among the few who escaped over the walls; they had fled to Shanghai where they were taken in charge by M.N. Roy, an Indian and then Comintern representative to China. Roy sent them to Moscow. These students, some of them older grey-bearded men, had spent their whole lives in the British Indian Army, They represented a special problem for the school, because most of them had had very little education of any kind. They were not brought into our class, but were put into a special group under the tutelage of Volkov, Sakorov and other of the regular Indian students,<br />
<br />
It was my good fortune to meet many of these Indian students again in 1942, when I was in Bombay as a merchant seaman, Most of them were leading figures in the Indian revolutionary movement. Sakorov had been a defendant in one of the Merut trials, having been charged with “conspiracy against the king,” Since his return to India, he had spent eleven years in prison. Nada, another former schoolmate, was president of the Indian Friends of the Soviet Union and very active among the students and youth,<br />
<br />
There were several Koreans and Japanese at the school, and two Indonesians. I remember Dirja particularly well. A Dutcheducated Indonesian intellectual, he was an old revolutionary who had spent many years in prison. There was another Indonesian, a young man (whose name I cannot recall), who later emerged as a communist leader and was killed in the Indonesian revolt of 1946.<br />
<br />
Kemal Pasha (a party name conferred on him by Sakorov) was a grey-eyed Moroccan from the Riffian tribe of Abdul Krim, I met Kemal Pasha again in Paris during the Spanish Civil War. There were also two whites in the group-June Kroll, then the wife of an American communist leader, Carl Reeves; and Max Halff, a young English lad of Russian-Jewish parentage.<br />
<br />
=== BLACKS IN MOSCOW ===<br />
We students were a fairly congenial lot and in particular I got to know the other Black students quite well. Golden was a handsome, jet-Black man; a former Tuskegee student and a dining car waiter, He was not a member of the Communist Party, but was a good friend of Lovett Fort-Whiteman, head of the Party's Afro-American work.<br />
<br />
Golden told me that his coming to the Soviet Union had been accidental. He had run into Fort-Whiteman, a fellow student at Tuskegee, on the streets of Chicago, Fort-Whiteman had just returned from Russia and was dressed in a Russian blouse and hoots.<br />
<br />
As Golden related it: “I asked Fort-Whiteman what the hell he was wearing, Had he come off the stage and forgotten to change clothes? He informed me that these were Russian clothes and that he had just returned from that country.”<br />
<br />
Golden at first thought it was a put-on, but became interested as Fort-Whiteman talked about his experiences. “Then out of the blue, he asks me if I want to go to Russia as a student. At first, I thought he was kidding, but man, I would have done anything to get off those dining cars! I was finally convinced that he was serious. ‘But I’m married,’ I told him. ‘What about my wife? ‘Why, bring her along too!’ he replied. He took me to his office at the American Negro Labor Congress, an impressive set-up with a secretary, and I was convinced, Fort-Whiteman gave me money to get passports, and the next thing I knew, a couple of weeks later we were on the boat with Otto and the others on the way to Russia. And here I am now.”<br />
<br />
He had a keen sense of humor and kidded the rest of us a lot, particularly Otto, His Southern accent carried over into Russian, and we teased him about being the only person who spoke Russian with a Mississippi accent,<br />
<br />
Then there was Bankole, an African who spent most of his time with the Black Americans. He was an Ashanti, from the Gold Coast (now Ghana) and his family was part of the African elite.<br />
<br />
The son of a wealthy barrister, his family had sent him to London University to study journalism, From there, he had gone to Carnegie Tech in Pittsburgh.<br />
<br />
He had been on the road to becoming a perennial student and had planned to continue at McGill University in Montreal, but was recruited to the Young Communist League in Pittsburgh. In the States, he was confronted with a racism more blatant than any he had met before. I gathered that this had struck him sharply and had been largely responsible for his move to the left,<br />
<br />
My brother Otto had become sort of a character in the school, He was popular among the students, who immediately translated his pseudonym “John Jones” into the Russian “Ivan Ivanovich,” Otto had ahsolutely no tolerance for red tape, and he had hecome a mortal enemy of the apparatchiki (petty bureaucrats) in the school. He had built a reputation for making their lives miserable, and when they saw him coming, they would huddle in a corner; “Here comes Ivan Ivanovich. Ostorozhno (watch out)! Bolshoi skandal budyet (this guy will make a big scandal)!”<br />
<br />
Harold Williams of Chicago was a West Indian and former seaman in the British merchant marine, He had adopted the name of Dessalines, one of the three leaders of the Haitian revolution of the 1790s. Williams had little formal education and some difficulty in grasping theory, but was instinctively a class-conscious guy.<br />
<br />
Finally, there was Mahoney, whose name in the USSR was Jim Farmer. Farmer was a steelworker from East Liverpool, Ohio, a Communist Party member and had played a leading role in local struggles in the steel mills.<br />
<br />
There were only eight of us Blacks in a city of 4,500,000 people. In addition to the six students, there were also two Black American women who had long residence (since before the Revolution) in Moscow.<br />
<br />
I only knew one of the women, Emma Harris. We first met on the occasion of the death of Jane Golden. Emma was a warm, outgoing and earthy middle-aged woman, originally from Georgia. It was evident that she had once been quite handsome—of the type that in the old days we called a “teasin’ brown.” Emma had first come to Moscow as a member of a Black song and dance group, a lowly hoofer in the world of cheap vaudeville. Having been deserted by its manager, the group was left stranded in Moscow.<br />
<br />
While the others had evidently made their way back to the States, Emma had decided to stay. She had liked the country. Here, being Black wasn’t a liability, but on the contrary, a definite asset, With her drive and ambition to be “somebody,” Emma parlayed this asset into a profitable position. She married a Russian who installed her, it seems, as a madam of a house of prostitution. It was no ordinary house, she once explained to me. “Our clients were the wealthy and nobility.” To the former hoofer, this was status.<br />
<br />
Such was Emma’s situation in November 1917, when the Russian Bolsheviks and Red Guards moved in from the proletarjan suburbs of Moscow to capture the bourgeois inner city and the Kremlin. During some mopping-up operations, Emma’s house was raided by the Cheka (the security police). A bunch of White Guardists had holed up there and the whole group was arrested, including Emma. They were taken to the Lubyanka Prison and some of the more notorious White Guardists were summarily executed.<br />
<br />
Emma remained in a cell for a few days. Finally she was called up before a Cheka official. He told her that they were looking into her case. Many of the people who had been arrested at her place were counter-revolutionaries and conspirators against the new Soviet state, and some had been shot. Emma disclaimed knowledge of any conspiracy and stated that she was engaged in “legitimate” business and had nothing to do with the politics of her clients.<br />
<br />
“You know the only reason we didn’t shoot you was because you are a Negro woman,” the official said. To her surprise, he added, “You are free to go now. I advise you to try to find some useful work. Keep out of trouble.”<br />
<br />
When we met Emma, she had become a textile worker. She lived with a young Russian woman--also a textile worker, whom I suspected was a reformed prostitute—in a two-room apartment in an old working class district near Krasnaya Vorota (Red Gate). Soon after the first Black students arrived, she sought them out and grected them like long lost kinfolk.<br />
<br />
At least once a month, we students would pool part of the small stipends we reccived and give Emma money to shop for and prepare some old home cooking for us. On these occasions, she would regale us with stories from her past life. At times one could detect a fleeting expression of sadness, of nostalgia, for her old days of affluence. One could see that she had never become fully adjusted to the new life under the Soviets. While not openly hostile, it was clear that she was not an ardent partisan of the new regime. Knowing our sentiments, she avoided political discussion and kept her views to herself. Our feelings toward her were warmest when we first arrived, but as we developed more ties with the Russians, we went by to see her less often. But we did continue to visit her periodically; she was a sort of mother figure for us, and we all felt sorry for her. She was getting old and often expressed a desire to return to the States. She was finally able to return home after World War II.<br />
<br />
Needless to say, Blacks attracted the curiosity of the Muscovites. Children followed us in the streets. If we paused to grect a (riend, we found ourselves instantly surrounded by curious crowds-—unabashedly staring at us. Once, while strolling down Tverskaya, Otto and I stopped to greet a white American friend and immediately found ourselves surrounded by curious Russians. It was a friendly curiosity which we took in stride. A young Russian woman stepped forward and began to upbraid and lecture the crowd.<br />
<br />
“Why are you staring at these people? They're human beings the same as us. Do you want them to think that we’re savages? Era ne kulturnya! (That is uncultured!)” The last was an epithet and in those days a high insult.<br />
<br />
“Eta ne po-Sovietski! (It’s not the Soviet way!)” she scolded them,<br />
<br />
At that point, someone in the crowd calmly responded: “Well, citizeness, it’s a free country, isn’t it?”<br />
<br />
We were not offended, but amused. We understood all this for what it was.<br />
<br />
There was one occasion when Otto, Farmer, Bankole and I were walking down Tverskaya. Bankole, of course, stood out—attracting more attention than the rest of us with his English cut Savile Row suit, monocle and cane—a black edition of a British aristocrat. We found ourselves being followed by a group of Russian children, who shouted: “Jass Band....Jass Band!”<br />
<br />
Otto, Farmer and I were amused at the incident and took it in stride. Bankole, however, shaking with rage at the implication, jerked around to confront them. His monocle fell off as he shouted: “Net Jass Band! Net Jass Band!” As he spoke, he hit his cane on the ground for emphasis.<br />
<br />
Evidently, to these kids, a jazz band was not just a group of musicians, but a race or tribe of people to which we must belong. They obviously thought we were with Leland and Drayton, the musicians I had met in Berlin, They had been a big hit with the Muscovites. We pulled Bankole away, “C'mon man, cut it out, ‘They don’t mean anything.”<br />
<br />
In the Soviet Union, remnants of national and racial prejudices from the old society were attacked by education and law. It was a crime to give or receive direct or indirect privileges, or to exercise discrimination because of race or nationality. Any manifestation of racial or national superiority was punishable by law and was regarded as a serious political offense, a social crime.<br />
<br />
During my entire stay in the Soviet Union, I encountered only one incident of racial hostility, It was on a Moscow streetear. Several of us Black students had boarded the car on our way to spend an evening with our friend MacCloud. It was after rush hour and the car was only about half filled with Russian passengers. As usual, we were the objects of friendly curiosity. At one stop, a drunken Russian staggered aboard. Seeing us, he muttered (but loud enough for the whole car to hear) something about “Black devils in our country.”<br />
<br />
A group of outraged Russian passengers thereupon seized him and ordered the motorman to stop the ear. It was a citizen's arrest, the first I had ever witnessed. “How dare you, you scum, insult people who are the guests of our country!”<br />
<br />
What then occurred was an impromptu, on-the-spot meeting, where they debated what to do with the man. I was to see many of this kind of “meeting” during my stay in Russia.<br />
<br />
It was decided to take the culprit to the police station which, the conductor informed them, was a few blocks ahead, Upon arrival there, they hustled the drunk out of the car and insisted that we Blacks, as the injured parties, come along to make the charges.<br />
<br />
At first we demurred, saying that the man was obviously drunk and not responsible for his remarks. “No, citizens,” said a young man (who had done most of the talking), “drunk or not, we don’t allow this sort of thing in our country. You must come with us to the militia (police) station and prefer charges against this man.”<br />
<br />
‘The car stopped in front of the station. The poor drunk was hustled off and all the passengers came along. The defendant had sobered up somewhat by this time and began apologizing before we had even entered the building. We got to the commandant of the station.<br />
<br />
The drunk swore that he didn’t mean what he'd said. “I was drunk and angry about something else. I swear to you citizens that I have no race prejudice against those Black gospoda (gentlemen).”<br />
<br />
We actually felt sorry for the poor fellow and we accepted his apology. We didn’t want to press the matter.<br />
<br />
“No,” said the commandant, “we'll keep him overnight. Perhaps this will be a lesson to him<br />
<br />
=== BIG BILL HAYWOOD ===<br />
In addition to the students at KUTVA and the two Black women, there was a sizeable American colony in Moscow during my stay there. There were political representatives of the Communist Party USA to the Comintern, the Profintern, the Crestintern and to the departments, bureaus and secretaries of these organizations—holding jobs as translators, stenographers and researchers <br />
<br />
Soviet cultural and publishing organizations also employed U.S, citizens, and in addition to the political groups, there were a number of technical and skilled workers who came as specialists to work for the new Soviet state. I got to know a number of the Americans during my stay, both official reps and others in the colony.<br />
<br />
Big Bill Haywood was perhaps the most famous of these. He was organizer and founder of the IWW, and a great friend of all Blacks in Moscow. At the time I met him he was in his late fifties and quite ill, suffering from diabetes. Physically, he was only the shell of the man he had once been. He called himself a political refugee from American capitalism, As a sick man, he had fled the U.S. to avoid a ten-year frame-up prison sentence which he knew he would never have survived, Bill was blind in one eye, over which he wore a black patch. I had imagined the loss of his eye had happened in a fight with company or police thugs and was rather disappointed to learn that it was the result of a childhood accident.<br />
<br />
In the Soviet Union he had participated in the organization of the Kuzbas Colony. This project was to reopen and operate industry in the Kuznetsk Basin in the Urals, closed during the Civil War period. The colony was located about a thousand miles from Moscow in an area of enormous coal deposits, vital to socialist industrialization. The district, with its mines and deserted chemical plants, had been established by the Soviet government as an autonomous colony. Big Bill had brought a number of American skilled workers, many of whom were old Wobblies, to reopen the plants and mines,<br />
<br />
Big Bill became a member of the CPUSA at its founding convention in 1921, and while in the Soviet Union he was a member of the CPSU. Bill and his devoted wife, a Russian office worker, lived in the Lux Hotel---a Comintern hostelry.<br />
<br />
His room had become a center for the gathering of American radicals, especially old Wobblies passing through or working in the Soviet Union. Here they would gather on a Saturday night and reminisce about old times and discuss current problems. Often a bunch of us Black students were present, Sometimes these sessions would carry on all night until Sunday morning. There were only a few chairs in the room, and Bill would sit in a huge armchair surrounded by people sitting on the floor. For us Blacks, listening to Big Bill was like a course on the American labor movement. He was a bitter enemy of racism, which he saw as the mainstay of capitalist domination over the U.S. working class, a continuous brake on labor unity, This attitude was reflected in the preamble of the IWW constitution, he told us, It read: “No working man or woman shall be excluded from membership in unions because of creed or color.” This was borne out in practice,<br />
<br />
The IWW was the first labor organization in modern times to invade the South and break down racial barriers in that benighted region. He recounted his experiences in the organizing drives among Southern lumber workers in Louisiana and Texas. This resulted in the organization of the Brotherhood of Timber Workers in 1910, an independent union in the lumber camps of Louisiana, Texas and Arkansas, At its height this union had 25,000 members, half of them Black.<br />
<br />
Big Bill described how the IWW broke down discrimination at the first convention of this union, He had come from the national IWW office to speak to the convention. They were all white, he said, and he inquired why no colored men were present. He was told that the Louisiana state law prohibited meetings of Black and white—the Negro brothers were meeting in another hall nearby. Bill recalled that he then told them: “Damn the law! It’s the law of the lumber bosses. Its objective is to defeat you and to keep you divided and you're not going to get anywhere by obeying the dictates of the bosses. You've got to meet together.” And the latter is exactly what they did, he told us.<br />
<br />
I remember that a few days after one of these gatherings we telephoned to tell him that we were coming over, only to learn from his wife that he had had a stroke and was in the Kremlin hospital. She said that he was getting along OK, but couldn’t see visitors. After several weeks he returned home. Still weak, he received many of his friends, and many of the delegates to the Fourth Congress of the Profintern which was in Moscow at the time. Big Bill had been a leading participant in this organization since its inception.<br />
<br />
Then suddenly, he was back in the hospital, where he died May 18, 1928. The whole American colony turned out for the funeral. There were delegations from the Russian Communist Party, of which he was a member, and from the various international organizations in which he had played a role. The Fourth Congress of the RILU adjourned its sessions, and representatives of trade unions from all over the world attended the funeral.<br />
<br />
I'm sure for all us Black students, our meeting and friendship with this great man were among the most memorable experiences of our stay in Moscow, A stalwart son of the American working class, Bill’s life and battles represented its best traditions. To Blacks, he was a man who would not only stand up with you, but if need be, go down with you. This was the iron test in the fight against the common enemy, U.S, capitalism. Big Bill obviously understood from his own experience the truth of the Marxian maxim that in the U.S., “labor in the white skin can never be free as long as in the Black it is branded.”<br />
<br />
=== Ina ===<br />
I first met my second wife, Ekaterina—-Ina—in December 1926, We were both at a party at the home of Rose Bennett, a British woman who had married M. Petrovsky (Bennett), the chairman of the Anglo-American Commission of the Comintern and formerly Cl representative to Great Britain,<br />
<br />
Ina was one of a group of ballet students whom Rose had invited to meet some of us KUTVA students, She was a small young woman of nineteen or twenty, shy and retiring, and sat off removed from the party. After that party, we met several times, and she told me about herself,<br />
<br />
She was born in Vladikavkaz (in northern Caucasus), the daughter of the mayor of the town, It was one of those towns that was taken and re-taken during the Civil War, one time by the whites, then by the reds. On one occasion when the town fell to the reds, her father was accused of collaborating with the whites, The reds came and arrested him and she never saw him again, Ina was about eleven at the time; she later learned that her father had been executed,<br />
<br />
Her uncle was a famous artist in Moscow and after her father’s execution they went there to live. Ina told me of her trip to Moscow at the height of famine and a typhus epidemic; they rode in freight cars several days through the Ukraine, and saw people dying along the road. Her uncle took charge of them and got them an apartment on Malaya Bronaya. He investigated the case of her father and discovered that a mistake had been made, and her father was posthumously exonerated. As a sort of compensation, she and her mother were regarded as “social activists,” and Ina entered school to study ballet. She later transferred from the ballet school to study English in preparation for work as a translator. We lived together in the spring of 1927 and got married the following fall, after my return from the Crimea.<br />
<br />
In January 1927, I was stunned by the news of the death of my Mother. One morning, when I was at Ina’s house, Otto burst in. Overcome by emotion, he could hardly talk, but managed to blurt out, “Mom’s dead!” He had a letter from our sister Eppa, with a clipping of Mother’s obituary from the Chicago Defender.<br />
<br />
Under the headline “Funeral of Mrs. Harriet Hall,” was her picture and an article which described her, a domestic worker, asa “noted club woman.” She had been a member of the Black Eastern Star and several other lodges and burial societies. The article mentioned that she was survived by her husband, daughter and two sons, the latter in Moscow.<br />
<br />
I was overcome with grief and guilt at not being home. Deeply shocked, I had always assumed that I would return to see Mother again, Born a slave, her world had been confined to the midwest and upper South, She had once told me, “Son, I sure would like to see the ocean,” and I had glibly promised, “Oh, I'll take you there someday, Momma.” I felt that I had been her favorite; | was the responsible one, and yet I hadn’t been able to do what I had promised, Worse yet, I wasn’t even there when she died. It took me some time to get over the shock.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
=== Trotsky’s Day in Court ===<br />
Apart from our academic courses, we received our first tutelage in Leninism and the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the heat of the inner-party struggle then raging between Trotsky and the majority of the Central Committee led by Stalin. We KUTVA students were not simply bystanders, but were active participants in the struggle. Most of the students—and all of our group from the U.S,—-were ardent supporters of Stalin and the Central Committee majority.<br />
<br />
It had not always been thus. Otto told me that in 1924, a year before he arrived, a majority of the students in the school had been supporters of Trotsky. Trotsky was making a play for the Party youth, in opposition to the older Bolshevik stalwarts, With his usual demagogy, he claimed that the old leadership was betraying the revolution and had embarked on a course of “Thermidorian reaction," In this situation, he said, the students and youth were “the Party’s truest barometer,”<br />
<br />
But by the time the Black American students arrived, the temporary attraction to Trotsky had been reversed. The issues involved in the struggle with Trotsky were discussed in the school, They involved the destiny of socialism in the Soviet Union. Which way were the Soviet people to go? What was to be the direction of their economic development? Was it possible to build a socialist economic system? These questions were not only theoretical ones, but were issues of life and death. The economic life of the country would not stand still and wait while they were being debated.<br />
<br />
The Soviet working class, under the leadership of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, had vanquished capitalism over one-sixth of the globe; shattered its economic power; expropriated the capitalists and landlords; converted the factories, railroads and banks into public property; and was beginning to build a state-owned socialist industry. The Soviet government had begun to apply Lenin’s cooperative plans in agriculture and begun to fully develop a socialist economic system. This colossal task had to be undertaken by the workers in alliance with the masses of working peasantry.<br />
<br />
From the October Revolution through 1921, the economic system was characterized by War Communism. Basic industry was nationalized, and all questions were subordinated to the one of meeting the military needs engendered by the civil war and the intervention of the capitalist countries.<br />
<br />
But by 1921, the foreign powers who had attempted to overthrow the Soviets had largely been driven from Russia’s borders, It was then necessary to orient the economy toward a peace-time situation. The NEP (New Economic Policy) formulated at the Tenth Party Congress in 1921 was the policy designed to guide the transition from War Communism to the building of socialism. It replaced a system of surplus appropriation with a tax in kind which would be less of a burden on the peasantry, The NEP was a temporary retreat from socialist forms: smaller industries were leased to private capital to run; peasants were allowed to sell their agricultural surplus on free markets, central control over much of the economy was lessened. All of this was necessary to have the economy function on a peace-time basis, It was a measure designed to restore the exchange of commodities between city and country which had been so greatly disrupted by the civil war and intervention. It was a temporary retreat from the attack on all remnants of capitalism, a time for the socialist state to stabilize its base area, to gather strength for another advance. A year later at the Eleventh Party Congress, Lenin declared that the retreat was ended and called on the Party to “prepare for an offensive on private capital.” <br />
<br />
Lenin was incapacitated by a series of strokes in 1923 and couldno longer participate in the active leadership of the Party. It was precisely at this time, taking advantage of Lenin's absence, that Trotsky made his bid for leadership in the Party. Trotsky had consistently opposed the NEP and its main engineer, Lenin— attacking the measures designed to appease the peasantry and maintain the coalition between the peasants and the workers,<br />
<br />
From late 1922 on, Trotsky made a direct attack on the whole Leninist theory of revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. He denied the possibility (and necessity) of building socialism in one country, and instead characterized that theory as an abandonment of Marxist principles and a betrayal of the revolutionary movement. He postulated his own theory of “permanent revolution,” and contended that a genuine advance of socialism in the USSR would become possible only as a result of a socialist victory in the other industrially developed states.<br />
<br />
While throwing around a good deal of left-sounding rhetoric, Trotsky’s theories were thoroughly defeatist and class-collaborationist. For instance, in the postscript to Program for Peace, written in 1922, he contended that “as long as the hourgeoisie remains in power in the other European countries, we shall be compelled, in our struggle against economic isolation, to strive for agreement with the capitalist world; at the same time it may be said with certainty that these agreements may at best help us to mitigate some of our economic ills, to take one or another step forward, but real progress of a socialist economy in Russia will become possible only after the victory of the proletariat in the major European countries.”<br />
<br />
At the base of this defeatism was Trotsky’s view that the peasantry would be hostile to socialism, since the proletariat would “have to make extremely deep inroads not only into feudal but also into bourgeois property relations.” Thus Trotksy contended that the working class would:<blockquote>'''come into hostile collision not only with all the bourgeois groupings which supported the proletariat during the first Stages of its revolutionary struggle, but also with the broad masses of the peasaniry with whose assistance it came into power. The contradictions in the position of a workers’ government in a backward country with an overwhelmingly peasant population could be solved only ...in the arena of the world proletarian revolution.'''</blockquote>Therefore, it would not be possible to build socialism in a backward, peasant country like Russia. The mass of peasants would exhaust their revolutionary potential even before the revolution had completed its bourgeois democratic tasks—the breakup of the feudal landed estates and the redistribution of the land among the peasantry. This line, which underestimated the role of the peasantry, had been put forward by Trotsky as early as 1915 in his article “The Struggle for Power.” There he claimed that imperialism was causing the revolutionary role of the peasantry to decline and downgraded the importance of the slogan “Confiscate the Landed Estates.”<br />
<br />
As it was pointed out in our classes, Trotsky portrayed the peasantry as an undifferentiated mass. He made no distinction between the masses of peasants who worked their own land (the muczhiks) and the exploiting strata who hired labor (the kulaks). His conclusions openly contradicted the strategy of the Bolsheviks, developed by Lenin, of building the worker-peasant alliance as the basis for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Further, they were at complete variance with any realistic economic or social analysis.<br />
<br />
Trotsky’s entire position reflected a lack of faith in the strength and resources of the Soviet people, the vast majority of whom were peasants. Since it denied the revolutionary potential of the peasantry, the success of the revolution could not come from internal forces, but had to depend on the success of proletarian revolutions in the advanced nations of Western Europe. In the absence of such revolutions, the revolutionary process within the Soviet Union itself would have to be held in abeyance, and the proletariat, which had seized power with the help of the peasantry, would have to hold state power in conflict,with all other classes.<br />
<br />
Behind Trotsky’s revolutionary rhetoric was a simplistic socialdemocratic view which regarded the class struggle for socialism as solely labor against capital. This concept of class struggle did no regard the struggle of peasant against landlord, or peasant against the Czar, as a constituent part of the struggle for socialism. This was reflected as early as 1905, in Trotsky’s slogan, “No Czar, but a Workers’ Government,” which, as Stalin had said, was “the slogan of revolution without the peasantry.”<br />
<br />
Given the state of the revolutionary forces at the time, the position was dangerously defeatist. For instance, 1923 marked a period of recession for the revolutionary wave in Europe; it was a year of defeat for communist movements in Germany, Italy, Poland and Bulgaria. What then, Stalin asked, is left for our revolution? Shall it “vegetate in its own contradictions and rot away while waiting for the world revolution”? To that question, Trotsky had no answer. Stalin’s reply was to build socialism in the Soviet Union. The Soviet working class, allied with the peasantry, had vanquished its own bourgeoisie politically and was fully capable of doing the job economically and building up a socialist society.<br />
<br />
Stalin’s position did not mean the isolation of the Soviet Union. The danger of capitalist restoration still existed and would exist until the advent of classless society. The Soviet people understood that they could not destroy this external danger by their own efforts, that it could only be finally destroyed as a result of a victorious revolution in at Icast several of the countries of the West. The triumph of socialism in the Soviet Union could not be final as long as the external danger existed. Therefore, the success of the revolutionary forces in the capitalist West was a vital concern of the Soviet people.<br />
<br />
Trotsky’s scheme of permanent revolution downgraded not only the peasantry as a revolutionary force, but also the national liberation movements of oppressed peoples within the old Czarist Empire. Thus, in “The Struggle for Power,” he wrote that “imperialism does not contrapose the bourgeois nation to the old regime, but the proletariat to the bourgeois nation.”<br />
<br />
While Trotsky de-emphasized the national colonial question in the epoch of imperialism, Lenin, on the other hand, stressed its new importance. “Imperialism,” said Lenin, means the progressively mounting oppression of the nations of the world by a handful of Great Powers; it means a period of wars between the latter to extend and consolidate the oppression of nations.”<br />
<br />
It was not until sometime later that I was able to fully grasp the implications of Trotsky’s concept of permanent revolution on the international scene. The most dramatic example was in Spain during the Spanish Civil War, 1936-39. The Trotskyist organivation had infiltrated the anarchist movement in Catalonia and incited revolt against the Loyalist government under the slogans of “Socialist Republic” and “Workers’ Government.” The Loyalist government, headed by Juan Negrin, a liberal Republican, was a coalition of all democratic parties. It included socialists, communists, liberal Republicans and anarchists—all in alliance against fascist counter-revolution led by Franco and backed by Hitler and Mussolini. The attempted coup against the Loyalist Government was typical of the Trotskyist attempts to short-circuit the bourgeois-democratic stage of the revolutionary process. The result was a “civil war within a civil war” and, had their strategy succeeded, it would have split the democratic coalition—effec~ tively giving aid to the fascists.<br />
<br />
In the United States I was to witness how Trotsky’s purist concept of class struggle led logically to a denial of the struggle for Black liberation as a special feature of the class struggle, revolutionary in its own right. As a result, American Trotskyists found themselves isolated from that movement during the great upsurge of the thirties. But all this was to come later.<br />
<br />
At the time I was at KUTVA, Trotskyism had not yet emerged as an important tendency on the international scene. | did not foresee its future role as a disruptive force on the fringes of the international revolutionary movement. At that point, I wasn’t clear myself on a number of these theoretical questions. It was somewhat later when my understanding of the national and colonial question-—-particularly the Afro-American question— deepened, that the implications of Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution became fully obvious to me.<br />
<br />
We students felt that Trotsky’s position denigrated the achievement of the Soviet Revolution. We didn’t like his continual harping about Russia’s backwardness and its inability to build socialism, or his theory of permanent revolution. The Soviet Union was an inspiration for all of us, a view confirmed by our experience in the country. Everything we could see defied Trotsky’s logic,<br />
<br />
His writings were readily available throughout the school, and the issues of the struggle were constantly on the agenda in our collective. These were discussed in our classes, as they were in factories, schools and peasant organizations throughout the country,<br />
<br />
About once a month the collective would meet and a report would be given by Party representatives-.-sometimes local, some+ times from the rayon (region of the city) and Moscow district, and sometimes from the Central Committee itself, They would report on the latest developments in the inner-party struggles—Trotsky’s and Lenin's views on the question of the peasantry; the NEP, how it had proved its usefulness and how it was now being phased out; Trotsky’s position on War Communism and Party rules; the dictatorship of the proletariat, and whether it could be a dictatorship in alliance with the peasantry or one over the peasantry. An open discussion would be held after the report. By that time the Trotskyists at KUTVA had dwindled to a small group of bitter-enders.<br />
<br />
The struggle raged over a period of five years (1922-27) during which time the Trotsky bloc had access to the press and Trotsky’s works were widely circulated for everyone to read. Trotsky was not defeated by bureaucratic decisions or Stalin’s control of the Party apparatus—as his partisans and Trotskyite historians claim. He had his day in court and finally lost because his whole position flew in the face of Soviet and world realities, He was doomed to defeat because his views were incorrect and failed to conform to objective conditions, as well as the needs and interests of the Soviet people.<br />
<br />
It was my great misfortune to be out of the dormitory when the Black students were invited to attend a session of the Seventh Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, then meeting in the Kremlin in the late fall of 1926, I was out in the street at the time and couldn’t be found, so they went without me. I missed a historic occasion, my only chance to have seen Trotsky in action. I was bitterly disappointed. When I arrived back at the dormitory, Sakorov, my Indian friend, told me where they had gone. Returning in the early hours of the morning, they found me waiting for them. They described the session and the stellar performance of Trotsky.<br />
<br />
Stalin made the report for the Russian delegation. Trotsky then asked for two hours to defend his position; he was given one. He spoke in Russian, and then personally translated and delivered his speech in German and then in French. In all, he held the floor for about three hours.<br />
<br />
Otto said it was the greatest display of oratory he had ever heard. But despite this, Trotsky and his allies (Zinoviev and Kamenev) suffered a resounding defeat, obtaining only two votes out of the whole body. The delegates from outside the Soviet Union didn’t accept Trotsky’s view that socialism in one country was a betrayal of the revolution. On the contrary, the success of the Soviet Union in building socialism was an inspiration to the international revolution,<br />
<br />
Otto told me that this point was made again and again in the course of the discussion. Ercoli (Togliatti), the young leader of the Italian Party, summed it up well a few days later when he defended the achievements of the Russian Party and revolution as “the strongest impetus for the revolutionary forces of the world.”<br />
<br />
The American Party united across factional lines in support of Stalin, The Trotsky opposition, already defeated within the Soviet Union, was now shattered internationally. From there on out, it was downhill for Trotsky. I witnessed Trotsky’s opposition bloc degenerate from an unprincipled faction within the Party to a counter-revolutionary conspiracy against the Party and the Soviet state. We learned of secret, illegal meetings held in the Silver Woods outside Moscow, the establishment of factional printing presses~all in violation of Party discipline. Their activities reached a high point during the November 7, 1927 anniversary of the Revolution.<br />
<br />
At that Tenth Anniversary, Trotsky’s followers attempted to stage a counter-demonstration in opposition to the traditional celebration. I remember vividly the scene of our school contingent marching on its way to Red Square. As we passed the Hotel Moscow, Trotskyist leaflets were showered down on us, and orators appeared at the windows of the hotel shouting slogans of “Down with Stalin.”<br />
<br />
They were answered with catcalls and booing from the crowds in the streets below. We seized the leaflets and tore them up. This attempt to rally the people against the Party was a total failure and struck no responsive chord among the masses. It was equivalent to rebellion and this demonstration was the last overt act of the Trotskyist opposition.<br />
<br />
During the next month Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev were expelled---along with seventy-five of their chief supporters. They, along with the lesser fry, were sent in exile to Siberia in Central Asia. Trotsky was sent to Alma Alta in Turkestan from where, in 1929, he was allowed to go abroad, first to Turkey and eventually to Mexico.<br />
<br />
Later, many of Trotsky’s followers criticized themselves and were accepted back into the Party, But among them was a hard core of bitter-enders, who “criticized” themselves publicly only in order to continue the struggle against Stalin’s leadership from within the Party, Their bitterness fed on itself and they emerged later in the thirties as part of a conspiracy which wound up onthe side of Nazi Germany.<br />
<br />
Throughout this whole struggle, we Black students at the school had been ardent supporters of the position of Stalin and the Central Committee. Most certainly we were Stalinists--whose policies we saw as the continuation of Lenin’s. Those today who use the term “Stalinist” as an epithet evade the real question: that is, were Stalin and the Central Committee correct? I believe history has proven that they were correct.<br />
<br />
=== RUTHENBERG’S DEATH ===<br />
In March 1927, the American community in Moscow was shocked by the news of the death of Ruthenberg, general secretary of the CPUSA. His death came suddenly, from a ruptured appendix. His last request had been that he be buried in the Kremlin walls in Moscow—a request acceded to by the Russian Communist Party, His ashes were carried to Moscow by J. Louis Engdahl, a member of the Central Committee of the U.S. Party.<br />
<br />
The Moscow funeral was impressive. The procession entered Red Square led by a detachment of Red Cavalry. The square was crowded with thousands of Soviet workers, including the entire work force of the Ruthenberg Factory, which had been named in his honor.<br />
<br />
We half dozen Black students, together with other members of the American colony, marched into the square immediately behind the urn, We followed it until we stood directly in front of the Lenin Mausoleum. On top of the mausoleum was the speakers’ platform, There stood Bukharin, who had recently succeeded Zinoviev as head of the Communist International: Béla Kun, leader of the abortive Hungarian Soviet of 1919; Sen Katayama, the veteran Japanese Communist; and others.<br />
<br />
Bukharin delivered the main eulogy, followed by several speakers. Suddenly I noticed Bukharin whispering to Robert Minor, who was standing beside him. Bukharin pointed down towards our group of Blacks who were gathered below the mausoleum.<br />
<br />
As Minor came down the steps toward us, I was a bit apprehensive, anticipating his mission. Sure enough, addressing my brother Otto, he said, “Comrade Bukharin wants one of the Negro comrades to say a few words.”<br />
<br />
Otto pointed at me and said, “Let Harry speak.”<br />
<br />
I felt trapped, not wanting to start an argument on such a solemn occasion, I reluctantly agreed to speak. and followed Minor back up the steps of the mausoleum, Béla Kun, a polished orator, was speaking, I was to follow. I tried to gather my thoughts, but I was not much of a speaker and certainly not prepared,<br />
<br />
Generalities did not come easy to me, and besides, I hadn’t really known Ruthenberg, I had only met him formally on the occasion of my departure for Moscow when he had shaken my hand and wished me luck. But what could I say about him, specifically in relation to the Blacks?<br />
<br />
I stood there amidst this array of internationally famous revolutionary leaders, and as I looked down on the thousands of faces in Red Square, panic suddenly seized me. Here was my turn to speak, but I found myself unable to utter a coherent sentence.<br />
<br />
I remember saying something about “our great lost leader.” This being my first experience in front of a mike, the words seemed to come back and hit me in the face. Finally, after a minute or two of floundering around | said, “That's all!” and turned away from the mike in disgust and humiliation. The words “that’s all” resounded through the square loud and clear, to my further discomfiture.<br />
<br />
And then came the moment for the translation. The translator was a young Georgian named Tival, one of Stalin’s secretaries. He was one of those people who speak half a dozen languages fluently, Tival got right into the job of translation, assuming an orator’s stance. He had a strong roaring voice, surprising for one of such diminutive stature.<br />
<br />
Swinging his arms, apparently emphasizing points that I was supposed to have made, I must admit that he made a pretty good speech for me. Speaking two or three times longer than my two minutes of rambling, he ‘preceded each point by emphasizing, “Tovarishch Haywood skazal” (Comrade Haywood said).<br />
<br />
The next morning, I went to the school cafeteria for breakfast, And there sat our little group of Black students. Golden had them laughing at something. He saw me and waved the day’s copy of Pravda. The headline was “Pokhorony Tovarishcha Ruthenberga” (Funeral of Comrade Ruthenberg).<br />
<br />
Golden began reading with a straight face, but using that peculiar language of his--Russian with a Mississippi accent. The article quoted from the main speeches and went on to say, Tovarishch Harry Haywood, Americanski Negr, tozhe bystupal (Negro American comrade Harry Haywood also stepped forward with a speech).”<br />
<br />
And Golden read one paragraph after another of the speech Tival gave for me, each paragraph starting with “Tovarishch Haywood skazal...Tovarishch Haywood skazal...Tovarisheh Haywood skazal.”<br />
<br />
Finally Golden looked up from that paper at me, and he said, “Man, you know you ain’t skazaled a goddamned thing!”<br />
<br />
Back home in the U.S., the death of Ruthenberg had signalled another flareup in the factional struggle within the Party. Following the intervention of the Cl at the Fourth Party Convention, there was a period of uneasy peace between the factions. But now a struggle for succession to Ruthenberg’s position as general secretary was raging hot and heavy.<br />
<br />
Lovestone, who had been organizational secretary, was supported by the Ruthenberg stalwarts—-Max Bedacht, Ben Gitlow and John Pepper. Since Ruthenberg’s death, Lovestone (as heir apparent) had pre-empted the interim job of acting secretary. In opposition, William W. Weinstone was the candidate supported by the Foster-Cannon bloc which included Alexander Bittelman and Jack Johnstone.<br />
<br />
Weinstone had formerly been a member of the Ruthenberg faction, but following Ruthenberg’s death, he sought the position of general secretary himself. His move offered an opportunity for the Foster-Cannon group to oppose Lovestone, whom they bitterly detested, with a candidate they believed had more of a chance of winning than did one of their old stalwarts.<br />
<br />
We Blacks in Moscow were isolated from much of this struggle. We were sort of observers from the sidelines, and with the exception of Otto (who had entered the Party immediately after its founding convention), we didn’t have any of the old factional loyalties or political axes to grind. We generally favored the Ruthenberg leadership, although we could hardly be called ardent supporters.<br />
<br />
Ruthenberg’s leadership had been endorsed by the CI, which gave his followers credence in our view. But Lovestone was something else again. On this, even Otto agreed. Lovestone had a reputation for being a factionalist par excellence, involved in the dirty infighting that took place. He was regarded as a hatchet man for the Ruthenberg group.<br />
<br />
None of us in Moscow could discern any principled political differences between the two groups on the question uppermost in our minds-—the question of Black liberation. Though we had not yet fully succeeded in relating our newly acquired Marxist-Leninist perspective to the question of Blacks in the U.S., we were sure— and our studies had confirmed---that Blacks were a potentially powerful revolutionary force in the struggle against U.S. capital, Clearly the common enemy could not be defeated without a revolutionary alliance of Blacks and the class-conscious elements of the working class, It was crucial to us that Party policy be directed towards consummating that alliance. We felt, however, that both factions underestimated the revolutionary potential of Blacks and we were determined not to allow ourselves to become a political football between the two.<br />
<br />
There had been no progress in this area since the folding of the American Negro Labor Congress in 1925, The collapse of the ANLC for us confirmed the Party’s isolation from the Black thasses, According to James Ford, a young Black Party leader, there were only about fifty Blacks in the Party at this time.<br />
<br />
Something was definitely wrong, At the time, we were inclined to attribute the Party’s shortcomings simply to an underestimation of the importance of Afro-American work. We were not, at that point, able to discern any theoretical tendencies within the Party which served to rationalize this underestimation, We felt it was due simply to hangovers of racial prejudices of white Party members and leaders.<br />
<br />
In Moscow, we had been in constant communication with Black comrades in the U.S. We had, in fact, set ourselves up as a sort of unofficial lobby to keep the situation with respect to Blacks continuously before the attention of the Russians and other Comintern leaders. They, for the most part, were sympathetic to our grievances.<br />
<br />
In May 1927, Jay Lovestone (while still acting secretary of the Party) showed up in Moscow at the CI’s Eighth Plenum. During his stay, he invited us Black students to his room at the Lux Hotel to give us an informal report on the Party’s work among Blacks. He had heard, of course, of our discontent and wanted to mollify us. He also knew that the question was coming up for serious discussion at the Sixth Congress of the Communist International, which was to take place the following year. There was no doubt he was out to mend his political fences.<br />
<br />
I had my first close look at the man when we gathered in his room. He tried to give us the impression of being very frank and self-critical, He said the Party leadership, involved in factional struggles, had neglected Black struggles, had neglected AfroAmerican work, an “important phase” of the Party’s activities. But this factional phase had now at long last come to a close and the Party (under his leadership) had now hegun seriously to tackle the job of overcoming this tremendous lag in the work.<br />
<br />
He told us that Otto Huiswood had been placed on the Central Committee and assigned as organizer for the Buffalo (western New York) district, We thought it was about time! Richard B. Moore had been placed as New England organizer for the International Labor Defense, “I cite this,” Lovestone said, “only as an earnest example of the determination of the Central Committee to remedy our default on this most important question.”<br />
<br />
Assuming a modest air, he turned to me and said, “Last but not least, we have decided that you, Harry, as one of our bright young Negroes, are to be transferred to the Lenin School. We've had our eye on you, Harry, for some time.”<br />
<br />
I was delighted at this news. The Lenin School had been established only the year before (1926) as a select training school for the development of leading cadres of the parties in the Communist International. But though I was delighted, I was also suspicious of the man, his cold eyes belied the warmth and modesty he tried to express. It seemed like a bid to buy me out. Otto, however, seemed to have been impressed.<br />
<br />
Though Lovestone was a teetotaler, he had a big bottle of vodka in his room for us students. He had brought us presents-—-which was true of most visitors from the States. It was understood that a visitor would not return to the U.S. with extra things that the students in Moscow could use. Most people, and Lovestone was no exception, came prepared with things to give away. During the course of the evening, Otto had seized a few pair of socks, and Lovestone had given him a tin of pipe tobacco (and cigarettes for us all). As we were leaving, Otto looked over Lovestone’s shoes.<br />
<br />
“Say, Jay,” he said, “you and me wear the same size shoes, don’t we? You got another pair with you?”<br />
<br />
“Sure, Otto, sure,” said Lovestone, and produced an extra pair.<br />
<br />
On our way home, walking down Tverskaya Boulevard towards the dormitory, we exchanged our impressions of the evening. Golden started off: “Oh, he’s full of crap. There’s no sincerity in the man.”<br />
<br />
Otto responded, “I think you’re wrong, Golden, I think you're wrong.”<br />
<br />
Golden said, “I saw his eyes. That’s something you didn’t see, Otto. You had too much vodka. You know I’ve always told you to go light on it—-you know you can’t handle the stuff, You remember what Vesey’s lieutenant said when the slaves rebelled in Virginia: “Beware of those wearing the old clothes of the master, for they will betray you!’ ”<br />
<br />
I never saw Otto so furious! He turned on Golden with his fists clenched, but thought better of it. Golden was too big, I laughed, and he turned towards me, but I was his brother, At that moment a drunk Russian staggered into view and suddenly bumped into him.<br />
<br />
Otto let his fist go and knocked the poor man down. There was a great commotion and a crowd of Russians gathered around. Some Chinese students from our school were across the street, and thinking we were being attacked by “hooligans,” rushed to our defense. We helped the man to his feet and, in the confusion, attempted to explain to the crowd what had happened. Otto said he had thought the drunk was attacking him, and it was thus that we managed to pass the thing off and return to our dorm.<br />
<br />
Lovestone was a consummate factionalist, utterly uninhibited by scruples or principles. He finally won out in the struggle to succeed Ruthenberg, but the mantle of Ruthenberg fit him poorly; the cloven hoof was always visible. His victory was aided by the ineptitude of the Foster-Cannon-Weinstone bloc, which made several tactical blunders (of which Lovestone took full advantage). Lovestone’s friendship with Bukharin was perhaps a factor in his victory, Nikolai Bukharin had succeeded Zinoviev as the president of the Comintern. He was an erstwhile ally of Stalin in the struggle against the Trotskyist “Left” and was later to emerge as a leader of the right deviation within the Soviet Party and the Communist International. As head of the Comintern, he already had begun to line up forces for his next battle which was to break out following the Sixth Congress of the CI in 1928. His man in the U.S. was none other than Jay Lovestone.<br />
<br />
As I have indicated, we KUTVA students in Mosccow were removed from much of the bitterness of the post-Ruthenberg struggle, and at the time, were not fully aware of its intensity. I was to be filled in with a blow-by-blow account of what went on at home by some of my classmates at the Lenin School, which | entered the following autumn.<br />
<br />
=== VACATION IN THE CRIMEA ===<br />
The month of August, vacation time, drew near. Our group of Black students split up and all of us (with the exception of Bankole) left Moscow, Bankole was reluctant to leave his Russian girl friend and remained in the city. Golden’s girl friend, a pretty Kazakhstanian girl, took him home to meet her people in Kazakhstan, an autonomous republic in southwest Asia, inhabited by a Turko-Mongolian people.<br />
<br />
As for myself, I asked for and received permission to spend my vacation in the Crimea. At the Chancellor’s office, I was given money, a railroad ticket and a document entitling me to stay one month at a rest home in Yalta. I was on my own and for the first time since my arrival fourteen months before, I was separated from my fellow Black students, But I had no misgivings. By this time, I had acquired a considerable knowledge of the country and had overcome the main hurdles in the language and could speak and read Russian with some fluency. In fact, I looked forward to my journey with pleasurable expectations, I was not to be disappointed.<br />
<br />
The Autonomous Republic of Crimea is a square-shaped peninsula jutting out into the Black Sea. At that time, it was one of the two Tartar autonomous republics; the other was Tartaria, on the Volga. I immediately fell in love with the country——its lush subtropical climate and its people. The Tartars were a darkskinned Mongolic people, descendants of the Golden Horde of Genghis Khan. When I arrived in Sevastopol, the largest city and seaport, I was struck by the dazzling brilliance of the sun against the pastel-colored buildings, the deep blue of the sea and the verdant Crimean mountains rising behind the city. Tall and stately cypress trees lined the streets. It was a busy seaport; all types of shipping could be found in the harbor from small fishing boats to Black Sea passenger liners and ocean-going freighters of the Soviet trading fleet,<br />
<br />
As a history buff, I stopped over for a couple of days to take in the historic sites of the city and its environs, There was the Panarama, a life-like display graphically depicting the battle of Sevastopol during the Crimean War, 1854-66. (The war was fought mainly on the Crimean peninsula between Russian forces on the one hand; British, French and Turkish allies on the other.). In this battle, the allies sought to knock out the strong Russian naval base in Sevastopol through an invasion by land and bombardment by sea. The Russians lost the war, but Sevastopol remained Russian.<br />
<br />
I drove out to Balaklava, a small village nestling on the sea a few miles southeast of Sevastopol, the scene of the disastrous charge of the British “Light Brigade,” led by Lord Cardigan and immortalized by Tennyson in his poem. Looking at the scene brought back memories of childhood school days when our class recited Tennyson’s poem aloud. I stood on Voronsov Heights overlooking the Valley of Death into which rode the six hundred. I walked over the grounds and viewed the graves of the victims of this blunder of the British officer caste. Fourteen years later, Sevastopol was to be the site of one of the most destructive and bloody battles of World War II.<br />
<br />
My automobile ride to Yalta, about sixty kilometers further along the coast, was not only exciting, but in some parts, a frightening experience. It was mostly along a narrow road, cut out of the side of mountains, on which two cars could barely pass. In some places, one could look down to what appeared to me to be a sheer drop of two or three thousand feet into the sea below, The chauffeurs driving powerful Packards, Cadillacs and Espano-Swiss sped along the road with its many curves at breakneck speed. The obvious fact that they were expert drivers was not enough to allay my fears nor those of the other passengers.<br />
<br />
Nearing Yalta, we passed Lavadaya, a beautiful palace built by an Italian architect during the reign of Alexander the Third. It was situated on a high cliff overlooking the sea. Later, it became the summer home of Czar Nicholas II. Now, under the Soviets, it had been converted into a rest home for local peasant leaders. The palace later housed President Roosevelt and Premier Churchill during the Yalta conference in 1945,<br />
<br />
At last I arrived in Yalta, center of the great Crimean resort area which extended along the coast and behind which rose the Crimean Mountains. Yalta was a town of rest homes and sanitaria, mostly owned by Soviet trade unions, I was put up at a rest home which mainly housed employees of the Moscow city administration.<br />
<br />
Immediately after registering, I put on my bathing trunks and donned the gorgeous Ashanti robe which Bankole had lent meand stepped out for a dip in the sea. I stepped out into the main street which ran alongside the seashore and headed for the beach. Although many of the Tartars of the area were dark-skinned, Blacks were rarely seen, even in these southern climes.<br />
<br />
As I passed along I could hear remarks like, “Kak khorosho zagorelsya (How beautifully sunburnt he is)!” It was a remark I was to hear often. It was good natured, and I sensed in it a trace of envy.<br />
<br />
The crowds were mainly vacationers from the north, who after the long, weary and cold sub-arctic winters of central Russia had fled to this semi-tropical paradise to soak up a little sunshine. Here they formed a cult of sun-worshippers bent on acquiring a suntan to display upon their return home.<br />
<br />
A crowd of small boys followed me out to the public beach a few blocks away. Perhaps they associated me with some of the South Sea Island characters they had seen in movies and waited expectantly for an exhibition of my aquatic skills. I doffed my gorgeous robe and stepped into the water, walked out a few feet and sat down. I tumed to see expressions of amazement, disappointment, and even pity, Their bewilderment was quite natural, for I myself had never met a Russian who didn't know how to swim, These children regarded swimming to be a natural human attribute; to them, an adult who couldn't swim was regarded as sort of a cripple.<br />
<br />
One day, while walking to the beach in Yalta, | was approached by a uniformed officer of the OGPU (federal police), “Bonjour, camarade, vous étes Sénégalais?” he asked in French.<br />
<br />
He seemed a bit surprised when I responded in Russian, telling him that I was an American Black and a student at KUTVA in Moscow.<br />
<br />
He said that he had noticed me several times on the streets and wondered if I were Senegalese, He had fought beside Senegalese riflemen during the world war. His Cossack regiment, he explained, was a part of a small Russian expeditionary force sent to fight with the French Army on the Western Front.<br />
<br />
I told him that I had also fought in the war with an American Black regiment and how | had seen Russian troops in a prison camp on my way to the Soissons front in the late summer of 1918. I asked him if he had been in that camp.<br />
<br />
He shrugged and said that it was quite possible. “They scattered us around in a number of camps; they didn’t want too many of us together in one place,” he said.<br />
<br />
“Our Russian force,” he went on, “was small and had no real military significance.” It had been sent by the Czar as a demonstration of solidarity and friendship between Russia and Francesort of a morale booster for the French people.<br />
<br />
“Be that as it may,” he said, “it didn’t boost our morale any to be there. In France, we fought in some of the toughest battles in the war, on the Champagne front and the Marne salient, and we suffered heavy casualties. Our fellows were homesick and confused, and didn’t know what they were fighting for so far away from Mother Russia.<br />
<br />
“There was much grumbling and always an undercurrent of discontent, All of this was heightened towards the latter part of the war by the bad news of Russian defeats on the Eastern Front. This all came to a head with the news of the fall of the Czar. Shortly after that we were withdrawn from the front by the French, as an unreliable element. Behind the lines, we were surrounded and disarmed by Senegalese troops, and quite a number who resisted were killed or wounded. To say that we were ‘unreliable’ was an understatement; by that time, we were downright mutinous!”<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik Party had active nuclei in the regiments. “I myself was a member of the Party,” said my new-found friend. “We followed the course of the Revolution through French newspapers and were able to glean the truth behind their distortions. We also had contact with some of the French left-socialists and with Bolshevik exiles before they returned home after the outbreak of the February Revolution. After the Armistice was signed, we were sent to Morocco and eventually Soviet ships came to take us to Odessa and home.<br />
<br />
“The French used the Senegalese against us,” he said. “We learned later of a mutiny among the Senegalese troops in which they were shot up and disarmed by the French Blue Devils.” I had just been reading André Barbusse and was surprised to learn how widespread mutiny had been in the French Army.<br />
<br />
“Well, c’est la guerre,” he said, “especially so an imperialist war. After all, what interest had the Senegalese in defending French imperialism? What interest did we Russian workers and muzhiks (peasants) have in fighting the Czar’s wars?”<br />
<br />
We parted, with both of us wanting to meet again, but he had to leave town that evening and I never saw him again.<br />
<br />
Often, we visited the local vineyards and wine cellars and tasted the local wines. It was wine country and Crimean wines were of the first quality, from the sweet ports, tokays and muscatels, to the dry red and white wines. On these outings there was always someone who had a guitar or accordion, and we sat late into the nights singing Russian folk songs and gypsy romans (love songs).<br />
<br />
The Crimea was not just a vacationers’ haven, although tourism occupied a large place in its economy. At that time, the economy was mainly agricultural. Vineyards were constantly expanding in the mountain valleys along the southern coast. Tobacco of fine quality was grown, and there was also an important fishing industry. On the east coast of the peninsula near Kerch, there was an area of rich iron ore deposits and mines. This was to serve as the basis for the construction of the gigantic Kerch metallurgical, chemical and engineering works, contemplated in the first five year plan. It was a plan which sought to quadruple the basic capital of the republic.<br />
<br />
With the renaissance of national cultures which accompanied the Soviet policy on the national question, the Turkic language spoken by the Tartars—which I understood was closely related to; modern Turkish—was being revived and taught in schools, A Latinized alphahet was introduced, replacing the old Arabic script. Tartar literature and culture flourished through this encouragement.<br />
<br />
I met the Party secretary for the county, a young Tartar who took me to visit a kolkhoz (collective farm), a vineyard in this case. A hundred or more peasant families were in the collective, all winegrowers. As in all collective farms, its members were required to sell a definite amount to the government at fixed prices and were allowed to sell the surplus on the free markets.<br />
<br />
Each family had a special plot of land which they cultivated for their own food supply. The chairman of the collective was a huge Ukrainian fellow, who showed us around and explained the wine growing process. The cultivation of grapes and making of the wine required special knowledge, which the government supplied.<br />
<br />
The members of the collective used up-to-date wineries owned by the state and managed by expert vintners. There I was to view the intricate process of wine-making, the pressing of the grapes, the fermenting process and the bottling itself. As I remember, this particular collective specialized in dry wines—both red and white. The Crimeans insisted that their wines were as good as the French. Not being a connoisseur, I wouldn’t know, but all I can say is that they tasted good to me.<br />
<br />
When I returned to Moscow in the fall, Otto told me of the discovery he had made on one of his trips to the southern region of the Caucasus. He had originally gone there on the invitation of one of our fellow students, a young woman from the Abkhazian Republic, a part of Georgia. After meeting some of us, she commented that they too had some Black folk down near her area in a village not very far from Sukhum, the capital of the republic on the Black Sea.<br />
<br />
She invited Otto down to visit the region over his summer vacation, and there he met the people. He described them as being of definite black ancestry—notwithstanding a history of intertarriage with the local people. But the starsata (old man) of the tribe was Black beyond a doubt. His story went some generations back, when he and the others joined the Turkish army as Numidian mercenaries from the Sudan. After several forays into this region they deserted the Army and had settled there. The starsata himself had been in the Czar’s Cavalry with the Dikhi (wild) Division of the Caucasus Cossacks.<br />
<br />
‘The people in the village wanted to know what was happening to “our brothers over the mountains.” Otto related to them the troubles we had gone through, described the travels “over the mountains and across the hig sea.” As the evening wore on and the local hrandy was consumed, toast after toast was drunk to “our little brother from over the hills.” Otto descrihed to them the conditions of Blacks in the U.S.—the lynchings, racism and brutality. Incensed, a few jumped up and pulled out their daggers. “You should make a revolution.”<br />
<br />
“Why don’t you revolt?”<br />
<br />
“Why do you put up with it?”<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
We were not the only ones surprised to learn about this group; it was news to the Russians in Moscow too! Several of these tribesmen later visited Moscow as a result of Otto’s visit. <br />
<br />
== Chapter 7 ==<br />
<br />
=== The Lenin School ===<br />
Following my summer in the Crimea, I returned to Moscow in the fall of 1927 to attend the Lenin School. The school was located off the Arbot on what is now called Ambassadors’ Row, a few blocks down the inner ring of boulevards from the KUTVA dormitories.<br />
<br />
The Lenin School, which was set up by the Comintern, opened in Moscow in May 1926, The plans for the school, formally called the International Lenin Course, had been reported on the previous year by Béla Kun, then head of the Educational (Agitprop) Department of the Comintern, Accordingly, the school was to train sixty to seventy qualified students both in theoretical and practical subjects, which included observations of Soviet trade unions and collective farm work, It offered a full three‘year course and a short course of one year.<br />
<br />
It was a school of great prestige and influence within the international communist movement, Its students, mainly party functionaries of district and section level and some secondary national Icaders who could be spared for the period of study, were generally at a higher level of political development than the students at KUTVA.<br />
<br />
I was the first Black to be assigned to the school, Others followed later; including H.V. Phillips in 1928, Leonard Patterson in the thirties, and Nzula—a Zulu intellectual and national secretary of the South African Communist Party.<br />
<br />
The American students who entered the Lenin School in the fall of 1927 were an impressive lot, They included prominent Party leaders from the national and district level. Outstanding in the group was Charles Krumbcin, a member of the Central Commitice of the Party and formerly in charge of trade union work in Chicago and district organizer for Chicago. A steamfitter by trade and a charter member of the Party, he was one ofa group of young trade unionists who made up the Chicago Party leadership in the twenties. They were the best representatives of the radical tradition of that city’s labor movement. <br />
<br />
Modesty and honesty were hallmarks of Charlie’s character, and he was a man of exceptional organizational and administrative ability. He was a founder of the Trade Union Education League (TUEL) and played a key role in the Chicago Federation of Labor. We developed a close and lasting friendship, and I learned a lot from him about Party history and the background of the revolutionary movement in the United States.<br />
<br />
Margaret Cowl, Charlie's wife, was a capable Party leader and organizer. She had worked in the TUEL and was recognized particularly for her leadership in the struggle for unity of Pennsylvania’s anthracite coal miners in 1927. Later she was to head up the Party’s Women’s Commission and play an active role in the movement for a Woman’s Charter, a broad united front movement launched in 1936 which asserted the rights of women to full equality in all spheres of activity. Margaret also energetically mobilized support for the struggles of women wage workers in the needle trades, textile, electrical and other industries.<br />
<br />
Joseph Zack had emigrated to the U.S. from Eastern Europe shortly after the First World War. Active in the first communist organization in New York, he had been section organizer of Yorktown and served on the Party’s Trade Union Commission. Zack was one of Foster’s leading trade union cadres in New York and had also been one of the first New York Party members assigned to work among Blacks, He was a bitter enemy of Lovestone, but was also critical of Foster. In 1932, he was expelled from the Party for refusing to abide by democratic centralism and by the forties had become an informant for the Dies Committee on Un-American Propaganda Activities.<br />
<br />
Morris Childs, a Chicagoan, was a leader in trade union and Party work. He became Illinois D.O. in the thirties at the same time that I was chairman of the Cook County Committee and secretary of the Southside region. While at the Lenin School, he served as the representative of the American students to the School Bureau.<br />
<br />
Rudy Baker, a Yugoslav comrade who later became D.O. in Pittsburgh and in Detroit, and Lena Davis (Sherer), a good friend of mine who was organizational secretary for New York in the thirties, were also at the school. All of these students were members of the Foster group. As far as I can recall, the sole Lovestone supporter in our class was Gus Sklar of Chicago, a leader in the Russian Federation.<br />
<br />
Poor Gus was alone in the midst of Fosterites, and it must have been an unhappy experience for him. When Lovestone was expelled from the Party in 1929, Gus remained in the Soviet Union and never returned to the U.S. He served as an officer in the Red Army and was killed in the defense of Moscow during the Second World War.<br />
<br />
The American students at the Lenin School were all experienced leaders of the U.S. Party, One might ask why so many were spared from U.S. work at a time when the Party’s position among the masses was so weak.<br />
<br />
Actually, these students were victims of Lovestone’s purge of the Party apparatus following his victory at the Fifth Party Convention in 1927. Part of Lovestone’s strategy was to weaken his opposition on the home front by “exiling” some of its leaders to the Lenin School. His plan backfired however. In Moscow, these “exiles,” as they jokingly called themselves, were to become an effective lobby against Lovestone both in the Comintern and in the CPSU. The political winds were changing.<br />
<br />
From the ashes of the defeated Trotskyist “left ” rose an equally dangerous, organized and secret rightist opposition headed by none other than Lovestone’s patron in the Comintern, Nikolai Bukharin. On the home front, this rightist opposition had its social base among the capitalists, the landlords and the kulaks (upper peasantry) and pushed a line that would have lopsidedly developed industry along consumer lines, to the detriment of the vast masses of Soviet people. Internationally, Bukharin greatly underestimated the war danger and the potentially revolutionary situation then developing on a world scale. At the same time, he greatly overestimated the strength and resiliency of imperialism.<br />
<br />
The Lenin School students helped to legitimize the antiLovestone struggle in the U.S. Party by linking it up with the fight against the right deviation, then only in its incipient stage, The Lenin School was to become a strong point in the fight against this danger.<br />
<br />
There were several other American students who had entered the Lenin School the year before. This group included Clarence Hathaway, Tom Bell, Max Salzman and Car! Reeves (the son of Mother Bloor). Of this group, Hathaway had the most imposing credentials. A machinist from Minneapolis and one of the leading people in the Trade Union Education League, Hathaway proved to be a valuable asset in the Party’s trade union work.<br />
<br />
He was a fine organizer and speaker, particularly effective in debates, and combined these talents with a good grasp of Marxist-Leninist theory. Clearly destined for top leadership in the Party, he later served as D.O. of the New York District, became an editor of the Daily Worker and a member of the Political Bureau. Tom Bell, Hathaway’s close friend, remained in the Soviet Union, married a Russian woman and died sometime before World War Il.<br />
<br />
William Kruse of Chicago was the principal Lovestonite in the school. For a brief period he filled in as acting rep from the Party to the Comintern in the absence of a permanent Party rep. Later, he was D,O. in Chicago under Lovestone’s leadership and was expelled from the Party with Lovestone in 1929.<br />
<br />
The students were organized at the school by language groups, as we had been at KUTVA. In this case, the languages were English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Russian and, later, Chinese. The whole school was a collective, comprising students, teachers, administrators and employees, The leading body was the Party Bureau, which included delegates from the various groups, including the employees. All students transferred membership from their home party to the CPSU, and were directly subject to its discipline. Party meetings were held about once a month.<br />
<br />
Our rector was a handsome, energetic woman named Kursanova. She was a leading communist educator and was married to the old Bolshevik propagandist and CC member, E. Yaroslavsky. She was about forty at the time and had an impressive background, including civil war experiences as a machine-gunner in a detachment of Siberian partisans. Kursanova had also been a delegate to the Bolshevik Conference in April 1917 which adopted Lenin’s famous April Theses.<br />
<br />
In addition to the Americans, others in the English-speaking section included British, Irish, Australians, a New Zealander, two Chinese, two Japanese and two Canadians—Leslie Morris and Stewart Smith, The British group included Springhall, Tanner, Black (a Welshman), Margaret Pollitt and George Brown. My special friend among the British was Springhall, known to all as “Springy,” with whom I roomed at the Lenin School.<br />
<br />
Springy was a British naval veteran of the First World War. He had come from a poor family and his parents had chosen him fora naval career. This latter act, it seemed, was a common practice among British lower class families with several sons. At the age of twelve, therefore, he had been “given” to His Majesty's Navy to be trained as a sailor, He served through the First World War and after the Armistice was involved in a mutiny or near-mutiny among members of the fleet who protested being sent to Leningrad to intervene against the Bolshevik Revolution. At the time, Springy was about twenty-one years old. As a result of the mutiny, he was cashiered from the Navy. Apparently, the admiralty was deterred from taking any harsher measures against the mutineers because of the widespread sympathy their action had evoked among British workers.<br />
<br />
Springy was popular with everybody, particularly among the women on the technical staff. After leaving the Lenin School, he returned to England where he rose rapidly in Party leadership. He also fought in Spain as a member of the Fifteenth International Brigade and was wounded at Jarama.<br />
<br />
At the beginning of World War II, he served as organizational secretary of the British Party. During the early stages of the war, Springy was charged by the Churchill government with subversive activity among the armed forces. This was during the period prior to the German invasion of the Soviet Union, when the war was still an imperialist war and we communists opposed it.<br />
<br />
There was no defense against the charge of subversion in wartime England, and Springy was sentenced to seven years in prison, After his release, he went to China, where he did editorial work on English language publications until his death from cancer in 1953. Springy died in a Moscow hospital, where he had been sent by his Chinese comrades to make sure that everything possible could be done to save him. His ashes were returned to China and interred with a memorial stone in the Revolutionary Martyrs’ Cemetery outside Peking.<br />
<br />
Springy introduced me to the gifted English writer, historian and Marxist scholar, Ralph Fox. A promising young theoretician, Fox was then researching material for one of his books at the Marx-Engels Institute. He died at the age of thirty-seven, fighting the fascists on the Cordova Front during the Spanish Civil War. By the end of his brief life span, he had already published a tremendous body of work.<br />
<br />
I got a lot out of my friendship with Fox. Profiting greatly from his wide-ranging knowledge, I often consulted him on theoretical and political questions which arose during my stay at the school.<br />
<br />
Springy and I were frequent visitors at the apartment of Fox and his wife Midge. It was there that I first met Karl Radek. A Polish expatriate, he had been an active leader in the Polish Social Democratic Party and a member of the Zimmerwald Left (those internationalists who broke off from the Second International in 1915 and were instrumental in founding the Third International). In 1915-16, Radek—along with Rosa Luxemburg—publicly disagreed with Lenin on the question of self-determination of subject nations. Radek later changed his position and fully united with the Bolshevik point of view in 1917.<br />
<br />
Radek was part of the group that returned with Lenin to Russia via Germany in the famous “sealed coach.” He was a member of the Bolshevik Central Committee and Politburo. At the time that I met him in 1928, Radek was still under a shadow politically. He had been a leading member of the Trotsky-Zinoviev opposition and was expelled from the CPSU along with the other leaders of the bloc at the Sixteenth Congress of the CPSU in December 1927. Exiled to the Urals, he publicly repudiated his earlier position and was readmitted to the Party a few months later in 1928. He was assigned as editor of Izvestia and later became the chief foreign affairs commentator in the leading Soviet papers, He was also a member of the Soviet delegation to the Comintern.<br />
<br />
Radek, as I remember him, was a little man, appearing to be somewhat of a dandy in his English tweed jacket, plus-fours and cane, But to me, the most striking thing about him was his beard. It stretched from ear to ear, under his chin and cheeks, giving him a simian look.<br />
<br />
His English, though accented, was fluent, When we first met, he immediately engaged me in a conversation about conditions of Blacks in the United States, which branched off into questions of Black literature, writers and the Harlem Renaissance. To my amazement, it was clear that he knew more about the latter subject than I did. I was embarrassed when he asked my opinion about certain Black writers with whom he was familiar but whom I had never even read. I found out later that Claude MeKay had been a sort of a protégé of Radek’s during the poet’s stay in the Soviet Union,<br />
<br />
In 1937, along with several others in the Trotskyite “Left Opposition,” Radek was convicted of treason, of acting as an “agency” of German and Italian fascism and giving assistance to those who might invade the Soviet Union. He was sent to prison where he died in the forties.<br />
<br />
Springy introduced me to many other young Britons in Moscow: such men as William Rust, who later became editor of the British Worker, Walter Tapsell, editor of the Young Worker; and George Brown. Both Brown and Tapsell were in my brigade in the Spanish Civil War and were killed in battle. Brown was killed at Brunete while I was there.<br />
<br />
Our English-speaking section at the Lenin School included five young Irishmen, all members of the Irish Workers League, a communist-oriented group organized by Big Jim Larkin in 1923. It seems that the Irish Communist Party, founded in 1921 by Young Roderick Connolly (son of James Connolly), had collapsed. I was told that its failure was due to a lack of Marxist-Leninist theory and the inability of its members to relate their views on socialism to the specific conditions in Ireland. But there was certainly no lack of revolutionary enthusiasm and motivation among the young people I met at the Lenin School, some of whom had been members of the Irish Communist Party. The group had been sent to the Lenin School as a step towards rebuilding the Irish Party.<br />
<br />
All five were protégés of the famous Irish revolutionary, Big Jim Larkin—most definitely a man of action and organization, not of theory. A tall, bulky man with a huge, hawk-like nose and bushy eyebrows, Larkin was one of the most colorful figures of the Irish labor movement. From his base among Dublin dockworkers, his activities as a labor leader had ranged over three continents~-from the British Isles, to Argentina, to the U.S.—and at the time that I met him, spanned more than three decades. He had been a founding member of the U.S. Party and was a member of both the Executive Committees of the Communist International and the Red International of Labor Unions (RILU or the Profintern). He was often in Moscow, where I saw him frequently.<br />
<br />
The Irish students came from the background of the 1916 Easter Rebellion and the revolutionary movement reflected in the lives of men like Larkin and James Connolly. Among them were Sean Murray and James Larkin, Jr. (Big Jim's son). All of them had been active in the post-war independence and labor struggles. I was closest to Murray, the oldest of the group, who was a roommate of mine.<br />
<br />
This was my first encounter with Irish revolutionaries and their experiences excited me. As members of oppressed nations, we had a lot in common. I was impressed by their idealism and revolutionary ardor and their implacable hatred of Britain’s imperialist rulers, as well as for their own traitors. But what impressed me most about them was their sense of national pride—not of the chauvinistic variety, but that of revolutionaries aware of the international importance of their independence struggle and the role of Irish workers.<br />
<br />
Then too, they were a much older nation. Their fight against Britain had at that time been going on for 750 years. They were fond of quoting the observations of Marx and Engels on the Irish movement, such as Marx’s letter to Engels in which he said: “English reaction in England had its roots in the subjugation of Ireland.” Another favorite was: “No nation can be free if it oppresses other nations.”!<br />
<br />
But most of all, they liked to point out Lenin’s defense of the Easter Uprising in his reply to Karl Radek, who had called the rebellion a putsch and discounted the significance of the struggle of small nations in the epoch of imperialism. Lenin admonished Radek, stating that “a struggle capable of going to the lengths of insurrection and street fighting, of breaking down the iron discipline of the army and martial law,” on the doorstep of the imperialist metropolis itself, would be a blow against imperialism more significant than that in a remote colony.<br />
<br />
I was shortly to find these observations applicable to the liberation movement of U.S. Blacks. As a result of my association with the Irish, I became deeply intcrested in the Irish question, seeing in it a number of parallels to U.S. Blacks. In retrospect, I am certain that this interest heightened my receptivity to the idea of a Black nation in the United States. <br />
<br />
=== TEACHERS AND CLASSES ===<br />
The teaching method at the school was a combination of lectures and discussions. About once a week the instructor would give a lecture to the entire English-speaking group, all twenty-five or thirty of us. Readings would be assigned, and when material was not available in English, it would be translated especially for us. I had one advantage in this regard because by this time I could read Russian fluently. Following the iccture, the instructor would delineate a number of sub-topics. Several days later, we would all get together again and one person from each group would report on its work. The instructors were often available for consultation during the time the groups were discussing and researching their topics.<br />
<br />
There were no grades given, nor were there any examinations. At the end of the term we would have evaluation sessions, where everyone met and discussed each other’s work, including that of the teachers. It was a process of comradely criticism and self-criticism.<br />
<br />
I found the classes exciting and challenging and the students on the whole sharp and on a high political level. I was under pressure to keep up. The English in general seemed to be a notch above most of us in political economy. This, I believe, was due to the existence of a large number of Labour Party schools which were spread throughout Britain.<br />
<br />
Our instructor for Marxist political economy was Alexandrov, an economist for the Gosplan, the state planning agency. In our class, he was often challenged on some aspect of Marxian economics, He would often have sharp exchanges with one of the British students, I believe it was Black, over differences in interpretations of Marxian economics,<br />
<br />
Black was a perfect foil for Alexandrov, who scemed to enjoy these tilts and invited the whole class to participate. Summing up the discussion, Alexandroy would brand Black’s position as “undialectical, mechanistic, and rooted in vulgar economism and Fabianism.” Black was stubborn, however, and prodded by Alexandrov, kept up his critical attitude for the whole first term, It was only during the evaluations at the end of the term that Black conceded that some of his positions had been in error,<br />
<br />
Perhaps the most prominent among my teachers was Ladislaus Rudas, a noted Hungarian Marxist philosopher and scholar. Like many Hungarian intellectuals, he spoke several languages fluently. He had been a leader of the short-lived Hungarian Soviet and had come to Moscow along with Béla Kun and the other Hungarian refugees. He taught historical and dialectical materialism and his class was one of the most interesting, It prescnted history, my favorite subject, but with a different content: a Marxist-Leninist interpretation, portraying not just the role of individuals but of classes.<br />
<br />
We had lengthy discussions on the French Revolution; the petty bourgeois dictatorship under Robespierre and the Jacobins; Saint Just and the extreme left, the Thermidor and Napoleon— “the man on the white horse.” The English Revolution and Cromwell, the Levellers, the Long Parliament. The Dutch revolution and Prince Egmont. We had extended discussions on the American revolutions---the War of Independence, the Civil War and Reconstruction.<br />
<br />
These discussions brought out our lack of knowledge of our own U.S, history; there was a complete absence of materials which presented U.S. history from a Marxist standpoint. All I can remember is the so-called Marxist analysis in the works of James Oneal (The Workers in American History) and A.M. Simons’s Social Forces in American History.<br />
<br />
The former I never read, but the work by Simons stands out in my memory for its gratuitous slur on U.S. Blacks, Simons claimed that the Black man did not revolt against slavery during the Civil War: “His inaction in time of crisis, his failure to play any part in the struggle that broke his shackles, told the world that he was not of those who to free themselves would strike a blow.”<br />
<br />
I had read about the slave revolts of Gabriel, Nat Turner, and John Brown’s heroic raid on Harper’s Ferry with his band of whites, free Blacks and escaped slaves. I knew of the role of Black soldiers in the Civil War who had to overcome the opposition of the Union Army in order to fight. Simons’s book skipped over all of this,<br />
<br />
I had come across Charles and Mary Beard’s The Rise of American Civilization, The Beards were economic determinists who had characterized the Civil War as the Second American Revolution. The idea seemed novel at the time, all of which points up how widespread had been the distortion of the period by U.S. bourgeois historians.<br />
<br />
My sub-group, which included Springy and the Irishman Sean Murray, had chosen the Civil War and the Reconstruction period as our subject, with myself as the reporter. Our group had long discussions, after which we consulted Rudas, who by that time had evidently done some homework of his own on the matter. He called our attention to the writings of Marx and Engels, their correspondence on the Civil War, and Mary’s series of articles in the New York Herald Tribune. After the discussions, I submitted a paper to the class, which evoked considerable discussion. On the whole it was well-received by my fellow classmates and commended by Rudas.<br />
<br />
Perhaps our most interesting and stimulating course was on Leninism and the history of the CPSU, taught by the historian I. Mintz. A former Red Army officer, he was at the time assigned to work on a history of the CPSU. Mintz was a young Ukrainian Jew, a soft-spoken and mild-mannered little man. He had a way of illustrating his subject through his own personal experiences during the Revolution and the Civil War in the Ukraine. His appearance contrasted sharply with his role and bloody experiences in the battle for the Ukraine. His was a thrilling story, involving a meteoric rise from leader of partisans to commander of a Red Army brigade. They had fought against a whole array of anti-Soviet and interventionist forces: the White Guardist Deniken; the Cossack Hepmans, Kornilov and Kaledin; Makhno’s anarchists (who were sometimes with and sometimes against the Red Army); General Petlura and sundry gangs of marauders and pogromists; and the remnants of the German garrisons in the Ukraine.<br />
<br />
In connection with our studies of the Bolshevik agrarian policy during the Civil War, Mintz told us of his involvement in the settling of the question of land redistribution in a Ukrainian district. This district had been reconquered by his Red Army unit from Denikin in the early winter of 1920. He gave us a general rundown of the agrarian situation at the time, the class forces in the countryside, their shifting alignment during the course of the Revolution, and the evolution of Bolshevik agrarian policy.<br />
<br />
Kerensky’s provisional government had done nothing to solve the agrarian problem, to relieve the land hunger of the masses of peasantry. Though Kerensky’s program had promised confiscation of the big estates, once in power, the government reneged on even that level of reform.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks exhorted the peasants to await the decision of the Constituent Assembly. Thus, at the time of the outbreak of the Revolution, the vast majority of the cultivatable land was still concentrated in the estates of the big landlords. The peasantry, constituting four-fifths of the population of the old Czarist Empire, was composed of three different strata. The well-to-do peasant not only owned enough land to support himself in good fashion, but also often hired labor to work his land. This group comprised only about four to five percent of the total. The poor peasant was without sufficient land to support himself and his family and often hired himself out as a laborer to the landlord or to a well-to-do peasant. The landless peasant subsisted entirely from the sale of his labor to the landlord or well-to-do peasant.<br />
<br />
Under the slogan “Land, Bread and Peace,” the Bolsheviks cgmbined the seizure of power in the cities with the land revolution underway in the countryside. Allied with the Social Revolutionaries (SRs), the traditional party of the peasantry, the land was taken over in two phases, The first phase, nationalization and confiscation, was incorporated in the Land Decree of the All Russian Congress of Soviets, November 8, 1917. This stamped the seal of governmental endorsement on the land seizures and called for their extension.<br />
<br />
In September 1917, Lenin declared Bolshevik support for the land program of the SRs, while pointing out that only a proletarian revolution could put even this program into practice. The SR program called for equal distribution of land among the peasants while the Bolsheviks favored collective, and eventually state-owned farms. But since the SR program represented the understanding of the majority of peasants, Lenin’s policy was to resolve this difference by “teaching the masses, and in turn learning from the masses, the practical expedient measures for bringing about such a transition.”<br />
<br />
The day after seizing power, the Bolsheviks put this policy into practice with their November 8, 1917, Decree on Land which made the SR program into law. Within three weeks, the SRs' left wing—representing the poorer peasants—had split from the rest of the party and entered a coalition government with the Bolsheviks. In the following years, Lenin held to the basie position he stated when presenting the November 8 decree:<blockquote>'''As a democratic government, we cannot ignore the decision of the masses of the people, even though we may disagree with it. In the fire of experience, applying the decree in practice, and carrying it out locally, the peasants will themselves realize where the truth lies... We must be guided by experience, we must allow complete freedom to the creative faculties of the masses.'''</blockquote>It was against this background that Mintz related some of his experiences in the Ukraine. He told us that the Party in the Ukraine had not fully grasped the lessons of the agrarian revolution in Great Russia. He spoke of one occasion when his outfit had attempted to arbitrarily carry out the collectivization of all the big estates in territory occupied by their division of the Red Army; their efforts met with the stiff resistance of the local peasants, even though the peasants supported Soviet power.<br />
<br />
The peasants insisted on the redistribution of all the estates, breaking them up among the individual peasant families, rather than taking over the large estates collectively, This occurred during the fall months of 1919, on the eve of Denikin’s final defeat, when Soviet power in the form of an “independent Ukrainian Republic” was about to be established.<br />
<br />
It was a time when Lenin, in order to allay anti-Russian distrust and suspicion among the Ukrainian peasantry, had insisted that certain concessions be made. Both Russian and Ukrainian were to be used on an equal footing, and attempts to push back the Ukrainian language to a secondary status were to be denounced. Lenin demanded that all officials in the new republic be able to speak Ukrainian and called for the distribution of large farms among the peasants. State farms were to be created “in strictly limited numbers and of limited size and in each casein conformity with the instruments of the surrounding peasantry.”<br />
<br />
Despite this, Mintz said, many of us Ukrainian Bolsheviks tended to downplay the nationality element in our own country. “In my own case, I had long since ceased to consider myself a Jew.” Most of them were what was called at that time “abstract internationalists”; super-internationalists who, in the name of internationalism, renounced the national element in the struggle of the Ukrainian masses.<br />
<br />
“But we were not alone in this deviation,” Mintz told us. “Although Lenin’s policy was eventually adopted by the Central Executive Committee, it was sharply opposed by leading Ukrainian Bolsheviks such as Rakovsky and Manuilsky. What it finally came down to, in the case of our army division, was that as a result of the opposition of the peasants in the area, we were foreed to give up our plan for collectivization; we thus had to settle for having only one of the estates being set aside as a Soviet farm.”<br />
<br />
The first part of each summer at the Lenin School was spent in practical work that related to our studies. In the course of my practical work program in the early summer of 1928, I had my first close-up ohservation of the peasant question in the USSR. I visited a peasant village in an agricultural district to talk with the people and make observations. Though hardly more than 100 versts (about 66 miles) from Moscow, it was truly in “darkest Russia,” a provincial place, isolated from the city. Few inhabitants had been as far away as Moscow.<br />
<br />
After taking a train to the nearest station, I then had to take a droshky another twenty versts to the county seat. Arriving in the morning, I was let down in the middle of the village square. I looked around to get my bearings, and in no time at all, a crowd had gathered to stare at me.<br />
<br />
‘The crowd grew larger by the minute; it seemed as if the whole village had turned out in the square, I could overhear remarks: “Who is he?”<br />
<br />
“Why is he so Black?”<br />
<br />
“What nice teeth!”<br />
<br />
“Look, his palms are white!”<br />
<br />
“He seems sympatichno,” remarked some.<br />
<br />
Someone else who perhaps had done a little reading said, “Oh, he’s probably from Africa. There the sun is so hot that people who have lived there for thousands of years become black.” The crowd seemed to accept this explanation.<br />
<br />
I stuck out my hand to a young man standing nearby. “Zdravstvuyte,” I said. “Could you direct me to the town committee?” He seemed to be surprised that I could speak Russian, but getting himself together, he directed me toa building across the square.<br />
<br />
“Who are you? Where did you come from?” the young man asked.<br />
<br />
“I'm an American Negro from the United States,” I replied.<br />
<br />
Someone in the crowd remarked, “I told you he was of the Negro tribe.” <br />
<br />
Someone else spoke up, “I thought all people in the United States were white.” <br />
<br />
That gave me the chance to get off on my international propaganda spiel, and I jumped right in. “Oh no,” I replied. “There are twelve million Blacks in the U.S.—ahout one-tenth of the population.” I went on to tell them about Blacks inthe South, and the modern-day remnants of the plantation system: sharecropping, Jim Crow and lynch terror.<br />
<br />
Someone remarked, “Oh, Like it was with us under the old regime.” Many of the villagers nodded their heads in agreement with this.<br />
<br />
Just then I noticed an old woman with a cane, slowly making her way through the crowd toward where I was. The young people gave way before her, in deference to her age. When she reached the center, I watched the changes in expression on her old wrinkled face as she gazed at me. First it registered amazement at such a sight; then comprehension when she had “cased” the whole situation,<br />
<br />
Then she spit on the ground and slammed her cane down, “Idite domoi! Go home!” she told me. “Wash your face! You should be ashamed of yourself, trying to fool the people around here!” Waving her cane at me, she then turned scornfully away. In all her ninety-odd years, she had never before seen a Black man!<br />
<br />
=== TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION ===<br />
The first time I met Stalin was at a social gathering in the Kremlin during the World Congress of the Friends of the Soviet Union. The congress coincided with the Tenth Anniversary celebrations in the fall of 1927. The congress sessions were held at the Dom Soyusov (House of the Trade Unions), It was the greatest international gathering I had ever witnessed. There were probably more than one thousand delegates, representing countries from six continents, The most impressive delegation was the huge one (about one hundred people) from China which was headed by the young and beautiful widow of Sun Yat-sen. (Today she is vice-chairman of the National People’s Republic of China.) <br />
<br />
I was surprised and delighted to meet my old friend Chi (Dum Ping), a former Chinese student at the University of Chicago with whom I had worked in the organization of the ill-fated Interracial Youth Forum on the Southside in 1924. He had since gone back to China and was now one of the translators for the Chinese delegation. It was Chi who introduced me to Madame Sun Yatsen. She spoke English with an American accent, which was not surprising since she had been educated in the United States.<br />
<br />
Among the other notables we were to meet were the young Cuban revolutionary, Antonio Mella, later murdered in Mexico City by Machado’s assassins. He was a tall, wiry youth, who always had a guitar slung over his back. There was Henri Barbusse, a pale, wan man, a victim of tuberculosis, He was a great literary figure in France and wrote a biography of Stalin. There was the american novelist Theodore Dreiser, father of American realism who was there with his secretary, Ruth Epperson Kennel, a young American woman. <br />
<br />
A special friend of us Black students was Josiah Gumede, the elderly president of the African National Congress and a descendant of Zulu chiefs. We took him in charge. Every morning we would call for him at his room at the National Hotel on Tverskaya (now Gorky Street) and escort him to the congress sessions. We also accompanied him on the rounds of parties held by the various delegations. He must have been about sixty at the time, but was big, strong and healthy and never seemed to tire.<br />
<br />
The gala occasion for the whole congress was the Evening of National Culture, It consisted of an elaborate pageant of folk dances from the various Soviet republics and autonomous regions. The dancers were all in their traditional costumes, a striking array of color and diversity. On this occasion, our Soviet hosts went all out for their foreign guests.<br />
<br />
The hall in the Dom Soyusov had been converted into a huge banquet room. We were seated before tables loaded with various kinds of liquor, including of course, the best vodka and zakuskas; appetizers of all kinds—cheeses, herrings, caviar, cold sturgeon and cold meats. Then came dinner, from soup to dessert.<br />
<br />
The banquet finally ended. Most of us were in somewhat of a stupor from food and drink, Our group, which included our teacher Sik, was leaving the hall amidst the din of a thousand people talking and laughing. On our way out we stopped and chatted with numerous delegates.<br />
<br />
Gumede was the chief attraction; he had given a stirring speech at a session of the congress a few days before. As I recall, we were nearing the door when we were stopped and greeted by the old Cossack cavalryman, Marshall Budenny. He was a short, powerful, bow-legged man, with a large ferocious black mustache. He was also in a merry mood.<br />
<br />
“Tell the chief,” he said, grasping Gumede’s hand, “that we stand ready to come to his support anytime he needs us!”<br />
<br />
“Thank you, thank you,” beamed Gumede.<br />
<br />
At that moment, someone approached us, I believe it was Tival, Stalin’s seeretary, and informed us that we were invited to a party in the Kremlin.<br />
<br />
We walked the short distance across the square to the Kremlin. Once within the Kremlin walls, we were guided into one of the old palaces and then taken upstairs to a small hall. It was a longroom with an arched ceiling reaching almost to the floors on the sides. It looked to me as though it could have been a throne room of one of the old czars.<br />
<br />
There were perhaps fifty people in the room. In the center there was a large table loaded with the traditional zakuskas, fruits and drinks. It was sort of a buffet; chairs were not directly at the table but rather were along the walls on each side.<br />
<br />
There in the center on one side was Stalin, with a number of people seated beside him, He rose, shook our hands, and after we were introduced, welcomed us, “Be our guests.” He was a short, thick-set man, as T remember, dressed in a neat tan suit with a military collar and boots shined to glisten.<br />
<br />
He motioned us to the vacant chairs on the other side of the room. On that side were a number of folk dancers and musicians, presumably participants in the earlier festivities, Somebody introduced Gumede as an African Zulu chief from the congress, and the dancers probably thought we were all from the same tribe. Gumede, however, was the center of attention, surrounded by the daricers, who insisted on being photographed with him.<br />
<br />
They gathered around him—a couple sitting on his lap and others behind him with their arms around him, Stalin, observing all this from the other side of the room, seemed amused. Later on, Stalin got up, bid us all good-night and walked out. As I remember, it was quite a relaxed evening with no political discussion. We left shortly after Stalin departed and were driven home by a chauffeur from the Kremlin car pool.<br />
<br />
Another version of this occasion was given, I believe by Sik, who insisted that Otto had danced with Stalin that evening. I don’t doubt Sik’s word, but I certainly don’t remember seeing it. Otto didn’t remember the incident either, But I do know that in Russia it was not uncommon for one man to dance with another on festive occasions, As I recall, the hall became more crowded, and I was attracted by a group of folk dancers who offered to help us students with our Russian,<br />
<br />
Afterwards Sik kept reminding Otto, “Don’t you remember, Otto, you asked Stalin to dance, and you danced around the hall with him several times, That was a memorable occasion; how could you forget it?”<br />
<br />
As for Gumede, he returned home a firm supporter of the Soviet Union. Everywhere he went, he gave glowing reports of his visit there. In January 1928, he told an ANC rally that “I have seen the new world to come, where it has already begun. I have been to the new Jerusalem."<br />
<br />
One day in December, Otto called me and said he had inst gotten a call to pick up a young Black woman, Maude White, who was to be a student at KUTVA. She was waiting at the station. He asked me if I'd like to go along and I readily agreed, looking forward with pleasure to meeting this woman—the first Black woman since Jane Golden to study in the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
We rented a droshky and proceeded to the station. It was a cold winter night, the temperature was somewhere around thirty-five below zero. When we got there, we saw the young Black woman, She was about nineteen, standing in the unheated station, she was a strikingly pretty, brown-skinned woman with huge dark eyes.<br />
<br />
She had on a seal skin coat, silk stockings and pumps, and by time we got there she was practically hysterical with the cold. "Get me out of here,” she shouted. Otto and I looke at each other, both thinking the same thing—we're going to have a rough time with this one. <br />
<br />
We couldn't have been more wrong. Maude got right into the swing of things at school. She was a very popular suger ae stayed in Moscow for three years. We later learned that she ha been a school teacher before coming to Moscow, On returning to the States, she became an outstanding Party cadre and a life-long friend of mine.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 8 ==<br />
<br />
=== Self-Determination: The Fight for a Correct Line ===<br />
Towards the end of 1927, Nasanov returned to the Soviet Union after a sojourn in the United States as the representative of the Young Communist International. I had known him briefly in the States before my departure for Russia. Nasanov was one of a group of YCI workers who had been sent on missions to several countries. He had considerable experience with respect to the national and colonial question and was considered an expert on these matters.<br />
<br />
Nasanov's observations had convinced him that U.S. Blacks were essentially an oppressed nation whose struggle for equality would ultimately take an autonomous direction and that the content of the Black liberation movement was the completion of the agrarian and democratic revolution in the South—a struggle which was left unresolved by the Civil War and betrayal of Reconstruction. Therefore, it was the duty of the Party to channel the movement in a revolutionary direction by raising and supporting the slogan of the right of self-determination for Afro-Americans in the Black Belt, the area of their greatest concentration.<br />
<br />
Upon his return, Nasanov sought me out and it was he, I believe, who first informed me that I had been elected to the National Committee of the YCL back in the States. In the months ahead, we were to become close friends. Through him, I met a number of YCI people, mostly Soviet comrades who held the same position as Nasanov did on the national question. They seemed to be pushing to have the matter reviewed at the forthcoming Sixth Congress of the Comintern. And as it later became clear to me, they were anxious to recruit at least one Black to support their position.<br />
<br />
As I have indicated before, the position was not entirely new to me. I was present at the meeting of the YCL District Committee in Chicago in 1924 when Bob Mazut (then YCI rep to the U.S.), at the behest of Zinoviev, had raised the question of self-determination At that time, he had been shouted down by the white comrades. (See Chapter Four.)<br />
<br />
Sen Katayama had told us Black KUTVA students that Lenin had regarded U.S. Blacks as an oppressed nation and referred us to his draft resolution on the national and colonial question which was adopted by the Second Congress of the Comintern in 1920. Otto and other Black students had also told me that they got a similar impression from their meeting with Stalin at the Kremlin shortly after their arrival in the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
All of this seemed tentative to me. No one had elaborated the position fully and Nasanov was the first person I met who attempted to argue it definitively. But all of these arguments, and especially Nasanov’s prodding, set me to thinking and confronted me with the need to apply concretely my newly-acquired Marxist-Leninist knowledge on the national-colonial question to the condition of Blacks in the United States,<br />
<br />
To me, the idea of a Black nation within U.S. boundaries seemed far-fetched and not consonant with American reality. I saw the solution through the incorporation of Blacks into U.S. society on the basis of complete equality, and only socialism could bring this to pass. There was no doubt in my mind that the path to freedom for us Blacks led directly to socialism, uncluttered by any interim stage of self-determination or Black political power. The unity of Black and white workers against the common enemy, U.S. capitalism, was the motor leading toward the dual goal of Black. freedom and socialism.<br />
<br />
I felt that it was difficult enough to build this unity, without adding to it the gratuitous assumption of a non-existent Black nation, with its implication of a separate state on U.S. soil. To do so, I felt, was to create new and unnecessary roadblocks to the already difficult path to Black and white unity.<br />
<br />
Socialism, I reasoned, was not in contradiction to the movement for Black cultural identity, expressed in the cultural renaissance of the twenties and in Garvey’s emphasis on race pride and history (which I regarded as one of the positive aspects of that movement), Socialism for U.S. Blacks did not imply loss of cultural identity any more than it did for the Jews of the Soviet Union, among whom I had witnessed the proliferation of the positive features of Jewish culture—theater, literature and language.<br />
<br />
The Jews were not considered a nation because they were not concentrated in any definite territory; they were regarded as a national minority and Birobidzhan was set aside as a Jewish autonomous province. Such a bolstering of self-respect, dignity and self-assertion on the part of a formerly oppressed minority people was a necessary stage in the development of a universal culture which would amalgamate the best features of all national groups. This was definitely the policy of the Soviet Union with regard to formerly oppressed nationalities and ethnic groups.<br />
<br />
Like the Jews, I reasoned, the position of U.S. Blacks was that of an oppressed race, though at the time I am sure I would have been hard-pressed to define precisely what was meant by that phrase. The main factor in the oppression of Jews under the Czar had been the religious factor; the main factor with U.S, Blacks was race. Blacks lacked some of the essential attributes of a nation which had been defined by Stalin in his classic work, Marxism and the National Question.<br />
<br />
Most assuredly, one could argue that among Blacks there existed elements of a special culture and also a common language (English). But this did not add up to a nation, I reasoned. Missing was the all-important aspect of a national territory. Even if one agreed that the Black Belt, where Blacks were largely concentrated, rightfully belonged to them, they were in no geographic position to assert their right of self-determination.<br />
<br />
I could see many analogies between the national problem in the old Czarist Empire and the problem of U.S. Blacks, but the analogy floundered on this question of territory. For the subject nations of the old Czarist Empire were situated either on the border of the oppressing Great Russian nation or were completely outside it. But American Blacks were set down in the very midst of the oppressing white nation, the strongest capitalist power on earth. Faced with this, it was no wonder that most nationalist movements up until then had taken the road of a separate state outside the United States. How then could one convince U.S. Blacks that the right of self-determination was a realistic program?<br />
<br />
Nasanov and his young friends answered my arguments over the course of a series of discussions and were quick to pick out the flaws in my position, They contended that I was guilty of an ahistoric approach with respect to the elements of nationhood. Certainly, some of the attributes of a nation were weakly developed in the case of U.S. Blacks. But that was the case with most oppressed peoples precisely because the imperialist policy of national oppression is directed towards artificially and forcibly retaining the economic and cultural backwardness of the colonial peoples as a condition for their super-exploitation. My mistake had been to ignore Lenin’s dictum that in the epoch of imperialism it was essential to differentiate between the oppressor and the oppressed nations,<br />
<br />
They further contended that I had presented the matter as though self-determination were solely a question for Blacks. | had therefore separated the Black rebellion from the struggle for socialism in the United States. In fact, it was a constituent part of the latter struggle or, more precisely, a special phase of the struggle of the American working class for socialism.<br />
<br />
My argument added up to a defense of the current position of the U.S. Party, albeit I had embellished the position somewhat against Nasanov's criticisms. Up to this point, the Black students had not challenged the Party’s line on Afro-American work, We reasoned that the Party’s default in the work among Blacks was not the result of an incorrect line, but came from a failure to carry out in practice its declared line. We believed that this failure was due to an underestimation of the importance of work among Blacks, which came from an underestimation of the revolutionary potential of the struggle of the Black masses for equality. All this resulted from the persistence of remnants of white racist ideology vathin the ranks of the Party, including some of its leadership.<br />
<br />
Nasanov and some of his friends agreed with us that the American CP did underestimate the revolutionary potential of the Black struggle for equality. But, they maintained, this underestimation came from a fundamentally incorrect social-democratic line, rather than from white chauvinism, They said that I had stood the whole matter on its head: I had presented the incorrect policies as the result of subjective white chauvinist attitudes; whereas, they pointed out that the white chauvinist attitudes persisted precisely because the Party’s line was fundamentally incorrect in that it denied the national character of the question.<br />
<br />
“Our American comrades seem to think that only the direct struggle for socialism is revolutionary,” they told me, “and that the national movement detracts from that struggle and is therefore reactionary.” This, they pointed out, was an American version of the “pure proletarian revolution” concept; they referred me to Lenin’s polemic against Radek on the question of self-determination.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks also criticized my formulation of the matter as primarily a race question. To call the matter a race question, they said, was to fall into the bourgeois liberal trap of regarding the fight for equality as primarily a fight against racial prejudices of whites. This slurred over the economic and social roots of the question and obscured the question of the agrarian democratic revolution in the South, which was pivotal to the struggle for Black equality throughout the country. They pointed out that it was wrong to counterpose the struggle for equality to the struggle for self-determination. For in fact, in the South, self-determination for Blacks (political power in their own hands) was the guarantee of equality.<br />
<br />
=== HISTORY OF THE QUESTION IN THE COMINTERN ===<br />
In these discussions with my young friends, which extended over the course of several months, I became keenly aware of the gaps in my understanding of Marxist-Leninist theory on the national-colonial question. I was to find, as Nasanov and others had indicated, that the idea of Blacks as an oppressed nation was not new in the Comintern. Though Stalin was undoubtedly the person pushing the position at the time, it had not originated with him, but with Lenin himself.<br />
<br />
It first appeared in Lenin’s “Draft Theses on the National Colonial Question” which he submitted to the Second Congress of the Comintern in 1920. The draft, which was later adopted, called upon the communist parties to “render direct aid to the revolutionary movements among the dependent and underprivileged nations (for example, Ireland, the American Negroes, etc.) and in the colonies.<br />
<br />
Some have argued that Lenin’s reference to U.S. Blacks as a subject nation was merely a tentative deduction. When he submitted his draft, he asked the delegates for opinions and suggestions on fifteen points, one of which was “Negroes in America."<br />
<br />
It was recorded, however, that the Colonial Commission of the congress, which Lenin himself headed and in which Sen Katayama was a leading member, held lengthy discussions on the question of U.S, Blacks. <br />
<br />
John Reed, the American author, was a delegate and participated in the discussion, apparently in opposition to Lenin’s formulations. In fact, he made two speeches, one in the commission and one to the congress, contending that the problem of U.S. Blacks was that of “both a strong race movement and a strong proletarian workers’ movement which is rapidly developing in class consciousness.” Equating all national movements among Blacks to Garvey’s Back to Africa separatism, he contended that “a movement which struggles for a separate national existence has no success among the Negroes, like the ‘Back to Africa’ movement, for example.....” and that Blacks “consider themselves above all Americans, they feel at home in the United States. This makes the tasks of communists very much easier."<br />
<br />
But despite Reed’s objections, the reference to American Blacks as an oppressed nation remained in the resolution as finally adopted. For Lenin’s thesis was not something spun out of thin air, but was the result of a serious study of the question. This is clear from his work “New Data on the Laws Governing the Development of Capitalism in Agriculture,” which spoke about the United States,<br />
<br />
In this work, published in 1915 (and based on the U.S. Census of 1910), Lenin viewed the question of Blacks in the South as one of an uncompleted agrarian and bourgeois democratic revolution, He drew attention to the remarkable similarity between the economic positions of the South’s Black tenants and the emancipated serfs in theagrarian centers of Russia, pointing out that both groups were not tenants in the European civilized sense, but “...semi-slaves, share-croppers...”<br />
<br />
Emphasizing the absence of elementary democratic rights among Blacks, he alluded to the South as “the most stagnant area, where the masses are subjected to the greatest degradation and oppression...a kind of prison where (these ‘emancipated’ Negroes) are hemmed in, isolated, and deprived of fresh air.” These kinds of conditions, the lot of the vast majority of U.S. Blacks, undoubtedly led Lenin to conclude that their movement for “emancipation” would take a national revolutionary direction.<br />
<br />
Conclusive proof of Lenin’s thinking at the time with respect to U.S. Blacks can be found in an uncompleted work written in 1917 though not available until 1935. The work, “Statistics and Sociology,” was begun in the early part of 1917, but was interrupted by the February Revolution and never resumed. <br />
<br />
In the section of the manuscript referring to U.S. Blacks, he drew a clear distinction between their positions and that of the foreign-born immigrants, that is between the white foreign-born assimilables and the Black unassimilables.<blockquote>'''In the United States, the Negroes (and also the Mulattos and Indians) account for only 11.1 per cent. They should be classed as an oppressed nation, for the equality won in the Civil War of 1861-1865 and guaranteed by the Constitution of the republic was in many respects increasingly curtailed in the chief Negro areas (the South) in connection with the transition from the progressive, pre-monopoly capitalism of 1860-1870 to the reactionary, monopoly capitalism (imperialism) of the new era."'''</blockquote>Whereas with the white foreign-born immigrants, Lenin observed that the speed of development of capitalism in America has “produced a situation in which vast national differences are speedily and fundamentally, as nowhere else in the world, smoothed out to form a single ‘American nation.’ <br />
<br />
All of this shows that the idea that U.S. Blacks comprise an oppressed nation was neither a temporary nor tentative formulation on Lenin’s part. <br />
<br />
Despite the thesis of the Second Congress, Reed’s views reflecting as they did the position of the young American Party-— were to persist in the U.S. without serious challenge through the Fifth Congress of the Comintern. The Third Congress of 1921 recorded no discussion with respect to the character of the problem. <br />
<br />
The Fourth Congress in 1922 also did not seriously discuss the point. This mecting, however, marked the first appearance of Black delegates to the Comintern. They were Otto Huiswood as regular Party delegate, and the poet Claude McKay as a special fraternal delegate. It was also the first congress to set up a Negro Commission, and extended discussions took place on the thesis brought in by the commission which characterized the position of U.S. Blacks as an aspect of the colonial question. It stressed the special role of American Blacks in support of the liberation struggles of Africa, Central and South America and the Caribbean. <br />
<br />
The thesis of the Fourth Congress did add a new, international dimension to the question, but it did not challenge the Party's basic anti-self-determination position. This position was stressed in a speech by Huiswood (Billings) which called the Afro-American question “another phase of the racial and colonial question,’ an essentially economic problem which was “intensified by the friction which exists between the white and black races,"<br />
<br />
The discussion of the character of the question came up in the Fifth Congress in 1924, this time in connection with the Draft Program of the Communist International. For the first time since the Second Congress, the discussion centered directly on the character of the question as an oppressed nation and the appropriateness of the slogan of the right of self-determination.<br />
<br />
August Thalheimer (the German head of the Commission on the Draft Program) reported that “the slogan of the right of self-determination cannot solve all national questions,” Such is the case in the United States, “where there is an extraordinarily mixed population” and where the “race question” is also involved. Therefore, he pointed out, “the Program Commission was of the opinion that the slogan of right of self-determination must be supplemented by another slogan: ‘Equal Rights for all Nationalities and Races."<br />
<br />
Representing the U.S. at the Fifth Congress, John Pepper supported this anti-self-determination position. According to him, the United States was a country in which the different nationalities could not be separated. Self-determination was not appropriate; Blacks in the U.S, did not want it. “They do not want to set up a separate state inside the U.S.A.,” and they wish to remain inside the U.S,, not leave it for Africa. To the demand of “social equality,” he held that “we should change these words to the following: full equality in every respect.”<br />
<br />
Lovett Fort-Whiteman, the sole Black delegate, apparently supported Pepper’s position and gave his standard speech (which I was to hear a number of times in the States), He stressed the racial aspect of the problem and called for a special communist approach to Blacks.<br />
<br />
There appeared to be no opposition to the draft program, but, after all, it was only the first version. The program in its final form was to be discussed and adopted at the Sixth Congress. Apparently Zinoviev and others in the CI leadership were not satisfied with the formulation that had rejected self-determination for U.S. Blacks. Zinoviev had instructed Bob Mazut to investigate the question while on his assignment to the U.S., immediately following the congress.<br />
<br />
Such was the situation following the Fifth Congress. The question can be raised as to why the U.S. Party’s position was not seriously challenged during this whole period and why the proponents in the Comintern of the self-determination thesis failed to press for their position.<br />
<br />
Their reluctance in this regard, I presume, was because they did not want to push their position against the unanimous opposition of the American Party, including its Black members. After all, the Comintern was a voluntary union of communist parties which operated under democratic-centralism. It was not the policy of the Comintern leadership to arbitrarily force positions on member parties. <br />
<br />
=== 1928; A REEXAMINATION OF THE QUESTION ===<br />
How are we to account then for the renewed interest in the Afro-American question among certain influential leaders of the Comintern on the eve of the Sixth Congress? Why the drive to re open the question? The answer lies in the changed world situation: the sharpened crisis of the world capitalist system, consequent on the breakdown of partial capitalist stabilization, the beginning of a deepening economic depression in Europe; and the continued upsurge of the colonial revolutions in China, India and Indonesia,<br />
<br />
These harbingers of the new period were pointed out by Stalin at the Fifteenth Congress of the CPSU in early December 1927, in which he referred to the “collapsing stabilization” of capitalism. <br />
<br />
It was to be a period of revolutionary struggle. In order to lead these struggles, an attack on right opportunism was required in the practice and work of the communist parties. It was a period in which the national and colonial question was to acquire a new urgency. The CI paid special attention to the fight against those views which liquidated or downplayed the importance of the question. In this context, the Comintern felt that the establishment of a revolutionary line on the Afro-American question was key if the CPUSA was to lead the joint struggle of the Black and white working masses in the coming period.<br />
<br />
The low status of the CP’s Negro work itself was another factor pressing for a radical policy review. There had been no progress in this work, despite the prodding of the Comintern. As already mentioned, the highly touted American Negro Labor Congress had failed to even get off the ground.<br />
<br />
In a speech at the Sixth Congress, James Ford counted nineteen communications from the Comintern to the U.S, Party on Negro work, none of which had been put into effect or brought before the Party. He further observed that “we have no more than 50 Negroes in our Party, out of the 12 million Negroes in America." <br />
<br />
All of these factors strengthened the determination of the Comintern to make the Sixth Congress the arena for a drastic reevaluation of work and policy in this area.<br />
<br />
In the winter of 1928, preparations were already afoot for the Sixth Congress which was to convene the following summer. The Anglo-American Secretariat of the CI set up a special subcommitteee on the Negro question which would prepare a draft resolution for the official Negro Commission of the Congress.<br />
<br />
As I recall, the subcommittce consisted of Nasanov and five students: four Blacks (including my brother Otto and myself) and one white student, Clarence Hathaway, from the Lenin School, In addition, there were some ex-officio members: Profintern rep Bill Dunne and Comintern rep Bob Minor, They seldom attended our sessions. James Ford, who was then assigned to the Profintern, also attended some sessions.<br />
<br />
Our subcommittee met and broke the subject down into topics; each of us accepted one as his assignment to research and report on to the committee as a whole. The high point in the discussion was the report of my brother Otto on Garvey’s Back to Africa movement. In his report, he concluded that the nationalism expressed in that movement had no objective base in the economic, social and political conditions of U.S. Blacks. It was, he asserted, a foreign importation artificially grafted onto the freedom movement of U.S, Blacks by the West Indian nationalist, Garvey.<br />
<br />
U.S. Blacks, Otto concluded, were not an oppressed nation but an oppressed racial minority. The long-range goal of the movement was not the right of self-determination but complete economic, social and political equality to be won through a revolutionary alliance of Blacks and class-conscious white labor in a joint struggle for socialism against the common enemy, U.S. capitalism.<br />
<br />
Up to that point, I was still not certain as regarded tbe applicability of the right of self-determination to the problems of Blacks in the U.S., but my misgivings about the slogan had been shaken somewhat by the series of discussions I had had with my Russian friends. Otto, in his report, had merely restated the CP’s current position. But somehow, against the background of our discussion of the Garvey movement, the inadequacy of that position stood out like a sore thumb. Otto, however, had done more than simply restate the position; he brought out into the open what had been implicit in the Party’s position all along. That is, that any type of nationalism among Blacks was reactionary.<br />
<br />
This view, it occurred to me, was the logical outcome of any position which saw only the “pure proletarian” class struggle as the sole revolutionary struggle against capitalism. The Party had traditionally considered the Afro-American question as that of a persecuted racial minority. They centered their activity almost exclusively on Blacks as workers and treated the question as basically a simple trade union matter, underrating other aspects of the struggle. The struggle for equal rights was seen as a diversion that would obscure or overshadow the struggle for socialism.<br />
<br />
But how could one wage a fight against white chauvinism from that position? I thought at the time that viewing everything in light of the trade union question would lead to a denial of the revolutionary potential of the struggle of the whole people for equality. Otto’s rejection of nationalism as an indigenous trend brought these points out sharply in my mind.<br />
<br />
In the discussion, I pointed out that Otto's position was not merely a rejection of Garveyism but also a denial of nationalism as a legitimate trend in the Black freedom movement, I felt that it amounted to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. With my insight sharpened by previous discussions, I argued further that the nationalism reflected in the Garvey movement was not a foreign transplant, nor did it spring full-blown from the brow of Jove. On the contrary, it was an indigenous product, arising from the soil of Black super-exploitation and oppression in the United States, It expressed the yearnings of millions of Blacks for a nation of their own.<br />
<br />
As I pursued this logic, a totally new thought occurred to me, and for me it was the clincher. The Garvey movement is dead, I reasoned, but not Black nationalism. Nationalism, which Garvey diverted under the slogan of Back to Africa, was an authentic trend, likely to flare up again in periods of crisis and stress. Sucha movement might again fall under the leadership of utopian visionaries who would seek to divert it from the struggle against the main enemy, U.S. imperialism, and on to a reactionary separatist path. The only way such a diversion of the struggle could be forestalled was by presenting a revolutionary alternative to Blacks.<br />
<br />
To the slogan of “Back to Africa,” I argued, we must counterpose the slogan of “right of self-determination here in the Deep South.” Our slogan for the U.S, Black rebellion therefore must be the “right of self-determination in the South, with full equality throughout the country,” to be won through revolutionary alliance with politically conscious white workers against the common enemy-—-U.S. imperialism,<br />
<br />
Nasanov was seated across the table from me during this discussion and, elated at my presentation, he demonstratively rose to shake my hand. I was the first American communist (with perhaps the exception of Briggs) to support the thesis that U.S. Blacks constituted an oppressed nation.<br />
<br />
The next day, Nasanov and I submitted a resolution to the subcommittee incorporating our views. We couldn't get a majority but we had Hathaway’s support, as I remember. It was agreed that the resolution be submitted to the Anglo-American Secretariat as the views of those who subscribed to it, and those who disagreed with it would present their own views.<br />
<br />
The only really persistent opposition in the subcommittee, as I remember, came from Otto; the other students were somewhat ambivalent on the question. I attributed much of this to Sik’s influence, since he had already begun to develop his position which held that the question of U.S. Blacks was a “race” question and that Blacks should not demand seif-determination, but simply full social and political equality. His theories were later used by the Lovestoncites and others who opposed the self-determination position.<br />
<br />
Once my hesitations were overcome, the whole theory fell logicatly into place. Here is the full analysis as I came to understand it. The thesis that called for the right of selfdetermination is supported by a serious economic-historical analysis of U.S. Blacks.<br />
<br />
The evolution of American Blacks as an oppressed nation was begun in slavery. In the final analysis, however, it was the result of the unfinished bourgeois democratic revolution of the Civil War and the betrayal of Reconstruction through the Hayes-Tilden (Gentiemen’s) Agreement of 1877.<br />
<br />
This betrayal was followed by withdrawal of federal troops and the unleashing of counter-revolutionary terror, including the massacre of thousands of Blacks and the overthrow of the Reconstruction governments which had been based on an alliance of Blacks, poor whites and carpetbaggers. The result was that the Black freedmen, deserted by their former Republican allies, were left without land. Their newly-won rights were destroyed with the abrogation of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and they were thrust back upon the plantations of their former masters in a position but little removed from chattel bondage.<br />
<br />
The revolution had stopped short of a solution to the crucial land question, there was neither confiscation of the big plantations of the former slaveholding class, nor distribution of the land among the Negro freedmen and poor whites. It was around this issue of land for the freedmen that the revolutionary democratic wave of Radical Reconstruction beat in vain and finally broke.<br />
<br />
The advent of imperialism, the epoch of trusts and monopolies at the turn of the century, froze the Blacks in their post-Reconstruction position; landless, semi-slaves in the South. It blocked the road to fusion of Blacks and whites into one nation on the basis of equality and put the final seal on the special oppression of Blacks. The path towards equality and freedom via assimilation was foreclosed by these events, and the struggle for Black equality thenceforth was ultimately bound to take a national revolutionary direction.<br />
<br />
Under conditions of imperialist and racist oppression, Blacks in the South were to acquire all the attributes of a subject nation. They are a people set apart by a common ethnic origin, economically interrelated in various classes, united by a common historical experience, reflected in a special culture and psychological makeup. The territory of this subject nation is the Black Belt, an area encompassing the Deep South, which, despite massive outmigrations, still contained (and does to this day) the country’s largest concentration of Blacks.<br />
<br />
Thus, imperialist oppression created the conditions for the eventual rise ofa national liberation movement with its base in the South. The content of this movement would be the completion of the agrarian democratic revolution in the South; that is, the right of self-determination as the guarantee of complete equality throughout the country.<br />
<br />
This new analysis defined the status of Blacks in the north as an unassimilable national minority who cannot escape oppression by fleeing the South. The shadow of the plantation falls upon them throughout the country, as the semi-slave relations in the Black Belt continually reproduce Black inequality and servitude in all walks of life.<br />
<br />
There are certain singular features of the submerged Afro-American nation which differentiate it from other oppressed nations and which have made the road towards national eonsciousness and identity difficult and arduous. Afro-Americans are not only “a nation within a nation,” but a captive nation, suffering a colonial-type oppression while trapped within the geographic bounds of one of the world’s most powerful imperialist countries.<br />
<br />
Blacks were forced into the stream of U.S. history in a peculiar manner, as chattel slaves, and are victims of an excruciatingly destructive system of oppression and persecution, due not only to the economic and social survivals of slavery, but also to its ideological heritage, racism.<br />
<br />
The Afro-American nation is also unique in that it is a new nation evolved from a people forcibly transplanted from their original African homeland. A people comprised of various tribal and linguistic groups, they are a product not of their native African soil, but of the conditions of their transplantation.<br />
<br />
The overwhelming, stifling factor of race, the doctrine of inherent Black inferiority perpetuated by ruling class ideologues, has sunk deep into the thinking of Americans. It has become endemic, permeating the entire structure of U.S. life. Given this, Blacks could only remain permanently unabsorbed in the new world’s “melting pot.”<br />
<br />
The race factor has also left its stigma on the consciousness of the Black nation, creating a powerful mystification about Black Americans which has served to obscure their objective status as an oppressed nation. It has twisted the direction of the Afro-American liberation movement and scarred it while still in its embryonic state.<br />
<br />
Although the objective base for equality and freedom via direct integration was foreclosed by the defeat of Reconstruction andthe advent of the U.S. as an imperialist power, bourgeois assimilationist illusions were continued into the new era. They were nurtured and kept alive by the nascent Black middle class and the liberal detachment of the white bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Conditions, however, were maturing for the rise of a mass nationalist movement. This movement was to burst with explosive force upon the political scene in the period following World War I, with the rise of the Garvey movement. The potentially revolutionary movement of Black toilers was diverted into utopian reactionary channels of a peaceful return to Africa.<br />
<br />
The period of bourgeois democratic revolutions in the United States ended with the defeat of democratic Reconstruction. The issue of Black freedom was carried over into the epoch of imperialism. Its full solution postponed to the next stage of human progress, socialism. The question has remained and become the most vulnerable area on the domestic front of U.S. capitalism, its “Achilles heel”—a major focus of the contradictions in U.S. society.<br />
<br />
Blacks, therefore, in the struggle for national liberation and the entire working class in its struggle for socialism are natural allies. The forging of this alliance is enhanced by the presence of a growing Black industria} working class. with direct and historical connections with white labor.<br />
<br />
This new line established that the Black freedom struggle is a revolutionary movement in its own right, directed against the very foundations of U.S. imperialism, with its own dynamic pace and momentum, resulting from the unfinished democratic and land revolutions in the South. It places the Black liberation movement and the class struggle of U.S. workers in their proper relationship as two aspects of the fight against the common enemy—U.S. capitalism, It elevates the Black movement to a position of equality in that battle.<br />
<br />
The new theory destroys forever the white racist theory traditional among class-conscious white workers which had relegated the struggle of Blacks to a subsidiary position in the revolutionary movement. Race is defined as a device of national oppression, a smokescreen thrown up by the class enemy, to hide the underlying economic and social conditions involved in Black oppression and to maintain the division of the working class.<br />
<br />
The new theory was to sensitize the Party to the revolutionary significance of the Black liberation struggle. During the crisis of the thirties, a significant segment of radicalized white workers would come to see the Blacks as revolutionary allies.<br />
<br />
The struggle for this position had now begun; there remained its adoption by the Comintern and its final acceptance by the U.S. Party. Our draft resolution, which summed up these points, was turned over to Petrovsky (Bennett), Chairman of the AngloAmerican Secretariat. He seemed quite pleased with it, expressed his agreement and suggested some minor changes. He agreed to submit it to the Negro Commission at the forthcoming Sixth Congress.<br />
<br />
I continued to work with Nasanov on preparations for the congress. By that time, we had become quite a team. Our next project was the South African question, a question which also fell under the jurisdiction of the Anglo-American Secretariat.<br />
<br />
We were assigned to work with James La Guma, a South African Colored comrade who had come to Moscow to attend the Tenth Anniversary celebrations and stayed on to discuss with the ECCI and the Anglo-American Secretariat the problems of the South African Party. Specifically, we were to draft a new resolution on the question, restating and elaborating the Comintern line of an independent Native South African Republic, (The word “Native” was in common usage at the time of the Sixth Congress, though today it is considered derogatory and has been replaced with Black republic or Azania.) <br />
<br />
=== SOUTH AFRICA ===<br />
This line, formulated the year before with the cooperation of La Guma during his first visit to the Soviet Union in the spring of 1927, had been rejected by the leadership of the South African Party.<br />
<br />
La Guma, as I recall, was a young brown-skinned man of Malagasy and French parentage. In South Africa, this placed him in the Colored category, a rung above the Natives on the racial ladder established by the white supremacist rulers. Colored persons were defined as those of mixed blood, including descendants of Javanese slaves, mixed in varying degrees with European whites.<br />
<br />
La Guma, however, identified completely with the Natives and their movement. He had been general secretary of the ICU (Industrial and Commercial Union, the federation of Native trade unions) and also secretary of the Capetown branch of the ANC. Later, after his expulsion from the ICU by the red-baiting clique of Clements Kadalie (a Native social democrat), La Guma became secretary of the non-European trade union federation in Cape town.<br />
<br />
La Guma was the first South African communist I had ever met. I was delighted and impressed with him and was to find, in the course of our brief collaboration, striking parallels between the struggles of U.S. Blacks for equality and those of the Native South Africans. In both countries, the white leadership of their respective parties underestimated the revolutionary potential of the Black movement,<br />
<br />
La Guma had made his first trip to Moscow the year before. He and Josiah Gumede, president of the ANC, had come as delegates to the inaugural conference of the League Against Imperialism which had convened in Brussels, Belgium, in February 1927. Gumede attended as a delegate from the ANC, while La Guma was a delegate from the South African Communist Party. It was La Guma’s first international gathering, and he had the opportunity to meet with leaders from colonial and semi-colonial countries and discuss the South African question with them. Madame Sun Yat-sen and Pandit Nehru were among those present, The conference adopted the resolutions of the South African delegates on the right of self-determination through the complete overthrow of imperialism. The general resolutions of the congress proclaimed: “Africa for the Africans, and their full freedom and equality with other races and the right to govern Afriea.”<br />
<br />
After Brussels, La Guma went on a speaking tour to Germany, after which he came to Moscow. Although the Brussels conference had called for the right of self-determination, it left unanswered many specific questions that are raised by that slogan. Were the Natives in South Africa a nation? What was to be done with the whites?<br />
<br />
La Guma was to find the answer to these questions in Moscow, where he consulted with ECCI leaders, including Bukharin, who was then president of the Comintern. He participated with ECCI leaders in the formulation of a resolution on the South Afriean question, calling for the return of the land to the natives and for “an independent native South African republic as a stage towards a workers’ and peasants’ republic with full, equal rights for all races.”<br />
<br />
La Guma returned to South Africa with the resolution in June 1927, Gumede also arrived home in the same month. But the resolution was received hostilely by Bunting and was rejected by the South African Party leadership at its annual conference in December 1927.<br />
<br />
Bunting was a British lawyer who had come to South Africa some years before. An early South African socialist and a founder of the Communist Party, he was the son of a British peer. As Bunting later commented, he nearly used up the small fortune he had inherited in the support of Party work and publications.<br />
<br />
Bunting and his followers insisted that the South African revolution, unlike those in the colonies, was a direct struggle for socialism without any intermediary stages. To the Comintern slogan of a “Native South African Republic,” Bunting counterposed the slogan of a “Workers’ and Peasants’ Republic.” This concept of “pure proletarian revolution” was an echo of what we had found in the U.S. Party with respect to Blacks. But here, the error stood out grotesquely given the reality of the South African situation with its overwhelming Native majority.<br />
<br />
it was against this background that La Guma and Gumede left to go to Moscow to attend the Tenth Anniversary celebrations, and the Congress of the Friends of the Soviet Union. La Guma apparently was not in Moscow on that oceasion; he was probably out on a tour of the provinces. Both he and Gumede travelled widely during their visit to the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
Our purpose at this time was to develop and clarify the line laid down in the resolution formulated the previous year. Our draft, with few changes, was adopted by the Sixth Congress of the Comintern and the ECCI.<br />
<br />
As already noted, Bunting had put forward the slogan of a South African “Workers’ and Peasants’ Government.” Bunting’s formulation denied the colonial character of South Africa, He failed, therefore, to see the inherent revolutionary nature of the Natives’ struggle for emancipation.<br />
<br />
As opposed to this, our resolution began with a definition of South Africa as “a British dominion of the colonial type” whose colonial features included:<br />
<br />
1, The country was exploited by British imperialism, with the participation of the South African white bourgeoisie (British and Boer), with British capital occupying the principal economic position.<br />
<br />
2. The overwhelming majority of the population were Natives and Colored (five million Natives and Colored, with one and a half million whites, according to the 1921 Census).<br />
<br />
3. Natives, who held only one-eighth of the land, were almost completely landless, the great bulk of their land having been expropriated by the white minority.<br />
<br />
4, The “great difference in wages and material conditions of the white and black proletariat,” and the widespread corruption of the white workers by the racist propaganda and ideology of the imperialists.<br />
<br />
These features, we held, determined the character of the South African revolution which, in its first stage, would be a struggle of Natives and non-European peoples for independence and land. As the previous resolution had done, our draft (in the form adopted by the Sixth Congress and the ECCI) held that as a result of these canditions, in order to lead and influence that movement, communists—black and white—must put forth and fight for the general political slogan of “an independent Native South African Republic as a stage towards a workers’ and peasants’ republic, with full, equal rights for all races, black, coloured and white.”<br />
<br />
“South Afriea is a black country,” the resolution went onto say, with a mainly black peasant population, whose land had been expropriated by the white colonizers. Therefore, the agrarian question lies at the foundation of the revolution. The black peasantry, in alliance with and under the leadership of the working class, is the main driving foree. Thus, along with the slogan of a “Native Republic,” the Party must place the slogan “return of the land to the Natives.”<br />
<br />
This latter formulation does not appear in the resolution as finally adopted. Instead, it includes the following two formulations:<br />
<br />
1. Whites must accept the “correct principle that South Africa belongs to the native population.”<br />
<br />
2. “The basic question in the agrarian situation in South Africa is the land hunger of the blacks and . . . their interest is of prior importance in the solution of the agrarian question.”<br />
<br />
With the new resolution completed, La Guma returned to South Africa. In the year since the first resolution, the opposition to the line had intensified and had already come to a head at the December Party Congress—-even before La Guma’s return.<br />
<br />
Bunting put forward his position in a fourteen page document in the early part of 1928. He equated the nationalism of the Boer minority to the nationalism of the Natives and justified his opposition to nationalism on the basis that all national movements were subject to capitalist corruption, and, in the case of South Afriea, a national movement among Natives “would probably only accelerate the fusion, in opposition to it, of the Dutch and British imperialists." Since it would thus only consolidate the forees against it, it was not to be supported.<br />
<br />
Bunting not only underrated nationalism, he played on the whites’ fear of it and raised the specter of blacks being given free reign, with a resulting campaign to drive the whites into thesea. He was echoing the specter that was haunting whites who remembered the song of the Xhosas:<blockquote>'''To chase the white men from the earth''' <br />
<br />
'''And drive them to the sea.'''<br />
<br />
'''The sea that cast them up at first'''<br />
<br />
'''For Ama Xhosa’s curse and bane''' <br />
<br />
'''Howls for the progeny she nursed'''<br />
<br />
'''To swallow them again.'''</blockquote>According to Bunting, the elimination of whites seemed to be implied in the slogan of a “Native Republic.” He regarded the phrase “safeguards for minorities ” as having little meaning, since whites would assume that the existing injustices would be reversed; that, in effect, blacks would do to them what they had been handing out for so long.<br />
<br />
While Bunting had held that all nationalism was reactionary, La Guma distinguished between the revolutionary nationalism of the Natives and the “nationalism” of the Boers (which in reality was simply a quarrel between sections of the ruling class), He argued that the communists must not hold back on the revolutionary demands of the Natives in order to pacify the white workers who are still “saturated with an imperialist ideology” and conscious of the privileges they enjoy at the Natives’ expense. <br />
<br />
Bunting held that the road to socialism would be traveled under white leadership; to La Guma, the securing of black rights was the first step to be taken, As the Simonses described it, “First establish African majority rule, he argued, and unity, leading to socialism, would follow.” La Guma called on communists to “build up a mass party based upon the non-European masses,” put forward the slogan of a Native Republic and thus destroy the traditional subservience to whites among Africans. This argument continued up through the Sixth Congress.<br />
<br />
=== MY STAY IN THE CAUCASUS ===<br />
In the middle of April 1928, I left Moscow for a stay in the Caucasus. The winter had been one of those long, cold, dark Moscow winters, Snow was still on the ground in April, Over the whole season, I had been plagued by recurrent seizures of grippe. Between the demands of school and the preparations for the Sixth Congress, it had been a winter of intense activity, Undoubtedly, this had contributed to my inability to shake off the illness. By the spring, I was pretty run down. <br />
<br />
The school doctor detected a slight anemia and recommended a month in a rest home. So, I was shipped off to Kislovodsk, a famous health resort in the northern Caucasus. I traveled south and east, across the Ukrainian steppe, where spring had already come to Rostov-on-Don, the administrative center for the northerm Caucasus region, Then on to Mincralny Vody (Mineral Water), the gateway to the Caucasus and a major railroad junction. I changed there for Kislovodsk, a short distance further towards the mountains.<br />
<br />
Stepping off the train in Kislovodsk in early morning, I felt better at my first breath of fresh mountain air. The city was located in the foothills on the northern range of the Caucasus. Its mineral springs were famed for their medicinal properties, especially for coronary patients. Formerly a famous watcring-place for the wealthy, it was now enjoyed by all the Soviet people. Kislovodsk was the source of the famous Narzan water which cost forty or fifty kopeks a bottle in Moscow. Here it bubbled from the ground in numerous springs, and you could drink all you wanted.<br />
<br />
Checking in at the sanitarium, I was assigned to a room shared by three others-—two workers and a Party functionary from Tbilisi named Kolya Tsereteli. Kolya was a tall, handsome, swarthy young man. He cut quite a figure in his long Georgian robochka, soft leather boots, high astrakhan cap and ornamental belt, complete with kinjal (dagger). He immediately took me in charge and became my constant companion during my stay there. <br />
<br />
After I had been examined by a doctor who prescribed daily baths, Kolya took me around on a sightseeing tour. The sun was coming up over the parks, cypress trees and places for open air concerts.<br />
<br />
After several weeks, I felt much better and was soon chafing at the bit, bored with the regimen and eager to return to Moscow, At this point Kolya suggested that we might try to arrange my accompanying him to his home in Tbilisi (hot springs) and stay for a week before returning to Moscow. I was delighted and had no difficulty in getting both my release from the sanitarium and permission from the school to make the trip.<br />
<br />
Tbilisi--the Florence of the Caucasus—was a beautiful modern city, stretching for miles along both sides of the Kura River. Ithad spacious avenues lined by stately cypress trees; handsome buildings and apartments, a magnificent cathedral, its great central dome flanked by four cupolas, framed against a background of the mountains of the mighty Caucasus chain, with Mount David rising 2,500 fect above the city.<br />
<br />
It was a mixed population of mainly Georgians, Armenians, Jews and some Turko-Tartars. Kolya explained that there actually were more Armenians than Georgians living there in the capital of Georgia! He went on to tell me that in the Caucasus, ethnic groups often overlapped their national boundaries as finally constituted. This was particularly so in the case of the Armenians, who were the victims of genocidal persecution and dispersal by Turkey. As a result, there were more Armenians in Azerbaidzhan and Georgia than in the Armenian Republic itself.<br />
<br />
In the old days, Georgian nationalism was directed more against the Armenians than against the Russians. The Armenians had a larger merchant class. They dominated commerce and were an obstacle to the growth of the weak Georgian bourgeoisie who retaliated by whipping up national animosity against the Armenians. Hence, national hatred was often directed against rival national groups rather than against the dominant Czarist power, and the Czarist government exploited these animosities fully.<br />
<br />
The area was known for bloody battles between the various ethnic groups, But all that ended with the revolution, Kolya said, and with the establishment of the Trans-Caucasian Federation. based on national equality and voluntary consent. <br />
<br />
Within the federation, which was composed of three republics (Georgia, Azerbaidzhan and Armenia), the Georgian republic had three minority distriets; Abkhazia and Azaria as autonomous republics, and Yugo-Osetia as an autonomous region, National languages and cultures were flourishing under the new regime.<br />
<br />
“As you will see, here in Tbilisi we have Georgian, Armenian and Russian theaters,” Kolya told me.<br />
<br />
Kolya hailed an izvozchik and we rode to his apartment, located on one of the broad tree-lined avenues of the city. Arriving there, we were happily greeted by his family, His wife, an attractive young schoolteacher, received me warmly and told me that Kolya had written her about me. They had two beautiful children, a boy of about three and a girl about five. They seemed fascinated with my appearance and couldn't take their eyes off me. I was undoubtedly the first Black man they had ever seen. <br />
<br />
On being told by Kolya to “shake hands with the black uncle,” the boy hesitantly extended his little hand. ,<br />
<br />
I took it and gently shook it. When he withdrew it, he looked at his hand to see whether some of the black had come off and seemed rather surprised that it hadn’t.<br />
<br />
“No, it won’t come off,” I said, and we all laughed. I had experienced this reaction from Russian children in Moscow, and it never failed to amuse me.<br />
<br />
The Tseretelis lived in a clean and neatly-furnished three-room apartment on the second floor of the building, with a balcony over the sidewalk. As if reading my thoughts, Kolya said, “Don’t worry, we all usually sleep in one room; the other is for my brother who stays here with us. He is out of town, so you can stay in his room.”<br />
<br />
Kolya was anxious to cheek in at the Party office where he worked, so we left our baggage and walked to his office a short distance away. I was interested in the people we passed. They looked better dressed than the Russians back in Moscow, their costumes were gayer. Perhaps it was due to the milder climate,<br />
<br />
Kolya served as the deputy secretary of the Agitprop Department of the Tbilisi Committee of the Communist Party. He introduced me to his fellow workers in the department; they all seemed glad to see him and remarked how well he looked after his rest. They were speaking Georgian; Kolya asked them to speak in Russian in deference to me, They all seemed to be multilingual. Kolya, I knew, besides his native Georgian, spoke Russian, Armenian and some French. The comrades insisted on calling a conference. Like most Party officials, they were well-informed on both domestic and international questions and were an educated audience.<br />
<br />
They asked me my impressions of their country, and they also had questions about the situation in the United States, about the conditions of Blacks. Kolya told them that I was a student at the Lenin School in Moscow and that formerly I had been at KUTVA. They knew about KUTVA as they too had sent students there. They were interested in the work I had done in preparation for the forthcoming Sixth Congress, and they were familiar with Stalin's report to the Fifteenth Party Congress from that December, where he described the international situation. They asked me questions about the international situation and the war danger and we exchanged opinions.<br />
<br />
Kolya explained that I was only going to bein town for acouple of days. It was Friday then, and I was scheduled to leave on Sunday. As I remember, we took a car from the pool and two or three people from the office accompanied us on a sightseeing tour along the banks of the river.<br />
<br />
We returned to Kolya’s home where his wife had a delicious big meal waiting for us: shashlik, fruits and pastries. We sat up until late that night telling stories.<br />
<br />
The next day we saw a number of places of interest, bathed in the famous hot sulfur springs, went up to the summit of Mount David and saw the old church on the mountain, which dated back centuries, and the mausoleum of famous Georgian poets and patriots. All in all we spent a very enjoyable weekend together.<br />
<br />
On Sunday, Kolya and his wife took me to the station and put me on the train for Moscow. Three days later I was back home. I saw Kolya once again when he was on a visit to Moscow and I took him out to dinner.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 9 ==<br />
<br />
=== Sixth Congress of the Comintern: A Blow Against the Right ===<br />
The Sixth World Congress of the Comintern, held in Moscow in July and August of 1928, was a historic turning point in the world communist movement. Early in July the first U.S. delegates arrived, anxious to get the “lay of the land” and to scout the political situation in the capital of world revolution. As I recall, Lovestone’s group staked out headquarters at the Lux Hotel, while the Foster-Cannon opposition gathered at the Bristol, a short distance further up the street.<br />
<br />
A number of us from the Lenin School were on hand when our comrades in the Foster group arrived. We got together to talk with a number of them, though Foster, Cannon and Bittelman were not present. They were anxious to get a report on the situation in the Soviet Party: Which leaders were involved in the right opposition? What was Bukharin doing? Where did he stand?<br />
<br />
We gave them a rundown on the situation as we saw it. The issues in the discussion included industrialization, the five-year plan, collectivization, the drive against the Kulaks and the war danger.<br />
<br />
We told them about disagreements in the CPSU. There was talk of a hidden right faction involving such leaders as Rykov, Tomsky and possibly Bukharin. Thus far, however, there were only rumors and speculations. The fight was not yet out in the open, but was confined to the Politburo and the Central Committee. A plenum of the Central Committee had been called on the eve of the Sixth Congress and was at that moment in session. We told them that we could undoubtedly find out at the congress if there were any new developments,<br />
<br />
On their part, our fellow oppositionists ran down the latest developments in the inner-Party struggle at home. We already knew of the findings of a special American Commission which had been set up at the Eighth Plenum of the CI in May 1927. The commission’s final resolution had called for the unconditional abolition of all factionalism. Both sides ignored the resolution. however, as the most vicious factionalism continued in the Party. At the Fifth Convention of the CPUSA in the fall of 1927, the Lovestone-Pepper bunch were able to out-maneuver the Foster-Cannon opposition and win control of the organizational apparatus.<br />
<br />
Firmly in the saddle of power and riding high, their support came from the belief on the part of the membership that the Lovestone group had the endorsement of the Comintern—a myth assiduously cultivated by the Lovestone cohorts. They were playing a deceitful game of double-bookkeeping, both with respect to the Comintern as well as to the membership at home. Their method was to give lip service to the fight against the right danger. while in practice undermining its application and attempting to pin the label of “right” on the opposition. Typical of this duplicity was their sabotage of the line of the Red International of Labor Unions’ (RILU) Fourth Congress, which had called for the formation of the new unions in industries and areas where the workers were unorganized.<br />
<br />
In the U.S., the new upsurge in class struggle, combined wit refusal of the AFL craft-type union caters to ieee ie majority of industrial workers, demanded that the communists take the lead and organize the unions themselves. ;<br />
<br />
At this point in the discussion it was pointed out that Foster himself was still not clear on the question of the formation of the new unions. Other members of the grouping admitted that they had also vacillated on the question when it was first raised—after the decisions of the Fourth RILU Congress-—but it appeared that they now had a better grasp of the matter.<br />
<br />
On the question of the estimate of the international situation, they pointed out that their record was clear, whereas the leadership definitely underestimated the economic crisis and radicalization of the workers. They admitted that they were late in pressing the question of independent unions, but now they had finally decided to launch textile, mining and needle trades industrial unions. Lovestone had jumped on the bandwagon at the last minute as a loud trumpeter of the “new unions” line in an attempt to clear his record before the World Congress.<br />
<br />
On the whole, our comrades were full of fight and optimistic at the outcome of placing their case before the World Congress. They seemed sure that they would get a favorable hearing. The strategy was to expose the Lovestone-Pepper leadership as the embodiment of the right danger in the U.S. Party and to explode the myth of their Comintern support, thus laying the basis for the victory of the opposition at the next Party convention. This strategy was pressed at the numerous caucus meetings of the opposition bloc which I attended before and during the congress.<br />
<br />
But all was not well within the ranks of the opposition; that much was evident at the first meeting of our caucus. Foster, the leader of the minority, came under sharp attack for his vacillation on the question of the new unions from his immediate co-workers, Bittelman, Cannon, Browder and Johnstone. Foster had not been alone in his resistance to the new policy. Most of the members of the minority had vacillated on, if not openly resisted, the decisions of the Ninth Plenum and of the Fourth Congress of the RILU on this question.<br />
<br />
But Foster had been the most stubborn, clinging to the old policy based on the organized workers, rather than the unorganized, which placed main emphasis on work within the old reactionary-dominated AFL unions. This policy, which Lozovsky had caricatured as “dancing a quadrille,..around the AFL and its various unions,” regarded the organization of unions independent of the AFL as “dual unionism”--a heresy left over from the days of the IWW.<br />
<br />
Just a month before, in the May Plenum of the CC of the CPUSA, Foster had written a trade union resolution which was supported by Lovestone, While it called for the building of independent textile and miners’ unions, it still reflected many illusions as to the gains communists could make within the AFL. Foster could not bring himself to fully criticize his earlier mistakes, which left Lovestone free to use Foster as a cover for his rightist position.<br />
<br />
All of this was bad for the minority; it blurred the image that it sought to present to the congress—that of consistent fighters against the right danger. There was a heated exchange at the first meeting of the minority caucus. As I recall, Foster contended that he had not in principle been against the new turn, but against those who interpreted it as a signal for desertion of the work in the old unions, It was clear that at this point Foster had lost leadership (at least temporarily) of his own group. Bittelman was chosen to make the report for the minority in the American Commission of the congress,<br />
<br />
With tempers still frayed, we passed on to a brief exchange on the Afro-American question and the proposed new line on self-determination, which they all knew was coming up for fulldress discussion at the congress. I gave a brief outline of the position and how I had been led to it by the study of the Garvey movement.<br />
<br />
Then someone raised the inevitable question, Wouldn't this be construed as an endorsement of Black separation? Does it not conflict with the struggle against segregation?<br />
<br />
Foster objected to that implication, maintaining that selfdetermination didn’t necessarily mean separation. He drew an analogy to our trade union policy with respect to Blacks, He pointed out the necessity to fight for the organization of Blacks and whites in one union and against all segregation, But in unions where Jim Crow bars exclude Blacks, Foster said, we support their right to organize their own separate unions, In such situations, the organization of Black unions should be regarded as a step toward eventual unity and not an advocacy of separation.<br />
<br />
It was evident that Foster had studied the question and was attempting to relate it to his own practical experience. While his analogy was oversimplified, he was clearly taking a correct stand.<br />
<br />
Bittelman, as I recall, seemed the clearest of all. Perhaps this was as a result of his Russian revolutionary background and some acquaintance with the Bolshevik policy on the national question. He pointed out the necessity of making a distinction between the right of separation and separation itself. Separation or independence is only one of the options; there were various forms of federation as Soviet experience had shown. The central question was one of building unity of Black and white workers against U.S. capitalism and this could be achieved only by recognition of the right of self-determination.<br />
<br />
I was happy about the support given to the position by Foster and Bittelman, As the main theoretician of the minority, Bittelman had a great deal of influence. Certainly there was unclarity among the caucus members, but by and large I was favorably impressed by this first airing of the question. After all, I reasoned, the proposed new line did represent a radical shift from past policy. There seemed to be a modesty among these people and a sincere desire to give the matter a full hearing.<br />
<br />
I felt that on the whole my comrades were an honest lot, Despite factional considerations, they were motivated by the overriding desire to achieve clarity on a question which up to that point had frustrated the Party’s best efforts.<br />
<br />
In the caucus meetings, I had my first close-up view of some of the leaders with whom I was to work in the future. Mostly from the midwest, with genuine roots in the American labor tradition, they were a pretty impressive bunch. Most had broad mass experience—especially in the trade union field. The roots of the Lovestone group were much more grounded among former functionaries and propagandists of the Socialist Party.<br />
<br />
William Z. Foster, leader of the minority bloc, was also the leader in the Party’s trade union work. A self-educated man, he had worked at a number of trades, including longshoreman, seaman, lumberjack, street-car conductor and railroad worker Born in Massachusetts, he spent his early childhood in Philadelphia and came into prominence as a trade union leader in Chicago.<br />
<br />
He had been a left socialist, then, for a brief period, joined with the Wobblies. He soon clashed with them on the issue of dual unionism. Foster himself opted for the French syndicalist policy of boring from within the established unions. He joined the Communist Party in the summer of 1921 and brought an entire group of trade unionists with him.<br />
<br />
In Chicago, Foster was deeply involved in trade union work. He had served as business agent for the Brotherhood of Railroad Car Men of America; was a founder of the TUEL; initiated the nationwide drive to organize the stockyard workers in 1917; and was leader of the 1919 steel strike, the attempt to organize 365,000 steelworkers. It was in this strike that he became a nationally known left trade union figure.<br />
<br />
The first time I saw Foster in action was at the Fourth Party Convention in Chicago in the summer of 1925. I remember him angrily pacing with clenched fists back and forth across the platform behind Ruthenberg as the latter berated him from the rostrum. Here in the caucus, he was again an angry man, but under the lashing of his friends and co-factionalists.<br />
<br />
Jack Johnstone, a Scotsman, still had the Scot’s burr in his Speech. An ex-Wobbly and close co-worker of Foster, he had been one of the young radical Chicago trade unionists. A member of the Chicago Federation of Labor from the Painters Union, Johnstone was a leader in the TUEL. I had met him at the Fourth RILU Congress. His name was familiar to me because of his role as a leader in the organization of the Chicago stockyard workers in which my sister had been involved. Johnstone was the organizer of the drive for the Chicago Federation of Labor and later became secretary of the Chicago Stockyards Council with 55,000 white and Black members.<br />
<br />
On the eve of the 1919 riots, he had helped to organize a parade of white stockyard unionists through the Southside in solidarity with the Black workers. I had the pleasure of working with Johnstone later in Pittsburgh and in Chicago, where he was industrial organizer for the district. He was a quiet, unassuming guy with a wry sense of humor.<br />
<br />
Earl Browder of Wichita, Kansas, served his ideological apprenticeship as a radical trade unionist in the socialist and cooperative movements. Arrested in 1917 on charges of defying the draft law, he spent three years in the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas.<br />
<br />
I had known Browdcr briefly in Moscow while he was rep to the Profintern, before he went on a two year mission to the Far East for that organization. We KUTVA students would often visit him at his room in the Lux Hotel where he would play checkers with Golden, who usually won. He told us that when he was at Leavenworth, he had met a number of former members of the Black Twenty-fourth Infantry who had been involved in the mutiny-riot in Houston, Texas, in the summer of 1917. He told us that they often played baseball together in prison. <br />
<br />
At the time, Browder seemed to me to be a quiet, modest, unassuming man. But at this caucus mecting, something had happened which seemed to have transformed him into a “new’ Browder. Though long associated with Foster, he now seemed bent on not only asserting his independence, but on establishing his own claim to leadership.<br />
<br />
At one point in the heated discussion on trade union policy, he exclaimed sarcastically: “You expect to get the support of the Comintern, but you're all divided among yourselves! There’s a Cannon group, a Bittelman Group, a Foster Group—well, I'm for the Browder Group!”<br />
<br />
No one seemed to take his remark seriously, but less than a year later Browder was to emerge as secretary of the Party.<br />
<br />
James P. Cannon was also from Kansas—a tall, raw-boned midwesterner of Irish descent. He came from the same trade union background as the other caucus leaders; he had been a traveling organizer for the Wobblies and an editor of a number of labor papers. Hc was a supporter of Trotsky, although he didn’t admit it at the congress. Later he split from the Party and helped form the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party. <br />
<br />
Bil} Dunne was a man of impressive credentials. Raised in Minnesota, Dunne entered the trade union movement as an electrician. Then in Butte, Montana, during World War I, he edited the Butte Daily Bulletin (official organ of the Montana Federation of Labor and the Butte Central Labor Council).<br />
<br />
Dunne had been secretary of a local of electricians, vice-president of the Montana Federation of Labor and a member of the state legislature (on the Democratic ticket, which in Butte was labor controlled). He helped organize the Socialist Party Branch of Butte and brought it into the Communist Labor Party in 1919.<br />
<br />
I got to know Bill quite well; he was in the Soviet Union for some months before the Sixth Congress as a Profintern rep. I first met him through Clarence Hathaway, and both were associated with the Cannon sub-group. Bill was familiar with the emerging line on self-determination and supported it. He had written a number of articles on Black workers in the mid-twenties.<br />
<br />
To me, he was the most colorful figure in our caucus anda man of unusual brilliance. Keen-witted, sharp in debate, he had an extraordinary sense of humor. Of Irish and French-Canadian parentage, Bill was short and heavy-set, with black bushy eyebrows. He cut a romantic figure onthe streets of Moscow in his Georgian rabochka and sheathed dagger at his waist. I had aclose friendship with Bill which lasted over a number of years.<br />
<br />
Alexander Bittelman was a Russian Jew who had emigrated to the United States when in his early twenties. A little fellow. Bittelman was both ascetic and scholarly. He had been in the socialist movement in Russia and continued on in his political work in the U.S. A serious Marxist student, Bittelman was the main theoretician for the Foster group.<br />
<br />
=== THE LOVESTONE CAUCUS ===<br />
The Lovestone-Pepper caucus was meeting at the same time. They too were mapping out plans for the battle on the floor of the congress. Lovestone also had his troubles—most involved the shedding of his opportunist reputation for that of “crusader against the right danger.”<br />
<br />
Most of the “big guns” were on the scene: Lovestone, Pepper, Weinstone and Wolfe. Gitlow, Bedacht and others were left at home as caretakers; Gitlow ostensibly to carry on the Party’s election campaign (in which he was vice-presidential candidate).<br />
<br />
While I was the only Black in the minority caucus, the Lovestone-Pepper caucus claimed the allegiance, if not the ardent support, of a number of leading Black comrades. In the nine months since the convention, the Lovestone-Pepper leadership had attempted to patch its fences in the work among Blacks. Otto Huiswood, now a member of the Central Committee and district organizer in Buffalo, was the first Black district organizer. Richard B. Moore was assigned to the International Labor Defense, and Cyril P. Briggs was editor of The Crusader News Service, which was subsidized by the Party.<br />
<br />
But none of these could be called ardent supporters of Lovestone. They were all dissatisfied with the status of Afro-American work, which was reflected in the small number of Black cadre in the Party. In general, it was still difficult to draw a hard and fast distinction between the factions on questions concerning Afro-American work.<br />
<br />
Blacks in the Lovestone delegation included H.V. Phillips and Fort-Whiteman (both directly from the United States) and students from the graduating group at KUTVA—Otto, Farmer and Williams (Golden had already left for home). The group also included William L. Patterson, the young attorney who had worked with the Party on the Sacco-Vanzetti case and who had been sent to KUTVA just before the congress.<br />
<br />
James Ford, who worked in the Profintern and was to become an outstanding Party leader in the thirties, stood aloof from both groups as I remember. His sympathies seemed to be with the Foster-Cannon opposition, however.<br />
<br />
Among the Blacks attending the congress, I was the only one supporting the new line on self-determination. The others insisted that “it was a race question, not a national question,” implying that the solution lay through assimilation under socialism. Probing deeper, I found that most were hung up on a purist and non-Marxist concept of the class struggle which ruled out all strivings towards nationality and Black identity as divisive, running counter to internationalism and Black and white unity.<br />
<br />
It was an American version of the “pure proletarian revolution” concept; a domestic manifestation of the old deviation in the socialist and communist movements against which Lenin, Stalin and others had fought in the development of the Bolshevik policy on the national and colonial question.<br />
<br />
Recalling that I myself had held the same view just a few months back, I felt that the resistance of Blacks in the Party to self-determination would be overcome through exposure in the discussions at the congress of the proposed new line. I had no doubt that they would come to see, as I had, the grand irony of a situation in which we Blacks, who so vociferously complained about our white comrades underestimating the revolutionary significance of the Afro-American question, were guilty of the same sin. For the revolutionary significance of the struggle for Black rights lay precisely in the recognition of its character as essentially that of the struggle of an oppressed nation against U.S. imperialism,<br />
<br />
At this point, the opposition to the idea of Black self-determination was to receive theoretical support from an unexpected source, This opposition came from Professor Sik, my old teacher at KUTVA, who was still teaching the Black students there, Sik contended that bourgeois race ideology, which fostered racial prejudices, was the prime factor in the oppression of U.S. Blacks. Therefore, their fight for equal rights should be regarded not as that of an oppressed nation striving for equality via self-determination but, on the contrary, as the fight of an oppressed racial minority (similar to the Jews under cezarism) for assimilation as equals into U.S. society. <br />
<br />
Sik undoubtedly thought that he was presenting original views, but stripped of their pseudo-Marxist phraseology, they were the old bourgeois-liberal reformist views. He slurred over the socioeconomic factors that lay at the base of the question, factors which call for the completion of the agrarian-democratic revolution in the South, His perspective divested the Black movement of its independent revolutionary thrust, reducing it to a bourgeois liberal opposition to race prejudice.<br />
<br />
However, Sik’s thesis continued to be used as a crutch for the right opposition over the next year or so; it appeared in the Communist International (organ of the Comintern) in the midst of the Sixth World Congress. But the pressure for a turn to the left in this work was to flush it out into the open along with other right-wing views on the question. <br />
<br />
Foremost among these were the views of Jay Lovestone. His view of Southern Blacks as a “reserve of capitalist reaction’ provided a theoretical rationale for the Party’s chronic underestimation of the question. This was clear in his report to the Fifth Party Convention in which he contended that: <blockquote>'''The migration of Negroes from the South to the North is another means of proletarianization, consequently the existence of this group asa reserve of capitalist reaction is likewise being undermined.'''</blockquote>Lovestone held that the masses of Blacks in the South become potentially revolutionary only through migration to the industrial centers in the north and participation in class struggle along with white workers. This viewpoint, which was later to become a cornerstone for his theory of “American exceptionalism,” was first outlined in his report for the Fifth Convention of the Party and again in his report in the Daily Worker in February 1928. But these articles passed unnoticed at the time. It was only on the eve of the Sixth World Congress and under the pressure of the new line that we became alerted to Lovestone’s views.<br />
<br />
The general meeting of the American delegation took place the day before the opening of the congress. All factions were represented but, as I recall, there were no fireworks. By that time, lines were clearly drawn and neither faction was trying to convince the other. On our part, we were saving our ammunition for the battle on the floor of the congress and its commissions.<br />
<br />
Apparently there had been some objections in the Lovestone group to the proposed new line on self-determination. To mollify these people, Lovestone stated that he stood for the right of self-determination of oppressed peoples everywhere, surely he said, no communist could oppose this right. I assumed that he regarded the slogan as some sort of showcase principle; something to be declared but which did not commit its advocates to any special line of action. Lovestone knew which way the wind was blowing and was clearly trying to straddle the fence on the issue.<br />
<br />
The delegates at this meeting were assigned to the various commissions; there was no struggle over the assignments as it was understood that all commissions had to include members of both factions. These commissions included the American Negro/ South African Commission, Colonial Commission, Trade Union Commission, and Program Commission.<br />
<br />
=== THE SIXTH WORLD CONGRESS ===<br />
On July 17, 1928, 532 delegates representing fifty-seven parties and nine organizations assembled in the Hall of Trade Unions. The delegation from the United States was a large one— twenty-nine delegates, including twenty voting and nine advisor delegates. The Sixth Congress convened under the slogan of "War Against the Right Danger and the Rightist Conciliators.”<br />
<br />
The period since the February plenum of the Comintern had been marked by the emergence of a clearly defined right opportunist deviation in most of the parties, They advanced the perspective of continuous capitalist recovery and the easing of the class struggle. In the realm of tactics this meant a continuation of the old “united front from above” and a reliance on social reformist trade union leaders. In the U.S., the right was to find its ease exponents in the Lovestone-Pepper leadership, which emphesized the strength of U.S. capitalism and its ability to postpone the crisis.<br />
<br />
A right opposition had also begun to develop in the CPSU, headed by Bukharin; Rykov, chairman of the Council of People's Commissions; and Tomsky, heading the Soviet Trade Unions. This group opposed the programs of the Stalinist majority of the Central Committee with respect to the goals of the new Five Year Plan, which called for intensified industrialization, collectivization, and the drive against the kulaks. The right deviation inthe CPSU and in the other parties of the Comintern had a common source—overestimation of the strength of world capitalism. The congress was faced with the need to answer these critics by deepening its analysis of the period and by spelling out more clearly the policy flowing from it.<br />
<br />
In the Soviet Party, the disagreement had come to a head prior to its plenum of July 1928, which adjourned just before the Sixth Congress. The differences, however, were hushed up by a resolution unanimously adopted by both groups which stated that there were no differences in the leadership of the CPSU. The agreement undoubtedly expressed the desire of the Soviet leadership to keep the congress from becoming an arena for discussion of Soviet problems before they had been finally thrashed out within their own Party.<br />
<br />
The delegates, however, were not unaware of the struggle in the Soviet Party. They gathered in an atmosphere charged with rumor and speculation about differences within the CPSU. The questions in our minds were: Who represented the right danger in the CPSU, the leading Party of the CI? What was the role of Bukharin? What had been the outcome of the discussions in the plenum of the CPSU? How would the congress be affected? We did not have long to wait for answers to these questions. Differences developed over sections of Bukharin’s ''Report on the International Situation and Tasks of the Comintern''.<br />
<br />
In his report which was distributed on July 18, at the second session of the congress, Bukharin analyzed the post-World War I international situation, dividing it into three periods. He defined the first (1917-1923) as one of revolutionary upsurge; the second (1924-1927) as a period of partial stabilization of capitalism; and the third (1928 on) as one of capitalist reconstruction. Bukharin made no clear distinction between the second and third periods; the latter was simply a continuation of the second. According to his characterization, there was nothing new at the present time to shake capitalist stabilization. On the contrary, capitalism was continuing to “reconstruct itself.”<br />
<br />
On this question Bukharin was challenged by his own Soviet delegation which submitted a series of twenty amendments to the thesis. These characterized the third period as one in which partial stabilization was coming to an end. Later, in his criticism of Bukharin’s position, Stalin pointed out the decisive importance of a correct estimate of the third period. The question involved here was: “Are we passing through a period of decline of the revolutionary movement...or are we passing through a period when the conditions are maturing for a new revolutionary upsurge, a period of preparation of the working class for future class battles? It is on this that the tactical line of the Communist Parties depends"<br />
<br />
At first, all of this was somewhat confusing to us. In his opening report Bukharin had himself declared the right deviation the greatest danger” to the Comintern. But in his characterization of the third period as one of virtual capitalist recovery he had adopted the main thesis of the right. He had also put himself in the awkward position of being rejected by his own delegation. But as Stalin was later to point out, it was his own fault for failing to discuss his report in advance with the Soviet delegation, as was customary. Instead he distributed his report to all delagations simulataniously. <br />
<br />
In accordance with our battle plan to expose to Lovestone leadership as the embodiment of the right deviation in the American Party, our caucus took the offensive. Even before the discussion on Bukharin’s report began, our minority had submitted a document entitled “The Right Danger and the American Party.” It was signed by J.W. Johnstone, M. Gomez, W.F Dunne, J.P. Cannon, W.Z. Foster, A. Bittelman and G Siskind. <br />
<br />
The document contained a bill of particulars in which we sought to point out that the rightist tendencies and mistakes of the Lovestone-Pepper leadership added up to a right line.<br />
<br />
Our attack, however, was hobbled by blemishes in the stateside record of our own caucus. At that point it would have been hard to discern any principled political differences between the majority or minority, Nevertheless, differences were developing on the estimation of the third period and U.S. imperialism.<br />
<br />
Pepper and Lovestone exaggerated the might of U.S. impetialism and spoke only of the weakness of the U.S. labor movement and the class struggle in this country. But the minority had also wavered on the question of building independent trade unions, the logical follow-through of the correct estimate of the objective situation in terms of practical policy.<br />
<br />
On the Negro question, the minority record up to that point had been no better than that of the majority. This fact was quickly pointed out by Otto and others. Both groups had shared the same mistakes. As Foster later observed, both factions had “traditionally considered the Negro question as that of a persecuted racial minority of workers and as basically a simple trade union matter.” It was this orientation which explains the Party's shortcomings in this field of work. But now, the tentative endorsement by our caucus of the proposed new line on the Afro-American question strengthened its position vis-a-vis the majority leadership.<br />
<br />
The prospects for our minority were brightened by the difficulties of Lovestone’s friend and mentor, Bukharin. Corridor rumors concerning his right-wing proclivities were now being confirmed by his differences with his own Soviet delegation on the character of the third period.<br />
<br />
The congress was now settling down to work. A number of commissions were formed to discuss and formulate resolutions on the main subjects confronting the eongress. Among them were: 1) A Commission on Program, to complete the drafting of a program for the Comintern; 2) one on the Trade Union question, to apply the struggle against right opportunism to the trade union field; and 3) a commission on the Colonial Question which discussed strategy and tactics of the liberation movements in the colonies and semi-colonies and the tasks of the Comintern. There were also several commissions on the special problems of individual parties.<br />
<br />
My major concern, however, was the Negro Commission, which was to take up the problem of the U.S. Blacks and the South African question. Although set up as an independent commission, in reality it was a subcommittee of the Colonial Commission. The resolutions formulated by it were included in the final draft of the congress’s thesis on the Revolutionary Movement in the Colonies. The Negro Commission was set up on August 6, at the twenty-third session of the congress. It was a memorable day, particularly for us Black communists—a day to which we all had looked forward. At last there was to be a full-dress discussion on the question.<br />
<br />
We listened attentively as the German comrade Remmele, chairman of the session, read off on behalf of the presidium the list of members and officers who would comprise the commission, It was an impressive list and indicated the high priority given the question by the congress. Thirty-two delegates, representing eighteen countries, including the United States, South Africa. Great Britain, the Soviet Union, France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Turkey, India, Palestine and Syria were members of the commission. Impressive also were its officers: the chairman, Ottomar Kuusinen, was a member of the Cl Secretariat and chairman of the Colonial Commission; the vice-chairman Petrovsky (Bennett) was also chairman of the Anglo-American Secretariat; and the recording secretary, Mikhailov (Williams), was a former Cl representative to the American Party. <br />
<br />
The delegates from the U.S, included five Blacks: myself, Jones (Otto Hall), Farmer (Roy Mahoney), James Ford and I believe, Harold Williams; plus two white comrades, Bittelman and Lovestone. Others included Sidney Bunting of South Africa; Fokin and Nasanov, representing the Young Communist International; the Swiss, Humbert-Droz, a top Cl official; Heller, from the Communist fraction of the Profintern; and several members of the Soviet delegation to the congress.<br />
<br />
Participation in commission meetings was not limited to its members, however. Among the important figures who spoke inthe discussions were Manuilsky, a CI official, and the Ukrainian, Skrypnik, both members of the Soviet delegation. The hall was always crowded with interested observers,<br />
<br />
The first order of business before the Commission was the Negro question, It was introduced by Petrovsky, who, as I recall stressed the need for a radical turn in the policy of the American Party with respect to its work among Blacks. He referred to the Negro Subcommittee, set up earlier in the year by the Anglo-American Seerctariat, which was given the task of preparing materials on the question for the Sixth Congress.<br />
<br />
Petrovsky described the two positions which emerged from this subcommittee.<br />
<br />
One held that the weaknesses of the Party’s Negro work was a result of an incorrect line. The partisans of this position regarded Blacks in the South as an oppressed nation and recommended that the right of self-determination be raised as an orientation slogan in their struggle for equality.<br />
<br />
The other position, he said, held that the question was one of a “racial minority” whose immediate and ultimate demands were embraced by the slogan of complete economic, social and political equality, The supporters of this position attributed the weaknesses in the Party’s Afro-American work to the underestimation of the importance of work among Blacks, This resulted, in turn, from the survivals of racial prejudices within the ranks of the Party and its leadership. This position did not challenge the Party’s line, but called for its more energetic application.<br />
<br />
As I recall, Petrovsky stated that he himself favored the position on self-determination. He did not see it as a negation of the slogan of social equality which, he said, would remain the main slogan for the Black masses. But in the Black Belt, where Blacks are in the majority, in addition to the slogan of cquality the Party must raise another slogan—the right of self-determination. For here, equality without the right of Blacks to enforce it is but an empty phrase.<br />
<br />
At the same time he expressed agreement with the comrades who contended that the hangovers of racial prejudice in the Party were a main obstacle to the Party’s effective work among Blacks. He stressed the need to fight against the ideology of white chauvinism, a principle block to the unity of Black and white workers.<br />
<br />
Petrovsky then referred the comrades to the material before them. It included the document by Nasanov and myself, summarizing our position in support of the — self-determination thesis. The document contained a criticism of current Party activities and policies and condemned Pepper’s May 30th resolution, which had made no reference to the Party’s tasks in the South. It also criticized the completely northern orientation of the American Negro Labor Congress, as contained in the policy statements of its leaders, Lovett Fort-Whiteman and H.V. Phillips. Finally, it criticized Lovestone’s characterization of Southern Blacks as “reserves of capitalist reaction.”<br />
<br />
Other documents presented to the commission were a statement by Dunne and Hathaway supporting the self-determination viewpoint and a document by Sik opposing the proposed new line. Sik argued that Blacks were a racial minority whose immediate and ultimate demands were embraced by the slogan of full social equality. <br />
<br />
Later in the discussion, Pepper submitted a document containing his proposals for a “Negro Soviet Republic” in the South, arguing that Southern Blacks were not just a nation but virtually a colony within the body of the United States of America.<br />
<br />
Among the American delegates who spoke in favor of the proposed new line were Bittelman, Foster and Dunne. As I remember, all were self-critical. Bittelman, however, emphasized the dual role of the Black working class envisioned by the new line: first, its role as a basic and constituent element of the American working class and, second, its leadership of the national liberation movement of Black people.<br />
<br />
I do not remember Lovestone speaking. If he did, he did not openly attack the proposed new line, for that would not have been his style. It was clear to all, however, that he had strong reservations. Sam Darey of the Young Communist League was, as I remember, the only white comrade who openly opposed the proposed new line.<br />
<br />
But the strongest opposition to the self-determination thesis both in the commission and on the floor of the congress was from the Black comrades James Ford and Otto Hall. In their arguments it was evident that they relied heavily on Professor Sik and his “new” theory on “race problems.” Up to that point, neither Nasanov nor I had paid much attention to Sik. But now after listening to Otto and Ford we suddenly realized the danger his theories posed to clarity on this vital question.<br />
<br />
Sik had evidently been working hard on his thesis which he was now proselytizing with almost evangelie zeal. He had, if not a captive audience, at least a willing one among the Black students at KUTVA where he taught (of all subjects!) Leninism. Now suddenly it seemed that Sik had become cast in the role of chief theoretician of the opposition to the proposed new policy; in their speeches Otto and Ford repeated verbatim many of his arguments.<br />
<br />
For example, both Otto and Ford insisted that U.S. Negroes were a racial minority rather than an oppressed nation or an oppressed national minority. (They used these two latter terms interchangeably at the time.) They ruled out all national movements among U.S. Blacks as reactionary. According to Ford, such movements were led by the “chauvinistic” Black bourgeoisie who wanted a freer hand to exploit the Black masses. These movements, he argued, “play into the hands of the bourgeoisie by arresting the revolutionary class movement of the Negro masses and further widening the gulf between the white and similar oppressed groups.” He also averred that Blacks lack the characteristics of a nation. There was not the question of one nation oppressing and exploiting another nation, “In the United States,” Ford continued, “we find no economic system separating the two races. The interests of the Negro and white workers are the same. The Negro peasant and the white peasant interests are the same.” The only problem, he contended, was one of racial differences of the color of the skin, barriers set up by the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Otto sharpened the argument and contended that Blacks were “not developing any characteristies of a national minority...there exists no national entity as such among...Negroes.” Continuing along the same line, Otto saw no community of interest between the Black bourgeoisie and the Black toilers, whom, he argued, “are completely separated (from each other) as far as class interests are concerned.” In sum, he contended that “historical development has tended to create in him (the Negro) the desire to be considered a part of the American nation.”<br />
<br />
What then were the objectives of Black liberation? They were, according to Sik, the striving of Blacks for intermingling and amalgamation. I was astounded and dismayed. This seemed to me to be a bourgeois liberal-assimilationist position cloaked in pseudo-Marxist rhetoric.<br />
<br />
A few days before on the floor of the congress, Ford and Otto complained bitterly about the rampant white chauvinism in the Party and the widespread underestimation of the significance of Afro-American work. Could they not see that they were playing into the hands of the white chauvinist downgraders of the Black movement? They had conceded them their main premise: that the movement for Black equality in itself had no revolutionary potential.<br />
<br />
Sik’s theory had stripped the struggle for equality of all revolutionary content; it involved no radical social change, that is, completion of the land and democratic revolution and securing of political power in the South. It was just a struggle against racial ideology.<br />
<br />
How was it possible for Otto and Ford and other Black comrades to fall into this trap? They had separated racism, the most salient external manifestation of Black oppression, from its socio-economic roots, reducing the struggle for equality to a movement against prejudice. It was a theory which even liberal reformists could support.<br />
<br />
And why did they downgrade the revolutionary nature of the Black struggle for equality? I could only assume that it was an attempt on their part to fit the Afro-American question into the simplistic frame of “pure proletarian class struggle.” This theory ruled out all nationalist movements as divisive and distracting from the struggle for socialism. Lovestone’s idea of the Black peasantry in the South being a “reserve of capitalist reaction” was the logical outcome of this kind of thinking.<br />
<br />
What was clear to me was that our thesis of self-determination had correctly elevated the fight for Black rights to a revolutionary position, whereas the proponents of Sik’s theories attempted to downgrade the movement, seeing it as a minor aspect of the class struggle. Our thesis put the question in the proper perspective: that is, as a struggle attacking the very foundation of American imperialism, an integral part of the struggle of the American working class as a whole,<br />
<br />
The sad fact was that Otto, Ford and other partisans of Sik’s theory seemed completely unaware that they had come to a practical agreement with those white chauvinists who denied the revolutionary character of the Black liberation struggle in the false name of socialism.<br />
<br />
Nasanov, sitting beside me, undoubtedly had similar thoughts. He muttered something in Russian that sounded like, “Lord forgive them, for they know not what they do.”<br />
<br />
During an interval in the Negro Commission sessions, I cornered Otto in the corridor and accused him and Ford of downgrading the liberation struggle and playing into the hands of the white chauvinist element in the Party, How, I asked him, did he expect to fight those responsible for the neglect of work among Blacks when he accepted their main premise-—that the struggle of Blacks was not of itself revolutionary and that it only becomes so when they (the Blacks) fight directly for socialism?<br />
<br />
Otto indignantly denied this and accused me of allowing the question to be used as a factional football by the Foster group. I conceded that they were not all clear, But, I added heatedly, at least they had begun to recognize that their position had been wrong and they were trying to change it.<br />
<br />
We broke off the discussion; it was obviously useless to pursue the matter further, We were both getting emotional. No doubt our relationship had become rather strained as a result of our political differences, I was terribly saddened by this growing rift between my brother and me, True, I no longer thought of him as my political mentor, but nevertheless I felt he was a serious and dedicated revolutionary.<br />
<br />
What, I wondered, were the pressures that pushed Black proletarian comrades like Otto and Ford into this position? Foremost was their misguided but honest desire to amalgamate Black labor into the general labor movement. Nationalism, they felt, was a block to labor unity. They failed to recognize the revolutionary element in Black nationalism. I myself had held the same position only a few months earlier, but then I hadn’t studied Leninism under Sik.<br />
<br />
I remember running into Nasanov. We walked down the hall arm in arm and he asked me if I was going to speak. I said, “I don’t know, should I?”<br />
<br />
Knowing my shyness, he laughed and said, “We've got them on the run. We’ve submitted our resolution and supporting documents.”<br />
<br />
We were then accosted by Manuilsky whom I had met before. He wanted to know if I was the only Black supporting the self-determination position. I told him that thus far I was.<br />
<br />
“How did that happen?” he asked. That was a question I was still trying to answer myself. But before I could reply he said, “Oh, I know, They are all good class-conscious comrades, But I understand them. We Bolsheviks had the same type of deviation within the party.” He turned away to greet somebody else.<br />
<br />
And well he should understand, I reflected, for Manuilsky had been one of the leading Ukrainian Communists referred to in our class on Leninism, who, during the Revolution in the Ukraine, had been, guilty of the same deviation.<br />
<br />
He had been one of those whom the Bolsheviks had called “abstract Marxists,” those unable to relate Marxism to the concrete experience of their own people. On that occasion he resisted the resolution of the CC drafted by Lenin which made necessary concessions to Ukrainian nationalism; these included a softer line on the ku/aks and the establishment of Ukrainian as the national language.<br />
<br />
What about Comrade Pepper’s new slogan for a “Negro Soviet Republic?” Had he undergone a sudden conversion to the cause of Black nationhood? Was this the same Pepper who had completely ignored the South in his May thesis and who had, during the Program Commission at the Fifth Congress of the CI (1924), asserted that Blacks in the US wanted nothing to do with the slogan of self-determination?<br />
<br />
Sudden shifts in position were not new to Pepper who, as we have seen, was a man unrestrained by principles. Lominadze had branded Pepper on the floor of the congress as a man of “inadequate firmness of principle and backbone. He always agrees with those who are his seniors even if a minute ago he defended an utterly different viewpoint.”<br />
<br />
The Commission rejected Pepper’s slogan on the grounds that, first, it actually negated the principle of the right of self-determination by making the Party’s support of it contingent upon the acceptance by Blacks of the Soviet governmental form. Secondly, it was an opportunist attempt to skip over the intermediate stage of preparation and mobilization of the Black masses around their immediate demands.<br />
<br />
Pepper's position was actually an attempt to outflank the new position from the “left.” Clearly he sought to grab the spotlight, to upstage the move towards a new policy. Perhaps he thought that the left-sounding term “Soviet” would make the new stress on the national character of the question more palatable to his factional cohorts of the pure revolutionary persuasion.<br />
<br />
Otto seemed to have nibbled on the bait; at least he felt it did not contradict his position. In his previously quoted speech he stated, “There is no objection on our part on (sic) the principle ofa Soviet Republic for Negroes in America. The point we are concerned with here is how to organize these Negroes at present on the basis of their everyday needs for the revolution.”<br />
<br />
In this ease, however, Pepper had overreached himself, having jumped over the bandwagon instead of on it.<br />
<br />
Despite Pepper’s defeat in the commission, he still had a card or two up his sleeve. This we were to find to our surprise and anger when we received the October 1928 issue of The Communist, official organ of the CPUSA. Prominent among the articles was Pepper’s on “American Negro Problems,” which presented his call for a “Negro Soviet Republic.” But that was not all; the article was also published simultaneously in pamphlet form by the American Party. Neither the article nor the pamphlet was labeled as a discussion paper, which gave them the appearance of being official statements of the new policy.<br />
<br />
Pepper's article had originally appeared in the Communist International, organ of the Comintern, as one of a series of discussion articles. The other articles were one by Ford and Patterson (Wilson), “The Comintern Programme and the Racial Problem” by Sik, and “The Negro Problem and the Tasks of the CPUSA,” by me.<br />
<br />
Of these, Sik’s was the only one to appear in the English edition of the magazine. This was because the English edition had suspended publication for technical reasons from September to December.<br />
<br />
But Pepper also sent his article to The Communist, organ of the American Party, where it appeared in October 1928. Because the official resolutions of the congress were not published until January of the following year, Pepper’s distorted version of the new line was the first document available to American Party members, The result was considerable confusion and misunderstanding.<br />
<br />
Particularly aggravating was that Pepper filched the basic facts of our analysis-—-national character, Black Belt territory, etc, — distorting them into a vulgar caricature of our thesis. This latest piece of chicanery did nothing to enhance Pepper’s image in Moscow where it was already on the wane. It was, however, wellreceived in the U.S. where he still had considerable influence.<br />
<br />
=== ESSENCE OF THE NEW LINE ===<br />
The Cl’s new line on the Afro-American question was released by the ECCI in two documents. The first was the full resolution of the commission, which addressed itself to the concrete issues raised in the discussion, The second was a summary of the full resolution, worked out in the commission under the direction of Kuusinen, for incorporation in the congress thesis on the “Revolutionary Movement in the Colonies and Semi-Colonies.”<br />
<br />
The resolution rejected the assimilationist race theories upon which the line of the Party had been based. It defined the Black movement as “national revolutionary” in character on the grounds that “the various forms of oppression of Negroes....concentrated mainly in the so-called ‘Black Belt’ provide the necessary conditions for a national revolutionary movement.”<br />
<br />
Stressing the agrarian roots of the problem it declared that Southern Blacks “are....not reserves of capitalist reaction,” as Lovestone had contended, but they were on the contrary, “reserves of the revolutionary proletariat” whose “objective position facilitates their transformation into a revolutionary force under the leadership of the proletariat.”<br />
<br />
The new line committed the Party to champion the Black struggle for “complete and real equality.....for the abolition of all kinds of racial, social, and political inequalities.” It called for an “energetic struggle against any exhibition of white chauvinism” and for “active resistance to lynching.”<br />
<br />
At the same time, the resolution stressed the need for Black revolutionary workers to resist “petty bourgeois nationalist tendencies” such as Garveyism. It declared that the industrialization of the South and the growth of the Black proletariat was the “most important phenomenon of recent years.” The enlargement of this class, it asserted, offers the possiblity of consistent revolutionary leadership of the movement.<br />
<br />
It called upon the Party to “strengthen its work among Negro proletarians,” drawing into its ranks the most conscious elements, It was also to fight for the acceptance of Black workers into unions from which they are barred, but this fight did not exclude the organization of separate trade unions when necessary. It called for the concentration of work in the South to organize the masses of soil-tillers, And finally, the new line committed the Party to put forth the slogan of the right of self-determination.<blockquote>'''In those regions of the South in which compact Negro masses are living, it is essential to put forward the slogan of the Right of Self-determination.,.a radical transformation of the Agrarian structure of the Southern States is one of the basic tasks of the revolution. Negro Communists must explain to the Negro workers and peasants that only their close union with the white proletariat and joint struggle with them against the American bourgeoisie can lead to their liberation from barbarous exploitation, and that only the victorious proletarian revolution will completely and permanently solve the agrarian and national question of the Southern United States in the interests of the overwhelming majority of the Negro population of the country.'''</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== South Africa ===<br />
There was keen interest as the Commission moved to the next point on the agenda—South Africa. Here again it was a fight against the denial of the national liberation movement in the name of socialism, the same right deviation on new turf. In the South African setting, where four-fifths of the population were black colonial slaves, the deviation was particularly glaring.<br />
<br />
It was true that in the past year or so the South African Party had intensified its work among the natives, a “turn to the masses,” As the Simons noted, by 1928 there were 1,600 African members out of a total of 1,750 in the Party, The year before there were only 200 African members.<br />
<br />
‘The Party had pursued a vigorous policy in the building of Black trade unions, in conducting strikes, and in fighting the most vicious forms of national oppression—pass laws and the like, The Party’s official organ, The South African Worker, had been revived on a new basis. More than half the articles were now written in three Bantu languages: Xhosa, Zulu and Tsotho.<br />
<br />
Sidney Bunting, leader of the South African Party, had emerged as a stalwart fighter for Native rights in the defense of Thibedi, a framed-up Native communist leader. As a result about a hundred Natives had been recruited into the Party, and two were now on the Central Committee. On the whole, the Party was making a turn toward the Native masses, But it still lacked the theory which would enable it to tap their tremendous revolutionary potential.<br />
<br />
As did most of the white leading cadre, Bunting exhibited a paternalism with respeet to the Natives. This paternalism was rooted in an abiding laek of faith in the revolutionary potential of the Native movement. They saw the South Afriean revolution in terms of the direct struggle for socialism. This white leadership, brought up in the old socialist traditions and comprised mainly of European immigrants, had not yet absorbed Lenin’s teachings on the national and colonial questions,<br />
<br />
These shortcomings had been brought sharply to the attention of the Comintern by La Guma. The result was the resolution on the South Afriean question which La Guma, Nasanov and I had worked on the previous winter. It reeommended that the Party put forward and work for an independent Native South African Republic with full and equal rights for all races as a stage towarda Workers and Peasants Republic. This was to be accompanied by the slogan “Return the land to the Natives.”<br />
<br />
The resolution was not only rejected by the Party leadership, but they had now sent a lily-white delegation to the congress to fight for its repeal, The delegation consisted of Sidney Bunting, Party chairman, his wife Rebecca, and Edward Roux, a young South Afriean communist leader who was then studying at Oxford. Whatever their hopes were on arrival in Moscow, they now seemed dejected and subdued. Having sat through the discussion on the Afro-American question, they undoubtedly saw the handwriting on the wall.<br />
<br />
From the start, the South African delegation was on the defensive, having been confronted by other delegates with the inevitable question: Where are the Natives?<br />
<br />
What answer could they give? It was evident to all that theirs was a mission on which Natives could not be trusted, even those “brought up in the old tradition,” to use the phrase of Roux.<br />
<br />
We Blacks asked about La Guma and they replied, “Oh, he was here just a short while ago and had his say, We felt that the other viewpoint should be represented.”<br />
<br />
After copies of the ECCI resolution on South Africa had been distributed, the South African delegates took the floor before the entire congress to challenge the line of the resolution, The South Afriean revolution, they argued, was a socialist revolution with no intermediate stage, an argument which posed a sort of South African exceptionalism.<br />
<br />
‘The argument ran that South Afriea was not a colonial country. Bunting then contended that “South Africa is, owing to its climate, what is called a ‘white man’s country’ where whites can and do live not merely as planters and officials, but as a whole nation of all classes, established there for centuries, of Dutch and English composition,”<br />
<br />
Bunting’s statement came under attack on the floor of the congress, notably by Bill Dunne. Bunting defended himself, holding that his description was solely factual and was not an “advocacy of ‘White South Africa, .. . the very view we have combatted for the last thirteen years.”<br />
<br />
In essence, Bunting’s views liquidated the struggle of the black peasantry in South Africa. He deelared that they were “being rapidly proletarianized,” and further that “the native agrarian masses as such have not yet shown serious signs of revolt.” Hence the slogan of “Return the land to the Natives ” would antagonize white workers with its implication of a “black race dictatorship.”<br />
<br />
Rebecca Bunting spoke in the commission sessions. Addressing herself to the land question, she denied that the land belonged to the Bantu in the first place. Both the Bantu from central Africa and the Afrikaaners coming up from Capetown had forced the aboriginal Hottentots and Bushmen off their land. Thus, there was no special Native land question.<br />
<br />
The real question on Rebecca Bunting’s mind, however, was not of land, but of the position of the white minority in a Native South African Republic, She came right to the point. Who will guarantee equality for the whites in an independent Native Republic? Their slogan, as you know, is “Drive the whites into the sea.” We listened to her in amazement and a laugh went through the audience.<br />
<br />
The cat was finally let out of the bag, and a mangy, chauvinistic creature it was. Manuilsky stepped forward, his eyes twinkling, “Comrade Bunting has raised a serious question, one not to be sneezed at. What is to become of the whites? My answer to that would be that if the white Party members do not raise and energetically fight for an independent Native Republic, then kto znaet? (Who knows?) They may well be driven into the sea!” That brought the house down.”<br />
<br />
The commission finally affirmed the resolution for a Native South African Republic, It was then passed onto the floor of the congress where the fight continued and our position was eventually accepted.<br />
<br />
=== THE REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT IN THE COLONIES ===<br />
Upon the adjournment of the Negro Commission, many of us moved into the sessions of the Colonial Commission. We found there no peaceful, harmonious gathering, but acrimonious debate. Kuusinen’s report and draft thesis on the Revolutionary Movement in the Colonies was under sharp attack. The point of controversy was the nature and objective of imperialist colonial policy.<br />
<br />
The draft thesis held that the colonial policy of imperialism was directed toward “repressing and retarding” by all possible means the free economic and cultural development of the colonies and retaining them as backward, agrarian appendages of the imperialist metropolitan countries. This policy, the draft thesis maintained, is an essential condition for the super-exploitation of the colonial masses. Thus, it pointed out:<blockquote>'''The objective contradiction between the colonial policy of world imperialism and the independent development of the colonial peoples is by no means done away with, neither in China, nor in India, nor in any other of the colonial and semicolonial countries; on the contrary, the contradiction only becomes more acute and can be overcome only by the victorious, revolutionary struggle of the toiling masses in the colonies.'''</blockquote>Accordingly, the primary question for the colonies was their liberation.<br />
<br />
The opponents of the draft thesis, on the other hand, took the view that imperialism had shifted its policy from one of hindering the economic development of the colonies to one of promoting industrialization under the joint auspices of the imperialists and native bourgeoisie. This was shown particularly in the more advanced colonies such as India and Indonesia, they argued.<br />
<br />
It was the old social democratic theory of decolonization. It implied that the main contradiction between imperialism and the colonies was being eased, the colonial revolution was thereby heing defused. The main components of that revolution, the national liberation struggle and the agrarian revolution, were being eliminated through industrialization. Thus, the perspective before the peoples of those colonies was not national liberation, but rather a long-range struggle for socialism.<br />
<br />
I was amazed to find that leading the attack on the draft thesis was none other than our Comrade Petrovsky. He who had seemed to be such a stalwart warrior against the right on the Afro-American and South African question had now become the chief advocate of the blatantly rightist “decolonization theory.” But that wasn’t all. He had rallied behind him most of the British delegation in his attack upon the draft thesis. It was quite a scandal!<br />
<br />
Here was the British Party, in the homeland of the world’s greatest imperialist power, championing the idea that Britain was taking the lead in decolonizing her empire, The tragedy was that the British delegation seemed totally unaware of the chauvinist implication of their stance.<br />
<br />
It became clear to us in the discussion that the British Party’s position with regard to the colonies pre-dated the congress. This was merely the first occasion for its full airing. Petrovsky had been CI representative to Britain and had played no small role in the development of the “decolonization” theory.<br />
<br />
The partisans of decolonization were utterly routed both in the commission and on the floor of the congress. Lozovsky, Remmele, Murphy, Manuilsky, Katayama and Kuusinen all took the floor in rebuttal. In an early session of the congress, Katayama pointed to the “criminal neglect” of the British Party with regard to Ireland and India in the past, and of the Dutch and American Parties with regard to the Philippines and Indonesia, “The mother countries must correct this inactivity on their part, and give every assistance to the revolutionary movement in these colonial countries,” he said.<br />
<br />
I was impressed by the speeches of Kuusinen and Murphy, the sole Britisher who really spoke out against the position taken by his delegation. Murphy accused his comrades of “presenting a Menshevik picture of the colonial problem and drawing ultra-leftist conclusions.”<br />
<br />
He assailed the contention that the British were out to decolonize India jointly with the native bourgeoisie. “The need of the hour in every colonial country,” he continued, “is a strong independent Communist Party which understands how to expose the bourgeoisie and destroy their influence over the masses through the correct exploitation of the differences between them and win the masses in the numberless crises which precede the revolutionary overthrow of all counter-revolutionary forces.”<br />
<br />
Kuusinen, a mild-mannered little man with a dry, rasping voice, took the floor for the concluding blast. His summary, as I remember it, was a two-hour long devastating attack on the “decolonizers.” He compared their position with that of the notorious Austrian social-imperialist, Otto Renner, who had put forth the perspective of world industrialization under capitalism, postponing the world socialist revolution “till the proletariat will become the great majority even inthe colonies.” Kuusinen pointed out that such views “embellished the ‘progressive’ role of imperia!ism....as if the colonial world were to be decolonized and industrialized in a peaceful manner by imperialism itself.”<br />
<br />
Kuusinen further contended that “the development of native capital is not being denied in the thesis.” But rather than there being an equal partnership in exploitation between the colonial bourgeoisie and imperialism, “imperialism does in fact restrict the industrialization of the colonies, prevent the full development of the productive forces.” It is under such conditions that the class interests of the national bourgeoisie “demand the industrialization of the country,” and in as much as the national bourgeoisie stands up for its class interests, “for the economic independence of the country, for its liberation from the imperialist yoke, then it plays a certain progressive role, while imperialism plays a substantially reactionary role,”<br />
<br />
It was a brilliant and definitive presentation, I thought. Slowly gathering up his papers, Kuusinen looked out over the audience, “Yes, comrades,” he said, “industrial development is taking place in the colonies, but very slowly, comrades, very slowly. Infact, just as slowly as the bolshevization of the British Party Politburo under the leadership of Comrade Petrovsky.”<br />
<br />
He then picked up his papers and stepped down from the rostrum. A momentary silence followed, then an outburst of laughter and prolonged applause.<br />
<br />
=== PEPPER GETS HIS LUMPS ===<br />
The struggle against the Lovestone-Pepper leadership faction sharpened as the congress progressed. Their position of overestimating the strength and stability of U.S. capitalism and of underestimating the radicalization of the workers came under sharp attack. Our opposition group (Bittelman, Foster, Dunne, Cannon and Johnstone) came down hard on Pepper, taking advantage of his growing unpopularity at the congress. The attack on the Lovestone-Pepper faction was supported by leading and influential members of other delegations: notably Lozovsky, president of the Red International of Labor Unions, Lominadze from the Russian Delegation and Hans Neumann from the German Communist Party.<br />
<br />
It was a pleasure to see how they zeroed in on Pepper. At last, he was getting his well-deserved lumps.<br />
<br />
Lozovsky began by criticizing the CC of the CPUSA for having “instigated opposition to the decision of the Fourth RILU Congress on the question of new unions.” But the thrust of his attack was not on the position itself, but on the dishonesty of the U.S. Central Committee which, on its arrival in Moscow, claimed support for the RILU Congress decisions.<br />
<br />
“Of course, every Central Committee has the right to declare its disagreement with decisions adopted by the RILU, but there must be the courage to declare this....You cannot change a negative attitude...into a positive one on the way from New York to Moscow.”<br />
<br />
Lozovsky reiterated earlier criticism of the Party leadership; its passivity in organizing the unorganized, its incorrect attitude toward Black workers and toward the AFL. Then he focused in on Pepper, blasting his articles in The Communist (“America and the Tactics of the Cl: Certain Basic Questions of our Perspective,” May 1928.)<br />
<br />
“Comrade Pepper sees nothing but the power of American capitalism,” he charged, “and discovering America anew although this discovery was made long ago, completely passed over those vital points in my articles on the eve of the Fourth RILU Congress.”<br />
<br />
Then, in a concluding salvo, Lozovsky accused Pepper of having “frequently lost his bearings in European affairs... Today, as you have been able to convince yourselves from his speech here, he is all at sea in American affairs. He could truly be named: themuddler of the two hemispheres.”<br />
<br />
Lominadze also kept Pepper under constant attack during the congress, scoring some devastating blows. He called Pepper's speech “an advertisement for the power of American imperialism,” and stated that if it were printed in the paper, it could be mistaken for a “speech of any of the candidates of the Republican and Democratic parties.” He then blasted Pepper’s articles in The Communist which listed the obstacles to the growth of the Party. According to Pepper, Lomindaze said, “everything is hindering us, capitalists are hindering us by exploiting the workers, the existence of capitalism itself hinders us, and of perspectives there are none at all.”<br />
<br />
As the historic congress was drawing to a close, Jack Johnstone read into the minutes for our opposition caucus a statement expressing our disagreement with the section concerning the United States in Bukharin’s draft thesis.<br />
<br />
Among many points made in this statement, the most important were that Bukharin failed to emphasize the instability of American imperialism and recognize the contradictions confronting it; he failed to condemn the opportunist errors in Afro-American work and did not “state clearly that the main danger in our Party is from the Right.”<br />
<br />
This statement was signed by Dunne, Gomez, Johnstone, Siskind, Epstein and Bittelman; significant was the fact that Browder, Cannon and Foster did not sign.<br />
<br />
Although he basically agreed with the statement and opposed Lovestone and Pepper, Browder continued to hold his position of not identifying himself fully with the opposition caucus, Cannon's reasons for not supporting the statement were unclear at the time, but within a few months, he had become the organizer and leader of the Trotskyist movement in the U.S. I feel Foster was, at the time, still assessing the political lines in the struggle against the right deviation—and for this reason did not sign the document.<br />
<br />
=== CONCLUSION ===<br />
The Sixth Congress called for a sharpened fight of the working class and the colonial masses against imperialism. It set the stage for an all-out war against the main obstacle to the left turn. The right accommodationists and their conciliators in all the parties of the CI--all provided ideological ammunition for this struggle. The correctness of these documents were verified by the events of the following decade—world economic crisis, the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World War II.<br />
<br />
The war against the right got into full swing immediately following the congress. In the next few months the Lovestone-Pepper cohorts were to expand further their right opportunistic thesis of American exceptionalism, elements of which they were developing before and during the congress.<br />
<br />
In substance, the theory held that while the third period of growing capitalist crisis and intensification of class struggles was valid for the rest of the world, it did not apply to the United States. In the U.S. capitalism was on the upgrade and the prospects were for an easing of the class struggle. An era of industrial expansion lay ahead.<br />
<br />
The next few months were also to reveal Lovestone’s ties with the international right conspiracy led by Bukharin. This conspiracy, which we had only suspected during the congress, was finally exposed at the November 1929 joint meeting of the Political Bureau and Presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. From this point on, the conspiracy of the “Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites” went underground to plot the overthrow of socialism in the Soviet Union. In 1937, Bukharin was convicted as one of the main leaders of this treasonous conspiracy and was executed.<br />
<br />
One of the most positive and enduring contributions of the Sixth Congress was the program on the question of U.S, Blacks. It pointed out that all the objective conditions exist in the Black Belt South for a national revolutionary movement of Black people against American imperialism. It established the essentially agrarian-democratic character of the Black liberation movement there. Under conditions of modern imperialist oppression, it could fulfill itself only by the achievement of democratic land redivision and the right of self-determination for the Afro-American people in the Black Belt. Thus, the new line brought the issue of Black equality out of the realm of bourgeois humanitarianism. It was no longer the special property of philanthropists and professional uplifters who sought to strip the Black struggle of its revolutionary implications.<br />
<br />
The new position grounded the issue of Black liberation firmly in the fight of the American people for full democratic rights and in the struggle of the working class for socialism. The struggle for equality is in and of itself a revolutionary question, because the special oppression of Black people is a main prop of imperialist domination over the entire working class and the masses of exploited American people. Therefore, Blacks and the working class as a whole are mutual allies.<br />
<br />
The fight of Blacks for national liberation, quite apart from humanitarian considerations, must be supported as it is a special feature of the struggle for the emancipation of the whole American working class. It is the historic task of American labor, as it advances on the road toward socialism, to solve the problems of land and freedom which the bourgeois democratic revolution of the Civil War and Reconstruction left unfinished.<br />
<br />
The slogan of self-determination is a slogan of unity. Its overriding purpose was and still is to unite the white and Black exploited masses, working and oppressed people of all nationalities, in all three stages of the revolutionary movement; from the day-to-day fight against capital, through the revolutionary battle for state power, to the task of building and consolidating socialist society. The new line clearly stated that this unity could be built only on the basis of the struggle for complete equality, by removing all grounds for suspicion and distrust and building mutual confidence and voluntary inter-relations between the white masses of the oppressor nation and the Black masses of the oppressed nation.<br />
<br />
This line committed the Communist Party to an uncompromising fight among its members and in the ranks of labor generally to burn out the root of the ruling class theories of white chauvinism which depicts Blacks as innately inferior. The mobilization of the white workers in the struggle for Black rights is a precondition for freeing the Black workers from the stifling influences of petty bourgeois nationalism with its ideology of self-isolation. Only thus, the program pointed out, can the historic rift in the ranks of American labor be breached and a solid front of white and Black workers be presented to the common enemy, American imperialism.<br />
<br />
Of course, weaknesses were inevitable in this first resolution, The document was open to the interpretation that the emerging Black nation was limited only to the territory of absolute majority and that the slogan of right of self-determination was primarily dependent on the continued existence of an area of absolute Black majority.<br />
<br />
The document should have made clear that one cannot hold absolutely to the national territorial principle in the application of the right of self-determination. The very nature of imperialism attacks and deforms the characteristics of nationhood. Imperialism has, to a large extent, driven Afro-American people from the rural areas to the cities of the north and South,<br />
<br />
Another weakness was the underestimation of the nationality factor in the struggle for equality and democratic rights in the north, Thus, the program failed to advance any slogans for local autonomy which would guarantee and protect the rights of Blacks in the north, The need for such a program has been most clearly demonstrated in recent years by the growth and development of the movement for community control of the schools and police in northern cities.<br />
<br />
But on the whole, the resolution was a strong one. Its significance was that it drew a clear line between the revolutionary and the reformist positions—between the line of effective struggle and futile accommodation.<br />
<br />
The document was not a complete and definite statement, but a new departure, a revolutionary turning point in the treatment of the Afro-American question.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 10 ==<br />
<br />
=== Lovestone Unmasked ===<br />
Otto, Harold Williams and Farmer, having completed their course at KUTVA, left the Soviet Union after the Sixth Congress. The African, Bankole, remained for further training to prepare him for work in the Gold Coast (Ghana). At KUTVA there was another contingent of Black students from the U.S. Along with Maude White, there were now William S. Patterson (Wilson), Herbert Newton, Marie Houston and many more were to come,<br />
<br />
I was then thirty and had recently completed my last YCL assignment as a delegate to the Fifth Congress of the Young Communist International (YCI). Along with my studies at the Lenin School, I was continuing my work in the Comintern. I was then vice-chairman of the Negro Subcommission of the Eastern (colonial) Secretariat, and Nasanov was chairman, The subcommission was established as a “watch-dog” committee to check on the application of the Sixth Congress decisions with reference to the Black national question in the U.S. and South Africa. According to our reports, the South Africans were applying the line of the Sixth Congress and so we devoted most of our attention to the work in the United States. <br />
<br />
In the U.S., the minority girded itself for a long struggle against the Lovestone-Pepper leadership, which had emerged from the Sixth Congress battered, but not beaten. This leadership still enjoyed the majority support within the Party. This was due primarily to the widely prevalent belief within the Party that this leadership was favored by the Comintern. Lovestone was loud in his protestations of support for the line of the Sixth Congress and attempted to pin the right-wing label on the minority. This deception was successful for a short time.<br />
<br />
The CI’s support for Lovestone seemed confirmed by a letter from the ECCI dated September 7, 1928, a week after the adjournment of the Sixth Congress. The letter contained two documents. The first was the final draft of paragraph forty-nine of the “Thesis on the International Situation and Tasks of the Communist International,” which dealt with the U.S. Party. The second was a “Supplementary Decision” by the Political Secretariat of the Executive Committee of the Communist International which denied the minority’s charge that the Lovestone-Pepper leadership represented a right line in the Party.<br />
<br />
Paragraph forty-nine commended the Party, saying, “it has displayed more lively activity and has taken advantage of symptoms of crisis in American industry....A number of stubborn and fierce class battles (primarily the miners’ strike) found in the Communist Party a stalwart leader. The campaign against the execution of Sacco and Vanzetti was also conducted under the leadership of the Party.”<br />
<br />
It also criticized the Party, stating that “the Party has not with sufficient energy conducted work in the organization of the unorganized and of the Negro Movement, and...it does not conduct a sufficiently strong struggle against the predatory policy of the United States in Latin America.” It concluded by stating, “These mistakes, however, cannot be ascribed to the Majority leadership alone....the most important task that confronts the Party is to put an end to the factional strife which is not based on any serious differences on principles...” The thesis pointed out that while some rightist errors had been committed by both sides, “the charge against the majority of the Central Committee of the U.S, Party of representing a right line is unfounded.”<br />
<br />
The letter evoked great jubilation among Lovestone-Pepper cohorts and was given widest publicity. A self-laudatory statement from the Central Committee was published alongside the Cl letter in the October 3, 1928, Daily Worker. It boasted that the letter proved that the CI “is continuing its policy of supporting politically the present Party leadership.”<br />
<br />
Of course we in the minority resented Lovestone’s interpretation of the Cl’s letter. We felt that the Cl’s criticisms of all factionalism and its rejection of our specific charge against the Lovestone-Pepper leadership were not equivalent to a political endorsement for Lovestone. The Comintern called for unity in the Party on the basis of the Sixth Congress’s decisions. We could hardly expect the CI to come out in support of the minority; it was not a cohesive ideological force itself. The subsequent defection of Cannon to Trotskyism further demonstrated the lack of ideological cohesion in the minority. Then there was the hard fact that Lovestone still held the majority of the U.S. Party.<br />
<br />
Differences of principle between the minority and the Lovestone leadership had begun to develop only a half year before at the Fourth Congress of the RILU in March 1928. These arose over the question of trade unions; but even here they were clouded by factionalism and vacillation on the part of the minority. There was, therefore, substance to the CI’s charges that both groups had placed factional consideration above principles.<br />
<br />
About the same time, the Party was shocked by the defection of James Cannon and his close associates Max Shachtman and Marty Abern. They were exposed as hidden Trotskyists and expelled from the Party. Cannon’s treachery was first exposed by the minority. This frustrated Lovestone’s attempt to pin the label of Trotskyism on our group. Nevertheless, Lovestone sought to use the Trotsky issue to divert the Party from the struggle against the main right danger. Later, the Comintern was to criticize the minority for its lack of vigilance and its failure to disassociate itself “at the right time” from Cannon’s Trotskyism.<br />
<br />
Lovestone was cocky and over-confident. He was looking forward to wiping out the minority as a political force in the U.S. Party at the next convention. Even the recall to Moscow of Pepper, his main advisor and co-factionalist, shortly after the return of the U.S. delegation, seemed not to shake his self-confidence. (Pepper had originally come to the U.S. as a Comintern worker and was thus directly subject to its discipline.)<br />
<br />
His recall was undoubtedly an indication of Lovestone’s declining support within the Comintern. The Lovestone leadership supported Pepper’s protest against recall. The CI did not press the issue at the time and Pepper remained in the U.S. Shortly thereafter he returned to his former position in Party leadership. But the incident was not forgotten; it was to be added on the debit side of the ledger at Lovestone’s final accounting.<br />
<br />
Then came the first blow. It was a letter from the Political Secretariat dated November 21, 1928. The letter expressed sharp displeasure at the factional manner in which Lovestone had used the previous letter of September 7. It pointed to the non-self-critical and self-congratulatory character of the statements issued by the majority in response to the September letter and expressed emphatic disapproval of the claim by Lovestone that the Comintern was “continuing its policy of supporting politically the present leadership.” “This formulation,” the new letter asserted, “could lead to the interpretation that the Sixth Congress has expressly declared its confidence in the majority in contrast to the minority. But this is not so.”<br />
<br />
The letter also called for the postponement of the Party Convention until February 1929. Clearly Lovestone had overreached himself. Coming on the eve of the U.S. Central Committee Plenum, the letter threw the Lovestoneites into dismay and consternation. How do we explain the sharpened tone of this letter? It was a by-product of the heightened counter-offensive against the international right and its conciliators which had gotten underway after the Sixth Congress of the Comintern, It was a warning tremor of the quake that was to come. <br />
<br />
Internationally the right had crystallized at the congress and, immediately following, it had burgeoned forth in the USSR and other leading parties of the Comintern. In Germany it was expressed in illusions regarding the social democrats and in resistance to the organization of left unions. In France it was reflected in opposition to the election slogan of “class against class.” In Britain it surfaced as a non-critical attitude towards the Labor Party and a refusal to put up independent candidates. This new thrust of the right was met by a strong counter-offensive. In Germany it led to the expulsion of the Brandler-Thaelheimer right liquidationists. The Cl intervened there on behalf of Thaelmann against the conciliators Ewart and Gerhart Eisler.<br />
<br />
In the Soviet Union, the right line of Bukharin and his friends had encouraged resistance on the part of the kulaks and capitalist elements to the five-year plan, industrialization and collectivivation. They resisted the state monopoly on foreign trade. This was reflected in mass sabotage, terrorism against collective farmers, party workers and governmental officials in the countryside, burning down of the collective farms and state granaries. In the same year (1928), a widespread conspiracy of wreckers was exposed in the Shackty District of the Donetz Coal Basin. The conspirators had close connections with former mine owners and foreign capitalists. Their aim was to disrupt socialist development. As a result, the counter-offensive could no longer be postponed, and the CPSU was obliged to take sharp action against the menacing right and its leaders--Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky.<br />
<br />
The opening gun against the right came in October 1928, at a plenary meeting of the Moscow Committee of the CPSU. At first, Bukharin was not mentioned by name. Other meetings followed. In early February 1929, at a joint meeting of the Politburo and Presidium of the Central Control Commission (CCC), Bukharin was exposed as a leader of the hidden right.<br />
<br />
In the Comintern itsclf, the struggle unfolded after the Sixth Congress. As Bukharin came under attack, his leadership became increasingly tenuous. De facto leadership of the CI passed to the pro-Stalin forces and Bukharin became little more than a figurehead. His lieutenants, the Swiss Humhert-Droz and the Italian Celler, also came under attack.<br />
<br />
Against this background, it was inevitable that Lovestone too, would be smoked out in the open.<br />
<br />
We students held what amounted to a dual-party membership— enabling us to keep abreast of the situation in both the CPSU and the CPUSA. From our vantage point in Moscow, we had a clearer view of the developments in the CI than did our counterparts at home. As members of the CPSU we participated inthe fight of the school against the right. Molotov himself, Stalin's closest aide. came to the school to report on the decisions of the February 1929, joint meeting of the Central Commission of the CC of the CPSU and the Moscow Party organization, Along with Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky were exposed as leaders of a clandestine right in the Soviet Party.<br />
<br />
Molotov had moved into the Cl immediately after the Sixth Congress—a clear political move to offset Bukharin’s leadership, Therefore, he spoke authoritatively on the ramifications of the international right and of Bukharin supporters in the fraternal German, French, Italian and other parties, He didn’t mention the CPUSA or Lovestone in his report, but we students did in discussion on the floor following his report.<br />
<br />
The Lenin School was a strong point in the struggle against the Bukharin right, just as it had been in the struggle against the Trotsky-Zinoviev left. The school reflected in microcosm the struggle raging throughout the Cl for the implementation of the Sixth Congress line against the right opposition, Here we had the right on the run. They were in the minority and at a decided disadvantage from the start, for the entire school administration and faculty from Kursanova (the director) down were stalwart supporters of the Central Committee of the CPSU and its majority grouped around Stalin.<br />
<br />
Indeed, Lovestone had made a fatal mistake in allowing so many able comrades of the minority in the CPUSA to go to the Lenin School. He had undoubtedly already realized this, My group was now in its second year. The students who had preceded us, including Hathaway, were back in the U.S, and Hathaway quickly became an outstanding leader of the minority group upon his return.<br />
<br />
We all had many friends in the Russian Party and in the Cl, especially among the second level leadership—people important in international work. Some of us were sent on brief international missions—-for example, the Krumbeins were sent to China and also to Britain. Rudy Baker, another student from the ULS., was also sent to China. A number of us American students were invited to participate in meetings of the Profintern, the Anglo-American Secretariat and even the ECCT itself on occasions where American questions were discussed.<br />
<br />
I remember one such meeting that I attended as part of a group from the Lenin School. I had been sent by the school to extend greetings to a joint meeting of the Central Control Commission of the CC of the CPSU and its Moscow organization held January-February 1929, as mentioned above. Although I felt no need for an interpreter, as my Russian was adequate, Gus Sklar was sent with me. He was a fellow student and one of the few supporters of Lovestone at the school. A Russian-American, he was completely bilingual and a very affable fellow.<br />
<br />
In my brief speech of greetings I hailed the victorious struggle of the CPSU against the right and right-conciliators under the leadership of Comrade Stalin as setting an example for us in the American Party. “We have our own right deviationists,” I said, “Bukharin’s friends in the American Party---the Pepper-Lovestone leadership.” I described the leadership’s theory of American exceptionalism and its underestimation of the radicalization of the American working class and oppressed Blacks. I ended my speech in a typical Russian manner: “Long live the CPSU and its Bolshevik Central Committee led by Comrade Stalin.”<br />
<br />
I listened attentively as poor old Gus honestly and accurately translated my speech. It certainly was a factional speech but was greeted with applause by the Moscow officials and workers in the audience.<br />
<br />
Gus left the hall and proceeded immediately to the Lux Hotel to inform Lovestone’s crony, Bertram Wolfe. Wolfe had recently replaced J. Louis Engdahl as U.S. representative to the CI. He had been sent by Lovestone in the hope of improving communication between Moscow and the American Party.<br />
<br />
I recall that he was particularly riled by this speech. Several days later there was a meeting of the ECCI on the preparations for the American Party’s Sixth Convention to which a number of us students were invited as usual. Wolfe, while giving his report, voiced a number of complaints. Citing my speech, he questioned the seeming lack of respect accorded the legitimate representative of the American Party. “How is it,” he wondered, “that Haywood, a mere student, extends greetings to the Soviet Party. Why is it that he is given a platform at such an important meeting to launch a factional attack on the U.S. Communist Party? Why is it that when Treport here, Lenin School students are always called on to give minority reports?”<br />
<br />
These complaints were met with stony-faced silence by the members of the secretariat.<br />
<br />
=== CURTAINS FOR LOVESTONE ===<br />
[[Category:Library]]<br />
[[Category:Library works by Harry Haywood]]<br />
[[Category:Library works about the United States of America]]<br />
[[Category:Library works about the Soviet Union]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:Reflections_of_a_young_man_on_the_choice_of_a_profession&diff=63708Library:Reflections of a young man on the choice of a profession2024-03-05T03:25:28Z<p>RedCustodian: </p>
<hr />
<div>Nature herself has determined the sphere of activity in which the animal should move, and it peacefully moves within that sphere, without attempting to go beyond it, without even an inkling of any other. To man, too, the Deity gave a general aim, that of ennobling mankind and himself, but he left it to man to seek the means by which this aim can be achieved; he left it to him to choose the position in society most suited to him, from which he can best uplift himself and society.<br />
<br />
This choice is a great privilege of man over the rest of creation, but at the same time it is an act which can destroy his whole life, frustrate all his plans, and make him unhappy. Serious consideration of this choice, therefore, is certainly the first duty of a young man who is beginning his career and does not want to leave his most important affairs to chance.<br />
<br />
Everyone has an aim in view, which to him at least seems great, and actually is so if the deepest conviction, the innermost voice of the heart declares it so, for the Deity never leaves mortal man wholly without a guide; he speaks softly but with certainty. But this voice can easily be drowned, and what we took for inspiration can be the product of the moment, which another moment can perhaps also destroy. Our imagination, perhaps, is set on fire, our emotions excited, phantoms flit before our eyes, and we plunge headlong into what impetuous instinct suggests, which we imagine the Deity himself has pointed out to us. But what we ardently embrace soon repels us and we see our whole existence in ruins.<br />
<br />
We must therefore seriously examine whether we have really been inspired in our choice of a profession, whether an inner voice approves it, or whether this inspiration is a delusion, and what we took to be a call from the Deity was self-deception. But how can we recognise this except by tracing the source of the inspiration itself?<br />
<br />
What is great glitters, its glitter arouses ambition, and ambition can easily have produced the inspiration, or what we took for inspiration; but reason can no longer restrain the man who is tempted by the demon of ambition, and he plunges head- long into what impetuous instinct suggests: he no longer chooses his position in life, instead it is determined by chance and illusion.<br />
<br />
Nor are we called upon to adopt the position which offers us the most brilliant opportunities; that is not the one which, in the long series of years in which we may perhaps hold it, will never tire us, never dampen our zeal, never let our enthusiasm grow cold, but one in which we shall soon see our wishes unfulfilled, our ideas unsatisfied, and we shall inveigh against the Deity and curse mankind.<br />
<br />
But it is not only ambition which can arouse sudden enthusiasm for a particular profession; we may perhaps have embellished it in our imagination, and embellished it so that it appears the highest that life can offer. We have not analysed it, not considered the whole burden, the great responsibility it imposes on us; we have seen it only from a distance, and distance is deceptive.<br />
<br />
Our own reason cannot be counsellor here; for it is supported neither by experience nor by profound observation, being deceived by emotion and blinded by fantasy. To whom then should we turn our eyes? Who should support us where our reason forsakes us?<br />
<br />
Our parents, who have already traveled life's road and experienced the severity of fate — our heart tells us. <br />
<br />
And if then our enthusiasm still persists, if we still continue to love a profession and believe ourselves called to it after we have examined it in cold blood, after we have perceived its burdens and become acquainted with its difficulties, then we ought to adopt it, then neither does our enthusiasm deceive us nor does overhastiness carry us away.<br />
<br />
But we cannot always attain the position to which we believe we are called; our relations in society have to some extent already<br />
begun to be established before we are in a position to determine them.<br />
<br />
Our physical constitution itself is often a threatening obstacle, and let no one scoff at its rights.<br />
<br />
It is true that we can rise above it; but then our downfall is all the more rapid, for then we are venturing to build on crumbling ruins, then our whole life is an unhappy struggle between the mental and the bodily principle. But he who is unable to reconcile the warring elements within himself, how can he resist life's tempestuous stress, how can he act calmly? And it is from calm alone that great and fine deeds can arise; it is the only soil in which ripe fruits successfully develop.<br />
<br />
Although we cannot work for long and seldom happily with a physical constitution which is not suited to our profession, the thought nevertheless continually arises of sacrificing our well-being to duty, of acting vigorously although we are weak. But if we have chosen a profession for which we do not possess the talent, we can never exercise it worthily, we shall soon realise with shame our own incapacity and tell ourselves that we are useless created beings, members of society who are incapable of fulfilling their vocation. Then the most natural consequence is self-contempt, and what feeling is more painful and less capable of being made up for by all that the outside world has to offer? Self-contempt is a serpent that ever gnaws at one's breast, sucking the life-blood from one's heart and mixing it with the poison of misanthropy and despair.<br />
<br />
An illusion about our talents for a profession which we have closely examined is a fault which takes its revenge on us ourselves, and even if it does not meet with the censure of the outside world it gives rise to more terrible pain in our hearts than such censure could inflict.<br />
<br />
If we have considered all this, and if the conditions of our life permit us to choose any profession we like, we may adopt the one that assures us the greatest worth, one which is based on ideas of whose truth we are thoroughly convinced, which offers us the widest scope to work for mankind, and for ourselves to approach closer to the general aim for which every profession is but a means — perfection.<br />
<br />
Worth is that which most of all uplifts a man, which imparts a higher nobility to his actions and all his endeavours, which makes him invulnerable, admired by the crowd and raised above it.<br />
<br />
But worth can be assured only by a profession in which we are not servile tools, but in which we act independendy in our own sphere. It can be assured only by a profession that does not demand reprehensible acts, even if reprehensible only in out- ward appearance, a profession which the best can follow with noble pride. A profession which assures this in the greatest degree is not always the highest, but is always the most to be preferred.<br />
<br />
But just as a profession which gives us no assurance of worth degrades us, we shall as surely succumb under the burdens of one which is based on ideas that we later recognise to be false.<br />
<br />
There we have no recourse but to self-deception, and what a desperate salvation is that which is obtained by self-betrayal! <br />
<br />
Those professions which are not so much involved in life itself as concerned with abstract truths are the most dangerous for the young man whose principles are not yet firm and whose convictions are not yet strong and unshakeable. At the same time these professions may seem to be the most exalted if they have taken deep root in our hearts and if we are capable of sacrificing our lives and all endeavours for the ideas which prevail in them.<br />
<br />
They can bestow happiness on the man who has a vocation for them, but they destroy him who adopts them rashly, without reflection, yielding to the impulse of the moment. On the other hand, the high regard we have for the ideas on which our profession is based gives us a higher standing in society, enhances our own worth, and makes our actions un-challengeable.<br />
<br />
One who chooses a profession he values highly will shudder at the idea of being unworthy of it; he will act nobly if only because his position in society is a noble one.<br />
<br />
But the chief guide which must direct us in the choice of a profession is the welfare of mankind and our own perfection. It should not be thought that these two interests could be in conflict, that one would have to destroy the other; on the contrary, man's nature is so constituted that he can attain his own perfection only by working for the perfection, for the good, of his fellow men.<br />
<br />
If he works only for himself, he may perhaps become a famous man of learning, a great sage, an excellent poet, but he can never be a perfect, truly great man.<br />
<br />
History calls those men the greatest who have ennobled them- selves by working for the common good; experience acclaims as happiest the man who has made the greatest number of people happy; religion itself teaches us that the ideal being whom all strive to copy sacrificed himself for the sake of mankind, and who would dare to set at nought such judgments? <br />
<br />
If we have chosen the position in life in which we can most of all work for mankind, no burdens can bow us down, because they are sacrifices for the benefit of all; then we shall experience no petty, limited, selfish joy, but our happiness will belong to millions, our deeds will live on quietly but perpetually at work, and over our ashes will be shed the hot tears of noble people.<br />
<br />
Written between 1835, 10, 10-16 <br />
<br />
First published in the yearly Archiv für die Geschichte des Sozialismus und der Arbeiterbewegung, Ed. K. Grünberg, Leipzig, 1925<br />
<br />
Signed: Marx<br />
<br />
Printed according to the manuscript[[File:Original document .png|thumb]]<br />
[[Category:Library works by Karl Marx]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:Reflections_of_a_young_man_on_the_choice_of_a_profession&diff=63707Library:Reflections of a young man on the choice of a profession2024-03-05T03:17:17Z<p>RedCustodian: </p>
<hr />
<div>Nature herself has determined the sphere of activity in which the animal should move, and it peacefully moves within that sphere, without attempting to go beyond it, without even an inkling of any other. To man, too, the Deity gave a general aim, that of ennobling mankind and himself, but he left it to man to seek the means by which this aim can be achieved; he left it to him to choose the position in society most suited to him, from which he can best uplift himself and society.<br />
<br />
This choice is a great privilege of man over the rest of creation, but at the same time it is an act which can destroy his whole life, frustrate all his plans, and make him unhappy. Serious consideration of this choice, therefore, is certainly the first duty of a young man who is beginning his career and does not want to leave his most important affairs to chance.<br />
<br />
Everyone has an aim in view, which to him at least seems great, and actually is so if the deepest conviction, the innermost voice of the heart declares it so, for the Deity never leaves mortal man wholly without a guide; he speaks softly but with certainty. But this voice can easily be drowned, and what we took for inspiration can be the product of the moment, which another moment can perhaps also destroy. Our imagination, perhaps, is set on fire, our emotions excited, phantoms flit before our eyes, and we plunge headlong into what impetuous instinct suggests, which we imagine the Deity himself has pointed out to us. But what we ardently embrace soon repels us and we see our whole existence in ruins.<br />
<br />
We must therefore seriously examine whether we have really been inspired in our choice of a profession, whether an inner voice approves it, or whether this inspiration is a delusion, and what we took to be a call from the Deity was self-deception. But how can we recognise this except by tracing the source of the inspiration itself?<br />
<br />
What is great glitters, its glitter arouses ambition, and ambition can easily have produced the inspiration, or what we took for inspiration; but reason can no longer restrain the man who is tempted by the demon of ambition, and he plunges head- long into what impetuous instinct suggests: he no longer chooses his position in life, instead it is determined by chance and illusion.<br />
<br />
Nor are we called upon to adopt the position which offers us the most brilliant opportunities; that is not the one which, in the long series of years in which we may perhaps hold it, will never tire us, never dampen our zeal, never let our enthusiasm grow cold, but one in which we shall soon see our wishes unfulfilled, our ideas unsatisfied, and we shall inveigh against the Deity and curse mankind.<br />
<br />
But it is not only ambition which can arouse sudden enthusiasm for a particular profession; we may perhaps have embellished it in our imagination, and embellished it so that it appears the highest that life can offer. We have not analysed it, not considered the whole burden, the great responsibility it imposes on us; we have seen it only from a distance, and distance is deceptive.<br />
<br />
Our own reason cannot be counsellor here; for it is supported neither by experience nor by profound observation, being deceived by emotion and blinded by fantasy. To whom then should we turn our eyes? Who should support us where our reason forsakes us?<br />
<br />
Our parents, who have already traveled life's road and experienced the severity of fate — our heart tells us. <br />
<br />
And if then our enthusiasm still persists, if we still continue to love a profession and believe ourselves called to it after we have examined it in cold blood, after we have perceived its burdens and become acquainted with its difficulties, then we ought to adopt it, then neither does our enthusiasm deceive us nor does overhastiness carry us away.<br />
<br />
But we cannot always attain the position to which we believe we are called; our relations in society have to some extent already<br />
begun to be established before we are in a position to determine them.<br />
<br />
Our physical constitution itself is often a threatening obstacle, and let no one scoff at its rights.<br />
[[File:Original document .png|thumb]]<br />
[[Category:Library works by Karl Marx]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union&diff=63705Communist Party of the Soviet Union2024-03-05T03:14:46Z<p>RedCustodian: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Infobox political party<br />
| colorcode = red<br />
| name = Communist Party of the Soviet Union<br />
| native_name = Коммунисти́ческая па́ртия Сове́тского Сою́за<br />
| native_name_lang = Russian<br />
| logo = [[File:CPSU.svg|frameless|175px]]<br />
| abbreviation = CPSU<br />
| founded = May, 1917<br />
|banned=6 November 1917| dissolved = 6 November, 1991<br />
| newspaper = ''Pravda''<br />
| think_tank = Central Policy Research Office<br />
| youth_wing = Young Communist League </br> Vladimir Lenin All-Union Pioneer Organization<br />
| political_orientation = [[Marxism–Leninism]]<br />
}}<br />
{{Communist parties}}<br />
[[File:CPSU organizational diagram.png|thumb|351x351px|Diagram of the structure of the CPSU]]<br />
The '''Communist Party of the Soviet Union''' ('''CPSU'''),<ref name=":0" group="lower-alpha" /> was a [[communist party]] tracing back to the [[Russian Social Democratic Labor Party]] (RSDLP), which was established in its second congress in 1903.<ref>{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1938|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|title-url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:History_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union|chapter=Formation of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. Appearance of the Bolshevik and the Menshevik groups within the party|chapter-url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:History_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union#Lenin%E2%80%99s_plan_for_the_building_of_a_Marxist_party._Opportunism_of_the_%E2%80%9CEconomists.%E2%80%9D_Iskra%E2%80%99s_fight_for_Lenin%E2%80%99s_plan._Lenin%E2%80%99s_book_What_is_to_be_Done?_Ideological_foundations_of_the_Marxist_party|quote=Notwithstanding the fact that the First Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Party had been held in 1898, and that it had announced the formation of the Party, no real party was as yet created. There was no party program or party rules. The Central Committee of the Party elected at the First Congress was arrested and never replaced, for there was nobody to replace it. Worse still, the ideological confusion and lack of organizational cohesion of the Party became even more marked after the First Congress.<br><br>[...]<br><br>Iskra linked up the scattered Social-Democratic circles and groups and prepared the way for the convocation of the Second Party Congress. At the Second Congress, held in 1903, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party was formed, a Party Program and Rules were adopted, and the central leading organs of the Party were set up.|city=Moscow|mia=}}</ref> The party brought together the [[Vanguard party|vanguard]] of the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet]] peoples in the construction of [[Socialism|socialist]] society.<br />
<br />
Its predecessor, the RSDLP, had split into [[Bolsheviks|Bolshevik]] and [[Mensheviks|Menshevik]] factions in 1903. The CPSU emerged in continuity with the Bolshevik political line.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party of Russia (Bolsheviks) in 1918, the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in 1925, and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) in 1952.<br />
<br />
== Names== <br />
<br />
*1917–1918: Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks); RSDLP(b)<ref group="lower-alpha">Russian: Российская социал-демократическая рабочая партия (большевиков); РСДРП(б)</ref><br />
*1918–1925: Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks); RCP(b)<ref group="lower-alpha">Russian: Российская коммунистическая партия (большевиков); РКП(б)</ref><br />
*1925–1952: All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks); AUCP(b)<ref group="lower-alpha">Russian: Всесоюзная коммунистическая партия (большевиков); ВКП(б)</ref><br />
*1952–1991: Communist Party of the Soviet Union; CPSU<ref group="lower-alpha" name=":0">Russian: Коммунистическая партия Советского Союза; КПСС</ref><br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
<br />
=== Russian Social Democratic Labour Party ===<br />
In 1898 the [[Russian Social Democratic Labor Party]] was created, uniting the several communist study groups scattered around Russia. Among its founders were people like [[Vladimir Lenin]] and [[Julius Martov]]. It established itself as a Marxist party that had the task of overthrowing the monarchy and bring about socialism. However during the course of the struggle there was a lot of disagreement about when this goal was to be implemented and how. In 1903 emerged a ''de facto'' split in the party, and two factions were formed: the [[Mensheviks]] led by Martov and the [[Bolsheviks]] led by Lenin.<br />
<br />
Although Lenin and many others first anticipated the two groups could merge again, the split ended up worsening and the two factions became separate parties: the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (Mensheviks) and the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks).<br />
<br />
The main differences between the groups were the following:<blockquote>1. The Bolsheviks wanted an organisationally united party of serious revolutionaries while the Mensheviks wanted a more loose [[Reformism|reformist]] party.<br />
<br />
2. Both parties agreed that the next course of action was to overthrow the monarchy and carry out the so-called “[[Bourgeois revolution|bourgeois-democratic revolution]].” This would make Russia a capitalist [[Bourgeois democracy|parliamentary democracy]]. However the Mensheviks argued that the class to lead the revolution was the [[bourgeoisie]], the capitalist class, as the bourgeois class served this function in the [[French Revolution]]. The Bolsheviks disagreed, they thought the [[Bourgeoisie|capitalists]] couldn’t be trusted to carry out the democratic revolution: they were weaker than the bourgeoisie in [[French Republic (1792–1804)|France]] at the time, they allied with the monarchy, and they feared the workers and peasants. In fact, Lenin argued that the Russian [[proletariat]] was much stronger and more developed than the French proletariat of the late 1700s and therefore should lead the democratic revolution, and not merely support it.<br />
<br />
3. Lastly, the Mensheviks didn’t think Russia was ready for socialism, in their opinion the workers could never take power in Russia until after a long time of capitalist and parliamentary development. Even though the debate about workers revolution and socialism would only come about fully later, this attitude relates to the Menshevik position that the workers shouldn’t lead the democratic revolution, but only support the capitalist class against the monarchy.</blockquote>In the 1907 London Congress (the Fifth Congress of the RSDLP) for example, the Mensheviks advocated for a liquidationist program that would see the RSDLP dissolved in favor of a Bourgeois democratic 'Labor Congress', branding the RSDLP a 'petty bourgeois intellectual' organization. This was in stark contrast to the member compositions of the pro-Party group (Bolsheviks) and anti-Party group (Mensheviks), where the Bolsheviks in percentage and in total numbers possessed a higher degree of Proletarian elements as opposed to the Mensheviks' petty bourgeois composition. The blatant fabrication and liqudationist line advocated by the Mensheviks was opposed by even their own Proletarian elements and denounced as Opportunist by Rosa Luxembourg, a visiting delegate of the SPD. <ref>{{Web citation|author=Joseph Stalin|newspaper=Bakinsky Proletary|title=The London Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party|date=1907-06-20 / 1907-07-10|url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:The_London_Congress_of_the_Russian_Social-Democratic_Labour_Party|retrieved=2024-03-03|quote=Expressing her complete agreement with the Bolsheviks on the questions of the role of the proletariat as the leader of the revolution, the role of the liberal bourgeoisie as an anti-revolutionary force, etc., etc., Rosa Luxemburg criticised the Menshevik leaders Plekhanov and Axelrod, called them opportunists}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== Split with Mensheviks ===<br />
<br />
=== October Revolution ===<br />
The party grew from 10,000 members in April 1917 to 500,000 by the time of the [[Russian revolution of 1917|October Revolution]].<ref>{{Citation|author=[[Vijay Prashad]]|year=2017|title=Red Star over the Third World|chapter=Red October|page=28|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacecu7gb2ei65us6ip3r2ugcgkblneqcftbm456mb6bzvprkbqk55qm?filename=Vijay%20Prashad%20-%20Red%20Star%20Over%20the%20Third%20World-LeftWord%20Books%20%282018%29.pdf|city=New Delhi|publisher=LeftWord Books}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== Civil War ===<br />
The party reached 600,000 members in 1921. Lenin conducted the first purge of the party in 1921 and expelled 25% of its members including 45% in the countryside. This purge was the largest in the party's history. Party members could be expelled for the following reasons:<br />
<br />
* Being former [[Kulak|kulaks]], [[White Army|Whites]], or [[Counterrevolution|counterrevolutionaries]]<br />
* Being [[Corruption|corrupt]], [[Bureaucracy|bureaucratic]], or overly ambitious<br />
* Rejecting [[Democratic centralism|party discipline]] or disobeying the Central Committee<br />
* Committing crimes or sexual misconduct or being drunk publicly<ref name=":02">{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=The struggle against bureaucracy|isbn=9782872620814|publisher=Editions EPO|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|page=102–105}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== Internal struggles ===<br />
[[Leon Trotsky|Trotsky]] and [[Grigory Zinoviev|Zinoviev]] formed an anti-Party bloc in 1926, leading the Central Committee to organize a general party discussion. 724,000 party members voted for the Central Committee and only 4,000 or less voted for the [[Trotskyism|Trotskyists]].<ref>{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1938|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|title-url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:History_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Struggle for the Socialist Industrialization of the Country|chapter-url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:History_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union#Difficulties_in_the_period_of_socialist_industrialization_and_the_fight_to_overcome_them._Formation_of_the_anti-party_bloc_of_Trotskyites_and_Zinovievites._Anti-soviet_actions_of_the_bloc._Defeat_of_the_bloc|quote=In October 1927, that is, two months before the Fifteenth Congress, the Central Committee of the Party announced a general Party discussion, and the fight began. Its result was truly lamentable for the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites: 724,000 Party members voted for the policy of the Central Committee; 4,000, or less than one per cent, for the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites.|city=Moscow|publisher=Foreign Languages Publishing House|mia=}}</ref><br />
<br />
The Central Committee purged Trotsky and his followers from the party in December 1927. In June 1928, several Trotskyists, including Zinoviev, [[Lev Kamenev|Kamenev]], [[Yevgeni Preobrazhensky|Preobrazhensky]], and [[Alexei Rykov|Rykov]], returned to the party after recanting their views. [[Nikolai Bukharin|Bukharin]] and the Right Opposition soon formed an alliance with the Trotskyists against [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]].<ref name=":022">{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=The Great Purge|isbn=9782872620814|publisher=Editions EPO|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|page=116–117}}</ref><br />
<br />
Between 1928 and 1931, the CPSU accepted 1.4 million new members, including many who lacked [[Theory|theoretical]] knowledge. 11% of the party was purged in 1929. Another purge began in 1933 and lasted two years. It was difficult to tell who was a party member because 250,000 party cards were lost or stolen.<ref name=":02" /> Zinoviev and Kamenev were purged a second time in the early 1930s.<ref name=":022" /><br />
<br />
=== 17th Congress ===<br />
The 17th Party Congress was held in 1934 following the success of the First Five-Year Plan. Opposition leaders were invited to make speeches.<ref name=":022" /><br />
<br />
=== 1937–38 purges ===<br />
278,818 people were expelled from the party during the [[Soviet purges of 1937–1938|purges of 1937 and 1938]]. The number of expulsions was lower than in previous years, but a much higher proportion of those purged were active cadres. Many wrongfully purged members appealed to rejoin the party, and 54% them were readmitted. Out of 182,000 Old Bolsheviks (party members before 1921) in 1934, 125,000 remained in the party by 1939.<ref name=":022332">{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=The Great Purge|isbn=9782872620814|publisher=Editions EPO|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|page=167–170}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== 19th Congress ===<br />
At the 19th Party Congress in 1952, the last congress before the death of Stalin, [[Georgy Malenkov|Malenkov]] upheld Marxism–Leninism, [[self-criticism]], and party discipline. Stalin criticized [[Anastas Mikoyan|Mikoyan]] and [[Lavrentiy Beria|Beria]] and worried that the party would not be able to recognize enemies without him.<ref name=":02233232">{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=From Stalin to Khrushchev|isbn=9782872620814|publisher=Editions EPO|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|page=253–260}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== Perestroika ===<br />
The CPSU held its 19th Conference in June 1988, and [[Mikhail Gorbachev|Gorbachev]] and [[Alexander Yakovlev|Yakovlev]] implemented parliamentary policies. Gorbachev purged non-revisionists, including [[Andrei Gromyko]], from the Politburo, and changed [[Yegor Ligachyov|Ligachyov]] from head of ideology to head of agriculture. Party membership began dropping, and the party lost more than 250,000 members in 1990.<br />
<br />
The 28th Party Congress in July 1990 weakened the Central Committee and made the entire Congress instead of just the CC elect the General Secretary. It allowed the formation of factions within the party.<ref name=":032">{{Citation|author=Roger Keeran, Thomas Kenny|year=2010|title=Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union|chapter=Crisis and Collapse, 1989-91|page=180–187|pdf=https://ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceaj5ucph44bjwyhlhsbycckr3ts76zbucn2hbrea32tltcd4s5ekg?filename=Roger%20Keeran_%20Thomas%20Kenny%20-%20Socialism%20Betrayed_%20Behind%20the%20Collapse%20of%20the%20Soviet%20Union-iUniverse.com%20%282010%29.pdf|publisher=iUniverse.com|isbn=9781450241717}}</ref><br />
<br />
== Demographics ==<br />
In 1922, [[Judaism|Jews]] made up 5.2% of party membership, roughly five times their total proportion of the population. From the late 1920s through the 1940s, the percentage of Jews in the party was about 4.3%.'''<ref name=":023">{{Citation|author=Albert Szymanski|year=1984|title=Human Rights in the Soviet Union|chapter=The European Nationalities in the USSR|page=88|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceazdmtb2y3qq27fve5ib3gk7uv2unt6ae2xss74xmfpur7k5uhl5m?filename=Albert%20Szymanski%20-%20Human%20Rights%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union_%20Including%20Comparisons%20with%20the%20U.S.A.-Zed%20Books%20Ltd.%20%281984%29.pdf|city=London|publisher=Zed Books Ltd|isbn=0862320186|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=C597B1232D9EA6B0F3DCB438D7E15A81}}</ref>'''<br />
<br />
In 1972, the majority of CPSU members were [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1991)|Russians]], but [[Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic (1921–1991)|Georgians]] made up the highest ratio of party members per capita, followed by Russians and then [[Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic (1936–1991)|Armenians]]. [[Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic (1940–1991)|Moldovans]] were the most underrepresented nationality in the party.<ref>{{Citation|author=Albert Szymanski|year=1984|title=Human Rights in the Soviet Union|title-url=https://archive.org/details/HumanRightsInTheSovietUnion/page/n37/mode/1up|chapter=The Asian Nationalities in the USSR|page=59|city=London}}</ref> The percentage of women in the party rose from 7.4% in 1920 to 26.5% in 1981.<ref>{{Citation|author=Albert Szymanski|year=1984|title=Human Rights in the Soviet Union|title-url=https://archive.org/details/HumanRightsInTheSovietUnion/page/n37/mode/1up|chapter=Women in the USSR|page=118|city=London}}</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
===Notes===<br />
<references group="lower-alpha"/><br />
[[Category:Communist parties]]<br />
[[Category:History of the Soviet Union]]<br />
[[Category:Politics of the Soviet Union]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:History_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union&diff=63704Library:History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union2024-03-05T03:11:44Z<p>RedCustodian: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Library work|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union|author=Commission of the C.C. of the C.P.S.U.(B.) and Joseph Stalin|publisher=Foreign Languages Publishing House|published_date=1938|published_location=Moscow|edition_date=1951|type=Book|source=[https://archive.org/details/historycpsushortcourse/page/6/mode/2up&#124; archive.org]|audiobook=[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lygu-El7U0 Audiobook part 1] <br> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbJsO7L4STo&t=34s Audiobook part 2]}}<br />
History of the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]] (Bolsheviks) Short Course was an attempt by the Central Committee of the CPSU to educate new members of the Party, as speedily as possible, to the history of the Party and the various ideological struggles that took place against opportunist and revisionist tendencies during the struggle for the [[Dictatorship of the proletariat|DOTP]], and in the course of Socialist Construction. <br />
== Introduction ==<br />
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) has traversed a long and glorious road, leading from the first tiny Marxist circles and groups that appeared in Russia in the eighties of the past century to the great Party of the Bolsheviks, which now directs the first Socialist State of Workers and Peasants in the world.<br />
<br />
The C.P.S.U.(B.) grew up on the basis of the working-class movement in pre-revolutionary Russia; it sprang from the Marxist circles and groups which had established connection with the working-class movement and imparted to it a Socialist consciousness. The C.P.S.U.(B.) has always been guided by the revolutionary teachings of Marxism- Leninism. In the new conditions of the era of imperialism, imperialist wars and proletarian revolutions, its leaders further developed the teachings of Marx and Engels and raised them to a new level.<br />
<br />
The C.P.S.U.(B.) grew and gained strength in a fight over fundamental principles waged against the petty-bourgeois parties within the working-class movement—the Socialist-Revolutionaries (and earlier still, against their predecessors, the Narodniks), the Mensheviks, Anarchists and bourgeois nationalists of all shades—and, within the Party itself, against the Menshevik, opportunist trends—the Trotskyites, Bukharinites, nationalist deviators and other anti-Leninist groups.<br />
<br />
The C.P.S.U.(B.) gained strength and became tempered in the revolutionary struggle against all enemies of the working class and of all working people—against landlords, capitalists, kulaks, wreckers, spies, against all the hirelings of the surrounding capitalist states.<br />
<br />
The history of the C.P.S.U.(B.) is the history of three revolutions: the bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1905, the bourgeois-democratic revolution of February 1917, and the Socialist revolution of October 1917.<br />
<br />
The history of the C.P.S.U.(B.) is the history of the overthrow of tsardom, of the overthrow of the power of the landlords and capitalists; it is the history of the rout of the armed foreign intervention during the Civil War; it is the history of the building of the Soviet state and of Socialist society in our country.<br />
<br />
The study of the history of the C.P.S.U.(B.) enriches us with the experience of the fight for Socialism waged by the workers and peasants of our country.<br />
<br />
The study of the history of the C.P.S.U.(B.), the history of the struggle of our Party against all enemies of Marxism-Leninism, against all enemies of the working people, helps us to master Bolshevism and sharpens our political vigilance.<br />
<br />
The study of the heroic history of the Bolshevik Party arms us with a knowledge of the laws of social development and of the political struggle, with a knowledge of the motive forces of revolution.<br />
<br />
The study of the history of the C.P.S.U.(B.) strengthens our certainty of the ultimate victory of the great cause of the Party of Lenin-Stalin, the victory of Communism throughout the world.<br />
<br />
This book sets forth briefly the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks).<br />
<br />
== The struggle for the creation of a social-democratic labour party in Russia (1883—1901) ==<br />
<br />
=== Abolition of serfdom and the development of industrial capitalism in Russia. Rise of the modern industrial proletariat. First steps of the working-class movement ===<br />
Tsarist Russia entered the path of capitalist development later than other countries. Prior to the sixties of the past century there were very few mills and factories in Russia. Manorial estates based on serfdom constituted the prevailing form of economy. There could be no real development of industry under serfdom. The involuntary labour of the serfs in agriculture was of low productivity. The whole course of economic development made the abolition of serfdom imperative. In 1861, the tsarist government, weakened by defeat in the Crimean War, and frightened by the peasant revolts against the landlords, was compelled to abolish serfdom.<br />
<br />
But even after serfdom had been abolished the landlords continued to oppress the peasants. In the process of "emancipation" they robbed the peasants by inclosing, cutting off, considerable portions of the land previously used by the peasants. These cut-off portions of land were called by the peasants ''otrezki'' (cuts). The peasants were compelled to pay about 2,000,000,000 rubles to the landlords as the redemption price for their "emancipation."<br />
<br />
After serfdom had been abolished the peasants were obliged to rent land from the landlords on most onerous terms. In addition to paying money rent, the peasants were often compelled by the landlord to cultivate without remuneration a definite portion of his land with their own implements and horses. This was called ''otrabotki'' or ''barshchina'' (labour rent, corvee). In most cases the peasants were obliged to pay the landlords rent in kind in the amount of one-half of their harvests. This was known as ''ispolu'' (half and half system).<br />
<br />
Thus the situation remained almost the same as it had been under serfdom, the only difference being that the peasant was now personally free, could not be bought and sold like a chattel.<br />
<br />
The landlords bled the backward peasant farms white by various methods of extortion (rent, fines). Owing to the oppression of the landlords the bulk of the peasantry were unable to improve their farms. Hence the extreme backwardness of agriculture in pre-revolutionary Russia, which led to frequent crop failures and famines.<br />
<br />
The survivals of serfdom, crushing taxation and the redemption payments to the landlords, which not infrequently exceeded the income of the peasant household, ruined the peasants, reduced them to pauperism and forced them to quit their villages in search of a livelihood. They went to work in the mills and factories. This was a source of cheap labour power for the manufacturers.<br />
<br />
Over the workers and peasants stood a veritable army of sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, gendarmes, constables, rural police, who protected the tsar, the capitalists and the landlords from the toiling and exploited people. Corporal punishment existed right up to 1903. Although serfdom had been abolished the peasants were flogged for the slightest offence and for the non-payment of taxes. Workers were manhandled by the police and the Cossacks, especially during strikes, when the workers downed tools because their lives had been made intolerable by the manufacturers. Under the tsars the workers and peasants had no political rights whatever. The tsarist autocracy was the worst enemy of the people.<br />
<br />
Tsarist Russia was a prison of nations. The numerous non-Russian nationalities were entirely devoid of rights and were subjected to constant insult and humiliation of every kind. The tsarist government taught the Russian population to look down upon the native peoples of the national regions as an inferior race, officially referred to them as ''inorodtsi'' (aliens), and fostered contempt and hatred of them. The tsarist government deliberately fanned national discord, instigated one nation against another, engineered Jewish pogroms and, in Transcaucasia, incited Tatars and Armenians to massacre each other.<br />
<br />
Nearly all, if not all, government posts in the national regions were held by Russian officials. All business in government institutions and in the courts was conducted in the Russian language. It was forbidden to publish newspapers and books in the languages of the non-Russian nationalities or to teach in the schools in the native tongue. The tsarist government strove to extinguish every spark of national culture and pursued a policy of forcible "Russification." Tsardom was a hangman and torturer of the non-Russian peoples.<br />
<br />
After the abolition of serfdom, the development of industrial capitalism in Russia proceeded at a fairly rapid pace in spite of the fact that it was still hampered by survivals of serfdom. During the twenty-five years, 1865-90, the number of workers employed in large mills and factories and on the railways increased from 706,000 to 1,433,000, or more than doubled.<br />
<br />
Large-scale capitalist industry in Russia began to develop even more rapidly in the nineties. By the end of that decade the number of workers employed in the large mills and factories, in the mining industry and on the railways amounted in the fifty European provinces of Russia alone to 2,207,000, and in the whole of Russia to 2,792,000 persons.<br />
<br />
This was a modern industrial proletariat, radically different from the workers employed in the factories of the period of serfdom and from the workers in small, handicraft and other kinds of industry, both because of the spirit of solidarity prevailing among the workers in big capitalist enterprises and because of their militant revolutionary qualities.<br />
<br />
The industrial boom of the nineties was chiefly due to intensive railroad construction. During the course of the decade (1890-1900) over 21,000 versts of new railway line were laid. The railways created a big demand for metal (for rails, locomotives and cars), and also for increasing quantities of fuel—coal and oil. This led to the development of the metal and fuel industries.<br />
<br />
In pre-revolutionary Russia, as in all capitalist countries, periods of industrial boom alternated with industrial crises, stagnation, which severely affected the working class and condemned hundreds of thousands of workers to unemployment and poverty.<br />
<br />
Although the development of capitalism in Russia proceeded fairly rapidly after the abolition of serfdom, nevertheless, in economic development Russia lagged considerably behind other capitalist countries. The vast majority of the population was still engaged in agriculture. In his celebrated work, ''The Development of Capitalism in Russia'' Lenin cited significant figures from the general census of the population of i897 which showed that about five-sixths of the total population were engaged in agriculture, and only one-sixth in large and small industry, trade, on the railways and waterways, in building work, lumbering, and so on.<br />
<br />
This shows that although capitalism was developing in Russia, she was still an agrarian, economically backward country, a petty-bourgeois country, that is, a country in which low-productive individual peasant farming based on small ownership still predominated.<br />
<br />
Capitalism was developing not only in the towns but also in the countryside. The peasantry, the most numerous class in pre-revolu-tionary Russia, was undergoing a process of disintegration, of cleavage. From among the more well-to-do peasants there was emerging an upper layer of kulaks, the rural bourgeoisie, while on the other hand many peasants were being ruined, and the number of poor peasants, rural proletarians and semi-proletarians, was on the increase. As to the middle peasants, their number decreased from year to year.<br />
<br />
In 1903 there were about ten million peasant households in Russia. In his pamphlet entitled ''To the Village Poor,'' Lenin calculated that of this total not less than three and a half million households consisted of peasants ''possessing no horses.''These were the poorest peasants who usually sowed only a small part of their land, leased the rest to the kulaks, and themselves left to seek other sources of livelihood. The position of these peasants came nearest to that of the proletariat. Lenin called them rural proletarians or semi-proletarians.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, one and a half million rich, kulak households (out of a total of ten million peasant households) concentrated in their hands half the total sown area of the peasants. This peasant bourgeoisie was growing rich by grinding down the poor and middle peasantry and profiting from the toil of agricultural labourers, and was developing into rural capitalists.<br />
<br />
The working class of Russia began to awaken already in the seventies, and especially in the eighties, and started a struggle against the capitalists. Exceedingly hard was the lot of the workers in tsarist Russia. In the eighties the working day in the mills and factories was not less than 12½ hours, and in the textile industry reached 14 to 15 hours. The exploitation of female and child labour was widely resorted to. Children worked the same hours as adults, but, like the women, received a much smaller wage. Wages were inordinately low. The majority of the workers were paid seven or eight rubles per month. The most highly paid workers in the metal works and foundries received no more than 35 rubles per month. There were no regulations for the protection of labour, with the result that workers were maimed and killed in large numbers. Workers were not insured, and all medical services had to be paid for. Housing conditions were appalling. In the factory-owned barracks, workers were crowded as many as 10 or 12 to a small "cell." In paying wages, the manufacturers often cheated the workers, compelled them to make their purchases in the factory-owned shops at exorbitant prices, and mulcted them by means of fines.<br />
<br />
The workers began to take a common stand and present joint demands to the factory workers for the improvement of their intolerable conditions. They would down tools and go on strike. The earlier strikes in the seventies and eighties were usually provoked by excessive fines, cheating and swindling of the workers over wages, and reductions in the rates of pay.<br />
<br />
In the earlier strikes, the workers, driven to despair, would sometimes smash machinery, break factory windows and wreck factory-owned shops and factory offices.<br />
<br />
The more advanced workers began to realize that if they were to be successful in their struggle against the capitalists, they needed organization. Workers' unions began to arise.<br />
<br />
In 1875 the South Russian Workers' Union was formed in Odessa. This first workers' organization lasted eight or nine months and was then smashed by the tsarist government.<br />
<br />
In 1878 the Northern Union of Russian Workers was formed in St. Petersburg, headed by Khalturin, a carpenter, and Obnorsky, a fitter. The program of the Union stated that its aims and objects were similar to those of the Social-Democratic labour parties of the West. The ultimate aim of the Union was to bring about a Socialist revolution—"the overthrow of the existing political and economic system, as an extremely unjust system." Obnorsky, one of the founders of the Union, had lived abroad for some time and had there acquainted himself with the activities of the Marxist Social-Democratic parties and of the First International, which was directed by Marx. This circumstance left its impress on the program of the Northern Union of Russian Workers. The immediate aim of the Union was to win political liberty and political rights for the people (freedom of speech, press, assembly, etc.). The immediate demands also included a reduction of the working day.<br />
<br />
The membership of the Union reached 200, and it had about as many sympathizers. It began to take part in workers' strikes, to lead them. The tsarist government smashed this workers' Union too.<br />
<br />
But the working-class movement continued to grow, spreading from district to district. The eighties were marked by a large number of strikes. In the space of five years (1881-86) there were as many as 48 strikes involving 80,000 workers.<br />
<br />
An exceptional part in the history of the revolutionary movement was played by the big strike that broke out at the Morozov mill in Orekhovo-Zuyevo in i885.<br />
<br />
About 8,000 workers were employed at this mill. Working conditions grew worse from day to day: there were five wage cuts between 1882 and 1884, and in the latter year rates were reduced by 25 per cent at one blow. In addition, Morozov, the manufacturer, tormented the workers with fines. It was revealed at the trial which followed the strike that of every ruble earned by the workers, from 30 to 50 kopeks went into the pocket of the manufacturer in the form of fines. The workers could not stand this robbery any longer and in January 1885 went out on strike. The strike had been organized beforehand. It was led by a politically advanced worker, Pyotr Moiseyenko, who had been a member of the Northern Union of Russian Workers and already had some revolutionary experience. On the eve of the strike Moiseyenko and others of the more class-conscious weavers drew up a number of demands for presentation to the mill owners; they were endorsed at a secret meeting of the workers. The chief demand was the abolition of the rapacious fines.<br />
<br />
This strike was suppressed by armed force. Over 600 workers were arrested and scores of them committed for trial.<br />
<br />
Similar strikes broke out in the mills of Ivanovo-Voznesensk in 1885.<br />
<br />
In the following year the tsarist government was compelled by its fear of the growth of the working-class movement to promulgate a law on fines which provided that the proceeds from fines were not to go into the pockets of the manufacturers but were to be used for the needs of the workers themselves.<br />
<br />
The Morozov and other strikes taught the workers that a great deal could be gained by organized struggle. The working-class movement began to produce capable leaders and organizers who staunchly championed the interests of the working class.<br />
<br />
At the same time, on the basis of the growth of the working-class movement and under the influence of the working-class movement of Western Europe, the first Marxist organizations began to arise in Russia.<br />
<br />
=== Narodism (populism) and Marxism in Russia. Plekhanov and his “emancipation of labour” group. Plekhanov's fight against narodism. Spread of Marxism in Russia ===<br />
Prior to the appearance of the Marxist groups revolutionary work in Russia was carried on by the Narodniks (Populists), who were opponents of Marxism.<br />
<br />
The first Russian Marxist group arose in 1883. This was the "Emancipation of Labour" group formed by G. V. Plekhanov abroad, in Geneva, where he had been obliged to take refuge from the persecution of the tsarist government for his revolutionary activities.<br />
<br />
Previously Plekhanov had himself been a Narodnik. But having studied Marxism while abroad, he broke with Narodism and became an outstanding propagandist of Marxism.<br />
<br />
The "Emancipation of Labour" group did a great deal to disseminate Marxism in Russia. They translated works of Marx and Engels into Russian— ''The Communist Manifesto, Wage-Labour and Capital, Socialism, Utopian and Scientific'', etc.—had them printed abroad and circulated them secretly in Russia. Plekhanov, Zasulich, Axelrod and other members of this group also wrote a number of works explaining the teachings of Marx and Engels, the ideas of ''scientific Socialism.''<br />
<br />
Marx and Engels, the great teachers of the proletariat, were the first to explain that, contrary to the opinion of the utopian Socialists, Socialism was not the invention of dreamers (utopians), but the inevitable outcome of the development of modern capitalist society. They showed that the capitalist system would fall, just as serfdom had fallen, and that capitalism was creating its own gravediggers in the person of the proletariat. They showed that only the class struggle of the proletariat, only the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, would rid humanity of capitalism and exploitation.<br />
<br />
Marx and Engels taught the proletariat to be conscious of its own strength, to be conscious of its class interests and to unite for a determined struggle against the bourgeoisie. Marx and Engels discovered the laws of development of capitalist society and proved scientifically that the development of capitalist society, and the class struggle going on within it, must inevitably lead to the fall of capitalism, to the victory of the proletariat, to the ''dictatorship of the proletariat.''<br />
<br />
Marx and Engels taught that it was impossible to get rid of the power of capital and to convert capitalist property into public property by peaceful means, and that the working class could achieve this only by revolutionary violence against the bourgeoisie, by ''a proletarian revolution,'' by establishing its own political rule—the dictatorship of the proletariat — which must crush the resistance of the exploiters and create a new, classless, Communist society.<br />
<br />
Marx and Engels taught that the industrial proletariat is the most revolutionary and therefore the most advanced class in capitalist society, and that only a class like the proletariat could rally around itself all the forces discontented with capitalism and lead them in the storming of capitalism. But in order to vanquish the old world and create a new, classless society, the proletariat must have its own working-class party, which Marx and Engels called the Communist Party.<br />
<br />
It was to the dissemination of the views of Marx and Engels that the first Russian Marxist group, Plekhanov's "Emancipation of Labour" group, devoted itself.<br />
<br />
The "Emancipation of Labour" group raised the banner of Marxism in the Russian press abroad at a time when no Social-Democratic movement in Russia yet existed. It was first necessary to prepare the theoretical, ideological ground for such a movement. The chief ideological obstacle to the spread of Marxism and of the Social-Democratic movement was the Narodnik views which at that time prevailed among the advanced workers and the revolutionary-minded intelligentsia.<br />
<br />
As capitalism developed in Russia the working class became a powerful and advanced force that was capable of waging an organized revolutionary struggle. But the leading role of the working class was not understood by the Narodniks. The Russian Narodniks erroneously held that the principal revolutionary force was not the working class, but the peasantry, and that the rule of the tsar and the landlords could be overthrown by means of peasant revolts alone. The Narodniks did not know the working class and did not realize that the peasants alone were incapable of vanquishing tsardom and the landlords without an alliance with the working class and without its guidance. The Narodniks did not understand that the working class was the most revolutionary and the most advanced class of society.<br />
<br />
The Narodniks first endeavoured to rouse the peasants for a struggle against the tsarist government. With this purpose in view, young revolutionary intellectuals donned peasant garb and flocked to the countryside—"to the people," as it used to be called. Hence the term "Narodnik," from the word ''narod'', the people. But they found no backing among the peasantry, for they did not have a proper knowledge or understanding of the peasants either. The majority of them were arrested by the police. Thereupon the Narodniks decided to continue the struggle against the tsarist autocracy single-handed, without the people, and this led to even more serious mistakes.<br />
<br />
A secret Narodnik society known as "Narodnaya Volya" ("People's Will") began to plot the assassination of the tsar. On March 1, 1881, members of the "Narodnaya Volya" succeeded in killing Tsar Alexander II with a bomb. But the people did not benefit from this in any way. The assassination of individuals could not bring about the overthrow of the tsarist autocracy or the abolition of the landlord class. The assassinated tsar was replaced by another, Alexander III, under whom the conditions of the workers and peasants became still worse.<br />
<br />
The method of combating tsardom chosen by the Narodniks, namely, by the assassination of individuals, by individual terrorism, was wrong and detrimental to the revolution. The policy of individual terrorism was based on the erroneous Narodnik theory of active "heroes" and a passive "mob," which awaited exploits from the "heroes." This false theory maintained that it is only outstanding individuals who make history, while the masses, the people, the class, the "mob," as the Narodnik writers contemptuously called them, are incapable of conscious, organized activity and can only blindly follow the "heroes." For this reason the Narodniks abandoned mass revolutionary work among the peasantry and the working class and changed to individual terrorism. They induced one of the most prominent revolutionaries of the time, Stepan Khalturin, to give up his work of organizing a revolutionary workers' union and to devote himself entirely to terrorism.<br />
<br />
By these assassinations of individual representatives of the class of exploiters, assassinations that were of no benefit to the revolution, the Narodniks diverted the attention of the working people from the struggle against that class as a whole. They hampered the development of the revolutionary initiative and activity of the working class and the peasantry.<br />
<br />
The Narodniks prevented the working class from understanding its leading role in the revolution and retarded the creation of an independent party of the working class.<br />
<br />
Although the Narodniks' secret organization had been smashed by the tsarist government, Narodnik views continued to persist for a long time among the revolutionary-minded intelligentsia. The surviving Narodniks stubbornly resisted the spread of Marxism in Russia and hampered the organization of the working class.<br />
<br />
Marxism in Russia could therefore grow and gain strength only by combating Narodism.<br />
<br />
The "Emancipation of Labour" group launched a fight against the erroneous views of the Narodniks and showed how greatly their views and methods of struggle were prejudicing the working-class movement.<br />
<br />
In his writings directed against the Narodniks, Plekhanov showed that their views had nothing in common with scientific Socialism, even though they called themselves Socialists.<br />
<br />
Plekhanov was the first to give a Marxist criticism of the erroneous views of the Narodniks. Delivering well-aimed blows at the Narodnik views, Plekhanov at the same time developed a brilliant defence of the Marxist views.<br />
<br />
What were the major errors of the Narodniks which Plekhanov hammered at with such destructive effect?<br />
<br />
First, the Narodniks asserted that capitalism was something "accidental" in Russia, that it would not develop, and that therefore the proletariat would not grow and develop either.<br />
<br />
Secondly, the Narodniks did not regard the working class as the foremost class in the revolution. They dreamed of attaining Socialism without the proletariat. They considered that the principal revolutionary force was the peasantry—led by the intelligentsia—and the peasant commune, which they regarded as the embryo and foundation of Socialism.<br />
<br />
Thirdly, the Narodniks' view of the whole course of human history was erroneous and harmful. They neither knew nor understood the laws of the economic and political development of society. In this respect they were quite backward. According to them, history was made not by classes, and not by the struggle of classes, but by outstanding individ-uals—"heroes"—who were blindly followed by the masses, the "mob," the people, the classes.<br />
<br />
In combating and exposing the Narodniks Plekhanov wrote a number of Marxist works which were instrumental in rearing and educating the Marxists in Russia. Such works of his as ''Socialism and the Political Struggle, Our Differences, On the Development of the Monistic View of History'' cleared the way for the victory of Marxism in Russia.<br />
<br />
In his works Plekhanov expounded the basic principles of Marxism. Of particular importance was his ''On the Development of the Monistic View of History,'' published in 1895. Lenin said that this book served to "rear a whole generation of Russian Marxists." (Lenin, ''Collected Works,'' Russ. ed., Vol. XIV, p. 347.)<br />
<br />
In his writings aimed against the Narodniks, Plekhanov showed that it was absurd to put the question the way the Narodniks did: should capitalism develop in Russia or not? As a matter of fact Russia ''had already entered'' the path of capitalist development, Plekhanov said, producing facts to prove it, and there was no force that could divert her from this path.<br />
<br />
The task of the revolutionaries was not to ''arrest'' the development of capitalism in Russia—that they could not do anyhow. Their task was to secure the support of the powerful revolutionary force brought into being by the development of capitalism, namely, the working class, to develop its class-consciousness, to organize it, and to help it to create its own working-class party.<br />
<br />
Plekhanov also shattered the second major error of the Narodniks, namely, their denial of the role of the proletariat as the vanguard in the revolutionary struggle. The Narodniks looked upon the rise of the proletariat in Russia as something in the nature of a "historical misfortune," and spoke of the "ulcer of proletarianism." Plekhanov, championing the teachings of Marxism, showed that they were fully applicable to Russia and that in spite of the numerical preponderance of the peasantry and the relative numerical weakness of the proletariat, it was on the proletariat and on its growth that the revolutionaries should base their chief hopes.<br />
<br />
Why on the proletariat?<br />
<br />
Because the proletariat, although it was still numerically small, was a labouring class which was connected with the ''most advanced'' form of economy, large-scale production, and which for this reason had a great future before it.<br />
<br />
Because the proletariat, as a class, was ''growing'' from year to year, was ''developing'' politically, easily lent itself to organization owing to the conditions of labour prevailing in large-scale production, and was the most revolutionary class owing to its proletarian status, for it had nothing to lose in the revolution but its chains.<br />
<br />
The case was different with the peasantry.<br />
<br />
The peasantry (meaning here the individual peasants, each of whom worked for himself—''Ed''.), despite its numerical strength, was a labouring class that was connected with the ''most backward'' form of economy, small-scale production, owing to which it had not and could not have any great future before it.<br />
<br />
Far from growing as a class, the peasantry was splitting up more and more into bourgeois (kulaks) and poor peasants (proletarians and semi-proletarians). Moreover, being scattered, it lent itself less easily than the proletariat to organization, and, consisting of small owners, it joined the revolutionary movement less readily than the proletariat.<br />
<br />
The Narodniks maintained that Socialism in Russia would come not through the dictatorship of the proletariat, but through the peasant commune, which they regarded as the embryo and basis of Socialism. But the commune was neither the basis nor the embryo of Socialism, nor could it be, because the commune was dominated by the kulaks—the bloodsuckers who exploited the poor peasants, the agricultural labourers and the economically weaker middle peasants. The formal existence of communal land ownership and the periodical redivision of the land according to the number of mouths in each peasant household did not alter the situation in any way. Those members of the commune used the land who owned draught cattle, implements and seed, that is, the well-to-do middle peasants and kulaks. The peasants who possessed no horses, the poor peasants, the small peasants generally, had to surrender their land to the kulaks and to hire themselves out as agricultural labourers. As a matter of fact, the peasant commune was a convenient means of masking the dominance of the kulaks and an inexpensive instrument in the hands of the tsarist government for the collection of taxes from the peasants on the basis of collective responsibility. That was why tsardom left the peasant commune intact. It was absurd to regard a commune of this character as the embryo or basis of Socialism.<br />
<br />
Plekhanov shattered the third major error of the Narodniks as well, namely, that "heroes," outstanding individuals, and their ideas played a prime role in social development, and that the role of the masses, the "mob," the people, classes, was insignificant. Plekhanov accused the Narodniks of ''idealism,'' and showed that the truth lay not with idealism, but with the ''materialism'' of Marx and Engels.<br />
<br />
Plekhanov expounded and substantiated the view of Marxist materialism. In conformity with Marxist materialism, he showed that in the long run the development of society is determined not by the wishes and ideas of outstanding individuals, but by the development of the material conditions of existence of society, by the changes in the mode of production of the material wealth required for the existence of society, by the changes in the mutual relations of classes in the production of material wealth, by the struggle of classes for place and position in the production and distribution of material wealth. It was not ideas that determined the social and economic status of men, but the social and economic status of men that determined their ideas. Outstanding individuals may become nonentities if their ideas and wishes run counter to the economic development of society, to the needs of the foremost class; and vice versa, outstanding people may really become outstanding individuals if their ideas and wishes correctly express the needs of the economic development of society, the needs of the foremost class.<br />
<br />
In answer to the Narodniks' assertion that the masses are nothing but a mob, and that it is heroes who make history and convert the mob into a people, the Marxists affirmed that it is not heroes that make history, but history that makes heroes, and that, consequently, it is not heroes who create a people, but the people who create heroes and move history onward. Heroes, outstanding individuals, may play an important part in the life of society only in so far as they are capable of correctly understanding the conditions of development of society and the ways of changing them for the better. Heroes, outstanding individuals, may become ridiculous and useless failures if they do not correctly understand the conditions of development of society and go counter to the historical needs of society in the conceited belief that they are "makers" of history.<br />
<br />
To this category of ill-starred heroes belonged the Narodniks.<br />
<br />
Plekhanov's writings and the fight he waged against the Narodniks thoroughly undermined their influence among the revolutionary intelligentsia. But the ideological destruction of Narodism was still far from complete. It was left to Lenin to deal the final blow to Narodism, as an enemy of Marxism.<br />
<br />
Soon after the suppression of the "Narodnaya Volya" Party the majority of the Narodniks renounced the revolutionary struggle against the tsarist government and began to preach a policy of reconciliation and agreement with it. In the eighties and nineties the Narodniks began to voice the interests of the kulaks.<br />
<br />
The "Emancipation of Labour" group prepared two drafts of a program for a Russian Social-Democratic party (the first in 1884 and the second in 1887). This was a very important preparatory step in the formation of a Marxist Social-Democratic party in Russia.<br />
<br />
But at the same time the "Emancipation of Labour" group was guilty of some very serious mistakes. Its first draft program still contained vestiges of the Narodnik views; it countenanced the tactics of individual terrorism. Furthermore, Plekhanov failed to take into account that in the course of the revolution the proletariat could and should lead the peasantry, and that only in an alliance with the peasantry could the proletariat gain the victory over tsardom. Plekhanov further considered that the liberal bourgeoisie was a force that could give support, albeit unstable support, to the revolution; but as to the peasantry, in some of his writings he discounted it entirely, declaring, for instance, that :<br />
<br />
"Apart from the bourgeoisie and the proletariat we perceive no social forces in our country in which oppositional or revolutionary combinations might find support." (Plekhanov, ''Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. III, p. 119.)<br />
<br />
These erroneous views were the germ of Plekhanov's future Menshevik views.<br />
<br />
Neither the "Emancipation of Labour" group nor the Marxist circles of that period had yet any practical connections with the working-class movement. It was a period in which the theory of Marxism, the ideas of Marxism, and the principles of the Social-Democratic program were just appearing and gaining a foothold in Russia. In the decade of 1884-94 the Social-Democratic movement still existed in the form of small separate groups and circles which had no connections, or very scant connections, with the mass working-class movement. Like an infant still unborn but already developing in its mother's womb, the Social-Democratic movement, as Lenin wrote, was in the ''"process of fatal development."''<br />
<br />
The "Emancipation of Labor" group, Lenin said, "only laid the theoretical foundations for the Social-Democratic movement and made the first step towards the working-class movement."<br />
<br />
The task of uniting Marxism and the working-class movement in Russia, and of correcting the mistakes of the "Emancipation of Labour" group fell to Lenin.<br />
<br />
=== Beginning of Lenin’s revolutionary activities. St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class ===<br />
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin), the founder of Bolshevism, was born in the city of Simbirsk (now Ulyanovsk) in 1870. In 1887 Lenin entered the Kazan University, but was soon arrested and expelled from the university for taking part in the revolutionary student movement. In Kazan Lenin joined a Marxist circle formed by one Fedoseyev. Lenin later removed to Samara and soon afterwards the first Marxist circle in that city was formed with Lenin as the central figure. Already in those days Lenin amazed everyone by his thorough knowledge of Marxism.<br />
<br />
At the end of 1893 Lenin removed to St. Petersburg. His very first utterances in the Marxist circles of that city made a deep impression on their members. His extraordinarily profound knowledge of Marx, his ability to apply Marxism to the economic and political situation of Russia at that time, his ardent and unshakable belief in the victory of the workers' cause, and his outstanding talent as an organizer made Lenin the acknowledged leader of the St. Petersburg Marxists.<br />
<br />
Lenin enjoyed the warm affection of the politically advanced workers whom he taught in the circles.<br />
<br />
"Our lectures," says the worker Babushkin recalling Lenin's teaching activities in the workers' circles, "were of a very lively and interesting character; we were all very pleased with these lectures and constantly admired the wisdom of our lecturer."<br />
<br />
In 1895 Lenin united all the Marxist workers' circles in St. Petersburg (there were already about twenty of them) into a single League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class. He thus prepared the way for the founding of a revolutionary Marxist workers' party.<br />
<br />
Lenin put before the League of Struggle the task of forming closer connections with the mass working-class movement and of giving it political leadership. Lenin proposed to pass from the ''propaganda'' of Marxism among the few politically advanced workers who gathered in the propaganda circles to political ''agitation'' among the broad masses of the working class on issues of the day. This turn towards mass agitation was of profound importance for the subsequent development of the working-class movement in Russia.<br />
<br />
The nineties were a period of industrial boom. The number of workers was increasing. The working-class movement was gaining strength. In the period of 1895-99, according to incomplete data, not less than 221,000 workers took part in strikes. The working-class movement was becoming an important force in the political life of the country. The course of events was corroborating the view which the Marxists had championed against the Narodniks, namely, that the working class was to play the leading role in the revolutionary movement.<br />
<br />
Under Lenin's guidance, the League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class linked up the struggle of the workers for economic demands—improvement of working conditions, shorter hours and higher wages—with the political struggle against tsardom. The League of Struggle educated the workers politically.<br />
<br />
Under Lenin's guidance, the St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class was the first body in Russia that began to ''unite Socialism with the working-class movement.'' When a strike broke out in some factory, the League of Struggle, which through the members of its circles was kept well posted on the state of affairs in the factories, immediately responded by issuing leaflets and Socialist proclamations. These leaflets exposed the oppression of the workers by the manufacturers, explained how the workers should fight for their interests, and set forth the workers' demands. The leaflets told the plain truth about the ulcers of capitalism, the poverty of the workers, their intolerably hard working day of 12 to 14 hours, and their utter lack of rights. They also put forward appropriate political demands. With the collaboration of the worker Babushkin, Lenin at the end of i 894 wrote the first agitational leaflet of this kind and an appeal to the workers of the Semyannikov Works in St. Petersburg who were on strike. In the autumn of i895 Lenin wrote a leaflet for the men and women strikers of the Thornton Mills. These mills belonged to English owners who were making millions in profits out of them. The working day in these mills exceeded 14 hours, while the wages of a weaver were about 7 rubles per month. The workers won the strike. In a short space of time the League of Struggle printed dozens of such leaflets and appeals to the workers of various factories. Every leaflet greatly helped to stiffen the spirit of the workers. They saw that the Socialists were helping and defending them.<br />
<br />
In the summer of 1896 a strike of 30,000 textile workers, led by the League of Struggle, took place in St. Petersburg. The chief demand was for shorter hours. This strike forced the tsarist government to pass, on June 2, 1897, a law limiting the working day to 11½ hours. Prior to this the working day was not limited in any way.<br />
<br />
In December I895 Lenin was arrested by the tsarist government. But even in prison he did not discontinue his revolutionary work. He assisted the League of Struggle with advice and direction and wrote pamphlets and leaflets for it. There he wrote a pamphlet entitled ''On Strikes'' and a leaflet entitled ''To the Tsarist Government,'' exposing its savage despotism. There too Lenin drafted a program for the party (he used milk as an invisible ink and wrote between the lines of a book on medicine).<br />
<br />
The St. Petersburg League of Struggle gave a powerful impetus to the amalgamation of the workers' circles in other cities and regions of Russia into similar leagues. In the middle of the nineties Marxist organizations arose in Transcaucasia. In 1894 a Workers' Union was formed in Moscow. Towards the end of the nineties a Social-Democratic Union was formed in Siberia. In the nineties Marxist groups arose in Ivanovo-Voznesensk, Yaroslavl and Kostroma and subsequently merged to form the Northern Union of the Social-Democratic Party. In the second half of the nineties Social-Democratic groups and unions were formed in Rostov-on-Don, Ekaterinoslav, Kiev, Nikolayev, Tula, Samara, Kazan, Orekhovo-Zuyevo and other cities.<br />
<br />
The importance of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class consisted in the fact that, as Lenin said, it was the first real ''rudiment of a revolutionary party which was backed by the working-class movement.''<br />
<br />
Lenin drew on the revolutionary experience of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle in his subsequent work of creating a Marxist Social-Democratic party in Russia.<br />
<br />
After the arrest of Lenin and his close associates, the leadership of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle changed considerably. New people appeared who called themselves the "young" and Lenin and his associates the "old fellows." These people pursued an erroneous political line. They declared that the workers should be called upon to wage only an economic struggle against their employers; as for the political struggle, that was the affair of the liberal bourgeoisie, to whom the leadership of the political struggle should be left.<br />
<br />
These people came to be called "Economists."<br />
<br />
They were the first group of compromisers and opportunists within the ranks of the Marxist organizations in Russia.<br />
<br />
=== Lenin’s struggle against narodism and “legal Marxism.” Lenin’s idea of an alliance of the working class and the peasantry. First Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party ===<br />
Although Plekhanov had already in the eighties dealt the chief blow to the Narodnik system of views, at the beginning of the nineties Narodnik views still found sympathy among certain sections of the revolutionary youth. Some of them continued to hold that Russia could avoid the capitalist path of development and that the principal role in the revolution would be played by the peasantry, and not by the working class. The Narodniks that still remained did their utmost to prevent the spread of Marxism in Russia, fought the Marxists and endeavoured to discredit them in every way. Narodism had to be completely ''smashed''ideologically if the further spread of Marxism and the creation of a Social-Democratic party were to be assured.<br />
<br />
This task was performed by Lenin.<br />
<br />
In his book, ''What the "Friends of the People" Are and How They Fight Against the Social-Democrats'' (1894), Lenin thoroughly exposed the true character of the Narodniks, showing that they were false "friends of the people" actually working against the people.<br />
<br />
Essentially, the Narodniks of the nineties had long ago renounced all revolutionary struggle against the tsarist government. The liberal Narodniks preached reconciliation with the tsarist government "They think," Lenin wrote in reference to the Narodniks of that period, "that if they simply plead with this government nicely enough and humbly enough, it will put everything right." (Lenin, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. I, p. 413.)*<br />
<br />
The Narodniks of the nineties shut their eyes to the condition of the poor peasants, to the class struggle in the countryside, and to the exploitation of the poor peasants by the kulaks, and sang praises to the development of kulak farming. As a matter of fact they voiced the interests of the kulaks.<br />
<br />
At the same time, the Narodniks in their periodicals baited the Marxists. They deliberately distorted and falsified the views of the Russian Marxists and claimed that the latter desired the ruin of the countryside and wanted "every muzhik to be stewed in the factory kettle." Lenin exposed the falsity of the Narodnik criticism and pointed out that it was not a matter of the "wishes" of the Marxists, but of the fact that capitalism was actually developing in Russia and that this development was inevitably accompanied by a growth of the proletariat. And the proletariat would be the gravedigger of the capitalist system.<br />
<br />
Lenin showed that it was the Marxists and not the Narodniks who were the real friends of the people, that it was the Marxists who wanted to throw off the capitalist and landlord yoke, to destroy tsardom.<br />
<br />
In his book, ''What the "Friends of the People" Are'', Lenin for the first time advanced the idea of a revolutionary alliance of the workers and peasants as the principal means of overthrowing tsardom, the landlords and the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
In a number of his writings during this period Lenin criticized the methods of political struggle employed by the principal Narodnik group, the "Narodnaya Volya," and later by the successors of the Narodniks, the Socialist-Revolutionaries—especially the tactics of individual terrorism. Lenin considered these tactics harmful to the revolutionary movement, for they substituted the struggle of individual heroes for the struggle of the masses. They signified a lack of confidence in the revolutionary movement of the people.<br />
<br />
In the book, ''What the "Friends of the People" Are,''Lenin outlined the main tasks of the Russian Marxists. In his opinion, the first duty of the Russian Marxists was to weld the disunited Marxist circles into a united Socialist workers' party. He further pointed out that it would be the working class of Russia, in alliance with the peasantry, that would overthrow the tsarist autocracy, after which the Russian proletariat, in alliance with the labouring and exploited masses, would, along with the proletariat of other countries, take the straight road of open political struggle to the victorious Communist revolution.<br />
<br />
Thus, over forty years ago, Lenin correctly pointed out to the working class its path of struggle, defined its role as the foremost revolutionary force in society, and that of the peasantry as the ally of the working class.<br />
<br />
The struggle waged by Lenin and his followers against Narodism led to the latter's complete ideological defeat already in the nineties.<br />
<br />
Of immense significance, too, was Lenin's struggle against "legal Marxism." It usually happens with big social movements in history that transient "fellow-travelers" fasten on them. The ''"legal Marxists,"'' as they were called, were such fellow-travelers. Marxism began to spread widely throughout Russia; and so we found bourgeois intellectuals decking themselves out in a Marxist garb. They published their articles in newspapers and periodicals that were legal, that is, allowed by the tsarist government. That is why they came to be called "legal Marxists."<br />
<br />
After their own fashion, they too fought Narodism. But they tried to make use of this fight and of the banner of Marxism in order to subordinate and adapt the working-class movement to the interests of bourgeois society, to the interests of the bourgeoisie. They cut out the very core of Marxism, namely, the doctrine of the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. One prominent legal Marxist, Peter Struve, extolled the bourgeoisie, and instead of calling for a revolutionary struggle against capitalism, urged that "we acknowledge our lack of culture and go to capitalism for schooling."<br />
<br />
In the fight against the Narodniks Lenin considered it permissible to come to a temporary agreement with the "legal Marxists" in order to use them against the Narodniks, as, for example, for the joint publication of a collection of articles directed against the Narodniks. At the same time, however, Lenin was unsparing in his criticism of the "legal Marxists" and exposed their liberal bourgeois nature.<br />
<br />
Many of these fellow-travelers later became Constitutional-Democrats (the principal party of the Russian bourgeoisie), and during the Civil War out-and-out White guards. <br />
<br />
Along with the Leagues of Struggle in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kiev and other places, Social-Democratic organizations arose also in the western national border regions of Russia. In the nineties the Marxist elements in the Polish nationalist party broke away to form the Social-Democratic Party of Poland and Lithuania. At the end of the nineties Latvian Social-Democratic organizations were formed, and in October 1897 the Jewish General Social-Democratic Union—known as the Bund—was founded in the western provinces of Russia.<br />
<br />
In 1898 several of the Leagues of Struggle—those of St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kiev and Ekaterinoslav—together with the Bund made the first attempt to unite and form a Social-Democratic party. For this purpose they summoned the First Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (R.S.D.L.P.), which was held in Minsk in March 1898.<br />
<br />
The First Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. was attended by only nine persons. Lenin was not present because at that time he was living in exile in Siberia. The Central Committee of the Party elected at the congress was very soon arrested. The Manifesto published in the name of the congress was in many respects unsatisfactory. It evaded the question of the conquest of political power by the proletariat, it made no mention of the hegemony of the proletariat, and said nothing about the allies of the proletariat in its struggle against tsardom and the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
In its decisions and in its Manifesto the congress announced the formation of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party.<br />
<br />
It is this formal act, which played a great revolutionary propagandist role, that constituted the significance of the First Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.<br />
<br />
But although the First Congress had been held, in reality no Marxist Social-Democratic Party was as yet formed in Russia. The congress did not succeed in uniting the separate Marxist circles and organizations and welding them together organizationally. There was still no common line of action in the work of the local organizations, nor was there a party program, party rules or a single leading centre.<br />
<br />
For this and for a number of other reasons, the ideological confusion in the local organizations began to increase, and this created favourable ground for the growth within the working-class movement of the opportunist trend known as "Economism."<br />
<br />
It required several years of intense effort on the part of Lenin and of ''Iskra (Spark)'', the newspaper he founded, before this confusion could be overcome, the opportunist vacillations put an end to, and the way prepared for the formation of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party.<br />
<br />
=== Lenin’s fight against “Economism.” Appearance of Lenin’s newspaper Iskra ===<br />
Lenin was not present at the First Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. He was at that time in exile in Siberia, in the village of Shushenskoye, where he had been banished by the tsarist government after a long period of imprisonment in St. Petersburg in connection with the prosecution of the League of Struggle.<br />
<br />
But Lenin continued his revolutionary activities even while in exile. There he finished a highly important scientific work, ''The Development of Capitalism in Russia,'' which completed the ideological destruction of Narodism. There, too, he wrote his well-known pamphlet, ''The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats.''<br />
<br />
Although Lenin was cut off from direct, practical revolutionary work, he nevertheless managed to maintain some connections with those engaged in this work; he carried on a correspondence with them from exile, obtained information from them and gave them advice. At this time Lenin was very much preoccupied with the "Economists." He realized better than anybody else that "Economism" was the main nucleus of compromise and opportunism, and that if "Economism" were to gain the upper hand in the working-class movement, it would undermine the revolutionary movement of the proletariat and lead to the defeat of Marxism.<br />
<br />
Lenin therefore started a vigorous attack on the "Economists" as soon as they appeared on the scene.<br />
<br />
The "Economists" maintained that the workers should engage only in the economic struggle; as to the political struggle, that should be left to the liberal bourgeoisie, whom the workers should support. In Lenin's eyes this tenet was a desertion of Marxism, a denial of the necessity for an independent political party of the working class, an attempt to convert the working class into a political appendage of the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
In 1899 a group of "Economists" (Prokopovich, Kuskova and others, who later became Constitutional-Democrats) issued a manifesto in which they opposed revolutionary Marxism, and insisted that the idea of an independent political party of the proletariat and of independent political demands by the working class be renounced. The "Economists" held that the political struggle was a matter for the liberal bourgeoisie, and that as far as the workers were concerned, the economic struggle against the employers was enough for them.<br />
<br />
When Lenin acquainted himself with this opportunist document he called a conference of Marxist political exiles living in the vicinity. Seventeen of them met and, headed by Lenin, issued a trenchant protest denouncing the views of the "Economists."<br />
<br />
This protest, which was written by Lenin, was circulated among the Marxist organizations all over the country and played an outstanding part in the development of Marxist ideas and of the Marxist party in Russia.<br />
<br />
The Russian "Economists" advocated the same views as the opponents of Marxism in the Social-Democratic parties abroad who were known as the Bernsteinites, that is, followers of the opportunist Bernstein.<br />
<br />
Lenin's struggle against the "Economists" was therefore at the same time a struggle against opportunism on an international scale.<br />
<br />
The fight against "Economism," the fight for the creation of an independent political party of the proletariat, was chiefly waged by ''Iskra,'' the illegal newspaper founded by Lenin.<br />
<br />
At the beginning of 1900, Lenin and other members of the League of Struggle returned from their Siberian exile to Russia. Lenin conceived the idea of founding a big illegal Marxist newspaper on an all-Russian scale. The numerous small Marxist circles and organizations which already existed in Russia were not yet linked up. At a moment when, in the words of Comrade Stalin, "amateurishness and the parochial outlook of the circles were corroding the Party from top to bottom, when ideological confusion was the characteristic feature of the internal life of the Party," the creation of an illegal newspaper on an all-Russian scale was the chief task of the Russian revolutionary Marxists. Only such a newspaper could link up the disunited Marxist organizations and prepare the way for the creation of a real party.<br />
<br />
But such a newspaper could not be published in tsarist Russia owing to police persecution. Within a month or two at most the tsar's sleuths would get on its track and smash it. Lenin therefore decided to publish the newspaper abroad. There it was printed on very thin but durable paper and secretly smuggled into Russia. Some of the issues of ''Iskra'' were reprinted in Russia by secret printing plants in Baku, Kishinev and Siberia.<br />
<br />
In the autumn of 1900 Lenin went abroad to make arrangements with the comrades in the "Emancipation of Labour" group for the publication of a political newspaper on an all-Russian scale. The idea had been worked out by Lenin in all its details while he was in exile. On his way back from exile he had held a number of conferences on the subject in Ufa, Pskov, Moscow and St. Petersburg. Everywhere he made arrangements with the comrades about codes for secret correspondence, addresses to which literature could be sent, and so on, and discussed with them plans for the future struggle.<br />
<br />
The tsarist government scented a most dangerous enemy in Lenin. Zubatov, an officer of gendarmes in the tsarist ''Okhrana'', expressed the opinion in a confidential report that "there is nobody bigger than Ulyanov [Lenin] in the revolution today," in view of which he considered it expedient to have Lenin assassinated.<br />
<br />
Abroad, Lenin came to an arrangement with the "Emancipation of Labour" group, namely, with Plekhanov, Axelrod and V. Zasulich, for the publication of Iskra under joint auspices. The whole plan of publication from beginning to end had been worked out by Lenin.<br />
<br />
The first issue of Iskra appeared abroad in December 1900. The title page bore the epigraph: "The ''Spark Will Kindle a Flame."'' These words were taken from the reply of the Decembrists to the poet Pushkin who had sent greetings to them in their place of exile in Siberia.<br />
<br />
And indeed, from the spark (''Iskra'') started by Lenin there subsequently flamed up the great revolutionary conflagration in which the tsarist monarchy of the landed nobility, and the power of the bourgeoisie were reduced to ashes.<br />
<br />
=== Brief summary ===<br />
The Marxist Social-Democratic Labour Party in Russia was formed in a struggle waged in the first place against Narodism and its views, which were erroneous and harmful to the cause of revolution.<br />
<br />
Only by ideologically shattering the views of the Narodniks was it possible to clear the way for a Marxist workers' party in Russia. A decisive blow to Narodism was dealt by Plekhanov and his "Emancipation of Labour" group in the eighties.<br />
<br />
Lenin completed the ideological defeat of Narodism and dealt it the final blow in the nineties.<br />
<br />
The "Emancipation of Labour" group, founded in 1883, did a great deal for the dissemination of Marxism in Russia; it laid the theoretical foundations for Social-Democracy and took the first step to establish connection with the working-class movement.<br />
<br />
With the development of capitalism in Russia the industrial proletariat rapidly grew in numbers. In the middle of the eighties the working class adopted the path of organized struggle, of mass action in the form of organized strikes. But the Marxist circles and groups only carried on propaganda and did not realize the necessity for passing to mass agitation among the working class; they therefore still had no practical connection with the working-class movement and did not lead it.<br />
<br />
The St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class, which Lenin formed in i895 and which started mass agitation among the workers and led mass strikes, marked a new stage — the transition to mass agitation among the workers and the union of Marxism with the working-class movement. The St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class was the rudiment of a revolutionary proletarian party in Russia. The formation of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle was followed by the formation of Marxist organizations in all the principal industrial centres as well as in the border regions.<br />
<br />
In i898 at the First Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. the first, although unsuccessful, attempt was made to unite the Marxist Social-Democratic organizations into a party. But this congress did not yet create a party : there was neither a party program nor party rules; there was no single leading centre, and there was scarcely any connection between the separate Marxist circles and groups.<br />
<br />
In order to unite and link together the separate Marxist organizations into a single party, Lenin put forward and carried out a plan for the founding of ''Iskra'', the first newspaper of the revolutionary Marxists on an all-Russian scale.<br />
<br />
The principal opponents to the creation of a single political working-class party at that period were the "Economists." They denied the necessity for such a party. They fostered the disunity and amateurish methods of the separate groups. It was against them that Lenin and the newspaper ''Iskra'' organized by him directed their blows.<br />
<br />
The appearance of the first issues of ''Iskra'' (1900-0I) marked a transition to a new period—a period in which a single Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party was really formed from the disconnected groups and circles.<br />
<br />
== Formation of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. Appearance of the Bolshevik and the Menshevik groups within the party (1901—1904) ==<br />
<br />
=== Upsurge of the revolutionary movement in Russia in 1901—1904 ===<br />
The end of the nineteenth century in Europe was marked by an industrial crisis. It soon spread to Russia. During the period of the crisis (1900-03) about 3,000 large and small enterprises were closed down and over 100,000 workers thrown on the streets. The wages of the workers that remained employed were sharply reduced. The insignificant concessions previously wrung from the capitalists as the result of stubborn economic strikes were now withdrawn.<br />
<br />
Industrial crisis and unemployment did not halt or weaken the working-class movement. On the contrary, the workers' struggle assumed an increasingly revolutionary character. From economic strikes, the workers passed to political strikes, and finally to demonstrations, put forward political demands for democratic liberties, and raised the slogan, "Down with the tsarist autocracy!"<br />
<br />
A May Day strike at the Obukhov munitions plant in St. Petersburg in 1901 resulted in a bloody encounter between the workers and troops. The only weapons the workers could oppose to the armed forces of the tsar were stones and lumps of iron. The stubborn resistance of the workers was broken. This was followed by savage reprisals: about 800 workers were arrested, and many were cast into prison or condemned to penal servitude and exile. But the heroic "Obukhov defence" made a profound impression on the workers of Russia and called forth a wave of sympathy among them.<br />
<br />
In March 1902 big strikes and a demonstration of workers took place in Batum, organized by the Batum Social-Democratic Committee. The Batum demonstration stirred up the workers and peasants of Transcaucasia.<br />
<br />
In 1902 a big strike broke out in Rostov-on-Don as well. The first to come out were the railwaymen, who were soon joined by the workers of many factories. The strike agitated all the workers. As many as 30,000 would gather at meetings held outside the city limits on several successive days. At these meetings Social-Democratic proclamations were read aloud and speakers addressed the workers. The police and the Cossacks were powerless to disperse these meetings, attended as they were by many thousands. When several workers were killed by the police, a huge procession of working people attended their funeral on the following day. Only by summoning troops from surrounding cities was the tsarist government able to suppress the strike. The struggle of the Rostov workers was led by the Don Committee of the R.S.D.L.P.<br />
<br />
The strikes that broke out in 1903 were of even larger dimensions. Mass political strikes took place that year in the south, sweeping Transcaucasia (Baku, Tiflis, Batum) and the large cities of the Ukraine (Odessa, Kiev, Ekaterinoslav). The strikes became increasingly stubborn and better organized. Unlike earlier actions of the working class, the political struggle of the workers was nearly everywhere directed by the Social-Democratic committees.<br />
<br />
The working class of Russia was rising to wage a revolutionary struggle against the tsarist regime.<br />
<br />
The working-class movement influenced the peasantry. In the spring and summer of 1902 a peasant movement broke out in the Ukraine (Poltava and Kharkov provinces) and in the Volga region. The peasants set fire to landlords' mansions, seized their land, and killed the detested ''zemsky nachalniks'' (rural prefects) and landlords. Troops were sent to quell the rebellious peasants. Peasants were shot down, hundreds were arrested, and their leaders and organizers were flung into prison, but the revolutionary peasant movement continued to grow.<br />
<br />
The revolutionary actions of the workers and peasants indicated that revolution was maturing and drawing near in Russia.<br />
<br />
Under the influence of the revolutionary struggle of the workers the opposition movement of the students against the government assumed greater intensity. In retaliation for the student demonstrations and strikes, the government shut down the universities, flung hundreds of students into prison, and finally conceived the idea of sending recalcitrant students into the army as common soldiers. In response, the students of all the universities organized a general strike in the winter of 1901-02. About thirty thousand students were involved in this strike.<br />
<br />
The revolutionary movement of the workers and peasants, and especially the reprisals against the students, induced also the liberal bourgeois and the liberal landlords who sat on what was known as the Zem-stvos to bestir themselves and to raise their voices in "protest" against the "excesses" of the tsarist government in repressing their student sons.<br />
<br />
The Zemstvo liberals had their stronghold in the Zemstvo boards. These were local government bodies which had charge of purely local affairs affecting the rural population (building of roads, hospitals and schools). The liberal landlords played a fairly prominent part on the Zem-stvo boards. They were closely associated with the liberal bourgeois, in fact were almost merged with them, for they themselves were beginning to abandon methods based on survivals of serfdom for capitalist methods of farming on their estates, as being more profitable. Of course, both these groups of liberals supported the tsarist government; but they were opposed to the "excesses" of tsardom, fearing that these "excesses" would only intensify the revolutionary movement. While they feared the "excesses" of tsardom, they feared revolution even more. In protesting against these "excesses," the liberals pursued two aims: first, to "bring the tsar to his senses," and secondly, by donning a mask of "profound dissatisfaction" with tsardom, to gain the confidence of the people, and to get them, or part of them, to break away from the revolution, and thus undermine its strength.<br />
<br />
Of course, the Zemstvo liberal movement offered no menace whatever to the existence of tsardom; nevertheless, it served to show that all was not well with the "eternal" pillars of tsardom.<br />
<br />
In 1902 the Zemstvo liberal movement led to the formation of the bourgeois "Liberation" group, the nucleus of the future principal party of the bourgeoisie in Russia—the Constitutional-Democratic Party.<br />
<br />
Perceiving that the movement of the workers and peasants was sweeping the country in a formidable torrent, the tsarist government did everything it could to stem the revolutionary tide. Armed force was used with increasing frequency to suppress the workers' strikes and demonstrations; the bullet and the knout became the government's usual reply to the actions of the workers and peasants; prisons and places of exile were filled to overflowing.<br />
<br />
While tightening up the measures of repression, the tsarist government tried at the same time to resort to other, non-repressive and more "flexible," measures to divert the workers from the revolutionary movement. Attempts were made to create bogus workers' organizations under the aegis of the gendarmes and police. They were dubbed organizations of "police socialism" or Zubatov organizations (after the name of a colonel of gendarmerie, Zubatov, who was the founder of these police-controlled workers' organizations). Through its agents the ''Okhrana'' tried to get the workers to believe that the tsarist government was itself prepared to assist them in securing the satisfaction of their economic demands. "Why engage in politics, why make a revolution, when the tsar himself is on the side of the workers?"—Zubatov agents would insinuate to the workers. Zubatov organizations were formed in several cities. On the model of these organizations and with the same purposes in view, an organization known as the Assembly of Russian Factory Workers of St. Petersburg was formed in 1904 by a priest by the name of Gapon.<br />
<br />
But the attempt of the tsarist ''Okhrana'' to gain control over the working-class movement failed. The tsarist government proved unable by such measures to cope with the growing working-class movement. The rising revolutionary movement of the working class swept these police-controlled organizations from its path.<br />
<br />
=== Lenin’s plan for the building of a Marxist party. Opportunism of the “Economists.” Iskra’s fight for Lenin’s plan. Lenin’s book ''What is to be Done?'' Ideological foundations of the Marxist party ===<br />
Notwithstanding the fact that the First Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Party had been held in 1898, and that it had announced the formation of the Party, no real party was as yet created. There was no party program or party rules. The Central Committee of the Party elected at the First Congress was arrested and never replaced, for there was nobody to replace it. Worse still, the ideological confusion and lack of organizational cohesion of the Party became even more marked after the First Congress.<br />
<br />
While the years 1884-94 were a period of victory over Narodism and of ideological preparation for the formation of a Social-Democratic Party, and the years 1894-98 a period in which an attempt, although unsuccessful, was made to weld the separate Marxist organizations into a Social-Democratic Party, the period immediately following 1898 was one of increased ideological and organizational confusion within the Party. The victory gained by the Marxists over Narodism and the revolutionary actions of the working class, which proved that the Marxists were right, stimulated the sympathy of the revolutionary youth for Marxism. Marxism became the fashion. This resulted in an influx into the Marxist organizations of throngs of young revolutionary intellectuals, who were weak in theory and inexperienced in political organization, and who ad only a vague, and for the most part incorrect, idea of Marxism, derived from the opportunist writings of the "legal Marxists" with which the press was filled. This resulted in the lowering of the theoretical and political standard of the Marxist organizations, in their infection with the "legal Marxist" opportunist tendencies, and in the aggravation of ideological confusion, political vacillation and organizational chaos.<br />
<br />
The rising tide of the working-class movement and the obvious proximity of revolution demanded a united and centralized party of the working class which would be capable of leading the revolutionary movement. But the local Party organizations, the local committees, groups and circles were in such a deplorable state, and their organizational disunity and ideological discord so profound, that the task of creating such a party was one of immense difficulty.<br />
<br />
The difficulty lay not only in the fact that the Party had to be built under the fire of savage persecution by the tsarist government, which every now and then robbed the organizations of their finest workers whom it condemned to exile, imprisonment and penal servitude, but also in the fact that a large number of the local committees and their members would have nothing to do with anything but their local, petty practical activities, did not realize the harm caused by the absence of organizational and ideological unity in the Party, were accustomed to the disunity and ideological confusion that prevailed within it, and believed that they could get along quite well without a united centralized party.<br />
<br />
If a centralized party was to be created, this backwardness, inertia, and narrow outlook of the local bodies had to be overcome.<br />
<br />
But this was not all. There was a fairly large group of people within the Party who had their own press—the ''Rabochaya Mysl (Workers' Thought)'' in Russia and ''Rabocheye Delo (Workers' Cause'') abroad— and who were trying to justify on theoretical grounds the lack of organizational cohesion and the ideological confusion within the Party, frequently even lauding such a state of affairs, and holding that the plan for creating a united and centralized political party of the working class was unnecessary and artificial.<br />
<br />
These were the "Economists" and their followers.<br />
<br />
Before a united political party of the proletariat could be created, the "Economists" had to be defeated.<br />
<br />
It was to this task and to the building of a working-class party that Lenin addressed himself.<br />
<br />
How to begin the building of a united party of the working class was a question on which opinions differed. Some thought that the building of the Party should be begun by summoning the Second Congress of the Party, which would unite the local organizations and create the Party. Lenin was opposed to this. He held that before convening a congress it was necessary to make the aims and objects of the Party clear, to ascertain what sort of a party was wanted, to effect an ideological demarcation from the "Economists," to tell the Party honestly and frankly that there existed two different opinions regarding the aims and objects of the Party—the opinion of the "Economists" and the opinion of the revolutionary Social-Democrats—to start a wide campaign in the press in favour of the views of revolutionary Social-Democracy—just as the "Economists" were conducting a campaign in their own press in favour of their own views—and to give the local organizations the opportunity to make a deliberate choice between these two trends. Only after this indispensable preliminary work had been done could a Party Congress be summoned. Lenin put it plainly :<blockquote>“Before we can unite, and in order that we may unite, we must first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation.”</blockquote>Lenin accordingly held that the building of a political party of the working class should be begun by the founding of a militant political newspaper on an all-Russian scale, which would carry on propaganda and agitation in favour of the views of revolutionary Social-Democracy —that the establishment of such a newspaper should be the first step in the building of the Party.<br />
<br />
In his well-known article, "Where to Begin?" Lenin outlined a concrete plan for the building of the Party, a plan which was later expanded in his famous work ''What is To Be Done?''<br />
<br />
"In our opinion," wrote Lenin in this article, "the starting point of our activities, the first practical step towards creating the organization desired,* finally, the main thread following which we would be able to develop, deepen and expand that organization unswervingly, should be the establishment of a political newspaper on an all-Russian scale...Without it we cannot systematically carry on that all-embracing propaganda and agitation, consistent in principle, which form the chief and constant task of Social-Democrats in general, and the particularly urgent task of the present moment when interest in politics, in questions of Socialism, has been aroused among the widest sections of the population." (''Ibid.,'' p. 19.)<br />
<br />
Lenin considered that such a newspaper would serve not only to weld the Party ideologically, but also to unite the local bodies within the Party organizationally. The network of agents and correspondents of the newspaper, representing the local organizations, would provide a skeleton around which the Party could be built up organizationally. For, Lenin said, "a newspaper is not only a collective propagandist and collective agitator, but also a collective organizer."<blockquote>“This network of agents," writes Lenin in the same article, "will form the skeleton of precisely the organization we need, namely, one that is sufficiently large to embrace the whole country, sufficiently wide and many-sided to effect a strict and detailed division of labour; sufficiently tried and tempered to be able unswervingly to carry on ''its own'' work under all circumstances, at all 'turns' and in all contingencies; sufficiently flexible to be able to avoid open battle against an enemy of overwhelming strength, when he has concentrated all his forces at one spot, and yet able to take advantage of the awkwardness of this enemy and to attack him whenever and wherever least expected.”</blockquote>''Iskra'' was to be such a newspaper.<br />
<br />
And ''Iskra'' did indeed become such a political-newspaper on an all-Russian scale which prepared the way for the ideological and organizational consolidation of the Party.<br />
<br />
As to the structure and composition of the Party itself, Lenin considered that it should consist of two parts: a) a close circle of regular cadres of leading Party workers, chiefly professional revolutionaries, that is, Party workers free from all occupation except Party work and possessing the necessary minimum of theoretical knowledge, political experience, organizational practice and the art of combating the tsarist police and of eluding them; and b) a broad network of local Party organizations and a large number of Party members enjoying the sympathy and support of hundreds of thousands of working people.<blockquote>“I assert,” Lenin wrote, 1) that no revolutionary movement can endure without a stable organization of leaders that maintains continuity; 2) that the wider the masses spontaneously drawn into the struggle...the more urgent the need of such an organization, and the more solid this organization must be...3) that such an organization must consist chiefly of people professionally engaged in revolutionary activity; 4) that in an autocratic state the more we ''confine'' the membership of such organization to people who are professionally engaged in revolutionary activity and who have been professionally trained in the art of combating the political police, the more difficult will it be to wipe out such an organization, and 5) the ''greater'' will be the number of people of the working class and of the other classes of society who will be able to join the movement and perform active work in it.” (''Ibid.'') pp. 138-39.)</blockquote>As to the character of the Party that was being built up and its role in relation to the working class, as well as its aims and objects, Lenin held that the Party should form the vanguard of the working class, that it should be the guiding force of the working-class movement, co-ordinating and directing the class struggle of the proletariat. The ultimate goal of the Party was the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. Its immediate aim was the overthrow of tsardom and the establishment of a democratic order. And inasmuch as the overthrow of capitalism was impossible without the preliminary overthrow of tsardom, the principal task of the Party at the given moment was to rouse the working class and the whole people for a struggle against tsardom, to develop a revolutionary movement of the people against it, and to overthrow it as the first and serious obstacle in the path of Socialism.<blockquote>“History,” Lenin wrote, “has now confronted us with an immediate task which is ''the most revolutionary'' of all the ''immediate'' tasks that confront the proletariat of any country. The fulfilment of this task, the destruction of the most powerful bulwark not only of European but also (it may now be said) of Asiatic reaction would make the Russian proletariat the vanguard of the international revolutionary proletariat.”</blockquote>And further:<blockquote>“We must bear in mind that the struggle with the government for partial demands, the winning of partial concessions, are only petty skirmishes with the enemy, petty encounters on the outposts, whereas the decisive engagement is still to come. Before us, in all its strength, stands the enemy's fortress, which is raining shot and shell upon us and mowing down our best fighters. We must capture this fortress; and we shall capture it if we unite all the forces of the awakening proletariat with all the forces of the Russian revolutionaries into one party, which will attract all that is alive and honest in Russia. And only then will the great prophecy of Pyotr Alexeyev, the Russian worker revolutionary, be fulfilled: 'the muscular arm of the working millions will be lifted, and the yoke of despotism, guarded by the soldiers' bayonets, will be smashed to atoms!'”</blockquote>Such was Lenin's plan for the creation of a party of the working class in autocratic tsarist Russia.<br />
<br />
The "Economists" showed no delay in launching an attack on Lenin's plan.<br />
<br />
They asserted that the general political struggle against tsardom was a matter for all classes, but primarily for the bourgeoisie, and that therefore it was of no serious interest to the working class, for the chief interest of the workers lay in the economic struggle against the employers for higher wages, better working conditions, etc. The primary and immediate aim of the Social-Democrats should therefore be not a political struggle against tsardom, and not the overthrow of tsardom, but the organization of the "economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government." By the economic struggle against the government they meant a struggle for better factory legislation. The "Economists" claimed that in this way it would be possible "to lend the economic struggle itself a political character."<br />
<br />
The "Economists" no longer dared openly to contest the need for a political party of the working class. But they considered that it should not be the guiding force of the working-class movement, that it should not interfere in the spontaneous movement of the working class, let alone direct it, but that it should follow in the wake of this movement, study it and draw lessons from it.<br />
<br />
The "Economists" furthermore asserted that the role of the conscious element in the working-class movement, the organizing and directing role of Socialist consciousness and Socialist theory, was insignificant, or almost insignificant; that the Social-Democrats should not elevate the minds of the workers to the level of Socialist consciousness, but, on the contrary, should adjust themselves and descend to the level of the average, or even of the more backward sections of the working class, and that the Social-Democrats should not try to impart a Socialist consciousness to the working class, but should wait until the spontaneous movement of the working class arrived of itself at a Socialist consciousness.<br />
<br />
As regards Lenin's plan for the organization of the Party, the "Economists" regarded it almost as an act of violence against the spontaneous movement.<br />
<br />
In the columns of ''Iskra,'' and especially in his celebrated work ''What is To Be Done?,'' Lenin launched a vehement attack against this opportunist philosophy of the "Economists" and demolished it.<br />
<br />
1) Lenin showed that to divert the working class from the general political struggle against tsardom and to confine its task to that of the economic struggle against the employers and the government, while leaving both employers and government intact, meant to condemn the workers to eternal slavery. The economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government was a trade union struggle for better terms in the sale of their labour power to the capitalists. The workers, however, wanted to fight not only for better terms in the sale of their labour power to the capitalists, but also for the abolition of the capitalist system itself which condemned them to sell their labour power to the capitalists and to suffer exploitation. But the workers could not develop their struggle against capitalism, their struggle for Socialism to the full, as long as the path of the working-class movement was barred by tsardom, that watchdog of capitalism. It was therefore the immediate task of the Party and of the working class to remove tsardom from the path and thus clear the way to Socialism.<br />
<br />
2) Lenin showed that to extol the spontaneous process in the working-class movement, to deny that the Party had a leading role to play, to reduce its role to that of a recorder of events, meant to preach ''khvostism'' (following in the tail), to preach the conversion of the Party into a tall-piece of the spontaneous process, into a passive force of the movement, capable only of contemplating the spontaneous process and allowing events to take their own course. To advocate this meant working for the destruction of the Party, that is, leaving the working class without a party—that is, leaving the working class unarmed. But to leave the working class unarmed when it was faced by such enemies as tsardom, which was armed to the teeth, and the bourgeoisie, which was organized on modern lines and had its own party to direct its struggle against the working class, meant to betray the working class.<br />
<br />
3) Lenin showed that to bow in worship of the spontaneous working-class movement and to belittle the importance of consciousness, of Socialist consciousness and Socialist theory, meant, in the first place, to insult the workers, who were drawn to consciousness as to light; in the second place, to lower the value of theory in the eyes of the Party, that is, to depreciate the instrument which helped the Party to understand the present and foresee the future; and, in the third place, it meant to sink completely and irrevocably into the bog of opportunism.<blockquote>“Without a revolutionary theory,” Lenin said, “there can be no revolutionary movement...The role of vanguard can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory.”</blockquote>4) Lenin showed that the "Economists" were deceiving the working class when they asserted that a Socialist ideology could arise from the spontaneous movement of the working class, for in reality the Socialist ideology arises not from the spontaneous movement, but from science. By denying the necessity of imparting a Socialist consciousness to the working class, the "Economists" were clearing the way for bourgeois ideology, facilitating its introduction and dissemination among the work- ing class, and, consequently, they were burying the idea of union between the working-class movement and Socialism, thus helping the bourgeoisie.<blockquote>“All worship of the spontaneity of the labour movement,” Lenin said, “all belittling of the role of 'the conscious element,' of the role of the party of Social-Democracy, ''means, altogether irrespective of whether the belittler likes it or not, strengthening the influence of the bourgeois ideology among the workers.''”</blockquote>And further:<blockquote>“The only choice is: either the bourgeois or the Socialist ideology. There is no middle course...Hence to belittle the Socialist ideology ''in any way, to turn away from it in the slightest degree'' means to strengthen the bourgeois ideology.”</blockquote>5) Summing up all these mistakes of the "Economists," Lenin came to the conclusion that they did not want a party of social revolution for the emancipation of the working class from capitalism, but a party of "social reform," which presupposed the preservation of capitalist rule, and that, consequently, the "Economists" were reformists who were betraying the fundamental interests of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
6) Lastly, Lenin showed that "Economism" was not an accidental phenomenon in Russia, but that the "Economists" were an instrument of bourgeois influence upon the working class, that they had allies in the West-European Social-Democratic parties in the person of the revisionists, the followers of the opportunist Bernstein. The opportunist trend in Social-Democratic parties was gaining strength in Western Europe; on the plea of "freedom to criticize" Marx, it demanded a "revision" of the Marxist doctrine (hence the term "revisionism"); it demanded renunciation of the revolution, of Socialism and of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin showed that the Russian "Economists" were pursuing a similar policy of renunciation of the revolutionary struggle, of Socialism and of the dictatorship of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
Such were the main theoretical principles expounded by Lenin in ''What is To Be Done?''<br />
<br />
As a result of the wide circulation of this book, by the time of the Second Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Party, that is, within a year after its publication (it appeared in March 1902), nothing but a distasteful memory remained of the ideological stand of "Economism," and to be called an "Economist" was regarded by the majority of the members of the Party as an insult.<br />
<br />
It was a complete ideological defeat for "Economism," for the ideology of opportunism, ''khvostism'' and spontaneity.<br />
<br />
But this does not exhaust the significance of Lenin's ''What is To Be Done?''<br />
<br />
The historic significance of this celebrated book lies in the fact that in it Lenin:<br />
<br />
1) For the first time in the history of Marxist thought, laid bare the ideological roots of opportunism, showing that they principally consisted in worshipping the spontaneous working-class movement and belittling the role of Socialist consciousness in the working-class movement;<br />
<br />
2) Brought out the great importance of theory, of consciousness, and of the Party as a revolutionizing and guiding force of the spontaneous working-class movement;<br />
<br />
3) Brilliantly substantiated the fundamental Marxist thesis that a Marxist party is a union of the working-class movement with Socialism;<br />
<br />
4) Gave a brilliant exposition of the ideological foundations of a Marxist party.<br />
<br />
The theoretical theses expounded in ''What is To Be Done?'' later became the foundation of the ideology of the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
Possessing such a wealth of theory, ''Iskra'' was able to, and actually did, develop an extensive campaign for Lenin's plan for the building of the Party, for mustering its forces, for calling the Second Party Congress, for revolutionary Social-Democracy, and against the "Economists," revisionists, and opportunists of all kinds.<br />
<br />
One of the most important things that ''Iskra'' did was to draft a program for the Party. The program of a workers' party, as we know, is a brief, scientifically formulated statement of the aims and objects of the struggle of the working class. The program defines both the ultimate goal of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat, and the demands for which the party fights while on the way to the achievement of the ultimate goal. The drafting of a program was therefore a matter of prime importance.<br />
<br />
During the drafting of the program serious differences arose on the editorial board of ''Iskra'' between Lenin, on the one hand, and Plekhanov and other members of the board, on the other. These differences and disputes almost led to a complete rupture between Lenin and Plekhanov. But matters did not come to a head at that time. Lenin secured the inclusion in the draft program of a most important clause on the dictatorship of the proletariat and of a clear statement on the leading role of the working class in the revolution.<br />
<br />
It was Lenin, too, who drew up the whole agrarian section of the program. Already at that time Lenin was in favour of the nationalization of the land, but he considered it necessary in the first stage of the struggle to put forward the demand for the return to the peasants of the ''otrezki'', that is, those portions of the land which had been cut off the peasants' land by the landlords at the time of "emancipation" of the peasants. Plekhanov was opposed to the demand for the nationalization of the land.<br />
<br />
The disputes between Lenin and Plekhanov over the Party program to some extent determined the future differences between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks.<br />
<br />
=== Second Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. Adoption of program and rules and formation of a single party. Differences at the Congress and appearance of two trends within the party: the Bolshevik and the Menshevik ===<br />
Thus the triumph of Lenin's principles and the successful struggle waged by Iskra for Lenin's plan of organization brought about all the principal conditions necessary for the creation of a party, or, as it was said at the time, of a real party. The Iskra trend gained the upper hand among the Social-Democratic organizations in Russia. The Second Party Congress could now be summoned.<br />
<br />
The Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. opened on July 17 (30, New Style), 1903. It was held abroad, in secret. It first met in Brussels, but the Belgian police requested the delegates to leave the country. Thereupon the congress transferred its sittings to London.<br />
<br />
Forty-three delegates in all, representing 26 organizations, assembled at the congress. Each committee was entitled to send two delegates, but some of them sent only one. The 43 delegates commanded 51 votes between them.<br />
<br />
The chief purpose of the congress was "to create a ''real'' party on that basis of principles and organization which had been advanced and elaborated by ''Iskra''." (Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. II, p. 412.)<br />
<br />
The composition of the congress was heterogeneous. The avowed "Economists" were not represented, because of the defeat they had suffered. But they had since disguised their views so artfully that they managed to smuggle several of their delegates into the congress. Moreover, the Bund delegates differed only ostensibly from the "Economists"; in reality they supported the "Economists."<br />
<br />
Thus the congress was attended not only by supporters of ''Iskra'', but also by its adversaries. Thirty-three of the delegates, that is, the majority, were supporters of ''Iskra''. But not all those who considered themselves ''Iskra''-ists were real Leninist ''Iskra''-ists. The delegates fell into several groups. The supporters of Lenin, or the firm ''Iskra''-ists, commanded 24 votes; nine of the ''Iskra''-ists followed Martov; these were unstable ''Iskra''-ists. Some of the delegates vacillated between ''Iskra'' and its opponents; they commanded 10 votes and constituted the Centre. The avowed opponents of ''Iskra'' commanded 8 votes (3 "Economists" and 5 Bundists). A split in the ranks of the ''Iskra''-ists would be enough to give the enemies of ''Iskra'' the upper hand.<br />
<br />
It will therefore be seen how complex the situation was at the congress. Lenin expended a great deal of energy to ensure the victory of ''Iskra''.<br />
<br />
The most important item on the agenda was the adoption of the Party program. The chief point which, during the discussion of the program, aroused the objections of the opportunist section of the congress was the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat. There were a number of other items in the program on which the opportunists did not agree with the revolutionary section of the congress. But they decided to put up the main fight on the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, on the plea that the programs of a number of foreign Social-Democratic parties contained no clause on the dictatorship of the proletariat, and that therefore the program of the Russian Social-Democratic Party could dispense with it too.<br />
<br />
The opportunists also objected to the inclusion in the Party program of demands on the peasant question. These people did not want revolution; they, therefore, fought shy of the ally of the working class—the peasantry—and adopted an unfriendly attitude towards it.<br />
<br />
The Bundists and the Polish Social-Democrats objected to the right of nations to self-determination. Lenin had always taught that the working class must combat national oppression. To object to the inclusion of this demand in the program was tantamount to a proposal to renounce proletarian internationalism and to become accomplices in national oppression.<br />
<br />
Lenin made short work of all these objections.<br />
<br />
The congress adopted the program proposed by ''Iskra''.<br />
<br />
This program consisted of two parts : a maximum program and a minimum program. The maximum program dealt with the principal aim of the working-class party, namely, the Socialist revolution, the overthrow of the power of the capitalists, and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The minimum program dealt with the immediate aims of the Party, aims to be achieved before the overthrow of the capitalist system and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, namely, the overthrow of the tsarist autocracy, the establishment of a democratic republic, the introduction of an 8-hour working day, the abolition of all survivals of serfdom in the countryside, and the restoration to the peasants of the cut-off lands (''otrezki'') of which they had been deprived by the landlords.<br />
<br />
Subsequently, the Bolsheviks replaced the demand for the return of the ''otrezki'' by the demand for the confiscation of all the landed estates.<br />
<br />
The program adopted by the Second Congress was a revolutionary program of the party of the working class.<br />
<br />
It remained in force until the Eighth Party Congress, held after the victory of the proletarian revolution, when our Party adopted a new program.<br />
<br />
Having adopted the program, the Second Party Congress proceeded to discuss the draft of the Party Rules. Now that the congress had adopted a program and had laid the foundation for the ideological unity of the Party, it had also to adopt Party Rules so as to put an end to amateurishness and the parochial outlook of the circles, to organizational disunity and the absence of strict discipline in the Party.<br />
<br />
The adoption of the program had gone through comparatively smoothly, but fierce disputes arose at the congress over the Party Rules. The sharpest differences arose over the formulation of the first paragraph of the rules, dealing with Party membership. Who could be a member of the Party, what was to be the composition of the Party, what was to be the organizational nature of the Party, an organized whole or something amorphous?—such were the questions that arose in connection with the first paragraph of the rules. Two different formulations contested the ground: Lenin's formulation, which was supported by Plekhanov and the firm ''Iskra''-ists; and Martov's formulation, which was supported by Axelrod, Zasulich, the unstable ''Iskra''-ists, Trotsky, and all the avowed opportunists at the congress.<br />
<br />
According to Lenin's formulation, one could be a member of the Party who accepted its program, supported it financially, and belonged to one of its organizations. Martov's formulation, while admitting that acceptance of the program and financial support of the Party were indispensable conditions of Party membership, did not, however, make it a condition that a Party member should belong to one of the Party organizations, maintaining that a Party member need not necessarily belong to a Party organization.<br />
<br />
Lenin regarded the Party as an ''organized'' detachment, whose members cannot just enroll themselves in the Party, but must be admitted into the Party by one of its organizations, and hence must submit to Party discipline. Martov, on the other hand, regarded the Party as something organizationally ''amorphous,'' whose members enroll themselves in the Party and are therefore not obliged to submit to Party discipline, inasmuch as they do not belong to a Party organization.<br />
<br />
Thus, unlike Lenin's formulation, Martov's formulation would throw the door of the Party wide open to unstable non-proletarian elements. On the eve of the bourgeois-democratic revolution there were people among the bourgeois intelligentsia who for a while sympathized with the revolution. From time to time they might even render some small service to the Party. But such people would not join an organization, submit to Party discipline, carry out Party tasks and run the accompanying risks. Yet Martov and the other Mensheviks proposed to regard such people as Party members, and to accord them the right and opportunity to influence Party affairs. They even proposed to grant any striker the right to "enrol" himself in the Party, although non-Socialists, Anarchists and Socialist-Revolutionaries also took part in strikes.<br />
<br />
And so it was that instead of a monolithic and militant party with a clearly defined organization, for which Lenin and the Leninists fought at the congress, the Martovites wanted a heterogeneous and loose, amorphous party, which could not be a militant party with firm discipline because of its heterogeneous character, if for no other reason.<br />
<br />
The breaking away of the unstable ''Iskra''-ists from the firm ''Iskra''-ists, their alliance with the Centrists, joined as they were by the avowed opportunists, turned the balance in favour of Martov on this point. By 28 votes to 22, with one abstention, the congress adopted Martov's formulation of the first paragraph of the Rules.<br />
<br />
After the split in the ranks of the ''Iskra''-ists over the first paragraph of the Rules the struggle at the congress became still more acute. The congress was coming to the last item on the agenda—the elections of the leading institutions of the Party: the editorial board of the central organ of the Party (''Iskra''), and the Central Committee. However, before the elections were reached, certain incidents occurred which changed the alignment of forces.<br />
<br />
In connection with the Party Rules, the congress had to deal with the question of the Bund. The Bund laid claim to a special position within the Party. It demanded to be recognized as the sole representative of the Jewish workers in Russia. To comply with this demand would have meant to divide the workers in the Party organizations according to nationality, and to renounce common territorial class organizations of the workers. The congress rejected the system of organization on national lines proposed by the Bund. Thereupon the Bundists quit the congress. Two "Economists" also left the congress when the latter refused to recognize their Foreign League as the representative of the Party abroad.<br />
<br />
The departure of these seven opportunists altered the balance of forces at the congress in favour of the Leninists.<br />
<br />
From the very outset Lenin focussed his attention on the composition of the central institutions of the Party. He deemed it necessary that the Central Committee should be composed of staunch and consistent revolutionaries. The Martovites strove to secure the predominance of unstable, opportunist elements on the Central Committee. The majority of the congress supported Lenin on this question. The Central Committee that was elected consisted of Lenin's followers.<br />
<br />
On Lenin's proposal, Lenin, Plekhanov and Martov were elected to the editorial board of ''Iskra''. Martov had demanded the election of all the six former members of the ''Iskra'' editorial board, the majority of whom were Martov's followers. This demand was rejected by the majority of the congress. The three proposed by Lenin were elected. Martov thereupon announced that he would not join the editorial board of the central organ.<br />
<br />
Thus, by its vote on the central institutions of the Party, the congress sealed the defeat of Martov's followers and the victory of Lenin's followers.<br />
<br />
From that time on, Lenin's followers, who received the majority of votes in the elections at the congress, have been called Bolsheviks (from ''bolshinstvo,'' majority), and Lenin's opponents, who received the minority of votes, have been called Mensheviks (from ''menshinstvo,'' minority).<br />
<br />
Summing up the work of the Second Congress, the following conclusions may be drawn:<br />
<br />
1) The congress sealed the victory of Marxism over "Economism," over open opportunism.<br />
<br />
2) The congress adopted a Program and Rules, created the Social-Democratic Party, and thus built the framework of a single party.<br />
<br />
3) The congress revealed the existence of grave differences over questions of organization which divided the Party into two sections, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, of whom the former championed the organizational principles of revolutionary Social-Democracy, while the latter sank into the bog of organizational looseness and of opportunism.<br />
<br />
4) The congress showed that the place of the old opportunists, the "Economists," who had already been defeated by the Party, was being taken by new opportunists, the Mensheviks.<br />
<br />
5) The congress did not prove equal to its task in matters of organization, showed vacillation, and at times even gave the preponderance to the Mensheviks; and although it corrected its position towards the end, it was nevertheless unable to expose the opportunism of the Mensheviks on matters of organization and to isolate them in the Party, or even to put such a task before the Party.<br />
<br />
This latter circumstance proved one of the main reasons why the struggle between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, far from subsiding after the congress, becameevenmoreacute.<br />
<br />
=== Splitting activities of the Menshevik leaders and sharpening of the struggle within the party after the second congress. Opportunism of the Menshevik. Lenin’s book, ''One step forward, two steps back''. Organizational principles of the Marxist party ===<br />
After the Second Congress the struggle within the Party became even more acute. The Mensheviks did their utmost to frustrate the decisions of the Second Congress and to seize the central institutions of the Party. They demanded that their representatives be included in the editorial board of ''Iskra'' and in the Central Committee in such numbers as would give them a majority on the editorial board and parity with the Bolsheviks on the Central Committee. As this ran directly counter to the decisions of the Second Congress, the Bolsheviks rejected the Menshevik's demand. Thereupon the Mensheviks, secretly from the Party, created their own anti-Party factional organization, headed by Martov, Trotsky and Axelrod, and, as Martov wrote, "broke into revolt against Leninism." The methods they adopted for combating the Party were, as Lenin expressed it, "to disorganize the whole Party work, damage the cause, and hamper all and everything." They entrenched themselves in the Foreign League of Russian Social-Democrats, nine-tenths of whom were emigre intellectuals isolated from the work in Russia, and from this position they opened fire on the Party, on Lenin and the Leninists.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks received considerable help from Plekhanov. At the Second Congress Plekhanov sided with Lenin. But after the Second Congress he allowed the Mensheviks to intimidate him with threats of a split. He decided to "make peace" with the Mensheviks at all costs. It was the deadweight of his earlier opportunist mistakes that dragged Plekhanov down to the Mensheviks. From an advocate of reconciliation with the opportunist Mensheviks he soon became a Menshevik himself. Plekhanov demanded that all the former Menshevik editors of the Iskra who had been rejected by the congress be included in the editorial board. Lenin, of course, could not agree to this and resigned from the ''Iskra'' editorial board in order to entrench himself in the Central Committee of the Party and to strike at the opportunists from this position. Acting by himself, and in defiance of the will of the congress, Plekhanov co-opted the former Menshevik editors to the editorial board of ''Iskra''. From that moment on, beginning with the 52nd issue of ''Iskra'', the Mensheviks converted it into their own organ and began to propagate their opportunist views in its columns.<br />
<br />
Ever since then Lenin's Bolshevik ''Iskra'' has been known in the Party as the ''old Iskra'', and the Menshevik, opportunist ''Iskra'' as the new Iskra.<br />
<br />
When it passed into the hands of the Mensheviks, ''Iskra'' became a weapon in the fight against Lenin and the Bolsheviks, and an organ for the propaganda of Menshevik opportunism, primarily on questions of organization. Joining forces with the "Economists" and the Bundists, the Mensheviks started a campaign in the columns of ''Iskra'', as they said, against Leninism. Plekhanov could not stick to his position as an advocate of conciliation, and soon he too joined the campaign. This was bound to happen by the very logic of things: whoever insists on a conciliatory attitude towards opportunists is bound to sink to opportunism himself. There began to flow from the columns of the new ''Iskra'', as from a cornucopia, articles and statements claiming that the Party ought not to be an organized whole; that free groups and individuals should be allowed within its ranks without any obligation to submit to the decisions of its organs; that every intellectual who sympathized with the Party, as well as "every striker" and "every participant in a demonstration," should be allowed to declare himself a Party member; that the demand for obedience to all the decisions of the Party was "formal and bureaucratic"; that the demand that the minority must submit to the majority meant the "mechanical suppression" of the will of Party members; that the demand that all Party members—both leaders and rank-and-filers— should equally observe Party discipline meant establishing "serfdom" within the Party; that what "we" needed in the Party was not centralism but anarchist "autonomism" which would permit individuals and Party organizations not to obey the decisions of the Party.<br />
<br />
This was unbridled propaganda of organizational license, which would undermine the Party principle and Party discipline; it was glorification of the individualism of the intelligentsia, and a justification of the anarchist contempt of discipline.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks were obviously trying to drag the Party back from the Second Congress to the old organizational disunity, to the old parochial outlook of the circles and the old amateurish methods.<br />
<br />
A vigorous rebuff had to be given the Mensheviks.<br />
<br />
This rebuff was administered by Lenin in his celebrated book, ''One Step Forward, Two Steps Back,'' published in May 1904.<br />
<br />
The following are the main organizational principles which Lenin expounded in his book, and which afterwards came to form the organizational foundations of the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
1) The Marxist Party is a part, a detachment, of the working class. But the working class has many detachments, and hence not every detachment of the working class can be called a party of the working class. The Party differs from other detachments of the working class primarily by the fact that it is not an ordinary detachment, but the ''vanguard'' detachment, a ''class-conscious'' detachment, a ''Marxist'' detachment of the working class, armed with a knowledge of the life of society, of the laws of its development and of the laws of the class struggle, and for this reason able to lead the working class and to direct its struggle. The Party must therefore not be confused with the working class, as the part must not be confused with the whole. One cannot demand that every striker be allowed to call himself a member of the Party, for whoever confuses Party and class lowers the level of consciousness of the Party to that of "every striker," destroys the Party as the class-conscious vanguard of the working class. It is not the task of the Party to ''lower'' its level to that of "every striker," but to ''elevate'' the masses of the workers, to ''elevate'' "every striker" to the level of the Party.<blockquote>“We are the party of a class,” Lenin wrote, “and therefore ''almost the entire class'' (and in times of war, in the period of civil war, the entire class) should act under the leadership of our Party, should adhere to our Party as closely as possible. But it would be Manilovism (smug complacency) and ''<nowiki/>'khvostism''' (following in the tail) to think that at any time under capitalism the entire class, or almost the entire class, would be able to rise to the level of consciousness and activity of its vanguard, of its Social-Democratic Party. No sensible Social-Democrat has ever yet doubted that under capitalism even the trade union organizations (which are more primitive and more comprehensible to the undeveloped strata) are unable to embrace the entire, or almost the entire working class. To forget the distinction between the vanguard and the whole of the masses which gravitate towards it, to forget the constant duty of the vanguard to ''raise'' ever wider strata to this most advanced level, means merely to deceive oneself, to shut one's eyes to the immensity of our tasks, and to narrow down these tasks.”</blockquote>2) The Party is not only the vanguard, the class-conscious detachment of the working class, but also an ''organized'' detachment of the working class, with its own discipline, which is binding on its members. Hence Party members must necessarily be members of some organization of the Party. If the Party were not an ''organized'' detachment of the class, not a ''system of organization'', but a mere agglomeration of persons who declare themselves to be Party members but do not belong to any Party organization and therefore are ''not organized'', hence not obliged to obey Party decisions, the Party would never have a united will, it could never achieve the united action of its members, and, consequently, it would be unable to direct the struggle of the working class. The Party can lead the practical struggle of the working class and direct it towards one aim only if all its members are ''organized'' in one common detachment, welded together by unity of will, unity of action and unity of discipline.<br />
<br />
The objection raised by the Mensheviks that in that case many intellectuals—for example, professors, university and high school students, etc.—would remain outside the ranks of the Party, since they would not want to join any of the organizations of the Party, either because they shrink from Party discipline, or, as Plekhanov said at the Second Congress, because they consider it "beneath their dignity to join some local organization"—this Menshevik objection recoiled on the heads of the Mensheviks themselves; for the Party does not need members who shrink from Party discipline and fear to join the Party organization. Workers did not fear discipline and organization, and they willingly join the organization if they have made up their minds to be Party members. It is the individualistic intellectuals who fear discipline and organization, and they would indeed remain outside the ranks of the Party. But that was all to the good, for the Party would be spared that influx of unstable elements, which had become particularly marked at that time, when the bourgeois democratic revolution was on the upgrade.<blockquote>“When I say,” Lenin wrote, “that the Party should be a ''sum'' (and not a mere arithmetical sum, but a complex) of ''organizations''. . . I thereby express clearly and precisely my wish, my demand, that the Party, as the vanguard of the class, should be as ''organized'' as possible, that the Party should admit to its ranks only such elements ''as lend themselves to at least a minimum of organization''...”</blockquote>And further:<blockquote>“Martov's formulation ''ostensibly'' defends the interests of the broad strata of the proletariat, but in ''fact,'' it serves the interests of the ''bourgeois intellectuals,'' who fight shy of proletarian discipline and organization. No one will undertake to deny that it is ''precisely its individualism'' and incapacity for discipline and organization that in general distinguish ''the intelligentsia as a separate stratum'' of modern capitalist society.”</blockquote>And again:<blockquote>“The proletariat is not afraid of organization and discipline...The proletariat will do nothing to have the worthy professors and high school students, who do not want to join an organization, recognized as Party members merely because they work under the control of an organization...It is not the proletariat, but ''certain intellectuals'' in our Party who lack self-training in the spirit of organization and discipline.”</blockquote>3) The Party is not merely an organized detachment, but "''the highest of all forms of organization''" of the working class, and it is its mission to guide all the other organizations of the working class. As the highest form of organization, consisting of the finest members of the class, armed with an advanced theory, with knowledge of the laws of the class struggle and with the experience of the revolutionary movement, the Party has every opportunity of guiding—and is obliged to guide—all the other organizations of the working class. The attempt of the Men-sheviks to belittle and depreciate the leading role of the Party tends to weaken all the other organizations of the proletariat which are guided by the Party, and, consequently, to weaken and disarm the proletariat, for "in its struggle for power the proletariat has no other weapon but organization." (Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. II, p. 466.)<br />
<br />
4) The Party is an ''embodiment of the connection'' of the vanguard of the working class with the ''working class millions''. However fine a vanguard the Party may be, and however well it may be organized, it cannot exist and develop without connections with the non-Party masses, and without multiplying and strengthening these connections. A party which shuts itself up in its own shell, isolates itself from the masses, and loses, or even relaxes, its connections with its class is bound to lose the confidence and support of the masses, and, consequently, is surely bound to perish. In order to live to the full and to develop, the Party must multiply its connections with the masses and win the confidence of the millions of its class.<blockquote>“In order to be a Social-Democratic ''party,''” Lenin said, “we must win the ''support'' precisely of the ''class''.”</blockquote>5) In order to function properly and to guide the masses systematically, the Party must be organized on the principle of ''centralism'', having one set of rules and uniform Party discipline, one leading organ— the Party Congress, and in the intervals between congresses—the Central Committee of the Party; the minority must submit to the majority, the various organizations must submit to the centre, and lower organizations to higher organizations. Falling these conditions, the party of the working class cannot be a real party and cannot carry out its tasks in guiding the class.<br />
<br />
Of course, as under the tsarist autocracy the Party existed illegally the Party organizations could not in those days be built up on the principle of election from below, and as a consequence, the Party had to be strictly conspiratorial. But Lenin considered that this ''temporary'' feature in the life of our Party would at once lapse with the elimination of tsardom, when the Party would become open and legal, and the Party organizations would be built up on the principles of democratic elections, of ''democratic centralism.''<blockquote>“''Formerly,''” Lenin wrote, “our Party was not a formally organized whole, but only the sum of separate groups, and, therefore, no other relations except those of ideological influence were possible between these groups. ''Now'' we have become an organized Party, and this implies the establishment of authority, the transformation of the power of ideas into the power of authority, the subordination of lower Party bodies to higher Party bodies.”</blockquote>Accusing the Mensheviks of organizational nihilism and of aristocratic anarchism which would not submit to the authority of the Party and its discipline, Lenin wrote:<blockquote>“This aristocratic anarchism is particularly characteristic of the Russian nihilist. He thinks of the Party organization as a monstrous 'factory'; he regards the subordination of the part to the whole and of the minority to the majority as 'serfdom'...division of labour under the direction of a centre evokes from him a tragicomical outcry against people being transformed into 'wheels and cogs' (to turn editors into contributors being considered a particularly atrocious species of such transformation); mention of the organizational rules of the Party calls forth a contemptuous grimace and the disdainful remark (intended for the 'formalists') that one could very well dispense with rules altogether.”</blockquote>6) In its practical work, if it wants to preserve the unity of its ranks, the Party must impose a ''common'' proletarian discipline, ''equally'' binding on all Party members, both leaders and rank-and-file. Therefore there should be no division within the Party into the "chosen few," on whom discipline is not binding, and the "many," on whom discipline is binding. If this condition is not observed, the integrity of the Party and the unity of its ranks cannot be maintained.<blockquote>“The complete absence of ''sensible'' arguments on the part of Martov and Co. against the editorial board appointed by the congress," Lenin wrote, "is best of all shown by their own catchword: 'We are not serfs!'...The mentality of the bourgeois intellectual, who regards himself as one of the 'chosen few' standing above mass organization and mass discipline, is expressed here with remarkable clarity...It seems to the individualism of the intelligentsia...that all proletarian organization and discipline is ''serfdom.''”</blockquote>And further:<blockquote>“As we proceed with the building of a ''real'' party, the class-conscious worker must learn to distinguish the mentality of the soldier of the proletarian army from the mentality of the bourgeois intellectual who makes a display of anarchist phraseology, he must learn to demand that the duties of a Party member be fulfilled not only by the rank-and-filers, but by the 'people at the top' as well.”</blockquote>Summing up his analysis of the differences, and defining the position of the Mensheviks as "opportunism in matters of organization," Lenin considered that one of the gravest sins of Menshevism lay in its underestimation of the importance of party ''organization'' as a weapon of the proletariat in the struggle for its emancipation. The Mensheviks held that the party ''organization'' of the proletariat was of no great importance for the victory of the revolution. Contrary to the Mensheviks, Lenin held that the ''ideological'' unity of the proletariat alone was ''not enough'' for victory; if victory was to be won, ideological unity would have to be "''consolidated''" by the "material unity of ''organization''" of the proletariat. Only on this condition, Lenin considered, could the proletariat become an invincible force.<blockquote>“In its struggle for power,” Lenin wrote, “the proletariat has no other weapon but organization. Disunited by the rule of anarchic competition in the bourgeois world, ground down by forced labour for capital, constantly thrust back to the 'lower depths' of utter destitution, savagery and degeneration, the proletariat can become, and inevitably will become, an invincible force only when its ideological unification by the principles of Marxism is consolidated by the material unity of an organization which will weld millions of toilers into an army of the working class. Neither the decrepit rule of Russian tsardom, nor the senile rule of international capital will be able to withstand this army.”</blockquote>With these prophetic words Lenin concludes his book.<br />
<br />
Such were the fundamental organizational principles set forth by Lenin in his famous book, ''One Step Forward, Two Steps Back.''<br />
<br />
The importance of this book lies primarily in the fact that it successfully upheld the Party principle against the circle principle, and the Party against the disorganizers; that it smashed the opportunism of the Men-sheviks on questions of organization, and laid the organizational foundations of the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
But this does not exhaust its significance. Its historic significance lies in the fact that in it Lenin, for the first time in the history of Marxism, elaborated the ''doctrine of the Party'' as the leading ''organization'' of the proletariat, as the principal ''weapon'' of the proletariat, without which the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be won.<br />
<br />
The circulation of Lenin's book, ''One Step Forward, Two Steps Back'', among the Party workers led the majority of the local organizations to rally to the side of Lenin.<br />
<br />
But the more closely the organizations rallied around the Bolsheviks, the more malicious became the behaviour of the Menshevik leaders.<br />
<br />
In the summer of 1904, thanks to Plekhanov's assistance and the treachery of Krassin and Noskov, two demoralized Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks captured the majority on the Central Committee. It was obvious that the Mensheviks were working for a split. The loss of ''Iskra'' and of the Central Committee put the Bolsheviks in a difficult position. It became necessary for them to organize their own Bolshevik newspaper.<br />
<br />
It became necessary to make arrangements for a new Party congress, the Third Congress, so as to set up a new Central Committee and to settle accounts with the Mensheviks.<br />
<br />
And this is what the Bolsheviks, headed by Lenin, set to work to do.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks started a campaign for the summoning of the Third Party Congress. In August 1904, under Lenin's guidance, a conference of twenty-two Bolsheviks was held in Switzerland. The conference adopted an appeal addressed "To the Party." This appeal served the Bolsheviks as a program in their struggle for the summoning of the Third Congress.<br />
<br />
At three regional conferences of Bolshevik Committees (Southern, Caucasian and Northern), a Bureau of Committees of the Majority was elected, which undertook the practical preparations for the Third Party Congress.<br />
<br />
On January 4, 1905, the first issue of the Bolshevik newspaper ''Vperyod (Forward)'' appeared.<br />
<br />
Thus two separate groups arose within the Party, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, each with its own central body and its own press.<br />
<br />
=== Brief summary ===<br />
In the period 1901-04, with the growth of the revolutionary working-class movement, the Marxist Social-Democratic organizations in Russia grew and gained strength. In the stubborn struggle over principles, waged against the "Economists," the revolutionary line of Lenin's ''Iskra'' gained the victory, and the ideological confusion and "amateurish methods of work" were overcome.<br />
<br />
''Iskra'' linked up the scattered Social-Democratic circles and groups and prepared the way for the convocation of the Second Party Congress. At the Second Congress, held in 1903, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party was formed, a Party Program and Rules were adopted, and the central leading organs of the Party were set up.<br />
<br />
In the struggle waged at the Second Congress for the complete victory of the ''Iskra'' trend in the R.S.D.L.P. there emerged two groups —the Bolshevik group and the Menshevik group.<br />
<br />
The chief differences between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks after the Second Congress centred round questions of organization.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks drew closer to the "Economists" and took their place within the Party. For the time being the opportunism of the Mensheviks revealed itself in questions of organization. The Mensheviks were opposed to a militant revolutionary party of the type advocated by Lenin. They wanted a loose, unorganized, ''khvostist'' party. They worked to split the ranks of the Party. With Plekhanov's help, they seized ''Iskra'' and the Central Committee, and used these central organs for their own purposes—to split the Party.<br />
<br />
Seeing that the Mensheviks were threatening a split, the Bolsheviks adopted measures to curb the splitters; they mustered the local organizations to back the convocation of a Third Congress, and they started their own newspaper, ''Vperyod.''<br />
<br />
Thus, on the eve of the first Russian revolution, when the Russo-Japanese war had already begun, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks acted as two separate political groups.<br />
<br />
== The Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks in the period of the Russo-Japanese war and the first Russian revolution (1904—1907) ==<br />
<br />
=== Russo-Japanese war. Further rise of the revolutionary movement in Russia. Strikes in St. Petersburg. Workers’ demonstration before the Winter Palace on January 9, 1905. Demonstration fired upon. Outbreak of the Revolution ===<br />
At the end of the nineteenth century the imperialist states began an intense struggle for mastery of the Pacific and for the partition of China. Tsarist Russia, too, took part in this struggle. In 1900, tsarist troops together with Japanese, German, British and French troops suppressed with unparalleled cruelty an uprising of the Chinese people directed against the foreign imperialists. Even before this the tsarist government had compelled China to surrender to Russia the Liaotung Peninsula with the fortress of Port Arthur. Russia secured the right to build railways on Chinese territory. A railway was built in Northern Manchuria—the Chinese-Eastern Railway—and Russian troops were stationed there to protect it. Northern Manchuria fell under the military occupation of tsarist Russia. Tsardom was advancing towards Korea. The Russian bourgeoisie was making plans for founding a "Yellow Russia" in Manchuria.<br />
<br />
Its annexations in the Far East brought tsardom into conflict with another marauder, Japan, which had rapidly become an imperialist country and was also bent on annexing territories on the Asiatic continent, in the first place at the expense of China. Like tsarist Russia, Japan was striving to lay her hands on Korea and Manchuria. Already at that time Japan dreamed of seizing Sakhalin and the Russian Far East. Great Britain, who feared the growing strength of tsarist Russia in the Far East, secretly sided with Japan. War between Russia and Japan was brewing. The tsarist government was pushed to this war by the big bourgeoisie, which was seeking new markets, and by the more reactionary sections of the landlord class.<br />
<br />
Without waiting for the tsarist government to declare war, Japan started hostilities herself. She had a good espionage service in Russia and anticipated that her foe would be unprepared for the struggle. In January 1904, without declaring war, Japan suddenly attacked the Russian fortress of Port Arthur and inflicted heavy losses on the Russian fleet lying in the harbour.<br />
<br />
That is how the Russo-Japanese War began.<br />
<br />
The tsarist government reckoned that the war would help to strengthen its political position and to check the revolution. But it miscalculated. The tsarist regime was shaken more than ever by the war.<br />
<br />
Poorly armed and trained, and commanded by incompetent and corrupt generals, the Russian army suffered defeat after defeat.<br />
<br />
Capitalists, government officials and generals grew rich on the war. Peculation was rampant. The troops were poorly supplied. When the army was short of ammunition, it would receive, as if in derision, carloads of icons. The soldiers said bitterly: "The Japanese are giving it to us with shells; we're to give it to them with icons." Special trains, instead of being used to evacuate the wounded, were loaded with property looted by the tsarist generals.<br />
<br />
The Japanese besieged and subsequently captured Port Arthur. After inflicting a number of defeats on the tsarist army, they finally routed it near Mukden. In this battle the tsarist army of 300,000 men lost about 120,000 men, killed, wounded or taken prisoner. This was followed by the utter defeat and destruction in the Straits of Tsushima of the tsarist fleet dispatched from the Baltic to relieve Port Arthur. The defeat at Tsushima was disastrous: of the twenty warships dispatched by the tsar, thirteen were sunk or destroyed and four captured. Tsarist Russia had definitely lost the war.<br />
<br />
The tsarist government was compelled to conclude an ignominious peace with Japan. Japan seized Korea and deprived Russia of Port Arthur and of half the Island of Sakhalin.<br />
<br />
The people had not wanted the war and realized how harmful it would be for the country. They paid heavily for the backwardness of tsarist Russia.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks adopted different attitudes towards the war.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks, including Trotsky, were sinking to a position of defending the "fatherland" of the tsar, the landlords and the capitalists. The Bolsheviks, headed by Lenin, on the other hand, held that the defeat of the tsarist government in this predatory war would be useful, as it would weaken tsardom and strengthen the revolution.<br />
<br />
The defeats of the tsarist armies opened the eyes of the masses to the rottenness of tsardom. Their hatred for the tsarist regime grew daily more intense. The fall of Port Arthur meant the beginning of the fall of the autocracy, Lenin wrote.<br />
<br />
The tsar wanted to use the war to stifle the revolution. He achieved the very opposite. The Russo-Japanese War hastened the outbreak of the revolution.<br />
<br />
In tsarist Russia the capitalist yoke was aggravated by the yoke of tsardom. The workers not only suffered from capitalist exploitation, from inhuman toil, but, in common with the whole people, suffered from a lack of all rights. The politically advanced workers therefore strove to lead the revolutionary movement of all the democratic elements in town and country against tsardom. The peasants were in dire need owing to lack of land and the numerous survivals of serfdom, and lived in a state of bondage to the landlords and kulaks. The nations inhabiting tsarist Russia groaned beneath a double yoke—that of their own landlords and capitalists and that of the Russian landlords and capitalists. The economic crisis of 1900-03 had aggravated the hardships of the toiling masses; the war intensified them still further. The war defeats added fuel to the hatred of the masses for tsardom. The patience of the people was coming to an end.<br />
<br />
As we see, there were grounds enough and to spare for revolution.<br />
<br />
In December 1904 a huge and well-organized strike of workers took place in Baku, led by the Baku Committee of the Bolsheviks. The strike ended in a victory for the workers and a collective agreement was concluded between the oilfield workers and owners, the first of its kind in the history of the working-class movement in Russia.<br />
<br />
The Baku strike marked the beginning of a revolutionary rise in Transcaucasia and in various parts of Russia.<br />
<br />
"The Baku strike was the signal for the glorious actions in January and February all over Russia." (''Stalin.'')<br />
<br />
This strike was like a clap of thunder heralding a great revolutionary storm.<br />
<br />
The revolutionary storm broke with the events of January 9 (22, New Style), 1905, in St. Petersburg.<br />
<br />
On January 3, 1905, a strike began at the biggest of the St. Petersburg plants, the Putilov (now the Kirov) Works. The strike was caused by the dismissal of four workers. It grew rapidly and was joined by other St. Petersburg mills and factories. The strike became general. The movement grew formidable. The tsarist government decided to crush it while it was still in its earliest phase.<br />
<br />
In 1904, prior to the Putilov strike, the police had used the services of an agent-provocateur, a priest by the name of Gapon, to form an organization of the workers known as the Assembly of Russian Factory Workers. This organization had its branches in all the districts of St. Petersburg. When the strike broke out the priest Gapon at the meetings of his society put forward a treacherous plan: all the workers were to gather on January 9 and, carrying church banners and portraits of the tsar, to march in peaceful procession to the Winter Palace and present a petition to the tsar stating their needs. The tsar would appear before the people, listen to them and satisfy their demands. Gapon undertook to assist the tsarist ''Okhrana'' by providing a pretext for firing on the workers and drowning the working-class movement in blood. But this police plot recoiled on the head of the tsarist government.<br />
<br />
The petition was discussed at workers' meetings where amendments were made. Bolsheviks spoke at these meetings without openly announcing themselves as such. Under their influence, the petition was supplemented by demands for freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of association for the workers, the convocation of a Constituent Assembly for the purpose of changing the political system of Russia, equality of all before the law, separation of church from the state, termination of the war, an 8-hour working day, and the handing over of the land to the peasants.<br />
<br />
At these meetings the Bolsheviks explained to the workers that liberty could not be obtained by petitions to the tsar, but would have to be won by force of arms. The Bolsheviks warned the workers that they would be fired upon. But they were unable to prevent the procession to the Winter Palace. A large part of the workers still believed that the tsar would help them. The movement had taken a strong hold on the masses.<br />
<br />
The petition of the St. Petersburg workers stated:<br />
<br />
"We, the workingmen of St. Petersburg, our wives, our children and our helpless old parents, have come to Thee, our Sovereign, to seek truth and protection. We are poverty-stricken, we are oppressed, we are burdened with unendurable toil; we suffer humiliation and are not treated like human beings...We have suffered in patience, but we are being driven deeper and deeper into the slough of poverty, lack of rights and ignorance; we are being strangled by despotism and tyranny...Our patience is exhausted. The dreaded moment has arrived when we would rather die than bear these intolerable sufferings any longer..."<br />
<br />
Early in the morning of January 9, 1905, the workers marched to the Winter Palace where the tsar was then residing. They came with their whole families—wives, children and old folk—carrying portraits of the tsar and church banners. They chanted hymns as they marched. They were unarmed. Over 140,000 persons gathered in the streets.<br />
<br />
They met with a hostile reception from Nicholas II. He gave orders to fire upon the unarmed workers. That day over a thousand workers were killed and more than two thousand wounded by the tsar's troops. The streets of St. Petersburg ran with workers' blood.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks had marched with the workers. Many of them were killed or arrested. There, in the streets running with workers' blood, the Bolsheviks explained to the workers who it was that bore the guilt for this heinous crime and how he was to be fought.<br />
<br />
January 9 came to be known as "Bloody Sunday:" On that day the workers received a bloody lesson. It was their faith in the tsar that was riddled by bullets on that day. They came to realize that they could win their rights only by struggle. That evening barricades were already being erected in the working-class districts. The workers said: "The tsar gave it to us; we'll now give it to him!"<br />
<br />
The fearful news of the tsar's bloody crime spread far and wide. The whole working class, the whole country was stirred by indignation and abhorrence. There was not a town where the workers did not strike in protest against the tsar's villainous act and did not put forward political demands. The workers now emerged into the streets with the slogan, "Down with autocracy!" In January the number of strikers reached the immense figure of 440,000. More workers came out on strike in one month than during the whole preceding decade. The working-class movement rose to an unprecedented height. Revolution in Russia had begun.<br />
<br />
=== Workers' political strikes and demonstrations. Growth of the revolutionary movement among the peasants. Revolt on the Battleship Potemkin ===<br />
After January 9 the revolutionary struggle of the workers grew more acute and assumed a political character. The workers began to pass from economic strikes and sympathy strikes to political strikes, to demonstrations, and in places to armed resistance to the tsarist troops. Particularly stubborn and well organized were the strikes in the big cities such as St. Petersburg, Moscow, Warsaw, Riga and Baku, where large numbers of workers were concentrated. The metal workers marched in the front ranks of the fighting proletariat. By their strikes, the vanguard of the workers stirred up the less class-conscious sections and roused the whole working class to the struggle. The influence of the Social-Democrats grew rapidly.<br />
<br />
The May Day demonstrations in a number of towns were marked by clashes with police and troops. In Warsaw, the demonstration was fired upon and several hundred persons were killed or wounded. At the call of the Polish Social-Democrats the workers replied to the shooting in Warsaw by a general protest strike. Strikes and demonstrations did not cease throughout the month of May. In that month over 200,000 workers went on strike throughout Russia. General strikes broke out in Baku, Lodz and Ivanovo-Voznesensk. More and more frequently the strikers and demonstrators clashed with the tsarist troops. Such clashes took place in a number of cities—Odessa, Warsaw, Riga, Lodz and others.<br />
<br />
Particularly acute was the struggle in Lodz, a large Polish industrial centre. The workers erected scores of barricades in the streets of Lodz and for three days (June 22-24, 1905) battled in the streets against the tsarist troops. Here armed action merged with a general strike. Lenin regarded these battles as the first armed action of the workers in Russia.<br />
<br />
The outstanding strike that summer was that of the workers of Ivanovo-Voznesensk. It lasted for about two and a half months, from the end of May to the beginning of August 1905. About 70,000 workers, among them many women, took part in the strike. It was led by the Bolshevik Northern Committee. Thousands of workers gathered almost daily outside the city on the banks of the River Talka. At these meetings they discussed their needs. The workers' meetings were addressed by Bolsheviks. In order to crush the strike, the tsarist authorities ordered the troops to disperse the workers and to fire upon them. Several scores of workers were killed and several hundred wounded. A state of emergency was proclaimed in the city. But the workers remained firm and would not return to work. They and their families starved, but would not surrender. It was only extreme exhaustion that in the end compelled them to return to work. The strike steeled the workers. It was an example of the courage, staunchness, endurance and solidarity of the working class. It was a real political education for the workers of Ivanovo-Voznesensk.<br />
<br />
During the strike the workers of Ivanovo-Voznesensk set up a Council of Representatives, which was actually one of the first Soviets of Workers' Deputies in Russia.<br />
<br />
The workers' political strikes stirred up the whole country.<br />
<br />
Following the town, the countryside began to rise. In the spring, peasant unrest broke out. The peasants marched in great crowds against the landlords, raided their estates, sugar refineries and distilleries, and set fire to their palaces and manors. In a number of places the peasants seized the land, resorted to wholesale cutting down of forests, and demanded hat the landed estates be turned over to the people. They seized the landlords' stores of grain and other products and divided them among the starving. The landlords fled in panic to the towns. The tsarist government dispatched soldiers and Cossacks to crush the peasants' revolts. The troops fired on the peasants, arrested the "ringleaders" and flogged and tortured them. But the peasants would not cease their struggle.<br />
<br />
The peasant movement spread ever wider in the central parts of Russia, the Volga region, and in Transcaucasia, especially in Georgia.<br />
<br />
The Social-Democrats penetrated deeper into the countryside. The Central Committee of the Party issued an appeal to the peasants entitled: "To You, Peasants, We Address Our Word!" The Social-Democratic committees in the Tver, Saratov, Poltava, Chernigov, Ekaterinoslav, Tiflis and many other provinces issued appeals to the peasants. In the villages, the Social-Democrats would arrange meetings, organize circles among the peasants, and set up peasant committees. In the summer of 1905 strikes of agricultural labourers, organized by Social-Democrats, occurred in many places.<br />
<br />
But this was only the beginning of the peasant struggle. The peasant movement affected only 85 uyezds (districts), or roughly one-seventh of the total number of uyezds in the European part of tsarist Russia.<br />
<br />
The movement of the workers and peasants and the series of reverses suffered by the Russian troops in the Russo-Japanese War had its influence on the armed forces. This bulwark of tsardom began to totter.<br />
<br />
In June 1905 a revolt broke out on the Potemkin, a battleship of the Black Sea Fleet. The battleship was at that time stationed near Odessa, where a general strike of the workers was in progress. The insurgent sailors wreaked vengeance on their more detested officers and brought the vessel to Odessa. The battleship Potemkin had gone over to the side of the revolution.<br />
<br />
Lenin attributed immense importance to this revolt. He considered it necessary for the Bolsheviks to assume the leadership of this movement and to link it up with the movement of the workers, peasants and the local garrisons.<br />
<br />
The tsar dispatched several warships against the ''Potemkin'', but the sailors of these vessels refused to fire on their insurgent comrades. For several days the red ensign of revolution waved from the mast of the battleship ''Potemkin''. But at that time, in 1905, the Bolshevik Party was not the only party leading the movement, as was the case later, in 1917. There were quite a number of Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and Anarchists on board the ''Potemkin''. Consequently, although individual Social-Democrats took part in the revolt, it lacked proper and sufficiently experienced leadership. At decisive moments part of the sailors wavered. The other vessels of the Black Sea Fleet did not join the revolt of the ''Potemkin''. Having run short of coal and provisions, the revolutionary battleship was compelled to make for the Rumanian shore and there surrender to the authorities.<br />
<br />
The revolt of the sailors on the battleship ''Potemkin'' ended in defeat. The sailors who subsequently fell into the hands of the tsarist government were committed for trial. Some were executed and others condemned to exile and penal servitude. But the revolt in itself was an event of the utmost importance. The ''Potemkin'' revolt was the first instance of mass revolutionary action in the army and navy, the first occasion on which a large unit of the armed forces of the tsar sided with the revolution. This revolt made the idea of the army and navy joining forces with the working class, the people, more comprehensible to and nearer to the heart of the workers and peasants, and especially of the soldiers and sailors themselves.<br />
<br />
The workers' recourse to mass political strikes and demonstrations, the growth of the peasant movement, the armed clashes between the people and the police and troops, and, finally, the revolt in the Black Sea Fleet, all went to show that conditions were ripening for an armed uprising of the people. This stirred the liberal bourgeoisie into action. Fearing the revolution, and at the same time frightening the tsar with the spectre of revolution, it sought to come to terms with the tsar against the revolution; it demanded slight reforms "for the people" so as to "pacify" the people, to split the forces of the revolution and thus avert the "horrors of revolution." "Better part with some of our land than part with our heads," said the liberal landlords. The liberal bourgeoisie was preparing to share power with the tsar. "The proletariat is fighting; the bourgeoisie is stealing towards power," Lenin wrote in those days in reference to the tactics of the working class and the tactics of the liberal bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
The tsarist government continued to suppress the workers and peasants with brutal ferocity. But it could not help seeing that it would never cope with the revolution by repressive measures alone. Therefore, without abandoning measures of repression, it resorted to a policy of manoeuvring. On the one hand, with the help of its agents-provocateurs, it incited the peoples of Russia against each other, engineering Jewish pogroms and mutual massacres of Armenians and Tatars. On the other hand, it promised to convene a "representative institution" in the shape of a ''Zemsky Sobor'' or a State Duma, and instructed the Minister Bulygin to draw up a project for such a Duma, stipulating, however, that it was to have no legislative powers. All these measures were adopted in order to split the forces of revolution and to sever from it the moderate sections of the people.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks declared a boycott of the Bulygin Duma with the aim of frustrating this travesty of popular representation.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks, on the other hand, decided not to sabotage the Duma and considered it necessary to take part in it.<br />
<br />
=== Tactical differences between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Third party congress. Lenin’s ''Two tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution''. Tactical foundations of the Marxist party ===<br />
The revolution had set in motion all classes of society. The turn in the political life of the country caused by the revolution dislodged them from their old wonted positions and compelled them to regroup themselves in conformity with the new situation. Each class and each party endeavoured to work out its tactics, its line of conduct, its attitude towards other classes, and its attitude towards the government. Even the tsarist government found itself compelled to devise new and unaccustomed tactics, as instanced by the promise to convene a "representative institution"—the Bulygin Duma.<br />
<br />
The Social-Democratic Party, too, had to work out its tactics. This was dictated by the growing tide of the revolution. It was dictated by the practical questions that faced the proletariat and brooked no delay: organization of armed uprising, overthrow of the tsarist government, creation of a provisional revolutionary government, participation of the Social-Democrats in this government, attitude towards the peasantry and towards the liberal bourgeoisie, etc. The Social-Democrats had to work out for themselves carefully considered and uniform Marxist tactics.<br />
<br />
But owing to the opportunism of the Mensheviks and their splitting activities, the Russian Social-Democratic Party was at that time divided into two groups. The split could not yet be considered complete, and ''formally'' the two groups were not yet two separate parties; but ''in reality'' they very much resembled two separate parties, each with its own leading centre and its own press.<br />
<br />
What helped to widen the split was the fact that to their old differences with the majority of the Party over ''organizational'' questions the Mensheviks added new differences, differences over ''tactical'' questions.<br />
<br />
The absence of a united party resulted in the absence of uniform party tactics.<br />
<br />
A way out of the situation may have been found by immediately summoning another congress, the Third Congress of the Party, establishing common tactics and binding the minority to carry out in good faith the decisions of the congress, the decisions of the majority. This was what the Bolsheviks proposed to the Mensheviks. But the Mensheviks would not hear of summoning the Third Congress. Considering it a crime to leave the Party any longer without tactics endorsed by the Party and binding upon all Party members, the Bolsheviks decided to take the initiative of convening the Third Congress into their own hands.<br />
<br />
All the Party organizations, both Bolshevik and Menshevik, were invited to the congress. But the Mensheviks refused to take part in the Third Congress and decided to hold one of their own. As the number of delegates at their congress proved to be small, they called it a conference, but actually it was a congress, a Menshevik party congress, whose decisions were considered binding on all Mensheviks.<br />
<br />
The Third Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Party met in London in April 1905. It was attended by 24 delegates representing 20 Bolshevik Committees. All the large organizations of the Party were represented.<br />
<br />
The congress condemned the Mensheviks as "a section that had split away from the Party" and passed on to the business on hand, the working out of the tactics of the Party.<br />
<br />
At the same time that this congress was held, the Mensheviks held their conference in Geneva.<br />
<br />
"Two congresses—two parties," was the way Lenin summed up the situation.<br />
<br />
Both the congress and the conference virtually discussed the same tactical questions, but the decisions they arrived at were diametrically opposite. The two sets of resolutions adopted by the congress and the conference respectively revealed the whole depth of the tactical difference between the Third Party Congress and the Menshevik conference, between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. Here are the main points of these differences.<br />
<br />
''Tactical line of the Third Party Congress.'' The congress held that despite the bourgeois-democratic character of the revolution in progress, despite the fact that it could not at the given moment go beyond the limits of what was possible within the framework of capitalism, it was primarily the proletariat that was interested in its complete victory, for the victory of this revolution would enable the proletariat to organize itself, to grow politically, to acquire experience and competence in political leadership of the toiling masses, and to proceed from the bourgeois revolution to the Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
Tactics of the proletariat designed to achieve the complete victory of the bourgeois-democratic revolution could find support only in the peasantry, for the latter could not settle scores with the landlords and obtain possession of their lands without the complete victory of the revolution. The peasantry was therefore the natural ally of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
The liberal bourgeoisie was not interested in the complete victory of this revolution, for it needed the tsarist regime as a whip against the workers and peasants, whom it feared more than anything else, and it would strive to preserve the tsarist regime, only somewhat restricting its powers. The liberal bourgeoisie would therefore attempt to end matters by coming to terms with the tsar on the basis of a constitutional monarchy.<br />
<br />
The revolution would win only if headed by the proletariat; if the proletariat, as the leader of the revolution, secured an alliance with the peasantry; if the liberal bourgeoisie were isolated; if the Social-Democratic Party took an active part in the organization of the uprising of the people against tsardom; if, as the result of a successful uprising, a provisional revolutionary government were set up that would be capable of destroying the counter-revolution root and branch and convening a Constituent Assembly representing the whole people; and if the Social-Democratic Party did not refuse, the circumstances being favourable, to take part in the provisional revolutionary government in order to carry the revolution to its conclusion.<br />
<br />
''Tactical line of the Menshevik conference.'' Inasmuch as the revolution was a bourgeois revolution, only the liberal bourgeoisie could be its leader. The proletariat should not establish close relations with the peasantry, but with the liberal bourgeoisie. The chief thing was not to frighten off the liberal bourgeoisie by a display of revolutionary spirit and not to give it a pretext to recoil from the revolution, for if it were to recoil from the revolution, the revolution would be weakened.<br />
<br />
It was possible that the uprising would prove victorious; but after the triumph of the uprising the Social-Democratic Party should step aside so as not to frighten away the liberal bourgeoisie. It was possible that as a result of the uprising a provisional revolutionary government would be set up; but the Social-Democratic Party should under no circumstances take part in it, because this government would not be Socialist in character, and because—and this was the chief thing—by its participation in this government and by its revolutionary spirit, the Social-Democratic Party might frighten off the liberal bourgeoisie and thus undermine the revolution.<br />
<br />
It would be better for the prospects of the revolution if some sort of representative institution were convened, of the nature of a Zemsky Sobor or a State Duma, which could be subjected to the pressure of the working class from without so as to transform it into a Constituent Assembly or impel it to convene a Constituent Assembly.<br />
<br />
The proletariat had its own specific, purely wage-worker interests, and it should attend to these interests only and not try to become the leader of the bourgeois revolution, which, being a general political revolution, concerned all classes and not the proletariat alone.<br />
<br />
Such, in brief, were the two tactics of the two groups of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party.<br />
<br />
In his historic book, ''Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution'', Lenin gave a classical criticism of the tactics of the Mensheviks and a brilliant substantiation of the Bolshevik tactics.<br />
<br />
This book appeared in July 1905, that is, two months after the Third Party Congress. One might assume from its title that Lenin dealt in it only with tactical questions relating to the period of the bourgeois-democratic revolution and had only the Russian Mensheviks in mind. But as a matter of fact when he criticized the tactics of the Mensheviks he at the same time exposed the tactics of international opportunism; and when he substantiated the Marxist tactics in the period of the bourgeois revolution and drew the distinction between the bourgeois revolution and the Socialist revolution, he at the same time formulated the fundamental principles of the Marxist tactics in the period of transition from the bourgeois revolution to the Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
The fundamental tactical principles expounded by Lenin in his pamphlet, ''Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution,'' were as follows:<br />
<br />
1) The main tactical principle, one that runs through Lenin's whole book, is that the proletariat can and must be the ''leader'' of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, the ''guiding force'' of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia.<br />
<br />
Lenin admitted the bourgeois character of this revolution, for, as he said, "it is incapable of ''directly'' overstepping the bounds of a mere democratic revolution." However, he held that it was not a revolution of the upper strata, but a people's revolution, one that would set in motion the whole people, the whole working class, the whole peasantry. Hence the attempts of the Mensheviks to belittle the significance of the bourgeois revolution for the proletariat, to depreciate the role of the proletariat in it, and to keep the proletariat away from it were in Lenin's opinion a betrayal of the interests of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
"Marxism," Lenin said, "teaches the proletarian not to keep aloof from the bourgeois revolution, not to be indifferent to it, not to allow the leadership of the revolution to be assumed by the bourgeoisie, but, on the contrary, to take a most energetic part in it, to fight most resolutely for consistent proletarian democracy, for carrying the revolution to its conclusion." (Lenin, ''Selected Works,'' Vol.-III, p. 77.)<br />
<br />
"We must not forget," Lenin says further, "that there is not, nor can there be, at the present time, any other means of bringing Socialism nearer, than complete political liberty, than a democratic republic." (''Ibid''., p. 122.)<br />
<br />
Lenin foresaw two possible outcomes of the revolution:<br />
<br />
a) Either it would end in a decisive victory over tsardom, in the overthrow of tsardom and the establishment of a democratic republic;<br />
<br />
b) Or, if the forces were inadequate, it might end in a deal between the tsar and the bourgeoisie at the expense of the people, in some sort of curtailed constitution, or, most likely, in some caricature of a constitution.<br />
<br />
The proletariat was interested in the better outcome of the two, that is, in a decisive victory over tsardom. But such an outcome was possible only if the proletariat succeeded in becoming the leader and guide of the revolution.<br />
<br />
"The outcome of the revolution," Lenin said, "depends on whether the working class will play the part of a subsidiary to the bourgeoisie, a subsidiary that is powerful in the force of its onslaught against the autocracy but impotent politically, or whether it will play the part of leader of the people's revolution." (''Ibid''., p. 41.)<br />
<br />
Lenin maintained that the proletariat had every ''possibility'' of escaping the fate of a subsidiary to the bourgeoisie, and of becoming the leader of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. This possibility, according to Lenin, arises from the following.<br />
<br />
First, "the proletariat, being, by virtue of its very position, the most advanced and the only consistently revolutionary class, is for that very reason called upon to play the leading part in the general democratic revolutionary movement in Russia." (Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. VIII, p. 75.)<br />
<br />
Secondly, the proletariat has its own political party, which is independent of the bourgeoisie and which enables the proletariat to weld itself "into a united and independent political force." (''Ibid''., p. 75.)<br />
<br />
Thirdly, the proletariat is more interested than the bourgeoisie in a decisive victory of the revolution, in view of which ''"in a certain sense'' the bourgeois revolution is ''more advantageous'' to the proletariat than to the bourgeoisie." (''Ibid''., p. 57.)<br />
<br />
"It is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie," Lenin wrote, "to rely on certain remnants of the past as against the proletariat, for instance, on the monarchy, the standing army, etc. It is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie if the bourgeois revolution does not too resolutely sweep away all the remnants of the past, but leaves some of them, ''i.e.'', if this revolution is not fully consistent, if it is not complete and if it is not determined and relentless...It is of greater advantage to the bourgeoisie if the necessary changes in the direction of bourgeois democracy take place more slowly, more gradually, more cautiously, less resolutely, by means of reforms and not by means of revolution...if these changes develop as little as possible the independent revolutionary activity, initiative and energy of the common people, ''i.e.'', the peasantry and especially the workers, for otherwise it will be easier for the workers, as the French say, 'to hitch the rifle from one shoulder to the other,' ''i.e.,'' to turn against the bourgeoisie the guns which the bourgeois revolution will place in their hands, the liberty which the revolution will bring, the democratic institutions which will spring up on the ground that is cleared of serfdom. On the other hand, it is more advantageous for the working class if the necessary changes in the direction of bourgeois democracy take place by way of revolution and not by way of reform; for the way of reform is the way of delay, of procrastination, of the painfully slow decomposition of the putrid parts of the national organism. It is the proletariat and the peasantry that suffer first of all and most of all from their putrefaction. The revolutionary way is the way of quick amputation, which is the least painful to the proletariat, the way of the direct removal of the decomposing parts, the way of fewest concessions to and least consideration for the monarchy and the disgusting, vile, rotten and contaminating institutions which go with it." (Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. III, pp. 756.)<br />
<br />
"That," Lenin continues, "is why the proletariat fights in the front ranks for a republic and contemptuously rejects silly and unworthy advice to take care not to frighten away the bourgeoisie." (Ibid., p. 108.)<br />
<br />
In order to convert the ''possibility'' of the proletarian leadership of the revolution into a ''reality'', in order that the proletariat might actually become the leader, the guiding force of the bourgeois revolution, at least two conditions were needed, according to Lenin.<br />
<br />
First, it was necessary for the proletariat to have an ally who was interested in a decisive victory over tsardom and who might be disposed to accept the leadership of the proletariat. This was dictated by the very idea of leadership, for a leader ceases to be a leader if there is nobody to lead, a guide ceases to be a guide if there is nobody to guide. Lenin considered that the peasantry was such an ally.<br />
<br />
Secondly, it was necessary that the class, which was fighting the proletariat for the leadership of the revolution and striving to become its sole leader, should be forced out of the arena of leadership and isolated. This too was dictated by the very idea of leadership, which precluded the possibility of there being two leaders of the revolution. Lenin considered that the liberal bourgeoisie was such a class.<br />
<br />
"Only the proletariat can be a consistent fighter for democracy," Lenin said. "It may become a victorious fighter for democracy only if the peasant masses join its revolutionary struggle." (''Ibid''., p. 86.)<br />
<br />
And further:<br />
<br />
"The peasantry includes a great number of semi-proletarian as well as petty-bourgeois elements. This causes it also to be unstable and compels the proletariat to unite in a strictly class party. But the instability of the peasantry differs radically from the instability of the bourgeoisie, for at the present time the peasantry is interested not so much in the absolute preservation of private property as in the confiscation of the landed estates, one of the principal forms of private property. While this does not cause the peasantry to become Socialist or cease to be petty-bourgeois, the peasantry is capable of becoming a whole-hearted and most radical adherent of the democratic revolution. The peasantry will inevitably become such if only the progress of revolutionary events, which is enlightening it, is not interrupted too soon by the treachery of the bourgeoisie and the defeat of the proletariat. Subject to this condition, the peasantry will inevitably become a bulwark of the revolution and the republic, for only a completely victorious revolution can give the peasantry ''everything'' in the sphere of agrarian reforms — ''everything'' that the peasants desire, of which they dream, and of which they truly stand in need." (''Ibid''., pp. 108-09.)<br />
<br />
Analysing the objections of the Mensheviks, who asserted that these Bolshevik tactics "will compel the bourgeois classes to recoil from the cause of the revolution and thus curtail its scope," and characterizing these objections as "tactics of betrayal of the revolution," as "tactics which would convert the proletariat into a wretched appendage of the bourgeois classes," Lenin wrote:<br />
<br />
"Those who really understand the role of the peasantry in the victorious Russian revolution would not dream of saying that the sweep of the revolution would be diminished if the bourgeoisie recoiled from it. For, as a matter of fact, the Russian revolution will begin to assume its real sweep, will really assume the widest revolutionary sweep possible in the epoch of bourgeois-democratic revolution, only when the bourgeoisie recoils from it and when the masses of the peasantry come out as active revolutionaries side by side with the proletariat. In order that it may be consistently carried to its conclusion, our democratic revolution must rely on such forces as are capable of paralysing the inevitable inconsistency of the bourgeoisie, ''i.e''., capable precisely of 'causing it to recoil from the revolution.'" (''Ibid''., p. 110.)<br />
<br />
Such is the main tactical principle regarding the proletariat as the leader of the bourgeois revolution, the fundamental tactical principle regarding the hegemony (leading role) of the proletariat in the bourgeois revolution, expounded by Lenin in his book, ''Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution.''<br />
<br />
This was a new line of the Marxist party on questions of tactics in the bourgeois-democratic revolution, a line fundamentally different from the tactical lines hitherto existing in the arsenal of Marxism. The situation before had been that in the bourgeois revolution—in Western Europe, for instance—it was the bourgeoisie that played the leading part, the proletariat willy-nilly playing the part of its subsidiary, while the peasantry was a reserve of the bourgeoisie. The Marxists considered such a combination more or less inevitable, at the same time stipulating that the proletariat must as far as possible fight for its own immediate class demands and have its own political party. Now, under the new historical conditions, according to Lenin, the situation was changing in such a way that the proletariat was becoming the guiding force of the bourgeois revolution, the bourgeoisie was being edged out of the leadership of the revolution, while the peasantry was becoming a reserve of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
The claim that Plekhanov "also stood" for the hegemony of the proletariat is based upon a misunderstanding. Plekhanov flirted with the idea of the hegemony of the proletariat and was not averse to recognizing it in words—that is true. But in reality he was opposed to this idea in its essence. The hegemony of the proletariat implies the leading role of the proletariat in the bourgeois revolution, accompanied by a policy of ''alliance'' between the proletariat and the peasantry and a policy of ''isolation'' of the liberal bourgeoisie; whereas Plekhanov, as we know, was opposed to the policy of isolating the liberal bourgeoisie, ''favoured'' a policy of ''agreement'' with the liberal bourgeoisie, and was ''opposed'' to a policy of alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry. As a matter of fact, Plekhanov's tactical line was the Menshevik line which rejected the hegemony of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
2 ) Lenin considered that the most effective means of overthrowing tsardom and achieving a democratic republic was a victorious armed uprising of the people. Contrary to the Mensheviks, Lenin held that "the general democratic revolutionary movement ''has already brought about the'' necessity for an armed uprising," that "the organization of the proletariat for uprising" had already "been placed on the order of the day as one of the essential, principal and ''indispensable'' tasks of the Party," and that it was necessary "to adopt the most energetic measures to arm the proletariat and to ensure the possibility of directly leading the uprising." (Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. VIII, p. 75.)<br />
<br />
To guide the masses to an uprising and to turn it into an uprising of the whole people, Lenin deemed it necessary to issue such slogans, such appeals to the masses as would set free their revolutionary initiative, organize them for insurrection and disorganize the machinery of power of tsardom. He considered that these slogans were furnished by the tactical decisions of the Third Party Congress, to the defence of which his book ''Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution'' was devoted.<br />
<br />
The following, he considered, were these slogans:<br />
<br />
a) "Mass political strikes, which may be of great importance at the beginning and in the very process of the insurrection" (''ibid''., p. 75);<br />
<br />
b) "Immediate realization, in a revolutionary way, of the 8-hour working day and of the other immediate demands of the working class" (''ibid''., p. 47);<br />
<br />
c) "Immediate organization of revolutionary peasant committees in order to carry out" in a revolutionary way "all the democratic changes," including the confiscation of the landed estates (''ibid''., p. 88);<br />
<br />
d) Arming of the workers.<br />
<br />
Here two points are of particular interest:<br />
<br />
First, the tactics of realizing ''in a revolutionary way'' the 8-hour day in the towns, and the democratic changes in the countryside, that is, a way which disregards the authorities, disregards the law, which ignores both the authorities and the law, breaks the existing laws and establishes a new order by unauthorized action, as an accomplished fact. This was a new tactical method, the use of which paralysed the machinery of power of tsardom and set free the activity and creative initiative of the masses. These tactics gave rise to the revolutionary strike committees in the towns and the revolutionary peasant committees in the countryside, the former of which later developed into the Soviets of Workers' Deputies and the latter into the Soviets of Peasants' Deputies.<br />
<br />
Secondly, the use of ''mass political strikes,'' the use of general political strikes, which later, in the course of the revolution, were of prime importance in the revolutionary mobilization of the masses. This was a new and very important weapon in the hands of the proletariat, a weapon hitherto unknown in the practice of the Marxist parties and one that subsequently gained recognition.<br />
<br />
Lenin held that following the victorious uprising of the people the tsarist government should be replaced by a provisional revolutionary government. It would be the task of the provisional revolutionary government to consolidate the conquests of the revolution, to crush the resistance of the counter-revolution and to give effect to the minimum program of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. Lenin maintained that unless these tasks were accomplished a decisive victory over tsardom would be impossible. And in order to accomplish these tasks and achieve a decisive victory over tsardom, the provisional revolutionary government would have to be not an ordinary kind of government, but a government of the dictatorship of the victorious classes, of the workers and peasants; it would have to be a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. Citing Marx's well-known thesis that "after a revolution every provisional organization of the state requires a dictatorship, and an energetic dictatorship at that," Lenin came to the conclusion that if the provisional revolutionary government was to ensure a decisive victory over tsardom, it could be nothing else but a dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry.<br />
<br />
"A decisive victory of the revolution over tsardom is ''the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry,''" Lenin said. ". . . And such a victory will be precisely a dictatorship, i.e., it must inevitably rely on military force, on the arming of the masses, on an uprising and not on institutions of one kind or another, established in a 'lawful' or 'peaceful' way. It can be only a dictatorship, for the realization of the changes which are urgently and absolutely indispensable for the proletariat and the peasantry will call forth the desperate resistance of the landlords, of the big bourgeoisie, and of tsardom. Without a dictatorship it is impossible to break down that resistance and to repel the counter-revolutionary attempts. But of course it will be a democratic, not a Socialist dictatorship. It will not be able (without a series of intermediary stage of revolutionary development) to affect the foundations of capitalism. At best it may bring about a radical redistribution of landed property in favour of the peasantry, establish consistent and full democracy, including the formation of a republic, eradicate all the oppressive features of Asiatic bondage, not only in village but also in factory life, lay the foundation for a thorough improvement in the position of the workers and for a rise in their standard of living, and—last but not least—carry the revolutionary conflagration into Europe. Such a victory will by no means as yet transform our bourgeois revolution into a Socialist revolution; the democratic revolution will not directly overstep the bounds of bourgeois social and economic relationships; nevertheless, the significance of such a victory for the future development of Russia and of the whole world will be immense. Nothing will raise the revolutionary energy of the world proletariat so much, nothing will shorten the path leading to its complete victory to such an extent, as this decisive victory of the revolution that has now started in Russia." (Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. III, p. 82-3.)<br />
<br />
As to the attitude of the Social-Democrats towards the provisional revolutionary government and as to whether it would be permissible for them to take part in it, Lenin fully upheld the resolution of the Third Party Congress on the subject, which reads:<br />
<br />
"Subject to the relation of forces, and other factors which cannot be exactly determined beforehand, representatives of our Party may participate in the provisional revolutionary government for the purpose of relentless struggle against all counter-revolutionary attempts and of the defence of the independent interests of the working class; an indispensable condition for such participation is that the Party should exercise strict control over its representatives and that the independence of the Social-Democratic Party, which is striving for a complete Socialist revolution and, consequently, is irreconcilably hostile to all the bourgeois parties, should be strictly maintained; whether the participation of Social-Democrats in the provisional revolutionary government prove possible or not, we must propagate among the broadest masses of the proletariat the necessity for permanent pressure to be brought to bear upon the provisional government by the armed proletariat, led by the Social-Democratic Party, for the purpose of defending, consolidating and extending the gains of the revolution." (''Ibid''., pp. 46-7.)<br />
<br />
As to the Mensheviks' objection that the provisional government would still be a bourgeois government, that the Social-Democrats could not be permitted to take part in such a government unless one wanted to commit the same mistake as the French Socialist Millerand when he joined the French bourgeois government, Lenin parried this objection by pointing out that the Mensheviks were here mixing up two ''different'' things and were betraying their inability to treat the question as Marxists should. In France it was a question of Socialists taking part in a ''reactionary'' bourgeois government at a time when ''there was no'' revolutionary situation in the country, which made it incumbent upon the Socialists not to join such a government; in Russia, on the other hand, it was a question of Socialists taking part in a ''revolutionary'' bourgeois government fighting for the victory ''of the revolution'' at a time when the revolution was ''in full swing'', a circumstance which would make it ''permissible'' for, and, under favourable circumstances, incumbent upon the Social-Democrats to take part in such a government in order to strike at the counterrevolution not only "from below," from without, but also "from above," from within the government.<br />
<br />
3) While advocating the victory of the bourgeois revolution and the achievement of a democratic republic, Lenin had not the least intention of coming to a halt in the democratic stage and confining the scope of the revolutionary movement to the accomplishment of bourgeois-democratic tasks. On the contrary, Lenin maintained that following upon the accomplishment of the democratic tasks, the proletariat and the other exploited masses would have to begin a struggle, this time for the ''Socialist'' revolution. Lenin knew this and regarded it as the duty of Social-Democrats to do everything to make the bourgeois-democratic revolution pass into the Socialist revolution. Lenin held that the dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry was necessary not in order to ''end'' the revolution at the point of consummation of its victory over tsardom, but in order to ''prolong'' the state of revolution as much as possible, to destroy the last remnants of counter-revolution, to make the flame of revolution spread to Europe, and, having in the meantime given the proletariat the opportunity ''of'' educating itself politically and organizing itself into a great army, to begin the direct transition to the Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
Dealing with the scope of the bourgeois revolution, and with the character the Marxist party should lend it, Lenin wrote:<br />
<br />
"The proletariat must carry to completion the democratic revolution, by allying to itself the mass of the peasantry in order to crush by force the resistance of the autocracy and to paralyse the instability of the bourgeoisie. The proletariat must accomplish the Socialist revolution by allying to itself the mass of the semi-proletarian elements of the population in order to crush by force the resistance of the bourgeoisie and to paralyse the instability of the peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie. Such are the tasks of the proletariat, which the new Iskraists (that is, Mensheviks—''Ed.'') ''always'' present so narrowly in their arguments and resolutions about the scope of the revolution." (''Ibid''., pp. 110-11.) And further:<br />
<br />
"At the head of the whole of the people, and particularly of the peasantry—for complete freedom, for a consistent democratic revolution, for a republic! At the head of all the toilers and the exploited—for Socialism! Such must in practice be the policy of the revolutionary proletariat, such is the class slogan which must permeate and determine the solution of every tactical problem, of every practical step of the workers' party during the revolution." (Ibid., p. 124.)<br />
<br />
In order to leave nothing unclear, two months after the appearance of the ''Two Tactics'' Lenin wrote an article entitled "Attitude of Social-Democrats to the Peasant Movement," in which he explained:<br />
<br />
"From the democratic revolution we shall at once, and just in accordance with the measure of our strength, the strength of the class-conscious and organized proletariat, begin to pass to the Socialist revolution. We stand for uninterrupted revolution. We shall not stop half way." (''Ibid''., p. 145.)<br />
<br />
This was a new line in the question of the relation between the bourgeois revolution and the Socialist revolution, a new theory of a regrouping of forces around the proletariat, towards the end of the bourgeois revolution, for a direct transition to the Socialist revolution—the theory of the bourgeois-democratic revolution ''passing into'' the Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
In working out this new line, Lenin based himself, first, on the well-known thesis of uninterrupted revolution advanced by Marx at the end of the forties of the last century in the Address to the Communist League, and, secondly, on the well-known idea of the necessity of combining the peasant revolutionary movement with the proletarian revolution which Marx expressed in a letter to Engels in 1856, saying that: "the whole thing in Germany will depend on the possibility of backing the proletarian revolution by some second edition of the Peasants' War." However, these brilliant ideas of Marx were not developed subsequently in the works of Marx and Engels, while the theoreticians of the Second International did their utmost to bury them and consign them to oblivion. To Lenin fell the task of bringing these forgotten ideas of Marx to light and restoring them to their full rights. But in restoring these Marxian ideas, Lenin did not—and could not—confine himself to merely repeating them, but developed them further and moulded them into a harmonious theory of Socialist revolution by introducing a new factor, an ''indispensable'' factor of the Socialist revolution, namely, an ''alliance'' of the proletariat with the semi-proletarian elements of town and country as a ''condition'' for the victory of the proletarian revolution.<br />
<br />
This line confuted the tactical position of the West-European Social-Democratic parties who took it for granted that after the bourgeois revolution the peasant masses, including the poor peasants, would necessarily desert the revolution, as a result of which the bourgeois revolution would be followed by a prolonged ''interval'', a long "lull" lasting fifty or a hundred years, if not longer, during which the proletariat would be "peacefully" exploited and the bourgeoisie would "lawfully" enrich itself until the time came round for a new revolution, a Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
This was a new theory which held that the Socialist revolution would be accomplished not by the proletariat in isolation as against the ''whole'' bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat as the leading class which would have as ''allies'' the semi-proletarian elements of the population, the "toiling and exploited millions."<br />
<br />
According to this theory the hegemony of the proletariat in the bourgeois revolution, the proletariat ''being in alliance'' with the peasantry, would grow into the hegemony of the proletariat in the Socialist revolution, the proletariat now ''being in alliance'' with the other labouring and exploited masses, while the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry would prepare the ground for the Socialist dictatorship of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
It refuted the theory current among the West-European Social-Democrats who denied the revolutionary potentialities of the semi-proletarian masses of town and country and took for granted that "apart from the bourgeoisie and the proletariat we perceive no social forces in our country in which oppositional or revolutionary combinations might find support" (these were Plekhanov's words, typical of the West-European Social-Democrats).<br />
<br />
The West-European Social-Democrats held that in the Socialist revolution the proletariat would stand ''alone'', against the ''whole'' bourgeoisie, ''without'' allies, against ''all'' the non-proletarian classes and strata. They would not take account of the fact that capital exploits not only the proletarians but also the semi-proletarian millions of town and country, who are crushed by capitalism and who may become allies of the proletariat in the struggle for the emancipation of society from the capitalist yoke. The West-European Social-Democrats therefore held that conditions were not yet ripe for a Socialist revolution in Europe, that the conditions could be considered ripe only when the proletariat became the majority of the nation, the majority of society, as a result of the further economic development of society.<br />
<br />
This spurious anti-proletarian standpoint of the West-European Social-Democrats was completely upset by Lenin's theory of the Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
Lenin's theory did not yet contain any direct conclusion regarding the possibility of a victory of Socialism in one country, taken singly. But it did contain all, or nearly all, the fundamental elements necessary for the drawing of such a conclusion sooner or later.<br />
<br />
As we know, Lenin arrived at this conclusion ten years later, in 1915.<br />
<br />
Such are the fundamental tactical principles expounded by Lenin in his historic book, ''Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution.''<br />
<br />
The historic significance of this book consists above all in the fact that in it Lenin ideologically shattered the petty-bourgeois tactical line of the Mensheviks, armed the working class of Russia for the further development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, for a new onslaught on tsardom, and put before the Russian Social-Democrats a clear perspective of the necessity of the bourgeois revolution passing into the Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
But this does not exhaust the significance of Lenin's book. Its invaluable significance consists in that it enriched Marxism with a new theory of revolution and laid the foundation for the revolutionary tactics of the Bolshevik Party with the help of which in 1917 the proletariat of our country achieved the victory over capitalism.<br />
<br />
=== Further Rise of the Revolution. All-Russian Political Strike of October 1905. Retreat of Tsardom. The Tsar’s manifesto. Rise of the Soviets of workers’ deputies ===<br />
By the autumn of 1905 the revolutionary movement had swept the whole country and gained tremendous momentum.<br />
<br />
On September 19 a printers' strike broke out in Moscow. It spread to St. Petersburg and a number of other cities. In Moscow itself the printers' strike was supported by the workers in other industries and developed into a general political strike.<br />
<br />
In the beginning of October a strike started on the Moscow-Kazan Railway. Within two days it was joined by all the railwaymen of the Moscow railway junction and soon all the railways of the country were in the grip of the strike. The postal and telegraph services came to a standstill. In various cities of Russia the workers gathered at huge meetings and decided to down tools. The strike spread to factory after factory, mill after mill, city after city, and region after region. The workers were joined by the minor employees, students and intellectuals — lawyers, engineers and doctors.<br />
<br />
The October political strike became an all-Russian strike which embraced nearly the whole country, including the most remote districts, and nearly all the workers, including the most backward strata. About one million industrial workers alone took part in the general political strike, not counting the large number of railwaymen, postal and telegraph employees and others. The whole life of the country came to a standstill. The government was paralysed.<br />
<br />
The working class headed the struggle of the masses against the autocracy.<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik slogan of a mass political strike had borne fruit. The October general strike revealed the power and might of the proletarian movement and compelled the mortally frightened tsar to issue his Manifesto of October 17, 1905. This Manifesto promised the people "the unshakable foundations of civil liberty: real inviolability of person, and freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and association." It promised to convene a legislative Duma and to extend the franchise to all classes of the population.<br />
<br />
Thus, Bulygin's deliberative Duma was swept away by the tide of revolution. The Bolshevik tactics of boycotting the Bulygin Duma proved to have been right.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, the Manifesto of October 17 was a fraud on the people, a trick of the tsar to gain some sort of respite in which to lull the credulous and to win time to rally his forces and then to strike at the revolution. In words the tsarist government promised liberty, but actually it granted nothing substantial. So far, promises were all that the workers and peasants had received from the government. Instead of the broad political amnesty which was expected, on October 21 amnesty was granted to only a small section of political prisoners. At the same time, with the object of dividing the forces of the people, the government engineered a number of sanguinary Jewish pogroms, in which many thousands of people perished; and in order to crush the revolution it created police-controlled gangster organizations known as the League of the Russian People and the League of Michael the Archangel. These organizations, in which a prominent part was played by reactionary landlords, merchants, priests, and semi-criminal elements of the vagabond type, were christened by the people "Black-Hundreds." The Black-Hundreds, with the support of the police, openly manhandled and murdered politically advanced workers, revolutionary intellectuals and students, burned down meeting places and fired upon assemblies of citizens. These so far were the only results of the tsar's Manifesto.<br />
<br />
There was a popular song at the time which ran :<br />
<br />
"The tsar caught fright, issued a Manifesto:<br />
<br />
Liberty for the dead, for the living — arrest."<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks explained to the masses that the Manifesto of October 17 was a trap. They branded the conduct of the government after the promulgation of the Manifesto as provocative. The Bolsheviks called the workers to arms, to prepare for armed uprising.<br />
<br />
The workers set about forming fighting squads with greater energy than ever. It became clear to them that the first victory of October 17, wrested by the general political strike, demanded of them further efforts, the continuation of the struggle for the overthrow of tsardom.<br />
<br />
Lenin regarded the Manifesto of October 17 as an expression of a certain temporary equilibrium of forces: the proletariat and the peasantry, having wrung the Manifesto from the tsar, were still not strong enough to overthrow tsardom, ''whereas tsardom was no longer able'' to rule by the old methods alone and had been compelled to give a paper promise of "civil liberties" and a "legislative" Duma.<br />
<br />
In those stormy days of the October political strike, in the fire of the struggle against tsardom, the revolutionary creative initiative of the working-class masses forged a new and powerful weapon—the Soviets of Workers' Deputies.<br />
<br />
The Soviets of Workers' Deputies — which were assemblies of delegates from all mills and factories—represented a type of mass political organization of the working class which the world had never seen before. The Soviets that first arose in 1905 were the ''prototype'' of the Soviet power which the proletariat, led by the Bolshevik Party, set up in 1917. The Soviets were a new revolutionary form of the creative initiative of the people. They were set up exclusively by the revolutionary sections of the population, in defiance of all laws and prescripts of tsar-dom. They were a manifestation of the independent action of the people who were rising to fight tsardom.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks regarded the Soviets as the embryo of revolutionary power. They maintained that the strength and significance of the Soviets would depend solely on the strength and success of the uprising.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks regarded the Soviets neither as embryonic organs of revolutionary power nor as organs of uprising. They looked upon the Soviets as organs of local self-government, in the nature of democratized municipal government bodies.<br />
<br />
In St. Petersburg, elections to the Soviet of Workers' Deputies took place in all the mills and factories on October 13 (26, New Style) 1905. The first meeting of the Soviet was held that night. Moscow followed St. Petersburg in forming a Soviet of Workers' Deputies.<br />
<br />
The St. Petersburg Soviet of Workers' Deputies, being the Soviet of the most important industrial and revolutionary centre of Russia, the capital of the tsarist empire, ought to have played a decisive role in the Revolution of 1905. However, it did not perform its task, owing to its bad, Menshevik leadership. As we know, Lenin had not yet arrived in St. Petersburg; he was still abroad. The Mensheviks took advantage of Lenin's absence to make their way into the St. Petersburg Soviet and to seize hold of its leadership. It was not surprising under such circumstances that the Mensheviks Khrustalev, Trotsky, Parvus and others managed to turn the St. Petersburg Soviet against the policy of an uprising. Instead of bringing the soldiers into close contact with the Soviet and linking them up with the common struggle, they demanded that the soldiers be withdrawn from St. Petersburg. The Soviet, instead of arming the workers and preparing them for an uprising, just marked time and was against preparations for an uprising.<br />
<br />
Altogether different was the role played in the revolution by the Moscow Soviet of Workers' Deputies. From the very first the Moscow Soviet pursued a thoroughly revolutionary policy. The leadership of the Moscow Soviet was in the hands of the Bolsheviks. Thanks to them, side by side with the Soviet of Workers' Deputies, there arose in Moscow a Soviet of Soldiers' Deputies. The Moscow Soviet became an organ of armed uprising.<br />
<br />
In the period, October to December 1905, Soviets of Workers' Deputies were set up in a number of large towns and in nearly all the working-class centres. Attempts were made to organize Soviets of Soldiers' and Sailors' Deputies and to unite them with the Soviets of Workers' Deputies. In some localities Soviets of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies were formed.<br />
<br />
The influence of the Soviets was tremendous. In spite of the fact that they often arose spontaneously, lacked definite structure and were loosely organized, they acted as a governmental power. Without legal authority, they introduced freedom of the press and an 8-hour working day. They called upon the people not to pay taxes to the tsarist government. In some cases they confiscated government funds and used them for the needs of the revolution.<br />
<br />
=== December armed uprising. Defeat of the uprising. Retreat of the revolution. First State Duma. Fourth (Unity) Party Congress ===<br />
During October and November 1905 the revolutionary struggle of the masses went on developing with intense vigour. Workers' strikes continued.<br />
<br />
The struggle of the peasants against the landlords assumed wide dimensions in the autumn of 1905. The peasant movement embraced over one-third of the uyezds of the country. The provinces of Saratov, Tambov, Chernigov, Tiflis, Kutais and several others were the scenes of veritable peasant revolts. Yet the onslaught of the peasant masses was still inadequate. The peasant movement lacked organization and leadership.<br />
<br />
Unrest increased also among the soldiers in a number of cities— Tiflis, Vladivostok, Tashkent, Samarkand, Kursk, Sukhum, Warsaw, Kiev, and Riga. Revolts broke out in Kronstadt and among the sailors of the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol (November 1905). But the revolts were isolated, and the tsarist government was able to suppress them.<br />
<br />
Revolts in units of the army and navy were frequently provoked by the brutal conduct of the officers, by bad food ("bean riots"), and similar causes. The bulk of the sailors and soldiers in revolt did not yet clearly realize the necessity for the overthrow of the tsarist government, for the energetic prosecution of the armed struggle. They were still too peaceful and complacent; they frequently made the mistake of releasing officers who had been arrested at the outbreak of the revolt, and would allow themselves to be placated by the promises and coaxing of their superiors.<br />
<br />
The revolutionary movement had approached the verge of armed insurrection. The Bolsheviks called upon the masses to rise in arms against the tsar and the landlords, and explained to them that this was inevitable. The Bolsheviks worked indefatigably in preparing for armed uprising. Revolutionary work was carried on among the soldiers and sailors, and military organizations of the Party were set up in the armed forces. Workers' fighting squads were formed in a number of cities, and their members taught the use of arms. The purchase of arms from abroad and the smuggling of them into Russia was organized, prominent members of the Party taking part in arranging for their transportation.<br />
<br />
In November 1905 Lenin returned to Russia. He took a direct part in the preparations for armed uprising, while keeping out of the way of the tsar's gendarmes and spies. His articles in the Bolshevik newspaper, ''Novaya Zhizn (New Life)'', served to guide the Party in its day-to-day work.<br />
<br />
At this period Comrade Stalin was carrying on tremendous revolutionary work in Transcaucasia. He exposed and lashed the Mensheviks as foes of the revolution and of the armed uprising. He resolutely prepared the workers for the decisive battle against the autocracy. Speaking at a meeting of workers in Tiflis on the day the tsar's Manifesto was announced, Comrade Stalin said:<br />
<br />
"What do we need in order to really win? We need three things: first—arms, second—arms, third—arms and arms again!"<br />
<br />
In December 1905 a Bolshevik Conference was held in Tammerfors, Finland. Although the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks formally belonged to one Social-Democratic Party, they actually constituted two different parties, each with its own leading centre. At this conference Lenin and Stalin met for the first time. Until then they had maintained contact by correspondence and through comrades.<br />
<br />
Of the decisions of the Tammerfors Conference, the following two should be noted: one on the restoration of the unity of the Party, which had virtually been split into two parties, and the other on the boycott of the First Duma, known as the Witte Duma.<br />
<br />
As by that time the armed uprising had already begun in Moscow, the conference, on Lenin's advice, hastily completed its work and dispersed to enable the delegates to participate personally in the uprising.<br />
<br />
But the tsarist government was not dozing either. It too was preparing for a decisive struggle. Having concluded peace with Japan, and thus lessened the difficulties of its position, the tsarist government assumed the offensive against the workers and peasants. It declared martial law in a number of provinces where peasant revolts were rife, issued the brutal commands "take no prisoners" and "spare no bullets," and gave orders for the arrest of, the leaders of the revolutionary movement and the dispersal of the Soviets of Workers' Deputies.<br />
<br />
In reply to this, the Moscow Bolsheviks and the Moscow Soviet of Workers' Deputies which they led, and which was connected with the broad masses of the workers, decided to make immediate preparations for armed uprising. On December 5 (18) the Moscow Bolshevik Committee resolved to call upon the Soviet to declare a general political strike with the object of turning it into an uprising in the course of the struggle. This decision was supported at mass meetings of the workers. The Moscow Soviet responded to the will of the working class and unanimously resolved to start a general political strike.<br />
<br />
When the Moscow proletariat began the revolt, it had a fighting organization of about one thousand combatants, more than half of whom were Bolsheviks. In addition there were fighting squads in several of the Moscow factories. In all, the insurrectionaries had a force of about two thousand combatants. The workers expected to neutralize the garrison and to win over a part of it to their side.<br />
<br />
The political strike started in Moscow on December 7 (20). However, efforts to spread it to the whole country failed; it met with inadequate support in St. Petersburg, and this reduced the chances of success of the uprising from the very outset. The Nikolayevskaya (now the October) Railway remained in the hands of the tsarist government. Traffic on this line was not suspended, which enabled the government to transfer regiments of the Guard from St. Petersburg to Moscow for the suppression of the uprising.<br />
<br />
In Moscow itself the garrison vacillated. The workers had begun the uprising partly in expectation of receiving support from the garrison. But the revolutionaries had delayed too long, and the government managed to cope with the unrest in the garrison.<br />
<br />
The first barricades appeared in Moscow on December 9 (22). Soon the streets of the city were covered with barricades. The tsarist government brought artillery into action. It concentrated a force many times exceeding the strength of the insurrectionaries. For nine days on end several thousand armed workers waged a heroic fight. It was only by bringing regiments from St. Petersburg, Tver and the Western Territory that the tsarist government was able to crush the uprising. On the very eve of the fighting the leadership of the uprising was partly arrested and partly isolated. The members of the Moscow Bolshevik Committee were arrested. The armed action took the form of disconnected uprisings of separate districts Deprived of a directing centre, and lacking a common plan of operations for the whole city, the districts mainly confined themselves to defensive action. This was the chief source of weakness of the Moscow uprising and one of the causes of its defeat, as Lenin later pointed out.<br />
<br />
The uprising assumed a particularly stubborn and bitter character in the Krasnaya Presnya district of Moscow. This was the main stronghold and centre of the uprising. Here the best of the fighting squads, led by Bolsheviks, were concentrated. But Krasnaya Presnya was suppressed by fire and sword; it was drenched in blood and ablaze with the fires caused by artillery. The Moscow uprising was crushed.<br />
<br />
The uprising was not confined to Moscow. Revolutionary uprisings broke out in a number of other cities and districts. There were armed uprisings in Krasnoyarsk, Motovlikha (Perm), Novorossisk, Sormovo, Sevastapol and Kronstadt.<br />
<br />
The oppressed nationalities of Russia also rose in armed struggle. Nearly the whole of Georgia was up in arms. A big uprising took place in the Ukraine, in the cities of Gorlovka, Alexandrovsk and Lugansk (now Voroshilovgrad) in the Donetz Basin. A stubborn struggle was waged in Latvia. In Finland the workers formed their Red Guard and rose in revolt.<br />
<br />
But all these uprisings, like the uprising in Moscow, were crushed with inhuman ferocity by the autocracy.<br />
<br />
The appraisals of the December armed uprising given by the Men-sheviks and the Bolsheviks differed.<br />
<br />
"They should not have taken to arms," was the rebuke the Menshe-vik Plekhanov flung at the Party after the uprising. The Mensheviks argued that an uprising was unnecessary and pernicious, that it could be dispensed with in the revolution, that success could be achieved not by armed uprising, but by peaceful methods of struggle.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks branded this stand as treachery. They maintained that the experience of the Moscow armed uprising had but confirmed that the working class could wage a successful armed struggle. In reply to Plekhanov's rebuke—"they should not have taken to arms"—Lenin said:<br />
<br />
"On the contrary, we should have taken to arms more resolutely, energetically and aggressively; we should have explained to the masses that it was impossible to confine ourselves to a peaceful strike and that a fearless and relentless armed fight was indispensable." (Lenin, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. III, p. 348.)<br />
<br />
The uprising of December 1905 was the climax of the revolution. The tsarist autocracy defeated the uprising. Thereafter the revolution took a turn and began to recede. The tide of revolution gradually subsided.<br />
<br />
The tsarist government hastened to take advantage of this defeat to deal the final blow to the revolution. The tsar's hangmen and jailers began their bloody work. Punitive expeditions raged in Poland, Latvia, Esthonia, Transcaucasia and Siberia.<br />
<br />
But the revolution was not yet crushed. The workers and revolutionary peasants retreated slowly, putting up a fight. New sections of the workers were drawn into the struggle. Over a million workers took part in strikes in 1906; 740,000 in 1907. The peasant movement embraced about one-half of the uyezds of tsarist Russia in the first half of 1906, and one-fifth in the second half of the year. Unrest continued in the army and navy.<br />
<br />
The tsarist government, in combating the revolution, did not confine itself to repressive measures. Having achieved its first successes by repressive measures, it decided to deal a fresh blow at the revolution by convening a new Duma, a "legislative" Duma. It hoped in this way to sever the peasants from the revolution and thus put an end to it. In December c the tsarist government promulgated a law providing for the convocation of a new, a "legislative" Duma as distinct from the old, "deliberative" Bulygin Duma, which had been swept away as the result of the Bolshevik boycott. The tsarist election law was of course anti-democratic. Elections were not universal. Over half the population —for example, women and over two million workers—were deprived of the right of vote altogether. Elections were not equal. The electorate was divided into four curias, as they were called: the agrarian (landlords), the urban (bourgeoisie), the peasant and the worker curias. Election was not direct, but by several stages. There was actually no secret ballot. The election law ensured the overwhelming preponderance in the Duma of a handful of landlords and capitalists over the millions of workers and peasants.<br />
<br />
The tsar intended to make use of the Duma to divert the masses from the revolution. In those days a large proportion of the peasants believed that they could obtain land through the Duma. The Constitutional-Democrats, Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries deceived workers and peasants by stating that the system the people needed could be obtained without uprising, without revolution. It was to fight this fraud on the people that the Bolsheviks announced and pursued the tactics of boycotting the First State Duma. This was in accordance with the decision passed by the Tammerfors Conference.<br />
<br />
In their fight against tsardom, the workers demanded the unity of the forces of the Party, the unification of the party of the proletariat. Armed with the decision of the Tammerfors Conference on unity, the Bolsheviks supported this demand of the workers and proposed to the Mensheviks that a unity congress of the Party be called. Under the pressure of the workers, the Mensheviks had to consent to unification.<br />
<br />
Lenin was in favour of unification, but only of such unification as would not cover up the differences that existed over the problems of the revolution. Considerable damage was done to the Party by the conciliators (Bogdanov, Krassin and others), who tried to prove that no serious differences existed between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. Lenin fought the conciliators, insisting that the Bolsheviks should come to the congress with their own platform, so that the workers might clearly see what the position of the Bolsheviks was and on what basis unification was being effected. The Bolsheviks drew up such a platform and submitted it to the Party members for discussion.<br />
<br />
The Fourth Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., known as the Unity Congress, met in Stockholm (Sweden) in April 1906. It was attended by 111 delegates with right of vote, representing 57 local organizations of the Party. In addition, there were representatives from the national Social-Democratic parties: 3 from the Bund, 3 from the Polish Social-Democratic Party, and 3 from the Lettish Social-Democratic organization.<br />
<br />
Owing to the smash-up of the Bolshevik organizations during and after the December uprising, not all of them were able to send delegates. Moreover, during the "days of liberty" of 1905, the Mensheviks had admitted into their ranks a large number of petty-bourgeois intellectuals who had nothing whatever in common with revolutionary Marxism. It will suffice to say that the Tiflis Mensheviks (and there were very few industrial workers in Tiflis) sent as many delegates to the congress as the largest of the proletarian organizations, the St. Petersburg organization. The result was that at the Stockholm Congress the Mensheviks had a majority, although, it is true, an insignificant one.<br />
<br />
This composition of the congress determined the Menshevik character of the decisions on a number of questions.<br />
<br />
Only ''formal'' unity was effected at this congress. In reality, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks retained their own views and their own independent organizations.<br />
<br />
The chief questions discussed at the Fourth Congress were the agrarian question, the current situation and the class tasks of the proletariat, policy towards the State Duma, and organizational questions.<br />
<br />
Although the Mensheviks constituted the majority at this congress they were obliged to agree to Lenin's formulation of the first paragraph of the Party Rules dealing with Party membership, in order not to antagonize the workers.<br />
<br />
On the agrarian question, Lenin advocated the ''nationalization'' of the land. He held that the nationalization of the land would be possible only with the victory of the revolution, after tsardom had been overthrown. Under such circumstances the nationalization of the land would make it easier for the proletariat, in alliance with the poor peasants, to pass to the Socialist revolution. Nationalization of the land meant the confiscation of all the landed estates without compensation and turning them over to the peasantry. The Bolshevik agrarian program called upon the peasants to rise in revolution against the tsar and the landlords.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks took up a different position. They advocated a program of ''municipalization''. According to this program, the landed estates were not to be placed at the disposal of the village communities, not even given to the village communities for use, but were to be placed at the disposal of the municipalities (that is, the local organs of self-government, or Zemstvos), and each peasant was to rent as much of this land as he could afford.<br />
<br />
The Menshevik program of municipalization was one of compromise, and therefore prejudicial to the revolution. It could not mobilize the peasants for a revolutionary struggle and was not designed to achieve the complete abolition of landlord property rights in land. The Menshevik program was designed to stop the revolution halfway. The Mensheviks did not want to rouse the peasants for revolution.<br />
<br />
The Menshevik program received the majority of the votes at the congress.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks particularly betrayed their anti-proletarian, opportunist nature during the discussion of the resolution on the current situation and on the State Duma. The Menshevik Martynov frankly spoke in opposition to the hegemony of the proletariat in the revolution. Comrade Stalin, replying to the Mensheviks, put the matter very bluntly:<br />
<br />
"Either the hegemony of the proletariat, or the hegemony of the democratic bourgeoisie—that is how the question stands in the Party, that is where we differ."<br />
<br />
As to the State Duma, the Mensheviks extolled it in their resolution as the best means of solving the problems of the revolution and of liberating the people from tsardom. The Bolsheviks, on the contrary, regarded the Duma as an impotent appendage of tsardom, as a screen for the evils of tsardom, which the latter would discard as soon as it proved inconvenient.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee elected at the Fourth Congress consisted of three Bolsheviks and six Mensheviks. The editorial board of the central press organ was formed entirely of Mensheviks.<br />
<br />
It was clear that the internal Party struggle would continue.<br />
<br />
After the Fourth Congress the conflict between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks broke out with new vigour. In the local organizations, which were formally united, reports on the congress were often made by two speakers: one from the Bolsheviks and another from the Mensheviks. The result of the discussion of the two lines was that in most cases the majority of the members of the organizations sided with the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
Events proved that the Bolsheviks were right. The Menshevik Central Committee elected at the Fourth Congress increasingly revealed its opportunism and its utter inability to lead the revolutionary struggle of the masses. In the summer and autumn of 1906 the revolutionary struggle of the masses took on new vigour. Sailors' revolts broke out in Kronstadt and Sveaborg; the peasants' struggle against the landlords flared up. Yet the Menshevik Central Committee issued opportunist slogans, which the masses did not follow.<br />
<br />
=== Dispersion of the First State Duma. Convocation of the Second State Duma. Fifth Party Congress. Dispersion of the Second State Duma. Causes of the defeat of the First Russian Revolution ===<br />
As the First State Duma did not prove docile enough, the tsarist government dispersed it in the summer of 1906. The government resorted to even more drastic repressions against the people, extended the ravaging activities of the punitive expeditions throughout the country, and announced its decision of shortly calling a Second State Duma. The tsarist government was obviously growing more insolent. It no longer feared the revolution, for it saw that the revolution was on the decline<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks had to decide whether to participate in the Second Duma or to boycott it. By boycott, the Bolsheviks usually meant an active boycott, and not the mere passive abstention from voting in the elections. The Bolsheviks regarded active boycott as a revolutionary means of warning the people against the attempts of the tsar to divert them from the path of revolution to the path of tsarist "constitution," as a means of frustrating these attempts and organizing a new onslaught of the people on tsardom.<br />
<br />
The experience of the boycott of the Bulygin Duma had shown that a boycott was "the only correct tactics, as fully proved by events." (Lenin, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. III, p. 393.) This boycott was successful because it not only warned the people against the danger of the path of tsarist constitutionalism but frustrated the very birth of the Duma. The boycott was successful because it was carried out during the ''rising tide'' of the revolution and was supported by this tide, and not when the revolution was receding. The summoning of the Duma could be frustrated only during the ''high tide'' of the revolution.<br />
<br />
The boycott of the Witte Duma, ''i.e''., the First Duma, took place after the December uprising had been defeated, when the tsar proved to be the victor, that is, at a time when there was reason to believe that the revolution had begun to recede.<br />
<br />
"But," wrote Lenin, "it goes without saying that at that time there were as yet no grounds to regard this victory (of the tsar—''Ed.'') as a decisive victory. The uprising of December 1905 had its sequel in a series of disconnected and partial military uprisings and strikes in the summer of 1906. The call to boycott the Witte Duma was a call to concentrate these uprisings and make them general." (Lenin, ''Collected Works,'' Russ. ed., Vol. XII, p. 20.)<br />
<br />
The boycott of the Witte Duma was unable to frustrate its convocation although it considerably undermined its prestige and weakened the faith of a part of the population in it. The boycott was unable to frustrate the convocation of the Duma because, as subsequently became clear, it took place at a time when the revolution was receding, when it was on the decline. For this reason the boycott of the First Duma in 1906 was unsuccessful. In this connection Lenin wrote in his famous pamphlet, ''"Left-Wing" Communism, An Infantile Disorder:''<br />
<br />
"The Bolshevik boycott of 'parliament' in 1905 enriched the revolutionary proletariat with highly valuable political experience and showed that in combining legal with illegal, parliamentary with extra-parliamentary forms of struggle, it is sometimes useful and even essential to reject parliamentary forms...The boycott of the 'Duma' by the Bolsheviks in 1906 was however a mistake, although a small and easily remediable one...What applies to individuals applies—with necessary modifications—to politics and parties. Not he is wise who makes no mistakes. There are no such men nor can there be. He is wise who makes not very serious mistakes and who knows how to correct them easily and quickly. (Lenin, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. X, p. 74.)<br />
<br />
As to the Second State Duma, Lenin held that in view of the changed situation and the decline of the revolution, the Bolsheviks "must reconsider the question of boycotting the State Duma." (Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. III, p. 392.)<br />
<br />
"History has shown," Lenin wrote, "that when the Duma assembles opportunities arise for carrying on useful agitation both from within the Duma and, in connection with it, outside—that the tactics of joining forces with the revolutionary peasantry against the Constitutional-Democrats can be applied in the Duma." (''Ibid''., p. 396.)<br />
<br />
All this showed that one had to know not only how to advance resolutely, to advance in the front ranks, when the revolution was in the ascendant, but also how to retreat properly, to be the last to retreat, when the revolution was no longer in the ascendant, changing one's tactics as the situation changed; to retreat not in disorder, but in an organized way, calmly and without panic, utilizing every minute opportunity to withdraw the cadres from under enemy fire, to reform one's ranks to muster one's forces and to prepare for a new offensive against the enemy.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks decided to take part in the elections to the Second Duma.<br />
<br />
But the Bolsheviks did not go to the Duma for the purpose of carrying on organic "legislative" work inside it in a bloc with the Constitutional-Democrats, as the Mensheviks did, but for the purpose of utilizing it as a platform in the interests of the revolution.<br />
<br />
The Menshevik Central Committee, on the contrary, urged that election agreements be formed with the Constitutional-Democrats, and that support be given to the Constitutional-Democrats in the Duma, for in their eyes the Duma was a legislative body that was capable of bridling the tsarist government.<br />
<br />
The majority of the Party organizations expressed themselves against the policy of the Menshevik Central Committee.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks demanded that a new Party congress be called.<br />
<br />
In May 1907 the Fifth Party Congress met in London. At the time of this congress the R.S.D.L.P. (together with the national Social-Democratic organizations) had a membership of nearly 150,000. In all, 336 delegates attended the congress, of whom 105 were Bolsheviks and 97 Mensheviks. The remaining delegates represented the national Social-Democratic organizations—the Polish and Lettish Social-Democrats and the Bund—which had been admitted into the R.S.D.L.P. at the previous congress.<br />
<br />
Trotsky tried to knock together a group of his own at the congress, a centrist, that is, semi-Menshevik, group, but could get no following.<br />
<br />
As the Bolsheviks had the support of the Poles and the Letts, they had a stable majority at the congress.<br />
<br />
One of the main questions at issue at the congress was that of policy towards the bourgeois parties. There had already been a struggle between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks on this question at the Second Congress. The fifth Congress gave a Bolshevik estimate of all the non-proletarian parties—Black-Hundreds, Octobrists (Union of October Seventeenth), Constitutional-Democrats and Socialist-Revolutionaries— and formulated the Bolshevik tactics to be pursued in regard to these parties.<br />
<br />
The congress approved the policy of the Bolsheviks and decided to wage a relentless struggle both against the Black-Hundred parties—the League of the Russian People, the monarchists, the Council of the United Nobility—and against the Octobrists, the Commercial and Industrial Party and the Party of Peaceful Renovation. All these parties were outspokenly counter-revolutionary.<br />
<br />
As regards the liberal bourgeoisie, the Constitutional-Democratic Party, the congress recommended a policy of uncompromising exposure; the false and hypocritical "democracy" of the Constitutional-Democratic Party was to be exposed and the attempts of the liberal bourgeoisie to gain control of the peasant movement combated.<br />
<br />
As to the so-called Narodnik or Trudovik parties (the Popular Socialists, the Trudovik Group and the Socialist-Revolutionaries), the congress recommended that their attempts to mask themselves as Socialists be exposed. At the same time the congress considered it permissible now and then to conclude agreements with these parties for a joint and simultaneous attack on tsardom and the Constitutional-Democratic bourgeoisie, inasmuch as these parties were at that time democratic parties and expressed the interests of the petty bourgeoisie of town and country.<br />
<br />
Even before this congress, the Mensheviks had proposed that a so-called "labour congress" be convened. The Mensheviks' idea was to call a congress at which Social-Democrats, Socialist-Revolutionaries and Anarchists should all be represented. This "labour" congress was to form something in the nature of a "non-partisan party," or a "broad" petty-bourgeois labour party without a program. Lenin exposed this as a pernicious attempt on the part of the Mensheviks to liquidate the Social-Democratic Labour Party and to dissolve the vanguard of the working class in the petty-bourgeois mass. The congress vigorously condemned the Menshevik call for a "labour congress."<br />
<br />
Special attention was devoted at the congress to the subject of the trade unions. The Mensheviks advocated "neutrality" of the trade unions; in other words, they were opposed to the Party playing a leading role in them. The congress rejected the Mensheviks' motion and adopted the resolution submitted by the Bolsheviks. This resolution stated that the Party must gain the ideological and political leadership in the trade unions.<br />
<br />
The Fifth Congress was a big victory for the Bolsheviks in the working-class movement. But the Bolsheviks did not allow this to turn their heads; nor did they rest on their laurels. That was not what Lenin taught them. The Bolsheviks knew that more fighting with the Men-sheviks was still to come.<br />
<br />
In an article entitled "Notes of a Delegate" which appeared in 1907, Comrade Stalin assessed the results of the congress as follows:<br />
<br />
"The actual unification of the advanced workers of all Russia into a single all-Russian party under the banner of ''revolutionary'' Social-Democracy—that is the significance of the London Congress, that is its general character."<br />
<br />
In this article Comrade Stalin cited data showing the ''composition'' of the congress. They show that the Bolshevik delegates were sent to the congress chiefly by the big industrial centres (St. Petersburg, Moscow, the Urals, Ivanovo-Voznesensk, etc.), whereas the Mensheviks got their mandates from districts where small production prevailed, where artisans, semi-proletarians predominated, as well as from a number of purely rural areas.<br />
<br />
"Obviously," says Comrade Stalin, summing up the results of the congress, "the tactics of the Bolsheviks are the tactics of the proletarians in big industry, the tactics of those areas where the class contradictions are especially clear and the class struggle especially acute. Bolshevism is the tactics of the real proletarians. On the other hand, it is no less obvious that the tactics of the Mensheviks are primarily the tactics of the handicraft workers and the peasant semi-proletarians, the tactics of those areas where the class contradictions are not quite clear and the class struggle is masked. Menshevism is the tactics of the semi-bourgeois elements among the proletariat. So say the figures." (Verbatim ''Report of the Fifth Congress of the-R.S.D.L.P.,'' Russ. ed., 1935, pp. xi and xii.)<br />
<br />
When the tsar dispersed the First Duma he expected that the Second Duma would be more docile. But the Second Duma, too, belied his expectations. The tsar thereupon decided to disperse it, too, and to convoke a Third Duma on a more restricted franchise, in the hope that this Duma would prove more amenable.<br />
<br />
Shortly after the Fifth Congress, the tsarist government effected what is known as the ''coup d'etat'' of June 3. On June 3, 1907, the tsar dispersed the Second State Duma. The sixty-five deputies of the Social-Democratic group in the Duma were arrested and exiled to Siberia. A new election law was promulgated. The rights of the workers and peasants were still further curtailed. The tsarist government continued its offensive.<br />
<br />
The tsar's Minister Stolypin intensified the campaign of bloody reprisals against the workers and peasants. Thousands of revolutionary workers and peasants were shot by punitive expeditions, or hanged. In the tsarist dungeons revolutionaries were tortured mentally and physically. Particularly savage was the persecution of the working-class organizations, especially the Bolsheviks. The tsar's sleuths were searching for Lenin, who was living in hiding in Finland. They wanted to wreak their vengeance on the leader of the revolution. In December 1907 Lenin managed at great risk to make his way abroad and again became an exile.<br />
<br />
The dark period of the Stolypin reaction set in.<br />
<br />
The first Russian revolution thus ended in defeat.<br />
<br />
The causes that contributed to this defeat were as follows :<br />
<br />
1 ) In the revolution, there was still no stable alliance of the workers and peasants against tsardom. The peasants rose in struggle against the landlords and were willing to join in an alliance with the workers against them. But they did not yet realize that the landlords could not be overthrown unless the tsar were overthrown, they did not realize that the tsar was acting hand-in-hand with the landlords, and large numbers of the peasants still had faith in the tsar and placed their hopes in the tsarist State Duma. That is why a considerable section of the peasants were disinclined to join in alliance with the workers for the overthrow of tsardom. The peasants had more faith in the compromising Socialist-Revolutionary Party than in the real revolutionaries—the Bolsheviks. As a result, the struggle of the peasants against the landlords was not sufficiently organized. Lenin said :<br />
<br />
"The peasants' actions were too scattered, too unorganized and not sufficiently aggressive, and that was one of the fundamental causes of the defeat of the revolution." (Lenin, ''Collected Works,'' Russ. ed., Vol. XIX, p. 354.)<br />
<br />
2) The disinclination of a large section of the peasants to join the workers for the overthrow of tsardom also influenced the conduct of the army, which largely consisted of peasants' sons clad in soldiers' uniforms. Unrest and revolt broke out in certain units of the tsar's army, but the majority of the soldiers still assisted the tsar in suppressing the strikes and uprisings of the workers.<br />
<br />
3) Neither was the action of the workers sufficiently concerted. The advanced sections of the working class started a heroic revolutionary struggle in 1905. The more backward sections—the workers in the less industrialized provinces, those who lived in the villages—came into action more slowly. Their participation in the revolutionary struggle became particularly active in 1906, but by then the vanguard of the working class had already been considerably weakened.<br />
<br />
4) The working class was the foremost and principal force of the revolution; but the necessary unity and solidarity in the ranks of the party of the working class were lacking. The R.S.D.L.P.—the party of the working class—was split into two groups: the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks pursued a consistent revolutionary line and called upon the workers to overthrow tsardom. The Mensheviks, by their compromising tactics, hampered the revolution, confused the minds of large numbers of workers and split the working class. Therefore, the workers did not always act concertedly in the revolution, and the working class, still lacking unity within its own ranks, could not become the real leader of the revolution.<br />
<br />
5) The tsarist autocracy received help in crushing the Revolution of 1905 from the West-European imperialists. The foreign capitalists feared for their investments in Russia and for their huge profits. Moreover, they feared that if the Russian revolution were to succeed the workers of other countries would rise in revolution, too. The West-European imperialists therefore came to the assistance of the hangman-tsar. The French bankers granted a big loan to the tsar for the suppression of the revolution. The German kaiser kept a large army in readiness to intervene in aid of the Russian tsar.<br />
<br />
6) The conclusion of peace with Japan in September 1905 was of considerable help to the tsar. Defeat in the war and the menacing growth of the revolution had induced the tsar to hasten the signing of peace. The loss of the war weakened tsardom. The conclusion of peace strengthened the position of the tsar.<br />
<br />
=== Brief summary ===<br />
The first Russian revolution constituted a whole historical stage in the development of our country. This historical stage consisted of two periods: the first period, when the tide of revolution rose from the general political strike in October to the armed uprising in December and took advantage of the weakness of the tsar, who had suffered defeat on the battlefields of Manchuria, to sweep away the Bulygin Duma and wrest concession after concession from the tsar; and the second period, when tsardom, having recovered after the conclusion of peace with Japan, took advantage of the liberal bourgeoisie's fear of the revolution, took advantage of the vacillation of the peasants, cast them a sop in the form of the Witte Duma, and passed to the offensive against the working class, against the revolution.<br />
<br />
In the short period of only three years of revolution (1905-07) the working class and the peasantry received a rich political education, such as they could not have received in thirty years of ordinary peaceful development. A few years of revolution made clear what could not be made clear in the course of decades of peaceful development.<br />
<br />
The revolution disclosed that tsardom was the sworn enemy of the people, that tsardom was like the proverbial hunchback whom only the grave could cure.<br />
<br />
The revolution showed that the liberal bourgeoisie was seeing an alliance with the tsar, and not with the people, that it was a counterrevolutionary force, an agreement with which would be tantamount to a betrayal of the people.<br />
<br />
The revolution showed that only the working class could be the leader of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, that it alone could force aside the liberal Constitutional-Democratic bourgeoisie, destroy its influence over the peasantry, rout the landlords, carry the revolution to its conclusion and clear the way for Socialism.<br />
<br />
Lastly, the revolution showed that the labouring peasantry, despite its vacillations, was the only important force capable of forming an alliance with the working class.<br />
<br />
Two lines were contending within the R.S.D.L.P. during the revolution, the line of the Bolsheviks and the line of the Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks took as their course the extension of the revolution, the overthrow of tsardom by armed uprising, the hegemony of the working class, the isolation of the Constitutional-Democratic bourgeoisie, an alliance with the peasantry, the formation of a provisional revolutionary government consisting of representatives of the workers and peasants, the victorious completion of the revolution. The Mensheviks, on the contrary, took as their course the liquidation of the revolution. Instead of overthrowing tsardom by uprising, they proposed to reform and "improve" it; instead of the hegemony of the proletariat, they proposed the hegemony of the liberal bourgeoisie; instead of an alliance with the peasantry, they proposed an alliance with the Constitutional-Democratic bourgeoisie; instead of a provisional government, they proposed a State Duma as the centre of the "revolutionary forces" of the country.<br />
<br />
Thus the Mensheviks sank into the morass of compromise and became vehicles of the bourgeois influence on the working class, virtual agents of the bourgeoisie within the working class.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks proved to be the only revolutionary Marxist force in the Party and thecountry.<br />
<br />
It was natural that, in view of such profound differences, the R.S.D.L.P. proved in fact to be split into two parties, the party of the Bolsheviks and the party of the Mensheviks. The Fourth Party Congress changed nothing in the actual state of affairs within the Party. It only preserved and somewhat strengthened formal unity in the Party. The Fifth Party Congress took a step towards actual unity in the Party, a unity achieved under the banner of Bolshevism.<br />
<br />
Reviewing the revolutionary movement, the Fifth Party Congress condemned the line of the Mensheviks as one of compromise, and approved the Bolshevik line as a revolutionary Marxist line. In doing so it once more confirmed what had already been confirmed by the whole course of the first Russian revolution.<br />
<br />
The revolution showed that the Bolsheviks knew how to advance when the situation demanded it, that they had learned to advance in the front ranks and to lead the whole people in attack. But the revolution also showed that the Bolsheviks knew how to retreat in an orderly way when the situation took an unfavourable turn, when the revolution was on the decline, and that the Bolsheviks had learned to retreat properly, without panic or commotion, so as to preserve their cadres, rally their forces, and, having reformed their ranks in conformity with the new situation, once again to resume the attack on the enemy.<br />
<br />
It is impossible to defeat the enemy without knowing how to attack properly.<br />
<br />
It is impossible to avoid utter rout in the event of defeat without knowing how to retreat properly, to retreat without panic and without confusion.<br />
<br />
== The Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks in the period of the Stolypin reaction. The Bolsheviks constitute themselves an independent marxist party (1908—1912) ==<br />
<br />
=== Stolypin reaction. Disintegration among the oppositional intelligentsia. Decadence. Desertion of a section of the party intelligentsia to the enemies of Marxism and attempts to revise the theory of Marxism. Lenin’s rebutal of the revisionists in his ''Materialism and empiriocriticism'' and his defense of the theoretical foundations of the Marxist party ===<br />
The Second State Duma was dissolved by the tsarist government on June 3, 1907. This is customarily referred to in history as the ''coup d'etat'' of June 3. The tsarist government issued a new law on the elections to the Third State Duma, and thus violated its own Manifesto of October 17, 1905, which stipulated that new laws could be issued only with the consent of the Duma. The members of the Social-Democratic group in the Second Duma were committed for trial; the representatives of the working class were condemned to penal servitude and exile.<br />
<br />
The new election law was so drafted as to increase considerably the number of representatives of the landlords and the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie in the Duma. At the same time the representation of the peasants and workers, small as it was, was reduced to a fraction of its former size.<br />
<br />
Black-Hundreds and Constitutional-Democrats preponderated in the Third Duma. Of a total of 442 deputies, 171 were Rights (Black-Hundreds), 113 were Octobrists or members of kindred groups, 101 were Constitutional-Democrats or members of kindred groups, 13 were Trudoviki, and 18 were Social-Democrats.<br />
<br />
The Rights (so called because they occupied the benches on the right-hand side of the Duma) represented the worst enemies of the workers and peasants—the Black-Hundred feudal landlords, who had subjected the peasants to mass floggings and shootings during the suppression of the peasant movement, and organizers of Jewish pogroms, of the manhandling of demonstrating workers and of the brutal burning of premises where meetings were being held during the revolution. The Rights stood for the most ruthless suppression of the working people, and for the unlimited power of the tsar; they were opposed to the tsar's Manifesto of October 17, 1905.<br />
<br />
The Octobrist Party, or the Union of October Seventeenth, closely adhered to the Rights in the Duma. The Octobrists represented the interests of big industrial capital, and of the big landlords who ran their estates on capitalist lines (at the beginning of the Revolution of 1905 a large number of the big landlords belonging to the Constitutional-Democratic Party went over to the Octobrists). The only thing that distinguished the Octobrists from the Rights was their acceptance—only in words at that—of the Manifesto of October 17. The Octobrists fully supported both the home and foreign policy of the tsarist government.<br />
<br />
The Constitutional-Democratic Party had fewer seats in the Third Duma than in the First and Second Dumas. This was due to the transfer of part of the landlord vote from the Constitutional-Democrats to the Octobrists.<br />
<br />
There was a small group of petty-bourgeois democrats, known as Trudoviki, in the Third Duma. They vacillated between the Constitutional-Democrats and the labour democrats (Bolsheviks). Lenin pointed out that although the Trudoviki in the Duma were extremely weak, they represented the ''masses'', the peasant masses. The vacillation of the Trudoviki between the Constitutional-Democrats and the labour democrats was an inevitable consequence of the class position of the small owners. Lenin set before the Bolshevik deputies, the labour democrats, the task of "helping the weak petty-bourgeois democrats, of wresting them from the influence of the liberals, of rallying the democratic camp against the counter-revolutionary Constitutional-Democrats, and not only against the Rights..." (Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. XV, p. 486.)<br />
<br />
During the Revolution of 1905, and especially after its defeat, the Constitutional-Democrats increasingly revealed themselves as a counterrevolutionary force. Discarding their "democratic" mask more and more, they acted like veritable monarchists, defenders of tsardom. In 1909 a group of prominent Constitutional-Democrat writers published a volume of articles entitled ''Vekhi (Landmarks)'' in which, on behalf of the bourgeoisie, they thanked the tsar for crushing the revolution. Cringing and fawning upon the tsarist government, the government of the knout and the gallows, the Constitutional-Democrats bluntly stated in this book that "we should bless this government, which alone, with its bayonets and jails, protects us (the liberal bourgeoisie) from the ire of the people."<br />
<br />
Having dispersed the Second State Duma and disposed of the Social-Democratic group of the Duma, the tsarist government zealously set about destroying the political and economic organizations of the proletariat. Convict prisons, fortresses and places of exile were filled to overflowing with revolutionaries. They were brutally beaten up in the prisons, tormented and tortured. The Black-Hundred terror raged unchecked. The tsar's Minister Stolypin set up gallows all over the country. Several thousand revolutionaries were executed. In those days the gallows was known as the "Stolypin necktie."<br />
<br />
In its efforts to crush the revolutionary movement of the workers and peasants the tsarist government could not confine itself to acts of repression, punitive expeditions, shootings, jailings and sentences of penal servitude. It perceived with alarm that the naive faith of the peasants in "the little father, the tsar" was steadily vanishing. It therefore re- sorted to a broad manoeuvre. It conceived the idea of creating a solid support for itself in the countryside, in the large class of rural bourgeoisie —the kulaks.<br />
<br />
On November 9, 1906, Stolypin issued a new agrarian law enabling the peasants to leave the communes and to set up separate farms. Stolypin's agrarian law broke down the system of communal land tenure. The peasants were invited to take possession of their allotments as private property and to withdraw from the communes. They could now sell their allotments, which they were not allowed to do before. When a peasant left his commune the latter was obliged to allot land to him in a single tract (''khutor, otrub'').<br />
<br />
The rich peasants, the kulaks, now had the opportunity to buy up the land of the poor peasants at low prices. Within a few years after the promulgation of the law, over a million poor peasants had lost their land altogether and had been completely ruined. As the poor peasants lost their land the number of kulak farmholds grew. These were sometimes regular estates employing hired labour—farm hands—on a large scale. The government compelled the peasants to allot the best land of the communes to the kulak farmers.<br />
<br />
During the "emancipation" of the peasants the landlords had robbed the peasants of their land; now the kulaks began to rob the communes of their land, securing the best plots and buying up the allotments of poor peasants at low prices.<br />
<br />
The tsarist government advanced large loans to the kulaks for the purchase of land and the outfitting of their farms. Stolypin wanted to turn the kulaks into small landlords, into loyal defenders of the tsarist autocracy.<br />
<br />
In the nine years 1906-15 alone, over two million households withdrew from the communes.<br />
<br />
As a result of the Stolypin policy the condition of the peasants with small land allotments, and of the poor peasants, grew worse than ever. The process of differentiation among the peasantry became more marked. The peasants began to come into collision with the kulak farmers.<br />
<br />
At the same time, the peasants began to realize that they would never gain possession of the landed estates as long as the tsarist government and the State Duma of the landlords and Constitutional-Democrats existed.<br />
<br />
During the period when kulak farmholds were being formed in large numbers (1907-09), the peasant movement began to decline, but soon after, in 1910, 1911, and later, owing to the clashes between the members of the village communes and the kulak farmers, the peasant movement against the landlords and the kulak farmers grew in intensity.<br />
<br />
There were big changes also in industry after the revolution. The concentration of industry in the hands of increasingly powerful capitalist groups proceeded much more rapidly. Even before the Revolution of 1905, the capitalists had begun to form associations with the object of raising prices within the country and of using the super-profits thus obtained for the encouragement of export trade so as to enable them to dump goods abroad at low prices and to capture foreign markets. These capitalist associations (monopolies) were called trusts and syndicates. After the revolution their number became still greater. There was also an increase in the number of big banks, whose role in industry became more important. The flow of foreign capital into Russia increased.<br />
<br />
Thus capitalism in Russia was turning into monopoly capitalism, imperialist capitalism, on a growing scale.<br />
<br />
After several years of stagnation, industry began to revive: the output of coal, metal, oil, textiles and sugar increased. Grain exports assumed large dimensions.<br />
<br />
Although Russia at that time made some industrial progress, she was still backward compared with Western Europe, and still dependent on foreign capitalists. Russia did not produce machinery and machine tools —they were imported from abroad. She had no automobile industry or chemical industry; she did not produce artificial fertilizers. Russia also lagged behind other capitalist countries in the manufacture of armaments.<br />
<br />
Pointing to the low level of consumption of metals in Russia as an indication of the country's backwardness, Lenin wrote :<br />
<br />
"In the half-century following the emancipation of the peasants the consumption of iron in Russia has increased five-fold; yet Russia remains an incredibly and unprecedentedly backward country, poverty-stricken and semi-barbaric, equipped with modern implements of production to one-fourth the extent of England, one-fifth the extent of Germany, and one-tenth the extent of America." (Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. XVI, p. 543.)<br />
<br />
One direct result of Russia's economic and political backwardness was the dependence both of Russian capitalism and of tsardom itself on West-European capitalism.<br />
<br />
This found expression in the fact that such highly important branches of industry as coal, oil, electrical equipment, and metallurgy were in the hands of foreign capital, and that tsarist Russia had to import nearly all her machinery and equipment from abroad.<br />
<br />
It also found expression in the fettering foreign loans. To pay interest on these loans tsardom squeezed hundreds of millions of rubles out of the people annually.<br />
<br />
It moreover found expression in the secret treaties with Russia's "allies," by which the tsarist government undertook in the event of war to send millions of Russian soldiers to support the "allies" on the imperialist fronts and to protect the tremendous profits of the British and French capitalists.<br />
<br />
The period of the Stolypin reaction was marked by particularly savage assaults on the working class by the gendarmerie and police, the tsarist agents-provocateurs and Black-Hundred ruffians. But it was not only the underlings of the tsar who harassed and persecuted the workers. No less zealous in this respect were the factory and mill owners, whose offensive against the working class became particularly aggressive in the years of industrial stagnation and increasing unemployment. The factory owners declared mass lockouts and drew up black lists of class-conscious workers who took an active part in strikes. Once a person was blacklisted he could never hope to find employment in any of the plants belonging to the manufacturers' association in that particular branch of industry. Already in 1908 wage rates were cut by 10 to 15 per cent. The working day was everywhere increased to 10 or 12 hours. The system of rapacious fines again flourished.<br />
<br />
The defeat of the Revolution of 1905 started a process of disintegration and degeneration in the ranks of the fellow-travelers of the revolution. Degenerate and decadent tendencies grew particularly marked among the intelligentsia. The fellow-travelers who came from the bourgeois camp to join the movement during the upsurge of the revolution deserted the Party in the days of reaction. Some of them joined the camp of the open enemies of the revolution, others entrenched themselves in such legally functioning working-class societies as still survived, and endeavoured to divert the proletariat from the path of revolution and to discredit the revolutionary party of the proletariat. Deserting the revolution the fellow-travelers tried to win the good graces of the reactionaries and to live in peace with tsardom.<br />
<br />
The tsarist government took advantage of the defeat of the revolution to enlist the more cowardly and self-seeking fellow-travelers of the revolution as agents-provocateurs. These vile Judases were sent by the tsarist ''Okhrana'' into the working class and Party organizations, where they spied from within and betrayed revolutionaries.<br />
<br />
The offensive of the counter-revolution was waged on the ideological front as well. There appeared a whole horde of fashionable writers who "criticized" Marxism, and "demolished" it, mocked and scoffed at the revolution, extolled treachery, and lauded sexual depravity under the guise of the "cult of individuality."<br />
<br />
In the realm of philosophy increasing attempts were made to "criticize" and revise Marxism; there also appeared all sorts of religious trends camouflaged by pseudo-scientific theories.<br />
<br />
"Criticizing" Marxism became fashionable.<br />
<br />
All these gentlemen, despite their multifarious colouring, pursued one common aim: to divert the masses from the revolution.<br />
<br />
Decadence and scepticism also affected a section of the Party intelligentsia, those who considered themselves Marxists but had never held firmly to the Marxist position. Among them were writers like Bogdanov, Bazarov, Lunacharsky (who had sided with the Bolsheviks in 1905), Yushkevich and Valentinov (Mensheviks). They launched their "criticism" simultaneously against the philosophical foundations of Marxist theory, ''i.e''., against dialectical materialism, and against the fundamental Marxist principles of historical science, ''i.e.'', against historical materialism. This criticism differed from the usual criticism in that it was not conducted openly and squarely, but in a veiled and hypocritical form under the guise of "defending" the fundamental positions of Marxism. These people claimed that in the main they were Marxists, but that they wanted to "improve" Marxism—by ridding it of certain of its fundamental principles. In reality, they were hostile to Marxism, for they tried to undermine its theoretical foundations, although they hypocritically denied their hostility to Marxism and two-facedly continued to style themselves Marxists. The danger of this hypocritical criticism lay in the fact that it was calculated to deceive rank-and-file members of the Party and might lead them astray. The more hypocritical grew this criticism, which aimed at undermining the theoretical foundations of Marxism, the more dangerous it was to the Party, for the more it merged with the general campaign of the reactionaries against the Party, against the revolution. Some of the intellectuals who had deserted Marxism went so far as to advocate the founding of a new religion (these were known as "god-seekers" and "god-builders").<br />
<br />
It became urgent for the Marxists to give a fitting retort to these renegades from Marxist theory, to tear the mask from their faces and thoroughly expose them, and thus safeguard the theoretical foundations of the Marxist Party.<br />
<br />
One might have thought that this task would have been undertaken by Plekhanov and his Menshevik friends who regarded themselves as "eminent Marxist theoreticians." But they preferred to fire off one or two insignificant critical notes of the newspaper type and quit the field.<br />
<br />
It was Lenin who accomplished this task in his famous book ''Materialism and Empirio-Criticism,'' published in 1909.<br />
<br />
"In the course of less than half a year," Lenin wrote, "four books devoted mainly and almost entirely to attacks on dialectical materialism have made their appearance. These include first and foremost ''Studies in'' (?—it would have been more proper to say 'against') ''the Philosophy of Marxism'' (St. Petersburg, 1908), a symposium by Bazarov, Bogdanov, Lunacharsky, Berman, Helfond, Yushkevich and Suvorov; Yushkevich's ''Materialism and Critical Realism;'' Ber-man's ''Dialectics in the Light of the Modern Theory of Knowledge'' and Valentinov's ''The Philosophic Constructions of Marxism''...All these people, who, despite the sharp divergence of their political views, are united in their hostility toward dialectical materialism, at the same time claim to be Marxists in philosophy! Engels' dialectics is 'mysticism,' says Berman. Engels' views have become 'antiquated,' remarks Bazarov casually, as though it were a self-evident fact. Materialism thus appears to be refuted by our bold warriors, who proudly allude to the 'modern theory of knowledge,' 'recent philosophy' (or 'recent positivism'), the 'philosophy of modern natural science,' or even the 'philosophy of natural science of the twentieth century.'" (Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. XI, p. 89.)<br />
<br />
Replying to Lunacharsky, who, in justification of his friends—the revisionists in philosophy—said, "perhaps we have gone astray, but we are seeking," Lenin wrote:<br />
<br />
"As for myself, I too am a 'seeker' in philosophy. Namely, the task I have set myself in these comments (i.e., ''Materialism and Empirio-Criticism'' — Ed.) is to find out what was the stumbling block to these people who under the guise of Marxism are offering something incredibly muddled, confused and reactionary." (''Ibid''., p. 90.)<br />
<br />
But as a matter of fact, Lenin's book went far beyond this modest task. Actually, the book is something more than a criticism of Bogdanov, Yushkevich, Bazarov and Valentinov and their teachers in philosophy, Avenarius and Mach, who endeavoured in their writings to offer a refined and polished idealism as opposed to Marxist materialism; it is at the same time a defence of the theoretical foundations of Marxism— dialectical and historical materialism—and a materialist generalization of everything important and essential acquired by science, and especially the natural sciences, in the course of a whole historical period, the period from Engels' death to the appearance of Lenin's ''Materialism and Empirio-Criticism''.<br />
<br />
Having effectively criticized in this book the Russian empirio-criticists and their foreign teachers, Lenin comes to the following conclusions regarding philosophical and theoretical revisionism:<br />
<br />
1) "An ever subtler falsification of Marxism, an ever subtler presentation of anti-materialist doctrines under the guise of Marxism —this is the characteristic feature of modern revisionism in political economy, in questions of tactics and in philosophy generally." (''Ibid''., p. 382.)<br />
<br />
2) "The whole school of Mach and Avenarius is moving towards idealism." (''Ibid''., p. 406.)<br />
<br />
3) "Our Machians have all got stuck in idealism." (Ibid., p. 396.)<br />
<br />
4) "Behind the gnosiological scholasticism of empirio-criticism it is impossible not to see the struggle of parties in philosophy, a struggle which in the last analysis expresses the tendencies and ideology of the antagonistic classes in modern society." (''Ibid''., p. 407.)<br />
<br />
5) "The objective, class role of empirio-criticism reduces itself to nothing but that of servitor of the fideists (the reactionaries who hold faith above science—''ed''.) in their struggle against materialism in general and historical materialism in particular." (''Ibid''., p. 407.)<br />
<br />
6) "Philosophical idealism is...a road to clerical obscurantism." (''Ibid''., p. 84.)<br />
<br />
In order to appreciate the tremendous part played by Lenin's book in the history of our Party and to realize what theoretical treasure Lenin safeguarded from the motley crowd of revisionists and renegades of the period of the Stolypin reaction, we must acquaint ourselves, if only briefly, with the fundamentals of dialectical and historical materialism.<br />
<br />
This is all the more necessary because dialectical and historical materialism constitute the theoretical basis of Communism, the theoretical foundations of the Marxist party, and it is the duty of every active member of our Party to know these principles and hence to study them.<br />
<br />
What, then, is<br />
<br />
1) Dialectical materialism?<br />
<br />
2) Historical materialism?<br />
<br />
=== Dialectical and historical materialism ===<br />
Dialectical materialism is the world outlook of the Marxist-Leninist party. It is called dialectical materialism because its approach to the phenomena of nature, its method of studying and apprehending them, is ''dialectical'', while its interpretation of the phenomena of nature, its conception of these phenomena, its theory, is ''materialistic''.<br />
<br />
Historical materialism is the extension of the principles of dialectical materialism to the study of social life, an application of the principles of dialectical materialism to the phenomena of the life of society, to the study of society and its history.<br />
<br />
When describing their dialectical method, Marx and Engels usually refer to Hegel as the philosopher who formulated the main features of dialectics. This, however, does not mean that the dialectics of Marx and Engels is identical with the dialectics of Hegel. As a matter of fact, Marx and Engels took from the Hegelian dialectics only its "rational kernel," casting aside its idealistic shell, and developed it further so as to lend it a modern scientific form.<br />
<br />
"My dialectic method," says Marx, "is fundamentally not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the process of thinking, which, under the name of 'the Idea,' he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurge (creator) of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of 'the Idea.' With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought." (Karl Marx, ''Capital'', Vol, I, p. xxx, International Publishers, 1939.)<br />
<br />
When describing their materialism, Marx and Engels usually refer to Feuerbach as the philosopher who restored materialism to its rights. This, however, does not mean that the materialism of Marx and Engels is identical with Feuerbach's materialism. As a matter of fact, Marx and Engels took from Feuerbach's materialism its "inner kernel," developed it into a scientific-philosophical theory of materialism and cast aside its idealistic and religious-ethical encumbrances. We know that Feuerbach, although he was fundamentally a materialist, objected to the name materialism. Engels more than once declared that "in spite of the materialist foundation, Feuerbach remained bound by the traditional idealist fetters," and that "the real idealism of Feuerbach becomes evident as soon as we come to his philosophy of religion and ethics." (Karl Marx, ''Selected Works'', Vol. I, pp. 439, 442.)<br />
<br />
Dialectics comes from the Greek ''dialego'', to discourse, to debate. In ancient times dialectics was the art of arriving at the truth by disclosing the contradictions in the argument of an opponent and overcoming these contradictions. There were philosophers in ancient times who believed that the disclosure of contradictions in thought and the clash of opposite opinions was the best method of arriving at the truth. This dialectical method of thought, later extended to the phenomena of nature, developed into the dialectical method of apprehending nature, which regards the phenomena of nature as being in constant movement and undergoing constant change, and the development of nature as the result of the development of the contradictions in nature, as the result of the interaction of opposed forces in nature.<br />
<br />
In its essence, dialectics is the direct opposite of metaphysics.<br />
<br />
1) The principal features of the Marxist ''dialectical method'' are as follows:<br />
<br />
a) Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard nature as an accidental agglomeration of things, of phenomena, unconnected with, isolated from, and independent of, each other, but as a connected and integral whole, in which things, phenomena, are organically connected with, dependent on, and determined by, each other.<br />
<br />
The dialectical method therefore holds that no phenomenon in nature can be understood if taken by itself, isolated from surrounding phenomena, inasmuch as any phenomenon in any realm of nature may become meaningless to us if it is not considered in connection with the surrounding conditions, but divorced from them; and that, vice versa, any phenomenon can be understood and explained if considered in its inseparable connection with surrounding phenomena, as one conditioned by surrounding phenomena.<br />
<br />
b) Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that nature is not a state of rest and immobility, stagnation and immutability, but a state of continuous movement and change, of continuous renewal and development, where something is always arising and developing, and something always disintegrating and dying away.<br />
<br />
The dialectical method therefore requires that phenomena should be considered not only from the standpoint of their interconnection and interdependence, but also from the standpoint of their movement, their change, their development, their coming into being and going out of being.<br />
<br />
The dialectical method regards as important primarily not that which at the given moment seems to be durable and yet is already beginning to die away, but that which is arising and developing, even though at the given moment it may appear to be not durable, for the dialectical method considers invincible only that which is arising and developing.<br />
<br />
"All nature," says Engels, "from the smallest thing to the biggest, from a grain of sand to the sun, from the protista (the primary living cell—''Ed''.) to man, is in a constant state of coming into being and going out of being, in a constant flux, in a ceaseless state of movement and change." (F. Engels, ''Dialectics of Nature''.)<br />
<br />
Therefore, dialectics, Engels says, "takes things and their perceptual images essentially in their inter-connection, in their concatenation, in their movement, in their rise and disappearance." (''Ibid.'')<br />
<br />
c) Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard the process of development as a simple process of growth, where quantitative changes do not lead to qualitative changes, but as a development which passes from insignificant and imperceptible quantitative changes to open, fundamental changes, to qualitative changes; a development in which the qualitative changes occur not gradually, but rapidly and abruptly, taking the form of a leap from one state to another; they occur not accidentally but as the natural result of an accumulation of imperceptible and gradual quantitative changes.<br />
<br />
The dialectical method therefore holds that the process of development should be understood not as movement in a circle, not as a simple repetition of what has already occurred, but as an onward and upward movement, as a transition from an old qualitative state to a new qualitative state, as a development from the simple to the complex, from the lower to the higher:<br />
<br />
"Nature," says Engels, "is the test of dialectics, and it must be said for modern natural science that it has furnished extremely rich and daily increasing materials for this test, and has thus proved that in the last analysis nature's process is dialectical and not metaphysical, that it does not move in an eternally uniform and constantly repeated circle, but passes through a real history. Here prime mention should be made of Darwin, who dealt a severe blow to the metaphysical conception of nature by proving that the organic world of today, plants and animals, and consequently man too, is all a product of a process of development that has been in progress for millions of years." (F. Engels, ''Anti-Duhring''.)<br />
<br />
Describing dialectical development as a transition from quantitative changes to qualitative changes, Engels says:<br />
<br />
"In physics...every change is a passing of quantity into quality, as a result of quantitative change of some form of movement either inherent in a body or imparted to it. For example, the temperature of water has at first no effect on its liquid state; but as the temperature of liquid water rises or falls, a moment arrives when this state of cohesion changes and the water is converted in one case into steam and in the other into ice...A definite minimum current is required to make a platinum wire glow; every metal has its melting temperature; every liquid has a definite freezing point and boiling point at a given pressure, as far as we are able with the means at our disposal to attain the required temperatures; finally, every gas has its critical point at which, by proper pressure and cooling, it can be converted into a liquid state...What are known as the constants of physics (the point at which one state passes into another—''Ed''.) are in most cases nothing but designations for the nodal points at which a quantitative (change) increase or decrease of movement causes a qualitative change in the state of the given body, and at which, consequently, quantity is transformed into quality." (''Dialectics of Nature?'')<br />
<br />
Passing to chemistry, Engels continues:<br />
<br />
"Chemistry may be called the science of the qualitative changes which take place in bodies as the effect of changes of quantitative composition. This was already known to Hegel...Take oxygen: if the molecule contains three atoms instead of the customary two, we get ozone, a body definitely distinct in odour and reaction from ordinary oxygen. And what shall we say of the different proportions in which oxygen combines with nitrogen or sulphur, and each of which produces a body qualitatively different from all other bodies!" (''Ibid''.)<br />
<br />
Finally, criticizing Duhring, who scolded Hegel for all he was worth, but surreptitiously borrowed from him the well-known thesis that the transition from the insentient world to the sentient world, from the kingdom of inorganic matter to the kingdom of organic life, is a leap to a new state, Engels says:<br />
<br />
"This is precisely the Hegelian nodal line of measure relations, in which, at certain definite nodal points, the purely quantitative increase or decrease gives rise to a ''qualitative leap'' for example, in the case of water which is heated or cooled, where boiling-point and freezing-point are the nodes at which—under normal pressure—the leap to a new aggregate state takes place, and where consequently quantity is transformed into quality." (F. Engels, ''Anti-Duhring''.)<br />
<br />
d) Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that internal contradictions are inherent in all things and phenomena of nature, for they all have their negative and positive sides, a past and a future, something dying away and something developing; and that the struggle between these opposites, the struggle between the old and the new, between that which is dying away and that which is being born, between that which is disappearing and that which is developing, constitutes the internal content of the process of development, the internal content of the transformation of quantitative changes into qualitative changes.<br />
<br />
The dialectical method therefore holds that the process of development from the lower to the higher takes place not as a harmonious unfolding of phenomena, but as a disclosure of the contradictions inherent in things and phenomena, as a "struggle" of opposite tendencies which operate on the basis of these contradictions.<br />
<br />
"In its proper meaning," Lenin says, "dialectics is the study of the contradiction ''within the very essence of things.''" (Lenin, ''Philosophical Notebooks'', Russ. ed., p. 263.)<br />
<br />
And further:<br />
<br />
"Development is the 'struggle' of opposites." (Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. XI, pp. 81-2.)<br />
<br />
Such, in brief, are the principal features of the Marxist dialectical method.<br />
<br />
It is easy to understand how immensely important is the extension of the principles of the dialectical method to the study of social life and the history of society, and how immensely important is the application of these principles to the history of society and to the practical activities of the party of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
If there are no isolated phenomena in the world, if all phenomena are interconnected and interdependent, then it is clear that every social system and every social movement in history must be evaluated not from the standpoint of "eternal justice" or some other preconceived idea, as is not infrequently done by historians, but from the standpoint of the conditions which gave rise to that system or that social movement and with which they are connected.<br />
<br />
The slave system would be senseless, stupid and unnatural under modern conditions. But under the conditions of a disintegrating primitive communal system, the slave system is a quite understandable and natural phenomenon, since it represents an advance on the primitive communal system.<br />
<br />
The demand for a bourgeois-democratic republic when tsardom and bourgeois society existed, as, let us say, in Russia in 1905, was a quite understandable, proper and revolutionary demand, for at that time a bourgeois republic would have meant a step forward. But now, under the conditions of the U.S.S.R., the demand for a bourgeois-democratic republic would be a meaningless and counter-revolutionary demand, for a bourgeois republic would be a retrograde step compared with the Soviet republic.<br />
<br />
Everything depends on the conditions, time and place.<br />
<br />
It is clear that without such a ''historical'' approach to social phenomena, the existence and development of the science of history is impossible, for only such an approach saves the science of history from becoming a jumble of accidents and an agglomeration of most absurd mistakes.<br />
<br />
Further, if the world is in a state of constant movement and development, if the dying away of the old and the upgrowth of the new is a law of development, then it is clear that there can be no "immutable" social systems, no "eternal principles" of private property and exploitation, no "eternal ideas" of the subjugation of the peasant to the landlord, of the worker to the capitalist.<br />
<br />
Hence the capitalist system can be replaced by the Socialist system, just as at one time the feudal system was replaced by the capitalist system.<br />
<br />
Hence we must not base our orientation on the strata of society which are no longer developing, even though they at present constitute the predominant force, but on those strata which are developing and have a future before them, even though they at present do not constitute the predominant force.<br />
<br />
In the eighties of the past century, in the period of the struggle between the Marxists and the Narodniks, the proletariat in Russia constituted an insignificant minority of the population, whereas the individual peasants constituted the vast majority of the population. But the proletariat was developing as a class, whereas the peasantry as a class was disintegrating. And just because the proletariat was developing as a class the Marxists based their orientation on the proletariat. And they were not mistaken, for, as we know, the proletariat subsequently grew from an insignificant force into a first-rate historical and political force.<br />
<br />
Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must look forward, not backward.<br />
<br />
Further, if the passing of slow quantitative changes into rapid and abrupt qualitative changes is a law of development, then it is clear that revolutions made by oppressed classes are a quite natural and inevitable phenomenon.<br />
<br />
Hence the transition from capitalism to Socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke of capitalism cannot be effected by slow changes, by reforms, but only by a qualitative change of the capitalist system, by revolution.<br />
<br />
Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must be a revolutionary, not a reformist.<br />
<br />
Further, if development proceeds by way of the disclosure of internal contradictions, by way of collisions between opposite forces on the basis of these contradictions and so as to overcome these contradictions, then it is clear that the class struggle of the proletariat is a quite natural and inevitable phenomenon.<br />
<br />
Hence we must not cover up the contradictions of the capitalist system, but disclose and unravel them; we must not try to check the class struggle but carry it to its conclusion.<br />
<br />
Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must pursue an uncompromising proletarian class policy, not a reformist policy of harmony of the interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, not a compromisers' policy of "the growing of capitalism into Socialism."<br />
<br />
Such is the Marxist dialectical method when applied to social life, to the history of society.<br />
<br />
As to Marxist philosophical materialism, it is fundamentally the direct opposite of philosophical idealism.<br />
<br />
2) The principal features of Marxist philosophical ''materialism'' are as follows:<br />
<br />
a) Contrary to idealism, which regards the world as the embodiment of an "absolute idea," a "universal spirit," "consciousness," Marx's philosophical materialism holds that the world is by its very nature ''material'', that the multifold phenomena of the world constitute different forms of matter in motion, that interconnection and interdependence of phenomena, as established by the dialectical method, are a law of the development of moving matter, and that the world develops in accordance with the laws of movement of matter and stands in no need of a "universal spirit."<br />
<br />
"The materialist world outlook," says Engels, "is simply the conception of nature as it is, without any reservations." (MS of ''Ludwig Feuerbach''.)<br />
<br />
Speaking of the materialist views of the ancient philosopher Heraclitus, who held that "the world, the all in one, was not created by any god or any man, but was, is and ever will be a living flame, systematically flaring up and systematically dying down," Lenin comments: "A very good exposition of the rudiments of dialectical materialism." (Lenin, ''Philosophical Notebooks'', Russ. ed., p. 318.)<br />
<br />
b) Contrary to idealism, which asserts that only our mind really exists, and that the material world, being, nature, exists only in our mind, in our sensations, ideas and perceptions, the Marxist materialist philosophy holds that matter, nature, being, is an objective reality existing outside and independent of our mind; that matter is primary, since it is the source of sensations, ideas, mind, and that mind is secondary, derivative, since it is a reflection of matter, a reflection of being; that thought is a product of matter which in its development has reached a high degree of perfection, namely, of the brain, and the brain is the organ of thought; and that therefore one cannot separate thought from matter without committing a grave error. Engels says:<br />
<br />
"The question of the relation of thinking to being, the relation of spirit to nature is the paramount question of the whole of philosophy...The answers which the philosophers gave to this question split them into two great camps. Those who asserted the primacy of spirit to nature...comprised the camp of ''idealism''. The others, who regarded nature as primary, belong to the various schools of materialism." (Karl Marx, ''Selected Works'', Vol. I, pp. 430-31.)<br />
<br />
And further:<br />
<br />
"The material, sensuously perceptible world to which we ourselves belong is the only reality...Our consciousness and thinking, however supra-sensuous they may seem, are the product of a material, bodily organ, the brain. Matter is not a product of mind, but mind itself is merely the highest product of matter." (''Ibid''., p. 435.) Concerning the question of matter and thought, Marx says:<br />
<br />
"It is impossible to separate thought from matter that thinks. ''Matter is the subject of all changes''." (''Ibid.'', p. 397.)<br />
<br />
Describing the Marxist philosophy of materialism, Lenin says:<br />
<br />
"Materialism in general recognizes objectively real being (matter) as independent of consciousness, sensation, experience...Consciousness is only the reflection of being, at best, an approximately true (adequate, ideally exact) reflection of it." (Lenin, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. XI, p. 378.) And further:<br />
<br />
(a) "Matter is that which, acting upon our sense-organs, produces sensation; matter is the objective reality given to us in sensation...Matter, nature, being, the physical—is primary, and spirit, consciousness, sensation, the psychical—is secondary." (''Ibid.''., pp. 208, 209.)<br />
<br />
(b) "The world picture is a picture of how matter moves and of how ''<nowiki/>'matter thinks.''<nowiki/>'" (''Ibid.''., p. 403.)<br />
<br />
(c) "The brain is the organ of thought." (''Ibid.''., p. i25.)<br />
<br />
c) Contrary to idealism, which denies the possibility of knowing the world and its laws, which does not believe in the authenticity of our knowledge, does not recognize objective truth, and holds that the world is full of "things-in-themselves" that can never be known to science, Marxist philosophical materialism holds that the world and its laws are fully knowable, that our knowledge of the laws of nature, tested by experiment and practice, is authentic knowledge having the validity of objective truth, and that there are no things in the world which are unknowable, but only things which are still not known, but which will be disclosed and made known by the efforts of science and practice.<br />
<br />
Criticizing the thesis of Kant and other idealists that the world is unknowable and that there are "things-in-themselves" which are unknowable, and defending the well-known materialist thesis that our knowledge is authentic knowledge, Engels writes:<br />
<br />
"The most telling refutation of this as of all other philosophical fancies is practice, viz., experiment and industry. If we are able to prove the correctness of our conception of a natural process by making it ourselves, bringing it into being out of its conditions and using it for our own purposes into the bargain, then there is an end of the Kantian 'thing-in-itself.' The chemical substances produced in the bodies of plants and animals remained such 'things-in-themselves' until organic chemistry began to produce them one after another, whereupon the 'thing-in-itself' became a thing for us, as for instance, alizarin, the colouring matter of the madder, which we no longer trouble to grow in the madder roots in the field, but produce much more cheaply and simply from coal tar. For three hundred years the Copernican solar system was a hypothesis, with a hundred, a thousand or ten thousand chances to one in its favour, but still always a hypothesis. But when Leverrier, by means of the data provided by this system, not only deduced the necessity of the existence of an unknown planet, but also calculated the position in the heavens which this planet must necessarily occupy, and when Galle really found this planet, the Copernican system was proved." (Karl Marx, ''Selected Works'', Vol. I, pp. 432-33.)<br />
<br />
Accusing Bogdanov, Bazarov, Yushkevich and the other followers of Mach of fideism, and defending the well-known materialist thesis that our scientific knowledge of the laws of nature is authentic knowledge, and that the laws of science represent objective truth, Lenin says:<br />
<br />
"Contemporary fideism does not at all reject science; all it rejects is the 'exaggerated claims' of science, to wit, its claim to objective truth. If objective truth exists (as the materialists think), if natural science, reflecting the outer world in human 'experience,' is alone capable of giving us objective truth, then all fideism is absolutely refuted." (Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. XI, p. 189.)<br />
<br />
Such, in brief, are the characteristic features of the Marxist philosophical materialism.<br />
<br />
It is easy to understand how immensely important is the extension of the principles of philosophical materialism to the study of social life, of the history of society, and how immensely important is the application of these principles to the history of society and to the practical activities of the party of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
If the connection between the phenomena of nature and their interdependence are laws of the development of nature, it follows, too, that the connection and interdependence of the phenomena of social life are laws of the development of society, and not something accidental.<br />
<br />
Hence social life, the history of society, ceases to be an agglomeration of "accidents," and becomes the history of the development of society according to regular laws, and the study of the history of society becomes a science.<br />
<br />
Hence the practical activity of the party of the proletariat must not be based on the good wishes of "outstanding individuals," not on the dictates of "reason," "universal morals," etc., but on the laws of development of society and on the study of these laws.<br />
<br />
Further, if the world is knowable and our knowledge of the laws of development of nature is authentic knowledge, having the validity of objective truth, it follows that social life, the development of society, is also knowable, and that the data of science regarding the laws of development of society are authentic data having the validity of objective truths.<br />
<br />
Hence the science of the history of society, despite all the complexity of the phenomena of social life, can become as precise a science as, let us say, biology, and capable of making use of the laws of development of society for practical purposes.<br />
<br />
Hence the party of the proletariat should not guide itself in its practical activity by casual motives, but by the laws of development of society, and by practical deductions from these laws.<br />
<br />
Hence Socialism is converted from a dream of a better future for humanity into a science.<br />
<br />
Hence the bond between science and practical activity, between theory and practice, their unity, should be the guiding star of the party of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
Further, if nature, being, the material world, is primary, and mind, thought, is secondary, derivative; if the material world represents objective reality existing independently of the mind of men, while the mind is a reflection of this objective reality, it follows that the material life of society, its being, is also primary, and its spiritual life secondary, derivative, and that the material life of society is an objective reality existing independently of the will of men, while the spiritual life of society is a reflection of this objective reality, a reflection of being.<br />
<br />
Hence the source of formation of the spiritual life of society, the origin of social ideas, social theories, political views and political institutions, should not be sought for in the ideas, theories, views and political institutions themselves, but in the conditions of the material life of society, in social being, of which these ideas, theories, views, etc., are the reflection.<br />
<br />
Hence, if in different periods of the history of society different social ideas, theories, views and political institutions are to be observed; if under the slave system we encounter certain social ideas, theories, views and political institutions, under feudalism others, and under capitalism others still, this is not to be explained by the "nature," the "properties" of the ideas, theories, views and political institutions themselves but by the different conditions of the material life of society at different periods of social development.<br />
<br />
Whatever is the being of a society, whatever are the conditions of material life of a society, such are the ideas, theories, political views and political institutions of that society.<br />
<br />
In this connection, Marx says: "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." (Karl Marx, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. I, p. 356.)<br />
<br />
Hence, in order not to err in policy, in order not to find itself in the position of idle dreamers, the party of the proletariat must not base its activities on abstract "principles of human reason," but on the concrete conditions of the material life of society, as the determining force of social development; not on the good wishes of "great men," but on the real needs of development of the material life of society.<br />
<br />
The fall of the utopians, including the Narodniks, Anarchists and Socialist-Revolutionaries, was due, among other things, to the fact that they did not recognize the primary role which the conditions of the material life of society play in the development of society, and, sinking to idealism, did not base their practical activities on the needs of the development of the material life of society, but, independently of and in spite of these needs, on "ideal plans" and "all-embracing projects" divorced from the real life of society.<br />
<br />
The strength and vitality of Marxism-Leninism lie in the fact that it does base its practical activity on the needs of the development of the material life of society and never divorces itself from the real life of society.<br />
<br />
It does not follow from Marx's words, however, that social ideas, theories, political views and political institutions are of no significance in the life of society, that they do not reciprocally affect social being, the development of the material conditions of the life of society. We have been speaking so far of the ''origin'' of social ideas, theories, views and political institutions, of ''the way they arise'', of the fact that the spiritual life of society is a reflection of the conditions of its material life. As regards the ''significance'' of social ideas, theories, views and political institutions, as regards their ''role'' in history, historical materialism, far from denying them, stresses the role and importance of these factors in the life of society, in its history.<br />
<br />
There are different kinds of social ideas and theories. There are old ideas and theories which have outlived their day and which serve the interests of the moribund forces of society. Their significance lies in the fact that they hamper the development, the progress of society. Then there are new and advanced ideas and theories which serve the interests of the advanced forces of society. Their significance lies in the fact that they facilitate the development, the progress of society; and their significance is the greater the more accurately they reflect the needs of development of the material life of society.<br />
<br />
New social ideas and theories arise only after the development of the material life of society has set new tasks before society. But once they have arisen they become a most potent force which facilitates the carrying out of the new tasks set by the development of the material life of society, a force which facilitates the progress of society. It is precisely here that the tremendous organizing, mobilizing and transforming value of new ideas, new theories, new political views and new political institutions manifests itself. New social ideas and theories arise precisely because they are necessary to society, because it is ''impossible'' to carry out the urgent tasks of development of the material life of society without their organizing, mobilizing and transforming action. Arising out of the new tasks set by the development of the material life of society, the new social ideas and theories force their way through, become the possession of the masses, mobilize and organize them against the moribund forces of society, and thus facilitate the overthrow of these forces which hamper the development of the material life of society.<br />
<br />
Thus social ideas, theories and political institutions, having arisen on the basis of the urgent tasks of the development of the material life of society, the development of social being, themselves then react upon social being, upon the material life of society, creating the conditions necessary for completely carrying out the urgent tasks of the material life of society, and for rendering its further development possible.<br />
<br />
In this connection, Marx says:<br />
<br />
"Theory becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses." (''Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie''.)<br />
<br />
Hence, in order to be able to influence the conditions of material life of society and to accelerate their development and their improvement, the party of the proletariat must rely upon such a social theory, such a social idea as correctly reflects the needs of development of the material life of society, and which is therefore capable of setting into motion broad masses of the people and of mobilizing them and organizing them into a great army of the proletarian party, prepared to smash the reactionary forces and to clear the way for the advanced forces of society.<br />
<br />
The fall of the "Economists" and Mensheviks was due among other things to the fact that they did not recognize the mobilizing, organizing and transforming role of advanced theory, of advanced ideas and, sinking to vulgar materialism, reduced the role of these factors almost to nothing, thus condemning the Party to passivity and inanition.<br />
<br />
The strength and vitality of Marxism-Leninism are derived from the fact that it relies upon an advanced theory which correctly reflects the needs of development of the material life of society, that it elevates theory to a proper level, and that it deems it its duty to utilize every ounce of the mobilizing, organizing and transforming power of this theory.<br />
<br />
That is the answer historical materialism gives to the question of the relation between social being and social consciousness, between the conditions of development of material life and the development of the spiritual life of society.<br />
<br />
It now remains to elucidate the following question: what, from the viewpoint of historical materialism, is meant by the "conditions of material life of society" which in the final analysis determine the physiognomy of society, its ideas, views, political institutions, etc.?<br />
<br />
What, after all, are these "conditions of material life of society," what are their distinguishing features?<br />
<br />
There can be no doubt that the concept "conditions of material life of society" includes, first of all, nature which surrounds society, geographical environment, which is one of the indispensable and constant conditions of material life of society and which, of course, influences the development of society. What role does geographical environment play in the development of society? Is geographical environment the chief force determining the physiognomy of society, the character of the social system of men, the transition from one system to another?<br />
<br />
Historical materialism answers this question in the negative.<br />
<br />
Geographical environment is unquestionably one of the constant and indispensable conditions of development of society and, of course, influences the development of society, accelerates or retards its development. But its influence is not the ''determining'' influence, inasmuch as the changes and development of society proceed at an incomparably faster rate than the changes and development of geographical environment. In the space of three thousand years three different social systems have been successively superseded in Europe: the primitive communal system, the slave system and the feudal system. In the eastern part of Europe, in the U.S.S.R., even four social systems have been superseded. Yet during this period geographical conditions in Europe have either not changed at all, or have changed so slightly that geography takes no note of them. And that is quite natural. Changes in geographical environment of any importance require millions of years, whereas a few hundred or a couple of thousand years are enough for even very important changes in the system of human society.<br />
<br />
It follows from this that geographical environment cannot be the chief cause, the ''determining'' cause of social development, for that which remains almost unchanged in the course of tens of thousands of years cannot be the chief cause of development of that which undergoes fundamental changes in the course of a few hundred years.<br />
<br />
Further, there can be no doubt that the concept "conditions of material life of society" also includes growth of population, density of population of one degree or another, for people are an essential element of the conditions of material life of society, and without a definite minimum number of people there can be no material life of society. Is not growth of population the chief force that determines the character of the social system of man?<br />
<br />
Historical materialism answers this question too in the negative.<br />
<br />
Of course, growth of population does influence the development of society, does facilitate or retard the development of society, but it cannot be the chief force of development of society, and its influence on the development of society cannot be the ''determining'' influence because, by itself, growth of population does not furnish the clue to the question why a given social system is replaced precisely by such and such a new system and not by another, why the primitive communal system is succeeded precisely by the slave system, the slave system by the feudal system, and the feudal system by the bourgeois system, and not by some other.<br />
<br />
If growth of population were the determining force of social development, then a higher density of population would be bound to give rise to a correspondingly higher type of social system. But we do not find this to be the case. The density of population in China is four times as great as in the U.S.A., yet the U.S.A. stands higher than China in the scale of social development, for in China a semi-feudal system still prevails, whereas the U.S.A. has long ago reached the highest stage of development of capitalism. The density of population in Belgium is nineteen times as great as in the U.S.A., and twenty-six times as great as in the U.S.S.R. Yet the U.S.A. stands higher than Belgium in the scale of social development; and as for the U.S.S.R., Belgium lags a whole historical epoch behind this country, for in Belgium the capitalist system prevails, whereas the U.S.S.R. has already done away with capitalism and has set up a Socialist system.<br />
<br />
It follows from this that growth of population is not, and cannot be, the chief force of development of society, the force which ''determines'' the character of the social system, the physiognomy of society.<br />
<br />
What, then, is the chief force in the complex of conditions of material life of society which determines the physiognomy of society, the character of the social system, the development of society from one system to another?<br />
<br />
This force, historical materialism holds, is the ''method of procuring the means of life'' necessary for human existence, the ''mode of production of material values''—food, clothing, footwear, houses, fuel, instruments of production, etc.—which are indispensable for the life of development of society.<br />
<br />
In order to live, people must have food, clothing, footwear, shelter, fuel, etc.; in order to have these material values, people must produce them; and in order to produce them, people must have the instruments of production with which food, clothing, footwear, shelter, fuel, etc., are produced; they must be able to produce these instruments and to use them.<br />
<br />
The ''instruments of production'' wherewith material values are produced, the ''people'' who operate the instruments of production and carry on the production of material values thanks to a certain ''production experience'' and ''labour skill''—all these elements jointly constitute the ''productive forces'' of society.<br />
<br />
But the productive forces are only one aspect of production, only one aspect of the mode of production, an aspect that expresses the relation of men to the objects and forces of nature which they make use of for the production of material values. Another aspect of production, another aspect of the mode of production, is the relation of men to each other in the process of production, men's ''relations of production''. Men carry on a struggle against nature and utilize nature for the production of material values not in isolation from each other, not as separate individuals, but in common, in groups, in societies. Production, therefore, is at all times and under all conditions social production. In the production of material values men enter into mutual relations of one kind or another within production, into relations of production of one kind or another. These may be relations of co-operation and mutual help between people who are free from exploitation; they may be relations of domination and subordination; and, lastly, they may be transitional from one form of relations of production to another. But whatever the character of the relations of production may be, always and in every system, they constitute just as essential an element of production as the productive forces of society.<br />
<br />
"In production," Marx says, "men not only act on nature but also on one another. They produce only by co-operating in a certain way and mutually exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations with one another and only within these social connections and relations does their action on nature, does production, take place." (Karl Marx, ''Selected Works'', Vol." I,~ p.~ 264.)<br />
<br />
Consequently, production, the mode of production, embraces both the productive forces of society and men's relations of production, and is thus the embodiment of their unity in the process of production of material values.<br />
<br />
One of the features ''of'' production is that it never stays at one point for a long time and is always in a state of change and development, and that, furthermore, changes in the mode of production inevitably call forth changes in the whole social system, social ideas, political views and political institutions—they call forth a reconstruction of the whole social and political order. At different stages of development people make use of different modes of production, or, to put it more crudely, lead different manners of life. In the primitive commune there is one mode of production, under slavery there is another mode of production, under feudalism a third mode of production, and so on. And, correspondingly, men's social system, the spiritual life of men, their views and political institutions also vary.<br />
<br />
Whatever is the mode of production of a society, such in the main is the society itself, its ideas and theories, its political views and institutions.<br />
<br />
Or, to put it more crudely, whatever is man's manner of life, such is his manner of thought.<br />
<br />
This means that the history of development of society is above all the history of the development of production, the history of the modes of production which succeed each other in the course of centuries, the history of the development of productive forces and people's relations of production.<br />
<br />
Hence the history of social development is at the same time the history of the producers of material values themselves, the history of the labouring masses who are the chief force in the process of production and who carry on the production of material values necessary for the existence of society.<br />
<br />
Hence, if historical science is to be a real science, it can no longer reduce the history of social development to the actions of kings and generals, to the actions of "conquerors" and "subjugators" of states, but must above all devote itself to the history of the producers of material values, the history of the labouring masses, the history of peoples.<br />
<br />
Hence the clue to the study of the laws of history of society must not be sought in men's minds, in the views and ideas of society, but in the mode of production practised by society in any given historical period; it must be sought in the economic life of society.<br />
<br />
Hence the prime task of historical science is to study and disclose the laws of production, the laws of development of the productive forces and of the relations of production, the laws of economic development of society.<br />
<br />
Hence, if the party of the proletariat is to be a real party, it must above all acquire a knowledge of the laws of development of production, of the laws of economic development of society.<br />
<br />
Hence, if it is not to err in policy, the party of the proletariat must both in drafting its program and in its practical activities proceed primarily from the laws of development of production, from the laws of economic development of society.<br />
<br />
''A second feature'' of production is that its changes and development always begin with changes and development of the productive forces, and, in the first place, with changes and development of the instruments of production. Productive forces are therefore the most mobile and revolutionary element of production. First the productive forces of society change and develop, and then, ''depending'' on these changes and ''in conformity with them'', men's relations of production, their economic relations, change. This, however, does not mean that the relations of production do not influence the development of the productive forces and that the latter are not dependent on the former. While their development is dependent on the development of the productive forces, the relations of production in their turn react upon the development of the productive forces, accelerating or retarding it. In this connection it should be noted that the relations of production cannot for too long a time lag behind and be in a state of contradiction to the growth of the productive forces, inasmuch as the productive forces can develop in full measure only when the relations of production correspond to the character, the state of the productive forces and allow full scope for their development. Therefore, however much the relations of production may lag behind the development of the productive forces, they must, sooner or later, come into correspondence with—and actually do come into correspondence with—the level of development of the productive forces, the character of the productive forces. Otherwise we would have a fundamental violation of the unity of the productive forces and the relations of production within the system of production, a disruption of production as a whole, a crisis of production, a destruction of productive forces.<br />
<br />
An instance in which the relations of production do not correspond to the character of the productive forces, conflict with them, is the economic crises in capitalist countries, where private capitalist ownership of the means of production is in glaring incongruity with the social character of the process of production, with the character of the productive forces. This results in economic crises, which lead to the destruction of productive forces. Furthermore, this incongruity itself constitutes the economic basis of social revolution, the purpose of which is to destroy the existing relations of production and to create new relations of production corresponding to the character of the productive forces.<br />
<br />
In contrast, an instance in which the relations of production completely correspond to the character of the productive forces is the Socialist national economy of the U.S.S.R., where the social ownership of the means of production fully corresponds to the social character of the process of production, and where, because of this, economic crises and the destruction of productive forces are unknown.<br />
<br />
Consequently, the productive forces are not only the most mobile and revolutionary element in production, but are also the determining element in the development of production.<br />
<br />
Whatever are the productive forces such must be the relations of production<br />
<br />
While the state of the productive forces furnishes an answer to the question—with what instruments of production do men produce the material values they need?—the state of the relations of production furnishes the answer to another question—who owns the ''means of production'' (the land, forests, waters, mineral resources, raw materials, instruments of production, production premises, means of transportation and communication, etc.), who commands the means of production, whether the whole of society, or individual persons, groups, or classes which utilize them for the exploitation of other persons, groups or classes?<br />
<br />
Here is a rough picture of the development of productive forces from ancient times to our day. The transition from crude stone tools to the bow and arrow, and the accompanying transition from the life of hunters to the domestication of animals and primitive pasturage; the transition from stone tools to metal tools (the iron axe, the wooden plough fitted with an iron colter, etc.), with a corresponding transition to tillage and agriculture; a further improvement in metal tools for the working up of materials, the introduction of the blacksmith's bellows, the introduction of pottery, with a corresponding development of handicrafts, the separation of handicrafts from agriculture, the development of an independent handicraft industry and, subsequently, of manufacture; the transition from handicraft tools to machines and the transformation of handicraft and manufacture into machine industry; the transition to the machine system and the rise of modern large-scale machine industry—such is a general and far from complete picture of the development of the productive forces of society in the course of man's history. It will be clear that the development and improvement of the instruments of production were effected by men who were related to production, and not independently of men; and, consequently, the change and development of the instruments of production were accompanied by a change and development of men, as the most important element of the productive forces, by a change and development of their production experience, their labour skill, their ability to handle the instruments of production.<br />
<br />
In conformity with the change and development of the productive forces of society in the course of history, men's relations of production, their economic relations also changed and developed.<br />
<br />
Five ''main'' types of relations of production are known to history: primitive communal, slave, feudal, capitalist and Socialist.<br />
<br />
The basis of the relations of production under the primitive communal system is that the means of production are socially owned. This in the main corresponds to the character of the productive forces of that period. Stone tools, and, later, the bow and arrow, precluded the possibility of men individually combating the forces of nature and beasts of prey. In order to gather the fruits of the forest, to catch fish, to build some sort of habitation, men were obliged to work in common if they did not want to die of starvation, or fall victim to beasts of prey or to neighbouring societies. Labour in common led to the common ownership of the means of production, as well as of the fruits of production. Here the conception of private ownership of the means of production did not yet exist, except for the personal ownership of certain implements of production which were at the same time means of defence against beasts of prey. Here there was no exploitation, no classes.<br />
<br />
The basis of the relations of production under the slave system is that the slave owner owns the means of production; he also owns the worker in production—the slave, whom he can sell, purchase, or kill as though he were an animal. Such relations of production in the main correspond to the state of the productive forces of that period. Instead of stone tools, men now have metal tools at their command; instead of the wretched and primitive husbandry of the hunter, who knew neither pasturage, nor tillage, there now appear pasturage, tillage, handicrafts, and a division of labour between these branches of production. There appears the possibility of the exchange of products between individuals and between societies, of the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, the actual accumulation of the means of production in the hands of a minority, and the possibility of subjugation of the majority by a minority and their conversion into slaves. Here we no longer find the common and free labour of all members of society in the production process—here there prevails the forced labour of slaves, who are exploited by the non-labouring slave owners. Here, therefore, there is no common ownership of the means of production or of the fruits of production. It is replaced by private ownership. Here the slave owner appears as the prime and principal property owner in the full sense of the term.<br />
<br />
Rich and poor, exploiters and exploited, people with full rights and people with no rights, and a fierce class struggle between them—such is the picture of the slave system.<br />
<br />
The basis of the relations of production under the feudal system is that the feudal lord owns the means of production and does not fully own the worker in production—the serf, whom the feudal lord can no longer kill, but whom he can buy and sell. Alongside of feudal ownership there exists individual ownership by the peasant and the handicraftsman of his implements of production and his private enterprise based on his personal labour. Such relations of production in the main correspond to the state of the productive forces of that period. Further improvements in the smelting and working of iron; the spread of the iron plough and the loom; the further development of agriculture, horticulture, viniculture and dairying; the appearance of manufactories alongside of the handicraft workshops—such are the characteristic features of the state of the productive forces.<br />
<br />
The new productive forces demand that the labourer shall display some kind of initiative in production and an inclination for work, an interest in work. The feudal lord therefore discards the slave, as a labourer who has no interest in work and is entirely without initiative, and prefers to deal with the serf, who has his own husbandry, implements of production, and a certain interest in work essential for the cultivation of the land and for the payment in kind of a part of his harvest to the feudal lord.<br />
<br />
Here private ownership is further developed. Exploitation is nearly as severe as it was under slavery—it is only slightly mitigated. A class struggle between exploiters and exploited is the principal feature of the feudal system.<br />
<br />
The basis of the relations of production under the capitalist system is that the capitalist owns the means of production, but not the workers in production—the wage labourers, whom the capitalist can neither kill nor sell because they are personally free, but who are deprived of means of production and, in order not to die of hunger, are obliged to sell their labour power to the capitalist and to bear the yoke of exploitation. Alongside of capitalist property in the means of production, we find, at first on a wide scale, private property of the peasants and handicraftsmen in the means of production, these peasants and handicraftsmen no longer being serfs, and their private property being based on personal labour. In place of the handicraft workshops and manufactories there appear huge mills and factories equipped with machinery. In place of the manorial estates tilled by the primitive implements of production of the peasant, there now appear large capitalist farms run on scientific lines and supplied with agricultural machinery.<br />
<br />
The new productive forces require that the workers in production shall be better educated and more intelligent than the downtrodden and ignorant serfs, that they be able to understand machinery and operate it properly. Therefore, the capitalists prefer to deal with wage workers who are free from the bonds of serfdom and who are educated enough to be able properly to operate machinery.<br />
<br />
But having developed productive forces to a tremendous extent, capitalism has become enmeshed in contradictions which it is unable to solve. By producing larger and larger quantities of commodities, and reducing their prices, capitalism intensifies competition, ruins the mass of small and medium private owners, converts them into proletarians and reduces their purchasing power, with the result that it becomes impossible to dispose of the commodities produced. On the other hand, by expanding production and concentrating millions of workers in huge mills and factories, capitalism lends the process of production a social character and thus undermines its own foundation, inasmuch as the social character of the process of production demands the social ownership of the means of production; yet the means of production remain private capitalist property, which is incompatible with the social character of the process of production.<br />
<br />
These irreconcilable contradictions between the character of the productive forces and the relations of production make themselves felt in periodical crises of overproduction, when the capitalists, finding no effective demand for their goods owing to the ruin of the mass of the population which they themselves have brought about, are compelled to burn products, destroy manufactured goods, suspend production, and destroy productive forces at a time when millions of people are forced to suffer unemployment and starvation, not because there are not enough goods, but because there is an overproduction of goods.<br />
<br />
This means that the capitalist relations of production have ceased to correspond to the state of productive forces of society and have come into irreconcilable contradiction with them.<br />
<br />
This means that capitalism is pregnant with revolution, whose mission it is to replace the existing capitalist ownership of the means of production by Socialist ownership.<br />
<br />
This means that the main feature of the capitalist system is a most acute class struggle between the exploiters and the exploited.<br />
<br />
The basis of the relations of production under the Socialist system, which so far has been established only in the U.S.S.R., is the social ownership of the means of production. Here there are no longer exploiters and exploited. The goods produced are distributed according to labour performed, on the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." Here the mutual relations of people in the process of production are marked by comradely co-operation and the Socialist mutual assistance of workers who are free from exploitation. Here the relations of production fully correspond to the state of productive forces, for the social character of the process of production is reinforced by the social ownership of the means of production.<br />
<br />
For this reason Socialist production in the U.S.S.R. knows no periodical crises of overproduction and their accompanying absurdities.<br />
<br />
For this reason, the productive forces here develop at an accelerated pace, for the relations of production that correspond to them offer full scope for such development.<br />
<br />
Such is the picture of the development of men's relations of production in the course of human history.<br />
<br />
Such is the dependence of the development of the relations of production on the development of the production forces of society, and primarily, on the development of the instruments of production, the dependence by virtue of which the changes and development of the productive forces sooner or later lead to corresponding changes and development of the relations of production.<br />
<br />
"The use and fabrication of instruments of labour," <sup>1</sup> says Marx, "although existing in the germ among certain species of animals, is specifically characteristic of the human labour-process, and Franklin therefore defines man as a tool-making animal. Relics of bygone instruments of labour possess the same importance for the investigation of extinct economic forms of society, as do fossil bones for the determination of extinct species of animals. It is not the articles made, but how they are made, and by what instruments that enables us to distinguish different economic epochs...Instruments of labour not only supply a standard of the degree of development to which human labour has attained but they are also indicators of the social conditions under which that labour is carried on." (Karl Marx, ''Capital'', Vol. I, p, 159.)<br />
<br />
And further:<br />
<br />
a) "Social relations are closely bound up with productive forces. In acquiring new productive forces men change their mode of production; and in changing their mode of production, in changing the way of earning their living, they change all their social conditions. The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist." (Karl Marx, ''The Poverty of Philosophy'', p. 92.)<br />
<br />
b) "There is a continual movement of growth in productive forces, of destruction in social relations, of formation in ideas; the only immutable thing is the abstraction of movement." (''Ibid''., p. 93.)<br />
<br />
Speaking of historical materialism as formulated in ''The Communist Manifesto,'' Engels says :<br />
<br />
"Economic production and the structure of society of every historical epoch necessarily arising therefrom constitute the foundation for the political and intellectual history of that epoch;...consequently ever since the dissolution of the primeval communal ownership of land all history has been a history of class struggles, of struggles between exploited and exploiting, between dominated and dominating classes at various stages of social evolution;...this struggle, however, has now reached a stage where the exploited and oppressed class (the proletariat) can no longer emancipate itself from the class which exploits and oppresses it (the bourgeoisie), without at the same time forever freeing the whole of society from exploitation, oppression and class struggles." (Preface to the German edition of ''The Communist Manifesto''—Karl Marx, ''Selected Works'', Vol. I, pp. 192-93.)<br />
<br />
A third feature of production is that the rise of new productive forces and of the relations of production corresponding to them does not take place separately from the old system, after the disappearance of the old system, but within the old system; it takes place not as a result of the deliberate and conscious activity of man, but spontaneously, unconsciously, independently of the will of man. It takes place spontaneously and independently of the will of man for two reasons.<br />
<br />
First, because men are not free to choose one mode of production or another, because as every new generation enters life it finds productive forces and relations of production already existing as the result of the work of former generations, owing to which it is obliged at first to accept and adapt itself to everything it finds ready made in the sphere of production in order to be able to produce material values.<br />
<br />
Secondly, because, when improving one instrument of production or another, one element of the productive forces or another, men do not realize, do not understand or stop to reflect what ''social'' results these improvements will lead to, but only think of their everyday interests, of lightening their labour and of securing some direct and tangible advantage for themselves.<br />
<br />
When, gradually and gropingly, certain members of primitive communal society passed from the use of stone tools to the use of iron tools, they, of course, did not know and did not stop to reflect what ''social'' results this innovation would lead to; they did not understand or realize that the change to metal tools meant a revolution in production, that it would in the long run lead to the slave system. They simply wanted to lighten their labour and secure an immediate and tangible advantage; their conscious activity was confined within the narrow bounds of this everyday personal interest.<br />
<br />
When, in the period of the feudal system, the young bourgeoisie of Europe began to erect, alongside of the small guild workshops, large manufactories, and thus advanced the productive forces of society, it, of course, did not know and did not stop to reflect what ''social'' consequences this innovation would lead to; it did not realize or understand that this "small" innovation would lead to a regrouping of social forces which was to end in a revolution both against the power of kings, whose favours it so highly valued, and against the nobility, to whose ranks its foremost representatives not infrequently aspired. It simply wanted to lower the cost of producing goods, to throw large quantities of goods on the markets of Asia and of recently discovered America, and to make bigger profits. Its conscious activity was confined within the narrow bounds of this commonplace practical aim.<br />
<br />
When the Russian capitalists, in conjunction with foreign capitalists, energetically implanted modern large-scale machine industry in Russia, while leaving tsardom intact and turning the peasants over to the tender mercies of the landlords, they, of course, did not know and did not stop to reflect what social consequences this extensive growth of productive forces would lead to, they did not realize or understand that this big leap in the realm of the productive forces of society would lead to a regrouping of social forces that would enable the proletariat to effect a union with the peasantry and to bring about a victorious Socialist revolution. They simply wanted to expand industrial production to the limit, to gain control of the huge home market, to become monopolists, and to squeeze as much profit as possible out of the national economy. Their conscious activity did not extend beyond their commonplace, strictly practical interests. Accordingly, Marx says:<br />
<br />
"In the social production which men carry on (that is, in the production of the material values necessary to the life of men—''Ed''.) they enter into definite relations that are indispensable and ''independent'' <sup>2</sup> of their will; these relations of production correspond to a definite stage of development of their material forces of production." (Karl Marx, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. I, p. 356.)<br />
<br />
This, however, does not mean that changes in the relations of production, and the transition from old relations of production to new relations of production proceed smoothly, without conflicts, without upheavals. On the contrary, such a transition usually takes place by means of the revolutionary overthrow of the old relations of production and the establishment of new relations of production. Up to a certain period the development of the productive forces and the changes in the realm of the relations of production proceed spontaneously, independently of the will of men. But that is so only up to a certain moment, until the new and developing productive forces have reached a proper state of maturity. After the new productive forces have matured, the existing relations of production and their upholders—the ruling classes—become that "insuperable" obstacle which can only be removed by the conscious action of the new classes, by the forcible acts of these classes, by revolution. Here there stands out in bold relief the ''tremendous role'' of new social ideas, of new political institutions, of a new political power, whose mission it is to abolish by force the old relations of production. Out of the conflict between the new productive forces and the old relations of production, out of the new economic demands of society there arise new social ideas; the new ideas organize and mobilize the masses; the masses become welded into a new political army, create a new revolutionary power, and make use of it to abolish by force the old system of relations of production, and firmly to establish the new system. The spontaneous process of development yields place to the conscious actions of men, peaceful development to violent upheaval, evolution to revolution.<br />
<br />
"The proletariat," says Marx, "during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class...by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production." (''The Communist Manifesto''—Karl Marx, ''Selected Works'', Vol. I, p. 228.)<br />
<br />
And further:<br />
<br />
a) "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, ''i.e.'', of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible." (''Ibid''., p. 227.)<br />
<br />
b) "Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one." (Karl Marx, ''Capital'', Vol. I, p. 776.)<br />
<br />
Here is the brilliant formulation of the essence of historical materialism given by Marx in 1859 in his historic Preface to his famous book, ''Critique of Political Economy'':<br />
<br />
"In the social production which men carry on they enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will; these relations of production correspond to a definite stage of development of their material forces of production. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society— the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production in material life determines the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of their development, the material forces of production in society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or—what is but a legal expression for the same thing—with the property relations within which they have been at work before. From forms of development of the forces of production these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, esthetic or philosophic—in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social forces of production and the relations of production. No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have been developed; and new higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore, mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, we will always find that the task itself arises only when the material conditions necessary for its solution already exists or are at least in the process of formation." (Karl Marx, ''Selected Works'', Vol. I, pp. 356-57.)<br />
<br />
Such is Marxist materialism as applied to social life, to the history of society.<br />
<br />
Such are the principal features of dialectical and historical materialism.<br />
<br />
It will be seen from this what a theoretical treasure was safeguarded by Lenin for the Party and protected from the attacks of the revisionists and renegades, and how important was the appearance of Lenin's book, ''Materialism and Empirio-Criticism'', for the development of our Party.<br />
<br />
=== Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in the period of the Stolypin reaction. Struggle of the Bolsheviks against the liquidators and Otzovists ===<br />
During the years of reaction, the work in the Party organizations was far more difficult than during the preceding period of development of the revolution. The Party membership had sharply declined. Many of the petty-bourgeois fellow-travelers of the Party, especially the intellectuals, deserted its ranks from fear of persecution by the tsarist government.<br />
<br />
Lenin pointed out that at such moments revolutionary parties should perfect their knowledge. During the period of rise of the revolution they learned how to advance; during the period of reaction they should learn how to retreat properly, how to go underground, how to preserve and strengthen the illegal party, how to make use of legal opportunities, of all legally existing, especially mass, organizations in order to strengthen their connections with the masses.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks retreated in panic, not believing that a new rise in the tide of revolution was possible; they disgracefully renounced the revolutionary demands of the program and the revolutionary slogans of the Party; they wanted to liquidate, to abolish, the revolutionary illegal party of the proletariat. For this reason, Mensheviks of this type came to be known as ''Liquidators''.<br />
<br />
Unlike the Mensheviks, the Bolsheviks were certain that within the next few years there would be a rise in the tide of revolution, and held that it was the duty of the Party to prepare the masses for this new rise. The fundamental problems of the revolution had not been solved. The peasants had not obtained the landlords' land, the workers had not obtained the 8-hour day, the tsarist autocracy, so detested by the people, had not been overthrown, and it had again suppressed the meagre political liberties which the people had wrung from it in 1905. Thus the causes which had given rise to the Revolution of 1905 still remained in force. That is why the Bolsheviks were certain that there would be a new rise of the revolutionary movement, prepared for it and mustered the forces of the working class.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks derived their certainty that a new rise in the tide of the revolution was inevitable also from the fact that the Revolution of 1905 had taught the working class to fight for its rights in mass revolutionary struggle. During the period of reaction, when the capitalists took the offensive, the workers could not forget these lessons of 1905. Lenin quoted letters from workers in which they told how factory owners were again oppressing and humiliating them, and in which they said: "''Wait, another 1905 will come!''"<br />
<br />
The fundamental political aim of the Bolsheviks remained what it had been in 1905, namely, to overthrow tsardom, to carry the bourgeois-democratic revolution to its conclusion and to proceed to the Socialist revolution. Never for a moment did the Bolsheviks forget this aim, and they continued to put before the masses the principal revolutionary slogans —a democratic republic, the confiscation of the landed estates, and an 8-hour day.<br />
<br />
But the ''tactics'' of the Party could not remain what they had been during the rising tide of the revolution in 1905. For example, it would have been wrong in the immediate future to call the masses to a general political strike or to an armed uprising, for the revolutionary movement was on the decline, the working class was in a state of extreme fatigue, and the position of the reactionary classes had been strengthened considerably. The Party had to reckon with the new situation. Offensive tactics had to be replaced by defensive tactics, the tactics of mustering forces, the tactics of withdrawing the cadres underground and of carrying on the work of the Party from underground, the tactics of combining illegal work with work in the legal working-class organizations.<br />
<br />
And the Bolsheviks proved able to accomplish this.<br />
<br />
"We knew how to work during the long years preceding the revolution. Not for nothing do they say that we are as firm as a rock. The Social-Democrats have formed a proletarian party which will not lose heart at the failure of the first armed onslaught, will not lose its head, and will not be carried away by adventures," wrote Lenin. (Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. XII, p. 126.)<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks strove to preserve and strengthen the illegal Party organizations. But at the same time they deemed it essential to utilize every legal opportunity, every legal opening to maintain and preserve connections with the masses and thus strengthen the Party.<br />
<br />
"This was a period when our Party turned from the open revolutionary struggle against tsardom to roundabout methods of struggle, to the utilization of each and every legal opportunity—from mutual aid societies to the Duma platform. This was a period of retreat after we had been defeated in the Revolution of 1905. This turn made it incumbent upon us to master new methods of struggle, in order to muster our forces and resume the open revolutionary struggle against tsardom." (J. Stalin, ''Verbatim Report of the Fifteenth Party Congress,'' Russ. ed., pp. 366-67, 1935.)<br />
<br />
The surviving legal organizations served as a sort of screen for the underground organizations of the Party and as a means of maintaining connections with the masses. In order to preserve their connections with the masses, the Bolsheviks made use of the trade unions and other legally existing public organizations, such as sick benefit societies, workers' cooperative societies, clubs, educational societies and People's Houses. The Bolsheviks made use of the platform of the State Duma to expose the policy of the tsarist government, to expose the Constitutional-Democrats, and to win the support of the peasants for the proletariat. The preservation of the illegal Party organization, and the direction of all other forms of political work through this organization, enabled the Party to pursue a correct line and to muster forces in preparation for a new rise in the tide of revolution.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks carried out their revolutionary line in a fight on ''two fronts'', a fight against the two varieties of opportunism within the Party—against the ''Liquidators,'' who were open adversaries of the Party, and against what were known as the ''Otzovists'', who were concealed foes of the Party.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks, headed by Lenin, waged a relentless struggle against liquidationism from the very inception of this opportunist trend. Lenin pointed out that the Liquidators were agents of the liberal bourgeoisie within the Party.<br />
<br />
In December 1908, the Fifth (All-Russian) Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. was held in Paris. On Lenin's motion, this conference condemned liquidationism, that is, the attempts of a certain section of the Party intellectuals (Mensheviks) "to liquidate the existing organization of the R.S.D.L.P. and to replace it at all costs, even at the price of down-right renunciation of the program, tactics and traditions of the Party, by an amorphous association functioning legally." ''(C.P.S.U.[B.] in Resolutions,'' Russ. ed., Part I, p. 128.)<br />
<br />
The conference called upon all Party organizations to wage a resolute struggle against the attempts of the Liquidators.<br />
<br />
But the Mensheviks did not abide by this decision of the conference and increasingly committed themselves to liquidationism, betrayal of the revolution, and collaboration with the Constitutional-Democrats. The Mensheviks were more and more openly renouncing the revolutionary program of the proletarian Party, the demands for a democratic republic, for an 8-hour day and for the confiscation of the landed estates. They wanted, at the price of renouncing the program and tactics of the Party, to obtain the consent of the tsarist government to the existence of an open, legal, supposedly "labour" party. They were prepared to make peace with and to adapt themselves to the Stolypin regime. That is why the Liquidators were also called the "Stolypin Labour Party."<br />
<br />
Besides fighting the overt adversaries of the revolution, the Liquidators, who were headed by Dan, Axelrod, and Potressov, and assisted by Martov, Trotsky and other Mensheviks, the Bolsheviks also waged a relentless struggle against the covert Liquidators, the Otzovists, who camouflaged their opportunism by "Left" phraseology. Otzovists was the name given to certain former Bolsheviks who demanded the recall (''otzyv'' means recall) of the workers' deputies from the State Duma and the discontinuation of work in legally existing organizations altogether.<br />
<br />
In 1908 a number of Bolsheviks demanded the recall of the Social-Democratic deputies from the State Duma. Hence, they were called Otzovists. The Otzovists formed their own group (Bogdanov, Luna-charsky, Alexinsky, Pokrovsky, Bubnov and others) which started a struggle against Lenin and Lenin's line. The Otzovists stubbornly refused to work in the trade unions and other legally existing societies. In doing so they did great injury to the workers' cause. The Otzovists were driving a wedge between the Party and the working class, tending to deprive the Party of its connections with the non-party masses; they wanted to seclude themselves within the underground organization, yet at the same time they placed it in jeopardy by denying it the opportunity of utilizing legal cover. The Otzovists did not understand that in the State Duma, and through the State Duma, the Bolsheviks could influence the peasantry, could expose the policy of the tsarist government and the policy of the Constitutional-Democrats, who were trying to gain the following of the peasantry by fraud. The Otzovists hampered the mustering of forces for a new advance of the revolution. The Otzovists were therefore "Liquidators inside-out": they endeavoured to destroy the possibility of utilizing the legally existing organizations and, in fact, renounced proletarian leadership of the broad non-party masses, renounced revolutionary work.<br />
<br />
A conference of the enlarged editorial board of the Bolshevik newspaper ''Proletary'', summoned in 1909 to discuss the conduct of the Otzovists, condemned them. The Bolsheviks announced that they had nothing in common with the Otzovists and expelled them from the Bolshevik organization.<br />
<br />
Both the Liquidators and the Otzovists were nothing but petty-bourgeois fellow-travelers of the proletariat and its Party. When times were hard for the proletariat the true character of the Liquidators and Otzovists became revealed with particular clarity.<br />
<br />
=== Struggle of the Bolsheviks against Trotskyism. Anti-party August bloc ===<br />
At a time when the Bolsheviks were waging a relentless struggle on two fronts—against the Liquidators and against the Otzovists—defend-ing the consistent line of the proletarian party, Trotsky supported the Menshevik Liquidators. It was at this period that Lenin branded him "Judas Trotsky." Trotsky formed a group of writers in Vienna (Austria) and began to publish an allegedly non-factional, but in reality Menshevik newspaper. "Trotsky behaves like a most despicable careerist and fac-tionalist...He pays lip service to the Party, but behaves worse than any other factionalist," wrote Lenin at the time.<br />
<br />
Later, in 1912, Trotsky organized the August Bloc, a bloc of all the anti-Bolshevik groups and trends directed against Lenin and the Bolshevik Party. The Liquidators and the Otzovists united in this anti-Bolshevik bloc, thus demonstrating their kinship. Trotsky and the Trot-skyites took up a liquidationist stand on all fundamental issues. But Trotsky masked his liquidationism under the guise of Centrism, that is, conciliation-ism; he claimed that he belonged to neither the Bolsheviks nor the Men-sheviks and that he was trying to reconcile them. In this connection, Lenin said that Trotsky was more vile and pernicious than the open Liquidators, because he was trying to deceive the workers into believing that he was "above factions," whereas in fact he entirely supported the Menshevik Liquidators. The Trotskyites were the principal group that fostered Centrism.<br />
<br />
"Centrism," writes Comrade Stalin, "is a political concept. Its ideology is one of adaptation, of subordination of the interests of the proletariat to the interests of the petty-bourgeoisie ''within one common party''. This ideology is alien and abhorrent to Leninism." (Stalin, ''Leninism'', Vol. II, "The Industrialization of the Country and the Right Deviation in the C.P.S.U.," p. 97.)<br />
<br />
At this period Kamenev, Zinoviev and Rykov were actually covert agents of Trotsky, for they often helped him against Lenin. With the aid of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Rykov and other covert allies of Trotsky, a Plenum of the Central Committee was convened in January 1910 ''against Lenin's wishes''. By that time the composition of the Central Committee had changed owing to the arrest of a number of Bolsheviks, and the vacillating elements were able to force through anti-Leninist decisions. Thus, it was decided at this plenum to close down the Bolshevik newspaper ''Proletary'' and to give financial support to Trotsky's newspaper ''Pravda'', published in Vienna. Kamenev joined the editorial board of Trotsky's newspaper and together with Zinoviev strove to make it the organ of the Central Committee.<br />
<br />
It was only on Lenin's insistence that the January Plenum of the Central Committee adopted a resolution condemning liquidationism and otzovism, but here too Zinoviev and Kamenev insisted on Trotsky's proposal that the Liquidators should not be referred to as such.<br />
<br />
It turned out as Lenin had foreseen and forewarned: only the Bolsheviks obeyed the decision of the plenum of the Central Committee and closed down their organ, ''Proletary'', whereas the Mensheviks continued to publish their financial liquidationist newspaper ''Golos Sotsial-Demokrat (Voice of the Social-Democrat)''.<br />
<br />
Lenin's position was fully supported by Comrade Stalin who published a special article in ''Sotsial-Demokrat'', No. ii, in which he condemned the conduct of the accomplices of Trotskyism, and spoke of the necessity of putting an end to the abnormal situation created within the Bolshevik group by the treacherous conduct of Kamenev, Zinoviev and Rykov. The article advanced as immediate tasks what was later carried into effect at the Prague Party Conference, namely, convocation of a general Party conference, publication of a Party newspaper appearing legally, and creation of an illegal practical Party centre in Russia. Comrade Stalin's article was based on decisions of the Baku Committee, which fully supported Lenin.<br />
<br />
To counteract Trotsky's anti-Party August Bloc, which consisted exclusively of anti-Party elements, from the Liquidators and Trotskyites to the Otzovists and "god-builders," a Party bloc was formed consisting of people who wanted to preserve and strengthen the illegal proletarian Party. This bloc consisted of the Bolsheviks, headed by Lenin, and a small number of pro-Party Mensheviks, headed by Plekhanov. Plekha-nov and his group of pro-Party Mensheviks, while maintaining the Men-shevik position on a number of questions, emphatically dissociated themselves from the August Bloc and the Liquidators and sought to reach agreement with the Bolsheviks. Lenin accepted Plekhanov's proposal and consented to a temporary bloc with him against the anti-Party elements on the ground that such a bloc would be advantageous to the Party and fatal to the Liquidators.<br />
<br />
Comrade Stalin fully supported this bloc. He was in exile at the time and from there wrote a letter to Lenin, saying:<br />
<br />
"In my opinion the line of the bloc (Lenin-Plekhanov) is the only correct one: i) this line, and it alone, answers to the real interests of the work in Russia, which demands that all Party elements should rally together; 2) this line, and it alone, will expedite the process of emancipation of the legal organizations from the yoke of the Liquidators, by digging a gulf between the Mek <sup>3</sup> workers and the Liquidators, and dispersing and disposing of the latter." (''Lenin and Stalin'', Russ. ed., Vol. I, pp. 529-30.)<br />
<br />
Thanks to a skilful combination of illegal and legal work, the Bolsheviks were able to become a serious force in the legal workers' organizations. This was revealed, incidentally, in the great influence which the Bolsheviks exercised on the workers' groups at four legally held congresses that took place at that period—a congress of people's universities, a women's congress, a congress of factory physicians, and a temperance congress. The speeches of the Bolsheviks at these congresses were of great political value and awakened a response all over the country. For example, at the congress of people's universities, the Bolshevik workers' delegation exposed the policy of tsardom which stifled all cultural activity, and contended that no real cultural progress in the country was conceivable unless tsardom were abolished. The workers' delegation at the congress of factory physicians told of the frightfully unsanitary conditions in which the workers had to live and work, and drew the conclusion that factory hygiene could not be properly ensured until tsardom was overthrown.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks gradually squeezed the Liquidators out of the various legal organizations that still survived. The peculiar tactics of a united front with the Plekhanov pro-Party group enabled the Bolsheviks to win over a number of Menshevik worker organizations (in the Vyborg district, Ekaterinoslav, etc.).<br />
<br />
In this difficult period the Bolsheviks set an example of how legal work should be combined with illegal work.<br />
<br />
=== Prague party conference, 1912. Bolsheviks constitute themselves an independent Marxist party ===<br />
The fight against the Liquidators and Otzovists, as well as against the Trotskyites, confronted the Bolsheviks with the urgent necessity of uniting all the Bolsheviks and forming them into an independent Bolshevik Party. This was absolutely essential not only in order to put an end to the opportunist trends within the Party which were splitting the working class, but also in order to complete the work of mustering the forces of the working class and preparing it for a new upward swing of the revolution.<br />
<br />
But before this task could be accomplished the Party had to be rid of opportunists, of Mensheviks.<br />
<br />
No Bolshevik now doubted that it was unthinkable for the Bolsheviks to remain in one party with the Mensheviks. The treacherous conduct of the Mensheviks in the period of the Stolypin reaction, their attempts to liquidate the proletarian party and to organize a new, reformist party, made a rupture with them inevitable. By remaining in one party with the Mensheviks, the Bolsheviks in one way or another accepted moral responsibility for the behaviour of the Mensheviks. But for the Bolsheviks to accept moral responsibility for the open treachery of the Mensheviks was unthinkable, unless they themselves wanted to become traitors to the Party and the working class. Unity with the Mensheviks within a single party was thus assuming the character of a betrayal of the working class and its party. Consequently, the actual rupture with the Mensheviks had to be carried to its conclusion: a formal organizational rupture and the expulsion of the Mensheviks from the Party.<br />
<br />
Only in this way was it possible to restore the revolutionary party of the proletariat with a single program, single tactics, and a single class organization.<br />
<br />
Only in this way was it possible to restore the real (not just formal) unity of the Party, which the Mensheviks had destroyed.<br />
<br />
This task was to be performed by the Sixth General Party Conference, for which the Bolsheviks were making preparations.<br />
<br />
But this was only one aspect of the matter. A formal rupture with the Mensheviks and the formation by the Bolsheviks of a separate party was, of course, a very important political task. But the Bolsheviks were confronted with another and even more important task. The task of the Bolsheviks was not merely to break with the Mensheviks and formally constitute themselves a separate party, but above all, having broken with the Mensheviks, to create a ''new'' party, to create a party of a ''new type'', different from the usual Social-Democratic parties of the West, one that was free of opportunist elements and capable of leading the proletariat in a struggle for power.<br />
<br />
In fighting the Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks of all shades, from Axel-rod and Martynov to Martov and Trotsky, invariably used weapons borrowed from the arsenal of the West-European Social-Democrats. They wanted in Russia a party similar, let us say, to the German or French Social-Democratic Party. They fought the Bolsheviks just because they sensed something new in them, something unusual and different from the Social-Democrats of the West. And what did the Social-Democratic parties of the West represent at that time? A mixture, a hodge-podge of Marxist and opportunist elements, of friends and foes of the revolution, of supporters and opponents of the Party principle, the former gradually becoming ideologically reconciled to the latter, and virtually subordinated to them. Conciliation with the opportunists, with the traitors to the revolution, for the sake of what?—the Bolsheviks asked the West-European Social-Democrats. For the sake of "peace within the Party," for the sake of "unity"—the latter replied. Unity with whom, with the opportunists? Yes, they replied, with the opportunists. It was clear that such parties could not be revolutionary parties.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks could not help seeing that after Engels' death the West-European Social-Democratic parties had begun to degenerate from parties of social revolution into parties of "social reforms," and that each of these parties, as an organization, had already been converted from a leading force into an appendage of its own parliamentary group.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks could not help knowing that such a party boded no good to the proletariat, that such a party was not capable of leading the working class to revolution.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks could not help knowing that the proletariat needed, not such a party, but a different kind of party, a new and genuinely Marxist party, which would be irreconcilable towards the opportunists and revolutionary towards the bourgeoisie, which would be firmly knit and monolithic, which would be a party of social revolution, a party of the dictatorship of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
It was this new kind of party that the Bolsheviks wanted. And the Bolsheviks worked to build up such a party. The whole history of the struggle against the "Economists," Mensheviks, Trotskyites, Otzovists and idealists of all shades, down to the empirio-criticists, was a history of the building up of just such a party. The Bolsheviks wanted to create a new party, a ''Bolshevist'' party, which would serve as a model for all who wanted to have a real revolutionary Marxist party. The Bolsheviks had been working to build up such a party ever since the time of the old Iskra. They worked for it stubbornly, persistently, in spite of everything. A fundamental and decisive part was played in this work by the writings of Lenin—''What Is To Be Done?, Two Tactics,'' etc. Lenin's ''What Is To Be Done?'' was the ''ideological'' preparation for such a party. Lenin's ''One Step Forward, Two Steps Back'' was the ''organizational'' preparation for such a party. Lenin's ''Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution'' was the ''political'' preparation for such a party. And, lastly, Lenin's ''Materialism and Empirio-Criticism'' was the ''theoretical'' preparation for such a party.<br />
<br />
It may be safely said that never in history has any political group been so thoroughly prepared to constitute itself a party as the Bolshevik group was.<br />
<br />
The conditions were therefore fully ripe and ready for the Bolsheviks to constitute themselves a party.<br />
<br />
It was the task of the Sixth Party Conference to crown the completed work by expelling the Mensheviks and formally constituting the new party, the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
The Sixth All-Russian Party Conference was held in Prague in January 1912. Over twenty Party organizations were represented. The conference, therefore, had the significance of a regular Party congress.<br />
<br />
In the statement of the conference which announced that the shattered central apparatus of the Party had been restored and a Central Committee set up, it was declared that the period of reaction had been the most difficult the Russian Social-Democratic Party had experienced since it had taken shape as a definite organization. In spite of all persecution, in spite of the severe blows dealt it from without and the treachery and vacillation of the opportunists within, the party of the proletariat had preserved intact its banner and its organization.<br />
<br />
"Not only have the banner of the Russian Social-Democratic Party, its program and its revolutionary traditions survived, but so has its organization, which persecution may have undermined and weakened, but could never utterly destroy"—the statement of the conference declared.<br />
<br />
The conference recorded the first symptoms of a new rise of the working-class movement in Russia and a revival in Party work.<br />
<br />
In its resolution on the reports presented by the local organizations, the conference noted that "energetic work is being conducted everywhere among the Social-Democratic workers with the object of strengthening the local illegal Social-Democratic organizations and groups."<br />
<br />
The conference noted that the most important rule of Bolshevik tactics in periods of retreat, namely, to combine illegal work with legal work within the various legally existing workers' societies and unions, was being observed in all the localities.<br />
<br />
The Prague Conference elected a Bolshevik Central Committee of the Party, consisting of Lenin, Stalin, Ordjonikidze, Sverdlov, Spanda-ryan, Goloshchekin and others. Comrades Stalin and Sverdlov were elected to the Central Committee in their absence, as they were in exile at the time. Among the elected alternate members of the Central Committee was Comrade Kalinin.<br />
<br />
For the direction of revolutionary work in Russia a practical centre (the Russian Bureau of the C.C.) was set up with Comrade Stalin at its head and including Comrades Y. Sverdlov, S. Spandaryan, S. Ordjo-nikidze, M. Kalinin and Goloshchekin.<br />
<br />
The Prague Conference reviewed the whole preceding struggle of the Bolsheviks against opportunism and decided to expel the Mensheviks from the Party.<br />
<br />
By expelling the Mensheviks from the Party, the Prague Conference formally inaugurated the independent existence of the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
Having routed the Mensheviks ideologically and organizationally and expelled them from the Party, the Bolsheviks preserved the old banner of the Party—of the R.S.D.L.P. That is why the Bolshevik Party continued until 1918 to call itself the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, adding the word "Bolsheviks" in brackets.<br />
<br />
Writing to Gorky at the beginning of 1912, on the results of the Prague Conference, Lenin said:<br />
<br />
"At last we have succeeded, in spite of the Liquidator scum, in restoring the Party and its Central Committee. I hope you will rejoice with us over the fact." (Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. XXIX, p. 19.)<br />
<br />
Speaking of the significance of the Prague Conference, Comrade Stalin said:<br />
<br />
"This conference was of the utmost importance in the history of our Party, for it drew a boundary line between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks and amalgamated the Bolshevik organizations all over the country into a united Bolshevik Party." (''Verbatim Report of the Fifteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.[B.]'', Russ. ed., pp. 361-362.)<br />
<br />
After the expulsion of the Mensheviks and the constitution by the Bolsheviks of an independent party, the Bolshevik Party became firmer and stronger. ''The Party strengthens itself by purging its ranks of opportunist elements''—that is one of the maxims of the Bolshevik Party, which is a party of a new type fundamentally different from the Social-Democratic parties of the Second International. Although the parties of the Second International called themselves Marxist parties, in reality they tolerated foes of Marxism, avowed opportunists, in their ranks and allowed them to corrupt and to ruin the Second International. The Bolsheviks, on the contrary, waged a relentless struggle against the opportunists, purged the proletarian party of the filth of opportunism and succeeded in creating a party of a new type, a Leninist Party, the Party which later achieved the dictatorship of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
If the opportunists had remained within the ranks of the proletarian party, the Bolshevik Party could not have come out on the broad highway and led the proletariat, it could not have taken power and set up the dictatorship of the proletariat, it could not have emerged victorious from the Civil War and built Socialism.<br />
<br />
The Prague Conference decided to put forward as the chief immediate political slogans of the Party the demands contained in the minimum program: a democratic republic, an 8-hour day, and the confiscation of the landed estates.<br />
<br />
It was under these revolutionary slogans that the Bolsheviks conducted their campaign in connection with the elections to the Fourth State Duma.<br />
<br />
It was these slogans that guided the new rise of the revolutionary movement of the working-class masses in the years 1912-14.<br />
<br />
=== Brief summary ===<br />
The years 1908-12 were a most difficult period for revolutionary work. After the defeat of the revolution, when the revolutionary movement was on the decline and the masses were fatigued, the Bolsheviks changed their tactics and passed from the direct struggle against tsardom to a roundabout struggle. In the difficult conditions that prevailed during the Stolypin reaction, the Bolsheviks made use of the slightest legal opportunity to maintain their connections with the masses (from sick benefit societies and trade unions to the Duma platform). The Bolsheviks indefatigably worked to muster forces for a new rise of the revolutionary movement.<br />
<br />
In the difficult conditions brought about by the defeat of the revolution, the disintegration of the oppositional trends, the disappointment with the revolution, and the increasing endeavours of intellectuals who had deserted the Party (Bogdanov, Bazarov and others) to revise its theoretical foundations, the Bolsheviks were the only force in the Party who did not furl the Party banner, who remained faithful to the Party program, and who beat off the attacks of the "critics" of Marxist theory (Lenin's ''Materialism and Empirio-Criticism''). What helped the leading core of the Bolsheviks, centred around Lenin, to safeguard the Party and its revolutionary principles was that this core had been tempered by Marxist-Leninist ideology and had grasped the perspectives of the revolution. "Not for nothing do they say that we are as firm as a rock," Lenin stated in referring to the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks at that period were drawing farther and farther away from the revolution. They became Liquidators, demanding the liquidation, abolition, of the illegal revolutionary party of the proletariat; they more and more openly renounced the Party program and the revolutionary aims and slogans of the Party, and endeavoured to organize their own, reformist party, which the workers christened a "Stolypin Labour Party." Trotsky supported the Liquidators, pharisaically using the slogan "unity of the Party" as a screen, but actually meaning unity with the Liquidators.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, some of the Bolsheviks, who did not understand the necessity for the adoption of new and roundabout ways of combating tsardom, demanded that legal opportunities should not be utilized and that the workers' deputies in the State Duma be recalled. These Otzovists were driving the Party towards a rupture with the masses and were hampering the mustering of forces for a new rise of the revolution. Using "Left" phraseology as a screen, the Otzovists, like the Liquidators, in essence renounced the revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
The Liquidators and Otzovists united against Lenin in a common bloc, known as the August Bloc, organized by Trotsky.<br />
<br />
In the struggle against the Liquidators and Otzovists, in the struggle against the August Bloc, the Bolsheviks gained the upper hand and succeeded in safeguarding the illegal proletarian party.<br />
<br />
The outstanding event of this period was the Prague Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. (January 1912). At this conference the Mensheviks were expelled from the Party, and the formal unity of the Bolsheviks with the Mensheviks within one party was ended forever. From a political group, the Bolsheviks formally constituted themselves an independent party, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks). The Prague Conference inaugurated a party of a new type, the party of Leninism, the ''Bolshevik'' Party.<br />
<br />
The purge of the ranks of the proletarian party of opportunists, Mensheviks, effected at the Prague Conference, had an important and decisive influence on the subsequent development of the Party and the revolution. If the Bolsheviks had not expelled the betrayers of the workers' cause, the Menshevik compromisers, from the Party, the proletarian party would have been unable in 1917 to rouse the masses for the fight for the dictatorship of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
== The Bolshevik party during the new rise of the working-class movement before the first imperialist war (1912—1914) ==<br />
<br />
=== Rise of the revolutionary movement in the Period 1912—1914 ===<br />
The triumph of the Stolypin reaction was shortlived. A government which would offer the people nothing but the knout and the gallows could not endure. Repressive measures became so habitual that they ceased to inspire fear in the people. The fatigue felt by the workers in the years immediately following the defeat of the revolution began to wear off. The workers resumed the struggle. The Bolsheviks' forecast that a new rise in the tide of revolution was inevitable proved correct. In 1911 the number of strikers already exceeded 100,000, whereas in each of the previous years it had been no more than 50,000 or 60,000. The Prague Party Conference, held in January 1912, could already register the beginnings of a revival of the working-class movement. But the real rise in the revolutionary movement began in April and May 1912, when mass political strikes broke out in connection with the shooting down of workers in the Lena goldfields.<br />
<br />
On April 4, 1912, during a strike in the Lena goldfields in Siberia, over 500 workers were killed or wounded upon the orders of a tsarist officer of the gendarmerie. The shooting down of an unarmed body of Lena miners who were peacefully proceeding to negotiate with the management stirred the whole country. This new bloody deed of the tsarist autocracy was committed to break an economic strike of the miners and thus please the masters of the Lena goldfields, the British capitalists. The British capitalists and their Russian partners derived huge profits from the Lena goldfields—over 7,000,000 rubles annually—by most shamelessly exploiting the workers. They paid the workers miserable wages and supplied them with rotten food unfit to eat. Unable to endure the oppression and humiliation any longer, six thousand workers of the Lena goldfields went on strike.<br />
<br />
The proletariat of St. Petersburg, Moscow and all other industrial centres and regions replied to the Lena shooting by mass strikes, demonstrations and meetings.<br />
<br />
We were so dazed and shocked that we could not at once find words to express our feelings. Whatever protest we made would be but a pale reflection of the anger that seethed in the hearts of all of us. Nothing can help us, neither tears nor protests, but an organized mass struggle"—the workers of one group of factories declared in their resolution.<br />
<br />
The furious indignation of the workers was further aggravated when the tsarist Minister Makarov, who was interpellated by the Social-Democratic group in the State Duma on the subject of the Lena massacre, insolently declared: "So it was, so it will be!" The number of participants in the political protest strikes against the bloody massacre of the Lena workers rose to 300,000.<br />
<br />
The Lena events were like a hurricane which rent the atmosphere of "peace" created by the Stolypin regime.<br />
<br />
This is what Comrade Stalin wrote in this connection in 1912 in the St. Petersburg Bolshevik newspaper, ''Zvezda (Star):'' "The Lena shooting has broken the ice of silence and the river of the people's movement has begun to flow. The ice is broken!...All that was evil and pernicious in the present regime, all the ills of much-suffering Russia were focussed in the one fact, the Lena events. That is why it was the Lena shooting that served as a signal for the strikes and demonstrations."<br />
<br />
The efforts of the Liquidators and Trotskyites to bury the revolution had been in vain. The Lena events showed that the forces of revolution were alive, that a tremendous store of revolutionary energy had accumulated in the working class. The May Day strikes of 1912 involved about 400,000 workers. These strikes bore a marked political character and were held under the Bolshevik revolutionary slogans of a democratic republic, an 8-hour day, and the confiscation of the landed estates. These main slogans were designed to unite not only the broad masses of the workers, but also the peasants and soldiers for a revolutionary onslaught on the autocracy.<br />
<br />
"The huge May Day strike of the proletariat of all Russia and the accompanying street demonstrations, revolutionary proclamations, and revolutionary speeches to gatherings of workers have clearly shown that Russia has entered the phase of a rise in the revolution" —wrote Lenin in an article entitled "The Revolutionary Rise." (Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. XV, p. 533.)<br />
<br />
Alarmed by the revolutionary spirit of the workers, the Liquidators came out against the strike movement; they called it a "strike fever." The Liquidators and their ally, Trotsky, wanted to substitute for the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat a "petition campaign." They invited the workers to sign a petition, a scrap of paper, requesting the granting of "rights" (abolition of the restrictions on the right of association, the right to strike, etc.), which was then to be sent to the State Duma. The Liquidators managed to collect only 1,300 signatures at a time when hundreds of thousands of workers backed the revolutionary slogans of the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
The working class followed the path indicated by the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
The economic situation in the country at that period was as follows:<br />
<br />
In 1910 industrial stagnation had already been succeeded by a revival, an extension of production in the main branches of industry. Whereas the output of pig iron had amounted to 186,000,000 poods in 1910, and to 256,000,000 poods in 1912, in 1913 it amounted to 283,000,000 poods. The output of coal rose from 1,522,000,000 poods in 1910 to 2,214,000,000 poods in 1913.<br />
<br />
The expansion of capitalist industry was accompanied by a rapid growth of the proletariat. A distinguishing feature of the development of industry was the further concentration of production in large plants. Whereas in 1901 the number of workers engaged in large plants employing 500 workers and over amounted to 46.7 per cent of the total number of workers, the corresponding figure in 1910 was already about 54 per cent, or over half the total number of workers. Such a degree of concentration of industry was unprecedented. Even in a country so industrially developed as the United States only about one-third the total number of workers were employed in large plants at that period.<br />
<br />
The growth of the proletariat and its concentration in large enterprises, combined with the existence of such a revolutionary party as the Bolshevik Party, were converting the working class of Russia into the greatest force in the political life of the country. The barbarous methods of exploitation of the workers practised in the factories, combined with the intolerable police regime of the tsarist underlings, lent every big strike a political character. Furthermore, the intertwining of the economic and political struggles imparted exceptional revolutionary force to the mass strikes.<br />
<br />
In the van of the revolutionary working-class movement marched the heroic proletariat of St. Petersburg; St. Petersburg was followed by the Baltic Provinces, Moscow and the Moscow Province, the Volga region and the south of Russia. In 1913 the movement spread to the Western Territory, Poland and the Caucasus. In all, 725,000 workers, according to official figures, and over one million workers according to fuller statistics, took part in strikes in 1912, and 861,000 according to official figures, and 1,272,000 according to fuller statistics, took part in strikes in 1913. In the first half of 1914 the number of strikers already amounted to about one and a half million.<br />
<br />
Thus the revolutionary rise of 1912-14, the sweep of the strike movement, created a situation in the country similar to that which had existed at the beginning of the Revolution of 1905.<br />
<br />
The revolutionary mass strikes of the proletariat were of moment to the ''whole people.'' They were directed against the autocracy, and they met with the sympathy of the vast majority of the labouring population. The manufacturers retaliated by locking out the workers. In 1913, in the Moscow Province, the capitalists threw 50,000 textile workers on the streets. In March 1914, 70,000 workers were discharged in St. Petersburg in a single day. The workers of other factories and branches of industry assisted the strikers and their locked-out comrades by mass collections and sometimes by sympathy strikes.<br />
<br />
The rising working-class movement and the mass strikes also stirred up the peasants and drew them into the struggle. The peasants again began to rise against the landlords; they destroyed manors and kulak farmholds. In the years 1910-14 there were over 13,000 outbreaks of peasant disaffection.<br />
<br />
Revolutionary outbreaks also took place among the armed forces. In 1912 there was an armed revolt of troops in Turkestan. Revolt was brewing in the Baltic Fleet and in Sevastopol.<br />
<br />
The revolutionary strike movement and demonstrations, led by the Bolshevik Party, showed that the working class was fighting not for partial demands, not for "reforms," but for the liberation of the people from tsardom. The country was heading for a new revolution.<br />
<br />
In the summer of 1912, Lenin removed from Paris to Galicia (formerly Austria) in order to be nearer to Russia. Here he presided over two conferences of members of the Central Committee and leading Party workers, one of which took place in Cracow at the end of 1912, and the other in Poronino, a small town near Cracow, in the autumn of 1913. These conferences adopted decisions on important questions of the working-class movement: the rise in the revolutionary movement, the tasks of the Party in connection with the strikes, the strengthening of the illegal organizations, the Social-Democratic group in the Duma, the Party press, the labour insurance campaign.<br />
<br />
=== The Bolshevik newspaper ''Pravda''. The Bolshevik group in the Fourth State Duma ===<br />
A powerful instrument used by the Bolshevik Party to strengthen its organizations and to spread its influence among the masses was the Bolshevik daily newspaper ''Pravda (Truth)'', published in St. Petersburg. It was founded, according to Lenin's instructions, on the initiative of Stalin, Olminsky and Poletayev. ''Pravda'' was a mass working-class paper founded simultaneously with the new rise of the revolutionary movement. Its first issue appeared on April 22 (May 5, New Style), 1912. This was a day of real celebration for the workers. In honour of ''Pravda's'' appearance it was decided henceforward to celebrate May 5 as workers' press day.<br />
<br />
Previous to the appearance of ''Pravda'' , the Bolsheviks already had a weekly newspaper called Zvezda, intended for advanced workers. ''Zvezda'' played an important part at the time of the Lena events. It printed a number of trenchant political articles by Lenin and Stalin which mobilized the working class for the struggle. But in view of the rising revolutionary tide, a weekly newspaper no longer met the requirements of the Bolshevik Party. A daily mass political newspaper designed for the broadest sections of the workers was needed. ''Pravda'' was such a newspaper.<br />
<br />
''Pravda'' played an exceptionally important part at this period. It gained support for Bolshevism among broad masses of the working class. Because of incessant police persecution, fines, and confiscations of issues due to the publication of articles and letters not to the liking of the censor, ''Pravda'' could exist only with the active support of tens of thousands of advanced workers. ''Pravda'' was able to pay the huge fines only thanks to large collections made among the workers. Not infrequently, considerable portions of confiscated issues of ''Pravda'' nevertheless found their way into the hands of readers, because the more active workers would come to the printing shop at night and carry away bundles of the newspaper.<br />
<br />
The tsarist government suppressed ''Pravda'' eight times in the space of two and a half years; but each time, with the support of the workers, it reappeared under a new but similar name, ''e.g., Za Pravdu (For Truth), Put Pravdy (Path of Truth), Trudovaya Pravda (Labour Truth).''<br />
<br />
While the average circulation of Pravda was 40,000 copies per day, the circulation of ''Luch (Ray),'' the Menshevik daily, did not exceed 15,000 or 16,000.<br />
<br />
The workers regarded ''Pravda'' as their own newspaper; they had great confidence in it and were very responsive to its calls. Every copy was read by scores of readers, passing from hand to hand; it moulded their class consciousness, educated them, organized them, and summoned them to the struggle.<br />
<br />
What did ''Pravda'' write about?<br />
<br />
Every issue contained dozens of letters from workers describing their life, the savage exploitation and the various forms of oppression and humiliation they suffered at the hands of the capitalists, their managers and foremen. These were trenchant and telling indictments of capitalist conditions. ''Pravda'' often reported cases of suicide of unemployed and starving workers who had lost hope of ever finding jobs again.<br />
<br />
''Pravda'' wrote of the needs and demands of the workers of various factories and branches of industry, and told how the workers were fighting for their demands. Almost every issue contained reports of strikes at various factories. In big and protracted strikes, the newspaper helped to organize collections among the workers of other factories and branches of industry for the support of the strikers. Sometimes tens of thousands of rubles were collected for the strike funds, huge sums for those days when the majority of the workers received not more than 70 or 80 kopeks per day. This fostered a spirit of proletarian solidarity among the workers and a consciousness of the unity of interests of all workers.<br />
<br />
The workers reacted to every political event, to every victory or defeat, by sending to ''Pravda'' letters, greetings, protests, etc. In its articles ''Pravda'' dealt with the tasks of the working-class movement from a consistent Bolshevik standpoint. A legally published newspaper could not call openly for the overthrow of tsardom. It had to resort to hints, which, however, the class-conscious workers understood very well, and which they explained to the masses. When, for example, ''Pravda'' wrote of the "full and uncurtailed demands of the Year Five," the workers understood that this meant the revolutionary slogans of the Bolsheviks, namely, the overthrow of tsardom, a democratic republic, the confiscation of the landed estates, and an 8-hour day.<br />
<br />
''Pravda'' organized the advanced workers on the eve of the elections to the Fourth Duma. It exposed the treacherous position of those who advocated an agreement with the liberal bourgeoisie, the advocates of the "Stolypin Labour Party"—the Mensheviks. ''Pravda'' called upon the workers to vote for those who advocated the "full and uncurtailed demands of the Year Five," that is, the Bolsheviks. The elections were indirect, held in a series of stages: first, meetings of workers elected delegates; then these delegates chose electors; and it was these electors who participated in the elections of the workers' deputy to the Duma. On the day of the elections of the electors ''Pravda'' published a list of Bolshevik candidates and recommended the workers to vote for this list. The list could not be published earlier without exposing those on the list to the danger of arrest.<br />
<br />
''Pravda'' helped to organize the mass actions of the proletariat. At the time of a big lockout in St. Petersburg in the spring of 1914, when it was inexpedient to declare a mass strike, ''Pravda'' called upon the workers to resort to other forms of struggle, such as mass meetings in the factories and demonstrations in the streets. This could not be stated openly in the newspaper. But the call was understood by class-conscious workers when they read an article by Lenin bearing the modest title "Forms of the Working-Class Movement" and stating that at the given moment strikes should yield place to a higher form of the working-class movement—which meant a call to organize meetings and demonstrations.<br />
<br />
In this way the illegal revolutionary activities of the Bolsheviks were combined with legal forms of agitation and organization of the masses of the workers through ''Pravda'' .<br />
<br />
''Pravda'' not only wrote of the life of the workers, their strikes and demonstrations, but also regularly described the life of the peasants, the famines from which they suffered, their exploitation by the feudal landlords. It described how as a result of the Stolypin "reform" the kulak farmers robbed the peasants of the best parts of their land. ''Pravda'' drew the attention of the class-conscious workers to the widespread and burning discontent in the countryside. It taught the proletariat that the objectives of the Revolution of 1905 had not been attained, and that a new revolution was impending. It taught that in this second revolution the proletariat must act as the real leader and guide of the people, and that in this revolution it would have so powerful an ally as the revolutionary peasantry.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks worked to get the proletariat to drop the idea of revolution, to stop thinking of the people, of the starvation of the peasants, of the domination of the Black-Hundred feudal landlords, and to fight only for "freedom of association," to present "petitions" to this effect to the tsarist government. The Bolsheviks explained to the workers that this Menshevik gospel of renunciation of revolution, renunciation of an alliance with the peasantry, was being preached in the interests of the bourgeoisie, that the workers would most certainly defeat tsardom if they won over the peasantry as their ally, and that bad shepherds like the Mensheviks should be driven out as enemies of the revolution.<br />
<br />
What did ''Pravda'' write about in its "Peasant Life" section?<br />
<br />
Let us take, as an example, several letters relating to the year 1913.<br />
<br />
One letter from Samara, headed "An Agrarian Case," reports that of 45 peasants of the village of Novokhasbulat, Bugulma uyezd, accused of interfering with a surveyor who was marking out communal land to be allotted to peasants withdrawing from the commune, the majority were condemned to long terms of imprisonment.<br />
<br />
A brief letter from the Pskov Province states that the "peasants of the village of Psitsa (near Zavalye Station) offered armed resistance to the rural police. Several persons were wounded. The clash was due to an agrarian dispute. Rural police have been dispatched to Psitsa, and the vice-governor and the procurator are on the way to the village."<br />
<br />
A letter from the Ufa Province reported that peasant's allotments were being sold off in great numbers, and that famine and the law permitting withdrawal from the village communes were causing increasing numbers of peasants to lose their land. Take the hamlet of Borisovka. Here there are 27 peasant households owning 543 dessiatins of arable land between them. During the famine five peasants sold 31 dessiatins outright at prices varying from 25 to 33 rubles per dessiatin, though land is worth three or four times as much. In this village, too, seven peasants have mortgaged between them 177 dessiatins of arable land, receiving 18 to 20 rubles per dessiatin for a term of six years at a rate of 12 per cent per annum. When the poverty of the population and the usurious rate of interest are borne in mind, it may be safely said that half of the 177 dessiatins is bound to pass into the possession of the usurer, for it is not likely that even half the debtors can repay so large a sum in six years.<br />
<br />
In an article printed in ''Pravda'' and entitled "Big Landlord and Small Peasant Land Ownership in Russia," Lenin strikingly demonstrated to the workers and peasants what tremendous landed property was in the hands of the parasite landlords. Thirty thousand big landlords alone owned about 70,000,000 dessiatins of land between them. An equal area fell to the share of 10,000,000 peasant households. On an average, the big landlords owned 2,300 dessiatins each, while peasant households, including the kulaks, owned 7 dessiatins each; moreover, five million households of small peasants, that is, half the peasantry, owned no more than one or two dessiatins each. These figures clearly showed that the root of the poverty of the peasants and the recurrent famines lay in the large landed estates, in the survivals of serfdom, of which the peasants could rid themselves only by a revolution led by the working class.<br />
<br />
Through workers connected with the countryside, ''Pravda'' found its way into the villages and roused the politically advanced peasants to a revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
At the time ''Pravda'' was founded the illegal Social-Democratic organizations were entirely under the direction of the Bolsheviks. On the other hand, the legal forms of organization, such as the Duma group, the press, the sick benefit societies, the trade unions, had not yet been fully wrested from the Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks had to wage a determined struggle to drive the Liquidators out of the legally existing organizations of the working class. Thanks to ''Pravda'' , this fight ended in victory.<br />
<br />
''Pravda'' stood in the centre of the struggle for the Party principle, for the building up of a mass working-class revolutionary party. ''Pravda'' rallied the legally existing organizations around the illegal centres of the Bolshevik Party and directed the working-class movement towards one definite aim—preparation for revolution.<br />
<br />
''Pravda'' had a vast number of worker correspondents. In one year alone it printed over eleven thousand letters from workers. But it was not only by letters that ''Pravda'' maintained contact with the working-class masses. Numbers of workers from the factories visited the editorial office every day. In the ''Pravda'' editorial office was concentrated a large share of the organizational work of the Party. Here meetings were arranged with representatives from Party nuclei; here reports were received of Party work in the mills and factories; and from here were transmitted the instructions of the St. Petersburg Committee and the Central Committee of the Party.<br />
<br />
As a result of two and a half years of persistent struggle against the Liquidators for the building up of a mass revolutionary working-class party, by the summer of 1914 the Bolsheviks had succeeded in winning the support of ''four-fifths'' of the politically active workers of Russia for the Bolshevik Party and for the ''Pravda'' tactics. This was borne out, for instance, by the fact that out of a total number of 7,000 workers' groups which collected money for the labour press in 1914, 5,600 groups collected for the Bolshevik press, and only 1,400 groups for the Menshevik press. But, on the other hand, the Mensheviks had a large number of "rich friends" among the liberal bourgeoisie and the bourgeois intelligentsia who advanced over half the funds required for the maintenance of the Menshevik newspaper.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks at that time were called "Pravdists." A whole generation of the revolutionary proletariat was reared by ''Pravda'' , the generation which subsequently made the October Socialist Revolution. ''Pravda'' was backed by tens and hundreds of thousands of workers. During the rise of the revolutionary movement (1912-14) the solid foundation was laid of a mass Bolshevik Party, a foundation which no persecution by tsardom could destroy during the imperialist war.<br />
<br />
"The ''Pravda'' of 1912 was the laying of the corner-stone of the victory of Bolshevism in 1917." (''Stalin''.)<br />
<br />
Another legally functioning central organ of the Party was the Bolshevik group in the Fourth State Duma.<br />
<br />
In 1912 the government decreed elections to the Fourth Duma. Our Party attributed great importance to participation in the elections. The Duma Social-Democratic group and ''Pravda'' were the chief bases of the revolutionary work of the Bolshevik Party among the masses, functioning legally on a countrywide scale.<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik Party acted independently, under its own slogans, in the Duma elections, simultaneously attacking both the government parties and the liberal bourgeoisie (Constitutional-Democrats). The slogans of the Bolsheviks in the election campaign were a democratic republic, an 8-hour day and the confiscation of the landed estates.<br />
<br />
The elections to the Fourth Duma were held in the autumn of 1912. At the beginning of October, the government, dissatisfied with the course of the elections in St. Petersburg, tried to encroach on the electoral rights of the workers in a number of the large factories. In reply, the St. Petersburg Committee of our Party, on Comrade Stalin's proposal, called upon the workers of the large factories to declare a one-day strike. Placed in a difficult position, the government was forced to yield, and the workers were able at their meetings to elect whom they wanted. The vast majority of the workers voted for the Mandate ''(Nakaz)'' to their delegates and the deputy, which had been drawn up by Comrade Stalin. The "Mandate of the Workingmen of St. Petersburg to Their Labour Deputy" called attention to the unaccomplished tasks of 1905.<br />
<br />
"We think," the Mandate stated, "that Russia is on the eve of the onset of mass movements, which will perhaps be more profound than in 1905...As in 1905, in the van of these movements will be the most advanced class in Russian society, the Russian proletariat. Its only ally can be the much-suffering peasantry, which is vitally interested in the emancipation of Russia."<br />
<br />
The Mandate declared that the future actions of the people should take the form of a struggle on two fronts—against the tsarist government and against the liberal bourgeoisie, which was seeking to come to terms with tsardom.<br />
<br />
Lenin attached great importance to the Mandate, which called the workers to a revolutionary struggle. And in their resolutions the workers responded to this call.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks scored a victory in the elections, and Comrade Badayev was elected to the Duma by the workers of St. Petersburg.<br />
<br />
The workers voted in the elections to the Duma separately from other sections of the population (this was known as the worker curia). Of the nine deputies elected from the worker curia, six were members of the Bolshevik Party: Badayev, Petrovsky, Muranov, Samoilov, Shagov and Malinovsky (the latter subsequently turned out to be an agent-provocateur). The Bolshevik deputies were elected from the big industrial centres, in which not less than four-fifths of the working class were concentrated. On the other hand, several of the elected Liquidators did not get their mandates from the worker curia, that is, were not elected by the workers. The result was that there were seven Liquidators in the Duma as against six Bolsheviks. At first the Bolsheviks and Liquidators formed a joint Social-Democratic group in the Duma. In October 1913, after a stubborn struggle against the Liquidators, who hampered the revolutionary work of the Bolsheviks, the Bolshevik deputies, on the instructions of the Central Committee of the Party, withdrew from the joint Social-Democratic group and formed an independent Bolshevik group.<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik deputies made revolutionary speeches in the Duma in which they exposed the autocratic system and interpellated the government on cases of repression of the workers and on the inhuman exploitation of the workers by the capitalists.<br />
<br />
They also spoke in the Duma on the agrarian question, calling upon the peasants to fight the feudal landlords, and exposing the Constitutional-Democratic Party, which was opposed to the confiscation and handing over of the landed estates to the peasants.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks introduced a bill in the State Duma providing for an 8-hour working day; of course it was not adopted by this Black-Hundred Duma, but it had great agitational value.<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik group in the Duma maintained close connections with the Central Committee of the Party and with Lenin, from whom they received instructions. They were directly guided by Comrade Stalin while he was living in St. Petersburg.<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik deputies did not confine themselves to work within the Duma, but were very active outside the Duma as well. They visited mills and factories and toured the working-class centres of the country where they made speeches, arranged secret meetings at which they explained the decisions of the Party, and formed new Party organizations. The deputies skilfully combined legal activities with illegal, underground work.<br />
<br />
=== Victory of the Bolsheviks in the legally existing organizations. Continued rise of the revolutionary movement. Eve of the imperialist war ===<br />
The Bolshevik Party during this period set an example of leadership in all forms and manifestations of the class struggle of the proletariat. It built up illegal organizations. It issued illegal leaflets. It carried on secret revolutionary work among the masses. At the same time it steadily gained the leadership of the various legally existing organizations of the working class. The Party strove to win over the trade unions and gain influence in People's Houses, evening universities, clubs and sick benefit societies. These legally existing organizations had long served as the refuge of the Liquidators. The Bolsheviks started an energetic struggle to convert the legally existing societies into strongholds of our Party. By skilfully combining illegal work with legal work, the Bolsheviks won over a majority of the trade union organizations in the two capital cities, St. Petersburg and Moscow. Particularly brilliant was the victory gained in the election of the Executive Committee of the Metal Workers' Union in St. Petersburg in 1913; of the 3,000 metal workers attending the meeting, barely 150 voted for the Liquidators.<br />
<br />
The same may be said of so important a legal organization as the Social-Democratic group in the Fourth State Duma. Although the Men-sheviks had seven deputies in the Duma and the Bolsheviks six, the Menshevik deputies, chiefly elected from non-working class districts, represented barely one-fifth of the working class, whereas the Bolshevik deputies, who were elected from the principal industrial centres of the country (St. Petersburg, Moscow, Ivanovo-Voznesensk, Gostroma, Eka-terinoslav and Kharkov), represented over four-fifths of the working class of the country. The workers regarded the six Bolsheviks (Badayev, Petrovsky and the others) and not the seven Mensheviks as their deputies.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks succeeded in winning over the legally existing organizations because, in spite of savage persecution by the tsarist government and vilification by the Liquidators and the Trotskyites, they were able to preserve the illegal Party and maintain firm discipline in their ranks, they staunchly defended the interests of the working class, had close connections with the masses, and waged an uncompromising struggle against the enemies of the working-class movement.<br />
<br />
Thus the victory of the Bolsheviks and the defeat of the Mensheviks in the legally existing organizations developed all along the line. Both in respect to agitational work from the platform of the Duma and in respect to the labour press and other legally existing organizations, the Mensheviks were forced into the background. The revolutionary movement took strong hold of the working class, which definitely rallied around the Bolsheviks and swept the Mensheviks aside.<br />
<br />
To culminate all, the Mensheviks also proved bankrupt as far as the national question was concerned. The revolutionary movement in the border regions of Russia demanded a clear program on the national question. But the Mensheviks had no program, except the "cultural autonomy" of the Bund, which could satisfy nobody. Only the Bolsheviks had a Marxist program on the national question, as set forth in Comrade Stalin's article, "Marxism and the National Question," and in Lenin's articles, "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination" and "Critical Notes on the National Question."<br />
<br />
It is not surprising that after the Mensheviks had suffered such defeats, the August Bloc should begin to break up. Composed as it was of heterogeneous elements, it could not withstand the onslaught of the Bolsheviks and began to fall apart. Formed for the purpose of combating Bolshevism, the August Bloc soon went to pieces under the blows of the Bolsheviks. The first to quit the bloc were the Fperyod-ites (Bogda-nov, Lunacharsky and others); next went the Letts, and the rest followed suit.<br />
<br />
Having suffered defeat in their struggle against the Bolsheviks, the Liquidators appealed for help to the Second International. The Second International came to their aid. Under the pretence of acting as a "conciliator" between the Bolsheviks and the Liquidators, and establishing "peace in the Party," the Second International demanded that the Bolsheviks should desist from criticizing the compromising policy of the Liquidators. But the Bolsheviks were irreconcilable: they refused to abide by the decisions of the opportunist Second International and would agree to make no concessions.<br />
<br />
The victory of the Bolsheviks in the legally existing organizations was not, and could not have been, accidental. It was not accidental, not only because the Bolsheviks alone had a correct Marxist theory, a clear program, and a revolutionary proletarian party which had been steeled and tempered in battle, but also because the victory of the Bolsheviks reflected the rising tide of revolution.<br />
<br />
The revolutionary movement of the workers steadily developed, spreading to town after town and region after region. In the beginning of 1914, the workers' strikes, far from subsiding, acquired a new momentum. They became more and more stubborn and embraced ever larger numbers of workers. On January 9, 250,000 workers were on strike, St. Petersburg accounting for 140,000. On May 1, over half a million workers were on strike, St. Petersburg accounting for more than 250,000. The workers displayed unusual steadfastness in the strikes. A strike at the Obukhov Works in St. Petersburg lasted for over two months, and another at the Lessner Works for about three months. Wholesale poisoning of workers at a number of St. Petersburg factories was the cause of a strike of 115,000 workers which was accompanied by demonstrations. The movement continued to spread. In the first half of 1914 (including the early part of July) a total of 1,425,000 workers took part in strikes.<br />
<br />
In May a general strike of oil workers, which broke out in Baku, focussed the attention of the whole proletariat of Russia. The strike was conducted in an organized way. On June 20 a demonstration of 20,000 workers was held in Baku. The police adopted ferocious measures against the Baku workers. A strike broke out in Moscow as a mark of protest and solidarity with the Baku workers and spread to other districts.<br />
<br />
On July 3 a meeting was held at the Putilov Works in St. Petersburg in connection with the Baku strike. The police fired on the workers. A wave of indignation swept over the St. Petersburg proletariat. On July 4, at the call of the St. Petersburg Party Committee, 90,000 St. Petersburg workers stopped work in protest; the number rose to 130,000 on July 7, 150,000 on July 8 and 200,000 on July 11.<br />
<br />
Unrest spread to all the factories, and meetings and demonstrations were held everywhere. The workers even started to throw up barricades. Barricades were erected also in Baku and Lodz. In a number of places the police fired on the workers. The government adopted "emergency" measures to suppress the movement; the capital was turned into an armed camp; ''Pravda'' was suppressed.<br />
<br />
But at that moment a new factor, one of international import, appeared on the arena. This was the imperialist war, which was to change the whole course of events. It was during the revolutionary developments of July that Poincare, the French President, arrived in St. Petersburg to discuss with the tsar the war that was about to begin. A few days later Germany declared war on Russia. The tsarist government took advantage of the war to smash the Bolshevik organizations and to crush the working-class movement. The advance of the revolution was interrupted by the World War, in which the tsarist government sought salvation from revolution.<br />
<br />
=== Brief summary ===<br />
During the period of the new rise of the revolution (1912-14), the Bolshevik Party headed the working-class movement and led it forward to a new revolution under Bolshevik slogans. The Party ably combined illegal work with legal work. Smashing the resistance of the Liquidators and their friends—the Trotskyites and Otzovists—the Party gained the leadership of all forms of the legal movement and turned the legally existing organizations into bases of its revolutionary work.<br />
<br />
In the fight against the enemies of the working class and their agents within the working-class movement, the Party consolidated its ranks and extended its connections with the working class. Making wide use of the Duma as a platform for revolutionary agitation, and having founded a splendid mass workers' newspaper, ''Pravda'' , the Party trained a new generation of revolutionary workers—the Pravdists. During the imperialist war this section of the workers remained faithful to the banner of internationalism and proletarian revolution. It subsequently formed the core of the Bolshevik Party during the revolution of October 1917.<br />
<br />
On the eve of the imperialist war the Party led the working class in its revolutionary actions. These were vanguard engagements which were interrupted by the imperialist war only to be resumed three years later to end in the overthrow of tsardom. The Bolshevik Party entered the difficult period of the imperialist war with the banners of proletarian internationalism unfurled.<br />
<br />
== The Bolshevik party in the period of the imperialist war. The second revolution in Russia (1914—March 1917) ==<br />
<br />
=== Outbreak and causes of the imperialist war ===<br />
On July 14 (27, New Style), 1914, the tsarist government proclaimed a general mobilization. On July 19 (August 1, New Style) Germany declared war on Russia.<br />
<br />
Russia entered the war.<br />
<br />
Long before the actual outbreak of the war the Bolsheviks, headed by Lenin, had foreseen that it was inevitable. At international Socialist congresses Lenin had put forward proposals the purpose of which was to determine a revolutionary line of conduct for the Socialists in the event of war.<br />
<br />
Lenin had pointed out that war is an inevitable concomitant of capitalism. Plunder of foreign territory, seizure and spoliation of colonies and the capture of new markets had many times already served as causes of wars of conquest waged by capitalist states. For capitalist countries war is just as natural and legitimate a condition of things as the exploitation of the working class.<br />
<br />
Wars became inevitable particularly when, at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century, capitalism definitely entered the highest and last stage of its development—imperialism. Under imperialism the powerful capitalist associations (monopolies) and the banks acquired a dominant position in the life of the capitalist states. Finance capital became master in the capitalist states. Finance capital demanded new markets, the seizure of new colonies, new fields for the export of capital, new sources of raw material.<br />
<br />
But by the end of the nineteenth century the whole territory of the globe had already been divided up among the capitalist states. Yet in the era of imperialism the development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly and by leaps: some countries, which previously held a foremost position, now develop their industry at a relatively slow rate, while others, which were formerly backward, overtake and outstrip them by rapid leaps. The relative economic and military strength of the imperialist states was undergoing a change. There arose a striving for a redi-vision of the world, and the struggle for this redivision made imperialist war inevitable. The war of 1914 was a war for the redivision of the world and of spheres of influence. All the imperialist states had long been preparing for it. The imperialists of all countries were responsible for the war.<br />
<br />
But in particular, preparations for this war were made by Germany and Austria, on the one hand, and by France and Great Britain, as well as by Russia, which was dependent on the latter two, on the other. The Triple Entente, an alliance of Great Britain, France and Russia, was formed in 1907. Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy formed another imperialist alliance. But on the outbreak of the war of 1914 Italy left this alliance and later joined the Entente. Germany and Austria-Hungary were supported by Bulgaria and Turkey.<br />
<br />
Germany prepared for the imperialist war with the design of taking away colonies from Great Britain and France, and the Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic Provinces from Russia. By building the Baghdad railway, Germany created a menace to Britain's domination in the Near East. Great Britain feared the growth of Germany's naval armaments.<br />
<br />
Tsarist Russia strove for the partition of Turkey and dreamed of seizing Constantinople and the straits leading from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean (the Dardanelles). The plans of the tsarist government also included the seizure of Galicia, a part of Austria-Hungary.<br />
<br />
Great Britain strove by means of war to smash its dangerous competitor—Germany—whose goods before the war were steadily driving British goods out of the world markets. In addition, Great Britain intended to seize Mesopotamia and Palestine from Turkey and to secure a firm foothold in Egypt.<br />
<br />
The French capitalists strove to take away from Germany the Saar Basin and Alsace-Lorraine, two rich coal and iron regions, the latter of which Germany had seized from France in the war of 1870-71.<br />
<br />
Thus the imperialist war was brought about by profound antagonisms between two groups of capitalist states.<br />
<br />
This rapacious war for the redivision of the world affected the interests of all the imperialist countries, with the result that Japan, the United States and a number of other countries were subsequently drawn into it.<br />
<br />
The war became a world war.<br />
<br />
The bourgeoisie kept the preparations for imperialist war a profound secret from their people. When the war broke out each imperialist government endeavoured to prove that it had not attacked its neighbours, but had been attacked by them. The bourgeoisie deceived the people, concealing the true aims of the war and its imperialist, annexationist character. Each imperialist government declared that it was waging war in defence of its country.<br />
<br />
The opportunists of the Second International helped the bourgeoisie to deceive the people. The Social-Democrats of the Second International vilely betrayed the cause of Socialism, the cause of the international solidarity of the proletariat. Far from opposing the war, they assisted the bourgeoisie in inciting the workers and peasants of the belligerent countries against each other on the plea of defending the fatherland.<br />
<br />
That Russia entered the imperialist war on the side of the Entente, on the side of France and Great Britain, was not accidental. It should be borne in mind that before 1914 the most important branches of Russian industry were in the hands of foreign capitalists, chiefly those of France, Great Britain and Belgium, that is, the Entente countries. The most important of Russia's metal works were in the hands of French capitalists. In all, about three-quarters (72 per cent) of the metal industry depended on foreign capital. The same was true of the coal industry of the Donetz Basin. Oilfields owned by British and French capital accounted for about half the oil output of the country. A considerable part of the profits of Russian industry flowed into foreign banks, chiefly British and French. All these circumstances, in addition to the thousands of millions borrowed by the tsar from France and Britain in loans, chained tsardom to British and French imperialism and converted Russia into a tributary, a semi-colony of these countries.<br />
<br />
The Russian bourgeoisie went to war with the purpose of improving its position: to seize new markets, to make huge profits on war contracts, and at the same time to crush the revolutionary movement by taking advantage of the war situation.<br />
<br />
Tsarist Russia was not ready for war. Russian industry lagged far behind that of other capitalist countries. It consisted predominantly of out-of-date mills and factories with worn-out machinery. Owing to the existence of land ownership based on semi-serfdom, and the vast numbers of impoverished and ruined peasants, her agriculture could not provide a solid economic base for a prolonged war.<br />
<br />
The chief mainstay of the tsar was the feudal landlords. The Black-Hundred big landlords, in alliance with the big capitalists, domineered the country and the State Duma. They wholly supported the home and foreign policy of the tsarist government. The Russian imperialist bourgeoisie placed its hopes in the tsarist autocracy as a mailed fist that could ensure the seizure of new markets and new territories, on the one hand, and crush the revolutionary movement of the workers and peasants, on the other.<br />
<br />
The party of the liberal bourgeoisie—the Constitutional-Democratic Party—made a show of opposition, but supported the foreign policy of the tsarist government unreservedly.<br />
<br />
From the very outbreak of the war, the petty-bourgeois parties, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks, using the flag of Socialism as a screen, helped the bourgeoisie to deceive the people by concealing the imperialist, predatory character of the war. They preached the necessity of defending, of protecting the bourgeois "fatherland" from the "Prussian barbarians"; they supported a policy of "civil peace," and thus helped the government of the Russian tsar to wage war, just as the German Social-Democrats helped the government of the German kaiser to wage war on the "Russian barbarians."<br />
<br />
Only the Bolshevik Party remained faithful to the great cause of revolutionary internationalism and firmly adhered to the Marxist position of a resolute struggle against the tsarist autocracy, against the landlords and capitalists, against the imperialist war. From the very outbreak of the war the Bolshevik Party maintained that it had been started, not for the defence of the country, but for the seizure of foreign territory, for the spoliation of foreign nations in the interests of the landlords and capitalists, and that the workers must wage a determined war on this war.<br />
<br />
The working class supported the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
True, the bourgeois jingoism displayed in the early days of the war by the intelligentsia and the kulak sections of the peasantry also infected a certain section of the workers. But these were chiefly members of the ruffian "League of the Russian People" and some workers who were under the influence of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks. They naturally did not, and could not, reflect the sentiments of the working class. It was these elements who took part in the jingo demonstrations of the bourgeoisie engineered by the tsarist government in the early days of the war.<br />
<br />
=== Parties of the Second International side with their imperialist governments. Disintegration of the Second International into separate chauvinist parties ===<br />
Lenin had time and again warned against the opportunism of the Second International and the wavering attitude of its leaders. He had always insisted that the leaders of the Second International only talked of being opposed to war, and that if war were to break out they would change their attitude, desert to the side of the imperialist bourgeoisie and become supporters of the war. What Lenin had foretold was borne out in the very first days of the war.<br />
<br />
In 1910, at the Copenhagen Congress of the Second International, it was decided that Socialists in parliament should vote against war credits. At the time of the Balkan War of 1912, the Basle World Congress of the Second International declared that the workers of all countries considered it a crime to shoot one another for the sake of increasing the profits of the capitalists. That is what they said, that is what they proclaimed in their resolutions.<br />
<br />
But when the storm burst, when the imperialist war broke out, and the time had come to put these decisions into effect, the leaders of the Second International proved to be traitors, betrayers of the proletariat and servitors of the bourgeoisie. They became supporters of the war.<br />
<br />
On August 4, 1914, the German Social-Democrats in parliament voted for the war credits; they voted to support the imperialist war. So did the overwhelming majority of the Socialists in France, Great Britain, Belgium and other countries.<br />
<br />
The Second International ceased to exist. Actually it broke up into separate social-chauvinist parties which warred against each other.<br />
<br />
The leaders of the Socialist parties betrayed the proletariat and adopted the position of social-chauvinism and defence of the imperialist bourgeoisie. They helped the imperialist governments to hoodwink the working class and to poison it with the venom of nationalism. Using the defence of the fatherland as a plea, these social-traitors began to incite the German workers against the French workers, and the British and French workers against the German workers. Only an insignificant minority of the Second International kept to the internationalist position and went against the current; true, they did not do so confidently and definitely enough, but go against the current they did.<br />
<br />
Only the Bolshevik Party immediately and unhesitatingly raised the banner of determined struggle against the imperialist war. In the theses on the war that Lenin wrote in the autumn of 1914, he pointed out that the fall of the Second International was not accidental. The Second International had been ruined by the opportunists, against whom the foremost representatives of the revolutionary proletariat had long been warning.<br />
<br />
The parties of the Second International had already been infected by opportunism before the war. The opportunists had openly preached renunciation of the revolutionary struggle; they had preached the theory of the "peaceful growing of capitalism into Socialism." The Second International did not want to combat opportunism; it wanted to live in peace with opportunism, and allowed it to gain a firm hold. Pursuing a conciliatory policy towards opportunism, the Second International itself became opportunist.<br />
<br />
The imperialist bourgeoisie systematically bribed the upper stratum of skilled workers, the so-called labour aristocracy, by means of higher wages and other sops, using for this purpose part of the profits it derived from the colonies, from the exploitation of backward countries. This section of workers had produced quite a number of trade union and cooperative leaders, members of municipal and parliamentary bodies, journalists and functionaries of Social-Democratic organizations. When the war broke out, these people, fearing to lose their positions, became foes of revolution and most zealous defenders of their own bourgeoisies, of their own imperialist governments.<br />
<br />
The opportunists became social-chauvinists.<br />
<br />
The social-chauvinists, the Russian Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries among their number, preached ''class peace'' between the workers and the bourgeoisie at home and war on other nations abroad. They deceived the masses by concealing from them who was really responsible for the war and declaring that the bourgeoisie of their particular country was not to blame. Many social-chauvinists became ministers of the imperialist governments of their countries.<br />
<br />
No less dangerous to the cause of the proletariat were the covert social-chauvinists, the so-called Centrists. The Centrists—Kautsky, Trotsky, Martov and others—justified and defended the avowed social-chauvinists, thus joining the social-chauvinists in betraying the proletariat; they masked their treachery by "Leftist" talk about combating the war, talk designed to deceive the working class. As a matter of fact, the Centrists supported the war, for their proposal not to vote against war credits, but merely to abstain when a vote on the credits was being taken, meant supporting the war. Like the social-chauvinists, they demanded the renunciation of the class struggle during the war so as not to hamper their particular imperialist government in waging the war. The Centrist Trotsky opposed Lenin and the Bolshevik Party on all the important questions of the war and Socialism.<br />
<br />
From the very outbreak of the war Lenin began to muster forces for the creation of a new International, the Third International. In the manifesto against the war it issued in November 19i4, the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party already called for the formation of the Third International in place of the Second International which had suffered disgraceful bankruptcy.<br />
<br />
In February 1915, a conference of Socialists of the Entente countries was held in London. Comrade Litvinov, on Lenin's instructions, spoke at this conference demanding that the Socialists (Vandervelde, Sembat and Guesde) should resign from the bourgeois government of Belgium and France, completely break with the imperialists and refuse to collaborate with them. He demanded that all Socialists should wage a determined struggle against their imperialist governments and condemn the voting of war credits. But no voice in support of Litvinov was raised at this conference.<br />
<br />
At the beginning of September 1915 the first conference of internationalists was held in Zimmerwald. Lenin called this conference the "first step" in the development of an international movement against the war. At this conference Lenin formed the Zimmerwald Left group. But within the Zimmerwald Left group only the Bolshevik Party, headed by Lenin, took a correct and thoroughly consistent stand against the war. The Zimmerwald Left group published a magazine in German called the ''Vorbote (Herald)'', to which Lenin contributed articles.<br />
<br />
In 1916 the internationalists succeeded in convening a second conference in the Swiss village of Kienthal. It is known as the Second Zim-merwald Conference. By this time groups of internationalists had been formed in nearly every country and the cleavage between the internationalist elements and the social-chauvinists had become more sharply defined. But the most important thing was that by this time the masses themselves had shifted to the Left under the influence of the war and its attendant distress. The manifesto drawn up by the Kienthal Conference was the result of an agreement between various conflicting groups; it was an advance on the Zimmerwald Manifesto.<br />
<br />
But like the Zimmerwald Conference, the Kienthal Conference did not accept the basic principles of the Bolshevik policy, namely, the conversion of the imperialist war into a civil war, the defeat of one's own imperialist government in the war, and the formation of the Third International. Nevertheless, the Kienthal Conference helped to crystallize the internationalist elements of whom the Communist Third International was subsequently formed.<br />
<br />
Lenin criticized the mistakes of the inconsistent internationalists among the Left Social-Democrats, such as Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Lieb-knecht, but at the same time he helped them to take the correct position.<br />
<br />
=== Theory and tactics of the Bolshevik Party on the question of war, peace and revolution ===<br />
The Bolsheviks were not mere pacifists who sighed for peace and confined themselves to the propaganda of peace, as the majority of the Left Social-Democrats did. The Bolsheviks advocated an active revolutionary struggle for peace, to the point of overthrowing the rule of the bellicose imperialist bourgeoisie. The Bolsheviks linked up the cause of peace with the cause of the victory of the proletarian revolution, holding that the surest way of ending the war and securing a just peace, a peace without annexations and indemnities, was to overthrow the rule of the imperialist bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
In opposition to the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary renunciation of revolution and their treacherous slogan of preserving "civil peace" in time of war, the Bolsheviks advanced the slogan of "''converting the imperialist war into a civil, war.''" This slogan meant that the labouring people, including the armed workers and peasants clad in soldiers' uniform, were to turn their weapons against their own bourgeoisie and overthrow its rule if they wanted to put an end to the war and achieve a just peace.<br />
<br />
In opposition to the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary policy of defending the bourgeois fatherland, the Bolsheviks advanced the policy of "the ''defeat of one's own government in the imperialist war''." This meant voting against war credits, forming illegal revolutionary organizations in the armed forces, supporting fraternization among the soldiers at the front, organizing revolutionary actions of the workers and peasants against the war, and turning these actions into an uprising against one's own imperialist government.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks maintained that the lesser evil for the people would be the military defeat of the tsarist government in the imperialist war, for this would facilitate the victory of the people over tsardom and the success of the struggle of the working class for emancipation from capitalist slavery and imperialist wars. Lenin held that the policy of working for the defeat of one's own imperialist government must be pursued not only by the Russian revolutionaries, but by the revolutionary parties of the working class in ''all'' the belligerent countries.<br />
<br />
It was not to ''every kind'' of war that the Bolsheviks were opposed. They were only opposed to wars of conquest, imperialist wars. The Bolsheviks held that there are two kinds of war:<br />
<br />
a) ''Just'' wars, wars that are not wars of conquest but wars of liberation, waged to defend the people from foreign attack and from attempt to enslave them, or to liberate the people from capitalist slavery, or, lastly, to liberate colonies and dependent countries from the yoke of imperialism; and<br />
<br />
b) ''Unjust'' wars, wars of conquest, waged to conquer and enslave foreign countries and foreign nations.<br />
<br />
Wars of the first kind the Bolsheviks supported. As to wars of the second kind, the Bolsheviks maintained that a resolute struggle must be waged against them to the point of revolution and the overthrow of one's own imperialist government.<br />
<br />
Of great importance to the working class of the world was Lenin's theoretical work during the war. In the spring of 1916 Lenin wrote a book entitled ''Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism''. In this book he showed that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, a stage at which it has already become transformed from "progressive" capitalism to parasitic capitalism, decaying capitalism, and that imperialism is moribund capitalism. This, of course, did not mean that capitalism would die away of itself, without a revolution of the proletariat, that it would just rot on the stalk. Lenin always taught that without a revolution of the working class capitalism cannot be overthrown. Therefore, while defining imperialism as moribund capitalism, Lenin at the same time showed that "imperialism is the eve of the social revolution of the proletariat."<br />
<br />
Lenin showed that in the era of imperialism the capitalist yoke becomes more and more oppressive, that under imperialism the revolt of the proletariat against the foundations of capitalism grows, and that the elements of a revolutionary outbreak accumulate in capitalist countries. Lenin showed that in the era of imperialism the revolutionary crisis in the colonial and dependent countries becomes more acute, that the elements of revolt against imperialism, the elements of a war of liberation from imperialism accumulate.<br />
<br />
Lenin showed that under imperialism the unevenness of development and the contradictions of capitalism have grown particularly acute, that the struggle for markets and fields for the export of capital, the struggle for colonies, for sources of raw material, makes periodical imperialist wars for the redivision of the world inevitable.<br />
<br />
Lenin showed that it is just this unevenness of development of capitalism that gives rise to imperialist wars, which undermine the strength of imperialism and make it possible to break the front of imperialism at its weakest point.<br />
<br />
From all this Lenin drew the conclusion that it was quite possible for the proletariat to break the imperialist front in one place or in several places, that the victory of Socialism was ''possible'' first in several countries or even in one country, taken singly, that the simultaneous victory of Socialism in all countries was ''impossible'' owing to the unevenness of development of capitalism, and that Socialism would be victorious first in one country or in several countries, while the others would remain bourgeois countries for some time longer.<br />
<br />
Here is the formulation of this brilliant deduction as given by Lenin in two articles written during the imperialist war:<br />
<br />
1 ) "Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of Socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country, taken singly. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organized its own Socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world, attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries..." (From the article, "The United States of Europe Slogan," written in August, 1915.—Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. V, p. 141.)<br />
<br />
2) "The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in the various countries. It cannot be otherwise under the commodity production system. From this it follows irrefutably that Socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois for some time. This must not only create friction, but a direct striving on the part of the bourgeoisie of other countries to crush the victorious proletariat of the Socialist country. In such cases a war on our part would be a legitimate and just war. It would be a war for Socialism, for the liberation of other nations from the bourgeoisie." (From the article, "War Program of the Proletarian Revolution," written in the autumn of 1916.—Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. XIX, p. 325.)<br />
<br />
This was a new and complete theory of the Socialist revolution, a theory affirming the possibility of the victory of Socialism in separate countries, and indicating the conditions of this victory and its prospects, a theory whose fundamentals were outlined by Lenin as far back as 1905 in his pamphlet, ''Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution''.<br />
<br />
This theory fundamentally differed from the view current among the Marxists in the period of ''pre-imperialist'' capitalism, when they held that the victory of Socialism in one separate country was impossible, and that it would take place simultaneously in all the civilized countries. On the basis of the facts concerning imperialist capitalism set forth in his remarkable book, ''Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism'', Lenin displaced this view as obsolete and set forth a new theory, from which it follows that the simultaneous victory of Socialism in all countries is ''impossible,'' while the victory of Socialism in one capitalist country, taken singly, is ''possible''.<br />
<br />
The inestimable importance of Lenin's theory of Socialist revolution lies not only in the fact that it has enriched Marxism with a new theory and has advanced Marxism, but also in the fact that it opens up a revolutionary perspective for the proletarians of separate countries, that it unfetters their initiative in the onslaught on their own, national bourgeoisie, that it teaches them to take advantage of a war situation to organize this onslaught, and that it strengthens their faith in the victory of the proletarian revolution.<br />
<br />
Such was the theoretical and tactical stand of the Bolsheviks on the questions of war, peace and revolution.<br />
<br />
It was on the basis of this stand that the Bolsheviks carried on their practical work in Russia.<br />
<br />
At the beginning of the war, in spite of severe persecution by the police, the Bolshevik members of the Duma—Badayev, Petrovsky, Mu-ranov, Samoilov and Shagov—visited a number of organizations and addressed them on the policy of the Bolsheviks towards the war and revolution. In November 1914 a conference of the Bolshevik group in the State Duma was convened to discuss policy towards the war. On the third day of the conference all present were arrested. The court sentenced the Bolshevik members of the State Duma to forfeiture of civil rights and banishment to Eastern Siberia. The tsarist government charged them with "high treason."<br />
<br />
The picture of the activities of the Duma members unfolded in court did credit to our Party. The Bolshevik deputies conducted themselves manfully, transforming the tsarist court into a platform from which they exposed the annexationist policy of tsardom.<br />
<br />
Quite different was the conduct of Kamenev, who was also tried in this case. Owing to his cowardice, he abjured the policy of the Bolshevik Party at the first contact with danger. Kamenev declared in court that he did not agree with the Bolsheviks on the question of the war, and to prove this he requested that the Menshevik Jordansky be summoned as witness.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks worked very effectively against the War Industry Committees set up to serve the needs of war, and against the attempts of the Mensheviks to bring the workers under the influence of the imperialist bourgeoisie. It was of vital interest to the bourgeoisie to make everybody believe that the imperialist war was a people's war. During the war the bourgeoisie managed to attain considerable influence in affairs of state and set up a countrywide organization of its own known as the Unions of Zemstvos and Towns. It was necessary for the bourgeoisie to bring the workers, too, under its leadership and influence. It conceived a way to do this, namely, by forming "Workers' Groups" of the War Industry Committees. The Mensheviks jumped at this idea. It was to the advantage of the bourgeoisie to have on these War Industry Committees representatives of the workers who would urge the working class masses to increase productivity of labour in the factories producing shells, guns, rifles, cartridges and other war material. "Everything for the war, all for the war"—was the slogan of the bourgeoisie. Actually, this slogan meant "get as rich as you can on war contracts and seizures of foreign territory." The Mensheviks took an active part in this pseudo-patriotic scheme of the bourgeoisie. They helped the capitalists by conducting an intense campaign among the workers to get them to take part in the elections of the "Workers' Groups" of the War Industry Committees. The Bolsheviks were against this scheme. They advocated a boycott of the War Industry Committees and were successful in securing this boycott. But some of the workers, headed by a prominent Menshevik, Gvozdev, and an agent-provocateur, Abrosimov, did take part in the activities of the War Industry Committees. When, however, the workers' delegates met, in September 1915, for the final elections of the "Workers' Groups" of the War Industry Committees, it turned out that the majority of the delegates were opposed to participation in them. A majority of the workers' delegates adopted a trenchant resolution opposing participation in the War Industry Committees and declared that the workers had made it their aim to fight for peace and for the overthrow of tsardom.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks also developed extensive activities in the army and navy. They explained to the soldiers and sailors who was to blame for the unparalleled horrors of the war and the sufferings of the people; they explained that there was only one way out for the people from the imperialist shambles, and that was revolution. The Bolsheviks formed nuclei in the army and navy, at the front and in the rear, and distributed leaflets calling for a fight against the war.<br />
<br />
In Kronstadt, the Bolsheviks formed a "Central Collective of the Kronstadt Military Organization" which had close connections with the Petrograd Committee of the Party. A military organization of the Petrograd Party Committee was set up for work among the garrison.<br />
<br />
In August 1916, the chief of the Petrograd ''Okhrana'' reported that "in the Kronstadt Collective, things are very well organized, conspira-torially, and its members are all taciturn and cautious people. This Collective also has representatives on shore."<br />
<br />
At the front, the Party agitated for fraternization between the soldiers of the warring armies, emphasizing the fact that the world bourgeoisie was the enemy, and that the war could be ended only by converting the imperialist war into a civil war and turning one's weapons against one's own bourgeoisie and its government. Cases of refusal of army units to take the offensive became more and more frequent. There were already such instances in 1915, and even more in 1916.<br />
<br />
Particularly extensive were the activities of the Bolsheviks in the armies on the Northern Front, in the Baltic provinces. At the beginning of 1917 General Ruzsky, Commander of the Army on the Northern Front, informed Headquarters that the Bolsheviks had developed intense revolutionary activities on that front.<br />
<br />
The war wrought a profound change in the life of the peoples, in the life of the working class of the world. The fate of states, the fate of nations, the fate of the Socialist movement was at stake. The war was therefore a touchstone, a test for all parties and trends calling themselves Socialist. Would these parties and trends remain true to the cause of Socialism, to the cause of internationalism, or would they choose to betray the working class, to furl their banners and lay them at the feet of their national bourgeoisie?—that is how the question stood at the time.<br />
<br />
The war showed that the parties of the Second International had not stood the test, that they had betrayed the working class and had surrendered their banners to the imperialist bourgeoisie of their own countries.<br />
<br />
And these parties, which had cultivated opportunism in their midst, and which had been brought up to make concessions to the opportunists, to the nationalists, could not have acted differently.<br />
<br />
The war showed that the Bolshevik Party was the only party which had passed the test with flying colours and had remained consistently faithful to the cause of Socialism, the cause of proletarian internationalism.<br />
<br />
And that was to be expected : only a party of a new type, only a party fostered in the spirit of uncompromising struggle against opportunism, only a party that was free from opportunism and nationalism, only such a party could stand the great test and remain faithful to the cause of the working class, to the cause of Socialism and internationalism.<br />
<br />
And the Bolshevik Party was such a party.<br />
<br />
=== Defeat of the tsarist army. Economic disruption. Crisis of Tsardom ===<br />
The war had already been in progress for three years. Millions of people had been killed in the war, or had died of wounds or from epidemics caused by war conditions. The bourgeoisie and landlords were making fortunes out of the war. But the workers and peasants were suffering increasing hardship and privation. The war was undermining the economic life of Russia. Some fourteen million able-bodied men had been torn from economic pursuits and drafted into the army. Mills and factories were coming to a standstill. The crop area had diminished owing to a shortage of labour. The population and the soldiers at the front went hungry, barefoot and naked. The war was eating up the resources of the country.<br />
<br />
The tsarist army suffered defeat after defeat. The German artillery deluged the tsarist troops with shells, while the tsarist army lacked guns, shells and even rifles. Sometimes three soldiers had to share one rifle. While the war was in progress it was discovered that Sukhomlinov, the tsar's Minister of War, was a traitor, who was connected with German spies, and was carrying out the instructions of the German espionage service to disorganize the supply of munitions and to leave the front without guns and rifles. Some of the tsarist ministers and generals surreptitiously assisted the success of the German army: together with the tsarina, who had German ties, they betrayed military secrets to the Germans. It is not surprising that the tsarist army suffered reverses and was forced to retreat. By 19i6 the Germans had already seized Poland and part of the Baltic provinces.<br />
<br />
All this aroused hatred and anger against the tsarist government among the workers, peasants, soldiers and intellectuals, fostered and intensified the revolutionary movement of the masses against the war and against tsardom, both in the rear and at the front, in the central and in the border regions.<br />
<br />
Dissatisfaction also began to spread to the Russian imperialist bourgeoisie. It was incensed by the fact that rascals like Rasputin, who were obviously working for a separate peace with Germany, lorded it at the tsar's court. The bourgeoisie grew more and more convinced that the tsarist government was incapable of waging war successfully. It feared that the tsar might, in order to save his position, conclude a separate peace with the Germans. The Russian bourgeoisie therefore decided to engineer a palace coup with the object of deposing Tsar Nicholas II and replacing him by his brother, Michael Romanov, who was connected with the bourgeoisie. In this way it wanted to kill two birds with one stone: first, to get into power itself and ensure the further prosecution of the imperialist war, and, secondly, to prevent by a small palace coup the outbreak of a big popular revolution, the tide of which was swelling.<br />
<br />
In this the Russian bourgeoisie had the full support of the British and French governments who saw that the tsar was incapable of carrying on the war. They feared that he might end it by concluding a separate peace with the Germans. If the tsarist government were to sign a separate peace, the British and French governments would lose a war ally which not only diverted enemy forces to its own fronts, but also supplied France with tens of thousands of picked Russian soldiers. The British and French governments therefore supported the attempts of the Russian bourgeoisie to bring about a palace coup.<br />
<br />
The tsar was thus isolated.<br />
<br />
While defeat followed defeat at the front, economic disruption grew more and more acute. In January and February 1917 the extent and acuteness of the disorganization of the food, raw material and fuel supply reached a climax. The supply of foodstuffs to Petrograd and Moscow had almost ceased. One factory after another closed down and this aggravated unemployment. Particularly intolerable was the condition of the workers. Increasing numbers of the people were arriving at the conviction that the only way out of the intolerable situation was to overthrow the tsarist autocracy.<br />
<br />
Tsardom was clearly in the throes of a mortal crisis.<br />
<br />
The bourgeoisie thought of solving the crisis by a palace coup.<br />
<br />
But the people solved it in their own way.<br />
<br />
=== The February revolution. Fall of Tsardom. Formation of soviets of workers’ and soldiers’ deputies. Formation of the provisional government. Dual power ===<br />
The year 1917 was inaugurated by the strike of January 9. In the course of this strike demonstrations were held in Petrograd, Moscow, Baku and Nizhni-Novgorod. In Moscow about one-third of the workers took part in the strike of January 9. A demonstration of two thousand persons on Tverskoi Boulevard was dispersed by mounted police. A demonstration on the Vyborg Chaussee in Petrograd was joined by soldiers.<br />
<br />
"The idea of a general strike," the Petrograd police reported, "is daily gaining new followers and is becoming as popular as it was in 1905."<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries tried to direct this incipient revolutionary movement into the channels the liberal bourgeoisie needed. The Mensheviks proposed that a procession of workers to the State Duma be organized on February 14, the day of its opening. But the working-class masses followed the Bolsheviks, and went, not to the Duma, but to a demonstration.<br />
<br />
On February 18, 1917, a strike broke out at the Putilov Works in Petrograd. On February 22 the workers of most of the big factories were on strike. On International Women's Day, February 23 (March 8), at the call of the Petrograd Bolshevik Committee, working women came out in the streets to demonstrate against starvation, war and tsar-dom. The Petrograd workers supported the demonstration of the working women by a city-wide strike movement. The political strike began to grow into a general political demonstration against the tsarist system.<br />
<br />
On February 24 (March 9) the demonstration was resumed with even greater vigour. About 200,000 workers were already on strike.<br />
<br />
On February 25 (March 10) the whole of working-class Petrograd had joined the revolutionary movement. The political strikes in the districts merged into a general political strike of the whole city. Demonstrations and clashes with the police took place everywhere. Over the masses of workers floated red banners bearing the slogans: "Down with the tsar!" "Down with the war!" "We want bread!"<br />
<br />
On the morning of February 26 (March 11) the political strike and demonstration began to assume the character of an uprising. The workers disarmed police and gendarmes and armed themselves. Nevertheless, the clashes with the police ended with the shooting down of a demonstration on Znamenskaya Square.<br />
<br />
General Khabalov, Commander of the Petrograd Military Area, announced that the workers must return to work by February 28 (March 13), otherwise they would be sent to the front. On February 25 (March 10) the tsar gave orders to General Khabalov: "I command you to put a stop to the disorders in the capital not later than tomorrow."<br />
<br />
But "to put a stop" to the revolution was no longer possible.<br />
<br />
On February 26 (March 11) the 4 th Company of the Reserve Battalion of the Pavlovsky Regiment opened fire, not on the workers, however, but on squads of mounted police who were engaged in a skirmish with the workers. A most energetic and persistent drive was made to win over the troops, especially by the working women, who addressed themselves directly to the soldiers, fraternized with them and called upon them to help the people to overthrow the hated tsarist autocracy.<br />
<br />
The practical work of the Bolshevik Party at that time was directed by the Bureau of the Central Committee of our Party which had its quarters in Petrograd and was headed by Comrade Molotov. On February 26 (March 11) the Bureau of the Central Committee issued a manifesto calling for the continuation of the armed struggle against tsardom and the formation of a Provisional Revolutionary Government.<br />
<br />
On February 27 (March 12) the troops in Petrograd refused to fire on the workers and began to line up with the people in revolt. The number of soldiers who had joined the revolt by the morning of February 27 was still no more than 10,000, but by the evening it already exceeded 60,000.<br />
<br />
The workers and soldiers who had risen in revolt began to arrest tsarist ministers and generals and to free revolutionaries from jail. The released political prisoners joined the revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
In the streets, shots were still being exchanged with police and gendarmes posted with machine guns in the attics of houses. But the troops rapidly went over to the side of the workers, and this decided the fate of the tsarist autocracy.<br />
<br />
When the news of the victory of the revolution in Petrograd spread to other towns and to the front, the workers and soldiers everywhere began to depose the tsarist officials.<br />
<br />
The February bourgeois-democratic revolution had won.<br />
<br />
The revolution was victorious because its vanguard was the working class which headed the movement of millions of peasants clad in soldiers' uniform demanding "peace, bread and liberty." It was the hegemony of the proletariat that determined the success of the revolution.<br />
<br />
"The revolution was made by the proletariat. The proletariat displayed heroism; it shed its blood; it swept along with it the broadest masses of the toiling and poor population," wrote Lenin in the early days of the revolution. (Lenin, ''Collected Works,'' Russ. ed., Vol. XX, pp. 23-4.)<br />
<br />
The First Revolution, that of 1905, had prepared the way for the swift success of the Second Revolution, that of 1917.<br />
<br />
"Without the tremendous class battles," Lenin wrote, "and the revolutionary energy displayed by the Russian proletariat during the three years, 1905-07, the second revolution could not possibly have been so rapid in the sense that its initial stage was completed in a few days." (Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. VI, pp. 3-4.)<br />
<br />
Soviets arose in the very first days of the revolution. The victorious revolution rested on the support of the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. The workers and soldiers who rose in revolt created Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. The Revolution of 1905 had shown that the Soviets were organs of armed uprising and at the same time the embryo of a new, revolutionary power. The idea of Soviets lived in the minds of the working-class masses, and they put it into effect as soon as tsardom was overthrown, with this difference, however, that in 1905 it was Soviets only of ''Workers'<nowiki/>'' Deputies that were formed, whereas in February 1917, on the initiative of the Bolsheviks, there arose Soviets of ''Workers'<nowiki/>'' and ''Soldiers''' Deputies.<br />
<br />
While the Bolsheviks were directly leading the struggle of the masses in the streets, the compromising parties, the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, were seizing the seats in the Soviets, and building up a majority there. This was partly facilitated by the fact that the majority of the leaders of the Bolshevik Party were in prison or exile (Lenin was in exile abroad and Stalin and Sverdlov in banishment in Siberia) while the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries were freely promenading the streets of Petrograd. The result was that the Petrograd Soviet and its Executive Committee were headed by representatives of the compromising parties: Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries. This was also the case in Moscow and a number of other cities. Only in Ivanovo-Voznesensk, Krasnoyarsk and a few other places did the Bolsheviks have a majority in the Soviets from the very outset.<br />
<br />
The armed people—the workers and soldiers—sent their representatives to the Soviet as to an organ of power of the people. They thought and believed that the Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies would carry out all the demands of the revolutionary people, and that, in the first place, peace would be concluded.<br />
<br />
But the unwarranted trustfulness of the workers and soldiers served them in evil stead. The Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks had not the slightest intention of terminating the war, of securing peace. They planned to take advantage of the revolution to continue the war. As to the revolution and the revolutionary demands of the people, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks considered that the revolution was already over, and that the task now was to seal it and to pass to a "normal" constitutional existence side by side with the bourgeoisie. The Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik leaders of the Petrograd Soviet therefore did their utmost to shelve the question of terminating the war, to shelve the question of peace, and to hand over the power to the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
On February 27 (March 12), 1917, the liberal members of the Fourth State Duma, as the result of a backstairs agreement with the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik leaders, set up a Provisional Committee of the State Duma, headed by Rodzyanko, the President of the Duma, a landlord and a monarchist. And a few days later, the Provisional Committee of the State Duma and the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik leaders of the Executive Committee of the Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, acting secretly from the Bolsheviks, came to an agreement to form a new government of Russia—a bourgeois Provisional Government, headed by Prince Lvov, the man whom, prior to the February Revolution, even Tsar Nicholas II was about to make the Prime Minister of his government. The Provisional Government included Milyukov, the head of the Constitutional-Democrats, Guchkov, the head of the Octobrists, and other prominent representatives of the capitalist class, and, as the representative of the "democracy," the Socialist-Revolutionary Kerensky.<br />
<br />
And so it was that the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik leaders of the Executive Committee of the Soviet surrendered the power to the bourgeoisie. Yet when the Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies learned of this, its majority formally approved of the action of the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik leaders, despite the protest of the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
Thus a new state power arose in Russia, consisting, as Lenin said, of representatives of the "bourgeoisie and landlords who had become bourgeois."<br />
<br />
But alongside of the bourgeois government there existed another power—the Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. The soldier deputies on the Soviet were mostly peasants who had been mobilized for the war. The Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies was an organ of the alliance of workers and peasants against the tsarist regime, and at the same time it was an organ of their power, an organ of the dictatorship of the working class and the peasantry.<br />
<br />
The result was a peculiar interlocking of two powers, of two dictatorships: the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, represented by the Provisional Government, and the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, represented by the Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies.<br />
<br />
The result was a ''dual power.''<br />
<br />
How is it to be explained that the majority in the Soviets at first consisted of Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries?<br />
<br />
How is it to be explained that the victorious workers and peasants ''voluntarily'' surrendered the power to the representatives of the bourgeoisie?<br />
<br />
Lenin explained it by pointing out that millions of people, inexperienced in politics, had awakened and pressed forward to political activity. These were for the most part small owners, peasants, workers who had recently been peasants, people who stood midway between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Russia was at that time the most petty-bourgeois of all the big European countries. And in this country, "a gigantic petty-bourgeois wave has swept over everything and overwhelmed the class-conscious proletariat, not only by force of numbers but also ideologically; that is, it has infected and imbued very wide circles of workers with the petty-bourgeois political outlook." (Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. VI, p. 49.)<br />
<br />
It was this elemental petty-bourgeois wave that swept the petty-bourgeois Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary parties to the fore.<br />
<br />
Lenin pointed out that another reason was the change in the composition of the proletariat that had taken place during the war and the inadequate class-consciousness and organization of the proletariat at the beginning of the revolution. During the war big changes had taken place in the proletariat itself. About 40 per cent of the regular workers had been drafted into the army. Many small owners, artisans and shopkeepers, to whom the proletarian psychology was alien, had gone to the factories in order to evade mobilization.<br />
<br />
It was these petty-bourgeois sections of the workers that formed the soil which nourished the petty-bourgeois politicians—the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries.<br />
<br />
That is why large numbers of the people, inexperienced in politics, swept into the elemental petty-bourgeois vortex, and intoxicated with the first successes of the revolution, found themselves in its early months under the sway of the compromising parties and consented to surrender the state power to the bourgeoisie in the naive belief that a bourgeois power would not hinder the Soviets in their work.<br />
<br />
The task that confronted the Bolshevik Party was, by patient work of explanation, to open the eyes of the masses to the imperialist character of the Provisional Government, to expose the treachery of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks and to show that peace could not be secured unless the Provisional Government were replaced by a government of Soviets.<br />
<br />
And to this work the Bolshevik Party addressed itself with the utmost energy.<br />
<br />
It resumed the publication of its legal periodicals. The newspaper ''Pravda'' appeared in Petrograd five days after the February Revolution, and the ''Sotsial-Demokrat'' in Moscow a few days later. The Party was assuming leadership of the masses, who were losing their confidence in the liberal bourgeoisie and in the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries. It patiently explained to the soldiers and peasants the necessity of acting jointly with the working class. It explained to them that the peasants would secure neither peace nor land unless the revolution were further developed and the bourgeois Provisional Government replaced by a government of Soviets.<br />
<br />
=== Brief summary ===<br />
The imperialist war arose owing to the uneven development of the capitalist countries, to the upsetting of equilibrium between the principal powers, to the imperialists' need for a redivision of the world by means of war and for the creation of a new equilibrium.<br />
<br />
The war would not have been so destructive, and perhaps would not even have assumed such dimensions, if the parties of the Second International had not betrayed the cause of the working class, if they had not violated the anti-war decisions of the congresses of the Second International, if they had dared to act and to rouse the working class against their imperialist governments, against the warmongers.<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik Party was the only proletarian party which remained faithful to the cause of Socialism and internationalism and which organized civil war against its own imperialist government. All the other parties of the Second International, being tied to the bourgeoisie through their leaders, found themselves under the sway of imperialism and deserted to the side of the imperialists.<br />
<br />
The war, while it was a reflection of the general crisis of capitalism, at the same time aggravated this crisis and weakened world capitalism. The workers of Russia and the Bolshevik Party were the first in the world successfully to take advantage of the weakness of capitalism. They forced a breach in the imperialist front, overthrew the tsar and set up Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies.<br />
<br />
Intoxicated by the first successes of the revolution, and lulled by the assurances of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries that from now on everything would go well, the bulk of the petty-bourgeoisie, the soldiers, as well as the workers, placed their confidence in the Provisional Government and supported it.<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik Party was confronted with the task of explaining to the masses of workers and soldiers, who had been intoxicated by the first successes, that the complete victory of the revolution was still a long way off, that as long as the power was in the hands of the bourgeois Provisional Government, and as long as the Soviets were dominated by the compromisers—the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries—the people would secure neither peace, nor land, nor bread, and that in order to achieve complete victory, one more step had to be taken and the power transferred to the Soviets.<br />
<br />
== The Bolshevik party in the period of preparation and realization of the October socialist revolution (April 1917—1918) ==<br />
<br />
=== Situation in the country after the February revolution. Party emerges from underground and passes to open political work. Lenin arrives in Petrograd. Lenin’s April theses. Party’s policy of transition to socialist revolution ===<br />
The course of events and the conduct of the Provisional Government daily furnished new proofs of the correctness of the Bolshevik line. It became increasingly evident that the Provisional Government stood not for the people but against the people, not for peace but for war, and that it was unwilling and unable to give the people peace, land or bread. The explanatory work of the Bolsheviks found a fruitful soil.<br />
<br />
While the workers and soldiers were overthrowing the tsarist government and destroying the monarchy root and branch, the Provisional Government definitely wanted to preserve the monarchy. On March 2, 1917, it secretly commissioned Guchkov and Shulgin to go and see the tsar. The bourgeoisie wanted to transfer the power to Nicholas Romanov's brother, Michael. But when, at a meeting of railwaymen, Guchkov ended his speech with the words, "Long live Emperor Michael," the workers demanded that Guchkov be immediately arrested and searched. "Horse-radish is no sweeter than radish," they exclaimed indignantly.<br />
<br />
It was clear that the workers would not permit the restoration of the monarchy.<br />
<br />
While the workers and peasants who were shedding their blood making the revolution expected that the war would be terminated, while they were fighting for bread and land and demanding vigorous measures to end the economic chaos, the Provisional Government remained deaf to these vital demands of the people. Consisting as it did of prominent representatives of the capitalists and landlords, this government had no intention of satisfying the demand of the peasants that the land be turned over to them. Nor could they provide bread for the working people, because to do so they would have to encroach on the interests of the big grain dealers and to take grain from the landlords and the kulaks by every available means; and this the government did not dare to do, for it was itself tied up with the interests of these classes. Nor could it give the people peace. Bound as it was to the British and French imperialists, the Provisional Government had no intention of terminating the war; on the contrary, it endeavoured to take advantage of the revolution to make Russia's participation in the imperialist war even more active, and to realize its imperialist designs of seizing Constantinople, the Straits and Galicia.<br />
<br />
It was clear that the people's confidence in the policy of the Provisional Government must soon come to an end.<br />
<br />
It was becoming clear that the dual power which had arisen after the February Revolution could not last long, for the course of events demanded the concentration of power in the hands of one authority: either the Provisional Government or the Soviets.<br />
<br />
It was true that the compromising policy of the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries still met with support among the masses. There were quite a number of workers, and an even larger number of soldiers and peasants, who still believed that "the Constituent Assembly will soon come and arrange everything in a peaceful way," and who thought that the war was not waged for purposes of conquest, but from necessity— to defend the state. Lenin called such people honestly-mistaken supporters of the war. These people still considered the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik policy, which was one of promises and coaxing, the correct policy. But it was clear that promises and coaxing could not suffice for long, as the course of events and the conduct of the Provisional Government were daily revealing and proving that the compromising policy of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks was a policy of procrastination and of hoodwinking the credulous.<br />
<br />
The Provisional Government did not always confine itself to a covert struggle against the revolutionary movement of the masses, to backstairs scheming against the revolution. It sometimes attempted to make an open assault on the democratic liberties, to "restore discipline," especially among the soldiers, to "establish order," that is, to direct the revolution into channels that suited the needs of the bourgeoisie. But all its efforts in this direction failed, and the people eagerly exercised their democratic liberties, namely, freedom of speech, press, association, assembly and demonstration. The workers and soldiers endeavoured to make full use of their newly-won democratic rights in order to take an active part in the political life of the country, to get an intelligent understanding of the situation and to decide what was to be done next.<br />
<br />
After the February Revolution, the organizations of the Bolshevik Party, which had worked illegally under the extremely difficult conditions of tsardom, emerged from underground and began to develop political and organizational work openly. The membership of the Bolshevik organizations at that time did not exceed 40,000 or 45,000. But these were all staunch revolutionaries, steeled in the struggle. The Party Committees were reorganized on the principle of democratic centralism. All Party bodies, from top to bottom, were made elective.<br />
<br />
When the Party began its legal existence, differences within its ranks became apparent. Kamenev and several workers of the Moscow organization, for example, Rykov, Bubnov and Nogin, held a semi-Menshevik position of conditionally supporting the Provisional Government and the policy of the partisans of the war. Stalin, who had just returned from exile, Molotov and others, together with the majority of the Party, upheld a policy of no-confidence in the Provisional Government, opposed the partisans of the war, and called for an active struggle for peace, a struggle against the imperialist war. Some of the Party workers vacillated, which was a manifestation of their political backwardness, a consequence of long years of imprisonment or exile.<br />
<br />
The absence of the leader of the Party, Lenin, was felt.<br />
<br />
On April 3 (16), 1917, after a long period of exile, Lenin returned to Russia.<br />
<br />
Lenin's arrival was of tremendous importance to the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
While still in Switzerland, Lenin, upon receiving the first news of the revolution, had written his "Letters From Afar" to the Party and to the working class of Russia, in which he said:<br />
<br />
"Workers, you have displayed marvels of proletarian heroism, the heroism of the people, in the civil war against tsardom. You must now display marvels of organization, organization of the proletariat and of the whole people, in order to prepare the way for your victory in the second stage of the revolution." (Lenin, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. VI, p. 11.)<br />
<br />
Lenin arrived in Petrograd on the night of April 3. Thousands of workers, soldiers and sailors assembled at the Finland Railway Station and in the station square to welcome him. Their enthusiasm as Lenin alighted from the train was indescribable. They lifted their leader shoulder high and carried him to the main waiting room of the station. There the Mensheviks Chkheidze and Skobelev launched into speeches of "welcome" on behalf of the Petrograd Soviet, in which they "expressed the hope" that they and Lenin would find a "common language." But Lenin did not stop to listen; sweeping past them, he went out to the masses of workers and soldiers. Mounting an armoured car, he delivered his famous speech in which he called upon the masses to fight for the victory of the Socialist revolution. "Long live the Socialist revolution!" were the words with which Lenin concluded this first speech after long years of exile.<br />
<br />
Back in Russia, Lenin flung himself vigorously into revolutionary work. On the morrow of his arrival he delivered a report on the subject of the war and the revolution at a meeting of Bolsheviks, and then repeated the theses of this report at a meeting attended by Mensheviks as well as Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
These were Lenin's famous April Theses, which provided the Party and the proletariat with a clear revolutionary line for the transition from the bourgeois to the Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
Lenin's theses were of immense significance to the revolution and to the subsequent work of the Party. The revolution was a momentous turn in the life of the country. In the new conditions of the struggle that followed the overthrow of tsardom, the Party needed a new orientation to advance boldly and confidently along the new road. Lenin's theses gave the Party this orientation.<br />
<br />
Lenin's April Theses laid down for the Party a brilliant plan of struggle for the transition from the bourgeois-democratic to the Socialist revolution, from the first stage of the revolution to the second stage—the stage of the Socialist revolution. The whole history of the Party had prepared it for this great task. As far back as 1905, Lenin had said in his pamphlet, ''Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution,'' that after the overthrow of tsardom the proletariat would proceed to bring about the Socialist revolution. The new thing in the theses was that they gave a concrete, theoretically grounded plan for the initial stage of the transition to the Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
The transitional steps in the economic field were: nationalization of all the land and confiscation of the landed estates, amalgamation of all the banks into one national bank to be under the control of the Soviet of Workers' Deputies, and establishment of control over the social production and distribution of products.<br />
<br />
In the political field, Lenin proposed the transition from a parliamentary republic to a republic of Soviets. This was an important step forward in the theory and practice of Marxism. Hitherto, Marxist theoreticians had regarded the parliamentary republic as the best political form of transition to Socialism. Now Lenin proposed to replace the parliamentary republic by a Soviet republic as the most suitable form of political organization of society in the period of transition from capitalism to Socialism.<br />
<br />
"The specific feature of the present situation in Russia," the theses stated, "is that it represents a ''transition'' from the first stage of the revolution—which, owing to the insufficient class-consciousness and organization of the proletariat, placed the power in the hands of the bourgeoisie—''to the second'' stage, which must place the power in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest strata of the peasantry." (''Ibid''., p. 22.)<br />
<br />
"Not a parliamentary republic—to return to a parliamentary republic from the Soviets of Workers' Deputies would be a retrograde step—but a republic of Soviets of Workers', Agricultural Labourers' and Peasants' Deputies throughout the country, from top to bottom." (''Ibid''., p. 23.)<br />
<br />
Under the new government, the Provisional Government, the war continued to be a predatory imperialist war, Lenin said. It was the task of the Party to explain this to the masses and to show them that unless the bourgeoisie were overthrown, it would be impossible to end the war by a truly democratic peace and not a rapacious peace.<br />
<br />
As regards the Provisional Government, the slogan Lenin put forward was: "No support for the Provisional Government!"<br />
<br />
Lenin further pointed out in the theses that our Party was still in the minority in the Soviets, that the Soviets were dominated by a bloc of Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, which was an instrument of bourgeois influence on the proletariat. Hence, the Party's task consisted in the following:<br />
<br />
"It must be explained to the masses that the Soviets of Workers' Deputies are the ''only possible'' form of revolutionary government, and that therefore our task is, as long as ''this'' government yields to the influence of the bourgeoisie, to present a patient, systematic, and persistent ''explanation'' of the errors of their tactics, an explanation especially adapted to the practical needs of the masses. As long as we are in the minority we carry on the work of criticizing and exposing errors and at the same time we preach the necessity of transferring the entire power of state to the Soviets of Workers' Deputies..." (''Ibid''., p. 23.)<br />
<br />
This meant that Lenin was not calling for a revolt against the Provisional Government, which at that moment enjoyed the confidence of the Soviets, that he was not demanding its overthrow, but that he wanted, by means of explanatory and recruiting work, to win a majority in the Soviets, to change the policy of the Soviets, and through the Soviets to alter the composition and policy of the government.<br />
<br />
This was a line envisaging a peaceful development of the revolution.<br />
<br />
Lenin further demanded that the "soiled shirt" be discarded, that is, that the Party no longer call itself a Social-Democratic Party. The parties of the Second International and the Russian Mensheviks called themselves Social-Democrats. This name had been tarnished and disgraced by the opportunists, the betrayers of Socialism. Lenin proposed that the Party of the Bolsheviks should be called the ''Communist Party,'' which was the name given by Marx and Engels to their party. This name was scientifically correct, for it was the ultimate aim of the Bolshevik Party to achieve Communism. Mankind can pass directly from capitalism only to Socialism, that is, to the common ownership of the means of production and the distribution of products according to the work performed by each. Lenin said that our Party looked farther ahead. Socialism was inevitably bound to pass gradually into Communism, on the banner of which is inscribed the maxim: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."<br />
<br />
Lastly, Lenin in his theses demanded the creation of a new International, the Third, Communist International, which would be free of opportunism and social-chauvinism.<br />
<br />
Lenin's theses called forth a frenzied outcry from the bourgeoisie, the Mensheviks andtheSocialist-Revolutionaries.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks issued a proclamation to the workers which began with the warning: "the revolution is in danger." The danger, in the opinion of the Mensheviks, lay in the fact that the Bolsheviks had advanced the demand for the transfer of power to the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies.<br />
<br />
Plekhanov in his newspaper, ''Yedinstvo (Unity),'' wrote an article in which he termed Lenin's speech a ''"raving speech."'' He quoted the words of the Menshevik Chkheidze, who said: "Lenin alone will remain outside the revolution, and we shall go our own way."<br />
<br />
On April 14 a Petrograd City Conference of Bolsheviks was held. The conference approved Lenin's theses and made them the basis of its work.<br />
<br />
Within a short while the local organizations of the Party had also approved Lenin's theses.<br />
<br />
The whole Party, ''with the exception of a few individuals of the type of Kamenev, Rykov and Pyatakov, received Lenin's theses with profound satisfaction.''<br />
<br />
=== Beginning of the crisis of the provisional government. April conference of the Bolshevik Party ===<br />
While the Bolsheviks were preparing for the further development of the revolution, the Provisional Government continued to work against the people. On April 18, Milyukov, Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Provisional Government, informed the Allies that "the whole people desire to continue the World War until a decisive victory is achieved and that the Provisional Government intends fully to observe the obligations undertaken towards our allies."<br />
<br />
Thus the Provisional Government pledged its loyalty to the tsarist treaties and promised to go on shedding as much of the people's blood as the imperialists might require for a "victorious finish."<br />
<br />
On April 19 this statement ("Milyukov's note") became known to the workers and soldiers. On April 20 the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party called upon the masses to protest against the imperialist policy of the Provisional Government. On April 20-21 (May 3-4), 1917, not less than 100,000 workers and soldiers, stirred to indignation by "Milyukov's note," took part in a demonstration. Their banners bore the demands: "Publish the secret treaties!" "Down with the war!" "All power to the Soviets!" The workers and soldiers marched from the outskirts of the city to the centre, where the Provisional Government was sitting. On the Nevsky Prospect and other places clashes with groups of bourgeois took place.<br />
<br />
The more outspoken counter-revolutionaries, like General Kornilov, demanded that fire be opened on the demonstrators, and even gave orders to that effect. But the troops refused to carry out the orders.<br />
<br />
During the demonstration, a small group of members of the Petro-grad Party Committee (Bagdatyev and others) issued a slogan demanding the immediate overthrow of the Provisional Government. The Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party sharply condemned the conduct of these "Left" adventurers, considering this slogan untimely and incorrect, a slogan that hampered the Party in its efforts to win over a majority in the Soviets and ran counter to the Party line of a peaceful development of the revolution.<br />
<br />
The events of April 20-21 signified the beginning of the crisis of the Provisional Government.<br />
<br />
This was the first serious rift in the compromising policy of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries.<br />
<br />
On May 2, 1917, under the pressure of the masses, Milyukov and Guchkov were dropped from the Provisional Government.<br />
<br />
The first ''coalition'' Provisional Government was formed. It included, in addition to representatives of the bourgeoisie, Mensheviks (Skobelev and Tsereteli) and Socialist-Revolutionaries (Chernov, Ker-ensky and others).<br />
<br />
Thus the Mensheviks, who in 1905 had declared it impermissible for representatives of the Social-Democratic Party to take part in a ''revolutionary'' Provisional Government, now found it permissible for their representatives to take part in a ''counter-revolutionary'' Provisional Government.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries had thus deserted to the camp of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
On April 24, 1917, the Seventh (April) Conference of the Bolshevik Party assembled. For the first time in the existence of the Party a Bolshevik Conference met openly. In the history of the Party this conference holds a place of importance equal to that of a Party Congress.<br />
<br />
The All-Russian April Conference showed that the Party was growing by leaps and bounds. The conference was attended by 133 delegates with vote and by 18 with voice but no vote. They represented 80,000 organized members of the Party.<br />
<br />
The conference discussed and laid down the Party line on all basic questions of the war and revolution: the current situation, the war, the Provisional Government, the Soviets, the agrarian question, the national question, etc.<br />
<br />
In his report, Lenin elaborated the principles he had already set forth in the April Theses. The task of the Party was to effect the transition from the first stage of the revolution, "which placed the power in the hands of the bourgeoisie...''to the second'' stage, which must place the power in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest strata of the peasantry" ''(Lenin)''. The course the Party should take was to prepare for the Socialist revolution. The immediate task of the Party was set forth by Lenin in the slogan: "All power to the Soviets!"<br />
<br />
The slogan, "All power to the Soviets!" meant that it was necessary to put an end to the dual power, that is, the division of power between the Provisional Government and the Soviets, to transfer the ''whole'' power to the Soviets, and to drive the representatives of the landlords and capitalists out of the organs of government.<br />
<br />
The conference resolved that one of the most important tasks of the Party was untiringly to explain to the masses the truth that "the Provisional Government is by its nature an organ of the rule of the landlords and the bourgeoisie," as well as to show how fatal was the compromising policy of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks who were deceiving the people with false promises and subjecting them to the blows of the imperialist war and counter-revolution.<br />
<br />
Kamenev and Rykov opposed Lenin at the Conference. Echoing the Mensheviks, they asserted that Russia was not ripe for a Socialist revolution, and that only a bourgeois republic was possible in Russia. They recommended the Party and the working class to confine themselves to "controlling" the Provisional Government. In reality, they, like the Mensheviks, stood for the preservation of capitalism and of the power of the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Zinoviev, too, opposed Lenin at the conference; it was on the question whether the Bolshevik Party should remain within the Zimmerwald alliance, or break with it and form a new International. As the years of war had shown, while this alliance carried on propaganda for peace, it did not actually break with the bourgeois partisans of the war. Lenin therefore insisted on immediate withdrawal from this alliance and on the formation of a new, Communist International. Zinoviev proposed that the Party should remain within the Zimmerwald alliance. Lenin vigorously condemned Zinoviev's proposal and called his tactics "arch-opportunist and pernicious."<br />
<br />
The April Conference also discussed the agrarian and national questions.<br />
<br />
In connection with Lenin's report on the agrarian question, the conference adopted a resolution calling for the confiscation of the landed estates, which were to be placed at the disposal of the peasant committees, and for the nationalization of all the land. The Bolsheviks called upon the peasants to fight for the land, showing them that the Bolshevik Party was the only revolutionary party, the only party that was really helping the peasants to overthrow the landlords.<br />
<br />
Of great importance was Comrade Stalin's report on the national question. Even before the revolution, on the eve of the imperialist war, Lenin and Stalin had elaborated the fundamental principles of the policy of the Bolshevik Party on the national question. Lenin and Stalin declared that the proletarian party must support the national liberation movement of the oppressed peoples against imperialism. Consequently, the Bolshevik Party advocated the right of nations to self-determination even to the point of secession and formation of independent states. This was the view defended by Comrade Stalin, in his report delivered at the conference on behalf of the Central Committee.<br />
<br />
Lenin and Stalin were opposed by Pyatakov, who, together with Bukharin, had already during the war taken up a national-chauvinist stand on the national question. Pyatakov and Bukharin were opposed to the right of nations to self-determination.<br />
<br />
The resolute and consistent position of the Party on the national question, its struggle for the complete equality of nations and for the abolition of all forms of national oppression and national inequality, secured for the Party the sympathy and support of the oppressed nationalities.<br />
<br />
The text of the resolution on the national question adopted by the April Conference is as follows:<br />
<br />
"The policy of national oppression, inherited from the autocracy and monarchy, is supported by the landlords, capitalists and petty bourgeoisie in order to protect their class privileges and to cause disunity among the workers of the various nationalities. Modern imperialism, which increases the striving to subjugate weak nations, is a new factor intensifying national oppression.<br />
<br />
"To the extent that the elimination of national oppression is achievable at all in capitalist society, it is possible only under a consistently democratic republican system and state administration that guarantee complete equality for all nations and languages.<br />
<br />
"The right of all the nations forming part of Russia freely to secede and form independent states must be recognized. To deny them this right, or to fail to take measures guaranteeing its practical realization, is equivalent to supporting a policy of seizure and annexation. It is only the recognition by the proletariat of the right of nations to secede that can ensure complete solidarity among the workers of the various nations and help to bring the nations closer together on truly democratic lines...<br />
<br />
"The right of nations freely to secede must not be confused with the expediency of secession of a given nation at a given moment. The party of the proletariat must decide the latter question quite independently in each particular case from the standpoint of the interests of the social development as a whole and of the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat for Socialism.<br />
<br />
"The Party demands broad regional autonomy, the abolition of supervision from above, the abolition of a compulsory state language and the determination of the boundaries of the self-governing and autonomous regions by the local population itself in accordance with the economic and social conditions, the national composition of the population, and so forth.<br />
<br />
"The party of the proletariat resolutely rejects what is known as 'national cultural autonomy,' under which education, etc., is removed from the competence of the state and placed within the competence of some kind of national Diets. National cultural autonomy artificially divides the workers living in one locality, and even working in the same industrial enterprise, according to their various 'national cultures'; in other words it strengthens the ties between the workers and the bourgeois culture of individual nations, whereas the aim of the Social-Democrats is to develop the international culture of the world proletariat.<br />
<br />
"The Party demands that a fundamental law shall be embodied in the constitution annulling all privileges enjoyed by any nation whatever and all infringements of the rights of national minorities.<br />
<br />
"The interests of the working class demand that the workers of all the nationalities of Russia should have common proletarian organizations: political, trade union, educational institutions of the co-operatives and so forth. Only such common organizations of the workers of the various nationalities will make it possible for the proletariat to wage a successful struggle against international capital and bourgeois nationalism." (Lenin and Stalin, ''The Russian Revolution'', pp. 52-3.)<br />
<br />
Thus the April Conference exposed the opportunist, anti-Leninist stand of Kamenev, Zinoviev, Pyatakov, Bukharin, Rykov and their small following.<br />
<br />
The conference unanimously supported Lenin by taking up a precise stand on all important questions and adopting a course leading to the victory of the Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
=== Successes of the Bolshevik Party in the capital. Abortive offensive of the armies of the provisional government. Suppression of the July demonstration of workers and soldiers ===<br />
On the basis of the decisions of the April Conference, the Party developed extensive activities in order to win over the masses, and to train and organize them for battle. The Party line in that period was, by patiently explaining the Bolshevik policy and exposing the compromising policy of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, to isolate these parties from the masses and to win a majority in the Soviets.<br />
<br />
In addition to the work in the Soviets, the Bolsheviks carried on extensive activities in the trade unions and in the factory committees.<br />
<br />
Particularly extensive was the work of the Bolsheviks in the army. Military organizations began to arise everywhere. The Bolsheviks worked indefatigably at the front and in the rear to organize the soldiers and sailors. A particularly important part in making the soldiers active revolutionaries was played at the front by the Bolshevik newspaper, ''Okopnaya Pravda (Trench Truth)''.<br />
<br />
Thanks to Bolshevik propaganda and agitation, already in the early months of the revolution the workers in many cities held new elections to the Soviets, especially to the district Soviets, drove out the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries and elected followers of the Bolshevik Party in their stead.<br />
<br />
The work of the Bolsheviks yielded splendid results, especially in Petrograd.<br />
<br />
A Petrograd Conference of Factory Committees was held from May 30 to June 3, 1917. At this conference three-quarters of the delegates already supported the Bolsheviks. Almost the entire Petrograd proletariat supported the Bolshevik slogan—"All power to the Soviets!"<br />
<br />
On June 3 (16), 1917, the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets met. The Bolsheviks were still in the minority in the Soviets; they had a little over 100 delegates at this congress, compared with 700 or 800 Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and others.<br />
<br />
At the First Congress of Soviets, the Bolsheviks insistently stressed the fatal consequences of compromise with the bourgeoisie and exposed the imperialist character of the war. Lenin made a speech at the congress in which he showed the correctness of the Bolshevik line and declared that only a government of Soviets could give bread to the working people, land to the peasants, secure peace and lead the country out of chaos.<br />
<br />
A mass campaign was being conducted at that time in the working-class districts of Petrograd for the organization of a demonstration and for the presentation of demands to the Congress of Soviets. In its anxiety to prevent the workers from demonstrating without its authorization, and in the hope of utilizing the revolutionary sentiments of the masses for its own ends, the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet decided to call a demonstration for June 18 (July 1). The Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries expected that it would take place under anti-Bolshevik slogans. The Bolshevik Party began energetic preparations for this demonstration. Comrade Stalin wrote in ''Pravda'' that ". . . it is our task to make sure that the demonstration in Petrograd on June 18 takes place under our revolutionary slogans."<br />
<br />
The demonstration of June 18, 1917, was held at the graves of the martyrs of the revolution. It proved to be a veritable review of the forces of the Bolshevik Party. It revealed the growing revolutionary spirit of the masses and their growing confidence in the Bolshevik Party. The slogans displayed by the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries calling for confidence in the Provisional Government and urging the continuation of the war were lost in a sea of Bolshevik slogans. Four hundred thousand demonstrators carried banners bearing the slogans: "Down with the war!" "Down with the ten capitalist Ministers!" "All power to the Soviets!"<br />
<br />
It was a complete fiasco for the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, a fiasco for the Provisional Government in the capital of the country.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, the Provisional Government received the support of the First Congress of the Soviets and decided to continue the imperialist policy. On that very day, June 18, the Provisional Government, in obedience to the wishes of the British and French imperialists, drove the soldiers at the front to take the offensive. The bourgeoisie regarded this as the only means of putting an end to the revolution. In the event of the success of the offensive, the bourgeoisie hoped to take the whole power into its own hands, to push the Soviets out of the arena, and to crush the Bolsheviks. Again, in the event of its failure, the entire blame could be thrown upon the Bolsheviks by accusing them of disintegrating the army.<br />
<br />
There could be no doubt that the offensive would fail. And fail it did. The soldiers were worn out, they did not understand the purpose of the offensive, they had no confidence in their officers who were alien to them, there was a shortage of artillery and shells. All this made the failure of the offensive a foregone conclusion.<br />
<br />
The news of the offensive at the front, and then of its collapse, roused the capital. The indignation of the workers and soldiers knew no bounds. It became apparent that when the Provisional Government proclaimed a policy of peace it was hoodwinking the people, and that it wanted to continue the imperialist war. It became apparent that the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviets and the Petrograd Soviet were unwilling or unable to check the criminal deeds of the Provisional Government and themselves trailed in its wake.<br />
<br />
The revolutionary indignation of the Petrograd workers and soldiers boiled over. On July 3 (16) spontaneous demonstrations started in the Vyborg District of Petrograd. They continued all day. The separate demonstrations grew into a huge general armed demonstration demanding the transfer of power to the Soviets. The Bolshevik Party was opposed to armed action at that time, for it considered that the revolutionary crisis had not yet matured, that the army and the provinces were not yet prepared to support an uprising in the capital, and that an isolated and premature rising might only make it easier for the counter-revolutionaries to crush the vanguard of the revolution. But when it became obviously impossible to keep the masses from demonstrating, the Party resolved to participate in the demonstration in order to lend it a peaceful and organized character. This the Bolshevik Party succeeded in doing. Hundreds of thousands of men and women marched to the headquarters of the Petrograd Soviet and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of Soviets, where they demanded that the Soviets take the power into their own hands, break with the imperialist bourgeoisie, and pursue an active peace policy.<br />
<br />
Notwithstanding the pacific character of the demonstration, reactionary units—detachments of officers and cadets were brought out against it. The streets of Petrograd ran with the blood of workers and soldiers. The most ignorant and counter-revolutionary units of the army were summoned from the front to suppress the workers.<br />
<br />
After suppressing the demonstration of workers and soldiers, the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, in alliance with the bourgeoisie and Whiteguard generals, fell upon the Bolshevik Party. The ''Pravda'' premises were wrecked. ''Pravda, Soldatskaya Pravda (Soldiers' Truth)'' and a number of other Bolshevik newspapers were suppressed. A worker named Voinov was killed by cadets in the street merely for selling ''Listok Pravdy (Pravda Bulletin)''. Disarming of the Red Guards began. Revolutionary units of the Petrograd garrison were withdrawn from the capital and dispatched to the trenches. Arrests were carried out in the rear and at the front. On July 7 a warrant was issued for Lenin's arrest. A number of prominent members of the Bolshevik Party were arrested. The Trud printing plant, where the Bolshevik publications were printed, was wrecked. The Procurator of the Petrograd Court of Sessions announced that Lenin and a number of other Bolsheviks were being charged with "high treason" and the organization of an armed uprising. The charge against Lenin was fabricated at the headquarters of General Denikin, and was based on the testimony of spies and agents-provocateurs.<br />
<br />
Thus the coalition Provisional Government—which included such leading representatives of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries as Tsereteli, Skobelev, Kerensky and Chernov—sank to the depths of downright imperialism and counter-revolution. Instead of a policy of peace, it had adopted the policy of continuing war. Instead of protecting the democratic rights of the people, it had adopted the policy of nullifying these rights and suppressing the workers and soldiers by force of arms.<br />
<br />
What Guchkov and Milyukov, the representatives of the bourgeoisie, had hesitated to do, was done by the "socialists" Kerensky and Tsereteli, Chernov and Skobelev.<br />
<br />
The dual power had come to an end.<br />
<br />
It ended in favour of the bourgeoisie, for the whole power had passed into the hands of the Provisional Government, while the Soviets, with their Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik leaders, had become an appendage of the Provisional Government.<br />
<br />
The peaceful period of the revolution had ended, for now the bayonet had been placed on the agenda.<br />
<br />
In view of the changed situation, the Bolshevik Party decided to change its tactics. It went underground, arranged for a safe hiding place for its leader, Lenin, and began to prepare for an uprising with the object of overthrowing the power of the bourgeoisie by force of arms and setting up the power of the Soviets.<br />
<br />
=== The Bolshevik Party adopts the course of preparing for armed uprising. Sixth party congress ===<br />
The Sixth Congress of the Bolshevik Party met in Petrograd in the midst of a frenzied campaign of Bolshevik-baiting in the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois press. It assembled ten years after the Fifth (London) Congress and five years after the Prague Conference of the Bolsheviks. The congress, which was held secretly, sat from July 26 to August 3, 1917. All that appeared in the press was an announcement of its convocation, the place of meeting was not divulged. The first sittings were held in the Vyborg District, the later ones in a school near the Narva Gate, where a House of Culture now stands. The bourgeois press demanded the arrest of the delegates. Detectives frantically scoured the city trying to discover the meeting place of the congress, but in vain.<br />
<br />
And so, five months after the overthrow of tsardom, the Bolsheviks were compelled to meet in secret, while Lenin, the leader of the proletarian party, was forced to go into hiding and took refuge in a shanty near Razliv Station.<br />
<br />
He was being hunted high and low by the sleuths of the Provisional Government and was therefore unable to attend the congress; but he guided its labours from his place of concealment through his close colleagues and disciples in Petrograd: Stalin, Sverdlov, Molotov, Ordjoni-kidze.<br />
<br />
The congress was attended by 157 delegates with vote and 128 with voice but no vote. At that time the Party had a membership of about 240,000. On July 3, i.e., before the workers' demonstration was broken up, when the Bolsheviks were still functioning legally, the Party had 41 publications, of which 29 were in Russian and 12 in other languages.<br />
<br />
The persecution to which the Bolsheviks and the working class were subjected during the July days, far from diminishing the influence of our Party, only enhanced it. The delegates from the provinces cited numerous facts to show that the workers and soldiers had begun to desert the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries en masse, contemptuously styling them "social-jailers." Workers and soldiers belonging to the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary parties were tearing up their membership cards in anger and disgust and applying for admission to the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
The chief items discussed at the congress were the political report of the Central Committee and the political situation. Comrade Stalin made the reports on both these questions. He showed with the utmost clarity how the revolution was growing and developing despite all the efforts of the bourgeoisie to suppress it. He pointed out that the revolution had placed on the order of the day the task of establishing workers' control over the production and distribution of products, of turning over the land to the peasants, and of transferring the power from the bourgeoisie to the working class and poor peasantry. He said that the revolution was assuming the character of a Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
The political situation in the country had changed radically after the July days. The dual power had come to an end. The Soviets, led by Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, had refused to take over full power and had therefore lost all power. The power was now concentrated in the hands of the bourgeois Provisional Government, and the latter was continuing to disarm the revolution, to smash its organizations and to destroy the Bolshevik Party. All possibility of a peaceful development of the revolution had vanished. Only one thing remained, Comrade Stalin said, namely, to take power by force, by overthrowing the Provisional Government. And only the proletariat, in alliance with the poor peasants, could take power by force.<br />
<br />
The Soviets, still controlled by the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, had landed in the camp of the bourgeoisie, and under existing conditions could be expected to act only as subsidiaries of the Provisional Government. Now, after the July days, Comrade Stalin said, the slogan "All power to the Soviets!" had to be withdrawn. However, the temporary withdrawal of this slogan did not in any way imply a renunciation of the struggle for the power of the Soviets. It was not the Soviets in general, as organs of revolutionary struggle, that were in question, but only the existing Soviets, the Soviets controlled by the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries.<br />
<br />
"The peaceful period of the revolution has ended," said Comrade Stalin, "a non-peaceful period has begun, a period of clashes and explosions." (Lenin and Stalin, ''Russian Revolution,'' pp. 139-140.)<br />
<br />
The Party was headed for armed uprising.<br />
<br />
There were some at the congress who, reflecting the bourgeois influence, opposed the adoption of the course of Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
The Trotskyite Preobrazhensky proposed that the resolution on the conquest of power should state that the country could be directed towards Socialism only in the event of a proletarian revolution in the West.<br />
<br />
This Trotskyite motion was opposed by Comrade Stalin. He said :<br />
<br />
"The possibility is not excluded that Russia will be the country that will lay the road to Socialism...We must discard the antiquated idea that only Europe can show us the way. There is dogmatic Marxism and creative Marxism. I stand by the latter." (p. 146.)<br />
<br />
Bukharin, who held a Trotskyite position, asserted that the peasants supported the war, that they were in a bloc with the bourgeoisie and would not follow the working class.<br />
<br />
Retorting to Bukharin, Comrade Stalin showed that there were different kinds of peasants: there were the rich peasants who supported the imperialist bourgeoisie, and there were the poor peasants who sought an alliance with the working class and would support it in a struggle for the victory of the revolution.<br />
<br />
The congress rejected Preobrazhensky's and Bukharin's amendments and approved the resolution submitted by Comrade Stalin.<br />
<br />
The congress discussed the economic platform of the Bolsheviks and approved it. Its main points were the confiscation of the landed estates and the nationalization of all the land, the nationalization of the banks, the nationalization of large-scale industry, and workers' control over production and distribution.<br />
<br />
The congress stressed the importance of the fight for workers' control over production, which was later to play a significant part during the nationalization of the large industrial enterprises.<br />
<br />
In all its decisions, the Sixth Congress particularly stressed Lenin's principle of an alliance between the proletariat and the poor peasantry as a condition for the victory of the Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
The congress condemned the Menshevik theory that the trade unions should be neutral. It pointed out that the momentous tasks confronting the working class of Russia could be accomplished only if the trade unions remained militant class organizations recognizing the political leadership of the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
The congress adopted a resolution on the Youth Leagues, which at that time frequently sprang up spontaneously. As a result of the Party's subsequent efforts it succeeded in definitely securing the adherence of these young organizations which became a reserve of the Party.<br />
<br />
The congress discussed whether Lenin should appear for trial. Kamenev, Rykov, Trotsky and others had held even before the congress that Lenin ought to appear before the counter-revolutionary court. Comrade Stalin was vigorously opposed to Lenin's appearing for trial. This was also the stand of the Sixth Congress, for it considered that it would be a lynching, not a trial. The congress had no doubt that the bourgeoisie wanted only one thing—the physical destruction of Lenin as the most dangerous enemy of the bourgeoisie. The congress protested against the police persecution of the leaders of the revolutionary proletariat by the bourgeoisie, and sent a message of greeting to Lenin.<br />
<br />
The Sixth Congress adopted new Party Rules. These rules provided that all Party organizations shall be built on the principle of ''democratic centralism''.<br />
<br />
This meant :<br />
<br />
1) That all directing bodies of the Party, from top to bottom, shall be elected;<br />
<br />
2) That Party bodies shall give periodical accounts of their activities to their respective Party organizations;<br />
<br />
3) That there shall be strict Party discipline and the subordination of the minority to the majority;<br />
<br />
4) That all decisions of higher bodies shall be absolutely binding on lower bodies and on all Party members.<br />
<br />
The Party Rules provided that admission of new members to the Party shall be through local Party organizations on the recommendation of two Party members and on the sanction of a general membership meeting of the local organization.<br />
<br />
The Sixth Congress admitted the ''Mezhrayontsi'' and their leader, Trotsky, into the Party. They were a small group that had existed in Petrograd since 1913 and consisted of Trotskyite-Mensheviks and a number of former Bolsheviks who had split away from the Party. During the war, the ''Mezhrayonsti'' were a Centrist organization. They fought the Bolsheviks, but in many respects disagreed with the Men-sheviks, thus occupying an intermediate, centrist, vacillating position. During the Sixth Party Congress the ''Mezhrayonsti'' declared that they were in agreement with the Bolsheviks on all points and requested admission to the Party. The request was granted by the congress in the expectation that they would in time become real Bolsheviks. Some of the ''Mezhrayonsti,'' Volodarsky and Uritsky, for example, actually did become Bolsheviks. As to Trotsky and some of his close friends, they, as it later became apparent, had joined not to work in the interests of the Party, but to disrupt and destroy it from within.<br />
<br />
The decisions of the Sixth Congress were all intended to prepare the proletariat and the poorest peasantry for an armed uprising. The Sixth Congress headed the Party for armed uprising, for the Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
The congress issued a Party manifesto calling upon the workers, soldiers and peasants to muster their forces for decisive battles with the bourgeoisie. It ended with the words:<br />
<br />
"Prepare, then, for new battles, comrades-in-arms! Staunchly, manfully and calmly, without yielding to provocation, muster your forces and form your fighting columns! Rally under the banner of the Party, proletarians and soldiers! Rally under our banner, downtrodden of the villages!"<br />
<br />
=== General Kornilov’s plot against the revolution. Suppression of the plot. Petrograd and Moscow soviets go over to the Bolsheviks ===<br />
Having seized all power, the bourgeoisie began preparations to destroy the now weakened Soviets and to set up an open counter-revolutionary dictatorship. The millionaire Ryabushinsky insolently declared that the way out of the situation was "for the gaunt hand of famine, of destitution of the people, to seize the false friends of the people—the democratic Soviets and Committees—by the throat." At the front, courts-martial wreaked savage vengeance on the soldiers, and meted out death sentences wholesale. On August 3, 1917, General Kornilov, the Commander-in-Chief, demanded the introduction of the death penalty behind the lines as well.<br />
<br />
On August 12, a Council of State, convened by the Provisional Government to mobilize the forces of the bourgeoisie and the landlords, opened in the Grand Theatre in Moscow. The Council was attended chiefly by representatives of the landlords, the bourgeoisie, the generals, the officers and Cossacks. The Soviets were represented by Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries.<br />
<br />
In protest against the convocation of the Council of State, the Bolsheviks on the day of its opening called a general strike in Moscow in which the majority of the workers took part. Simultaneously, strikes took place in a number of other cities.<br />
<br />
The Socialist-Revolutionary Kerensky threatened in a fit of boasting at the Council to suppress "by iron and blood" every attempt at a revolutionary movement, including unauthorized attempts of the peasants to seize the lands of the landlords.<br />
<br />
The counter-revolutionary General Kornilov bluntly demanded that "the Committees and Soviets be abolished."<br />
<br />
Bankers, merchants and manufacturers flocked to Kornilov at General Headquarters, promising him money and support.<br />
<br />
Representatives of the "Allies," Britain and France, also came to General Kornilov, demanding that action against the revolution be not delayed.<br />
<br />
General Kornilov's plot against the revolution was coming to a head.<br />
<br />
Kornilov made his preparations openly. In order to distract attention, the conspirators started a rumour that the Bolsheviks were preparing an uprising in Petrograd to take place on August 27 — the end of the first six months of the revolution. The Provisional Government, headed by Kerensky, furiously attacked the Bolsheviks, and intensified the terror against the proletarian party. At the same time, General Kornilov massed troops in order to move them against Petrograd, abolish the Soviets and set up a military dictatorship.<br />
<br />
Kornilov had come to a preliminary agreement with Kerensky regarding his counter-revolutionary action. But no sooner had Kornilov's action begun than Kerensky made an abrupt right-about-face and dissociated himself from his ally. Kerensky feared that the masses who would rise against the Kornilovites and crush them would at the same time sweep away Kerensky's bourgeois government as well, unless it at once dissociated itself from the Kornilov affair.<br />
<br />
On August 25 Kornilov moved the Third Mounted Corps under the command of General Krymov against Petrograd, declaring that he intended to "save the fatherland." In face of the Kornilov revolt, the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party called upon the workers and soldiers to put up active armed resistance to the counter-revolution. The workers hurriedly began to arm and prepared to resist. The Red Guard detachments grew enormously during these days. The trade unions mobilized their members. The revolutionary military units in Petro-grad were also held in readiness for battle. Trenches were dug around Petrograd, barbed wire entanglements erected, and the railway tracks leading to the city were torn up. Several thousand armed sailors arrived from Kronstadt to defend the city. Delegates were sent to the "Savage Division" which was advancing on Petrograd; when these delegates explained the purpose of Kornilov's action to the Caucasian mountaineers of whom the "Savage Division" was made up, they refused to advance. Agitators were also dispatched to other Kornilov units. Wherever there was danger, Revolutionary Committees and headquarters were set up to fight Kornilov.<br />
<br />
In those days the mortally terrified Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik leaders, Kerensky among them, turned for protection to the Bolsheviks, for they were convinced that the Bolsheviks were the only effective force in the capital that was capable of routing Kornilov.<br />
<br />
But while mobilizing the masses to crush the Kornilov revolt, the Bolsheviks did not discontinue their struggle against the Kerensky government. They exposed the government of Kerensky, the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries, to the masses, pointing out that their whole policy was in effect assisting Kornilov's counter-revolutionary plot.<br />
<br />
The result of these measures was that the Kornilov revolt was crushed. General Krymov committed suicide. Kornilov and his fellow-conspirators, Denikin and Lukomsky, were arrested. (Very soon, however, Kerensky had them released.)<br />
<br />
The rout of the Kornilov revolt revealed in a flash the relative strength of the revolution and the counter-revolution. It showed that the whole counter-revolutionary camp was doomed, from the generals and the Constitutional-Democratic Party to the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries who had become entangled in the meshes of the bourgeoisie. It became obvious that the influence of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries among the masses had been completely undermined by the policy of prolonging the unbearable strain of the war, and by the economic chaos caused by the protracted war.<br />
<br />
The defeat of the Kornilov revolt further showed that the Bolshevik Party had grown to be the decisive force of the revolution and was capable of foiling any attempt at counter-revolution. Our Party was not yet the ruling party, but during the Kornilov days it acted as the real ruling power, for its instructions were unhesitatingly carried out by the workers and soldiers.<br />
<br />
Lastly, the rout of the Kornilov revolt showed that the seemingly dead Soviets actually possessed tremendous latent power of revolutionary resistance. There could be no doubt that it was the Soviets and their Revolutionary Committees that barred the way of the Kornilov troops and broke their strength.<br />
<br />
The struggle against Kornilov put new vitality into the languishing Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. It freed them from the sway of the policy of compromise. It led them into the open road of revolutionary struggle, and turned them towards the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
The influence of the Bolsheviks in the Soviets grew stronger than ever.<br />
<br />
Their influence spread rapidly in the rural districts as well.<br />
<br />
The Kornilov revolt made it clear to the broad masses of the peasantry that if the landlords and generals succeeded in smashing the Bolsheviks and the Soviets, they would next attack the peasantry. The mass of the poor peasants therefore began to rally closer to the Bolsheviks. As to the middle peasants, whose vacillations had retarded the development of the revolution in the period from April to August 1917, after the rout of Kornilov they definitely began to swing towards the Bolshevik Party, joining forces with the poor peasants. The broad masses of the peasantry were coming to realize that only the Bolshevik Party could deliver them from the war, and that only this Party was capable of crushing the landlords and was prepared to turn over the land to the peasants. The months of September and October 1917 witnessed a tremendous increase in the number of seizures of landed estates by the peasants. Unauthorized ploughing of the fields of landlords became widespread. The peasants had taken the road of revolution and neither coaxing nor punitive expeditions could any longer halt them.<br />
<br />
The tide of revolution was rising.<br />
<br />
There ensued a period of revival of the Soviets, of a change in their composition, their ''bolshevization''. Factories, mills and military units held new elections and sent to the Soviets representatives of the Bolshevik Party in place of Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries. On August 31, the day following the victory over Kornilov, the Petrograd Soviet endorsed the Bolshevik policy. The old Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary Presidium of the Petrograd Soviet, headed by Chkheidze, resigned, thus clearing the way for the Bolsheviks. On September 5, the Moscow Soviet of Workers' Deputies went over to the Bolsheviks. The Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik Presidium of the Moscow Soviet also resigned and left the way clear for the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
This meant that the chief conditions for a successful uprising were now ripe<br />
<br />
The slogan "All power to the Soviets!" was again on the order of the day.<br />
<br />
But it was no longer the old slogan, the slogan of transferring the power to Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary Soviets. This time it was a slogan calling for an uprising of the Soviets against the Provisional Government, the object being to transfer the whole power in the country to the Soviets now led by the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
Disintegration set in among the compromising parties.<br />
<br />
Under the pressure of the revolutionary peasants, a Left wing formed within the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, known as the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries, who expressed their disapproval of the policy of compromise with the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Among the Mensheviks, too, their appeared a group of "Lefts," the so-called "Internationalists," who gravitated towards the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
As to the Anarchists, a group whose influence was insignificant to start with, they now definitely disintegrated into minute groups, some of which merged with criminal elements, thieves and provocateurs, the dregs of society; others became expropriators "by conviction," robbing the peasants and small townfolk, and appropriating the premises and funds of workers' clubs; while others still openly went over to the camp of the counter-revolutionaries, and devoted themselves to feathering their own nests as menials of the bourgeoisie. They were all opposed to authority of any kind, particularly and especially to the revolutionary authority of the workers and peasants, for they knew that a revolutionary government would not allow them to rob the people and steal public property.<br />
<br />
After the rout of Kornilov, the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries made one more attempt to stem the rising tide of revolution. With this purpose in view, on September 12, 1917, they convened an All-Russian Democratic Conference, consisting of representatives of the Socialist parties, the compromising Soviets, trade unions, Zemstvos, commercial and industrial circles and military units. The conference set up a Provisional Council of the Republic, known as the Pre-parliament. The compromisers hoped with the help of the Pre-parliament to halt the revolution and to divert the country from the path of a Soviet revolution to the path of bourgeois constitutional development, the path of bourgeois parliamentarism. But this was a hopeless attempt on the part of political bankrupts to turn back the wheel of revolution. It was bound to end in a fiasco, and end in a fiasco it did. The workers jeered at the parliamentary efforts of the compromisers and called the ''Predparlament'' (Pre-parliament) a "''predbannik"'' ("pre-bath-house").<br />
<br />
The Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party decided to boycott the Pre-parliament. True, the Bolshevik group in the Pre-parliament, consisting of people like Kamenev and Teodorovich, were loath to leave it, but the Central Committee of the Party compelled them to do so.<br />
<br />
Kamenev and Zinoviev stubbornly insisted on participation in the Pre-parliament, striving thereby to divert the Party from its preparations for the uprising. Comrade Stalin, speaking at a meeting of the Bolshevik group of the All-Russian Democratic Conference, vigorously opposed participation in the Pre-parliament. He called the Pre-parlia-ment a "Kornilov abortion."<br />
<br />
Lenin and Stalin considered that it would be a grave mistake to participate in the Pre-parliament even for a short time, for it might encourage in the masses the false hope that the Pre-parliament could really do something for the working people.<br />
<br />
At the same time, the Bolsheviks made intensive preparations for the convocation of the Second Congress of Soviets, in which they expected to have a majority. Under the pressure of the Bolshevik Soviets, and notwithstanding the subterfuges of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries on the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets was called for the second half of October 1917.<br />
<br />
=== October uprising in Petrograd and arrest of the provisional government. Second congress of soviets and formation of the soviet government. Decrees of the second congress of soviets on peace and land. Victory of the socialist revolution. Reasons for the victory of the socialist revolution ===<br />
The Bolsheviks began intensive preparations for the uprising. Lenin declared that, having secured a majority in the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies in both the capitals—Moscow and Petrograd—the Bolsheviks could and should take the state power into their own hands. Reviewing the path that had been traversed, Lenin stressed the fact that "the majority of the people are ''for'' us." In his articles and letters to the Central Committee and the Bolshevik organizations, Lenin outlined a detailed plan for the uprising showing how the army units, the navy and the Red Guards should be used, what key positions in Petrograd should be seized in order to ensure the success of the uprising, and so forth.<br />
<br />
On October 7, Lenin secretly arrived in Petrograd from Finland. On October 10, 1917, the historic meeting of the Central Committee of the Party took place at which it was decided to launch the armed uprising within the next few days. The historic resolution of the Central Committee of the Party, drawn up by Lenin, stated:<br />
<br />
"The Central Committee recognizes that the international position of the Russian revolution (the revolt in the German navy which is an extreme manifestation of the growth throughout Europe of the world Socialist revolution; the threat of conclusion of peace by the imperialists with the object of strangling the revolution in Russia) as well as its military position (the indubitable decision of the Russian bourgeoisie and Kerensky and Co. to surrender Petrograd to the Germans), and the fact that the proletarian party has gained a majority in the Soviets—all this, taken in conjunction with the peasant revolt and the swing of popular confidence towards our Party (the elections in Moscow), and, finally, the obvious preparations being made for a second Kornilov affair (the withdrawal of troops from Petrograd, the dispatch of Cossacks to Petrograd, the surrounding of Minsk by Cossacks, etc.)—all this places the armed uprising on the order of the day.<br />
<br />
"Considering therefore that an armed uprising is inevitable, and that the time for it is fully ripe, the Central Committee instructs all Party organizations to be guided accordingly, and to discuss and decide all practical questions (the Congress of Soviets of the Northern Region, the withdrawal of troops from Petrograd, the action of our people in Moscow and Minsk, etc.) from this point of view." (Lenin, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. VI, p. 303.)<br />
<br />
Two members of the Central Committee, Kamenev and Zinoviev, spoke and voted against this historic decision. Like the Mensheviks, they dreamed of a bourgeois parliamentary republic, and slandered the working class by asserting that it was not strong enough to carry out a Socialist revolution, that it was not mature enough to take power.<br />
<br />
Although at this meeting Trotsky did not vote against the resolution directly, he moved an amendment which would have reduced the chances of the uprising to nought and rendered it abortive. He proposed that the uprising should not be started before the Second Congress of Soviets met, a proposal which meant delaying the uprising, divulging its date, and forewarning the Provisional Government.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party sent its representatives to the Donetz Basin, the Urals, Helsingfors, Kronstadt, the SouthWestern Front and other places to organize the uprising. Comrades Voroshilov, Molotov, Dzerzhinsky, Ordjonikidze, Kirov, Kaganovich, Kuibyshev, Frunze, Yaroslavsky and others were specially assigned by the Party to direct the uprising in the provinces. Comrade Zhdanov carried on the work among the armed forces in Shadrinsk, in the Urals. Comrade Yezhov made preparations for an uprising of the soldiers on the Western Front, in Byelorussia. The representatives of the Central Committee acquainted the leading members of the Bolshevik organizations in the provinces with the plan of the uprising and mobilized them in readiness to support the uprising in Petrograd.<br />
<br />
On the instructions of the Central Committee of the Party, a ''Revolutionary Military Committee'' of the Petrograd Soviet was set up. This body became the legally functioning headquarters of the uprising.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile the counter-revolutionaries, too, were hastily mustering their forces. The officers of the army formed a counter-revolutionary organization known as the Officers' League. Everywhere the counterrevolutionaries set up headquarters for the formation of shock-battalions. By the end of October the counter-revolutionaries had 43 shock battalions at their command. Special battalions of Cavaliers of the Cross of St. George were formed.<br />
<br />
Kerensky's government considered the question of transferring the seat of government from Petrograd to Moscow. This made it clear that it was preparing to surrender Petrograd to the Germans in order to forestall the uprising in the city. The protest of the Petrograd workers and soldiers compelled the Provisional Government to remain in Petrograd.<br />
<br />
On October 16 an enlarged meeting of the Central Committee of the Party was held. This meeting elected a ''Party Centre'', headed by Comrade Stalin, to direct the uprising. This Party Centre was the leading core of the Revolutionary Military Committee of the Petrograd Soviet and had practical direction of the whole uprising.<br />
<br />
At the meeting of the Central Committee the capitulators Zinoviev and Kamenev again opposed the uprising. Meeting with a rebuff, they came out openly in the press against the uprising, against the Party. On October 18 the Menshevik newspaper, ''Novaya Zhizn,'' printed a statement by Kamenev and Zinoviev declaring that the Bolsheviks were making preparations for an uprising, and that they (Kamenev and Zinoviev) considered it an adventurous gamble. Kamenev and Zinoviev thus disclosed to the enemy the decision of the Central Committee regarding the uprising, they revealed that an uprising had been planned to take place within a few days This was treachery. Lenin wrote in this connection: "Kamenev and Zinoviev have ''betrayed'' the decision of the Central Committee of their Party on the armed uprising to Rod-zyanko and Kerensky." Lenin put before the Central Committee the question of Zinoviev's and Kamenev's expulsion from the Party.<br />
<br />
Forewarned by the traitors, the enemies of the revolution at once began to take measures to prevent the uprising and to destroy the directing staff of the revolution—the Bolshevik Party. The Provisional Government called a secret meeting which decided upon measures for combating the Bolsheviks On October 19 the Provisional Government hastily summoned troops from the front to Petrograd. The streets were heavily patrolled. The counter-revolutionaries succeeded in massing especially large forces in Moscow. The Provisional Government drew up a plan: on the eve of the Second Congress of Soviets the Smolny— the headquarters of the Bolshevik Central Committee—was to be attacked and occupied and the Bolshevik directing centre destroyed. For this purpose the government summoned to Petrograd troops in whose loyalty it believed.<br />
<br />
But the days and even the hours of the Provisional Government were already numbered. Nothing could now halt the victorious march of the Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
On October 21 the Bolsheviks sent commissars of the Revolutionary Military Committee to all revolutionary army units. Throughout the remaining days before the uprising energetic preparations for action were made in the army units and in the mills and factories. Precise instructions were also issued to the warships ''Aurora'' and ''Zarya Svobody''.<br />
<br />
At a meeting of the Petrograd Soviet, Trotsky in a fit of boasting blabbed to the enemy the date on which the Bolsheviks had planned to begin the armed uprising. In order not to allow Kerensky's government to frustrate the uprising, the Central Committee of the Party decided to start and carry it through before the appointed time, and set its date for the day before the opening of the Second Congress of Soviets.<br />
<br />
Kerensky began his attack on the early morning of October 24 (November 6) by ordering the suppression of the central organ of the Bolshevik Party, ''Rabochy Put (Workers' Path)'', and the dispatch of armoured cars to its editorial premises and to the printing plant of the Bolsheviks. By 10 a.m., however, on the instructions of Comrade Stalin, Red Guards and revolutionary soldiers pressed back the armoured cars and placed a reinforced guard over the printing plant and the ''Rabochy Put'' editorial offices. Towards 11 a.m. ''Rabochy Put'' came out with a call for the ''overthrow'' of the Provisional Government. Simultaneously, on the instructions of the Party Centre of the uprising, detachments of revolutionary soldiers and Red Guards were rushed to the Smolny. The uprising had begun.<br />
<br />
On the night of October 24 Lenin arrived at the Smolny and assumed personal direction of the uprising. All that night revolutionary units of the army and detachments of the Red Guard kept arriving at the Smolny. The Bolsheviks directed them to the centre of the capital, to surround the Winter Palace, where the Provisional Government had entrenched itself.<br />
<br />
On October 25 (November 7), Red Guards and revolutionary troops occupied the railway stations, post office, telegraph office, the Ministries and the State Bank.<br />
<br />
The Pre-parliament was dissolved.<br />
<br />
The Smolny, the headquarters of the Petrograd Soviet and of the Bolshevik Central Committee, became the headquarters of the revolution, from which all fighting orders emanated.<br />
<br />
The Petrograd workers in those days showed what a splendid schooling they had received under the guidance of the Bolshevik Party. The revolutionary units of the army, prepared for the uprising by the work of the Bolsheviks, carried out fighting orders with precision and fought side by side with the Red Guard. The navy did not lag behind the army. Kronstadt was a stronghold of the Bolshevik Party, and had long since refused to recognize the authority of the Provisional Government. The cruiser Aurora trained its guns on the Winter Palace, and on October 25 their thunder ushered in a new era, the era of the Great Socialist Revolution.<br />
<br />
On October 25 (November 7) the Bolsheviks issued a manifesto "To the Citizens of Russia" announcing that the bourgeois Provisional Government had been deposed and that state power had passed into the hands of the Soviets.<br />
<br />
The Provisional Government had taken refuge in the Winter Palace under the protection of cadets and shock battalions. On the night of October 25 the revolutionary workers, soldiers and sailors took the Winter Palace by storm and arrested the Provisional Government.<br />
<br />
The armed uprising in Petrograd had won.<br />
<br />
The Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets opened in the Smolny at 10:45 p.m. on October 25 (November 7), 1917, when the uprising in Petrograd was already in the full flush of victory and the power in the capital had actually passed into the hands of the Petrograd Soviet.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks secured an overwhelming majority at the congress. The Mensheviks, Bundists and Right Socialist-Revolutionaries, seeing that their day was done, left the congress, announcing that they refused to take any part in its labours. In a statement which was read at the Congress of Soviets they referred to the October Revolution as a "military plot." The congress condemned the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries and, far from regretting their departure, welcomed it, for, it declared, thanks to the withdrawal of the traitors the congress had become a real revolutionary congress of workers' and soldiers' deputies. The congress proclaimed that all power had passed to the Soviets:<br />
<br />
"Backed by the will of the vast majority of the workers, soldiers and peasants, backed by the victorious uprising of the workers and the garrison which had taken place in Petrograd, the Congress takes the power into its own hands"—the proclamation of the Second Congress of Soviets read.<br />
<br />
On the night of October 26 (November 8), 1917, the Second Congress of Soviets adopted the ''Decree on Peace''. The congress called upon the belligerent countries to conclude an immediate armistice for a period of not less than three months to permit negotiations for peace. While addressing itself to the governments and peoples of all the belligerent countries, the congress at the same time appealed to "the class-conscious workers of the three most advanced nations of mankind and the largest states participating in the present war, namely, Great Britain, France and Germany." It called upon these workers to help "to bring to a successful conclusion the cause of peace, and at the same time the cause of the emancipation of the toiling and exploited masses of the population from all forms of slavery and all forms of exploitation."<br />
<br />
That same night the Second Congress of Soviets adopted the ''Decree on Land'', which proclaimed that "landlord ownership of land is abolished forthwith without compensation." The basis adopted for this agrarian law was a Mandate (''Nakaz'') of the peasantry, compiled from 242 mandates of peasants of various localities. In accordance with this Mandate private ownership of land was to be abolished forever and replaced by public, or state ownership of the land. The lands of the landlords, of the tsar's family and of the monasteries were to be turned over to all the toilers for their free use.<br />
<br />
By this decree the peasantry received from the October Socialist Revolution over 150,000,000 dessiatins (over 400,000,000 acres) of land that had formerly belonged to the landlords, the bourgeoisie, the tsar's family, the monasteries and the churches.<br />
<br />
Moreover, the peasants were released from paying rent to the landlords, which had amounted to about 500,000,000 gold rubles annually.<br />
<br />
All mineral resources (oil, coal, ores, etc.), forests and waters became the property of the people.<br />
<br />
Lastly, the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets formed the first Soviet Government—the Council of People's Commissars—which consisted entirely of Bolsheviks. Lenin was elected Chairman of the first Council of People's Commissars.<br />
<br />
This ended the labours of the historic Second Congress of Soviets.<br />
<br />
The congress delegates dispersed to spread the news of the victory of the Soviets in Petrograd and to ensure the extension of the power of the Soviets to the whole country.<br />
<br />
Not everywhere did power pass to the Soviets at once. While in Petrograd the Soviet Government was already in existence, in Moscow fierce and stubborn fighting continued in the streets several days longer. In order to prevent the power from passing into the hands of the Moscow Soviet, the counter-revolutionary Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary parties, together with Whiteguards and cadets, started an armed fight against the workers and soldiers. It took several days to rout the rebels and to establish the power of the Soviets in Moscow.<br />
<br />
In Petrograd itself, and in several of its districts, counter-revolutionary attempts to overthrow the Soviet power were made in the very first days of the victory of the revolution. On November 10, 1917, Kerensky, who during the uprising had fled from Petrograd to the Northern Front, mustered several Cossack units and dispatched them against Petrograd under the command of General Krasnov. On November 11, 1917, a counter-revolutionary organization calling itself the "Committee for the Salvation of the Fatherland and the Revolution," headed by Socialist-Revolutionaries, raised a mutiny of cadets in Petro-grad. But the mutiny was suppressed by sailors and Red Guards without much difficulty by the evening of the same day, and on November 13 General Krasnov was routed near the Pulkovo Hills. Lenin personally directed the suppression of the anti-Soviet mutiny, just as he had personally directed the October uprising. His inflexible firmness and calm confidence of victory inspired and welded the masses. The enemy was smashed. Krasnov was taken prisoner and pledged his "word of honour" to terminate the struggle against the Soviet power. And on his "word of honour" he was released. But, as it later transpired, the general violated his word of honour. As to Kerensky, disguised as a woman, he managed to "disappear in an unknown direction."<br />
<br />
In Moghilev, at the General Headquarters of the Army, General Dukhonin, the Commander-in-Chief, also attempted a mutiny. When the Soviet Government instructed him to start immediate negotiations for an armistice with the German Command, he refused to obey. Thereupon Dukhonin was dismissed by order of the Soviet Government. The counter-revolutionary General Headquarters was broken up and Du-khonin himself was killed by the soldiers, who had risen against him.<br />
<br />
Certain notorious opportunists within the Party—Kamenev, Zinoviev, Rykov, Shlyapnikov and others—also made a sally against the Soviet power. They demanded the formation of an "all-Socialist government" to include Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, who had just been overthrown by the October Revolution. On November 15, 1917, the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party adopted a resolution rejecting agreement with these counter-revolutionary parties, and proclaiming Kamenev and Zinoviev strikebreakers of the revolution. On November 17, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Rykov and Milyutin, disagreeing with the policy of the Party, announced their resignation from the Central Committee. That same day, November 17, Nogin, in his own name and in the names of Rykov, V. Milyutin, Teodorovich, A. Shlyapnikov, D. Ryazanov, Yurenev and Larin, members of the Council of People's Commissars, announced their disagreement with the policy of the Central Committee of the Party and their resignation from the Council of People's Commissars. The desertion of this handful of cowards caused jubilation among the enemies of the October Revolution. The bourgeoisie and its henchmen proclaimed with malicious glee the collapse of Bolshevism and presaged the early end of the Bolshevik Party. But not for a moment was the Party shaken by this handful of deserters. The Central Committee of the Party contemptuously branded them as deserters from the revolution and accomplices of the bourgeoisie, and proceeded with its work.<br />
<br />
As to the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries, they, desirous of retaining their influence over the peasant masses, who definitely sympathized with the Bolsheviks, decided not to quarrel with the latter and for the time being to maintain a united front with them. The Congress of Peasant Soviets which took place in November 1917 recognized all the gains of the October Socialist Revolution and endorsed the decrees of the Soviet Government. An agreement was concluded with the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries and several of their number were given posts on the Council of People's Commissars (Kolegayev, Spiridonova, Proshyan and Steinberg). However, this agreement lasted only until the signing of the Peace of Brest-Litovsk and the formation of the Committees of the Poor Peasants, when a deep cleavage took place among the peasantry and when the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries, coming more and more to reflect the interests of the kulaks, started a revolt against the Bolsheviks and were routed by the Soviet Government.<br />
<br />
In the interval from October 1917 to February 1918 the Soviet revolution spread throughout the vast territory of the country at such a rapid rate that Lenin referred to it as a "triumphal march" of Soviet power.<br />
<br />
The Great October Socialist Revolution had won.<br />
<br />
There were several reasons for this comparatively easy victory of the Socialist revolution in Russia. The following chief reasons should be noted:<br />
<br />
1) The October Revolution was confronted by an enemy so comparatively weak, so badly organized and so politically inexperienced as the Russian bourgeoisie. Economically still weak, and completely dependent on government contracts, the Russian bourgeoisie lacked sufficient political self-reliance and initiative to find a way out of the situation. It had neither the experience of the French bourgeoisie, for example, in political combination and political chicanery on a broad scale nor the schooling of the British bourgeoisie in broadly conceived crafty compromise. It had but recently sought to reach an understanding with the tsar; yet now that the tsar had been overthrown by the February Revolution, and the bourgeoisie itself had come to power, it was unable to think of anything better than to continue the policy of the detested tsar in all its essentials. Like the tsar, it stood for "war to a victorious finish," although the war was beyond the country's strength and had reduced the people and the army to a state of utter exhaustion. Like the tsar, it stood for the preservation in the main of big landed property, although the peasantry was perishing from lack of land and the weight of the landlord's yoke. As to its labour policy the Russian bourgeoisie outstripped even the tsar in its hatred of the working class, for it not only strove to preserve and strengthen the yoke of the factory owners, but to render it intolerable by wholesale lockouts.<br />
<br />
It is not surprising that the people saw no essential difference between the policy of the tsar and the policy of the bourgeoisie, and that they transferred their hatred of the tsar to the Provisional Government of the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
As long as the compromising Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik parties possessed a certain amount of influence among the people, the bourgeoisie could use them as a screen and preserve its power. But after the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries had exposed themselves as agents of the imperialist bourgeoisie, thus forfeiting their influence among the people, the bourgeoisie and its Provisional Government were left without a support.<br />
<br />
2) The October Revolution was headed by so revolutionary a class as the working class of Russia, a class which had been steeled in battle, which had in a short space passed through two revolutions, and which by the eve of the third revolution had won recognition as the leader of the people in the struggle for peace, land, liberty and Socialism. If the revolution had not had a leader like the working class of Russia, a leader that had earned the confidence of the people, there would have been no alliance between the workers and peasants, and without such an alliance the victory of the October Revolution would have been impossible.<br />
<br />
3) The working class of Russia had so effective an ally in the revolution as the poor peasantry, which comprised the overwhelming majority of the peasant population. The experience of eight months of revolution —which may unhesitatingly be compared to the experience of several decades of "normal" development—had not been in vain as far as the mass of the labouring peasants were concerned. During this period they had had the opportunity to test all the parties of Russia in practice and convince themselves that neither the Constitutional-Democrats, nor the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks would seriously quarrel with the landlords or sacrifice themselves for the interests of the peasants; that there was only one party in Russia—the Bolshevik Party—which was in no way connected with the landlords and which was prepared to crush them in order to satisfy the needs of the peasants. This served as a solid basis for the alliance of the proletariat and the poor peasantry. The existence of this alliance between the working class and the poor peasantry determined the conduct of the middle peasants, who had long been vacillating and only on the eve of the October uprising wholeheartedly swung over towards the revolution and joined forces with the poor peasants.<br />
<br />
It goes without saying that without this alliance the October Revolution could not have been victorious.<br />
<br />
4) The working class was headed by a party so tried and tested in political battles as the Bolshevik Party. Only a party like the Bolshevik Party, courageous enough to lead the people in decisive attack, and cautious enough to keep clear of all the submerged rocks in its path to the goal—only such a party could so skilfully merge into one common revolutionary torrent such diverse revolutionary movements as the general democratic movement for peace, the peasant democratic movement for the seizure of the landed estates, the movement of the oppressed nationalities for national liberation and national equality, and the Socialist movement of the proletariat for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
Undoubtedly, the merging of these diverse revolutionary streams into one common powerful revolutionary torrent decided the fate of capitalism in Russia.<br />
<br />
5) The October Revolution began at a time when the imperialist war was still at its height, when the principal bourgeois states were split into two hostile camps, and when, absorbed in mutual war and undermining each other's strength, they were unable to intervene effectively in "Russian affairs" and actively to oppose the October Revolution.<br />
<br />
This undoubtedly did much to facilitate the victory of the October Socialist Revolution.<br />
<br />
=== Struggle of the Bolshevik Party to consolidate the soviet power. Peace of Brest-Litovsk. Seventh party congress ===<br />
In order to consolidate the Soviet power, the old, bourgeois state machine had to be shattered and destroyed and a new, Soviet state machine set up in its place. Further, it was necessary to destroy the survivals of the division of society into estates and the regime of national oppression, to abolish the privileges of the church, to suppress the counterrevolutionary press and counter-revolutionary organizations of all kinds, legal and illegal, and to dissolve the bourgeois Constituent Assembly. Following on the nationalization of the land, all large-scale industry had also to be nationalized. And, lastly, the state of war had to be ended, for the war was hampering the consolidation of the Soviet power more than anything else.<br />
<br />
All these measures were carried out in the course of a few months, from the end of 1917 to the middle of 1918.<br />
<br />
The sabotage of the officials of the old Ministries, engineered by the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, was smashed and overcome. The Ministries were abolished and replaced by Soviet administrative machinery and appropriate People's Commissariats. The Supreme Council of National Economy was set up to administer the industry of the country. The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission (Vecheka) was created to combat counter-revolution and sabotage, and F. Dzerzhinsky was placed at its head. The formation of a Red Army and Navy was decreed. The Constituent Assembly, the elections to which had largely been held prior to the October Revolution, and which refused to recognize the decrees of the Second Congress of Soviets on peace, land and the transfer of power to the Soviets, was dissolved.<br />
<br />
In order to put an end to the survivals of feudalism, the estates system, and inequality in all spheres of social life, decrees were issued abolishing the estates, removing restrictions based on nationality or religion, separating the church from the state and the schools from the church, establishing equality for women and the equality of all the nationalities of Russia.<br />
<br />
A special edict of the Soviet Government known as "The Declaration of Rights of the Peoples of Russia" laid down as a law the right of the peoples of Russia to unhampered development and complete equality.<br />
<br />
In order to undermine the economic power of the bourgeoisie and to create a new, Soviet national economy, and, in the first place, to create a new, Soviet industry, the banks, railways, foreign trade, the mercantile fleet and all large enterprises in all branches of industry — coal, metal, oil, chemicals, machine-building, textiles, sugar, etc.— were nationalized.<br />
<br />
To render our country financially independent of the foreign capitalists and free from exploitation by them, the foreign loans contracted by the Russian tsar and the Provisional Government were annulled. The people of our country refused to pay debts which had been incurred for the continuation of the war of conquest and which had placed our country in bondage to foreign capital.<br />
<br />
These and similar measures undermined the very root of the power of the bourgeoisie, the landlords, the reactionary officials and the counterrevolutionary parties, and considerably strengthened the position of the Soviet Government within the country.<br />
<br />
But the position of the Soviet Government could not be deemed fully secure as long as Russia was in a state of war with Germany and Austria. In order finally to consolidate the Soviet power, the war had to be ended. The Party therefore launched the fight for peace from the moment of the victory of the October Revolution.<br />
<br />
The Soviet Government called upon "all the belligerent peoples and their governments to start immediate negotiations for a just, democratic peace." But the "allies"—Great Britain and France—refused to accept the proposal of the Soviet Government. In view of this refusal, the Soviet Government, in compliance with the will of the Soviets, decided to start negotiations with Germany and Austria.<br />
<br />
The negotiations began on December 3 in Brest-Litovsk. On December 5 an armistice was signed.<br />
<br />
The negotiations took place at a time when the country was in a state of economic disruption, when war-weariness was universal, when our troops were abandoning the trenches and the front was collapsing. It became clear in the course of the negotiations that the German imperialists were out to seize huge portions of the territory of the former tsarist empire, and to turn Poland, the Ukraine and the Baltic countries into dependencies of Germany.<br />
<br />
To continue the war under such conditions would have meant staking the very existence of the new-born Soviet Republic. The working class and the peasantry were confronted with the necessity of accepting onerous terms of peace, of retreating before the most dangerous marauder of the time—German imperialism—in order to secure a respite in which to strengthen the Soviet power and to create a new army, the Red Army, which would be able to defend the country from enemy attack.<br />
<br />
All the counter-revolutionaries, from the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries to the most arrant Whiteguards, conducted a frenzied campaign against the conclusion of peace. Their policy was clear: they wanted to wreck the peace negotiations, provoke a German offensive and thus imperil the still weak Soviet power and endanger the gains of the workers and peasants.<br />
<br />
Their allies in this sinister scheme were Trotsky and his accomplice Bukharin, the latter, together with Radek and Pyatakov, heading a group which was hostile to the Party but camouflaged itself under the name of "Left Communists." Trotsky and the group of "Left Communists" began a fierce struggle within the Party against Lenin, demanding the continuation of the war. These people were clearly playing into the hands of the German imperialists and the counterrevolutionaries within the country, for they were working to expose the young Soviet Republic, which had not yet any army, to the blows of German imperialism.<br />
<br />
This was really a policy of provocateurs, skilfully masked by Left phraseology.<br />
<br />
On February 10, 1918, the peace negotiations in Brest-Litovsk were broken off. Although Lenin and Stalin, in the name of the Central Committee of the Party, had insisted that peace be signed, Trotsky, who was chairman of the Soviet delegation at Brest-Litovsk, treacherously violated the direct instructions of the Bolshevik Party. He announced that the Soviet Republic refused to conclude peace on the terms proposed by Germany. At the same time he informed the Germans that the Soviet Republic would not fight and would continue to demobilize the army.<br />
<br />
This was monstrous. The German imperialists could have desired nothing more from this traitor to the interests of the Soviet country.<br />
<br />
The German government broke the armistice and assumed the offensive. The remnants of our old army crumbled and scattered before the onslaught of the German troops. The Germans advanced swiftly, seizing enormous territory and threatening Petrograd. German imperialism invaded the Soviet land with the object of overthrowing the Soviet power and converting our country into its colony. The ruins of the old tsarist army could not withstand the armed hosts of German imperialism, and steadily retreated under their blows.<br />
<br />
But the armed intervention of the German imperialists was the signal for a mighty revolutionary upsurge in the country. The Party and the Soviet Government issued the call—"The Socialist fatherland is in danger!" And in response the working class energetically began to form regiments of the Red Army. The young detachments of the new army—the army of the revolutionary people—heroically resisted the German marauders who were armed to the teeth. At Narva and Pskov the German invaders met with a resolute repulse. Their advance on Petrograd was checked. February 23—the day the forces of German imperialism were repulsed—is regarded as the birthday of the Red Army.<br />
<br />
On February 18, 1918, the Central Committee of the Party had approved Lenin's proposal to send a telegram to the German government offering to conclude an immediate peace. But in order to secure more advantageous terms, the Germans continued to advance, and only on February 22 did the German government express its willingness to sign peace. The terms were now far more onerous than those originally proposed.<br />
<br />
Lenin, Stalin and Sverdlov had to wage a stubborn fight on the Central Committee against Trotsky, Bukharin and the other Trotskyites before they secured a decision in favour of the conclusion of peace. Bukharin and Trotsky, Lenin declared, "actually ''helped'' the German imperialists and ''hindered'' the growth and development of the revolution in Germany." (Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. XXII, p. 307.)<br />
<br />
On February 23, the Central Committee decided to accept the terms of the German Command and to sign the peace treaty. The treachery of Trotsky and Bukharin cost the Soviet Republic dearly. Latvia, Es-thonia, not to mention Poland, passed into German hands; the Ukraine was severed from the Soviet Republic and converted into a vassal of the German state. The Soviet Republic undertook to pay an indemnity to the Germans.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the "Left Communists" continued their struggle against Lenin, sinking deeper and deeper into the slough of treachery.<br />
<br />
The Moscow Regional Bureau of the Party, of which the "Left Communists" (Bukharin, Ossinsky, Yakovleva, Stukov and Mantsev) had temporarily seized control, passed a resolution of no-confidence in the Central Committee, a resolution designed to split the Party. The Bureau declared that it considered "a split in the Party in the very near future scarcely avoidable." The "Left Communists" even went so far in their resolution as to adopt an anti-Soviet stand. "In the interests of the international revolution," they declared, "we consider it expedient to consent to the possible loss of the Soviet power, which has now become purely formal."<br />
<br />
Lenin branded this decision as "strange and monstrous."<br />
<br />
At that time the real cause of this anti-Party behaviour of Trotsky and the "Left Communists" was not yet clear to the Party. But the recent trial of the Anti-Soviet "Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites" (beginning of 1938) has now revealed that Bukharin and the group of "Left Communists" headed by him, together with Trotsky and the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries, were at that time secretly conspiring against the Soviet Government. Now it is known that Bukharin, Trotsky and their fellow-conspirators had determined to wreck the Peace of Brest-Litovsk, arrest V. I. Lenin, J. V. Stalin and Y. M. Sverdlov, assassinate them, and form a new government consisting of Bukharinites, Trotskyites and "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries.<br />
<br />
While hatching this clandestine counter-revolutionary plot, the group of "Left Communists," with the support of Trotsky, openly attacked the Bolshevik Party, trying to split it and to disintegrate its ranks. But at this grave juncture the Party rallied around Lenin, Stalin and Sverdlov and supported the Central Committee on the question of peace as on all other questions.<br />
<br />
The "Left Communist" group was isolated and defeated.<br />
<br />
In order that the Party might pronounce its final decision on the question of peace the Seventh Party Congress was summoned.<br />
<br />
The congress opened on March 6, 1918. This was the first congress held after our Party had taken power. It was attended by 46 delegates with vote and 58 delegates with voice but no vote, representing 145,000 Party members. Actually, the membership of the Party at that time was not less than 270,000. The discrepancy was due to the fact that, owing to the urgency with which the congress met, a large number of the organizations were unable to send delegates in time; and the organizations in the territories then occupied by the Germans were unable to send delegates at all.<br />
<br />
Reporting at this congress on the Brest-Litovsk Peace, Lenin said that ". . . the severe crisis which our Party is now experiencing, owing to the formation of a Left opposition within it, is one of the gravest crises the Russian revolution has experienced." (Lenin, ''Selected Works,''Vol. VII, pp. 293-94.)<br />
<br />
The resolution submitted by Lenin on the subject of the Brest-Litovsk Peace was adopted by 30 votes against 12, with 4 abstentions.<br />
<br />
On the day following the adoption of this resolution, Lenin wrote an article entitled "A Distressful Peace," in which he said:<br />
<br />
"Intolerably severe are the terms of peace. Nevertheless, history will claim its own...Let us set to work to organize, organize and organize. Despite all trials, the future is ours." (Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. XXII, p. 288.)<br />
<br />
In its resolution, the congress declared that further military attacks by imperialist states on the Soviet Republic were inevitable, and that therefore the congress considered it the fundamental task of the Party to adopt the most energetic and resolute measures to strengthen the self-discipline and discipline of the workers and peasants, to prepare the masses for self-sacrificing defence of the Socialist country, to organize the Red Army, and to introduce universal military training.<br />
<br />
Endorsing Lenin's policy with regard to the Peace of Brest-Litovsk, the congress condemned the position of Trotsky and Bukharin and stigmatized the attempt of the defeated "Left Communists" to continue their splitting activities at the congress itself.<br />
<br />
The Peace of Brest-Litovsk gave the Party a respite in which to consolidate the Soviet power and to organize the economic life of the country.<br />
<br />
The peace made it possible to take advantage of the conflicts within the imperialist camp (the war of Austria and Germany with the Entente, which was still in progress) to disintegrate the forces of the enemy, to organize a Soviet economic system and to create a Red Army.<br />
<br />
The peace made it possible for the proletariat to retain the support of the peasantry and to accumulate strength for the defeat of the White-guard generals in the Civil War.<br />
<br />
In the period of the October Revolution Lenin taught the Bolshevik Party how to advance fearlessly and resolutely when conditions favoured an advance. In the period of the Brest-Litovsk Peace Lenin taught the Party how to retreat in good order when the forces of the enemy are obviously superior to our own, in order to prepare with the utmost energy for a new offensive.<br />
<br />
History has fully proved the correctness of Lenin's line.<br />
<br />
It was decided at the Seventh Congress to change the name of the Party and to alter the Party Program. The name of the Party was changed to the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)—R.C.P.(B.). Lenin proposed to call our Party a Communist Party because this name precisely corresponded to the aim of the Party, namely, the achievement of Communism.<br />
<br />
A special commission, which included Lenin and Stalin, was elected to draw up a new Party program, Lenin's draft program having been accepted as a basis.<br />
<br />
Thus the Seventh Congress accomplished a task of profound historical importance: it defeated the enemy hidden within the Party's ranks— the "Left Communists" and Trotskyites; it succeeded in withdrawing the country from the imperialist war; it secured peace and a respite; it enabled the Party to gain time for the organization of the Red Army; and it set the Party the task of introducing Socialist order in the national economy.<br />
<br />
=== Lenin’s plan for the initial steps in socialist construction. Committees of the poor peasants and the curbing of the kulaks. Revolt of the “left” socialist-revolutionaries and its suppression. Fifth congress of soviets and adoption of the constitution of the RSFSR ===<br />
Having concluded peace and thus gained a respite, the Soviet Government set about the work of Socialist construction. Lenin called the period from November 1917 to February 1918 the stage of "the Red Guard attack on capital." During the first half of 1918 the Soviet Government succeeded in breaking the economic might of the bourgeoisie, in concentrating in its own hands the key positions of the national economy (mills, factories, banks, railways, foreign trade, mercantile fleet, etc.), smashing the bourgeois machinery of state power, and victoriously crushing the first attempts of the counter-revolution to overthrow the Soviet power.<br />
<br />
But this was by no means enough. If there was to be progress, the destruction of the old order had to be followed by the building of a new. Accordingly, in the spring of 1918, a transition was begun "from the expropriation of the expropriators" to a new stage of Socialist construction—the organizational consolidation of the victories gained, the building of the Soviet national economy. Lenin held that the utmost advantage should be taken of the respite in order to begin to lay the foundation of the Socialist economic system. The Bolsheviks had to learn to organize and manage production in a new way. The Bolshevik Party had convinced Russia, Lenin wrote; the Bolshevik Party had wrested Russia for the people from the hands of the rich, and now the Bolsheviks must learn to govern Russia.<br />
<br />
Lenin held that the chief task at the given stage was to keep account of everything the country produced and to exercise control over the distribution of all products. Petty-bourgeois elements predominated in the economic system of the country. The millions of small owners in town and country were a breeding ground for capitalism. These small owners recognized neither labour discipline nor civil discipline; they would not submit to a system of state accounting and control. What was particularly dangerous at this difficult juncture was the petty-bourgeois welter of speculation and profiteering, the attempts of the small owners and traders to profit by the people's want.<br />
<br />
The Party started a vigorous war on slovenliness in work, on the absence of labour discipline in industry. The masses were slow in acquiring new habits of labour. The struggle for labour discipline consequently became the major task of the period.<br />
<br />
Lenin pointed to the necessity of developing Socialist emulation in industry; of introducing the piece rate system; of combating wage equalization; of resorting—in addition to methods of education and persuasion—to methods of compulsion with regard to those who wanted to grab as much as possible from the state, with regard to idlers and profiteers. He maintained that the new discipline—the discipline of labour, the discipline of comradely relations, Soviet discipline—was something that would be evolved by the labouring millions in the course of their daily, practical work, and that "this task will take up a whole historical epoch." (Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. VII, p. 393.)<br />
<br />
All these problems of Socialist construction, of the new, Socialist relations of production, were dealt with by Lenin in his celebrated work, ''The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government.''<br />
<br />
The "Left Communists," acting in conjunction with the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, fought Lenin over these questions too. Bukharin, Ossinsky and others were opposed to the introduction of discipline, one-man management in the enterprises, the employment of bourgeois experts in industry, and the introduction of efficient business methods. They slandered Lenin by claiming that this policy would mean a return to bourgeois conditions. At the same time, the "Left Communists" preached the Trotskyite view that Socialist construction and the victory of socialism in Russia were impossible.<br />
<br />
The "Left" phraseology of the "Left Communists" served to camouflage their defence of the kulaks, idlers and profiteers who were opposed to discipline and hostile to the state regulation of economic life, to accounting and control.<br />
<br />
Having settled on the principles of organization of the new, Soviet industry, the Party proceeded to tackle the problems of the countryside, which at this period was in the throes of a struggle between the poor peasants and the kulaks. The kulaks were gaining strength and seizing the lands confiscated from the landlords. The poor peasants needed assistance. The kulaks fought the proletarian government and refused to sell grain to it at fixed prices. They wanted to starve the Soviet state into renouncing Socialist measures. The Party set the task of smashing the counter-revolutionary kulaks. Detachments of industrial workers were sent into the countryside with the object of organizing the poor peasants and ensuring the success of the struggle against the kulaks, who were holding back their grain surpluses.<br />
<br />
"Comrades, workers, remember that the revolution is in a critical situation," Lenin wrote. "Remember that ''you alone'' can save the revolution, nobody else. What we need is tens of thousands of picked, politically advanced workers, loyal to the cause of Socialism, incapable of succumbing to bribery and the temptations of pilfering, and capable of creating an iron force against the kulaks, profiteers, marauders, bribers and disorganizers." (Lenin, ''Collected Works,'' Russ. ed., Vol. XXIII, p. 25.)<br />
<br />
"The struggle for bread is a struggle for Socialism," Lenin said. And it was under this slogan that the sending of workers' detachments to the rural districts was organized. A number of decrees were issued establishing a food dictatorship and conferring emergency powers on the organs of the People's Commissariat of Food for the purchase of grain at fixed prices.<br />
<br />
A decree was issued on June 11, 1918, providing for the creation of ''Committees of the Poor Peasants.'' These committees played an important part in the struggle against the kulaks, in the redistribution of the confiscated land and the distribution of agricultural implements, in the collection of food surpluses from the kulaks, and in the supply of foodstuffs to the working-class centres and the Red Army. Fifty million hectares of kulak land passed into the hands of the poor and middle peasants. A large portion of the kulaks' means of production was confiscated and turned over to the poor peasants.<br />
<br />
The formation of the Committees of the Poor Peasants was a further stage in the development of the Socialist revolution in the countryside. The committees were strongholds of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the villages. It was largely through them that enlistment for the Red Army was carried out among the peasants.<br />
<br />
The proletarian campaign in the rural districts and the organization of the Committees of the Poor Peasants consolidated the Soviet power in the countryside and were of tremendous political importance in winning over the middle peasants to the side of the Soviet Government.<br />
<br />
At the end of 1918, when their task had been completed, the Committees of the Poor Peasants were merged with the rural Soviets and their existence was thus terminated.<br />
<br />
At the Fifth Congress of Soviets which opened on July 4, 1918, the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries launched a fierce attack on Lenin in defence of the kulaks. They demanded the discontinuation of the fight against the kulaks and of the dispatch of workers' food detachments into the countryside. When the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries saw that the majority of the congress was firmly opposed to their policy, they started a revolt in Moscow and seized Tryokhsvyatitelsky Alley, from which they began to shell the Kremlin. This foolhardy outbreak was put down by the Bolsheviks within a few hours. Attempts at revolt were made by "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries in other parts of the country, but everywhere these outbreaks were speedily suppressed.<br />
<br />
As the trial of the Anti-Soviet "Block of Rights and Trotskyites" has now established, the revolt of the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries was started with the knowledge and consent of Bukharin and Trotsky and was part of a general counter-revolutionary conspiracy of the Bu-kharinites, Trotskyites and "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries against the Soviet power.<br />
<br />
At this juncture, too, a "Left" Socialist-Revolutionary by name of Blumkin, afterwards an agent of Trotsky, made his way into the German Embassy and assassinated Mirbach, the German Ambassador in Moscow, with the object of provoking a war with Germany. But the Soviet Government managed to avert war and to frustrate the provocateur designs of the counter-revolutionaries.<br />
<br />
The Fifth Congress of Soviets adopted the First Soviet Constitution —the Constitution of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic.<br />
<br />
=== Brief summary ===<br />
During the eight months, February to October 1917, the Bolshevik Party accomplished the very difficult task of winning over the majority of the working class and the majority in the Soviets, and enlisting the support of millions of peasants for the Socialist revolution. It wrested these masses from the influence of the petty-bourgeois parties (Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and Anarchists), by exposing the policy of these parties step by step and showing that it ran counter to the interests of the working people. The Bolshevik Party carried on extensive political work at the front and in the rear, preparing the masses for the October Socialist Revolution.<br />
<br />
The events of decisive importance in the history of the Party at this period were Lenin's arrival from exile abroad, his April Theses, the April Party Conference and the Sixth Party Congress. The Party decisions were a source of strength to the working class and inspired it with confidence in victory; in them the workers found solutions to the important problems of the revolution. The April Conference directed the efforts of the Party to the struggle for the transition from the bourgeois-democratic revolution to the Socialist revolution. The Sixth Congress headed the Party for an armed uprising against the bourgeoisie and its Provisional Government.<br />
<br />
The compromising Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik parties, the Anarchists, and the other non-Communist parties completed the cycle of their development: they all became bourgeois parties even before the October Revolution and fought for the preservation and integrity of the capitalist system. The Bolshevik Party was the only party which led the struggle of the masses for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of the power of the Soviets.<br />
<br />
At the same time, the Bolsheviks defeated the attempts of the capitulators within the Party—Zinoviev, Kamenev, Rykov, Bukharin, Trotsky and Pyatakov—to deflect the Party from the path of Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
Headed by the Bolshevik Party, the working class, in alliance with the poor peasants, and with the support of the soldiers and sailors, overthrew the power of the bourgeoisie, established the power of the Soviets, set up a new type of state—a Socialist Soviet state—abolished the landlords' ownership of land, turned over the land to the peasants for their use, nationalized all the land in the country, expropriated the capitalists, achieved the withdrawal of Russia from the war and obtained peace, that is, obtained a much-needed respite, and thus created the conditions for the development of Socialist construction.<br />
<br />
The October Socialist Revolution smashed capitalism, deprived the bourgeoisie of the means of production and converted the mills, factories, land, railways and banks into the property of the whole people, into public property.<br />
<br />
It established the dictatorship of the proletariat and turned over the government of the vast country to the working class, thus making it the ruling class.<br />
<br />
The October Socialist Revolution thereby ushered in a new era in the history of mankind—the era of proletarian revolutions.<br />
<br />
== The Bolshevik party in the period of foreign military intervention and civil war (1918—1920) ==<br />
<br />
=== Beginning of foreign military intervention. First period of the civil war ===<br />
The conclusion of the Peace of Brest-Litovsk and the consolidation of the Soviet power, as a result of a series of revolutionary economic measures adopted by it, at a time when the war in the West was still in full swing, created profound alarm among the Western imperialists, especially those of the Entente countries.<br />
<br />
The Entente imperialists feared that the conclusion of peace between Germany and Russia might improve Germany's position in the war and correspondingly worsen the position of their own armies. They feared, moreover, that peace between Russia and Germany might stimulate the craving for peace in all countries and on all fronts, and thus interfere with the prosecution of the war and damage the cause of the imperialists. Lastly, they feared that the existence of a Soviet government on the territory of a vast country, and the success it had achieved at home after the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie, might serve as an infectious example for the workers and soldiers of the West. Profoundly discontented with the protracted war, the workers and soldiers might follow in the footsteps of the Russians and turn their bayonets against their masters and oppressors. Consequently, the Entente governments decided to intervene in Russia by armed force with the object of overthrowing the Soviet Government and establishing a bourgeois government, which would restore the bourgeois system in the country, annul the peace treaty with the Germans and re-establish the military front against Germany and Austria.<br />
<br />
The Entente imperialists launched upon this sinister enterprise all the more readily because they were convinced that the Soviet Government was unstable; they had no doubt that with some effort on the part of its enemies its early fall would be inevitable.<br />
<br />
The achievements of the Soviet Government and its consolidation created even greater alarm among the deposed classes the landlords and capitalists; in the ranks of the vanquished parties—the Constitutional-Democrats, Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Anarchists and the bourgeois nationalists of all hues; and among the Whiteguard generals, Cossack officers, etc.<br />
<br />
From the very first days of the victorious October Revolution, all these hostile elements began to shout from the housetops that there was no ground in Russia for a Soviet power, that it was doomed, that it was bound to fall within a week or two, or a month, or two or three months at most. But as the Soviet Government, despite the imprecations of its enemies, continued to exist and gain strength, its foes within Russia were forced to admit that it was much stronger than they had imagined, and that its overthrow would require great efforts and a fierce struggle on the part of all the forces of counter-revolution. They therefore decided to embark upon counter-revolutionary insurrectionary activities on a broad scale: to mobilize the forces of counter-revolution, to assemble military cadres and to organize revolts, especially in the Cossack and kulak districts.<br />
<br />
Thus, already in the first half of 1918, two definite forces took shape that were prepared to embark upon the overthrow of the Soviet power, namely, the foreign imperialists of the Entente and the counterrevolutionaries at home.<br />
<br />
Neither of these forces possessed all the requisites needed to undertake the overthrow of the Soviet Government singly. The counter-revolutionaries in Russia had certain military cadres and man-power, drawn principally from the upper classes of the Cossacks and from the kulaks, enough to start a rebellion against the Soviet Government. But they possessed neither money nor arms. The foreign imperialists, on the other hand, had the money and the arms, but could not "release" a sufficient number of troops for purposes of intervention; they could not do so, not only because these troops were required for the war with Germany and Austria, but because they might not prove altogether reliable in a war against the Soviet power.<br />
<br />
The conditions of the struggle against the Soviet power dictated a union of the two anti-Soviet forces, foreign and domestic. And this union was effected in the first half of 1918.<br />
<br />
This was how the foreign military intervention against the Soviet power supported by counter-revolutionary revolts of its foes at home originated.<br />
<br />
This was the end of the respite in Russia and the beginning of the Civil War, which was a war of the workers and peasants of the nations of Russia against the foreign and domestic enemies of the Soviet power.<br />
<br />
The imperialists of Great Britain, France, Japan and America started their military intervention without any declaration of war, although the intervention was a war, a war against Russia, and the worst kind of war at that. These "civilized" marauders secretly and stealthily made their way to Russian shores and landed their troops on Russia's territory.<br />
<br />
The British and French landed troops in the north, occupied Archangel and Murmansk, supported a local Whiteguard revolt, overthrew the Soviets and set up a White "Government of North Russia."<br />
<br />
The Japanese landed troops in Vladivostok, seized the Maritime Province, dispersed the Soviets and supported the Whiteguard rebels, who subsequently restored the bourgeois system.<br />
<br />
In the North Caucasus, Generals Kornilov, Alexeyev and Denikin, with the support of the British and French, formed a Whiteguard "Volunteer Army," raised a revolt of the upper classes of the Cossacks and started hostilities against the Soviets.<br />
<br />
On the Don, Generals Krasnov and Mamontov, with the secret support of the German imperialists (the Germans hesitated to support them openly owing to the peace treaty between Germany and Russia), raised a revolt of Don Cossacks, occupied the Don region and started hostilities against the Soviets.<br />
<br />
In the Middle Volga region and in Siberia, the British and French instigated a revolt of the Czechoslovak Corps. This corps, which consisted of prisoners of war, had received permission from the Soviet Government to return home through Siberia and the Far East. But on the way it was used by the Socialist-Revolutionaries and by the British and French for a revolt against the Soviet Government. The revolt of the corps served as a signal for a revolt of the kulaks in the Volga region and in Siberia, and of the workers of the Votkinsk and Izhevsk Works, who were under the influence of the Socialist-Revolutionaries. A White-guard-Socialist-Revolutionary government was set up in the Volga region, in Samara, and a Whiteguard government of Siberia, in Omsk.<br />
<br />
Germany took no part in the intervention of this British-French-Japanese-American bloc; nor could she do so, since she was at war with this bloc if for no other reason. But in spite of this, and notwithstanding the existence of a peace treaty between Russia and Germany, no Bolshevik doubted that Kaiser Wilhelm's government was just as rabid an enemy of Soviet Russia as the British-French-Japanese-American invaders. And, indeed, the German imperialists did their utmost to isolate, weaken and destroy Soviet Russia. They snatched from it the Ukraine—true, it was in accordance with a "treaty" with the Whiteguard Ukrainian Rada (Council)—brought in their troops at the request of the Rada and began mercilessly to rob and oppress the Ukrainian people, forbidding them to maintain any connections whatever with Soviet Russia. They severed Transcaucasia from Soviet Russia, sent German and Turkish troops there at the request of the Georgian and Azerbaidjan nationalists and began to play the masters in Tiflis and in Baku. They supplied, not openly, it is true, abundant arms and provisions to General Krasnov, who had raised a revolt against the Soviet Government on the Don.<br />
<br />
Soviet Russia was thus cut off from her principal sources of food, raw material and fuel.<br />
<br />
Conditions were hard in Soviet Russia at that period. There was a shortage of bread and meat. The workers were starving. In Moscow and Petrograd a bread ration of one-eighth of a pound was issued to them every other day, and there were times when no bread was issued at all. The factories were at a standstill, or almost at a standstill, owing to a lack of raw materials and fuel. But the working class did not lose heart. Nor did the Bolshevik Party. The desperate struggle waged to overcome the incredible difficulties of that period showed how inexhaustible is the energy latent in the working class and how immense the prestige of the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
The Party proclaimed the country an armed camp and placed its economic, cultural and political life on a war footing. The Soviet Government announced that "the Socialist fatherland is in danger," and called upon the people to rise in its defence. Lenin issued the slogan, "All for the front!"—and hundreds of thousands of workers and peasants volunteered for service in the Red Army and left for the front. About half the membership of the Party and of the Young Communist League went to the front. The Party roused the people for a ''war for the fatherland'', a war against the foreign invaders and against the revolts of the exploiting classes whom the revolution had overthrown. The Council of Workers' and Peasants' Defence, organized by Lenin, directed the work of supplying the front with reinforcements, food, clothing and arms. The substitution of compulsory military service for the volunteer system brought hundreds of thousands of new recruits into the Red Army and very shortly raised its strength to over a million men.<br />
<br />
Although the country was in a difficult position, and the young Red Army was not yet consolidated, the measures of defence adopted soon yielded their first fruits. General Krasnov was forced back from Tsaritsyn, whose capture he had regarded as certain, and driven beyond the River Don. General Denikin's operations were localized within a small area in the North Caucasus, while General Kornilov was killed in action against the Red Army. The Czechoslovaks and the White-guard-Socialist-Revolutionary bands were ousted from Kazan, Simbirsk and Samara and driven to the Urals. A revolt in Yaroslavl headed by the Whiteguard Savinkov and organized by Lockhart, chief of the British Mission in Moscow, was suppressed, and Lockhart himself arrested. The Socialist-Revolutionaries, who had assassinated Comrades Uritsky and Volodarsky and had made a villainous attempt on the life of Lenin, were subjected to a Red terror in retaliation for their White terror against the Bolsheviks, and were completely routed in every important city in Central Russia.<br />
<br />
The young Red Army matured and hardened in battle.<br />
<br />
The work of the Communist Commissars was of decisive importance in the consolidation and political education of the Red Army and in raising its discipline and fighting efficiency.<br />
<br />
But the Bolshevik Party knew that these were only the first, not the decisive successes of the Red Army. It was aware that new and far more serious battles were still to come, and that the country could recover the lost food, raw material and fuel regions only by a prolonged and stubborn struggle with the enemy. The Bolsheviks therefore undertook intense preparations for a protracted war and decided to place the whole country at the service of the front. The Soviet Government introduced ''War Communism''. It took under its control the middle-sized and small industries, in addition to large-scale industry, so as to accumulate goods for the supply of the army and the agricultural population. It introduced a state monopoly of the grain trade, prohibited private trading in grain and established the surplus-appropriation system, under which all surplus produce in the hands of the peasants was to be registered and acquired by the state at fixed prices, so as to accumulate stores of grain for the provisioning of the army and the workers. Lastly, it introduced universal labour service for all classes. By making physical labour compulsory for the bourgeoisie and thus releasing workers for other duties of greater importance to the front, the Party was giving practical effect to the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat."<br />
<br />
All these measures, which were necessitated by the exceptionally difficult conditions of national defence, and bore a temporary character, were in their entirety known as War Communism.<br />
<br />
The country prepared itself for a long and exacting civil war, for a war against the foreign and internal enemies of the Soviet power. By the end of 1918 it had to increase the strength of the army threefold, and to accumulate supplies for this army.<br />
<br />
Lenin said at that time:<br />
<br />
"We had decided to have an army of one million men by the spring; now we need an army of three million. We can get it. And we will get it."<br />
<br />
=== Defeat of Germany in the war. Revolution in Germany. Founding of the Third International. Eighth party congress ===<br />
While the Soviet country was preparing for new battles against the forces of foreign intervention, in the West decisive events were taking place in the belligerent countries, both on the war fronts and in their interior. Germany and Austria were suffocating in the grip of war and a food crisis. Whereas Great Britain, France and the United States were continually drawing upon new resources, Germany and Austria were consuming their last meagre stocks. The situation was such that Germany and Austria, having reached the stage of extreme exhaustion, were on the brink of defeat.<br />
<br />
At the same time, the peoples of Germany and Austria were seething with indignation against the disastrous and interminable war, and against their imperialist governments who had reduced them to a state of exhaustion and starvation. The revolutionary influence of the October Revolution also had a tremendous effect, as did the fraternization of the Soviet soldiers with the Austrian and German soldiers at the front even before the Peace of Brest-Litovsk, the actual termination of the war with Soviet Russia and the conclusion of peace with her. The people of Russia had brought about the end of the detested war by overthrowing their imperialist government, and this could not but serve as an object lesson to the Austrian and German workers. And the German soldiers who had been stationed on the Eastern front and who after the Peace of Brest-Litovsk were transferred to the Western front could not but undermine the morale of the German army on that front by their accounts of the fraternization with the Soviet soldiers and of the way the Soviet soldiers had got rid of the war. The disintegration of the Austrian army from the same causes had begun even earlier.<br />
<br />
All this served to accentuate the craving for peace among the German soldiers; they lost their former fighting efficiency and began to retreat in face of the onslaught of the Entente armies. In November 1918 a revolution broke out in Germany, and Wilhelm and his government were overthrown.<br />
<br />
Germany was obliged to acknowledge defeat and to sue for peace.<br />
<br />
Thus at one stroke Germany was reduced from a first-rate power to a second-rate power.<br />
<br />
As far as the position of the Soviet Government was concerned, this circumstance had certain disadvantages, inasmuch as it made the Entente countries, which had started armed intervention against the Soviet power, the dominant force in Europe and Asia, and enabled them to intervene more actively in the Soviet country and to blockade her, to draw the noose more tightly around the Soviet power. And this was what actually happened, as we shall see later. On the other hand, it had its advantages, which outweighed the disadvantages and fundamentally improved the position of Soviet Russia. In the first place, the Soviet Government was now able to annul the predatory Peace of Brest-Litovsk, to stop paying the indemnities, and to start an open struggle, military and political, for the liberation of Esthonia, Latvia, Byelorussia, Lithuania, the Ukraine and Transcaucasia from the yoke of German imperialism. Secondly, and chiefly, the existence in the centre of Europe, in Germany, of a republican regime and of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies was bound to revolutionize, and actually did revolutionize, the countries of Europe, and this could not but strengthen the position of the Soviet power in Russia. True, the revolution in Germany was not a Socialist but a bourgeois revolution, and the Soviets were an obedient tool of the bourgeois parliament, for they were dominated by the Social-Democrats, who were compromisers of the type of the Russian Mensheviks. This in fact explains the weakness of the German revolution. How weak it really was is shown, for example, by the fact that it allowed the German Whiteguards to assassinate such prominent revolutionaries as Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht with impunity. Nevertheless, it was a revolution: Wilhelm had been overthrown, and the workers had cast off their chains; and this in itself was bound to unloose the revolution in the West, was bound to call forth a rise in the revolution in the European countries.<br />
<br />
The tide of revolution in Europe began to mount. A revolutionary movement started in Austria, and a Soviet Republic arose in Hungary. With the rising tide of the revolution Communist parties came to the surface.<br />
<br />
A real basis now existed for a union of the Communist parties, for the formation of the Third, Communist International.<br />
<br />
In March 1919, on the initiative of the Bolsheviks, headed by Lenin, the First Congress of the Communist Parties of various countries, held in Moscow, founded the Communist International. Although many of the delegates were prevented by the blockade and imperialist persecution from arriving in Moscow, the most important countries of Europe and America were represented at this First Congress. The work of the congress was guided by Lenin.<br />
<br />
Lenin reported on the subject of bourgeois democracy and the dictatorship of the proletariat. He brought out the importance of the Soviet system, showing that it meant genuine democracy for the working people. The congress adopted a manifesto to the proletariat of all countries calling upon them to wage a determined struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat and for the triumph of Soviets all over the world.<br />
<br />
The congress set up an Executive Committee of the Third, Communist International (E.C.C.I.).<br />
<br />
Thus was founded an international revolutionary proletarian organization of a new type—the Communist International—the Marxist-Leninist International.<br />
<br />
The Eighth Congress of our Party met in March 1919. It assembled in the midst of a conflict of contradictory factors—on the one hand, the reactionary bloc of the Entente countries against the Soviet Government had grown stronger, and, on the other, the rising tide of revolution in Europe, especially in the defeated countries, had considerably improved the position of the Soviet country.<br />
<br />
The congress was attended by 301 delegates with vote, representing 313,766 members of the Party, and 102 delegates with voice but no vote.<br />
<br />
In his inaugural speech, Lenin paid homage to the memory of Y. M. Sverdlov, one of the finest organizing talents in the Bolshevik Party, who had died on the eve of the congress.<br />
<br />
The congress adopted a new Party Program. This program gives a description of capitalism and of its highest phase—imperialism. It compares two systems of state—the bourgeois-democratic system and the Soviet system. It details the specific tasks of the Party in the struggle for Socialism: completion of the expropriation of the bourgeoisie; administration of the economic life of the country in accordance with a single Socialist plan; participation of the trade unions in the organization of the national economy; Socialist labour discipline; utilization of bourgeois experts in the economic field under the control of Soviet bodies; gradual and systematic enlistment of the middle peasantry in the work of Socialist construction.<br />
<br />
The congress adopted Lenin's proposal to include in the program in addition to a definition of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, the description of industrial capitalism and simple commodity production contained in the old program adopted at the Second Party Congress. Lenin considered it essential that the program should take account of the complexity of our economic system and note the existence of diverse economic formations in the country, including small commodity production, as represented by the middle peasants. Therefore, during the debate on the program, Lenin vigorously condemned the anti-Bolshevik views of Bukharin, who proposed that the clauses dealing with capitalism, small commodity production, the economy of the middle peasant, be left out of the program. Bukharin's views represented a Menshevik-Trotsky-ite denial of the role played by the middle peasant in the development of the Soviet state. Furthermore, Bukharin glossed over the fact that the small commodity production of the peasants bred and nourished kulak elements.<br />
<br />
Lenin further refuted the anti-Bolshevik views of Bukharin and Pyatakov on the national question. They spoke against the inclusion in the program of a clause on the right of nations to self-determination; they were against the equality of nations, claiming that it was a slogan that would hinder the, victory of the proletarian revolution and the union of the proletarians of different nationalities. Lenin overthrew these utterly pernicious, imperialist, chauvinist views of Bukharin and Pyatakov.<br />
<br />
An important place in the deliberations of the Eighth Congress was devoted to policy towards the middle peasants. The Decree on the Land had resulted in a steady growth in the number of middle peasants, who now comprised the majority of the peasant population. The attitude and conduct of the middle peasantry, which vacillated between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, was of momentous importance for the fate of the Civil War and Socialist construction. The outcome of the Civil War largely depended on which way the middle peasant would swing, which class would win his allegiance—the proletariat or the bourgeoisie. The Czechoslovaks, the Whiteguards, the kulaks, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks were able to overthrow the Soviet power in the Volga region in the summer of 19i8 because they were supported by a large section of the middle peasantry. The same was true during the revolts raised by the kulaks in Central Russia. But in the autumn of 19i8 the mass of the middle peasants began to swing over to the Soviet power. The peasants saw that victories of the Whites were followed by the restoration of the power of the landlords, the seizure of peasants' land, and the robbery, flogging and torture of peasants. The activities of the Committees of the Poor Peasants, which crushed the kulaks, also contributed to the change in the attitude of the peasantry. Accordingly, in November 1918, Lenin issued the slogan:<br />
<br />
"Learn to come to an agreement with the middle peasant, while not for a moment renouncing the struggle against the kulak and at the same time firmly relying solely on the poor peasant." (Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. VIII, p. 150.)<br />
<br />
Of course, the middle peasants did not cease to vacillate entirely, but they drew closer to the Soviet Government and began to support it more solidly. This to a large extent was facilitated by the policy towards the middle peasants laid down by the Eighth Party Congress.<br />
<br />
The Eighth Congress marked a turning point in the policy of the Party towards the middle peasants. Lenin's report and the decisions of the congress laid down a new line of the Party on this question. The congress demanded that the Party organizations and all Communists should draw a strict distinction and division between the middle peasant and the kulak, and should strive to win the former over to the side of the working class by paying close attention to his needs. The backwardness of the middle peasants had to be overcome by persuasion and not by compulsion and coercion. The congress therefore gave instructions that no compulsion be used in the carrying out of Socialist measures in the countryside (formation of communes and agricultural artels). In all cases affecting the vital interests of the middle peasant, a practical agreement should be reached with him and concessions made with regard to the ''methods'' of realizing Socialist changes. The congress laid down the policy of a ''stable alliance'' with the middle peasant, the ''leading role'' in this alliance to be maintained by the proletariat.<br />
<br />
The new policy towards the middle peasant proclaimed by Lenin at the Eighth Congress required that the proletariat should rely on the poor peasant, maintain a stable alliance with the middle peasant and fight the kulak. The policy of the Party before the Eighth Congress was in general one of ''neutralizing'' the middle peasant. This meant that the Party strove to prevent the middle peasant from siding with the kulak and with the bourgeoisie in general. But now this was not enough. The Eighth Congress passed from a policy of neutralization of the middle peasant to a policy of ''stable alliance'' with him for the purpose of the struggle against the Whiteguards and foreign intervention and for the successful building of Socialism.<br />
<br />
The policy adopted by the congress towards the middle peasants, who formed the bulk of the peasantry, played a decisive part in ensuring success in the Civil War against foreign intervention and its Whiteguard henchmen. In the autumn of 1919, when the peasants had to choose between the Soviet power and Denikin, they supported the Soviets, and the proletarian dictatorship was able to vanquish its most dangerous enemy.<br />
<br />
The problems connected with the building up of the Red Army held a special place in the deliberations of the congress, where the so-called "Military Opposition" appeared in the field. This "Military Opposition" comprised quite a number of former members of the now shattered group of "Left Communists"; but it also included some Party workers who had never participated in any opposition, but were dissatisfied with the way Trotsky was conducting the affairs of the army. The majority of the delegates from the army were distinctly hostile to Trotsky; they resented his veneration for the military experts of the old tsarist army, some of whom were betraying us outright in the Civil War, and his arrogant and hostile attitude towards the old Bolshevik cadres in the army. Instances of Trotsky's "practices" were cited at the congress. For example, he had attempted to shoot a number of prominent army Communists serving at the front, just because they had incurred his displeasure. This was directly playing into the hands of the enemy. It was only the intervention of the Central Committee and the protests of military men that saved the lives of these comrades.<br />
<br />
But while fighting Trotsky's distortions of the military policy of the Party, the "Military Opposition" held incorrect views on a number of points concerning the building up of the army. Lenin and Stalin vigorously came out against the "Military Opposition," because the latter defended the survivals of the guerrilla spirit and resisted the creation of a regular Red Army, the utilization of the military experts of the old army and the establishment of that iron discipline without which no army can be a real army. Comrade Stalin rebutted the "Military Opposition" and demanded the creation of a regular army inspired with the spirit of strictest discipline.<br />
<br />
He said:<br />
<br />
"Either we create a real worker and peasant—primarily a peasant—army, strictly disciplined army, and defend the Republic, or we perish."<br />
<br />
While rejecting a number of proposals made by the "Military Opposition," the congress dealt a blow at Trotsky by demanding an improvement in the work of the central military institutions and the enhancement of the role of the Communists in the army.<br />
<br />
A Military Commission was set up at the congress; thanks to its efforts the decision on the military question was adopted by the congress unanimously.<br />
<br />
The effect of this decision was to strengthen the Red Army and to bring it still closer to the Party.<br />
<br />
The congress further discussed Party and Soviet affairs and the guiding role of the Party in the Soviets. During the debate on the latter question the congress repudiated the view of the opportunist Sapronov-Ossinsky group which held that the Party should not guide the work of the Soviets.<br />
<br />
Lastly, in view of the huge influx of new members into the Party, the congress outlined measures to improve the social composition of the Party and decided to conduct a re-registration of its members.<br />
<br />
This initiated the first purge of the Party ranks.<br />
<br />
=== Extension of intervention. Blockade of the soviet country. Kolchak’s campaign and defeat. Denikin’s campaign and defeat. A three-months’ respite. Ninth party congress ===<br />
Having vanquished Germany and Austria, the Entente states decided to hurl large military forces against the Soviet country. After Germany's defeat and the evacuation of her troops from the Ukraine and Transcaucasia, her place was taken by the British and French, who dispatched their fleets to the Black Sea and landed troops in Odessa and in Transcaucasia. Such was the brutality of the Entente forces of intervention that they did not hesitate to shoot whole batches of workers and peasants in the occupied regions. Their outrages reached such lengths in the end that after the occupation of Turkestan they carried off to the Trans-caspian region twenty-six leading Baku Bolsheviks—including Comrades Shaumyan, Fioletov, Djaparidze, Malygin, Azizbekov, Korganov—and with the aid of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, had them brutally shot.<br />
<br />
The interventionists soon proclaimed a ''blockade'' of Russia. All sea routes and other lines of communication with the external world were cut.<br />
<br />
The Soviet country was surrounded on nearly every side.<br />
<br />
The Entente countries placed their chief hopes in Admiral Kolchak, their puppet in Omsk, Siberia. He was proclaimed "supreme ruler of Russia" and all the counter-revolutionary forces in the country placed themselves under his command.<br />
<br />
The Eastern Front thus became the main front.<br />
<br />
Kolchak assembled a huge army and in the spring of 1919 almost reached the Volga. The finest Bolshevik forces were hurled against him; Young Communist Leaguers and workers were mobilized. In April 1919, Kolchak's army met with severe defeat at the hands of the Red Army and very soon began to retreat along the whole front.<br />
<br />
At the height of the advance of the Red Army on the Eastern Front, Trotsky put forward a suspicious plan: he proposed that the advance should be halted before it reached the Urals, the pursuit of Kolchak's army discontinued, and troops transferred from the Eastern Front to the Southern Front. The Central Committee of the Party fully realized that the Urals and Siberia could not be left in Kolchak's hands, for there, with the aid of the Japanese and British, he might recuperate and retrieve his former position. It therefore rejected this plan and gave instructions to proceed with the advance. Trotsky disagreed with these instructions and tendered his resignation, which the Central Committee declined, at the same time ordering him to refrain at once from all participation in the direction of the operations on the Eastern Front. The Red Army pursued its offensive against Kolchak with greater vigour than ever; it inflicted a number of new defeats on him and freed of the Whites the Urals and Siberia, where the Red Army was supported by a powerful partisan movement in the Whites' rear.<br />
<br />
In the summer of 1919, the imperialists assigned to General Yude-nich, who headed the counter-revolutionaries in the north-west (in the Baltic countries, in the vicinity of Petrograd), the task of diverting the attention of the Red Army from the Eastern Front by an attack on Petrograd. Influenced by the counter-revolutionary agitation of former officers, the garrisons of two forts in the vicinity of Petrograd mutinied against the Soviet Government. At the same time a counter-revolutionary plot was discovered at the Front Headquarters. The enemy threatened Petrograd. But thanks to the measures taken by the Soviet Government with the support of the workers and sailors, the mutinous forts were cleared of Whites, and Yudenich's troops were defeated and driven back into Esthonia.<br />
<br />
The defeat of Yudenich near Petrograd made it easier to cope with Kolchak, and by the end of 1919 his army was completely routed. Kol-chak himself was taken prisoner and shot by sentence of the Revolutionary Committee in Irkutsk.<br />
<br />
That was the end of Kolchak.<br />
<br />
The Siberians had a popular song about Kolchak at that time:<br />
<br />
"Uniform British, Epaulettes from<br />
<br />
France, Japanese tobacco, Kolchak<br />
<br />
leads the dance.<br />
<br />
Uniform in tatters,<br />
<br />
Epaulettes all gone,<br />
<br />
So is the tobacco,<br />
<br />
Kolchak's day is done."<br />
<br />
Since Kolchak had not justified their hopes, the interventionists altered their plan of attack on the Soviet Republic. The troops landed in Odessa had to be withdrawn, for contact with the army of the Soviet Republic had infected them with the revolutionary spirit and they were beginning to rebel against their imperialist masters. For example, there was the revolt of French sailors in Odessa led by Andre Marty. Accordingly, now that Kolchak had been defeated, the Entente centred its attention on General Denikin, Kornilov's confederate and the organizer of the "Volunteer Army." Denikin at that time was operating against the Soviet Government in the south, in the Kuban region. The Entente supplied his army with large quantities of ammunition and equipment and sent it north against the Soviet Government.<br />
<br />
The Southern Front now became the chief front.<br />
<br />
Denikin began his main campaign against the Soviet Government in the summer of 1919. Trotsky had disrupted the Southern Front, and our troops suffered defeat after defeat. By the middle of October the Whites had seized the whole of the Ukraine, had captured Orel and were nearing Tula, which supplied our army with cartridges, rifles and machine-guns. The Whites were approaching Moscow. The situation of the Soviet Republic became grave in the extreme. The Party sounded the alarm and called upon the people to resist. Lenin issued the slogan, "All for the fight against Denikin!" Inspired by the Bolsheviks, the workers and peasants mustered all their forces to smash the enemy.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee sent Comrades Stalin, Voroshilov, Ordjoni-kidze and Budyonny to the Southern Front to prepare the rout of Denikin. Trotsky was removed from the direction of the operations of the Red Army in the south. Before Comrade Stalin's arrival, the Command of the Southern Front, in conjunction with Trotsky, had drawn up a plan to strike the main blow at Denikin from Tsaritsyn in the direction of Novorossisk, through the Don Steppe, where there were no roads and where the Red Army would have to pass through regions inhabited by Cossacks, who were at that time largely under the influence of the Whiteguards. Comrade Stalin severely criticized this plan and submitted to the Central Committee his own plan for the defeat of Denikin. According to this plan the main blow was to be delivered by way of Khar-kov-Donetz Basin-Rostov. This plan would ensure the rapid advance of our troops against Denikin, for they would be moving through working class and peasant regions where they would have the open sympathy of the population. Furthermore, the dense network of railway lines in this region would ensure our armies the regular supply of all they required.<br />
<br />
Lastly, this plan would make it possible to release the Donetz Coal Basin and thus supply our country with fuel.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee of the Party accepted Comrade Stalin's plan. In the second half of October 1919, after fierce resistance, Deni-kin was defeated by the Red Army in the decisive battles of Orel and Voronezh. He began a rapid retreat, and, pursued by our forces, fled to the south. At the beginning of 1920 the whole of the Ukraine and the North Caucasus had been cleared of Whites.<br />
<br />
During the decisive battles on the Southern Front, the imperialists again hurled Yudenich's corps against Petrograd in order to divert our forces from the south and thus improve the position of Denikin's army. The Whites approached the very gates of Petrograd. The heroic proletariat of the premier city of the revolution rose in a solid wall for its defence. The Communists, as always, were in the vanguard. After fierce fighting, the Whites were defeated and again flung beyond our borders back into Esthonia.<br />
<br />
And that was the end of Denikin.<br />
<br />
The defeat of Kolchak and Denikin was followed by a brief respite.<br />
<br />
When the imperialists saw that the Whiteguard armies had been smashed, that intervention had failed, and that the Soviet Government was consolidating its position all over the country, while in Western Europe the indignation of the workers against military intervention in the Soviet Republic was rising, they began to change their attitude towards the Soviet state. In January 1920, Great Britain, France, and Italy decided to call off the blockade of Soviet Russia.<br />
<br />
This was an important breach in the wall of intervention.<br />
<br />
It did not, of course, mean that the Soviet country was done with intervention and the Civil War. There was still the danger of attack by imperialist Poland. The forces of intervention had not yet been finally driven out of the Far East, Transcaucasia and the Crimea. But Soviet Russia had secured a temporary breathing space and was able to divert more forces to economic development. The Party could now devote its attention to economic problems.<br />
<br />
During the Civil War many skilled workers had left industry owing to the closing down of mills and factories. The Party now took measures to return them to industry to work at their trades. The railways were in a grave condition and several thousand Communists were assigned to the work of restoring them, for unless this was done the restoration of the major branches of industry could not be seriously undertaken. The organization of the food supply was extended and improved. The drafting of a plan for the electrification of Russia was begun. Nearly five million Red Army men were under arms and could not be demobilized owing to the danger of war. A part of the Red Army was therefore converted into ''labour armies'' and used in the economic field. The Council of Workers' and Peasants' Defence was transformed into the ''Council of Labour and Defence,'' and a ''State Planning Commission'' (Gosplan) set up to assist it.<br />
<br />
Such was the situation when the Ninth Party Congress opened.<br />
<br />
The congress met at the end of March 1920. It was attended by 554 delegates with vote, representing 611,978 Party members, and 162 delegates with voice but no vote.<br />
<br />
The congress defined the immediate tasks of the country in the sphere of transportation and industry. It particularly stressed the necessity of the trade unions taking part in the building up of the economic life.<br />
<br />
Special attention was devoted by the congress to a single economic plan for the restoration, in the first place, of the railways, the fuel industry and the iron and steel industry. The major item in this plan was a project for the electrification of the country, which Lenin advanced as "a great program for the next ten or twenty years." This formed the basis of the famous plan of the State Commission for the Electrification of Russia (GOELRO), the provisions of which have today been far exceeded.<br />
<br />
The congress rejected the views of an anti-Party group which called itself "The Group of Democratic-Centralism" and was opposed to one-man management and the undivided responsibility of industrial directors. It advocated unrestricted "group management" under which nobody would be personally responsible for the administration of industry. The chief figures in this anti-Party group were Sapronov, Ossinsky and Y. Smirnov. They were supported at the congress by Rykov and Tomsky.<br />
<br />
=== Polish gentry attack Soviet Russia. General Wrangel’s campaign. Failure of the Polish plan. Rout of Wrangel. End of the intervention ===<br />
Notwithstanding the defeat of Kolchak and Denikin, notwithstanding the fact that the Soviet Republic was steadily regaining its territory by clearing the Whites and the forces of intervention out of the Northern Territory, Turkestan, Siberia, the Don region, the Ukraine, etc., notwithstanding the fact that the Entente states were obliged to call off the blockade of Russia, they still refused to reconcile themselves to the idea that the Soviet power had proved impregnable and had come out victorious. They therefore resolved to make one more attempt at intervention in Soviet Russia. This time they decided to utilize both Pilsud-ski, a bourgeois counter-revolutionary nationalist, the virtual head of the Polish state, and General Wrangel, who had rallied the remnants of Denikin's army in the Crimea and from there was threatening the Donetz Basin and the Ukraine.<br />
<br />
The Polish gentry and Wrangel, as Lenin put it, were the two hands with which international imperialism attempted to strangle Soviet Russia.<br />
<br />
The plan of the Poles was to seize the Soviet Ukraine west of the Dnieper, to occupy Soviet Byelorussia, to restore the power of the Polish magnates in these regions, to extend the frontiers of the Polish state so that they stretched "from sea to sea," from Danzig to Odessa, and, in return for his aid, to help Wrangel smash the Red Army and restore the power of the landlords and capitalists in Soviet Russia.<br />
<br />
This plan was approved by the Entente states.<br />
<br />
The Soviet Government made vain attempts to enter into negotiations with Poland with the object of preserving peace and averting war. Pilsudski refused to discuss peace. He wanted war. He calculated that the Red Army, fatigued by its battles with Kolchak and Denikin, would not be able to withstand the attack of the Polish forces.<br />
<br />
The short breathing space had come to an end.<br />
<br />
In April 1920 the Poles invaded the Soviet Ukraine and seized Kiev. At the same time, Wrangel took the offensive and threatened the Donetz Basin.<br />
<br />
In reply, the Red Army started a counter-offensive against the Poles along the whole front. Kiev was recaptured and the Polish warlords driven out of the Ukraine and Byelorussia. The impetuous advance of the Red troops on the Southern Front brought them to the very gates of Lvov in Galicia, while the troops on the Western Front were nearing Warsaw. The Polish armies were on the verge of utter defeat.<br />
<br />
But success was frustrated by the suspicious actions of Trotsky and his followers at the General Headquarters of the Red Army. Through the fault of Trotsky and Tukhachevsky, the advance of the Red troops on the Western Front, towards Warsaw, proceeded in an absolutely unorganized manner: the troops were allowed no opportunity to consolidate the positions that they won, the advance detachments were led too far ahead, while reserves and ammunition were left too far in the rear. As a result, the advance detachments were left without ammunition and reserves and the front was stretched out endlessly. This made it easy to force a breach in the front. The result was that when a small force of Poles broke through our Western Front at one point, our troops, left without ammunition, were obliged to retreat. As regards the troops on the Southern Front, who had reached the gates of Lvov and were pressing the Poles hard, they were forbidden by Trotsky, that ill-famed "chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council," to capture Lvov. He ordered the transfer of the Mounted Army, the main force on the Southern Front, far to the north-east. This was done on the pretext of helping the Western Front, although it was not difficult to see that the best, and in fact only possible, way of helping the Western Front was to capture Lvov. But the withdrawal of the Mounted Army from the Southern Front, its departure from Lvov, virtually meant the retreat of our forces on the Southern Front as well. This wrecker's order issued by Trotsky thus forced upon our troops on the Southern Front an incomprehensible and absolutely unjustified retreat—to the joy of the Polish gentry.<br />
<br />
This was giving direct assistance, indeed—not to our Western Front, however, but to the Polish gentry and the Entente<br />
<br />
Within a few days the advance of the Poles was checked and our troops began preparations for a new counter-offensive. But, unable to continue the war, and alarmed by the prospect of a Red counter-offensive, Poland was obliged to renounce her claims to the Ukrainian territory west of the Dnieper and to Byelorussia and preferred to conclude peace. On October 20, 1920, the Peace of Riga was signed. In accordance with this treaty Poland retained Galicia and part of Byelorussia.<br />
<br />
Having concluded peace with Poland, the Soviet Republic decided to put an end to Wrangel. The British and French had supplied him with guns, rifles, armoured cars, tanks, aeroplanes and ammunition of the latest type. He had Whiteguard shock regiments, mainly consisting of officers. But Wrangel failed to rally any considerable number of peasants and Cossacks in support of the troops he had landed in the Kuban and the Don regions. Nevertheless, he advanced to the very gates of the Donetz Basin, creating a menace to our coal region. The position of the Soviet Government at that time was further complicated by the fact that the Red Army was suffering greatly from fatigue. The troops were obliged to advance under extremely difficult conditions: while conducting an offensive against Wrangel, they had at the same time to smash Makhno's anarchist bands who were assisting Wrangel. But although Wrangel had the superiority in technical equipment, although the Red Army had no tanks, it drove Wrangel into the Crimean Peninsula and there bottled him up. In November 1920 the Red forces captured the fortified position of Perekop, swept into the Crimea, smashed Wrangel's forces and cleared the Peninsula of the Whiteguards and the forces of intervention. The Crimea became Soviet territory.<br />
<br />
The failure of Poland's imperialist plans and the defeat of Wrangel ended the period of intervention.<br />
<br />
At the end of 1920 there began the liberation of Transcaucasia: Azerbaidjan was freed from the yoke of the bourgeois nationalist Mussa-vatists, Georgia from the Menshevik nationalists, and Armenia from the Dashnaks. The Soviet power triumphed in Azerbaidjan, Armenia and Georgia.<br />
<br />
This did not yet mean the end of all intervention. That of the Japanese in the Far East lasted until 1922. Moreover, new attempts at intervention were made (Ataman Semyonov and Baron Ungern in the East, the Finnish Whites in Karelia in 192i). But the principal ene<br />
<br />
mies of the Soviet country, the principal forces of intervention, were shattered by the end of 1920.<br />
<br />
The war of the foreign interventionists and the Russian Whiteguards against the Soviets ended in a victory for the Soviets.<br />
<br />
The Soviet Republic preserved its independence and freedom.<br />
<br />
This was the end of foreign military intervention and Civil War.<br />
<br />
This was a historic victory for the Soviet power.<br />
<br />
=== How and why the Soviet Republic defeated the combined forces of British-French-Japanese-Polish intervention and of the Bourgeois-Landlord-Whiteguard counter-revolution in Russia ===<br />
If we study the leading European and American newspapers and periodicals of the period of intervention, we shall easily find that there was not a single prominent writer, military or civilian, not a single military expert who believed that the Soviet Government could win. On the contrary, all prominent writers, military experts and historians of revolution of all countries and nations, all the so-called savants, were unanimous in declaring that the days of the Soviets were numbered, that their defeat was inevitable.<br />
<br />
They based their certainty of the victory of the forces of intervention on the fact that whereas Soviet Russia had no organized army and had to create its Red Army under fire, so to speak, the interventionists and Whiteguards did have an army more or less ready to hand.<br />
<br />
Further, they based their certainty on the fact that the Red Army had no experienced military men, the majority of them having gone over to the counter-revolution, whereas the interventionists and Whiteguards did have such men.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, they based their certainty on the fact that, owing to the backwardness of Russia's war industry, the Red Army was suffering from a shortage of arms and ammunition; that what it did have was of poor quality, while it could not obtain supplies from abroad because Russia was hermetically sealed on all sides by the blockade. The army of the interventionists and Whiteguards, on the other hand, was abundantly supplied, and would continue to be supplied, with first-class arms, ammunition and equipment.<br />
<br />
Lastly, they based their certainty on the fact that the army of the interventionists and Whiteguards occupied the richest food-producing regions of Russia, whereas the Red Army had no such regions and was suffering from a shortage of provisions.<br />
<br />
And it was a fact that the Red Army did suffer from all these handicaps and deficiencies.<br />
<br />
In this respect—but only in this respect—the gentlemen of the intervention were absolutely right.<br />
<br />
How then is it to be explained that the Red Army, although suffering from such grave shortcomings, was able to defeat the army of the interventionists and Whiteguards which did not suffer from such shortcomings?<br />
<br />
1. The Red Army was victorious because the Soviet Government's policy for which the Red Army was fighting was a right policy, one that corresponded to the interests of the people, and because the people under- stood and realized that it was the right policy, their own policy, and sup- ported it unreservedly.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks knew that an army that fights for a wrong policy, for a policy that is not supported by the people, cannot win. The army of the interventionists and Whiteguards was such an army. It had everything: experienced commanders and first-class arms, ammunition, equipment and provisions. It lacked only one thing—the support and sympathy of the peoples of Russia; for the peoples of Russia could not and would not support the policy of the interventionists and Whiteguard "rulers" because it was a policy hostile to the people. And so the interventionist and Whiteguard army was defeated.<br />
<br />
2. The Red Army was victorious because it was absolutely loyal and faithful to its people, for which reason the people loved and supported it and looked upon it as their own army. The Red Army is the offspring of the people, and if it is faithful to its people, as a true son is to his mother, it will have the support of the people and is bound to win. An army, however, that goes against its people must suffer defeat.<br />
<br />
3. The Red Army was victorious because the Soviet Government was able to muster the whole rear, the whole country, to serve the needs of the front. An army without a strong rear to support the front in every way is doomed to defeat. The Bolsheviks knew this and that is why they converted the country into an armed camp to supply the front with arms, ammunition, equipment, food and reinforcements.<br />
<br />
4. The Red Army was victorious because: a) the Red Army men understood the aims and purposes of the war and recognized their justice; b) the recognition of the justice of the aims and purposes of the war strengthened their discipline and fighting efficiency; and c) as a result, the Red Army throughout displayed unparalleled self-sacrifice and unexampled mass heroism in battle against the enemy.<br />
<br />
5. The Red Army was victorious because its leading core, both at the front and in the rear, was the Bolshevik Party, united in its solidarity and discipline, strong in its revolutionary spirit and readiness for any sacrifice in the common cause, and unsurpassed in its ability to organize millions and to lead them properly in complex situations.<br />
<br />
"It is only because of the Party's vigilance and its strict discipline," said Lenin, "because the authority of the Party united all government departments and institutions, because the slogans issued by the Central Committee were followed by tens, hundreds, thousands and finally millions of people as one man, because incredible sacrifices were made, that the miracle took place and we were able to win, in spite of repeated campaigns of the imperialists of the Entente and of the whole world." (Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. XXV, p. 96.)<br />
<br />
6. The Red Army was victorious because: a) it was able to produce from its own ranks military commanders of a new type, men like Frunze, Voroshilov, Budyonny, and others; b) in its ranks fought such talented heroes who came from the people as Kotovsky, Chapayev, Lazo, Shchors, Parkhomenko, and many others; c) the political education of the Red Army was in the hands of men like Lenin, Stalin, Molotov, Kalinin, Sverdlov, Kaganovich, Ordjonikidze, Kirov, Kuibyshev, Mikoyan, Zhdanov, Andreyev, Petrovsky, Yaroslavsky, Yezhov, Dzerzhinsky, Shchadenko, Mekhlis, Khrushchev, Shvernik, Shkiryatov, and others; d) the Red Army possessed such outstanding organizers and agitators as the military commissars, who by their work cemented the ranks of the Red Army men, fostered in them the spirit of discipline and military daring, and energetically—swiftly and relentlessly—cut short the treacherous activities of certain of the commanders, while on the other hand, they boldly and resolutely supported the prestige and renown of commanders, Party and non-Party, who had proved their loyalty to the Soviet power and who were capable of leading the Red Army units with a firm hand.<br />
<br />
"Without the military commissars we would not have had a Red Army," Lenin said.<br />
<br />
7. The Red Army was victorious because in the rear of the White armies, in the rear of Kolchak, Denikin, Krasnov and Wrangel, there secretly operated splendid Bolsheviks, Party and non-Party, who raised the workers and peasants in revolt against the invaders, against the White-guards, undermined the rear of the foes of the Soviet Government, and thereby facilitated the advance of the Red Army. Everybody knows that the partisans of the Ukraine, Siberia, the Far East, the Urals, Byelorussia and the Volga region, by undermining the rear of the Whiteguards and the invaders, rendered invaluable service to the Red Army.<br />
<br />
8. The Red Army was victorious because the Soviet Republic was not alone in its struggle against Whiteguard counter-revolution and foreign intervention, because the struggle of the Soviet Government and its successes enlisted the sympathy and support of the proletarians of the whole world. While the imperialists were trying to stifle the Soviet Republic by intervention and blockade, the workers of the imperialist countries sided with the Soviets and helped them. Their struggle against the capitalists of the countries hostile to the Soviet Republic helped in the end to force the imperialists to call off the intervention. The workers of Great Britain, France and the other intervening powers called strikes, refused to load munitions consigned to the invaders and the White-guard generals, and set up Councils of Action whose work was guided by the slogan—"Hands off Russia!"<br />
<br />
"The international bourgeoisie has only to raise its hand against us to have it seized by its own workers," Lenin said. (''Ibid''., p. 405.)<br />
<br />
=== Brief summary ===<br />
Vanquished by the October Revolution, the landlords and capitalists, in conjunction with the Whiteguard generals, conspired with the governments of the Entente countries against the interests of their own country for a joint armed attack on the Soviet land and for the overthrow of the Soviet Government. This formed the basis of the military intervention of the Entente and of the Whiteguard revolts in the border Aregions of Russia, as a result of which Russia was cut off from her sources of food and raw material.<br />
<br />
The military defeat of Germany and the termination of the war between the two imperialist coalitions in Europe served to strengthen the Entente and to intensify the intervention, and created new difficulties for Soviet Russia.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, the revolution in Germany and the incipient revolutionary movement in the European countries created favourable international conditions for the Soviet power and relieved the position of the Soviet Republic.<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik Party roused the workers and peasants for a war ''for the fatherland'', a war against the foreign invaders and the bourgeois and landlord Whiteguards. The Soviet Republic and its Red Army defeated one after another the puppets of the Entente—Kolchak, Yude-nich, Denikin, Krasnov and Wrangel, drove out of the Ukraine and Byelorussia another puppet of the Entente, Pilsudski, and thus beat off the forces of foreign intervention and drove them out of the Soviet country.<br />
<br />
Thus the first armed attack of international capital on the land of Socialism ended in a complete fiasco.<br />
<br />
In the period of intervention, the parties which had been smashed by the revolution, the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, Anarchists and nationalists, supported the Whiteguard generals and the invaders, hatched counter-revolutionary plots against the Soviet Republic and resorted to terrorism against Soviet leaders. These parties, which had enjoyed a certain amount of influence among the working class before the October Revolution, completely exposed themselves before the masses as counterrevolutionary parties during the Civil War.<br />
<br />
The period of Civil War and intervention witnessed the political collapse of these parties and the final triumph of the Communist Party in Soviet Russia.<br />
<br />
== The Bolshevik party in the period of transition to the peaceful work of economic restoration (1921—1925) ==<br />
<br />
=== Soviet Republic after the defeat of the intervention and end of the civil war. Difficulties of the restoration period ===<br />
Having ended the war, the Soviet Republic turned to the work of peaceful economic development. The wounds of war had to be healed. The shattered economic life of the country had to be rebuilt, its industry, railways and agriculture restored.<br />
<br />
But the work of peaceful development had to be undertaken in extremely difficult circumstances. The victory in the Civil War had not been an easy one. The country had been reduced to a state of ruin by four years of imperialist war and three years of war against the intervention.<br />
<br />
The gross output of agriculture in 1920 was only about ''one-half'' of the pre-war output—that of the poverty-stricken Russian countryside of tsarist days. To make matters worse, in 1920 there was a harvest failure in many of the provinces. Agriculture was in sore straits.<br />
<br />
Even worse was the plight of industry, which was in a state of complete dislocation. The output of large-scale industry in 1920 was a little over ''one-seventh'' of pre-war. Most of the mills and factories were at a standstill; mines and collieries were wrecked and flooded. Gravest of all was the condition of the iron and steel industry. The total output of pig-iron in 1921 was only 116,300 tons, or about 3 per cent of the pre-war output. There was a shortage of fuel. Transport was disrupted. Stocks of metal and textiles in the country were nearly exhausted. There was an acute shortage of such prime necessities as bread, fats, meat, footwear, clothing, matches, salt, kerosene, and soap.<br />
<br />
While the war was on, people put up with the shortage and scarcity, and were sometimes even oblivious to it. But now that the war was over, they suddenly felt that this shortage and scarcity were intolerable and began to demand that they be immediately remedied.<br />
<br />
Discontent appeared among the peasants. The fire of the Civil War had welded and steeled a military and political alliance of the working class and the peasantry. This alliance rested on a definite basis: the peasants received from the Soviet Government land and protection against the landlords and kulaks; the workers received from the peasantry foodstuffs under the surplus-appropriation system. Now this basis was no longer adequate.<br />
<br />
The Soviet state had been compelled to appropriate all surplus produce from the peasants for the needs of national defence. Victory in the Civil War would have been impossible without the surplus-appropriation system, without the policy of War Communism. This policy was necessitated by the war and intervention. As long as the war was on, the peasantry had acquiesced in the surplus-appropriation system and had paid no heed to the shortage of commodities; but when the war ended and there was no longer any danger of the landlords returning, the peasants began to express dissatisfaction with having to surrender all their surpluses, with the surplus-appropriation system, and to demand a sufficient supply of commodities.<br />
<br />
As Lenin pointed out, the whole system of War Communism had come into collision with the interests of the peasantry.<br />
<br />
The spirit of discontent affected the working class as well. The proletariat had borne the brunt of the Civil War, had heroically and self-sacrificingly fought the Whiteguard and foreign hordes, and the ravages of economic disruption and famine. The best, the most class-conscious, self-sacrificing and disciplined workers were inspired by Socialist enthusiasm. But the utter economic disruption had its influence on the working class, too. The few factories and plants still in operation were working spasmodically. The workers were reduced to doing odd jobs for a living, making cigarette lighters and engaging in petty bartering for food in the villages ("bag-trading"). The class basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat was being weakened; the workers were scattering, decamping for the villages, ceasing to be workers and becoming declassed. Some of the workers were beginning to show signs of discontent owing to hunger and weariness.<br />
<br />
The Party was confronted with the necessity of working out a new line of policy on all questions affecting the economic life of the country, a line that would meet the new situation.<br />
<br />
And the Party proceeded to work out such a line of policy on questions of economic development.<br />
<br />
But the class enemy was not dozing. He tried to exploit the distressing economic situation and the discontent of the peasants for his own purposes. Kulak revolts, engineered by Whiteguards and Socialist-Revolutionaries, broke out in Siberia, the Ukraine and the Tambov province (Antonov's rebellion). All kinds of counter-revolutionary elements — Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Anarchists, Whiteguards, bourgeois nationalists—became active again. The enemy adopted new tactics of struggle against the Soviet power. He began to borrow a Soviet garb, and his slogan was no longer the old bankrupt "Down with the Soviets!" but a new slogan: "For the Soviets, but without Communists!"<br />
<br />
A glaring instance of the new tactics of the class enemy was the counter-revolutionary mutiny in Kronstadt. It began in March 1921, a week before the Tenth Party Congress. Whiteguards, in complicity with Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and representatives of foreign states, assumed the lead of the mutiny. The mutineers at first used a "Soviet" signboard to camouflage their purpose of restoring the power and property of the capitalists and landlords. They raised the cry: "Soviets without Communists!" The counter-revolutionaries tried to exploit the discontent of the petty bourgeois masses in order to overthrow the power of the Soviets under a pseudo-Soviet slogan.<br />
<br />
Two circumstances facilitated the outbreak of the Kronstadt mutiny: the deterioration in the composition of the ships' crews, and the weakness of the Bolshevik organization in Kronstadt. Nearly all the old sailors who had taken part in the October Revolution were at the front, heroically fighting in the ranks of the Red Army. The naval replenishments consisted of new men, who had not been schooled in the revolution. These were a perfectly raw peasant mass who gave expression to the peasantry's discontent with the surplus-appropriation system. As for the Bolshevik organization in Kronstadt, it had been greatly weakened by a series of mobilizations for the front. This enabled the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and Whiteguards to worm their way into Kron-stadt and to seize control of it.<br />
<br />
The mutineers gained possession of a first-class fortress, the fleet, and a vast quantity of arms and ammunition. The international counterrevolutionaries were triumphant. But their jubilation was premature. The mutiny was quickly put down by Soviet troops. Against the Kron-stadt mutineers the Party sent its finest sons—delegates to the Tenth Congress, headed by Comrade Voroshilov. The Red Army men advanced on Kronstadt across a thin sheet of ice; it broke in places and many were drowned. The almost impregnable forts of Kronstadt had to be taken by storm; but loyalty to the revolution, bravery and readiness to die for the Soviets won the day. The fortress of Kronstadt fell before the onslaught of the Red troops. The Kronstadt mutiny was suppressed.<br />
<br />
=== Party discussion on the Trade Unions. Tenth party congress. Defeat of the opposition. Adoption of the New Economic Policy (NEP) ===<br />
The Central Committee of the Party, its Leninist majority, saw clearly that now that the war was over and the country had turned to peaceful economic development, there was no longer any reason for maintaining the rigid regime of War Communism—the product of war and blockade.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee realized that the need for the surplus-appropriation system had passed, that it was time to supersede it by a tax in kind so as to enable the peasants to use the greater part of their surpluses at their own discretion. The Central Committee realized that this measure would make it possible to revive agriculture, to extend the cultivation of grain and industrial crops required for the development of industry, to revive the circulation of commodities, to improve supplies to the towns, and to create a new foundation, an economic foundation for the alliance of workers and peasants.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee realized also that the prime task was to revive industry, but considered that this could not be done without enlisting the support of the working class and its trade unions; it considered that the workers could be enlisted in this work by showing them that the economic disruption was just as dangerous an enemy of the people as the intervention and the blockade had been, and that the Party and the trade unions could certainly succeed in this work if they exercised their influence on the working class not by military commands, as had been the case at the front, where commands were really essential, but by methods of persuasion, by convincing it.<br />
<br />
But not all members of the Party were of the same mind as the Central Committee. The small opposition groups—the Trotskyites, "Workers' Opposition," "Left Communists," "Democratic-Centralists," etc.—wavered and vacillated in face of the difficulties attending the transition to peaceful economic construction. There were in the Party quite a number of ex-members of the Menshevik, Socialist-Revolutionary, Bund and Borotbist parties, and all kinds of semi-nationalists from the border regions of Russia. Most of them allied themselves with one opposition group or another. These people were not real Marxists, they were ignorant of the laws of economic development, and had not had a Leninist-Party schooling, and they only helped to aggravate the confusion and vacillations of the opposition groups. Some of them thought that it would be wrong to relax the rigid regime of War Communism, that, on the contrary, "the screws must be tightened." Others thought that the Party and the state should stand aside from the economic restoration, and that it should be left entirely in the hands of the trade unions.<br />
<br />
It was clear that with such confusion reigning among certain groups in the Party, lovers of controversy, opposition "leaders" of one kind or another were bound to try to force a discussion upon the Party.<br />
<br />
And that is just what happened.<br />
<br />
The discussion started over the role of the trade unions, although the trade unions were not the chief problem of Party policy at the time.<br />
<br />
It was Trotsky who started the discussion and the fight against Lenin, against the Leninist majority of the Central Committee. With the intention of aggravating the situation, he came out at a meeting of Communist delegates to the Fifth All-Russian Trade Union Conference, held at the beginning of November 1920, with the dubious slogans of "tightening the screws" and "shaking up the trade unions." Trotsky demanded that the trade unions be immediately "governmentalized." He was against the use of persuasion in relations with the working class, and was in favour of introducing military methods in the trade unions. Trotsky was against any extension of democracy in the trade unions, against the principle of electing trade union bodies.<br />
<br />
Instead of methods of persuasion, without which the activities of working-class organizations are inconceivable, the Trotskyites proposed methods of sheer compulsion, of dictation. Applying this policy wherever they happened to occupy leading positions in the trade unions, the Trotskyites caused conflicts, disunity and demoralization in the unions. By their policy the Trotskyites were setting the mass of the non-Party workers against the Party, were splitting the working class.<br />
<br />
As a matter of fact, the discussion on the trade unions was of much broader import than the trade union question. As was stated later in the resolution of the Plenum of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) adopted on January 17, 1925, the actual point at issue was "the policy to be adopted towards the peasantry, who were rising against War Communism, the policy to be adopted towards the mass of the non-Party workers, and, in general, what was to be the approach of the Party to the masses in the period when the Civil War was coming to an end." (''Resolutions of the C.P.S.U.[B.]'', Russ ed., Part I, p. 651.)<br />
<br />
Trotsky's lead was followed by other anti-Party groups: the "Workers' Opposition" (Shlyapnikov, Medvedyev, Kollontai and others), the "Democratic-Centralists" (Sapronov, Drobnis, Boguslavsky, Ossinsky, V. Smirnov and others), the "Left Communists" (Bukharin, Preobra-zhensky).<br />
<br />
The "Workers' Opposition" put forward a slogan demanding that the administration of the entire national economy be entrusted to an "All-Russian Producers' Congress." They wanted to reduce the role of the Party to nought, and denied the importance of the dictatorship of the proletariat to economic development. The "Workers' Opposition" contended that the interests of the trade unions were opposed to those of the Soviet state and the Communist Party. They held that the trade unions, and not the Party, were the highest form of working-class organization. The "Workers' Opposition" was essentially an anarcho-syndicalist anti-Party group.<br />
<br />
The "Democratic-Centralists" (Decists) demanded complete freedom for factions and groupings. Like the Trotskyites, the "Democratic-Centralists" tried to undermine the leadership of the Party in the Soviets and in the trade unions. Lenin spoke of the "Democratic-Centralists" as a faction of "champion shouters," and of their platform as a Socialist-Revolutionary-Menshevik platform.<br />
<br />
Trotsky was assisted in his fight against Lenin and the Party by Bukharin. With Preobrazhensky, Serebryakov and Sokolnikov, Bukharin formed a "buffer" group. This group defended and shielded the Trotskyites, the most vicious of all factionalists. Lenin said that Bukharin's behaviour was the "acme of ideological depravity." Very soon, the Bukharinites openly joined forces with the Trotskyites against Lenin.<br />
<br />
Lenin and the Leninists concentrated their fire on the Trotskyites as the backbone of the anti-Party groupings. They condemned the Trotskyites for ignoring the difference between trade unions and military bodies and warned them that military methods could not be applied to the trade unions. Lenin and the Leninists drew up a platform of their own, entirely contrary in spirit to the platforms of the opposition groups. In this platform, the trade unions were defined as a school of administration, a school of management, a school of Communism. The trade unions should base all their activities on methods of persuasion. Only then would the trade unions rouse the workers as a whole to combat the economic disruption and be able to enlist them in the work of Socialist construction.<br />
<br />
In this fight against the opposition groupings, the Party organizations rallied around Lenin. The struggle took an especially acute form in Moscow. Here the opposition concentrated its main forces, with the object of capturing the Party organization of the capital. But these factionalist intrigues were frustrated by the spirited resistance of the Moscow Bolsheviks. An acute struggle broke out in the Ukrainian Party organizations as well. Led by Comrade Molotov, then the secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Ukraine, the Ukrainian Bolsheviks routed the Trotskyites and Shlyapnikovites. The Communist Party of the Ukraine remained a loyal support of Lenin's Party. In Baku, the routing of the opposition was led by Comrade Ordjonikidze. In Central Asia, the fight against the anti-Party groupings were headed by Comrade L. Kaganovich.<br />
<br />
All the important local organizations of the Party endorsed Lenin's platform.<br />
<br />
On March 8, 1921, the Tenth Party Congress opened. The congress was attended by 694 delegates with vote, representing 732,521 Party members, and 296 delegates with voice but no vote.<br />
<br />
The congress summed up the discussion on the trade unions and endorsed Lenin's platform by an overwhelming majority.<br />
<br />
In opening the congress, Lenin said that the discussion had been an inexcusable luxury. He declared that the enemies had speculated on the inner Party strife and on a split in the ranks of the Communist Party.<br />
<br />
Realizing how extremely dangerous the existence of factional groups was to the Bolshevik Party and the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Tenth Congress paid special attention to ''Party unity''. The report on this question was made by Lenin. The congress passed condemnation on all the opposition groups and declared that they were "in fact helping the class enemies of the proletarian revolution."<br />
<br />
The congress ordered the immediate dissolution of all factional groups and instructed all Party organizations to keep a strict watch to prevent any outbreaks of factionalism, non-observance of the congress decision to be followed by unconditional and immediate expulsion from the Party. The congress authorized the Central Committee, in the event of members of that body violating discipline, or reviving or tolerating factionalism, to apply to them all Party penalties, including expulsion from the Central Committee and from the Party.<br />
<br />
These decisions were embodied in a special resolution on "Party Unity," moved by Lenin and adopted by the congress.<br />
<br />
In this resolution, the congress reminded all Party members that unity and solidarity of the ranks of the Party, unanimity of will of the vanguard of the proletariat were particularly essential at that juncture, when a number of circumstances had, during the time of the Tenth Congress, increased the vacillation among the petty-bourgeois population of the country.<blockquote>"Notwithstanding this," read the resolution, "even before the general Party discussion on the trade unions, certain signs of factionalism had been apparent in the Party, viz., the formation of groups with separate platforms, striving to a certain degree to segregate and create their own group discipline. All class-conscious workers must clearly realize the perniciousness and impermissibility of factionalism of any kind, for in practice factionalism inevitably results in weakening team work. At the same time it inevitably leads to intensified and repeated attempts by the enemies of the Party, who have fastened themselves onto it because it is the governing party, to widen the cleavage (in the Party) and to use it for counter-revolutionary purposes."</blockquote>Further, in the same resolution, the congress said:<blockquote>"The way the enemies of the proletariat take advantage of every deviation from the thoroughly consistent Communist line was most strikingly shown in the case of the Kronstadt mutiny, when the bourgeois counter-revolutionaries and Whiteguards in all countries of the world immediately expressed their readiness to accept even the slogans of the Soviet system, if only they might thereby secure the overthrow of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia, and when the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the bourgeois counter-revolutionaries in general resorted in Kronstadt to slogans calling for an insurrection against the Soviet Government of Russia ostensibly in the interest of Soviet power. These facts fully prove that the Whiteguards strive, and are able to disguise themselves as Communists, and even as people "more Left" than the Communists, solely for the purpose of weakening and overthrowing the bulwark of the proletarian revolution in Russia. Menshevik leaflets distributed in Petrograd on the eve of the Kronstadt mutiny likewise show how the Mensheviks took advantage of the disagreements in the R.C.P. actually in order to egg on and support the Kronstadt mutineers, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Whiteguards, while claiming to be opponents of mutiny and supporters of the Soviet power, only with supposedly slight modifications."</blockquote>The resolution declared that in its propaganda the Party must explain in detail the harm and danger of factionalism to Party unity and to the unity of purpose of the vanguard of the proletariat, which is a fundamental condition for the success of the dictatorship of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, the congress resolution stated, the Party must explain in its propaganda the ''peculiarity'' of the latest tactical methods employed by the enemies of the Soviet power.<blockquote>"These enemies," read the resolution, "having realized the hopelessness of counter-revolution under an openly Whiteguard flag, are now doing their utmost to utilize the disagreements within the R.C.P. and to further the counter-revolution in one way or another by transferring the power to the political groupings which outwardly are closest to the recognition of the Soviet power." (''Resolutions of the C.P.S.U.[B.]'', Russ. ed., Part I, pp. 373-74.)</blockquote>The resolution further stated that in its propaganda the Party "must also teach the lessons of preceding revolutions in which the counter-revolutionaries usually supported the petty-bourgeois groupings which stood closest to the extreme revolutionary Party, in order to undermine and overthrow the revolutionary dictatorship, and thus pave the way for the subsequent complete victory of the counter-revolution, of the capitalists and landlords."<br />
<br />
Closely allied to the resolution on "Party Unity" was the resolution on "The Syndicalist and Anarchist Deviation in our Party," also moved by Lenin and adopted by the congress. In this resolution the Tenth Congress passed condemnation on the so-called "Workers' Opposition." The congress declared that the propaganda of the ideas of the anarcho-syndicalist deviation was incompatible with membership in the Communist Party, and called upon the Party vigorously to combat this deviation.<br />
<br />
The Tenth Congress passed the highly important decision to replace the surplus-appropriation system by a tax in kind, to adopt the ''New Economic Policy'' (NEP).<br />
<br />
This turn from War Communism to NEP is a striking instance of the wisdom and farsightedness of Lenin's policy.<br />
<br />
The resolution of the congress dealt with the substitution of a tax in kind for the surplus-appropriation system. The tax in kind was to be lighter than the assessments under the surplus-appropriation system. The total amount of the tax was to be announced each year before the spring sowing. The dates of delivery under the tax were to be strictly specified. All produce over and above the amount of the tax was to be entirely at the disposal of the peasant, who would be at liberty to sell these surpluses at will. In his speech, Lenin said that freedom of trade would at first lead to a certain revival of capitalism in the country. It would be necessary to permit private trade and to allow private manufacturers to open small businesses. But no fears need be entertained on this score. Lenin considered that a certain freedom of trade would give the peasant an economic incentive, induce him to produce more and would lead to a rapid improvement of agriculture; that, on this basis, the state-owned industries would be restored and private capital displaced; that strength and resources having been accumulated, a powerful industry could be created as the economic foundation of Socialism, and that then a determined offensive could be undertaken to destroy the remnants of capitalism in the country.<br />
<br />
War Communism had been an attempt to take the fortress of the capitalist elements in town and countryside by assault, by a frontal attack. In this offensive the Party had gone too far ahead, and ran the risk of being cut off from its base. Now Lenin proposed to retire a little, to retreat for a while nearer to the base, to change from an assault of the fortress to the slower method of siege, so as to gather strength and resume the offensive.<br />
<br />
The Trotskyites and other oppositionists held that NEP was ''nothing but'' a retreat. This interpretation suited their purpose, for their line was to restore capitalism. This was a most harmful, anti-Leninist interpretation of NEP. The fact is that only a year after NEP was introduced Lenin declared at the Eleventh Party Congress that ''the retreat had come to an end'', and he put forward the slogan : ''"Prepare for an offensive on private capital.''" (Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. XXVII (p. 213.)<br />
<br />
The oppositionists, poor Marxists and crass ignoramuses in questions of Bolshevik policy as they were, understood neither the meaning of NEP nor the character of the retreat undertaken at the beginning of NEP. We have dealt with the meaning of NEP above. As for the character of the retreat, there are retreats and retreats. There are times when a party or an army has to retreat because it has suffered defeat. In such cases, the army or party retreats to preserve itself and its ranks for new battles. It was no such retreat that Lenin proposed when NEP was introduced, because, far from having suffered defeat or discomfiture, the Party had itself defeated the interventionists and White-guards in the Civil War. But there are other times, when in its advance a victorious party or army runs too far ahead, without providing itself with an adequate base in the rear. This creates a serious danger. So as not to lose connection with its base, an experienced party or army generally finds it necessary in such cases to fall back a little, to draw closer to and establish better contact with its base, in order to provide itself with all it needs, and then resume the offensive more confidently and with guarantee of success. It was this kind of temporary retreat that Lenin effected by the New Economic Policy. Reporting to the Fourth Congress of the Communist International on the reasons that prompted the introduction of NEP, Lenin plainly said, "in our economic offensive we ran too far ahead, we did not provide ourselves with an adequate base," and so it was necessary to make a temporary retreat to a secure rear.<br />
<br />
The misfortune of the opposition was that, in their ignorance, they did not understand, and never understood to the end of their days, this feature of the retreat under NEP.<br />
<br />
The decision of the Tenth Congress on the New Economic Policy ensured a durable economic alliance of the working class and the peasantry for the building of Socialism.<br />
<br />
This prime object was served by yet another decision of the congress —the decision on the national question. The report on the national question was made by Comrade Stalin. He said that we had abolished national oppression, but that this was not enough. The task was to do away with the evil heritage of the past—the economic, political and cultural backwardness of the formerly oppressed peoples. They had to be helped to catch up with Central Russia.<br />
<br />
Comrade Stalin further referred to two anti-Party deviations on the national question: dominant-nation (Great-Russian) chauvinism and local nationalism. The congress condemned both deviations as harmful and dangerous to Communism and proletarian internationalism. At the same time, it directed its main blow at the bigger danger, dominant-nation chauvinism, ''i.e.,'' the survivals and hangovers of the attitude towards the nationalities such as the Great-Russian chauvinists had displayed towards the non-Russian peoples under tsardom.<br />
<br />
=== First results of NEP. Eleventh party congress. Formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Lenin’s Illness. Lenin’s co-operative plan. Twelfth party congress ===<br />
The New Economic Policy was resisted by the unstable elements in the Party. The resistance came from two quarters. First there were the "Left" shouters, political freaks like Lominadze, Shatskin and others, who argued that NEP meant a renunciation of the gains of the October Revolution, a return to capitalism, the downfall of the Soviet power. Because of their political illiteracy and ignorance of the laws of economic development, these people did not understand the policy of the Party, fell into a panic, and sowed dejection and discouragement. Then there were the downright capitulators, like Trotsky, Radek, Zinoviev, Sokolnikov, Kamenev, Shlyapnikov, Bukharin, Rykov and others, who did not believe that the Socialist development of our country was possible, bowed before the "omnipotence" of capitalism and, in their endeavour to strengthen the position of capitalism in the Soviet country, demanded far-reaching concessions to private capital, both home and foreign, and the surrender of a number of key positions of the Soviet power in the economic field to private capitalists, the latter to act either as concessionaries or as partners of the state in mixed joint stock companies.<br />
<br />
Both groups were alien to Marxism and Leninism.<br />
<br />
Both were exposed and isolated by the Party, which passed severe stricture on the alarmists and the capitulators.<br />
<br />
This resistance to the Party policy was one more reminder that the Party needed to be purged of unstable elements. Accordingly, the Central Committee in 1921 organized a Party purge, which helped to considerably strengthen the Party. The purging was done at open meetings, in the presence and with the participation of non-Party people. Lenin advised that the Party be thoroughly cleansed "of rascals, bureaucrats, dishonest or wavering Communists, and of Mensheviks who have repainted their 'facade' but who have remained Mensheviks at heart." (Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. XXVII, p. 13.)<br />
<br />
Altogether, nearly 170,000 persons, or about 25 per cent of the total membership, were expelled from the Party as a result of the purge.<br />
<br />
The purge greatly strengthened the Party, improved its social composition, increased the confidence of the masses in it, and heightened its prestige. The Party became more closely welded and better disciplined.<br />
<br />
The correctness of the New Economic Policy was proved in its very first year. Its adoption served greatly to strengthen the alliance of workers and peasants on a new basis. The dictatorship of the proletariat gained in might and strength. Kulak banditry was almost completely liquidated. The middle peasants, now that the surplus-appropriation system had been abolished, helped the Soviet Government to fight the kulak bands. The Soviet Government retained all the key positions in the economic field: large-scale industry, the means of transport, the banks, the land, and home and foreign trade. The Party achieved a definite turn for the better on the economic front. Agriculture soon began to forge ahead. Industry and the railways could record their first successes. An economic revival began, still very slow but sure. The workers and the peasants felt and perceived that the Party was on the right track.<br />
<br />
In March 1922, the Party held its Eleventh Congress. It was attended by 522 voting delegates, representing 532,000 Party members, which was less than at the previous congress. There were 165 delegates with voice but no vote. The reduction in the membership was due to the Party purge which had already begun.<br />
<br />
At this congress the Party reviewed the results of the first year of the New Economic Policy. These results entitled Lenin to declare at the congress:<blockquote>"For a year we have been retreating. In the name of the Party we must now call a halt. The purpose pursued by the retreat has been achieved. This period is drawing, or has drawn, to a close. Now our purpose is different—to regroup our forces." (''Ibid''., p. 238.)</blockquote>Lenin said that NEP meant a life and death struggle between capitalism and Socialism. "Who will win?"—that was the question. In order that we might win, the bond between the working class and the peasantry, between Socialist industry and peasant agriculture, had to be made secure by developing the exchange of goods between town and country to the utmost. For this purpose the art of management and of efficient trading would have to be learned.<br />
<br />
At that period, trade was the main link in the chain of problems that confronted the Party. Unless this problem were solved it would be impossible to develop the exchange of goods between town and country, to strengthen the economic alliance between the workers and peasants, impossible to advance agriculture, or to extricate industry from its state of disruption.<br />
<br />
Soviet trade at that time was still very undeveloped. The machinery of trade was highly inadequate. Communists had not yet learned the art of trade; they had not studied the enemy, the Nepman, or learned how to combat him. The private traders, or Nepmen, had taken advantage of the undeveloped state of Soviet trade to capture the trade in textiles and other goods in general demand. The organization of state and co-operative trade became a matter of utmost importance.<br />
<br />
After the Eleventh Congress, work in the economic sphere was resumed with redoubled vigour. The effects of the recent harvest failure were successfully remedied. Peasant farming showed rapid recovery. The railways began to work better. Increasing numbers of factories and plants resumed operation.<br />
<br />
In October 1922, the Soviet Republic celebrated a great victory Vladivostok, the last piece of Soviet territory to remain in the hands of the invaders, was wrested by the Red Army and the Far Eastern partisan from the hands of the Japanese.<br />
<br />
The whole territory of the Soviet republic having been cleared of interventionists, and the needs of Socialist construction and national defence demanding a further consolidation of the union of the Soviet peoples, the necessity now arose of welding the Soviet republics closer together in a single federal state. All the forces of the people had to be combined for the work of building Socialism. The country had to be made impregnable. Conditions had to be created for the all-round development of every nationality in our country. This required that all the Soviet nations should be brought into still closer union.<br />
<br />
In December 1922 the First All-Union Congress of Soviets was held, at which, on the proposal of Lenin and Stalin, a voluntary state union of the Soviet nations was formed—the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.). Originally, the U.S.S.R. comprised the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (R.S.F.S.R.), the Trancaucasian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (T.S.F.S.R.), the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (Ukr. S.S.R.) and the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (B.S.S.R.). Somewhat later, three independent Union Soviet Republics—the Uzbek, Turkmen and Tadjik—were formed in Central Asia. All these republics have now united in a single union of Soviet states—the U.S.S.R.—on a voluntary and equal basis, each of them being reserved the right of freely seceding from the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
The formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics meant the consolidation of the Soviet power and a great victory for the Leninist-Stalinist policy of the Bolshevik Party on the national question.<br />
<br />
In November 1922, Lenin made a speech at a plenary meeting of the Moscow Soviet in which he reviewed the five years of Soviet rule and expressed the firm conviction that "NEP Russia will become Socialist Russia." This was his last speech to the country. That same autumn a great misfortune overtook the Party: Lenin fell seriously ill. His illness was a deep and personal affliction to the whole Party and to all the working people. All lived in trepidation for the life of their beloved Lenin. But even in illness Lenin did not discontinue his work. When already a very sick man, he wrote a number of highly important articles. In these last writings he reviewed the work already performed and outlined a plan for the building of Socialism in our country by enlisting the peasantry in the cause of Socialist construction. This contained his co-operative plan for securing the participation of the peasantry in the work of building Socialism.<br />
<br />
Lenin regarded co-operative societies in general, and agricultural cooperative societies in particular, as a means of transition—a means within the reach and understanding of the peasant millions—from small, individual farming to large-scale producing associations, or collective farms. Lenin pointed out that the line to be followed in the development of agriculture in our country was to draw the peasants into the work of building Socialism through the co-operative societies, gradually to introduce the collective principle in agriculture, first in the selling, and then in the growing of farm produce. With the dictatorship of the proletariat and the alliance of the working class and the peasantry, with the leadership of the peasantry by the proletariat made secure, and with the existence of a Socialist industry, Lenin said, a properly organized producing cooperative system embracing millions of peasants was the means whereby a complete Socialist society could be built in our country.<br />
<br />
In April 1923, the Party held its Twelfth Congress. Since the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks this was the first congress at which Lenin was unable to be present. The congress was attended by 408 voting delegates, representing 386,000 Party members. This was less than was represented at the previous congress, the reduction being due to the fact that in the interval the Party purge had continued and had resulted in the expulsion of a considerable percentage of the Party membership. There were 417 delegates with voice but no vote.<br />
<br />
The Twelfth Party Congress embodied in its decisions the recommendations made by Lenin in his recent articles and letters.<br />
<br />
The congress sharply rebuked those who took NEP to mean a retreat from the Socialist position, a surrender to capitalism, and who advocated a return to capitalist bondage. Proposals of this kind were made at the congress by Radek and Krassin, followers of Trotsky. They proposed that we should throw ourselves on the tender mercies of foreign capitalists, surrender to them, in the form of concessions, branches of industry that were of vital necessity to the Soviet state. They proposed that we pay the tsarist government's debts annulled by the October Revolution. The Party stigmatized these capitulatory proposals as treachery. It did not reject the policy of granting concessions, but favoured it only in such industries and in such dimensions as would be of advantage to the Soviet state.<br />
<br />
Bukharin and Sokolnikov had even prior to the congress proposed the abolition of the state monopoly of foreign trade. The proposal was also based on the conception that NEP was a surrender to capitalism. Lenin had branded Bukharin as a champion of the profiteers, Nepmen and kulaks. The Twelfth Congress firmly repelled the attempts to undermine the monopoly of foreign trade.<br />
<br />
The congress also repelled Trotsky's attempt to foist upon the Party a policy towards the peasantry that would have been fatal, and stated that the predominance of small peasant farming in the country was a fact not to be forgotten. It emphatically declared that the development of industry, including heavy industry, must not run counter to the interests of the peasant masses, but must be based on a close bond with the peasants, in the interests of the whole working population. These decisions were an answer to Trotsky, who had proposed that we should build up our industry by exploiting the peasants, and who in fact did not accept the policy of an alliance of the proletariat with the peasantry.<br />
<br />
At the same time, Trotsky had proposed that big plants like the Putilov, Bryansk and others, which were of importance to the country's defence, should be closed down allegedly on the grounds that they were unprofitable. The congress indignantly rejected Trotsky's proposals.<br />
<br />
On Lenin's proposal, sent to the congress in written form, the Twelfth Congress united the Central Control Commission of the Party and the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection into one body. To this united body were entrusted the important duties of safeguarding the unity of our Party, strengthening Party and civil discipline, and improving the Soviet state apparatus in every way.<br />
<br />
An important item on the agenda of the congress was the national question, the report on which was made by Comrade Stalin. Comrade Stalin stressed the international significance of our policy on the national question. To the oppressed peoples in the East and West, the Soviet Union was a model of the solution of the national question and the abolition of national oppression. He pointed out that energetic measures were needed to put an end to economic and cultural inequality among the peoples of the Soviet Union. He called upon the Party to put up a determined fight against deviations in the national question—Great-Russian chauvinism and local bourgeois nationalism.<br />
<br />
The nationalist deviators and their dominant-nation policy towards the national minorities were exposed at the congress. At that time the Georgian nationalist deviators, Mdivani and others, were opposing the Party. They had been against the formation of the Trancaucasian Federation and were against the promotion of friendship between the peoples of Transcaucasia. The deviators were behaving like outright dominant-nation chauvinists towards the other nationalities of Georgia. They were expelling non-Georgians from Tiflis wholesale, especially Armenians; they had passed a law under which Georgian women who married non-Georgians lost their Georgian citizenship. The Georgian nationalist deviators were supported by Trotsky, Radek, Bukharin, Skrypnik and Rakovsky.<br />
<br />
Shortly after the congress, a special conference of Party workers from the national republics was called to discuss the national question. Here were exposed a group of Tatar bourgeois nationalists—Sultan-Galiev and others—and a group of Uzbek nationalist deviators—Faizulla Khodjayev and others.<br />
<br />
The Twelfth Party Congress reviewed the results of the New Economic Policy for the past two years. They were very heartening results and inspired confidence in ultimate victory.<blockquote>"Our Party has remained solid and united; it has stood the test of a momentous turn, and is marching on with flying colours," Comrade Stalin declared at the congress.</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Struggle against the difficulties of economic restoration. Trotskyites take advantage of Lenin’s illness to increase their activity. New party discussion. Defeat of the Trotskyites. Death of Lenin. The Lenin enrollment. Thirteenth party congress ===<br />
The struggle to restore the national economy yielded substantial results in its very first year. By 1924 progress was to be observed in all fields. The crop area had increased considerably since 1921, and peasant farming was steadily improving. Socialist industry was growing and expanding. The working class had greatly increased in numbers. Wages had risen. Life had become easier and better for the workers and peasants as compared with 1920 and 1921.<br />
<br />
But the effects of the economic disruption still made themselves felt. Industry was still below the pre-war level, and its development was still far behind the country's demand. At the end of 1923 there were about a million unemployed; the national economy was progressing too slowly to absorb unemployment. The development of trade was being hindered by the excessive prices of manufactured goods, prices which the Nepmen, and the Nepman elements in our trading organizations, were imposing on the country. Owing to this, the Soviet ruble began to fluctuate violently and to fall in value. These factors impeded the improvement of the condition of the workers and peasants.<br />
<br />
In the autumn of 1923, the economic difficulties were somewhat aggravated owing to violations of the Soviet price policy by our industrial and commercial organizations. There was a yawning gap between the prices of manufactures and the prices of farm produce. Grain prices were low, while prices of manufacturers were inordinately high. Industry was burdened with excessive overhead costs which increased the price of goods. The money which the peasants received for their grain rapidly depreciated. To make matters worse, the Trotskyite Pyatakov, who was at that time on the Supreme Council of National Economy, gave managers and directors criminal instructions to grind all the profit they could out of the sale of manufactured goods and to force up prices to the maximum, ostensibly for the purpose of developing industry. As a matter of fact, this Nepman policy could only narrow the base of industry and undermine it. It became unprofitable for the peasantry to purchase manufactured goods, and they stopped buying them. The result was a sales crisis, from which industry suffered. Difficulties arose in the payment of wages. This provoked discontent among the workers. At some factories the more backward workers stopped work.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee of the Party adopted measures to remove these difficulties and anomalies. Steps were taken to overcome the sales crisis. Prices of consumers' goods were reduced. It was decided to reform the currency and to adopt a firm and stable currency unit, the cher-vonetz. The normal payment of wages was resumed. Measures were outlined for the development of trade through state and co-operative channels and for the elimination of private traders and profiteers.<br />
<br />
What was now required was that everybody should join in the common effort, roll up his sleeves, and set to work with gusto. That is the way all who were loyal to the Party thought and acted. But not so the Trotskyites. They took advantage of the absence of Lenin, who was incapacitated by grave illness, to launch a new attack on the Party and its leadership. They decided that this was a favourable moment to smash the Party and overthrow its leadership. They used everything they could as a weapon against the Party: the defeat of the revolution in Germany and Bulgaria in the autumn of 1923, the economic difficulties at home, and Lenin's illness. It was at this moment of difficulty for the Soviet state, when the Party's leader was stricken by sickness, that Trotsky started his attack on the Bolshevik Party. He mustered all the anti-Leninist elements in the Party and concocted an opposition platform against the Party, its leadership, and its policy. This platform was called the Declaration of the Forty-Six Oppositionists. All the opposition groupings—the Trotskyites, Democratic-Centralists, and the remnants of the "Left Communist" and "Workers' Opposition" groups—united to fight the Leninist Party. In their declaration, they prophesied a grave economic crisis and the fall of the Soviet power, and demanded freedom of factions and groups as the only way out of the situation.<br />
<br />
This was a fight for the restoration of factionalism which the Tenth Party Congress, on Lenin's proposal, had prohibited.<br />
<br />
The Trotskyites did not make a single definite proposal for the improvement of agriculture or industry, for the improvement of the circulation of commodities, or for the betterment of the condition of the working people. This did not even interest them. The only thing that interested them was to take advantage of Lenin's absence in order to restore factions within the Party, to undermine its foundations and its Central Committee.<br />
<br />
The platform of the forty-six was followed up by the publication of a letter by Trotsky in which he vilified the Party cadres and levelled new slanderous accusations against the Party. In this letter Trotsky harped on the old Menshevik themes which the Party had heard from him many times before.<br />
<br />
First of all the Trotskyites attacked the Party apparatus. They knew that without a strong apparatus the Party could not live and function. The opposition tried to undermine and destroy the Party apparatus, to set the Party members against it, and the young members against the old stalwarts of the Party. In this letter Trotsky played up to the students, the young Party members who were not acquainted with the history of the Party's fight against Trotskyism. To win the support of the students, Trotsky flatteringly referred to them as the "Party's surest barometer," at the same time declaring that the Leninist old guard had degenerated. Alluding to the degeneration of the leaders of the Second International, he made the foul insinuation that the old Bolshevik guard was going the same way. By this outcry about the degeneration of the Party, Trotsky tried to hide his own degeneration and his anti-Party scheming.<br />
<br />
The Trotskyites circulated both oppositionist documents, viz., the platform of the forty-six and Trotsky's letter, in the districts and among the Party nuclei and put them up for discussion by the Party membership.<br />
<br />
They challenged the Party to a discussion.<br />
<br />
Thus the Trotskyites forced a general discussion on the Party, just as they did at the time of the controversy over the trade union question before the Tenth Party Congress.<br />
<br />
Although the Party was occupied with the far more important problems of the country's economic life, it accepted the challenge and opened the discussion.<br />
<br />
The whole Party was involved in the discussion. The fight took a most bitter form. It was fiercest of all in Moscow, for the Trotskyites endeavoured above all to capture the Party organization in the capital. But the discussion was of no help to the Trotskyites. It only disgraced them. They were completely routed both in Moscow and all other parts of the Soviet Union. Only a small number of nuclei in universities and offices voted for the Trotskyites.<br />
<br />
In January 1924 the Party held its Thirteenth Conference. The conference heard a report by Comrade Stalin, summing up the results of the discussion. The conference condemned the Trotskyite opposition, declaring that it was a ''petty-bourgeois deviation'' from Marxism. The decisions of the conference were subsequently endorsed by the Thirteenth Party Congress and the Fifth Congress of the Communist International. The international Communist proletariat supported the Bolshevik Party in its fight against Trotskyism.<br />
<br />
But the Trotskyites did not cease their subversive work. In the autumn of 1924, Trotsky published an article entitled, "The Lessons of October" in which he attempted to substitute Trotskyism for Leninism. It was a sheer slander on our Party and its leader, Lenin. This defamatory broadsheet was seized upon by all enemies of Communism and of the Soviet Government. The Party was outraged by this unscrupulous distortion of the heroic history of Bolshevism. Comrade Stalin denounced Trotsky's attempt to substitute Trotskyism for Leninism. He declared that "it is the duty of the Party to bury Trotskyism as an ideological trend."<br />
<br />
An effective contribution to the ideological defeat of Trotskyism and to the defense of Leninism was Comrade Stalin's theoretical work, ''Foundations of Leninism'' published in 1924. This book is a masterly exposition and a weighty theoretical substantiation of Leninism. It was, and is today, a trenchant weapon of Marxist-Leninist theory in the hands of Bolsheviks all over the world.<br />
<br />
In the battles against Trotskyism, Comrade Stalin rallied the Party around its Central Committee and mobilized it to carry on the fight for the victory of Socialism in our country. Comrade Stalin proved that Trotskyism had to be ideologically demolished if the further victorious advance to Socialism was to be ensured.<br />
<br />
Reviewing this period of the fight against Trotskyism, Comrade Stalin said:<blockquote>"Unless Trotskyism is defeated, it will be impossible to achieve victory under the conditions of NEP, it will be impossible to convert present-day Russia into a Socialist Russia."</blockquote>But the successes attending the Party's Leninist policy were clouded by a most grievous calamity which now befell the Party and the working class. On January 21, 1924, Lenin, our leader and teacher, the creator of the Bolshevik Party, passed away in the village of Gorki, near Moscow. Lenin's death was received by the working class of the whole world as a most cruel loss. On the day of Lenin's funeral the international proletariat proclaimed a five-minute stoppage of work. Railways, mills and factories came to a standstill. As Lenin was borne to the grave, the working people of the whole world paid homage to him in overwhelming sorrow, as to a father and teacher, their best friend and defender.<br />
<br />
The loss of Lenin caused the working class of the Soviet Union to rally even more solidly around the Leninist Party. In those days of mourning every class-conscious worker defined his attitude to the Communist Party, the executor of Lenin's behest. The Central Committee of the Party received thousands upon thousands of applications from workers for admission to the Party. The Central Committee responded to this movement and proclaimed a mass admission of politically advanced workers into the Party ranks. Tens of thousands of workers flocked into the Party; they were people prepared to give their lives for the cause of the Party, the cause of Lenin. In a brief space of time over two hundred and forty thousand workers joined the ranks of the Bolshevik Party. They were the foremost section of the working class, the most class-conscious and revolutionary, the most intrepid and disciplined. This was the ''Lenin Enrolment''.<br />
<br />
The reaction to Lenin's death demonstrated how close are our Party's ties with the masses, and how high a place the Leninist Party holds in the hearts of the workers.<br />
<br />
In the days of mourning for Lenin, at the Second Congress of Soviets of the U.S.S.R., Comrade Stalin made a solemn vow in the name of the Party. He said:<blockquote>"We Communists are people of a special mould. We are made of a special stuff. We are those who form the army of the great proletarian strategist, the army of Comrade Lenin. There is nothing higher than the honour of belonging to this army. There is nothing higher than the title of member of the Party whose founder and leader is Comrade Lenin...<br />
<br />
"Departing from us, Comrade Lenin adjured us to hold high and guard the purity of the great title of member of the Party. We vow to you, Comrade Lenin, that we will fulfil your behest with honour!...<br />
<br />
"Departing from us, Comrade Lenin adjured us to guard the unity of our Party as the apple of our eye. We vow to you, Comrade Lenin, that this behest, too, we will fulfil with honour!...<br />
<br />
"Departing from us, Comrade Lenin adjured us to guard and strengthen the dictatorship of the proletariat. We vow to you, Comrade Lenin, that we will spare no effort to fulfil this behest, too, with honour!...<br />
<br />
"Departing from us, Comrade Lenin adjured us to strengthen with all our might the alliance of the workers and the peasants. We vow to you, Comrade Lenin, that this behest, too, we will fulfil with honour!...<br />
<br />
"Comrade Lenin untiringly urged upon us the necessity of maintaining the voluntary union of the nations of our country, the necessity for fraternal co-operation between them within the framework of the Union of Republics. Departing from us, Comrade Lenin adjured us to consolidate and extend the Union of Republics. We vow to you, Comrade Lenin, that this behest, too, we will fulfil with honour!...<br />
<br />
"More than once did Lenin point out to us that the strengthening of the Red Army and the improvement of its condition is one of the most important tasks of our Party...Let us vow then, comrades, that we will spare no effort to strengthen our Red Army and our Red Navy...<br />
<br />
"Departing from us, Comrade Lenin adjured us to remain faithful to the principles of the Communist International. We vow to you, Comrade Lenin, that we will not spare our lives to strengthen and extend the union of the toilers of the whole world—the Communist International!" (Joseph Stalin, ''The Lenin Heritage.'')</blockquote>This was the vow made by the Bolshevik Party to its leader, Lenin, whose memory will live throughout the ages.<br />
<br />
In May 1924 the Party held its Thirteenth Congress. It was attended by 748 voting delegates, representing a Party membership of 735,88i. This marked increase in membership in comparison with the previous congress was due to the admission of some 250,000 new members under the Lenin Enrolment. There were 4i6 delegates with voice but no vote.<br />
<br />
The congress unanimously condemned the platform of the Trotskyite opposition, defining it as a petty-bourgeois deviation from Marxism, as a revision of Leninism, and endorsed the resolutions of the Thirteenth Party Conference on "Party Affairs" and "The Results of the Discussion."<br />
<br />
With the purpose of strengthening the bond between town and country, the congress gave instructions for a further expansion of industry, primarily of the light industries, while placing particular stress on the necessity for a rapid development of the iron and steel industry.<br />
<br />
The congress endorsed the formation of the People's Commissariat of Internal Trade and set the trading bodies the task of gaining control of the market and ousting private capital from the sphere of trade.<br />
<br />
The congress gave instructions for the increase of cheap state credit to the peasantry so as to oust the usurer from the countryside.<br />
<br />
The congress called for the maximum development of the co-operative movement among the peasantry as the paramount task in the countryside.<br />
<br />
Lastly, the congress stressed the profound importance of the Lenin Enrolment and drew the Party's attention to the necessity of devoting greater efforts to educating the young Party members—and above all the recruits of the Lenin Enrolment—in the principles of Leninism.<br />
<br />
=== The Soviet Union towards the end of the restoration period. The question of socialist construction and the victory of socialism in our country. Zinoviev-Kamenev “new opposition.” Fourteenth party congress. Policy of socialist industrialization of the country ===<br />
For over four years the Bolshevik Party and the working class had been working strenuously along the lines of the New Economic Policy. The heroic work of economic restoration was approaching completion. The economic and political might of the Soviet Union was steadily growing.<br />
<br />
By this time the international situation had undergone a change. Capitalism had withstood the first revolutionary onslaught of the masses after the imperialist war. The revolutionary movement in Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Poland and a number of other countries had been crushed. The bourgeoisie had been aided in this by the leaders of the compromising Social-Democratic parties. A temporary ebb in the tide of revolution set in. There began a temporary, partial stabilization of capitalism in Western Europe, a partial consolidation of the position of capitalism. But the stabilization of capitalism did not eliminate the basic contradictions rending capitalist society. On the contrary, the partial stabilization of capitalism aggravated the contradictions between the workers and the capitalists, between imperialism and the colonial nations, between the imperialist groups of the various countries. The stabilization of capitalism was preparing for a new explosion of contradictions, for new crises in the capitalist countries.<br />
<br />
Parallel with the stabilization of capitalism, proceeded the stabilization of the Soviet Union. But these two processes of stabilization were fundamentally different in character. Capitalist stabilization presaged a new crisis of capitalism. The stabilization of the Soviet Union meant a further growth of the economic and political might of the Socialist country.<br />
<br />
Despite the defeat of the revolution in the West, the position of the Soviet Union in the international arena continued to grow stronger, although, it is true, at a slower rate.<br />
<br />
In 1922, the Soviet Union had been invited to an international economic conference in Genoa, Italy. At the Genoa Conference the imperialist governments, emboldened by the defeat of the revolution in the capitalist countries, tried to bring new pressure to bear on the Soviet Republic, this time in diplomatic form. The imperialists presented brazen demands to the Soviet Republic. They demanded that the factories and plants which had been nationalized by the October Revolution be returned to the foreign capitalists; they demanded the payment of the debts of the tsarist government. In return, the imperialist states promised some trifling loans to the Soviet Government.<br />
<br />
The Soviet Union rejected these demands.<br />
<br />
The Genoa Conference was barren of result.<br />
<br />
The threat of a new intervention contained in the ultimatum of Lord Curzon, the British Foreign Secretary, in 1923, also met with the rebuff it deserved.<br />
<br />
Having tested the strength of the Soviet Government and convinced themselves of its stability, the capitalist states began one after another to resume diplomatic relations with our country. In 1924 diplomatic relations were restored with Great Britain, France, Japan and Italy.<br />
<br />
It was plain that the Soviet Union had been able to win a prolonged breathing space, a period of peace.<br />
<br />
The domestic situation had also changed. The self-sacrificing efforts of the workers and peasants, led by the Bolshevik Party, had borne fruit. The rapid development of the national economy was manifest. In the fiscal year 1924-25, agricultural output had already approached the pre-war level, amounting to 87 per cent of the pre-war output. In 1925 the large-scale industries of the U.S.S.R. were already producing about ''three-quarters'' of the pre-war industrial output. In the fiscal year 1924-25, the Soviet Union was able to invest 385,000,000 rubles in capital construction work. The plan for the electrification of the country was proceeding successfully. Socialism was consolidating its key positions in the national economy. Important successes had been won in the struggle against private capital in industry and trade.<br />
<br />
Economic progress was accompanied by a further improvement in the condition of the workers and peasants. The working class was growing rapidly. Wages had risen, and so had productivity of labour. The standard of living of the peasants had greatly improved. In 1924-25, the Workers' and Peasants' Government was able to assign nearly 290,000,000 rubles for the purpose of assisting the small peasants. The improvement in the condition of the workers and peasants led to greater political activity on the part of the masses. The dictatorship of the proletariat was now more firmly established. The prestige and influence of the Bolshevik Party had grown.<br />
<br />
The restoration of the national economy was approaching completion. But mere economic restoration, the mere attainment of the prewar level, was not enough for the Soviet Union, the land of Socialism in construction. The pre-war level was the level of a backward country. The advance had to be continued beyond that point. The prolonged breathing space gained by the Soviet state ensured the possibility of further development.<br />
<br />
But this raised the question in all its urgency: what were to be the perspectives, the character of our development, of our construction, what was to be the destiny of Socialism in the Soviet Union? In what direction was economic development in the Soviet Union to be carried on, in the direction of Socialism, or in some other direction? Should we and could we build a Socialist economic system; or were we fated but to manure the soil for another economic system, the capitalist economic system? Was it possible at all to build a Socialist economic system in the U.S.S.R., and, if so, could it be built in spite of the delay of the revolution in the capitalist countries, in spite of the stabilization of capitalism? Was it at all possible to build a Socialist economic system by way of the New Economic Policy, which, while it was strengthening and augmenting the forces of Socialism in the country in every way, nevertheless still promoted a certain growth of capitalism? How was a Socialist economic system to be constructed, from which end should its construction begin? All these questions confronted the Party towards the end of the restoration period, and no longer as theoretical questions, but as practical questions, as questions of everyday economic policy.<br />
<br />
All these questions needed straightforward and plain answers, so that our Party members engaged in the development of industry and agriculture, as well as the people generally, might know in what direction to work, towards Socialism, or towards capitalism.<br />
<br />
Unless plain answers were given to these questions, all our practical work of construction would be without perspective, work in the dark, labour in vain.<br />
<br />
The Party gave plain and definite answers to all these questions.<br />
<br />
Yes, replied the Party, a Socialist economic system could be and should be built in our country, for we had everything needed for the building of a Socialist economic system, for the building of a complete Socialist society. In October 19i7 the working class had vanquished capitalism ''politically'', by establishing its own political dictatorship. Since then the Soviet Government had been taking every measure to shatter the economic power of capitalism and to create conditions for the building of a Socialist economic system. These measures were: the expropriation of the capitalists and landlords; the conversion of the land, factories, mills, railways and the banks into public property; the adoption of the New Economic Policy; the building up of a state-owned Socialist industry; and the application of Lenin's co-operative plan. Now the main task was to proceed to build a new, Socialist economic system all over the country and thus smash capitalism ''economically'' as well. All our practical work, all our actions must be made to serve this main purpose. The working class could do it, and would do it. The realization of this colossal task must begin with the industrialization of the country. The Socialist industrialization of the country was the chief link in the chain; with it the construction of a Socialist economic system must begin. Neither the delay of the revolution in the West, nor the partial stabilization of capitalism in the non-Soviet countries could stop our advance— to Socialism. The New Economic Policy could only make this task easier, for it had been introduced by the Party with the specific purpose of facilitating the laying of a Socialist foundation for our economic system.<br />
<br />
Such was the Party's answer to the question—was the victory of Socialist construction possible in our country?<br />
<br />
But the Party knew that the problem of the victory of Socialism in one country did not end there. The construction of Socialism in the Soviet Union would be a momentous turning point in the history of mankind, a victory for the working class and peasantry of the U.S.S.R., marking a new epoch in the history of the world. Yet this was an internal affair of the U.S.S.R. and was only a part of the problem of the victory of Socialism. The other part of the problem was its international aspect. In substantiating the thesis that Socialism could be victorious in one country, Comrade Stalin had repeatedly pointed out that the question should be viewed from two aspects, the domestic and the international. As for the domestic aspect of the question, i.e., the class relations within the country, the working class and the peasantry of the U.S.S.R. were fully capable of vanquishing their own bourgeoisie ''economically'' and building a complete Socialist society. But there was also the international aspect of the question, namely, the sphere of foreign relations, the sphere of the relations between the Soviet Union and the capitalist countries, between the Soviet people and the international bourgeoisie, which hated the Soviet system and was seeking the chance to start again armed intervention in the Soviet Union, to make new attempts to restore capitalism in the U.S.S.R. And since the U.S.S.R. was as yet the only Socialist country, all the other countries remaining capitalist, the U.S.S.R. continued to be encircled by a capitalist world, which gave rise to the danger of capitalist intervention. Clearly, there would be a danger of capitalist intervention as long as this capitalist encirclement existed. Could the Soviet people by their own efforts destroy this external danger, the danger of capitalist intervention in the U.S.S.R.? No, they could not. They could not, because in order to destroy the danger of capitalist intervention the capitalist encirclement would have to be destroyed; and the capitalist encirclement could be destroyed only as a result of victorious proletarian revolutions in at least several countries. It followed from this that the victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., as expressed in the abolition of the capitalist economic system and the building of a Socialist economic system, could not be considered a ''final'' victory, inasmuch as the danger of foreign armed intervention and of attempts to restore capitalism had not been eliminated, and inasmuch as the Socialist country had no guarantee against this danger. To destroy the danger of foreign capitalist intervention, the capitalist encirclement would have to be destroyed.<br />
<br />
Of course, as long as the Soviet Government pursued a correct policy, the Soviet people and their Red Army would be able to beat off a new foreign capitalist intervention just as they had beaten off the first capitalist intervention of 1918-20. But this would not mean that the danger of new capitalist intervention would be eliminated. The defeat of the first intervention did not destroy the danger of new intervention, inasmuch as the source of the danger of intervention—the capitalist encirclement—continued to exist. Neither would the danger of intervention be destroyed by the defeat of the new intervention if the capitalist encirclement continued to exist.<br />
<br />
It followed from this that the victory of the proletarian revolution in the capitalist countries was a matter of vital concern to the working people of the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
Such was the Party's line on the question of the victory of Socialism in our country.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee demanded that this line be discussed at the forthcoming Fourteenth Party Conference, and that it be endorsed and accepted as the line of the Party, as a Party law, ''binding'' upon all Party members.<br />
<br />
This line of the Party came as a thunderbolt to the oppositionists, above all, because the Party lent it a specific and practical character, linked it with a practical plan for the Socialist industrialization of the country, and demanded that it be formulated as a Party law, as a resolution of the Fourteenth Party Conference, binding upon all Party members.<br />
<br />
The Trotskyites opposed this Party line and set up against it the Menshevik "theory of permanent revolution," which it would be an insult to Marxism to call a Marxist theory, and which denied the possibility of the victory of Socialist construction in the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
The Bukharinites did not venture to oppose the Party line outspokenly. But they furtively set up against it their own "theory" of the peaceful growing of the bourgeoisie into Socialism, amplifying it with a "new" slogan—"Get Rich!" According to the Bukharinites, the victory of Socialism meant fostering and encircling the bourgeoisie, not destroying it.<br />
<br />
Zinoviev and Kamenev ventured forth with the assertion that the victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. was impossible because of the country's technical and economic backwardness, but they soon found it prudent to hide under cover.<br />
<br />
The Fourteenth Party Conference (April, 1925) condemned all these capitulatory "theories" of the open and covert oppositionists and affirmed the Party line of working for the victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., adopting a resolution to this effect.<br />
<br />
Driven to the wall, Zinoviev and Kamenev preferred to vote for this resolution. But the Party knew that they had only postponed their struggle and had decided to "give battle to the Party" at the Fourteenth Party Congress. They were mustering a following in Leningrad and forming the so-called "New Opposition."<br />
<br />
The Fourteenth Party Congress opened in December 1925.<br />
<br />
The situation within the Party was tense and strained. Never in its history had there been a case when the whole delegation from an important Party centre like Leningrad had prepared to come out in opposition to their Central Committee.<br />
<br />
The congress was attended by 665 delegates with vote and 641 with voice but no vote, representing 643,000 Party members and 445,000 candidate members, or a little less than at the previous congress. The reduction was due to a partial purge, a purge of the Party organizations in universities and offices to which anti-Party elements had gained entrance.<br />
<br />
The political report of the Central Committee was made by Comrade Stalin. He drew a vivid picture of the growth of the political and economic might of the Soviet Union. Thanks to the advantages of the Soviet economic system, both industry and agriculture had been restored in a comparatively short space of time and were approaching the pre-war level. But good as these results were, Comrade Stalin proposed that we should not rest there, for they could not nullify the fact that our country still remained a backward, agrarian country. Two-thirds of the total production of the country was provided by agriculture and only one-third by industry. Comrade Stalin said that the Party was now squarely confronted with the problem of converting our country into an industrial country, economically independent of capitalist countries. This could be done, and must be done. It was now the cardinal task of the Party to fight for the Socialist industrialization of the country, for the victory of Socialism.<blockquote>"The conversion of our country from an agrarian into an industrial country able to produce the machinery it needs by its own efforts—that is the essence, the basis of our general line," said Comrade Stalin.</blockquote>The industrialization of the country would ensure its economic independence, strengthen its power of defence and create the conditions for the victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
The Zinovievites opposed the general line of the Party. As against Stalin's plan of Socialist industrialization, the Zinovievite Sokolnikov put forward a bourgeois plan, one that was then in vogue among the imperialist sharks. According to this plan, the U.S.S.R. was to remain an agrarian country, chiefly producing raw materials and foodstuffs, exporting them, and importing machinery, which it did not and should not produce itself. As conditions were in 1925, this was tantamount to a plan for the economic enslavement of the U.S.S.R. by the industrially-developed foreign countries, a plan for the perpetuation of the industrial backwardness of the U.S.S.R. for the benefit of the imperialist sharks of the capitalist countries.<br />
<br />
The adoption of this plan would have converted our country into an impotent agrarian, agricultural appendage of the capitalist world; it would have left it weak and defenceless against the surrounding capitalist world, and in the end would have been fatal to the cause of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
The congress condemned the economic "plan" of the Zinovievites as a plan for the enslavement of the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
Equally unsuccessful were the other sorties of the "New Opposition" as, for instance, when they asserted (in defiance of Lenin) that our state industries were not Socialist industries, or when they declared (again in defiance of Lenin) that the middle peasant could not be an ally of the working class in the work of Socialist construction.<br />
<br />
The congress condemned these sorties of the "New Opposition" as anti-Leninist.<br />
<br />
Comrade Stalin laid bare the Trotskyite-Menshevik essence of the "New Opposition." He showed that Zinoviev and Kamenev were only harping on the old tunes of the enemies of the Party with whom Lenin had waged so relentless a struggle.<br />
<br />
It was clear that the Zinovievites were nothing but ill-disguised Trotskyites.<br />
<br />
Comrade Stalin stressed the point that the main task of our Party was to maintain a firm alliance between the working class and the middle peasant in the work of building Socialism. He pointed to two deviations on the peasant question existing in the Party at that time, both of which constituted a menace to this alliance. The first deviation was the one that underestimated and belittled the kulak danger, the second was the one that stood in panic fear of the kulak and underestimated the role of the middle peasant. To the question, which deviation was worse, Comrade Stalin replied: "One is as bad as the other. And if these deviations are allowed to develop they may disintegrate and destroy the Party. Fortunately there are forces in our Party capable of ridding it of both deviations."<br />
<br />
And the Party did indeed rout both deviations, the "Left" and the Right, and rid itself of them.<br />
<br />
Summing up the debate on the question of economic development, the Fourteenth Party Congress unanimously rejected the capitulatory plans of the oppositionists and recorded in its now famous resolution:<blockquote>"In the sphere of economic development, the congress holds that in our land, the land of the dictatorship of the proletariat, there is 'every requisite for the building of a complete Socialist society' (Lenin). The congress considers that the main task of our Party is to fight for the victory of Socialist construction in the U.S.S.R."</blockquote>The Fourteenth Party Congress adopted new Party Rules.<br />
<br />
Since the Fourteenth Congress our Party has been called the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)—the C.P.S.U.(B.).<br />
<br />
Though defeated at the congress, the Zinovievites did not submit to the Party. They started a fight against the decisions of the Fourteenth Congress. Immediately following the congress, Zinoviev called a meeting of the Leningrad Provincial Committee of the Young Communist League, the leading group of which had been reared by Zinoviev, Za-lutsky, Bakayev, Yevdokimov, Kuklin, Safarov and other double-dealers in a spirit of hatred of the Leninist Central Committee of the Party. At this meeting, the Leningrad Provincial Committee passed a resolution unparalleled in the history of the Y.C.L.: it refused to abide by the decisions of the Fourteenth Party Congress.<br />
<br />
But the Zinovievite leaders of the Leningrad Y.C.L. did not in any way reflect the mind of the mass of Young Communist Leaguers of Leningrad. They were therefore easily defeated, and soon the Leningrad organization recovered the place in the Y.C.L. to which it was entitled.<br />
<br />
Towards the close of the Fourteenth Congress a group of congress delegates—Comrades Molotov, Kirov, Voroshilov, Kalinin, Andreyev and others—were sent to Leningrad to explain to the members of the Leningrad Party organization the criminal, anti-Bolshevik nature of the stand taken up at the congress by the Leningrad delegation, who had secured their mandates under false pretences. The meetings at which the reports on the congress were made were marked by stormy scenes. An extraordinary conference of the Leningrad Party organization was called. The overwhelming majority of the Party members of Leningrad (over 97 per cent) fully endorsed the decisions of the Fourteenth Party Congress and condemned the anti-Party Zinovievite "New Opposition." The latter already at that time were generals without an army.<br />
<br />
The Leningrad Bolsheviks remained in the front ranks of the Party of Lenin-Stalin.<br />
<br />
Summing up the results of the Fourteenth Party Congress, Comrade Stalin wrote:<blockquote>"The historical significance of the Fourteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U. lies in the fact that it was able to expose the very roots of the mistakes of the New Opposition, that it spurned their scepticism and sniveling, that it clearly and distinctly indicated the path of the further struggle for Socialism, opened before the Party the prospect of victory, and thus armed the proletariat with an invincible faith in the victory of Socialist construction." (Stalin, ''Leninism,'' Vol. I, p. 319.)</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Brief summary ===<br />
The years of transition to the peaceful work of economic restoration constituted one of the most crucial periods in the history of the Bolshevik Party. In a tense situation, the Party was able to effect the difficult turn from the policy of War Communism to the New Economic Policy. The Party reinforced the alliance of the workers and peasants on a new economic foundation. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was formed.<br />
<br />
By means of the New Economic Policy, decisive results were obtained in the restoration of the economic life of the country. The Soviet Union emerged from the period of economic restoration with success and entered a new period, the period of industrialization of the country.<br />
<br />
The transition from Civil War to peaceful Socialist construction was accompanied by great difficulties, especially in the early stages. The enemies of Bolshevism, the anti-Party elements in the ranks of the C.P.S.U.(B.), waged a desperate struggle against the Leninist Party all through this period. These anti-Party elements were headed by Trotsky. His henchmen in this struggle were Kamenev, Zinoviev and Bukharin. After the death of Lenin, the oppositionists calculated on demoralizing the ranks of the Bolshevik Party, on splitting the Party, and infecting it with disbelief in the possibility of the victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. In point of fact, the Trotskyites were trying to form another party in the U.S.S.R., a political organization of the new bourgeoisie, a party of capitalist restoration.<br />
<br />
The Party rallied under the banner of Lenin around its Leninist Central Committee, around Comrade Stalin, and inflicted defeat both on the Trotskyites and on their new friends in Leningrad, the Zinoviev-Kamenev New Opposition.<br />
<br />
Having accumulated strength and resources, the Bolshevik Party brought the country to a new stage in its history—the stage of Socialist industrialization.<br />
<br />
== The Bolshevik party in the struggle for the socialist industrialization of the country (1926—1929) ==<br />
<br />
=== Difficulties in the period of socialist industrialization and the fight to overcome them. Formation of the anti-party bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites. Anti-soviet actions of the bloc. Defeat of the bloc ===<br />
After the Fourteenth Congress, the Party launched a vigorous struggle for the realization of the general line of the Soviet Government — the ''Socialist industrialization'' of the country.<br />
<br />
In the restoration period the task had been to revive agriculture before all else, so as to obtain raw materials and foodstuffs, to restore and to set going the industries, the existing mills and factories.<br />
<br />
The Soviet Government coped with this task with comparative ease.<br />
<br />
But in the restoration period there were three major shortcomings:<br />
<br />
First, the mills and factories were old, equipped with worn-out and antiquated machinery, and might soon go out of commission. The task now was to re-equip them on up-to-date lines.<br />
<br />
Secondly, industry in the restoration period rested on too narrow a foundation: it lacked machine-building plants absolutely indispensable to the country. Hundreds of these plants had to be built, for without them no country can be considered as being really industrialized. The task now was to build these plants and to equip them on up-to-date lines.<br />
<br />
Thirdly, the industries in this period were mostly light industries. These were developed and put on their feet. But, beyond a certain point, the further development even of the light industries met an obstacle in the weakness of heavy industry, not to mention the fact that the country had other requirements which could be satisfied only by a well-developed heavy industry. The task now was to tip the scales in favour of heavy industry.<br />
<br />
All these new tasks were to be accomplished by the policy of Socialist industrialization.<br />
<br />
It was necessary to build up a large number of new industries, industries which had not existed in tsarist Russia—new machinery, machine-tool, automobile, chemical, and iron and steel plants—to organize the production of engines and power equipment, and to increase the mining of ore and coal. This was essential for the victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
It was necessary to create a new munitions industry, to erect new works for the production of artillery, shells, aircraft, tanks and machine guns. This was essential for the defence of the U.S.S.R., surrounded as it was by a capitalist world.<br />
<br />
It was necessary to build tractor works and plants for the production of modern agricultural machinery, and to furnish agriculture with these machines, so as to enable millions of small individual peasant farms to pass to large-scale collective farming. This was essential for the victory of Socialism in the countryside.<br />
<br />
All this was to be achieved by the policy of industrialization, for that is what the Socialist industrialization of the country meant.<br />
<br />
Clearly, construction work on so large a scale would necessitate the investment of thousands of millions of rubles. To count on foreign loans was out of the question, for the capitalist countries refused to grant loans. We had to build with our own resources, without foreign assistance. But we were then a poor country.<br />
<br />
There lay one of the chief difficulties.<br />
<br />
Capitalist countries as a rule built up their heavy industries with funds obtained from abroad, whether by colonial plunder, or by exacting indemnities from vanquished nations, or else by foreign loans. The Soviet Union could not as a matter of principle resort to such infamous means of obtaining funds as the plunder of colonies or of vanquished nations. As for foreign loans, that avenue was closed to the U.S.S.R., as the capitalist countries refused to lend it anything. The funds had to be found ''inside'' the country.<br />
<br />
And they were found. Financial sources were tapped in the U.S.S.R. such as could not be tapped in any capitalist country. The Soviet state had taken over all the mills, factories, and lands which the October Socialist Revolution had wrested from the capitalists and landlords, all the means of transportation, the banks, and home and foreign trade. The profits from the state-owned mills and factories, and from the means of transportation, trade and the banks now went to further the expansion of industry, and not into the pockets of a parasitic capitalist class.<br />
<br />
The Soviet Government had annulled the tsarist debts, on which the people had annually paid hundreds of millions of gold rubles in interest alone. By abolishing the right of the landlords to the land, the Soviet Government had freed the peasantry from the annual payment of about 500,000,000 gold rubles in rent. Released from this burden, the peasantry was in a position to help the state to build a new and powerful industry. The peasants had a vital interest in obtaining tractors and other agricultural machinery.<br />
<br />
All these sources of revenue were in the hands of the Soviet state. They could yield hundreds and thousands of millions of rubles for the creation of a heavy industry. All that was needed was a business-like approach, the strictly economical expenditure of funds, rationalization of industry, reduction of costs of production, elimination of unproductive expenditure, etc.<br />
<br />
And this was the course the Soviet Government adopted.<br />
<br />
Thanks to a regime of strict economy, the funds available for capital development increased from year to year. This made it possible to start on gigantic construction works like the Dnieper Hydro-Electric Power Station, the Turkestan-Siberian Railway, the Stalingrad Tractor Works, a number of machine-tool works, the AMO (ZIS) Automobile Works and others.<br />
<br />
Whereas in 1926-27 about 1,000,000,000 rubles were invested in industry, three years later it was found possible to invest about 5,000,000,000 rubles.<br />
<br />
Industrialization was making steady headway.<br />
<br />
The capitalist countries looked upon the growing strength of the Socialist economic system in the U.S.S.R. as a threat to the existence of the capitalist system. Accordingly, the imperialist governments did everything they could to bring new pressure to bear on the U.S.S.R., to create a feeling of uncertainty and uneasiness in the country, and to frustrate, or at least to impede, the industrialization of the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
In May 1927, the British Conservative Die-hards, then in office, organized a provocative raid on Arcos (the Soviet trading body in Great Britain). On May 26, 1927, the British Conservative Government broke off diplomatic and trade relations with the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
On June 7, 1927, Comrade Voikov, the Soviet Ambassador in Warsaw, was assassinated by a Russian Whiteguard, a naturalized Polish subject.<br />
<br />
About this time, too, in the U.S.S.R. itself, British spies and diversionists hurled bombs at a meeting in a Party club in Leningrad, wounding about 30 people, some of them severely.<br />
<br />
In the summer of 1927, almost simultaneous raids were made on the Soviet Embassies and Trade Representations in Berlin, Peking, Shanghai and Tientsin.<br />
<br />
This created additional difficulties for the Soviet Government.<br />
<br />
But the U.S.S.R. refused to be intimidated and easily repulsed the provocative attempts of the imperialists and their agents.<br />
<br />
No less were the difficulties caused to the Party and the Soviet state by the subversive activities of the Trotskyites and other oppositionists. Comrade Stalin had good reason to say that "something like a united front from Chamberlain to Trotsky is being formed" against the Soviet Government. In spite of the decisions of the Fourteenth Party Congress and the professions of loyalty of the oppositionists, the latter had not laid down their arms. On the contrary, they intensified their efforts to undermine and split the Party.<br />
<br />
In the summer of 1926, the Trotskyites and Zinovievites united to form an anti-Party bloc, made it a rallying point for the remnants of all the defeated opposition groups, and laid the foundation of their secret anti-Leninist party, thereby grossly violating the Party Rules and the decisions of Party congresses forbidding the formation of factions. The Central Committee of the Party gave warning that unless this anti-Party bloc—which resembled the notorious Menshevik August Bloc— were dissolved, matters might end badly for its adherents. But the supporters of the bloc would not desist.<br />
<br />
That autumn, on the eve of the Fifteenth Party Conference, they made a sortie at Party meetings in the factories of Moscow, Leningrad and other cities, attempting to force a new discussion on the Party. The platform they tried to get the Party members to discuss was a rehash of the usual Trotskyite-Menshevik anti-Leninist platform. The Party members gave the oppositionists a severe rebuff, and in some places simply ejected them from the meetings. The Central Committee again warned the supporters of the bloc, stating that the Party could not tolerate their subversive activities any longer.<br />
<br />
The opposition then submitted to the Central Committee a statement signed by Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Sokolnikov condemning their own factional work and promising to be loyal in the future. Nevertheless, the bloc continued to exist and its adherents did not stop their underhand work against the Party. They went on banding together their anti-Leninist party, started an illegal printing press, collected membership dues from their supporters and circulated their platform.<br />
<br />
In view of the behaviour of the Trotskyites and Zinovievites, the Fifteenth Party Conference (November 1926) and the Enlarged Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International (December 1926) discussed the question of the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites and adopted resolutions stigmatizing the adherents of this bloc as splitters whose platform was downright Menshevism.<br />
<br />
But even this failed to bring them to their senses. In 1927, just when the British Conservatives broke off diplomatic and trade relations with the U.S.S.R., the bloc attacked the Party with renewed vigour. It concocted a new anti-Leninist platform, the so-called "Platform of the Eighty-Three" and began to circulate it among Party members, at the same time demanding that the Central Committee open a new general Party discussion.<br />
<br />
This was perhaps the most mendacious and pharisaical of all opposition platforms.<br />
<br />
In their platform, the Trotskyites and Zinovievites professed that they had no objection to observing Party decisions and that they were all in favour of loyalty, but in reality they grossly violated the Party decisions, and scoffed at the very idea of loyalty to the Party and to its Central Committee.<br />
<br />
In their platform, they professed they had no objection to Party unity and were against splits, but in reality they grossly violated Party unity, worked for a split, and already had their own, illegal, anti-Leninist party which had all the makings of an anti-Soviet, counter-revolutionary party.<br />
<br />
In their platform, they professed they were all in favour of the policy of industrialization, and even accused the Central Committee of not proceeding with industrialization fast enough, but in reality they did nothing but carp at the Party resolution on the victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., scoffed at the policy of Socialist industrialization, demanded the surrender of a number of mills and factories to foreigners in the form of concessions, and pinned their main hopes on foreign capitalist concessions in the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
In their platform, they professed they were all in favour of the collective-farm movement, and even accused the Central Committee of not proceeding with collectivization fast enough, but in reality they scoffed at the policy of enlisting the peasants in the work of Socialist construction, preached the idea that "unresolvable conflicts" between the working class and the peasantry were inevitable, and pinned their hopes on the "cultured leaseholders" in the countryside, in other words, on the kulaks.<br />
<br />
This was the most mendacious of all the platforms of the opposition. It was meant to deceive the Party.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee refused to open a general discussion immediately. It informed the opposition that a general discussion could be opened only in accordance with the Party Rules, namely, two months before a Party congress.<br />
<br />
In October 1927, that is, two months before the Fifteenth Congress, the Central Committee of the Party announced a general Party discussion, and the fight began. Its result was truly lamentable for the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites: 724,000 Party members voted for the policy of the Central Committee; 4,000, or less than one per cent, for the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites. The anti-Party bloc was completely routed. The overwhelming majority of the Party members were unanimous in rejecting the platform of the bloc.<br />
<br />
Such was the clearly expressed will of the Party, for whose judgment the oppositionists themselves had appealed.<br />
<br />
But even this lesson was lost on the supporters of the bloc. Instead of submitting to the will of the Party they decided to frustrate it. Even before the discussion had closed, perceiving that ignominious failure awaited them, they decided to resort to more acute forms of struggle against the Party and the Soviet Government and to stage an open demonstration of protest in Moscow and Leningrad. The day they chose for their demonstration was November 7, the anniversary of the October Revolution, the day on which the working people of the U.S.S.R. annually hold their countrywide revolutionary demonstration. Thus, the Trotskyites and Zinovievites planned to hold a parallel demonstration. As was to be expected, the supporters of the bloc managed to bring out into the streets only a miserable handful of their satellites. These satellites and their patrons were overwhelmed by the general demonstration and swept off the streets.<br />
<br />
Now there was no longer any doubt that the Trotskyites and Zinovievites had become definitely anti-Soviet. During the general Party discussion they had appealed to the Party against the Central Committee; now, during their puny demonstration, they had taken the course of appealing to the hostile classes against the Party and the Soviet state. Once they had made it their aim to undermine the Bolshevik Party, they were bound to go to the length of undermining the Soviet state, for in the Soviet Union the Bolshevik Party and the state are inseparable. That being the case, the ringleaders of the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites had outlawed themselves from the Party, for men who had sunk to the depths of anti-Soviet action could no longer be tolerated in the ranks of the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
On November 14, 1927, a joint meeting of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission expelled Trotsky and Zinoviev from the Party.<br />
<br />
=== Progress of socialist industrialization. Agriculture lags. Fifteenth party congress. Policy of collectivization in agriculture. Rout of the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites. Political duplicity ===<br />
By the end of 1927 the decisive success of the policy of Socialist industrialization was unmistakable. Under the New Economic Policy industrialization had made considerable progress in a short space of time. The gross output of industry and agriculture (including the timber industry and fisheries) had reached and even surpassed the pre-war level. Industrial output had risen to 42 per cent of the total output of the country, which was the pre-war ratio.<br />
<br />
The Socialist sector of industry was rapidly growing at the expense of the private sector, its output having risen from 81 per cent of the total output in 1924-25 to 86 per cent in 1926-27, the output of the private sector dropping from 19 per cent to 14 per cent in the same period.<br />
<br />
This meant that industrialization in the U.S.S.R. was of a pronounced Socialist character, that industry was developing towards the victory of the Socialist system of production, and that as far as industry was concerned, the question—"Who will win?"—had already been decided in favour of Socialism.<br />
<br />
No less rapid was the displacement of the private dealer in the sphere of trade, his share in the retail market having fallen from 42 per cent in 1924-25 to 32 per cent in 1926-27, not to mention the wholesale market, where the share of the private dealer had fallen from 9 per cent to 5 per cent in the same period.<br />
<br />
Even more rapid was the rate of growth of ''large-scale'' Socialist industry, which in 1927, the first year ''after'' the restoration period, increased its output over the previous year by 18 per cent. This was a record increase, one beyond the reach of the large-scale industry of even the most advanced capitalist countries.<br />
<br />
But in agriculture, especially grain growing, the picture was different. Although agriculture as a whole had passed the pre-war level, the gross yield of its most important branch—grain growing—was only 91 per cent of pre-war, while the marketed share of the harvest, that is, the amount of grain sold for the supply of the towns, scarcely attained 37 per cent of the pre-war figure. Furthermore, all the signs pointed to the danger of a further decline in the amount of marketable grain.<br />
<br />
This meant that the process of the splitting up of the large farms that used to produce for the market, into small farms, and of the small farms into dwarf farms, a process which had begun in 1918, was still going on; that these small and dwarf peasant farms were reverting practically to a natural form of economy and were able to supply only a negligible quantity of grain for the market; that while in the 1927 period the grain crop was only slightly below that of the pre-war period, the marketable surplus for the supply of the towns was only a little more than one-third of the pre-war marketable surplus.<br />
<br />
There could be no doubt that if such a state of affairs in grain farming were to continue, the army and the urban population would be faced with chronic famine.<br />
<br />
This was a crisis in grain farming which was bound to be followed by a crisis in livestock farming.<br />
<br />
The only escape from this predicament was a change to large-scale farming which would permit the use of tractors and agricultural machines and secure a several-fold increase of the marketable surplus of grain. The country had the alternative: either to adopt large-scale ''capitalist'' farming, which would have meant the ruin of the peasant masses, destroyed the alliance between the working class and the peasantry, increased the strength of the kulaks, and led to the downfall of Socialism in the countryside; or to take the course of amalgamating the small peasant holdings into large ''Socialist'' farms, collective farms, which would be able to use tractors and other modern machines for a rapid advancement of grain farming and a rapid increase in the marketable surplus of gain.<br />
<br />
It is clear that the Bolshevik Party and the Soviet state could only take the second course, the collective farm way of developing agriculture.<br />
<br />
In this, the Party was guided by the following precepts of Lenin regarding the necessity of passing from small peasant farming to large-scale, co-operative, collective farming:<br />
<br />
# "There is no escape from poverty for the small farm." (Lenin, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. VIII, p. 195.)<br />
# "If we continue as of old on our small farms, even as free citizens on free land, we shall still be faced with inevitable ruin." (Lenin, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. VI, p. 370.)<br />
# "If peasant farming is to develop further, we must firmly assure also its transition to the next stage, and this next stage must inevitably be one in which the small, isolated peasant farms, the least profitable and most backward, will by a process of gradual amalgamation form large-scale collective farms." (Lenin, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. IX, p. 151.)<br />
# "Only if we succeed in proving to the peasants in practice the advantages of common, collective, co-operative, artel cultivation of the soil, only if we succeed in helping the peasant by means of co-operative or artel farming, will the working class, which holds the state power, be really able to convince the peasant of the correctness of its policy and to secure the real and durable following of the millions of peasants." (Lenin, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. VIII, p. 198.)<br />
<br />
Such was the situation prior to the Fifteenth Party Congress.<br />
<br />
The Fifteenth Party Congress opened on December 2, 1927. It was attended by 898 delegates with vote and 771 delegates with voice but no vote, representing 887,233 Party members and 348,957 candidate members.<br />
<br />
In his report on behalf of the Central Committee, Comrade Stalin referred to the good results of industrialization and the rapid expansion of Socialist industry, and set the Party the following task:<blockquote>"To extend and consolidate our Socialist key position in all economic branches in town and country and to pursue a course of eliminating the capitalist elements from the national economy."</blockquote>Comparing agriculture with industry and noting the backwardness of the former, especially of grain growing, owing to the scattered state of agriculture, which precluded the use of modern machinery, Comrade Stalin emphasized that such an unenviable state of agriculture was endangering the entire national economy.<blockquote>"What is the way out?" Comrade Stalin asked.<br />
<br />
"The way out," he said, "is to turn the small and scattered peasant farms into large united farms based on the common cultivation of the soil, to introduce collective cultivation of the soil on the basis of a new and higher technique. The way out is to unite the small and dwarf peasant farms gradually but surely, not by pressure, but by example and persuasion, into large farms based on common, cooperative, collective cultivation of the soil with the use of agricultural machines and tractors and scientific methods of intensive agriculture. There is no other way out."</blockquote>The Fifteenth Congress passed a resolution calling for the fullest development of ''collectivization'' in agriculture. The congress adopted a plan for the extension and consolidation of the collective farms and state farms and formulated explicit instructions concerning the methods to be used in the struggle for collectivization in agriculture.<br />
<br />
At the same time, the congress gave directions:<blockquote>"To develop further the offensive against the kulaks and to adopt a number of new measures which would restrict the development of capitalism in the countryside and guide peasant farming towards Socialism." (Resolutions of the ''C.P.S.U.[B.''], Russ. ed., Part II, p. 260.)</blockquote>Finally, in view of the fact that economic planning had taken firm root, and with the object of organizing a systematic offensive of Socialism against the capitalist elements along the entire economic front, the congress gave instructions to the proper bodies for the drawing up of the ''First Five-Year Plan'' for the development of the national economy.<br />
<br />
After passing decisions on the problems of Socialist construction, the congress proceeded to discuss the question of liquidating the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites.<br />
<br />
The congress recognized that "the opposition has ideologically broken with Leninism, has degenerated into a Menshevik group, has taken the course of capitulation to the forces of the international and home bourgeoisie, and has objectively become a tool of counter-revolution against the regime of the proletarian dictatorship." (''Ibid''., p. 232.)<br />
<br />
The congress found that the differences between the Party and the opposition had developed into differences of program, and that the Trotsky opposition had taken the course of struggle against the Soviet power. The congress therefore declared that adherence to the Trotsky opposition and the propagation of its views were incompatible with membership of the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
The congress approved the decision of the joint meeting of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission to expel Trotsky and Zinoviev from the Party and resolved on the expulsion of all active members of the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites, such as Radek, Preobrazhensky, Rakovsky, Pyatakov, Serebryakov, I. Smirnov, Kamenev, Sarkis, Safarov, Lifshitz, Mdivani, Smilga and the whole "Democratic-Centralism" group (Sapronov, V. Smirnov, Boguslavsky, Drobnis and others).<br />
<br />
Defeated ideologically and routed organizationally, the adherents of the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites lost the last vestiges of their influence among the people.<br />
<br />
Shortly after the Fifteenth Party Congress, the expelled anti-Leninists began to hand in statements, recanting Trotskyism and asking to be reinstated in the Party. Of course, at that time the Party could not yet know that Trotsky, Rakovsky, Radek, Krestinsky, Sokolnikov and others had long been enemies of the people, spies recruited by foreign espionage services, and that Kamenev, Zinoviev, Pyatakov and others were already forming connections with enemies of the U.S.S.R. in capitalist countries for the purpose of "collaboration" with them against the Soviet people. But experience had taught the Party that any knavery might be expected from these individuals, who had often attacked Lenin and the Leninist Party at the most crucial moments. It was therefore sceptical of the statements they had made in their applications for reinstatement. As a preliminary test of their sincerity, it made their reinstatement in the Party dependent on the following conditions:<br />
<br />
a) They must publicly denounce Trotskyism as an anti-Bolshevik and anti-Soviet ideology.<br />
<br />
b) They must publicly acknowledge the Party policy as the only correct policy.<br />
<br />
c) They must unconditionally abide by the decisions of the Party and its bodies.<br />
<br />
d) They must undergo a term of probation, during which the Party would test them; on the expiration of this term, the Party would consider the reinstatement of each applicant separately, depending on the results of the test.<br />
<br />
The Party considered that in any case the public acceptance of these points by the expelled would be all to the good of the Party, because it would break the unity of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite ranks, undermine their morale, demonstrate once more the right and the might of the Party, and enable the Party, if the applicants were sincere, to reinstate its former workers in its ranks, and if they were not sincere, to unmask them in the public eye, no longer as misguided individuals, but as unprincipled careerists, deceivers of the working class and incorrigible double-dealers.<br />
<br />
The majority of the expelled accepted the terms of reinstatement and made public statements in the press to this effect.<br />
<br />
Desiring to be clement to them, and loath to deny them an opportunity of once again becoming men of the Party and of the working class, the Party reinstated them in its ranks.<br />
<br />
However, time showed that, with few exceptions, the recantations of the "leading lights" of the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites were false and hypocritical from beginning to end.<br />
<br />
It turned out that even before they had handed in their applications, these gentry had ceased to represent a political trend ready to defend their views before the people, and had become an unprincipled gang of careerists who were prepared publicly to trample on the last remnants of their own views, publicly to praise the views of the Party, which were alien to them, and—like chameleons—to adopt any colouring, provided they could maintain themselves in the ranks of the Party and the working class and have the opportunity to do harm to the working class and to its Party.<br />
<br />
The "leading lights" of the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites proved to be political swindlers, political double-dealers.<br />
<br />
Political double-dealers usually begin with deceit and prosecute their nefarious ends by deceiving the people, the working class, and the Party of the working class. But political double-dealers are not to be regarded as mere humbugs. Political double-dealers are an unprincipled gang of political careerists who, having long ago lost the confidence of the people, strive to insinuate themselves once more into their confidence by deception, by chameleon-like changes of colour, by fraud, by any means, only that they might retain the title of political figures. Political double-dealers are an unprincipled gang of political careerists who are ready to seek support anywhere, even among criminal elements, even among the scum of society, even among the mortal enemies of the people, only that they might be able, at a "propitious" moment, again to mount the political stage and to clamber on to the back of the people as their "rulers."<br />
<br />
The "leading lights" of the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites were political double-dealers of this very description.<br />
<br />
=== Offensive against the kulaks. The Bukharin-Rykov anti-party group. Adoption of the first five-year plan. Socialist emulation. Beginning of the mass collective-farm movement ===<br />
The agitation conducted by the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites against the Party policy, against the building of Socialism, and against collectivization, as well as the agitation conducted by the Bukharinites, who said that nothing would come of the collective farms, that the kulaks should be let alone because they would "grow" into Socialism of themselves, and that the enrichment of the bourgeoisie represented no danger to Socialism—all found an eager response among the capitalist elements in the country, and above all among the kulaks. The kulaks now knew from comments in the press that they were not alone, that they had defenders and intercessors in the persons of Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Rykov and others. Naturally, this could not but stiffen the kulaks' spirit of resistance against the policy of the Soviet Government. And, in fact, the resistance of the kulaks became increasingly stubborn. They refused en masse to sell to the Soviet state their grain surpluses, of which they had considerable hoards. They resorted to terrorism against the collective farmers, against Party workers and government officials in the countryside, and burned down collective farms and state granaries.<br />
<br />
The Party realized that until the resistance of the kulaks was broken, until they were defeated in open fight in full view of the peasantry, the working class and the Red Army would suffer from a food shortage, and the movement for collectivization among the peasants could not assume a mass character.<br />
<br />
In pursuance of the instructions of the Fifteenth Party Congress, the Party launched a determined offensive against the kulaks, putting into effect the slogan: rely firmly on the poor peasantry, strengthen the alliance with the middle peasantry, and wage a resolute struggle against the kulaks. In answer to the kulaks' refusal to sell their grain surpluses to the state at the fixed prices, the Party and the Government adopted a number of emergency measures against the kulaks, applied Article 107 of the Criminal Code empowering the courts to confiscate grain surpluses from kulaks and profiteers in case they refused to sell them to the state at the fixed prices, and granted the poor peasants a number of privileges, under which 25 per cent of the confiscated kulak grain was placed at their disposal.<br />
<br />
These emergency measures had their effect: the poor and middle peasants joined in the resolute fight against the kulaks; the kulaks were isolated, and the resistance of the kulaks and the profiteers was broken. By the end of 1928, the Soviet state already had sufficient stocks of grain at its disposal, and the collective-farm movement began to advance with surer strides.<br />
<br />
That same year, a large organization of wreckers, consisting of bourgeois experts, was discovered in the Shakhty district of the Donetz Coal Basin. The Shakhty wreckers were closely connected with the former mine owners—Russian and foreign capitalists—and with a foreign military espionage service. Their aim was to disrupt the development of Socialist industry and to facilitate the restoration of capitalism in the U.S.S.R. The wreckers had deliberately mismanaged the mines in order to reduce the output of coal, spoiled machinery and ventilation apparatus, caused roof-falls and explosions, and set fire to pits, plants and power-stations. The wreckers had deliberately obstructed the improvement of the workers' conditions and had infringed the Soviet labour protection laws.<br />
<br />
The wreckers were put on trial and met with their deserts.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee of the Party directed all Party organizations to draw the necessary conclusions from the Shakhty case. Comrade Stalin declared that Bolshevik business executives must themselves become experts in the technique of production, so as no longer to be the dupes of the wreckers among the old bourgeois experts, and that the training of new technical personnel from the ranks of the working class must be accelerated.<br />
<br />
In accordance with a decision of the Central Committee, the training of young experts in the technical colleges was improved. Thousands of Party members, members of the Young Communist League and non-Party people devoted to the cause of the working class were mobilized for study.<br />
<br />
Before the Party took the offensive against the kulaks, and while it was engaged in liquidating the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites, the Bukharin-Rykov group had been more or less lying low, holding themselves as a reserve of the anti-Party forces, not venturing to support the Trotskyites openly, and sometimes even acting together with the Party against the Trotskyites. But when the Party assumed the offensive against the kulaks, and adopted emergency measures against them, the Bukharin-Rykov group threw off their mask and began to attack the Party policy openly. The kulak soul of the Bukharin-Rykov group got the better of them, and they began to come out openly in defence of the kulaks. They demanded the repeal of the emergency measures, frightening the simple-minded with the argument that otherwise agriculture would begin to "decay," and even affirming that this process had already begun. Blind to the growth of the collective farms and state farms, those superior forms of agricultural organization, and perceiving the decline of kulak farming, they represented the decay of the latter as the decay of agriculture. In order to provide a theoretical backing for their case, they concocted the absurd "theory of the subsidence of the class-struggle," maintaining, on the strength of this theory, that the class struggle would grow milder with every victory gained by Socialism against the capitalist elements, that the class struggle would soon subside altogether and the class enemy would surrender all his positions without a fight, and that, consequently, there was no need for an offensive against the kulaks. In this way they tried to furbish up their threadbare bourgeois theory that the kulaks would peaceably grow into Socialism, and rode roughshod over the well-known thesis of Leninism that the resistance of the class enemy would assume more acute forms as the progress of Socialism cut the ground from under his feet and that the class struggle could "subside" only after the class enemy was destroyed.<br />
<br />
It was easy to see that in the Bukharin-Rykov group the Party was faced with a group of Right opportunists who differed from the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites only in form, only in the fact that the Trotskyite and Zinovievite capitulators had had some opportunity of masking their true nature with Left, revolutionary vociferations about "permanent revolution," whereas the Bukharin-Rykov group, attacking the Party as they did for taking the offensive against the kulaks, could not possibly mask their capitulatory character and had to defend the reactionary forces in our country, the kulaks in particular, openly, without mask or disguise.<br />
<br />
The Party understood that sooner or later the Bukharin-Rykov group was bound to join hands with the remnants of the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites for common action against the Party.<br />
<br />
Parallel with their political pronouncements, the Bukharin-Rykov group "worked" to muster and organize their following. Through Bukharin, they banded together young bourgeois elements like Slepkov, Maretsky, Eichenwald, Goldenberg; through Tomsky—high bureaucrats in the trade unions (Melnichansky, Dogadov and others); through Rykov—demoralized high Soviet officials (A. Smirnov, Eismont, V. Schmidt, and others). The group readily attracted people who had degenerated politically, and who made no secret of their capitulatory sentiments.<br />
<br />
About this time the Bukharin-Rykov group gained the support of high functionaries in the Moscow Party organization (Uglanov, Kotov, Ukhanov, Ryutin, Yagoda, Polonsky, and others). A section of the Rights kept under cover, abstaining from open attacks on the Party line. In the Moscow Party press and at Party meetings, it was advocated that concessions must be made to the kulaks, that heavy taxation of kulaks was inadvisable, that industrialization was burdensome to the people, and that the development of heavy industry was premature. Uglanov opposed the Dnieper hydro-electric scheme and demanded that funds be diverted from heavy industry to the light industries. Uglanov and the other Right capitulators maintained that Moscow was and would remain a gingham city, and that there was no need to build engineering works in Moscow.<br />
<br />
The Moscow Party organization unmasked Uglanov and his followers, gave them a final warning and rallied closer than ever around the Central Committee of the Party. At a plenary meeting of the Moscow Committee of the C.P.S.U.(B.), held in 1928, Comrade Stalin said that a fight must be waged on two fronts, with the fire concentrated on the Right deviation. The Rights, Comrade Stalin said, were kulak agents inside the Party.<blockquote>"The triumph of the Right deviation in our Party would unleash the forces of capitalism, undermine the revolutionary position of the proletariat and increase the chances of restoring capitalism in our country," said Comrade Stalin. (Stalin, ''Leninism'', Vol. II.)</blockquote>At the beginning of 1929 it was discovered that Bukharin, authorized by the group of Right capitulators, had formed connections with the Trotskyites, through Kamenev, and was negotiating an agreement with them for a joint struggle against the Party. The Central Committee exposed these criminal activities of the Right capitulators and warned them that this affair might end lamentably for Bukharin, Rykov, Tom-sky and the rest. But the Right capitulators would not heed the warning. At a meeting of the Central Committee they advanced a new anti-Party platform, in the form of a declaration, which the Central Committee condemned. It warned them again, reminding them of what had happened to the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites. In spite of this, the Bukharin-Rykov group persisted in their anti-Party activities. Rykov, Tomsky and Bukharin tendered to the Central Committee their resignations, believing that they would intimidate the Party thereby. The Central Committee passed condemnation on this saboteur policy of resignations. Finally, a plenum of the Central Committee, held in November 1929, declared that the propaganda of the views of the Right opportunists was incompatible with membership of the Party; it resolved that Bukharin, as the instigator and leader of the Right capitulators, be removed from the Political Bureau of the Central Committee, and issued a grave warning to Rykov, Tomsky and other members of the Right opposition.<br />
<br />
Perceiving that matters had taken a lamentable turn, the chieftains of the Right capitulators submitted a statement acknowledging their errors and the correctness of the political line of the Party.<br />
<br />
The Right capitulators decided to effect a temporary retreat so as to preserve their ranks from debacle.<br />
<br />
This ended the first stage of the Party's fight against the Right capitulators.<br />
<br />
The new differences within the Party did not escape the attention of the external enemies of the Soviet Union. Believing that the "new dissensions" in the Party were a sign of its weakness, they made a new attempt to involve the U.S.S.R. in war and to thwart the work of industrialization before it had got properly under way. In the summer of 1929, the imperialists provoked a conflict between China and the Soviet Union, and instigated the seizure of the Chinese Eastern Railway (which belonged to the U.S.S.R.) by the Chinese militarists, and an attack on our Far-Eastern frontier by troops of the Chinese Whites. But this raid of the Chinese militarists was promptly liquidated, the militarists, routed by the Red Army, retreated and the conflict ended in the signing of a peace agreement with the Manchurian authorities.<br />
<br />
The peace policy of the U.S.S.R. once more triumphed in the face of all obstacles, notwithstanding the intrigues of external enemies and the "dissensions" within the Party.<br />
<br />
Soon after this diplomatic and trade relations between the U.S.S.R. and Great Britain, which had been severed by the British Conservatives, were resumed.<br />
<br />
While successfully repulsing the attacks of the external and internal enemies, the Party was busily engaged in developing heavy industry, organizing Socialist emulation, building up state farms and collective farms, and, lastly, preparing the ground for the adoption and execution of the First Five-Year Plan for the development of the national economy.<br />
<br />
In April 1929, the Party held its Sixteenth Conference, with the First Five-Year Plan as the main item on the agenda. The conference rejected the "minimal" variant of the Five-Year Plan advocated by the Right capitulators and adopted the "optimal" variant as binding under all circumstances.<br />
<br />
Thus, the Party adopted the celebrated First Five-Year Plan for the construction of Socialism.<br />
<br />
The Five-Year-Plan fixed the volume of capital investments in the national economy in the period 1928-33 at 64,600,000,000 rubles. Of this sum, 19,500,000,000 rubles were to be invested in industrial and electric-power development, 10,000,000,000 rubles in transport development and 23,200,000,000 rubles in agriculture.<br />
<br />
This was a colossal plan for the equipment of industry and agriculture of the U.S.S.R. with modern technique.<blockquote>"The fundamental task of the Five-Year Plan," said Comrade Stalin, "was to create such an industry in our country as would be able to re-equip and reorganize, not only the whole of industry, but also transport and agriculture—on the basis of Socialism." (Stalin, ''Problems of Leninism'', Russ. ed., p. 485.)</blockquote>For all the immensity of this plan, it did not nonplus or surprise the Bolsheviks. The way for it had been prepared by the whole course of development of industrialization and collectivization and it had been preceded by a wave of labour enthusiasm which caught up the workers and peasants and which found expression in ''Socialist emulation''.<br />
<br />
''The Sixteenth Party Conference adopted an appeal to all working people, calling'' for the further development of Socialist emulation.<br />
<br />
Socialist emulation had produced many an instance of exemplary labour and of a new attitude to labour. In many factories, collective farms and state farms, the workers and collective farmers drew up ''counter-plans'' for an output exceeding that provided for in the state plans. They displayed heroism in labour. They not only fulfilled, but exceeded the plans of Socialist development laid down by the Party and the Government. The attitude to labour had changed. From the involuntary and penal servitude it had been under capitalism, it was becoming "a matter of honour, a matter of glory, a matter of valour and heroism." (''Stalin.'')<br />
<br />
New industrial construction on a gigantic scale was in progress all over the country. The Dnieper hydro-electric scheme was in full swing. Construction work on the Kramatorsk and Gorlovka Iron and Steel Works and the reconstruction of the Lugansk Locomotive Works had begun in the Donetz Basin. New collieries and blast furnaces came into being. The Urals Machine-Building Works and the Berezniki and Solikamsk Chemical Works were under construction in the Urals. Work was begun on the construction of the iron and steel mills of Magnitogorsk. The erection of big automobile plants in Moscow and Gorky was well under way, as was the construction of giant tractor plants, harvester combine plants, and a mammoth agricultural machinery plant in Rostov-on-Don. The Kuznetsk collieries, the Soviet Union's second coal base, were being extended. An immense tractor works sprang up in the steppe near Stalingrad in the space of eleven months. In the erection of the Dnieper Hydro-Electric Station and the Stalingrad Tractor Works, the workers beat world records in productivity of labour.<br />
<br />
History had never known industrial construction on such a gigantic scale, such enthusiasm for new development, such labour heroism on the part of the working-class millions.<br />
<br />
It was a veritable upsurge of labour enthusiasm, produced and stimulated by Socialist emulation.<br />
<br />
This time the peasants did not lag behind the workers. In the countryside, too, this labour enthusiasm began to spread among the peasant masses who were organizing their collective farms. The peasants definitely began to turn to collective farming. In this a great part was played by the state farms and the machine and tractor stations. The peasants would come in crowds to the state farms and machine and tractor stations to watch the operation of the tractors and other agricultural machines, admire their performance and there and then resolve: "Let's join the collective farm." Divided and disunited, each on his tiny, dwarf individually-run farm, destitute of anything like serviceable implements or traction, having no way of breaking up large tracts of virgin soil, without prospect of any improvement on their farms, crushed by poverty, isolated and left to their own devices, the peasants had at last found a way out, an avenue to a better life, in the amalgamation of their small farms into co-operative undertakings, collective farms; in tractors, which are able to break up any "hard ground," any virgin soil; in the assistance rendered by the state in the form of machines, money, men, and counsel; in the opportunity to free themselves from bondage to the kulaks, who had been quite recently defeated by the Soviet Government and forced to the ground, to the joy of the millions of peasants.<br />
<br />
On this basis began the mass collective-farm movement, which later developed rapidly, especially towards the end of 1929, progressing at an unprecedented rate, a rate unknown even to our Socialist industry.<br />
<br />
In 1928 the total crop area of the collective farms was 1,390,000 hectares, in 1929 it was 4,262,000 hectares, while in 1930 the ploughing plan of the collective farms was already 15,000,000 hectares.<blockquote>"It must be admitted," said Comrade Stalin in his article, "A Year of Great Change" (1929), in reference to the collective farms, "that such an impetuous speed of development is unequalled even in our socialized large-scale industry, which in general is noted for its outstanding speed of development."<br />
<br />
This was a turning point in the development of the collective-farm movement.<br />
<br />
This was the beginning of a mass collective-farm movement.<br />
<br />
"What is the new feature of the present collective-farm movement?" asked Comrade Stalin in his article, "A Year of Great Change." And he answered:<br />
<br />
"The new and decisive feature of the present collective-farm movement is that the peasants are joining the collective farms not in separate groups, as was formerly the case, but in whole villages, whole ''volosts'' (rural districts), whole districts and even whole areas. And what does that mean? It means that ''the middle peasant has joined the collective-farm movement''. And that is the basis of that radical change in the development of agriculture which represents the most important achievement of the Soviet Government..."</blockquote>This meant that the time was becoming ripe, or had already become ripe, for the elimination of the kulaks as a class, on the basis of solid collectivization.<br />
<br />
=== Brief summary ===<br />
During the period 1926-29, the Party grappled with and overcame immense difficulties on the home and foreign fronts in the fight for the Socialist industrialization of the country. The efforts of the Party and the working class ended in the victory of the policy of Socialist industrialization.<br />
<br />
In the main, one of the most difficult problems of industrialization had been solved, namely, the problem of accumulating funds for the building of a heavy industry. The foundations were laid of a heavy industry capable of re-equipping theentirenational economy.<br />
<br />
The First Five-Year Plan of Socialist construction was adopted. The building of new factories, state farms and collective farms was developed on a vast scale.<br />
<br />
This advance towards Socialism was attended by a sharpening of the class struggle in the country and a sharpening of the struggle within the Party. The chief results of this struggle were that the resistance of the kulaks was crushed, the bloc of Trotskyite and Zinovievite capitulators was exposed as an anti-Soviet bloc, the Right capitulators were exposed as agents of the kulaks, the Trotskyites were expelled from the Party, and the views of the Trotskyites and the Right opportunists were declared incompatible with membership of the C.P.S.U.(B.).<br />
<br />
Defeated ideologically by the Bolshevik Party, and having lost all support among the working class, the Trotskyites ceased to be a political trend and became an unprincipled, careerist clique of political swindlers, a gang of political double-dealers.<br />
<br />
Having laid the foundations of a heavy industry, the Party mustered the working class and the peasantry for the fulfilment of the First Five-Year Plan for the Socialist reconstruction of the U.S.S.R. Socialist emulation developed all over the country among millions of working people, giving rise to a mighty wave of labour enthusiasm and originating a new labour discipline.<br />
<br />
This period ended with a year of great change, signalized by sweeping victories of Socialism in industry, the first important successes in agriculture, the swing of the middle peasant towards the collective farms, and the beginning of a mass collective-farm movement.<br />
<br />
== The Bolshevik party in the struggle for the collectivization of agriculture (1930—1934) ==<br />
<br />
=== International situation in 1930—1934. Economic crisis in the capitalist countries. Japanese annexation of Manchuria. Fascists’ advent to power in Germany. Two seats of war ===<br />
While in the U.S.S.R. important progress had been made in the Socialist industrialization of the country and industry was rapidly developing, in the capitalist countries a devastating world economic crisis of unprecedented dimensions had broken out at the end of 1929 and grew steadily more acute in the three following years. The industrial crisis was interwoven with an agrarian crisis, which made matters still worse for the capitalist countries.<br />
<br />
In the three years of economic crisis (1930-33), industrial output in the U.S.A. had sunk to 65 per cent, in Great Britain to 86 per cent, in Germany to 66 per cent and in France to 77 per cent of the 1929 output. Yet in this same period industrial output in the U.S.S.R. more than doubled, amounting in 1933 to 201 per cent of the 1929 output.<br />
<br />
This was but an additional proof of the superiority of the Socialist economic system over the capitalist economic system. It showed that the country of Socialism is the only country in the world which is exempt from economic crises.<br />
<br />
The world economic crisis condemned 24,000,000 unemployed to starvation, poverty and misery. The agrarian crisis brought suffering to tens of millions of peasants.<br />
<br />
The world economic crisis further aggravated the contradictions between the imperialist states, between the victor countries and the vanquished countries, between the imperialist states and the colonial and dependent countries, between the workers and the capitalists, between the peasants and the landlords.<br />
<br />
In his report on behalf of the Central Committee to the Sixteenth Party Congress, Comrade Stalin pointed out that the bourgeoisie would seek a way out of the economic crisis, on the one hand, by crushing the working class through the establishment of fascist dictatorship, i.e., the dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, most imperialistic capitalist elements, and, on the other hand, by fomenting war for the re-division of colonies and spheres of influence at the expense of the poorly defended countries.<br />
<br />
That is just what happened.<br />
<br />
In 1932 the war danger was aggravated by Japan. Perceiving that, owing to the economic crisis, the European powers and the U.S.A. were wholly engrossed in their domestic affairs, the Japanese imperialists decided to seize the opportunity and bring pressure to bear on poorly defended China, in an attempt to subjugate her and to lord it over the country. Unscrupulously exploiting "local incidents" they themselves had provoked, the Japanese imperialists, like robbers, without declaring war on China, marched their troops into Manchuria. The Japanese soldiery seized the whole of Manchuria, thereby preparing a convenient ''place d'armes'' for the conquest of North China and for an attack on the U.S.S.R. Japan withdrew from the League of Nations in order to leave her hands free, and began to arm at a feverish pace.<br />
<br />
This impelled the U.S.A., Britain and France to strengthen their naval armaments in the Far East. It was obvious that Japan was out to subjugate China and to eject the European and American imperialist powers from that country. They replied by increasing their armaments.<br />
<br />
But Japan was pursuing another purpose, too, namely, to seize the Soviet Far East. Naturally, the U.S.S.R. could not shut its eyes to this danger, and began intensively to strengthen the defences of its Far Eastern territory.<br />
<br />
Thus, in the Far East, thanks to the Japanese fascist imperialists, there arose the first seat of war.<br />
<br />
But it was not only in the Far East that the economic crisis aggravated the contradictions of capitalism. It aggravated them in Europe too. The prolonged crisis in industry and agriculture, the huge volume of unemployment, and the growing insecurity of the poorer classes fanned the discontent of the workers and peasants. The discontent of the working class grew into revolutionary disaffection. This was particularly the case in Germany, which was economically exhausted by the war, by the payment of reparations to the Anglo-French victors, and by the economic crisis, and the working class of which languished under a double yoke, that of the home and the foreign, the British and French, bourgeoisie. The extent of this discontent was clearly indicated by the six million votes cast for the German Communist Party at the last Reichstag elections, before the fascists came to power. The German bourgeoisie perceived that the bourgeois-democratic liberties preserved in Germany might play them an evil trick, that the working class might use these liberties to extend the revolutionary movement. They therefore decided that there was only one way of maintaining the power of the bourgeoisie in Germany, and that was to abolish the bourgeois liberties, to reduce the Reichstag to a cipher, and to establish a terrorist bourgeois-nationalist dictatorship, which would be able to suppress the working class and base itself on the petty-bourgeois masses who wanted to revenge Germany's defeat in the war. And so they called to power the fascist party—which in order to hoodwink the people calls itself the National-Socialist Party—well knowing that the fascist party, first, represents that section of the imperialist bourgeoisie which is the most reactionary and most hostile to the working class, and, secondly, that it is the most pronounced party of revenge, one capable of beguiling the millions of the nationalistically minded petty bourgeoisie. In this they were assisted by the traitors to the working class, the leaders of the German Social-Democratic Party, who paved the way for fascism by their policy of compromise.<br />
<br />
These were the conditions which brought about the accession to power of the German fascists in 1933.<br />
<br />
Analysing the events in Germany in his report to the Seventeenth Party Congress, Comrade Stalin said:<blockquote>"The victory of fascism in Germany must be regarded not only as a symptom of the weakness of the working class and a result of the betrayals of the working class by the Social-Democratic Party, which paved the way for fascism; it must also be regarded as a symptom of the weakness of the bourgeoisie, of the fact that the bourgeoisie is already unable to rule by the old methods of parliamentarism and bourgeois democracy, and, as a consequence, is compelled in its home policy to resort to terroristic methods of rule..." (J. Stalin, ''Seventeenth Congress of the C.P.S.U''., "Report on the Work of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U.[B.]," p. 17.)</blockquote>The German fascists inaugurated their home policy by setting fire to the Reichstag, brutally suppressing the working class, destroying its organizations, and abolishing the bourgeois-democratic liberties. They inaugurated their foreign policy by withdrawing from the League of Nations and openly preparing for a war for the forcible revision of the frontiers of the European states to the advantage of Germany.<br />
<br />
Thus, in the centre of Europe, thanks to the German fascists, there arose a second seat of war.<br />
<br />
Naturally, the U.S.S.R. could not shut its eyes to so serious a fact, and began to keep a sharp watch on the course of events in the West and to strengthen its defences on the Western frontiers.<br />
<br />
=== From the policy of restricting the kulak elements to the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class. Struggle against distortions of the party policy in the collective-farm movement. Offensive against the capitalist elements along the whole line. Sixteenth party congress ===<br />
The mass influx of the peasants into the collective farms in 1929 and 1930 was a result of the whole preceding work of the Party and the Government. The growth of Socialist industry, which had begun the mass production of tractors and machines for agriculture; the vigorous measures taken against the kulaks during the grain-purchasing campaigns of 1928 and 1929; the spread of agricultural co-operative societies, which gradually accustomed the peasants to collective farming; the good results obtained by the first collective farms and state farms— all this prepared the way for solid collectivization, when the peasants of entire villages, districts and regions joined the collective farms.<br />
<br />
Solid collectivization was not just a peaceful process—the overwhelming bulk of the peasantry simply joining the collective farms—but was a struggle of the peasant masses against the kulaks. Solid collectivization meant that all the land in a village area in which a collective farm was formed passed into the hands of the collective farm; but a considerable portion of this land was held by the kulaks, and therefore the peasants would expropriate them, driving them from the land, dispossessing them of their cattle and machinery and demanding their arrest and eviction from the district by the Soviet authorities.<br />
<br />
Solid collectivization therefore meant the elimination of the kulaks.<br />
<br />
This was a policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class, on the basis of solid collectivization.<br />
<br />
By this time, the U.S.S.R. had a strong enough material base to allow it to put an end to the kulaks, break their resistance, eliminate them as a class and replace kulak farming by collective and state farming.<br />
<br />
In 1927 the kulaks still produced over 600,000,000 poods of grain, of which about 130,000,000 poods were available for sale. In that year the collective and state farms had only 35,000,000 poods of grain available for sale. In 1929, thanks to the Bolshevik Party's firm policy of developing state farms and collective farms, and likewise to the progress made by Socialist industry in supplying the countryside with tractors and agricultural machinery, the collective farms and state farms had become an important factor. In that year the collective farms and state farms already produced no less than 400,000,000 poods of grain, of which over 130,000,000 poods were marketed. This was more than the kulaks had marketed in 1927. And in 1930 the collective farms and state farms were to produce, and actually did produce, over 400,000,000 poods of grain for the market, which was incomparably more than had been marketed by the kulaks in 1927.<br />
<br />
Thus, thanks to the changed alignment of class forces in the economic life of the country, and the existence of the necessary material base for the replacement of the kulak grain output by that of the collective and state farms, the Bolshevik Party was able to proceed from the policy of ''restricting'' the kulaks to a new policy, the policy of ''eliminating them as a class'', on the basis of solid collectivization.<br />
<br />
Prior to 1929, the Soviet Government had pursued a policy of restricting the kulaks. It had imposed higher taxes on the kulak, and had required him to sell grain to the state at fixed prices; by the law on the renting of land it had to a certain extent restricted the amount of land he could use; by the law on the employment of hired labour on private farms it had limited the scope of his farm. But it had not yet pursued a policy of eliminating the kulaks, since the laws on the renting of land and the hiring of labour allowed them to carry on, while the prohibition of their expropriation gave them a certain guarantee in this respect. The effect of this policy was to arrest the growth of the kulak class, some sections of which, unable to withstand the pressure of these restrictions, were forced out of business and ruined. But this policy did not destroy the economic foundations of the kulaks as a class, nor did it tend to eliminate them. It was a policy of restricting the kulaks, not of eliminating them. This policy was essential up to a certain time, that is, as long as the collective farms and state farms were still weak and unable to replace the kulaks in the production of grain.<br />
<br />
At the end of 1929, with the growth of the collective farms and state farms, the Soviet Government turned sharply from this policy to the policy of eliminating the kulaks, of destroying them as a class. It repealed the laws on the renting of land and the hiring of labour, thus, depriving the kulaks both of land and of hired labourers. It lifted the ban on the expropriation of the kulaks. It permitted the peasants to confiscate cattle, machines and other farm property from the kulaks for the benefit of the collective farms. The kulaks were expropriated. They were expropriated just as the capitalists had been expropriated in the sphere of industry in 1918, with this difference, however, that the kulaks' means of production did not pass into the hands of the state, but into the hands of the peasants united in the collective farms.<br />
<br />
This was a profound revolution, a leap from an old qualitative state of society to a new qualitative state, equivalent in its consequences to the revolution of October 1917.<br />
<br />
The distinguishing feature of this revolution is that it was accomplished ''from above'', on the initiative of the state, and directly supported ''from below'' by the millions of peasants, who were fighting to throw off kulak bondage and to live in freedom in the collective farms.<br />
<br />
This revolution, at one blow, solved three fundamental problems of Socialist construction:<br />
<br />
a) It eliminated the most numerous class of exploiters in our country, the kulak class, the mainstay of capitalist restoration;<br />
<br />
b) It transferred the most numerous labouring class in our country, the peasant class, from the path of individual farming, which breeds capitalism, to the path of co-operative, collective, Socialist farming;<br />
<br />
c) It furnished the Soviet regime with a Socialist base in agriculture—the most extensive and vitally necessary, yet least developed, branch of national economy.<br />
<br />
This destroyed the last mainsprings of the restoration of capitalism within the country and at the same time created new and decisive conditions for the building up of a Socialist economic system.<br />
<br />
Explaining the reasons for the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class, and summing up the results of the mass movement of the peasants for solid collectivization, Comrade Stalin wrote in 1929:<blockquote>"The last hope of the capitalists of all countries, who are dreaming of restoring capitalism in the U.S.S.R.—'the sacred principle of private property'—is collapsing and vanishing. The peasants, whom they regarded as material manuring the soil for capitalism, are abandoning en masse the lauded banner of ‘private property' and are taking to the path of collectivism, the path of Socialism. The last hope for the restoration of capitalism is crumbling." (Stalin, ''Leninism'', Vol. II, "A Year of Great Change.")</blockquote>The policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class was embodied in the historic resolution on "The Rate of Collectivization and State Measures to Assist the Development of Collective Farms" adopted by the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U.(B.) on January 5, 1930. In this decision, full account was taken of the diversity of conditions in the various districts of the U.S.S.R. and the varying degrees to which the regions were ripe for collectivization.<br />
<br />
Different rates of collectivization were established, for which purpose the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U.(B.) divided the regions of the U.S.S.R. into three groups.<br />
<br />
The first group included the principal grain-growing areas: viz., the North Caucasus (the Kuban, Don and Terek), the Middle Volga and the Lower Volga, which were ripest for collectivization since they had the most tractors, the most state farms, and the most experience in fighting the kulaks, gained in past grain-purchasing campaigns. The Central Committee proposed that in this group of grain-growing areas collectivization should in the main be completed in the spring of 1931.<br />
<br />
The second group of grain-growing areas, the Ukraine, the Central Black-Earth Region, Siberia, the Urals, Kazakhstan and others could complete collectivization in the main in the spring of 1932.<br />
<br />
The other regions, territories and republics (Moscow Region, Transcaucasia, the republics of Central Asia, etc.) could extend the process of collectivization to the end of the Five-Year Plan, that is, to 1933.<br />
<br />
In view of the growing speed of collectivization, the Central Committee of the Party considered it necessary to accelerate the construction of plants for the production of tractors, harvester combines, tractor-drawn machinery, etc. Simultaneously, the Central Committee demanded that "the tendency to underestimate the importance of horse traction at the present stage of the collective-farm movement, a tendency which was leading to the reckless disposal and sale of horses, be resolutely checked."<br />
<br />
State loans to collective farms for the year 1929-30 were doubled (500,000,000 rubles) as compared with the original plan.<br />
<br />
The expense of the surveying and demarcation of the lands of the collective farms was to be borne by the state.<br />
<br />
The resolution contained the highly important direction that the ''chief form'' of the collective-farm movement at the given stage must be the agricultural artel, in which only the ''principal'' means of production are collectivized.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee most seriously warned Party organizations "against any attempts whatsoever to force the collective-farm movement by ‘decrees' from above, which might involve the danger of the substitution of mock-collectivization for real Socialist emulation in the organization of collective farms." (''Resolutions of the C.P.S.U.[B.]'', Russ. ed., Part II, page 662.)<br />
<br />
In this resolution the Central Committee made it clear how the Party's new policy in the countryside should be applied.<br />
<br />
The policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class and of solid collectivization stimulated a powerful collective-farm movement. The peasants of whole villages and districts joined the collective farms, sweeping the kulaks from their path and freeing themselves from kulak bondage.<br />
<br />
But with all the phenomenal progress of collectivization, certain faults on the part of Party workers, distortions of the Party policy in collective farm development, soon revealed themselves. Although the Central Committee had warned Party workers not to be carried away by the success of collectivization, many of them began to force the pace of collectivization artificially, without regard to the conditions of time and place, and heedless of the degree of readiness of the peasants to join the collective farms.<br />
<br />
It was found that the ''voluntary'' principle of forming collective farms was being violated, and that in a number of districts the peasants were being forced into the collective farms under threat of being dispossessed, disfranchised, and so on.<br />
<br />
In a number of districts, preparatory work and patient explanation of the underlying principles of the Party's policy with regard to collectivization were being replaced by bureaucratic decreeing from above, by exaggerated, fictitious figures regarding the formation of collective farms, by an artificial inflation of the percentage of collectivization.<br />
<br />
Although the Central Committee had specified that the chief form of the collective-farm movement must be the agricultural artel, in which only the ''principal'' means of production are collectivized, in a number of places pigheaded attempts were made to skip the artel form and pass straight to the commune; dwellings, milch-cows, small livestock, poultry, etc., not exploited for the market, were collectivized.<br />
<br />
Carried away by the initial success of collectivization, persons in authority in certain regions violated the Central Committee's explicit instructions regarding the pace and time limits of collectivization. In their zeal for inflated figures, the leadership of the Moscow Region gave the cue to their subordinates to complete collectivization by the spring of 1930, although they had no less than three years (till the end of 1932) for this purpose. Even grosser were the violations in Transcaucasia and Central Asia.<br />
<br />
Taking advantage of these distortions of policy for their own provocative ends, the kulaks and their toadies would themselves propose that communes be formed instead of agricultural artels, and that dwellings, small livestock and poultry be collectivized forthwith. Furthermore, the kulaks instigated the peasants to slaughter their animals before entering the collective farms, arguing that "they will be taken away anyhow."<br />
<br />
The class enemy calculated that the distortions and mistakes committed by the local organizations in the process of collectivization would incense the peasantry and provoke revolts against the Soviet Government.<br />
<br />
As a result of the mistakes of Party organizations and the downright provocateur actions of the class enemy, in the latter half of February 1930, against the general background of the unquestionable success of collectivization, there were dangerous signs of serious discontent among the peasantry in a number of districts. Here and there, the kulaks and their agents even succeeded in inciting the peasants to outright anti-Soviet actions.<br />
<br />
Having received a number of alarming signals of distortions of the Party line that might jeopardize collectivization, the Central Committee of the Party immediately proceeded to remedy the situation, to set the Party workers the task of rectifying the mistakes as quickly as possible. On March 2, 1930, by decision of the Central Committee, Comrade Stalin's article, "Dizzy With Success," was published. This article was a warning to all who had been so carried away by the success of collectivization as to commit gross mistakes and depart from the Party line, to all who were trying to coerce the peasants to join the collective farms. The article laid the utmost emphasis on the principle that the formation of collective farms must be voluntary, and on the necessity of making allowances for the diversity of conditions in the various districts of the U.S.S.R. when determining the pace and methods of collectivization. Comrade Stalin reiterated that the chief form of the collective-farm movement was the agricultural artel, in which only the principal means of production, chiefly those used in grain growing, are collectivized, while household land, dwellings, part of the dairy cattle, small livestock, poultry, etc., are not collectivized.<br />
<br />
Comrade Stalin's article was of the utmost political moment. It helped the Party organizations to rectify their mistakes and dealt a severe blow to the enemies of the Soviet Government who had been hoping to take advantage of the distortions of policy to set the peasants against the Soviet Government. The broad mass of the peasants now saw that the line of the Bolshevik Party had nothing in common with the pigheaded "Left" distortions of local authorities. The article set the minds of the peasants at rest.<br />
<br />
In order to complete the work begun by Comrade Stalin's article in rectifying distortions and mistakes, the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U.(B.) decided to strike another blow at them, and on March 5, 1930, published its resolution on "Measures to Combat the Distortions of the Party Line in the Collective-Farm Movement."<br />
<br />
This resolution made a detailed analysis of the mistakes committed, showing that they were the result of a departure from the Leninist-Stalinist line of the Party, the result of a flagrant breach of Party instructions.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee pointed out that these "Left" distortions were of direct service to the class enemy.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee gave directions that "persons who are unable or unwilling earnestly to combat distortions of the Party line must be removed from their posts and ''replaced." (Resolutions of the C.P.S.U.[B.]'', Part II, p. 663.)<br />
<br />
The Central Committee changed the leadership of certain regional and territorial Party organizations (Moscow Region, Transcaucasia) which had committed political mistakes and proved incapable of rectifying them.<br />
<br />
On April 3, 1930, Comrade Stalin's "Reply to Collective Farm Comrades" was published, in which he indicated the ''root cause'' of the mistakes in the peasant question and the major mistakes committed in the collective-farm movement, viz., an incorrect approach to the middle peasant, violation of the Leninist principle that the formation of collective farms must be voluntary, violation of the Leninist principle that allowance must be made for the diversity of conditions in the various districts of the U.S.S.R., and the attempts to skip the artel form and to pass straight to the commune.<br />
<br />
The result of all these measures was that the Party secured the correction of the distortions of policy committed by local Party workers in a number of districts.<br />
<br />
It required the utmost firmness on the part of the Central Committee and its ability to go ''against the current'' in order to promptly correct that considerable body of Party workers who, carried away by success, had been rapidly straying from the Party line.<br />
<br />
The Party succeeded in correcting the distortions of the Party line in the collective-farm movement.<br />
<br />
This made it possible to consolidate the success of the collective-farm movement.<br />
<br />
It also made possible a new and powerful advance of the collective-farm movement.<br />
<br />
Prior to the Party's adoption of the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class, an energetic offensive against the capitalist elements with the object of eliminating them had been waged chiefly in the towns, on the industrial front. So far, the countryside, agriculture, had been lagging behind the towns, behind industry. Consequently, the offensive had not borne an all-round, complete and general character. But now that the backwardness of the countryside was becoming a thing of the past, now that the peasants' fight for the elimination of the kulak class had taken clear shape, and the Party had adopted the policy of eliminating the kulak class, the offensive against the capitalist elements assumed a general character, the partial offensive developed into an offensive along the whole front. By the time the Sixteenth Party Congress was convened, the general offensive against the capitalist elements was proceeding all along the line.<br />
<br />
The Sixteenth Party Congress met on June 26, 1930. It was attended by 1,268 delegates with vote and 891 delegates with voice but no vote, representing 1,260,874 Party members and 711,609 candidate members.<br />
<br />
The Sixteenth Party Congress is known in the annals of the Party as "the congress of the sweeping offensive of Socialism ''along the whole front,'' of the elimination of the kulaks as a class, and of the realization of solid collectivization." (''Stalin''.)<br />
<br />
Presenting the political report of the Central Committee, Comrade Stalin showed what big victories had been won by the Bolshevik Party in developing the Socialist offensive.<br />
<br />
Socialist industrialization had progressed so far that the share of industry in the total production of the country now predominated over that of agriculture. In the fiscal year 1929-30, the share of industry already comprised no less than 53 per cent of the total production of the country, while the share of agriculture was about 47 per cent.<br />
<br />
In the fiscal year 1926-27, at the time of the Fifteenth Party Congress, the ''total'' output of industry had been only 102.5 per cent of the pre-war output; in the year 1929-30, at the time of the Sixteenth Congress, it was already about 180 per cent.<br />
<br />
Heavy industry—the production of means of production, machine-building—was steadily growing in power.<blockquote>"...We are on the eve of the transformation of our country from an ''agrarian'' to an ''industrial'' country," declared Comrade Stalin at the congress, amidst hearty acclamation.</blockquote>Still, the high ''rate'' of industrial development, Comrade Stalin explained, was not to be confused with the ''level'' of industrial development. Despite the unprecedented rate of development of Socialist industry, we were still ''far behind'' the advanced capitalist countries as regards the ''level'' of industrial development. This was so in the case of electric power, in spite of the phenomenal progress of electrification in the U.S.S.R. This was the case with metal. According to the plan, the output of pig-iron in the U.S.S.R. was to be 5,500,000 tons in the year 1929-30, when the output of pig-iron in Germany in 1929 was 13,400,000 tons, and in France 10,450,000 tons. In order to make good our technical and economic backwardness in the minimum of time, our rate of industrial development had to be further accelerated, and a most resolute fight waged against the opportunists who were striving to reduce the rate of development of Socialist industry.<blockquote>"...People who talk about the necessity of ''reducing'' the rate of development of our industry are enemies of Socialism, agents of our class enemies," said Comrade Stalin. (Stalin, ''Leninism'', Vol. II, "Political Report of the Central Committee to the Sixteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.")</blockquote>After the program of the first year of the First Five-Year Plan had been successfully fulfilled and surpassed, a slogan originated among the masses— ''"Fulfil the Five-Year Plan in Four Years."'' A number of branches of industry (oil, peat, general machine-building, agricultural machinery, electrical equipment) were carrying out their plans so successfully that their five-year-plans could be fulfilled in two and a half or three years. This proved that the slogan "The Five-Year Plan in Four Years" was quite feasible, and thus exposed the opportunism of the sceptics who doubted it.<br />
<br />
The Sixteenth Congress instructed the Central Committee of the Party to "ensure that the ''spirited Bolshevik tempo'' of Socialist construction be maintained, and that the ''Five-Year Plan be actually fulfilled in four years."''<br />
<br />
By the time of the Sixteenth Party Congress, a momentous change had taken place in the development of agriculture in the U.S.S.R. The broad masses of the peasantry had turned towards Socialism. On May 1, 1930, collectivization in the principal grain-growing regions embraced 40-50 per cent of the peasant households (as against 2-3 per cent in the spring of 1928). The crop area of the collective farms reached 36,000,000 hectares.<br />
<br />
Thus the increased program (30,000,000 hectares), laid down in the resolution of the Central Committee of January 5, 1930, was more than fulfilled. The five-year program of collective farm development had been fulfilled more than one and a half times in the space of two years.<br />
<br />
In three years the amount of produce marketed by the collective farms had increased more than forty-fold. Already in 1930 more than half the marketed grain in the country came from the collective farms, quite apart from the grain produced by the state farms.<br />
<br />
This meant that from now on the fortunes of agriculture would be decided not by the individual peasant farms, but by the collective and state farms.<br />
<br />
While, before the mass influx of the peasantry into the collective farms, the Soviet power had leaned mainly on Socialist industry, now it began to lean also on the rapidly expanding Socialist sector of agriculture, the collective and state farms.<br />
<br />
The collective farm peasantry, as the Sixteenth Party Congress stated in one of its resolutions, had become "a real and firm mainstay of the Soviet power."<br />
<br />
=== Policy of reconstructing all branches of the national economy. Importance of technique. Further spread of the collective-farm movement. Political departments of the machine and tractor stations. Results of the fulfillment of the five-year plan in four years. Victory of socialism along the whole front. Seventeenth party congress ===<br />
When heavy industry and especially the machine-building industry had been built up and placed securely on their feet, and it was moreover clear that they were developing at a fairly rapid pace, the next task that faced the Party was to reconstruct all branches of the national economy on modern, up-to-date lines. Modern technique, modern machinery had to be supplied to the fuel industry, the metallurgical industry, the light industries, the food industry, the timber industry, the armament industry, the transport system, and to agriculture. In view of the colossal increase in the demand for farm produce and manufactured goods, it was necessary to double and treble output in all branches of production. But this could not be done unless the factories and mills, the state farms and collective farms were adequately supplied with up-to-date equipment, since the requisite increase of output could not be secured with the old equipment.<br />
<br />
Unless the major branches of the national economy were reconstructed, it would be impossible to satisfy the new and ever growing demands of the country and its economic system.<br />
<br />
Without reconstruction, it would be impossible to complete the offensive of Socialism along the whole front, for the capitalist elements in town and country had to be fought and vanquished not only by a new organization of labour and property, but also by a new technique, by technical superiority.<br />
<br />
Without reconstruction, it would be impossible to overtake and outstrip the technically and economically advanced capitalist countries, for although the U.S.S.R. had surpassed the capitalist countries in rate of industrial development, it still lagged a long way behind them in level of industrial development, in quantity of industrial output.<br />
<br />
In order that we might catch up with them, every branch of production had to be equipped with new technique and reconstructed on the most up-to-date technical lines.<br />
<br />
The question of technique had thus become of decisive importance.<br />
<br />
The main impediment was not so much an insufficiency of modern machinery and machine-tools—for our machine-building industry was in a position to produce modern equipment—as the wrong attitude of our business executives to technique, their tendency to underrate the importance of technique in the period of reconstruction and to disdain it. In their opinion, technical matters were the affair of the "experts," something of second-rate importance, to be left in charge of the "bourgeois experts"; they considered that Communist business executives need not interfere in the technical side of production and should attend to something more important, namely, the "general" management of industry.<br />
<br />
The bourgeois "experts" were therefore given a free hand in matters of production, while the Communist business executives reserved to themselves the function of "general" direction, the signing of papers.<br />
<br />
It need scarcely be said that with such an attitude, "general" direction was bound to degenerate into a mere parody of direction, a sterile signing of papers, a futile fussing with papers.<br />
<br />
It is clear that if Communist business executives had persisted in this disdainful attitude of technical matters, we would never have been able to overtake the advanced capitalist countries, let alone outstrip them. This attitude, especially in the reconstruction period, would have doomed our country to backwardness, and would have lowered our rates of development. As a matter of fact, this attitude to technical matters was a screen, a mask for the secret wish of a certain section of the Communist business executives to retard, to reduce the rate of industrial development, so as to be able to "take it easy" by shunting the responsibility for production on to the "experts."<br />
<br />
It was necessary to get Communist business executives to turn their attention to technical matters, to acquire a taste for technique; they needed to be shown that it was vital for Bolshevik business executives to master modern technique, otherwise we would run the risk of condemning our country to backwardness and stagnation.<br />
<br />
Unless this problem were solved further progress would be impossible.<br />
<br />
Of utmost importance in this connection was the speech Comrade Stalin made at the First Conference of Industrial Managers in February 1931.<blockquote>"It is sometimes asked," said Comrade Stalin, "whether it is not possible to slow down the tempo a bit, to put a check on the movement. No, comrades, it is not possible! The tempo must not be reduced!...To slacken the tempo would mean falling behind. And those who fall behind get beaten. But we do not want to be beaten. No, we refuse to be beaten! "Incidentally, the history of old Russia is one unbroken record of the beatings she suffered for falling behind, for her backwardness. She was beaten by the Mongol khans. She was beaten by the Turkish beys. She was beaten by the Swedish feudal lords. She was beaten by the Polish and Lithuanian gentry. She was beaten by the British and French capitalists. She<br />
<br />
"We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they crush us...<br />
<br />
"In ten years at most we must make good the distance we are lagging behind the advanced capitalist countries. We have all the ‘objective' opportunities for this. The only thing lacking is the ability to make proper use of these opportunities. And that depends on us. ''Only'' on us! It is time we learned to use these opportunities. It is time to put an end to the rotten policy of non-interference in production. It is time to adopt a new policy, a policy adapted to the times the policy of interfering in everything. If you are a factory manager, then interfere in all the affairs of the factory, look into everything, let nothing escape you, learn and learn again. Bolsheviks must master technique. It is time Bolsheviks themselves became experts. ''In the period of reconstruction technique decides everything."'' (Stalin, ''Leninism'', Vol. II, "The Tasks of Business Managers." )</blockquote>The historic importance of Comrade Stalin's speech lay in the fact that it put an end to the disdainful attitude of Communist business executives to technique, made them face the question of technique, opened a new phase in the struggle for the mastery of technique by the Bolsheviks themselves, and thereby helped to promote the work of economic reconstruction.<br />
<br />
From then on technical knowledge ceased to be a monopoly of the bourgeois "experts," and became a matter of vital concern to the Bolshevik business executives themselves, while the word "expert" ceased to be a term of disparagement and became the honourable title of Bolsheviks who had mastered technique.<br />
<br />
From then on there were bound to appear—and there actually did appear—thousands upon thousands, whole battalions of Red experts, who had mastered technique and were able to direct industries.<br />
<br />
This was a new, Soviet technical intelligentsia, an intelligentsia of the working class and the peasantry, and they now constitute the main force in the management of our industries.<br />
<br />
All this was bound to promote, and actually did promote, the work of economic reconstruction.<br />
<br />
Reconstruction was not confined to industry and transport. It developed even more rapidly in agriculture. The reason is not far to seek: agriculture was less mechanized than other branches, and here the need for modern machinery was felt more acutely than elsewhere. And it was urgently essential to increase the supply of modern agricultural machines now that the number of collective farms was growing from month to month and week to week, and with it the demand for thousands upon thousands of tractors and other agricultural machines.<br />
<br />
The year 1931 witnessed a further advance in the collective-farm movement. In the principal grain-growing districts over 80 per cent of the peasant farms had already amalgamated to form collective farms. Here, solid collectivization had in the main already been achieved. In the less important grain-growing districts and in the districts growing industrial crops about 50 per cent of the peasant farms had joined the collective farms. By now there were 500,000 collective farms and 4,000 state farms, which together cultivated two-thirds of the total crop area of the country, the individual peasants cultivating only one-third.<br />
<br />
This was a tremendous victory for Socialism in the countryside.<br />
<br />
But the progress of the collective-farm movement was so far to be measured in breadth rather than in depth: the collective farms were increasing in number and were spreading to district after district, but there was no commensurate improvement in the work of the collective farms or in the skill of their personnel. This was due to the fact that the growth of the leading cadres and trained personnel of the collective farms was not keeping pace with the numerical growth of the collective farms themselves. The consequence was that the work of the new collective farms was not always satisfactory, and the collective farms themselves were still weak. They were also held back by the shortage in the countryside of literate people indispensable to the collective farms (bookkeepers, stores managers, secretaries, etc.), and by the inexperience of the peasants in the management of large-scale collective enterprises. The collective farmers were the individual peasants of yesterday; they had experience in farming small plots of land, but none in managing big, collective farms. This experience could not be acquired in a day.<br />
<br />
The first stages of collective farm work were consequently marred by serious defects. It was found that work was still badly organized in the collective farms; labour discipline was slack. In many collective farms the income was distributed not by the number of work-day-units, but by the number of mouths to feed in the family. It often happened that slackers got a bigger return than conscientious hard-working collective farmers. These defects in the management of collective farms lowered the incentive of their members. There were many cases of members absenting themselves from work even at the height of the season, leaving part of the crops unharvested until the winter snows, while the reaping was done so carelessly that large quantities of grain were lost. The absence of individual responsibility for machines and horses, and for work generally, weakened the collective farms and reduced their revenues.<br />
<br />
The situation was particularly bad wherever former kulaks and their toadies had managed to worm their way into collective farms and to secure positions of trust in them. Not infrequently former kulaks would betake themselves to districts where they were unknown, and there make their way into the collective farms with the deliberate intention of sabotaging and doing mischief. Sometimes, owing to lack of vigilance on the part of Party workers and Soviet officials, kulaks managed to get into collective farms even in their own districts. What made it easier for former kulaks to penetrate into the collective farms was that they had radically changed their tactics. Formerly the kulaks had fought the collective farms openly, had savagely persecuted collective farm leading cadres and foremost collective farmers, nefariously murdering them, burning down their houses and barns. By these methods they had thought to intimidate the peasantry and to deter them from joining the collective farms. Now that their open struggle against the collective farms had failed, they changed their tactics. They laid aside their sawn-off shotguns and posed as innocent, unoffending folk who would not hurt a fly. They pretended to be loyal Soviet supporters. Once inside the collective farms they stealthily carried on their sabotage. They strove to disorganize the collective farms from within, to undermine labour discipline and to muddle the harvest accounts and the records of work performed. It was part of their sinister scheme to destroy the horses of the collective farms by deliberately infecting them with glanders, mange and other diseases, or disabling them by neglect or other methods, in which they were often successful. They did damage to tractors and farm machinery.<br />
<br />
The kulaks were often able to deceive the collective farmers and commit sabotage with impunity because the collective farms were still weak and their personnel still inexperienced.<br />
<br />
To put an end to the sabotage of the kulaks and to expedite the work of strengthening the collective farms, the latter had to be given urgent and effective assistance in men, advice and leadership.<br />
<br />
This assistance was forthcoming from the Bolshevik Party. In January 1933, the Central Committee of the Party adopted a decision to organize ''political departments'' in the machine and tractor stations serving the collective farms. Some 17,000 Party members were sent into the countryside to work in these political departments and to aid the collective farms.<br />
<br />
This assistance was highly effective.<br />
<br />
In two years (1933 and 1934) the political departments of the machine and tractor stations did a great deal to build up an active body of collective farmers, to eliminate the defects in the work of the collective farms, to consolidate them, and to rid them of kulak enemies and wreckers.<br />
<br />
The political departments performed their task with credit: they strengthened the collective farms both in regard to organization and efficiency, trained skilled personnel for them, improved their management and raised the political level of the collective farm members.<br />
<br />
Of great importance in stimulating the collective farmers to strive for the strengthening of the collective farms was the First All-Union Congress of Collective Farm Shock Workers (February 1933) and the speech made by Comrade Stalin at this congress.<br />
<br />
Contrasting the old, pre-collective farm system in the countryside with the new, collective farm system, Comrade Stalin said:<blockquote>"Under the old system the peasants each worked in isolation, following the ancient methods of their forefathers and using antiquated implements of labour; they worked for the landlords and capitalists, the kulaks and profiteers; they lived in penury while they enriched others. Under the new, collective farm system, the peasants work in common, co-operatively, with the help of modern implements—tractors and agricultural machinery; they work for themselves and their collective farms; they live without capitalists and landlords, without kulaks and profiteers; they work with the object of raising their standard of welfare and culture from day to day." (Stalin, ''Problems of Leninism'', Russ. ed., p. 528.)</blockquote>Comrade Stalin showed in this speech what the peasants had achieved by adopting the collective farm way. The Bolshevik Party had helped millions of poor peasants to join the collective farms and to escape from servitude to the kulaks. By joining the collective farms, and having the best lands and the finest instruments of production at their disposal, millions of poor peasants who had formerly lived in penury had now as collective farmers risen to the level of middle peasants, and had attained material security.<br />
<br />
This was the first step in the development of collective farms, the first achievement.<br />
<br />
The next step, Comrade Stalin said, was to raise the collective farmers—both former poor peasants and former middle peasants—to an even higher level, to make all the collective farmers prosperous and all the collective farms Bolshevik.<blockquote>"Only one thing is now needed for the collective farmers to become prosperous," Comrade Stalin said, "and that is for them to work in the collective farms conscientiously, to make efficient use of the tractors and machines, to make efficient use of the draught cattle, to cultivate the land efficiently, and to cherish collective farm property." (''Ibid''., pp. 532-3.)</blockquote>Comrade Stalin's speech made a profound impression on the millions of collective farmers and became a practical program of action for the collective farms.<br />
<br />
By the end of 1934 the collective farms had become a strong and invincible force. They already embraced about three-quarters of all the peasant households in the Soviet Union and about 90 per cent of the total crop area.<br />
<br />
In 1934 there were already 281,000 tractors and 32,000 harvester combines at work in the Soviet countryside. The spring sowing in that year was completed fifteen to twenty days earlier than in 1933, and thirty to forty days earlier than in 1932, while the plan of grain deliveries to the state was fulfilled three months earlier than in 1932.<br />
<br />
This showed how firmly established the collective farms had become in two years, thanks to the tremendous assistance given them by the Party and the workers' and peasants' state.<br />
<br />
This solid victory of the collective farm system and the attendant improvement of agriculture enabled the Soviet Government to abolish the rationing of bread and all other products and to introduce the unrestricted sale of foodstuffs.<br />
<br />
Since the political departments of the machine and tractor stations had served the purpose for which they had been temporarily created, the Central Committee decided to convert them into ordinary Party bodies by merging them with the district Party Committees in their localities.<br />
<br />
All these achievements, both in agriculture and in industry, were made possible by the successful fulfilment of the Five-Year Plan.<br />
<br />
By the beginning of 1933 it was evident that the First Five-Year Plan had already been fulfilled ahead of time, fulfilled in four years and three months.<br />
<br />
This was a tremendous, epoch-making victory of the working class and peasantry of the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
Reporting to a plenary meeting of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of the Party, held in January 1933, Comrade Stalin reviewed the results of the First Five-Year Plan. The report made it clear that in the period which it took to fulfil the First Five-Year Plan, the Party and the Soviet Government had achieved the following major results.<br />
<br />
a) The U.S.S.R. had been converted from an agrarian country into an industrial country, for the proportion of industrial output to the total production of the country had risen to 70 per cent.<br />
<br />
b) The Socialist economic system had eliminated the capitalist elements in the sphere of industry and had become the sole economic system in industry.<br />
<br />
c) The Socialist economic system had eliminated the kulaks as a class in the sphere of agriculture, and had become the predominant force in agriculture.<br />
<br />
d) The collective farm system had put an end to poverty and want in the countryside, and tens of millions of poor peasants had risen to a level of material security.<br />
<br />
e) The Socialist system in industry had abolished unemployment, and while retaining the 8-hour day in a number of branches, had introduced the 7-hour day in the vast majority of enterprises and the 6-hour day in unhealthy occupations.<br />
<br />
f) The victory of Socialism in all branches of the national economy had abolished the exploitation of man by man.<br />
<br />
The sum and substance of the achievements of the First Five-Year Plan was that they had completely emancipated the workers and peasants from exploitation and had opened the way to a prosperous and cultured life for ALL working people in the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
In January 1934 the Party held its Seventeenth Congress. It was attended by 1,225 delegates with vote and 736 delegates with voice but no vote, representing 1,874,488 Party members and 935,298 candidate members.<br />
<br />
The congress reviewed the work of the Party since the last congress. It noted the decisive results achieved by Socialism in all branches of economic and cultural life and placed on record that the general line of the Party had triumphed along the whole front.<br />
<br />
The Seventeenth Party Congress is known in history as the "Congress of Victors."<br />
<br />
Reporting on the work of the Central Committee, Comrade Stalin pointed to the fundamental changes that had taken place in the U.S.S.R. during the period under review.<blockquote>"During this period, the U.S.S.R. has become radically transformed and has cast off the integument of backwardness and mediaevalism. From an agrarian country it has become an industrial country. From a country of small individual agriculture it has become a country of collective, large-scale mechanized agriculture. From an ignorant, illiterate and uncultured country it has become—or rather it is becoming—a literate and cultured country covered by a vast network of higher, intermediate and elementary schools teaching in the languages of the nationalities of the U.S.S.R. (Stalin, ''Seventeenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.'', "Report on the Work of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U.[B.]," p. 30.)</blockquote>By this time 99 per cent of the industry of the country was Socialist industry. Socialist agriculture—the collective farms and state farms— embraced about 90 per cent of the total crop area of the country. As to trade, the capitalist elements had been completely ousted from this domain.<br />
<br />
When the New Economic Policy was being introduced, Lenin said that there were the elements of five social-economic formations in our country. The first was patriarchal economy, which was largely a natural form of economy, ''i.e.,'' which practically carried on no trade. The second formation was small commodity production, as represented by the majority of the peasant farms, those which sold agricultural produce, and by the artisans. In the first years of NEP this economic formation embraced the majority of the population. The third formation was private capitalism, which had begun to revive in the early period of NEP. The fourth formation was state capitalism, chiefly in the form of concessions, which had not developed to any considerable extent. The fifth formation was Socialism: Socialist industry, which was still weak, state farms and collective farms, which were economically insignificant at the beginning of NEP, state trade and co-operative societies, which were also weak at that time.<br />
<br />
Of all these formations, Lenin said, the Socialist formation must gain the upper hand.<br />
<br />
The New Economic Policy was designed to bring about the complete victory of Socialist forms of economy.<br />
<br />
And by the time of the Seventeenth Party Congress this aim had already been achieved.<blockquote>"We can now say," said Comrade Stalin, "that the first, the third and the fourth social-economic formations no longer exist; the second social-economic formation has been forced into a secondary position, while the fifth social-economic formation—the Socialist formation—now holds unchallenged sway and is the sole commanding force in the whole national economy." (''Ibid''., p. 33.)</blockquote>An important place in Comrade Stalin's report was given to the question of ideological-political leadership. He warned the Party that although its enemies, the opportunists and nationalist deviators of all shades and complexions, had been defeated, remnants of their ideology still lingered in the minds of some Party members and often asserted themselves. The survivals of capitalism in economic life and particularly in the minds of men provided a favourable soil for the revival of the ideology of the defeated anti-Leninist groups. The development of people's mentality does not keep pace with their economic position. As a consequence, survivals of bourgeois ideas still remained in men's minds and would continue to do so even though capitalism had been abolished in economic life. It should also be borne in mind that the surrounding capitalist world, against which we had to keep our powder dry, was working to revive and foster these survivals.<br />
<br />
Comrade Stalin also dwelt on the survivals of capitalism in men's minds on the national question, where they were particularly tenacious. The Bolshevik Party was fighting on two fronts, both against the deviation to Great-Russian chauvinism and against the deviation to local nationalism. In a number of republics (the Ukraine, Byelorussia, and others) the Party organizations had relaxed the struggle against local nationalism, and had allowed it to grow to such an extent that it had allied itself with hostile forces, the forces of intervention, and had become a danger to the state. In reply to the question, which deviation in the national question was the major danger, Comrade Stalin said:<blockquote>"The major danger is the deviation against which we have ceased to fight, thereby allowing it to grow into a danger to the state." (''Ibid''., p. 81.)</blockquote>Comrade Stalin called upon the Party to be more active in ideological-political work, systematically to expose the ideology and the remnants of the ideology of the hostile classes and of the trends hostile to Leninism.<br />
<br />
He further pointed out in his report that the adoption of correct decisions does not in itself guarantee the success of a measure. In order to guarantee success, it was necessary to ''put the right people in the right place, people able to give effect to the decisions of the leading organs and to keep a check on the fulfilment'' of decisions. Without these organizational measures there was a risk of decisions remaining scraps of paper, divorced from practical life. Comrade Stalin referred in support of this to Lenin's famous maximum that the chief thing in organizational work was the ''choice of personnel and the keeping of a check on the fulfilment of decisions''. Comrade Stalin said that the disparity between adopted decisions and the organizational work of putting these decisions into effect and of keeping a check on their fulfilment was the chief evil in our practical work.<br />
<br />
In order to keep a better check on the fulfilment of Party and Government decisions, the Seventeenth Party Congress set up a Party Control Commission under the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U.(B.) and a Soviet Control Commission under the Council of People's Commissars of the U.S.S.R. in place of the combined Central Control Commission and Workers' and Peasants' Inspection, this body having completed the tasks for which it had been set up by the Twelfth Party Congress.<br />
<br />
Comrade Stalin formulated the organizational tasks of the Party in the new stage as follows:<br />
<br />
1) Our organizational work must be adapted to the requirements of the political line of the Party;<br />
<br />
2) Organizational leadership must be raised to the level of political leadership.<br />
<br />
3) Organizational leadership must be made fully equal to the task of ensuring the realization of the political slogans and decisions of the Party.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, Comrade Stalin warned the Party that although Socialism had achieved great successes, successes of which we could be justly proud, we must not allow ourselves to be carried away, to get "swelled head," to be lulled by success.<blockquote>"...We must not lull the Party, but sharpen its vigilance; we must not lull it to sleep, but keep it ready for action; not disarm it, but arm it; not demobilize it, but hold it in a state of mobilization for the fulfilment of the Second Five-Year Plan," said Comrade Stalin. (''Ibid''., p. 96.)</blockquote>The Seventeenth Congress heard reports from Comrades Molotov and Kuibyshev on the Second Five-Year Plan for the development of the national economy. The program of the Second Five-Year Plan was even vaster than that of the First Five-Year Plan. By the end of the Second Five-Year Plan period, in 1937, industrial output was to be increased approximately eightfold in comparison with pre-war. Capital development investments in all branches in the period of the Second Five-Year Plan were to amount to 133,000,000,000 rubles, as against a little over 64,000,000,000 rubles in the period of the First Five-Year Plan.<br />
<br />
This immense scope of new capital construction work would ensure the complete technical re-equipment of all branches of the national economy.<br />
<br />
The Second Five-Year Plan was to complete in the main the mechanization of agriculture. Aggregate tractor power was to increase from 2,250,000 hp. in 1932 to over 8,000,000 hp. in 1937. The plan provided for the extensive employment of scientific agricultural methods (correct crop rotation, use of selected seed, autumn ploughing, etc.).<br />
<br />
A tremendous plan for the technical reconstruction of the means of transport and communication was outlined.<br />
<br />
The Second Five-Year Plan contained an extensive program for the further improvement of the material and cultural standards of the workers and peasants.<br />
<br />
The Seventeenth Congress paid great attention to matters of organization and adopted decisions on the work of the Party and the Soviets in connection with a report made by Comrade Kaganovich. The question of organization had acquired even greater importance now that the general line of the Party had won and the Party policy had been tried and tested by the experience of millions of workers and peasants. The new and complex tasks of the Second Five-Year Plan called for a higher standard of work in all spheres.<br />
<br />
"The major tasks of the Second Five-Year Plan, viz., to completely eliminate the capitalist elements, to overcome the survivals of capitalism in economic life and in the minds of men, to complete the reconstruction of the whole national economy on modern technical lines, to learn to use the new technical equipment and the new enterprises, to mechanize agriculture and increase its productivity—insistently and urgently confront us with the problem of ''improving work in all spheres, first and foremost in practical organizational leadership''," it was stated in the decisions of the congress on organizational questions. (''Resolutions of the C.P.S.U.[B.]'', Russ. ed., Part II, p. 591.)<br />
<br />
The Seventeenth Congress adopted new Party Rules, which differ from the old ones firstly by the addition of a preamble. This preamble gives a brief definition of the Communist Party, and a definition of its role in the struggle of the proletariat and its place in the organism of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The new rules enumerate in detail the duties of Party members. Stricter regulations governing the admission of new members and a clause concerning sympathizers' groups were introduced. The new rules give a more detailed exposition of the organizational structure of the Party, and formulate anew the clauses dealing with the Party nuclei, or primary organizations, as they have been called since the Seventeenth Party Congress. The clauses dealing with inner-Party democracy and Party discipline were also formulated anew.<br />
<br />
=== Degeneration of the Bukharinites into political double-dealers. Degeneration of the Trotskyite double-dealers into a white-guard gang of assassins and spies. Foul murder of S. M. Kirov. Measures of the party to heighten Bolshevik vigilance. ===<br />
The achievements of Socialism in our country were a cause of rejoicing not only to the Party, and not only to the workers and collective farmers, but also to our Soviet intelligentsia, and to all honest citizens of the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
But they were no cause of rejoicing to the remnants of the defeated exploiting classes; on the contrary, they only enraged them the more as time went on.<br />
<br />
They infuriated the lickspittles of the defeated classes—the puny remnants of the following of Bukharin and Trotsky.<blockquote>These gentry were guided in their evaluation of the achievements of the workers and collective farmers not by the interests of the people, who applauded every such achievement, but by the interests of their own wretched and putrid faction, which had lost all contact with the realities of life. Since the achievements of Socialism in our country meant the victory of the policy of the Party and the utter bankruptcy of their own policy, these gentry, instead of admitting the obvious facts and joining the common cause, began to revenge themselves on the Party and the people for their own failure, for their own bankruptcy; they began to resort to foul play and sabotage against the cause of the workers and collective farmers, to blow up pits, set fire to factories, and commit acts of wrecking in collective and state farms, with the object of undoing the achievements of the workers and collective farmers and evoking popular discontent against the Soviet Government. And in order, while doing so, to shield their puny group from exposure and destruction, they simulated loyalty to the Party, fawned upon it, eulogized it, cringed before it more and more, while in reality continuing their underhand, subversive activities against the workers and peasants.</blockquote>At the Seventeenth Party Congress, Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky made repentant speeches, praising the Party and extolling its achievements to the skies. But the congress detected a ring of insincerity and duplicity in their speeches; for what the Party expects from its members is not eulogies and rhapsodies over its achievements, but conscientious work on the Socialist front. And this was what the Bukharinites had showed no signs of for a long time. The Party saw that the hollow speeches of these gentry were in reality meant for their supporters outside the congress, to serve as a lesson to them in duplicity, and a call to them not to laydowntheirarms.<br />
<br />
Speeches were also made at the Seventeenth Congress by the Trotskyites Zinoviev and Kamenev, who lashed themselves extravagantly for their mistakes, and eulogized the Party no less extravagantly for its achievements. But the congress could not help seeing that both their nauseating self-castigation and their fulsome praise of the Party were only meant to hide an uneasy and unclean conscience. However, the Party did not yet know or suspect that while these gentry were making their cloying speeches at the congress they were hatching a villainous plot against the life of S. M. Kirov.<br />
<br />
On December 1, 1934, S. M. Kirov was foully murdered in the Smolny, in Leningrad, by a shot from a revolver.<br />
<br />
The assassin was caught red-handed and turned out to be a member of a secret counter-revolutionary group made up of members of an anti-Soviet group of Zinovievites in Leningrad.<br />
<br />
S. M. Kirov was loved by the Party and the working class, and his murder stirred the people profoundly, sending a wave of wrath and deep sorrow through the country.<br />
<br />
The investigation established that in 1933 and 1934 an underground counter-revolutionary terrorist group had been formed in Leningrad consisting of former members of the Zinoviev opposition and headed by a so-called "Leningrad Centre." The purpose of this group was to murder leaders of the Communist Party. S. M. Kirov was chosen as the first victim. The testimony of the members of this counter-revolutionary group showed that they were connected with representatives of foreign capitalist states and were receiving funds from them.<br />
<br />
The exposed members of this organization were sentenced by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R. to the supreme penalty—to be shot.<br />
<br />
Soon afterwards the existence of an underground counter-revolutionary organization called the "Moscow Centre" was discovered. The preliminary investigation and the trial revealed the villainous part played by Zinoviev, Kamenev, Yevdokimov and other leaders of this organization in cultivating the terrorist mentality among their followers, and in plotting the murder of members of the Party Central Committee and of the Soviet Government.<br />
<br />
To such depths of duplicity and villainy had these people sunk that Zinoviev, who was one of the organizers and instigators of the assassination of S. M. Kirov, and who had urged the murderer to hasten the crime, wrote an obituary of Kirov speaking of him in terms of eulogy, and demanded that it be published.<br />
<br />
The Zinovievites simulated remorse in court; but they persisted in their duplicity even in the dock. They concealed their connection with Trotsky. They concealed the fact that together with the Trotskyites they had sold themselves to fascist espionage services. They concealed their spying and wrecking activities. They concealed from the court their connections with the Bukharinites, and the existence of a united Trotsky-Bukharin gang of fascist hirelings.<br />
<br />
As it later transpired, the murder of Comrade Kirov was the work of this united Trotsky-Bukharin gang.<br />
<br />
Even then, in 1935, it had become clear that the Zinoviev group was a camouflaged Whiteguard organization whose members fully deserved to be treated as Whiteguards.<br />
<br />
A year later it became known that the actual, real and direct organizers of the murder of Kirov were Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev and their accomplices, and that they had also made preparations for the assassination of other members of the Central Committee. Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bakayev, Yevdokimov, Pikel, I. N. Smirnov, Mrachkovsky, Ter-Vaganyan, Reingold and others were committed for trial. Confronted by direct evidence, they had to admit publicly, in open court, that they had not only organized the assassination of Kirov, but had been planning to murder all the other leaders of the Party and the Government. Later investigation established the fact that these villains had been engaged in espionage and in organizing acts of diversion. The full extent of the monstrous moral and political depravity of these men, their despicable villainy and treachery, concealed by hypocritical professions of loyalty to the Party, were revealed at a trial in Moscow, 1936.<br />
<br />
The chief instigator and ringleader of this gang of assassins and spies was Judas Trotsky. Trotsky's assistants and agents in carrying out his counter-revolutionary instructions were Zinoviev, Kamenev and their Trotskyite underlings. They were preparing to bring about the defeat of the U.S.S.R. in the event of attack by imperialist countries; they had become defeatists with regard to the workers' and peasants' state; they had become despicable tools and agents of the German and Japanese fascists.<br />
<br />
The main lesson which the Party organizations had to draw from the trials of the persons implicated in the foul murder of S. M. Kirov was that they must put an end to their own political blindness and political heedlessness, and must increase their vigilance and the vigilance of all Party members.<br />
<br />
In a circular letter to Party organizations on the subject of the foul murder of S. M. Kirov, the Central Committee of the Party stated:<blockquote>"a) We must put an end to the opportunist complacency engendered by the enormous assumption that as we grow stronger the enemy will become tamer and more inoffensive. This assumption is an utter fallacy. It is a recrudescence of the Right deviation, which assured all and sundry that our enemies would little by little creep into Socialism and in the end become real Socialists. The Bolsheviks have no business to rest on their laurels; they have no business to sleep at their posts. What we need is not complacency, but vigilance, real Bolshevik revolutionary vigilance. It should be remembered that the more hopeless the position of the enemies, the more eagerly will they dutch at ‘extreme measures' as the only recourse of the doomed in their struggle against the Soviet power. We must remember this, and be vigilant.<br />
<br />
"b) We must properly organize the teaching of the history of the Party to Party members, the study of all and sundry anti-Party groups in the history of our Party, their methods of combating the Party line, their tactics and—still more the tactics and methods of our Party in combating anti-Party groups, the tactics and methods which have enabled our Party to vanquish and demolish these groups. Party members should not only know how the Party combated and vanquished the Constitutional-Democrats, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and Anarchists, but also how it combated and vanquished the Trotskyites, the ‘Democratic-Centralists,' the ‘Workers' Opposition,' the Zinovievites, the Right deviators, the Right-Leftist freaks and the like. It should never be forgotten that a knowledge and understanding of the history of our Party is a most important and essential means of fully ensuring the revolutionary vigilance of the Party members."</blockquote>Of enormous importance in this period was the purge of the Party ranks from adventitious and alien elements, begun in 1933, and especially the careful verification of the records of Party members and the exchange of old Party cards for new ones undertaken after the foul murder of S. M. Kirov.<br />
<br />
Prior to the verification of the records of Party members, irresponsibility and negligence in the handling of Party cards had prevailed in many Party organizations. In a number of the organizations utterly intolerable chaos in the registration of Communists was revealed, a state of affairs which enemies had been turning to their nefarious ends, using the possession of a Party card as a screen for espionage, wrecking, etc. Many leaders of Party organizations had entrusted the enrolment of new members and the issuance of Party cards to persons in minor positions, and often even to Party members of untested reliability.<br />
<br />
In a circular letter to all organizations dated May 13, 1935, on the subject of the registration, safekeeping and issuance of Party cards, the Central Committee instructed all organizations to make a careful verification of the records of Party members and "to establish Bolshevik order in our own Party home."<br />
<br />
The verification of the records of Party members was of great political value. In connection with the report of Comrade Yezhov, Secretary of the Central Committee, on the results of the verification of the records of Party members, a plenary meeting of the Central Committee of the Party adopted a resolution on December 25, 1935, declaring that this verification was an organizational and political measure of enormous importance in strengthening the ranks of the C.P.S.U.(B.)<br />
<br />
After the verification of the records of Party members and the exchange of Party cards, the admission of new members into the Party was resumed. In this connection the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U.(B.) demanded that new members should not be admitted into the Party wholesale, but on the basis of a strictly individual enrolment of "people really advanced and really devoted to the cause of the working class, the finest people of our country, drawn above all from among the workers, and also from among peasants and active intelligentsia, who had been tried and tested in various sectors of the struggle for Socialism."<br />
<br />
In resuming the admission of new members to the Party, the Central Committee instructed Party organizations to bear in mind that hostile elements would persist in their attempts to worm their way into the ranks of the C.P.S.U.(B.). Consequently:<blockquote>"It is the task of every Party organization to increase Bolshevik vigilance to the utmost, to hold aloft the banner of the Leninist Party, and to safeguard the ranks of the Party from the penetration of alien, hostile and adventitious elements." (Resolution of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U.[B.], September 29, 1936, published in ''Pravda'' No. 270, 1936.)</blockquote>Purging and consolidating its ranks, destroying the enemies of the Party and relentlessly combating distortions of the Party line, the Bolshevik Party rallied closer than ever around its Central Committee under whose leadership the Party and the Soviet land now passed to a new stage—the completion of the construction of a classless, Socialist society.<br />
<br />
=== Brief summary ===<br />
In the period 1930-34 the Bolshevik Party solved what was, after the winning of power, the most difficult historical problem of the proletarian revolution, namely, to get the millions of small peasant owners to adopt the path of collective farming, the path of Socialism.<br />
<br />
The elimination of the kulaks, the most numerous of the exploiting classes, and the adoption of collective farming by the bulk of the peasants led to the destruction of the last roots of capitalism in the country, to the final victory of Socialism in agriculture, and to the complete consolidation of the Soviet power in the countryside.<br />
<br />
After overcoming a number of difficulties of an organizational character, the collective farms became firmly established and entered upon the path of prosperity.<br />
<br />
The effect of the First Five-Year Plan was to lay an unshakable foundation of a Socialist economic system in our country in the shape of a first-class Socialist heavy industry and collective mechanized agriculture, to put an end to unemployment, to abolish the exploitation of man by man, and to create the conditions for the steady improvement of the material and cultural standards of our working people.<br />
<br />
These colossal achievements were attained by the working class, the collective farmers, and the working people of our country generally, thanks to the bold, revolutionary and wise policy of the Party and the Government.<br />
<br />
The surrounding capitalist world, striving to undermine and disrupt the might of the U.S.S.R., worked with redoubled energy to organize gangs of assassins, wreckers and spies within the U.S.S.R. This hostile activity of the capitalist encirclement became particularly marked with the advent of fascism to power in Germany and Japan. In the Trotskyites and Zinovievites, fascism found faithful servants who were ready to spy, sabotage, commit acts of terrorism and diversion, and to work for the defeat of the U.S.S.R. in order to restore capitalism.<br />
<br />
The Soviet Government punished these degenerates with an iron hand, dealing ruthlessly with these enemies of the people and traitors to the country.<br />
<br />
== The Bolshevik party in the struggle to complete the building of the socialist society. Introduction of the new constitution (1935—1937) ==<br />
<br />
=== International situation in 1935—1937. Temporary mitigation of the economic crisis. Beginning of a new economic crisis. Seizure of Ethiopia by Italy. German and Italian intervention in Spain. Japanese invasion of central China. Beginning of the second imperialist war ===<br />
The economic crisis that had broken out in the capitalist countries in the latter half of 1929 lasted until the end of 1933. After that industry ceased to decline, the crisis was succeeded by a period of stagnation, and was then followed by a certain revival, a certain upward trend. But this upward trend was not of the kind that ushers in an industrial boom on a new and higher basis. World capitalist industry was unable even to reach the level of 1929, attaining by the middle of 1937 only 95-96 per cent of that level. And already in the second half of 1937 a new economic crisis began, affecting first of all the United States. By the end of 1937 the number of unemployed in the U.S.A. had again risen to ten million. In Great Britain, too, unemployment was rapidly increasing.<br />
<br />
The capitalist countries thus found themselves faced with a new economic crisis before they had even recovered from the ravages of the preceding one.<br />
<br />
The result was that the contradictions between the imperialist countries, as likewise between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, grew still more acute. As a consequence, the aggressor states redoubled their efforts to recoup themselves for the losses caused by the economic crisis at home at the expense of other, poorly defended, countries. The two notorious aggressor states, Germany and Japan, were this time joined by a third—Italy.<br />
<br />
In 1935, fascist Italy attacked Ethiopia and subjugated her. She did so without any reason or justification in "international law"; she attacked her like a robber, without declaring war, as is now the vogue with the fascists. This was a blow not only at Ethiopia, but also at Great Britain, at her sea routes from Europe to India and to Asia generally. Great Britain vainly attempted to prevent Italy from establishing herself in Ethiopia. Italy later withdrew from the League of Nations so as to leave her hands free, and began to arm on an intensive scale.<br />
<br />
Thus, on the shortest sea routes between Europe and Asia, a new war knot was tied.<br />
<br />
Fascist Germany tore up the Versailles Peace Treaty by a unilateral act, and adopted a scheme for the ''forcible'' revision of the map of Europe. The German fascists made no secret of the fact that they were seeking to subjugate the neighbouring states, or, at least, to seize such of their territories as were peopled by Germans. Accordingly, they planned first to seize Austria, then to strike at Czechoslovakia, then, maybe, at Poland—which also has a compact territory peopled by Germans and bordering on Germany—and then . . . well, then "we shall see."<br />
<br />
In the summer of 1936, Germany and Italy started military intervention against the Spanish Republic. Under the guise of supporting the Spanish fascists, they secured the opportunity of surreptitiously landing troops on Spanish territory, in the rear of France, and stationing their fleets in Spanish waters—in the zones of the Balearic Islands and Gibraltar in the south, the Atlantic Ocean in the west, and the Bay of Biscay in the north. At the beginning of 1938 the German fascists seized Austria, thus establishing themselves in the middle reaches of the Danube and expanding in the south of Europe, towards the Adriatic Sea.<br />
<br />
same time assuring the world that they were fighting the Spanish "Reds" and harboured no other designs. But this was a crude and shallow camouflage designed to deceive simpletons. As a matter of fact, they were striking at Great Britain and France, by bestriding the sea communications of these countries with their vast African and Asiatic colonial possessions.<br />
<br />
As to the seizure of Austria, this at any rate could not be passed off as a struggle against the Versailles Treaty, as part of Germany"s effort to protect her "national" interests by recovering territory lost in the first Imperialist War. Austria had not formed part of Germany, either before or after the war. The ''forcible'' annexation of Austria was a glaring imperialist seizure of foreign territory. It left no doubt as to fascist Germany"s designs to gain a dominant position on the West European continent.<br />
<br />
This was above all a blow at the interests of France and Great Britain.<br />
<br />
Thus, in the south of Europe, in the zone of Austria and the Adriatic, and in the extreme west of Europe, in the zone of Spain and the waters washing her shores, new war knots were tied.<br />
<br />
In 1937, the Japanese fascist militarists seized Peiping, invaded Central China and occupied Shanghai. Like the Japanese invasion of Manchuria several years earlier, the invasion of Central China was effected by the customary Japanese method, in robber fashion, by the dishonest exploitation of various "local incidents" engineered by the Japanese themselves, and in violation of all "international standards," treaties, agreements, etc. The seizure of Tientsin and Shanghai placed the keys of the immense China market in the hands of Japan. As long as Japan holds Shanghai and Tientsin, she can at any moment oust Great Britain and the U.S.A. from Central China, where they have huge investments.<br />
<br />
Of course, the heroic struggle of the Chinese people and their army against the Japanese invaders, the tremendous national revival in China, her huge resources of man-power and territory, and, lastly, the determination of the Chinese National Government to fight the struggle for emancipation to a finish, until the invaders are completely driven out from Chinese territory, all go to show beyond a doubt that there is no future for the Japanese imperialists in China, and never will be.<br />
<br />
But it is nevertheless true that for the time being Japan holds the keys of China"s trade, and that her war on China is in effect a most serious blow at the interests of Great Britain and the U.S.A.<br />
<br />
Thus, in the Pacific, in the zone of China, one more war knot was tied.<br />
<br />
All these facts show that a second imperialist war has actually begun. It began stealthily, without any declaration of war. States and nations have, almost imperceptibly, slipped into the orbit of a second imperialist war. It was the three aggressor states, the fascist ruling circles of Germany, Italy and Japan, that began the war in various parts of the world. It is being waged over a huge expanse of territory, stretching from Gibraltar to Shanghai. It has already drawn over five hundred million people into its orbit. In the final analysis, it is being waged against the capitalist interests of Great Britain, France and the U.S.A., since its object is a redivision of the world and of the spheres of influence in favour of the aggressor countries and at the expense of the so-called democratic states.<br />
<br />
A distinguishing feature of the second imperialist war is that so far it is being waged and extended by the aggressor powers, while the other powers, the "democratic" powers, against whom in fact the war is directed, pretend that it does not concern them, wash their hands of it, draw back, boast of their love of peace, scold the fascist aggressors, and . . . surrender their positions to the aggressors bit by bit, at the same time asserting that they are preparing to resist.<br />
<br />
This war, it will be seen, is of a rather strange and one-sided character. But that does not prevent it from being a brutal war of unmitigated conquest waged at the expense of the poorly defended peoples of Ethiopia, Spain and China.<br />
<br />
It would be wrong to attribute this one-sided character of the war to the military or economic weakness of the "democratic" states. The "democratic" states are, of course, stronger than the fascist states. The one-sided character of the developing world war is due to the absence of a united front of the "democratic" states against the fascist powers. The so-called democratic states, of course, do not approve of the "excesses" of the fascist states and fear any accession of strength to the latter. But they fear even more the working-class movement in Europe and the movement of national emancipation in Asia, and regard fascism as an "excellent antidote" to these "dangerous" movements. For this reason the ruling circles of the "democratic" states, especially the ruling Conservative circles of Great Britain, confine themselves to a policy of pleading with the overweening fascist rulers "not to go to extremes," at the same time giving them to understand that they "fully comprehend" and on the whole sympathize with their reactionary police policy towards the working-class movement and the national emancipation movement. In this respect, the ruling circles of Britain are roughly pursuing the same policy as was pursued under tsardom by the Russian liberal-monarchist bourgeois, who, while fearing the "excesses" of tsarist policy, feared the people even more, and therefore resorted to a policy of pleading with the tsar and, consequently, of ''conspiring'' with the tsar against the people. As we know, the liberal-monarchist bourgeoisie of Russia paid dearly for this dual policy. It may be presumed that history will exact retribution also from the ruling circles of Britain, and of their friends in France and the U.S.A.<br />
<br />
Clearly, the U.S.S.R. could not shut its eyes to such a turn in the international situation and ignore the ominous events. Any war, however small, started by the aggressors, constitutes a menace to the peaceable countries. The second imperialist war, which has so "imperceptibly" stolen upon the nations and has involved over five hundred million people, is bound all the more to represent a most serious danger to all nations, and to the U.S.S.R. in the first place. This is eloquently borne out by the formation of the "Anti-Communist Bloc" by Germany, Italy and Japan. Therefore, our country, while pursuing its policy of peace, set to work to further strengthen its frontier defences and the fighting efficiency of its Red Army and Navy. Towards the end of 1934 the U.S.S.R. joined the League of Nations. It did so in the knowledge that the League in spite of its weakness, might nevertheless serve as a place where aggressors can be exposed, and as a certain instrument of peace, however feeble, that might hinder the outbreak of war. The Soviet Union considered that in times like these even so weak an international organization as the League of Nations should not be ignored. In May 1935 a treaty of mutual assistance against possible attack by aggressors was signed between France and the U.S.S.R. A similar treaty was simultaneously concluded between the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia. In March 1936 the U.S.S.R. signed a treaty of mutual assistance with the Mongolian People"s Republic, and in August 1937 a pact of non-aggression with the Republic of China.<br />
<br />
=== Further progress of industry and agriculture in the USSR. Second five-year plan fulfilled ahead of time. Reconstruction of agriculture and completion of collectivization. Importance of cadres. Stakhanov movement. Rising standard of welfare. Rising cultural standard. Strength of the soviet revolution ===<br />
Whereas, three years after the economic crisis of 1930-33, a new economic crisis began in the capitalist countries, in the U.S.S.R. industry continued to make steady progress ''during the whole of this period''. Whereas by the middle of 1937 world capitalist industry, as a whole, had barely attained 95-96 per cent of the level of production of 1929, only to be caught in the throes of a new crisis in the second half of 1937, the industry of the U.S.S.R. in its steady cumulative progress, had by the end of 1937 attained 428 per cent of the output of 1929, or over 700 per cent of the pre-war output.<br />
<br />
These achievements were a direct result of the policy of reconstruction so persistently pursued by the Party and the Government.<br />
<br />
The result of these achievements was that the Second Five-Year Plan of industry was fulfilled ahead of time. It was completed by April 1, 1937, that is, in four years and three months.<br />
<br />
This was a most important victory for Socialism. Progress in agriculture presented very much the same picture. The total area under all crops increased from 105,000,000 hectares in 1913 (pre-war) to 135,000,000 hectares in 1937. The grain harvest increased from 4,800,000,000 poods in 1913, to 6,800,000,000 poods in 1937, the raw cotton crop from 44,000,000 poods to 154,000,000 poods, the flax crop (fibre) from 19,000,000 poods to 31,000,000 poods, the sugar-beet crop from 654,000,000 poods to 1,311,000,000 poods, and the oil-seed crop from 129,000,000 poods to 306,000,000 poods.<br />
<br />
It should be mentioned that in 1937 the collective farms alone (without the state farms) produced a marketable surplus of over 1,700,000,000 poods of grain, which was at least 400,000,000 poods more than the landlords, kulaks and peasants together marketed in 1913.<br />
<br />
Only one branch of agriculture—livestock farming—still lagged behind the pre-war level and continued to progress at a slower rate.<br />
<br />
As to collectivization in agriculture, it might be considered completed. The number of peasant households that had joined the collective farms by 1937 was 18,500,000 or 93 per cent of the total number of peasant households, while the grain crop area of the collective farms amounted to 99 per cent of the total grain crop area of the peasants.<br />
<br />
The fruits of the reconstruction of agriculture and of the extensive supply of tractors and machinery for agricultural purposes were now manifest.<br />
<br />
As a result of the completion of the reconstruction of industry and agriculture the national economy was now abundantly supplied with first-class technique. Industry, agriculture, the transport system and the army had received huge quantities of modern technique—machinery and machine tools, tractors and agricultural machines, locomotives and steamships, artillery and tanks, aeroplanes and warships. Tens and hundreds of thousands of trained people were required, people capable of harnessing all this technique and getting the most out of it. Without this, without a sufficient number of people who had mastered technique, there was a risk of technique becoming so much dead and unused metal. This was a serious danger, a result of the fact that the growth in the number of trained people, cadres, capable of harnessing, making full use of technique ''was not keeping pace with'', and even ''lagging far behind'', the spread of technique. Matters were further complicated by the fact that a considerable number of our industrial executives did not realize this danger and believed that technique would just "do the job by itself." Whereas, formerly, they had underrated the importance of technique and treated it with disdain, now they began to overrate it and turn it into a fetish. They did not realize that without people who had mastered technique, technique was a dead thing. They did not realize that to make technique highly productive, people who had mastered technique were required.<br />
<br />
Thus the problem of cadres who had mastered technique became one of prime importance.<br />
<br />
The executives who displayed an excessive zeal for technique and a consequent underestimation of the importance of trained people, cadres, had to have their attention turned to the study and mastery of technique, and to the necessity of doing everything to train numerous cadres capable of harnessing technique and getting the most out of it.<br />
<br />
Whereas formerly, at the beginning of the reconstruction period, when the country suffered from a dearth of technique, the Party had issued the slogan, "technique in the period of reconstruction decides everything," now, when there was an abundance of technique, when the reconstruction had in the main been completed, and when the country was experiencing an acute dearth of cadres, it became incumbent on the Party to issue a new slogan, one that would focus attention, not so much on technique, as on people, on cadres capable of utilizing technique to the full.<br />
<br />
Of great importance in this respect was the speech made by Comrade Stalin to the graduates from the Red Army Academies in May 1935.<blockquote>"Formerly," said Comrade Stalin, "we used to say that "technique decides everything." This slogan helped us to put an end to the dearth in technique and to create a vast technical base in every branch of activity for the equipment of our people with first-class technique. That is very good. But it is not enough, it is not enough by far. In order to set technique going and to utilize it to the full, we need people who have mastered technique, we need cadres capable of mastering and utilizing this technique according to all the rules of the art. Without people who have mastered technique, technique is dead. In the charge of people who have mastered technique, technique can and should perform miracles. If in our first-class mills and factories, in our state farms and collective farms and in our Red Army we had sufficient cadres capable of harnessing this technique, our country would secure results three times and four times as great as at present. That is why emphasis must now be laid on people, on cadres, on workers who have mastered technique. That is why the old slogan, "technique decides everything," which is a reflection of a period already passed, a period in which we suffered from a dearth of technique, must now be replaced by a new slogan, the slogan ''"cadres decide everything.''" That is the main thing now...<br />
<br />
"It is time to realize that of all the valuable capital the world possesses, the most valuable and most decisive is people, cadres. It must be realized that under our present conditions ''"cadres decide everything."'' If we have good and numerous cadres in industry, agriculture, transport and the army—our country will be invincible. If we do not have such cadres—we shall be lame on both legs."</blockquote>Thus the prime task now was to accelerate the training of technical cadres and rapidly to master the new technique with the object of securing a continued rise in productivity of labour.<br />
<br />
The most striking example of the growth of such cadres, of the mastering of the new technique by our people, and of the continued rise in productivity of labour was the Stakhanov movement. It originated and developed in the Donetz Basin, in the coal industry, and spread to other branches of industry, to the railways, and then to agriculture. It was called the Stakhanov movement after its originator, Alexei Stakha-nov, a coal-hewer in the Central Irmino Colliery (Donetz Basin). Sta-khanov had been preceded by Nikita Izotov, who had broken all previous records in coal hewing. On August 31, 1935, Stakhanov hewed 102 tons of coal in one shift and thus fulfilled the standard output fourteen times over. This inaugurated a mass movement of workers and collective farmers for raising the standards of output, for a new advance in productivity of labour. Busygin in the automobile industry, Smetanin in the shoe industry, Krivonoss on the railways, Musinsky in the timber industry, Evdokia Vinogradova and Maria Vinogradova in the textile industry, Maria Demchenko, Maria Gnatenko, P. Angelina, Polagutin, Kolesov, Borin and Kovardak in agriculture—these were the first pioneers of the Stakhanov movement.<br />
<br />
They were followed by other pioneers, whole battalions of them, who surpassed the productivity of labour of the earlier pioneers.<br />
<br />
Tremendous stimulus was given to the Stakhanov movement by the First All-Union Conference of Stakhanovites held in the Kremlin in November 1935, and by the speech Comrade Stalin made there.<blockquote>"The Stakhanov movement," Comrade Stalin said in this speech, "is the expression of a new wave of Socialist emulation, a new and higher stage of Socialist emulation...In the past, some three years ago, in the period of the first stage of Socialist emulation, Socialist emulation was not necessarily associated with modern technique. At that time, in fact, we had hardly any modern technique. The present stage of Socialist emulation, the Stakhanov movement, on the other hand, is necessarily associated with modern technique. The Stakhanov movement would be inconceivable without a new and higher technique. We have before us people like Comrade Stakhanov, Busygin, Smetanin, Krivonoss, the Vinogradovas and many others, new people, working men and women, who have completely mastered the technique of their jobs, have harnessed it and driven ahead. We had no such people, or hardly any such people, some three years ago...The significance of the Stakhanov movement lies in the fact that it is a movement which is smashing the old technical standards, because they are inadequate, which in a number of cases is surpassing the productivity of labour of the foremost capitalist countries, and is thus creating the practical possibility of further consolidating Socialism in our country, of converting our country into the most prosperous of all countries."</blockquote>Describing the methods of work of the Stakhanovites, and bringing out the tremendous significance of the Stakhanov movement for the future of our country, Comrade Stalin went on to say:<blockquote>"Look at our comrades, the Stakhanovites, more closely. What type of people are they? They are mostly young or middle-aged working men and women, people with culture and technical knowledge, who show examples of precision and accuracy in work, who are able to appreciate the time factor in work and who have learned to count not only the minutes, but also the seconds. The majority of them have taken the technical minimum courses and are continuing their technical education. They are free of the conservatism and stagnation of certain engineers, technicians and business executives; they are marching boldly forward, smashing the antiquated technical standards and creating new and higher standards; they are introducing amendments into the designed capacities and economic plans drawn up by the leaders of our industry; they often supplement and correct what the engineers and technicians have to say, they often teach them and impel them forward, for they are people who have completely mastered the technique of their job and who are able to squeeze out of technique the maximum that can- be squeezed out of it. Today the Stakhanovites are still few in number, but who can doubt that tomorrow there will be ten times more of them? Is it not clear that the Stakhanovites are innovators in our industry, that the Stakhanov movement represents the future of our industry, that it contains the seed of the future rise in the cultural and technical level of the working class, that it opens to us the path by which alone can be achieved those high indices of productivity of labour which are essential for the transition from Socialism to Communism and for the elimination of the distinction between mental labour and manual labour."</blockquote>The spread of the Stakhanov movement and the fulfillment of the Second Five-Year Plan ahead of time created the conditions for a new rise in the standard of welfare and culture of the working people.<br />
<br />
During the period of the Second Five-Year Plan real wages of workers and office employees had more than doubled. The total payroll increased from 34,000,000,000 rubles in 1933 to 81,000,000,000 rubles in 1937. The state social insurance fund increased from 4,600,000,000 rubles to 5,600,000,000 rubles in the same period. In 1937 alone, about 10,000,000,000 rubles were expended on the state insurance of workers and employees, on improving living conditions and on meeting cultural requirements, on sanatoria, health resorts, rest homes and on medical service.<br />
<br />
In the countryside, the collective farm system had been definitely consolidated. This was greatly assisted by the Rules of the Agricultural Artel, adopted by the Second Congress of Collective Farm Shock Workers in February 1935, and the assignment to the collective farms of the land cultivated by them in perpetual tenure. The consolidation of the collective farm system put an end to poverty and insecurity among the rural population. Whereas formerly, some three years earlier, the collective farmers had received one or two kilograms of grain per work-day-unit, now the majority of the collective farmers in the grain-growing regions were receiving from five to twelve kilograms, and many as much as twenty kilograms per work-day-unit, besides other kinds of produce and money income. There were millions of collective farm households in the grain-growing regions who now received as their yearly returns from 500 to 1,500 poods of grain, and in the cotton, sugar beet, flax, livestock, grape growing, citrus fruit growing and fruit and vegetable growing regions, tens of thousands of rubles in annual income. The collective farms had become prosperous. It was now the chief concern of the household of a collective farmer to build new granaries and storehouses, inasmuch as the old storage places, which were designed for a meagre annual supply, no longer met even one-tenth of the household"s requirements.<br />
<br />
In 1936, in view of the rising standard of welfare of the people, the government passed a law prohibiting abortion, at the same time adopting an extensive program for the building of maternity homes, nurseries, milk centres and kindergartens. In 1936, 2,174,000,000 rubles were assigned for these measures, as compared with 875,000,000 rubles in 1935. A law was passed providing for considerable grants to large families. Grants to a total of over 1,000,000,000 rubles were made in 1937 under this law.<br />
<br />
The introduction of universal compulsory education and the building of new schools led to the rapid cultural progress of the people. Schools were built in large numbers all over the country. The number of pupils in elementary and intermediate schools increased from 8,000,000 in 1914 to 28,000,000 in the school year 1936-37. The number of university students increased from 112,000 to 542,000 in the same period.<br />
<br />
This was a veritable cultural revolution.<br />
<br />
The rise in the standard of welfare and culture of the masses was a reflection of the strength, might and invincibility of our Soviet revolution. Revolutions in the past perished because, while giving the people freedom, they were unable to bring about any serious improvement in their material and cultural conditions. Therein lay their chief weakness. Our revolution differs from all other revolutions in that it not only freed the people from tsardom and capitalism, but also brought about a radical improvement in the welfare and cultural condition of the people. Therein lies its strength and invincibility.<blockquote>"Our proletarian revolution," said Comrade Stalin at the First All-Union Conference of Stakhanovites, "is the only revolution in the world which had the opportunity of showing the people not only political results but also material results. Of all workers" revolutions we know only one which managed to achieve power. That was the Paris Commune. But it did not last long. True, it endeavoured to smash the fetters of capitalism, but it did not have time enough to smash them, and still less to show the people the beneficial material results of revolution. Our revolution is the only one which not only smashed the fetters of capitalism and brought the people freedom, but also succeeded in creating the material conditions of a prosperous life for the people. Therein lies the strength and invincibility of our revolution."</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Eighth congress of soviets. Adoption of the new constitution of the USSR ===<br />
In February 1935, the Seventh Congress of Soviets of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics passed a decision to change the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. which had been adopted in 1924. The change of the Constitution was necessitated by the vast changes that had taken place in the life of the U.S.S.R. since the first Constitution of the Soviet Union had been adopted in 1924. During this period the relation of class forces within the country had completely changed; a new Socialist industry had been created, the kulaks had been smashed, the collective farm system had triumphed, and the Socialist ownership of the means of production had been established in every branch of national economy as the basis of Soviet society. The victory of Socialism made possible the further democratization of the electoral system and the introduction of universal, equal and direct suffrage with secret ballot.<br />
<br />
The new Constitution of the U.S.S.R. was drafted by a Constitution Commission set up for the purpose, under the chairmanship of Comrade Stalin. The draft was thrown open to nationwide discussion, which lasted five and a half months. It was then submitted to the Extraordinary Eighth Congress of Soviets.<br />
<br />
The Eighth Congress of Soviets, specially convened to approve or reject the draft of the new Constitution of the U.S.S.R., met in November1936.<br />
<br />
Reporting to the congress on the draft of the new Constitution, Comrade Stalin enumerated the principal changes that had taken place in the Soviet Union since the adoption of the 1924 Constitution.<br />
<br />
The 1924 Constitution had been drawn up in the early period of NEP. At that time the Soviet Government still permitted the develop ent of capitalism alongside of the development of Socialism. The Soviet Government planned in the course of competition between the two systems—the capitalist system and the Socialist system—to organize and ensure the victory of Socialism over capitalism in the economic field. The question, "Who will win?" had not yet been settled. Industry, with its old and inadequate technical equipment, had not attained even the pre-war level. Even less enviable was the picture presented by agriculture. The state farms and collective farms were mere islands in a boundless ocean of individual peasant farms. The question then was not of eliminating the kulaks, but merely of restricting them. The Socialist sector accounted for only about 50 per cent of the country"s trade.<br />
<br />
Entirely different was the picture presented by the U.S.S.R. in 1936. By that time the economic life of the country had undergone a complete change. The capitalist elements had been entirely eliminated and the Socialist system had triumphed in all spheres of economic life. There was now a powerful Socialist industry which had increased output seven times compared with the pre-war output and had completely ousted private industry. Mechanized Socialist farming in the form of collective farms and state farms, equipped with up-to-date machinery and run on the largest scale in the world, had triumphed in agriculture. By 1936, the kulaks had been completely eliminated as a class, and the individual peasants no longer played any important role in the economic life of the country. Trade was entirely concentrated in the hands of the state and the co-operatives. The exploitation of man by man had been abolished forever. Public, Socialist ownership of the means of production had been firmly established as the unshakable foundation of the new, Socialist system in all branches of economic life. In the new, Socialist society, crises, poverty, unemployment and destitution had disappeared forever. The conditions had been created for a prosperous and cultured life for all members of Soviet society.<br />
<br />
The class composition of the population of the Soviet Union, said Comrade Stalin in his report, had changed correspondingly. The landlord class and the old big imperialist bourgeoisie had already been eliminated in the period of the Civil War. During the years of Socialist construction all the exploiting elements—capitalists, merchants, kulaks and profiteers—had been eliminated. Only insignificant remnants of the eliminated exploiting classes persisted, and their complete elimination was a matter of the very near future.<br />
<br />
The working people of the U.S.S.R.—workers, peasants and intellectuals—had undergone profound change in the period of Socialist construction.<br />
<br />
The working class had ceased to be an exploited class bereft of means of production, as it is under capitalism. It had abolished capitalism, taken away the means of production from the capitalists and turned them into public property. It had ceased to be a proletariat in the proper, the old meaning of the term. The proletariat of the U.S.S.R., possessing the state power, had been transformed into an entirely new class. It had become a working class emancipated from exploitation, a working class which had abolished the capitalist economic system and had established Socialist ownership of the means of production. Hence, it was a working class the like of which the history of mankind had never known before.<br />
<br />
No less profound were the changes that had taken place in the condition of the peasantry of the U.S.S.R. In the old days, over twenty million scattered individual peasant households, small and middle, had delved away in isolation on their small plots, using backward technical equipment. They were exploited by landlords, kulaks, merchants, profiteers, usurers, etc. Now an entirely new peasantry had grown up in the U.S.S.R. There were no longer any landlords, kulaks, merchants and usurers to exploit the peasants. The overwhelming majority of the peasant households had joined the collective farms, which were based not on private ownership, but on collective ownership of the means of production, collective ownership which had grown from collective labour. This was a new type of peasantry, a peasantry emancipated from all exploitation. It was a peasantry the like of which the history of mankind had never known before.<br />
<br />
The intelligentsia in the U.S.S.R. had also undergone a change. It had for the most part become an entirely new intelligentsia. The majority of its members came from the ranks of the workers and peasants. It no longer served capitalism, as the old intelligentsia did; it served Socialism. It had become an equal member of the Socialist society. Together with the workers and peasants, it was building a new Socialist society. This was a new type of intelligentsia, which served the people and was emancipated from all exploitation. It was an intelligentsia the like of which the history of mankind had never known before.<br />
<br />
Thus the old class dividing lines between the working people of the U.S.S.R. were being obliterated, the old class exclusiveness was disappearing. The economic and political contradictions between the workers, the peasants and the intellectuals were declining and becoming obliterated. The foundation for the moral and political unity of society had been created.<br />
<br />
These profound changes in the life of the U.S.S.R., these decisive achievements of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., were reflected in the new Constitution.<br />
<br />
According to the new Constitution, Soviet society consists of two friendly classes—the workers and peasants—class distinctions between the two still remaining. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a Socialist state of workers and peasants.<br />
<br />
The political foundation of the U.S.S.R. is formed by the Soviets of Deputies of the Working People, which developed and grew strong as a result of the overthrow of the power of the landlords and capitalists and the achievement of the dictatorship of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
All power in the U.S.S.R. belongs to the working people of town and country as represented by the Soviets of Deputies of the Working People.<br />
<br />
The highest organ of state power in the U.S.S.R. is the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
The Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., consisting of two Chambers with equal rights, the Soviet of the Union and the Soviet of Nationalities, is elected by the citizens of the U.S.S.R. for a term of four years on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot.<br />
<br />
Elections to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., as to all Soviets of Deputies of the Working People, are ''universal''. This means that all citizens of the U.S.S.R. who have reached the age of eighteen, irrespective of race or nationality, religion, standard of education, domicile, social origin, property status or past activities, have the right to vote in the election of deputies and to be elected, with the exception of the insane and persons convicted by court of law to sentences including deprivation of electoral rights.<br />
<br />
Elections of deputies are ''equal''. This means that each citizen is entitled to one vote and that all citizens participate in the elections on an equal footing.<br />
<br />
Elections of deputies are ''direct.'' This means that all Soviets of Deputies of the Working People, from rural and city Soviets of Deputies of the Working People up to and including the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., are elected by the citizens by direct vote.<br />
<br />
The Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. at a joint sitting of both Chambers elects the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet and the Council of People"s Commissars of the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
The economic foundation of the U.S.S.R. is the Socialist system of economy and the Socialist ownership of the means of production. In the U.S.S.R. is realized the Socialist principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."<br />
<br />
All citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed the right to work, the right to rest and leisure, the right to education, the right to maintenance in old age and in case of sickness or disability.<br />
<br />
Women are accorded equal rights with men in all spheres of life.<br />
<br />
The equality of the citizens of the U.S.S.R., irrespective of their nationality or race, is an indefeasible law.<br />
<br />
Freedom of conscience and freedom of anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.<br />
<br />
In order to strengthen Socialist society, the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, press, assembly and meeting, the right to unite in public organizations, inviolability of person, inviolability of domicile and privacy of correspondence, the right of asylum for foreign citizens persecuted for defending the interests of the working people or for their scientific activities, or for their struggle for national liberation.<br />
<br />
The new Constitution also imposes serious duties on all citizens of the U.S.S.R.: the duty of observing the laws, maintaining labour discipline, honestly performing public duties, respecting the rules of the Socialist community, safeguarding and strengthening public, Socialist property, and defending the Socialist fatherland.<blockquote>"To defend the fatherland is the sacred duty of every citizen of the U.S.S.R."</blockquote>Dealing with the right of citizens to unite in various societies, one of the articles of the Constitution states :<blockquote>"The most active and politically conscious citizens in the ranks of the working class and other strata of the working people unite in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), which is the vanguard of the working people in their struggle to strengthen and develop the Socialist system and which represents the leading core of all organizations of the working people, both public and state."</blockquote>The Eighth Congress of Soviets unanimously approved and adopted the draft of the new Constitution of the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
The Soviet country thus acquired a new Constitution, a Constitution embodying the victory of Socialism and workers" and peasants" democracy.<br />
<br />
In this way the Constitution gave legislative embodiment to the epoch-making fact that the U.S.S.R. had entered a new stage of development, the stage of the completion of the building of a Socialist society and the gradual transition to Communist society, where the guiding principle of social life will be the Communist principle: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."<br />
<br />
=== Liquidation of the remnants of the Bukharin-Trotsky gang of spies, wreckers and traitors to the country. Preparations for the election of the supreme soviet of the USSR. Broad inner-party democracy as the party’s course. Election of the supreme soviet of the USSR ===<br />
In 1937, new facts came to light regarding the fiendish crimes of the Bukharin-Trotsky gang. The trial of Pyatakov, Radek and others, the trial of Tukhachevsky, Yakir and others, and, lastly, the trial of Bukharin, Rykov, Krestinsky, Rosengoltz and others, all showed that the Bukharinites and Trotskyites had long ago joined to form a common band of enemies of the people, operating as the "Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites."<br />
<br />
The trials showed that these dregs of humanity, in conjunction with the enemies of the people, Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev, had been in conspiracy against Lenin, the Party and the Soviet state ever since the early days of the October Socialist Revolution. The insidious attempts to thwart the Peace of Brest-Litovsk at the beginning of 1918 the plot against Lenin and the conspiracy with the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries for the arrest and murder of Lenin, Stalin and Sverdlov in the spring of 1918, the villainous shot that wounded Lenin in the summer of 1918, the revolt of the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries in the summer of 1918, the deliberate aggravation of differences in the Party in 1921 with the object of undermining and overthrowing Lenin"s leadership from within, the attempts to overthrow the Party leadership during Lenin"s illness and after his death, the betrayal of state secrets and the supply of information of an espionage character to foreign espionage services, the vile assassination of Kirov, the acts of wrecking, diversion and explosions, the dastardly murder of Menzhinsky, Kuibyshev and Gorky—all these and similar villainies over a period of twenty years were committed, it transpired, with the participation or under the direction of Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Rykov and their henchmen, at the behest of espionage services of bourgeois states.<br />
<br />
The trials brought to light the fact that the Trotsky-Bukharin fiends, in obedience to the wishes of their masters—the espionage services of foreign states—had set out to destroy the Party and the Soviet state, to undermine the defensive power of the country, to assist foreign military intervention, to prepare the way for the defeat of the Red Army, to bring about the dismemberment of the U.S.S.R., to hand over the Soviet Maritime Region to the Japanese, Soviet Byelorussia to the Poles, and the Soviet Ukraine to the Germans, to destroy the gains of the workers and collective farmers, and to restore capitalist slavery in the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
These Whiteguard pigmies, whose strength was no more than that of a gnat, apparently flattered themselves that they were the masters of the country, and imagined that it was really in their power to sell or give away the Ukraine, Byelorussia and the Maritime Region.<br />
<br />
These Whiteguard insects forgot that the real masters of the Soviet country were the Soviet people, and that the Rykovs, Bukharins, Zino-vievs and Kamenevs were only temporary employees of the state, which could at any moment sweep them out from its offices as so much useless rubbish.<br />
<br />
These contemptible lackeys of the fascists forgot that the Soviet people had only to move a finger, and not a trace of them would be left.<br />
<br />
The Soviet court sentenced the Bukharin-Trotsky fiends to be shot. The People"s Commissariat of Internal Affairs carried out the sentence.<br />
<br />
The Soviet people approved the annihilation of the Bukharin-Trotsky gang and passed on to next business.<br />
<br />
And the next business was to prepare for the election of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. and to carry it out in an organized way.<br />
<br />
The Party threw all its strength into the preparations for the elections. It held that the putting into effect of the new Constitution of the U.S.S.R. signified a turn in the political life of the country. This turn meant the complete democratization of the electoral system, the substitution of universal suffrage for restricted suffrage, equal suffrage for not entirely equal suffrage, direct elections for indirect elections, and secret ballot for open ballot.<br />
<br />
Before the introduction of the new Constitution there were restrictions of the franchise in the case of priests, former Whiteguards, former kulaks, and persons not engaged in useful labour. The new Constitution abolished all franchise restrictions for these categories of citizens by making the election of deputies universal.<br />
<br />
Formerly, the election of deputies had been unequal, inasmuch as the bases of representation for the urban and rural populations differed. Now, however, all necessity for restrictions of equality of the suffrage had disappeared and all citizens were given the right to take part in the elections on an equal footing.<br />
<br />
Formerly, the elections of the intermediate and higher organs of Soviet power were indirect. Now, however, under the new Constitution, all Soviets, from rural and urban up to and including the Supreme Soviet, were to be elected by the citizens directly.<br />
<br />
Formerly, deputies to the Soviets were elected by open ballot and the voting was for lists of candidates. Now, however, the voting for deputies was to be by secret ballot, and not by lists, but for individual candidates nominated in each electoral area.<br />
<br />
This was a definite turning point in the political life of the country.<br />
<br />
The new electoral system was bound to result, and actually did result, in an enhancement of the political activity of the people, in greater control by the masses over the organs of Soviet power, and in the increased responsibility of the organs of Soviet power to the people.<br />
<br />
In order to be fully prepared for this turn, the Party had to be its moving spirit, and the leading role of the Party in the forthcoming elections had to be fully ensured. But this could be done only if the Party organizations themselves became thoroughly democratic in their everyday work, only if they fully observed the principles of democratic centralism in their inner-Party life, as the Party Rules demanded, only if all organs of the Party were elected, only if criticism and self-criticism in the Party were developed to the full, only if the responsibility of the Party bodies to the members of the Party were complete, and if the members of the Party themselves became thoroughly active.<br />
<br />
A report made by Comrade Zhdanov at the plenum of the Central Committee at the end of February 1937 on the subject of preparing the Party organizations for the elections to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. revealed the fact that a number of Party organizations were systematically violating the Party Rules and the principles of democratic centralism in their everyday work, substituting co-option for election, voting by lists for the voting for individual candidates, open ballot for secret ballot, etc. It was obvious that organizations in which such practices prevailed could not properly fulfil their tasks in the elections to the Supreme Soviet. It was therefore first of all necessary to put a stop to such anti-democratic practices in the Party organizations and to reorganize Party work on broad democratic lines.<br />
<br />
Accordingly, after hearing the report of Comrade Zhdanov, the Plenum of the Central Committee resolved:<blockquote>"a) To reorganize Party work on the basis of complete and unqualified observance of the principles of inner-Party democracy as prescribed by the Party Rules.<br />
<br />
"b) To put an end to the practice of co-opting members of Party Committees and to restore the principle of election of directing bodies of Party organizations as prescribed by the Party Rules.<br />
<br />
"c) To forbid voting by lists in the election of Party bodies; voting should be for individual candidates, all members of the Party being guaranteed the unlimited right to challenge candidates and to criticize them.<br />
<br />
"d) To introduce the secret ballot in the election of Party bodies.<br />
<br />
"e) To hold elections of Party bodies in all Party organizations, from the Party Committees of primary Party organizations to the territorial and regional committees and the Central Committees of the national Communist Parties, the elections to be completed not later than May 20.<br />
<br />
"f) To charge all Party organizations strictly to observe the provisions of the Party Rules with respect to the terms of office of Party bodies, namely: to hold elections in primary Party organizations once a year; in district and city organizations—once a year; in regional, territorial and republican organizations—every eighteen months.<br />
<br />
"g) To ensure that Party organizations strictly adhere to the system of electing Party Committees at general factory meetings, and not to allow the latter to be replaced by delegate conferences.<br />
<br />
"h) To put a stop to the practice prevalent in a number of primary Party organizations whereby general meetings are virtually abolished and replaced by shop meetings and delegate conferences."</blockquote>In this way the Party began its preparations for the forthcoming elections.<br />
<br />
This decision of the Central Committee was of tremendous political importance. Its significance lay not only in the fact that it inaugurated the Party's campaign in the election of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., but also, and primarily, in the fact that it helped the Party organizations to reorganize their work, to apply the principles of inner-Party democracy, and to meet the elections to the Supreme Soviet fully prepared.<br />
<br />
The Party decided to make the idea of an election bloc of Communists and the non-Party masses the keynote of its policy in developing the election campaign. The Party entered the elections in a bloc, an alliance with the non-Party masses, by deciding to put up in the electoral areas joint candidates with the non-Party masses. This was something unprecedented and absolutely impossible in elections in bourgeois countries. But a bloc of Communists and the non-Party masses was something quite natural in our country, where hostile classes no longer exist and where the moral and political unity of all sections of the population is an incontestable fact.<br />
<br />
On December 7, 1937, the Central Committee of the Party issued an Address to the electors, which stated:<blockquote>"On December 12, 1937, the working people of the Soviet Union will, on the basis of our Socialist Constitution, elect their deputies to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. The Bolshevik Party enters the elections in a ''bloc,'' an ''alliance'' with the non-Party workers, peasants, office employees and intellectuals...The Bolshevik Party does not fence itself off from non-Party people, but, on the contrary, enters the elections in a bloc, an alliance, with the non-Party masses, in a bloc with the trade unions of the workers and office employees, with the Young Communist League and other non-Party organizations and societies. Consequently, the candidates will be the joint candidates of the Communists and the non-Party masse every non-Party deputy will also be the deputy of the Communists, just as every Communist deputy will be the deputy of the non-Party masses."</blockquote>The Address of the Central Committee concluded with the following appeal to the electors:<blockquote>"The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) calls upon all Communists and sympathizers to vote for the non-Party candidates with the same unanimity as they should vote for the Communist candidates.<br />
<br />
"The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) calls upon all non-Party electors to vote for the Communist candidates with the same unanimity as they will vote for the non-Party candidates.<br />
<br />
"The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) calls upon all electors to appear at the polling stations on December 12, 1937, as one man, to elect the deputies to the Soviet of the Union and the Soviet of Nationalities.<br />
<br />
"There must not be a single elector who does not exercise his honourable right of electing deputies to the Supreme organ of the Soviet state.<br />
<br />
"There must not be a single active citizen who does not consider it his civic duty to assist in ensuring that all electors without exception take part in the elections of the Supreme Soviet.<br />
<br />
"December 12, 1937, should be a great holiday celebrating the union of the working people of all the nations of the U.S.S.R. around the victorious banner of Lenin and Stalin."</blockquote>On December 1, 1937, the eve of the elections, Comrade Stalin addressed the voters of the area in which he was nominated and described what type of public figures those whom the people choose, the deputies to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., should be. Comrade Stalin said:<blockquote>"The electors, the people, must demand that their deputies should remain equal to their tasks; that in their work they should not sink to the level of political philistines; that in their posts they should remain political figures of the Lenin type; that as public figures they should be as clear and definite as Lenin was; that they should be as fearless in battle and as merciless towards the enemies of the people as Lenin was; that they should be free from all panic, from any semblance of panic, when things begin to get complicated and some danger or other looms on the horizon, that they should be as free from all semblance of panic as Lenin was; that they should be as wise and deliberate in deciding complex problems requiring a comprehensive orientation and a comprehensive weighing of all pros and cons as Lenin was; that they should be as upright and honest as Lenin was; that they should love their people as Lenin did."</blockquote>The elections to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. took place on December 12 amidst great enthusiasm. They were something more than elections; they were a great holiday celebrating the triumph of the Soviet people, a demonstration of the great friendship of the peoples of the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
Of a total of 94,000,000 electors, over 91,000,000, or 96.8 per cent, voted. Of this number 89,844,000, or 98.6 per cent, voted for the candidates of the bloc of the Communists and the non-Party masses. Only 632,000 persons, or less than one per cent, voted against the candidates of the bloc of the Communists and the non-Party masses. All the candidates of the bloc were elected without exception.<br />
<br />
Thus, 90,000,000 persons, by their unanimous vote, confirmed the victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
This was a remarkable victory for the bloc of the Communists and the non-Party masses.<br />
<br />
It was a triumph for the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
It was a brilliant confirmation of the moral and political unity of the Soviet people, to which Comrade Molotov had referred in a historic speech he delivered on the occasion of the Twentieth Anniversary of the October Revolution.<br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
What are the chief conclusions to be drawn from the historical path traversed by the Bolshevik Party?<br />
<br />
What does the history of the C.P.S.U.(B.) teach us?<br />
<br />
1) The history of the Party teaches us, first of all, that the victory of the proletarian revolution, the victory of the dictatorship of the proletariat, is impossible without a revolutionary party of the proletariat, a party free from opportunism, irreconcilable towards compromisers and capitulators, and revolutionary in its attitude towards the bourgeoisie and its state power.<br />
<br />
The history of the Party teaches us that to leave the proletariat without such a party means to leave it without revolutionary leadership; and to leave it without revolutionary leadership means to ruin the cause of the proletarian revolution.<br />
<br />
The history of the Party teaches us that the ordinary Social-Democratic Party of the West-European type, brought up under conditions of civil peace, trailing in the wake of the opportunists, dreaming of "social reforms," and dreading social revolution, cannot be such a party.<br />
<br />
The history of the Party teaches us that only a party of the new type, a Marxist-Leninist party, a party of social revolution, a party capable of preparing the proletariat for decisive battles against the bourgeoisie and of organizing the victory of the proletarian revolution, can be such a party.<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik Party in the U.S.S.R. is such a party.<br />
<br />
"In the pre-revolutionary period," Comrade Stalin says, "in the period of more or less peaceful development, when the parties of the Second International were the predominant force in the working-class movement and parliamentary forms of struggle were regarded as the principal forms, the party neither had nor could have had that great and decisive importance which it acquired afterwards, under conditions of open revolutionary battle. Defending the Second International against attacks made upon it, Kautsky says that the parties of the Second International are instruments of peace and not of war, and that for this very reason they were powerless to take any important steps during the war, during the period of revolutionary action by the proletariat. That is quite true. But what does it mean? It means that the parties of the Second International are unfit for the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, that they are not militant parties of the proletariat, leading the workers to power, but election machines adapted for parliamentary elections and parliamentary struggle. This, in fact, explains why, in the days when the opportunists of the Second International were in the ascendancy, it was not the party but its parliamentary group that was the chief political organization of the proletariat. It is well known that the party at that time was really an appendage and subsidiary of the parliamentary group. It goes without saying that under such circumstances and with such a party at the helm there could be no question of preparing the proletariat for revolution.<br />
<br />
"But matters have changed radically with the dawn of the new period. The new period is one of open class collisions, of revolutionary action by the proletariat, of proletarian revolution, a period when forces are being directly mustered for the overthrow of imperialism and the seizure of power by the proletariat. In this period the proletariat is confronted with new tasks, the tasks of reorganizing all party work on new, revolutionary lines; of educating the workers in the spirit of revolutionary struggle for power; of preparing and moving up reserves; of establishing an alliance with the proletarians of neighbouring countries; of establishing firm ties with the liberation movement in the colonies and dependent countries, etc., etc. To think that these new tasks can be performed by the old Social-Democratic parties, brought up as they were in the peaceful conditions of parliamentarism, is to doom oneself to hopeless despair and inevitable defeat. If, with such tasks to shoulder, the proletariat remained under the leadership of the old parties it would be completely unarmed and defenceless. It goes without saying that the proletariat could not consent to such a state of affairs.<br />
<br />
"Hence the necessity for a new party, a militant party, a revolutionary party, one bold enough to lead the proletarians in the struggle for power, sufficiently experienced to find its bearings amidst the complex conditions of a revolutionary situation, and sufficiently flexible to steer clear of all submerged rocks in the path to its goal.<br />
<br />
"Without such a party it is useless even to think of overthrowing imperialism and achieving the dictatorship of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
"This new party is the party of Leninism." (Joseph Stalin, ''Leninism'', Vol. I, pp. 87-8.)<br />
<br />
2) The history of the Party further teaches us that a party of the working class cannot perform the role of leader of its class, cannot perform the role of organizer and leader of the proletarian revolution, unless it has mastered the advanced theory of the working-class movement, the Marxist-Leninist theory.<br />
<br />
The power of the Marxist-Leninist theory lies in the fact that it enables the Party to find the right orientation in any situation, to understand the inner connection of current events, to foresee their course and to perceive not only how and in what direction they are developing in the present, but how and in what direction they are bound to develop in the future.<br />
<br />
Only a party which has mastered the Marxist-Leninist theory can confidently advance and lead the working class forward.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, a party which has not mastered the Marxist-Leninist theory is compelled to grope its way, loses confidence in its actions and is unable to lead the working class forward.<br />
<br />
It may seem that all that is required for mastering the Marxist-Leninist theory is diligently to learn by heart isolated conclusions and propositions from the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, learn to quote them at opportune times and rest at that, in the hope that the conclusions and propositions thus memorized will suit each and every situation and occasion. But such an approach to the Marxist-Leninist theory is altogether wrong. The Marxist-Leninist theory must not be regarded as a collection of dogmas, as a catechism, as a symbol of faith, and the Marxists themselves as pedants and dogmatists. The Marxist-Leninist theory is the science of the development of society, the science of the working-class movement, the science of the proletarian revolution, the science of the building of the Communist society. And as a science it does not and cannot stand still, but develops and perfects itself. Clearly, in its development it is bound to become enriched by new experience and new knowledge, and some of its propositions and conclusions are bound to change in the course of time, are bound to be replaced by new conclusions and propositions corresponding to the new historical conditions.<br />
<br />
Mastering the Marxist-Leninist theory does not at all mean learning all its formulas and conclusions by heart and clinging to their every letter. To master the Marxist-Leninist theory we must first of all learn to distinguish between its letter and substance.<br />
<br />
Mastering the Marxist-Leninist theory means assimilating the substance of this theory and learning to use it in the solution of the practical problems of the revolutionary movement under the varying conditions of the class struggle of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
Mastering the Marxist-Leninist theory means being able to enrich this theory with the new experience of the revolutionary movement, with new propositions and conclusions, it means being able to ''develop it and advance it'' without hesitating to replace—in accordance with the substance of the theory—such of its propositions and conclusions as have become antiquated by new ones corresponding to the new historical situation.<br />
<br />
The Marxist-Leninist theory is not a dogma but a guide to action.<br />
<br />
Before the Second Russian Revolution (February 1917), the Marxists of all countries assumed that the parliamentary democratic republic was the most suitable form of political organization of society in the period of transition from capitalism to Socialism. It is true that in the seventies Marx stated that the most suitable form for the dictatorship of the proletariat was a political organization of the type of the Paris Commune, and not the parliamentary republic. But, unfortunately, Marx did not develop this proposition any further in his writings and it was committed to oblivion. Moreover, Engels' authoritative statement in his criticism of the draft of the Erfurt Program in 1891, namely, that "the democratic republic . . . is . . . the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat" left no doubt that the Marxists continued to regard the democratic republic as the political form for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Engels' proposition later became a guiding principle for all Marxists, including Lenin. However, the Russian Revolution of 1905, and especially the Revolution of February 1917, advanced a new form of political organization of society—the Soviets of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies. As a result of a study of the experience of the two Russian revolutions, Lenin, on the basis of the theory of Marxism, arrived at the conclusion that the best political form for the dictatorship of the proletariat was not a parliamentary democratic republic, but a republic of Soviets. Proceeding from this, Lenin, in April 1917, during the period of transition from the bourgeois to the Socialist revolution, issued the slogan of a republic of Soviets as the best political form for the dictatorship of the proletariat. The opportunists of all countries clung to the parliamentary republic and accused Lenin of departing from Marxism and destroying democracy. But it was Lenin, of course, who was the real Marxist who had mastered the theory of Marxism, and not the opportunists, for Lenin was advancing the Marxist theory by enriching it with new experience, whereas the opportunists were dragging it back and transforming one of its propositions into a dogma.<br />
<br />
What would have happened to the Party, to our revolution, to Marxism, if Lenin had been overawed by the letter of Marxism and had not had the courage to replace one of the old propositions of Marxism, formulated by Engels, by the new proposition regarding the republic of Soviets, a proposition that corresponded to the new historical conditions? The Party would have groped in the dark, the Soviets would have been disorganized, we should not have had a Soviet power, and the Marxist theory would have suffered a severe setback. The proletariat would have lost, and the enemies of the proletariat would have won.<br />
<br />
As a result of a study of pre-imperialist capitalism Engels and Marx arrived at the conclusion that the Socialist revolution could not be victorious in one country, taken singly, that it could be victorious only by a simultaneous stroke in all, or the majority of the civilized countries. That was in the middle of the nineteenth century. This conclusion later became a guiding principle for all Marxists. However, by the beginning of the twentieth century, pre-imperialist capitalism had grown into imperialist capitalism, ascendant capitalism had turned into moribund capitalism. As a result of a study of imperialist capitalism, Lenin, on the basis of the Marxist theory, arrived at the conclusion that the old formula of Engels and Marx no longer corresponded to the new historical conditions, and that the victory of the Socialist revolution was quite possible in one country, taken singly. The opportunists of all countries clung to the old formula of Engels and Marx and accused Lenin of departing from Marxism. But it was Lenin, of course, who was the real Marxist who had mastered the theory of Marxism, and not the opportunists, for Lenin was advancing the Marxist theory by enriching it with new experience, whereas the opportunists were dragging it back, mummifying it.<br />
<br />
What would have happened to the Party, to our revolution, to Marxism, if Lenin had been overawed by the letter of Marxism and had not had the courage of theoretical conviction to discard one of the old conclusions of Marxism and to replace it by a new conclusion affirming that the victory of Socialism in one country, taken singly, was possible, a conclusion which corresponded to the new historical conditions? The Party would have groped in the dark, the proletarian revolution would have been deprived of leadership, and the Marxist theory would have begun to decay. The proletariat would have lost, and the enemies of the proletariat would have won.<br />
<br />
Opportunism does not always mean a direct denial of the Marxist theory or of any of its propositions and conclusions. Opportunism is sometimes expressed in the attempt to cling to certain of the propositions of Marxism that have already become antiquated and to convert them into a dogma, so as to retard the further development of Marxism, and, consequently, to retard the development of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
It may be said without fear of exaggeration that since the death of Engels the master theoretician Lenin, and after Lenin, Stalin and the other disciples of Lenin, have been the only Marxists who have advanced the Marxist theory and who have enriched it with new experience in the new conditions of the class struggle of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
And just because Lenin and the Leninists have advanced the Marxist theory, Leninism is a further development of Marxism; it is Marxism in the new conditions of the class struggle of the proletariat, Marxism of the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, Marxism of the epoch of the victory of Socialism on one-sixth of the earth's surface.<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik Party could not have won in October 1917 if its foremost men had not mastered the theory of Marxism, if they had not learned to regard this theory as a guide to action, if they had not learned to advance the Marxist theory by enriching it with the new experience of the class struggle of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
Criticizing the German Marxists in America who had undertaken to lead the American working-class movement, Engels wrote:<blockquote>"The Germans have not understood how to use their theory as a lever which could set the American masses in motion; they do not understand the theory themselves for the most part and treat it in a doctrinaire and dogmatic way, as something which has got to be learned off by heart and which will then supply all needs without more ado. To them it is a dogma and not a guide to action." (Marx and Engels, ''Selected Correspondence'', pp. 449-450.)</blockquote>Criticizing Kamenev and some of the old Bolsheviks who in April 1917 clung to the old formula of a revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry at a time when the revolutionary movement had gone on ahead and was demanding a transition to the Socialist revolution, Lenin wrote:<blockquote>"Our teaching is not a dogma, but a guide to action, Marx and Engels always used to say, rightly ridiculing the learning and repetition by rote of 'formulas' which at best are only capable of outlining ''general'' tasks that are necessarily liable to be modified by the ''concrete'' economic and political conditions of each separate ''phase'' of the historical process...It is essential to realize the incontestable truth that a Marxist must take cognizance of real life, of the concrete ''realities'', and must not continue to cling to a theory of yesterday..." (Lenin, ''Collected Works,'' Russ. ed., Vol. XX, pp. 100-101.)</blockquote>3) The history of the Party further teaches us that unless the petty- bourgeois parties which are active within the ranks of the working class and which push the backward sections of the working class into the arms of the bourgeoisie, thus splitting the unity of the working class, are smashed, the victory of the proletarian revolution is impossible.<br />
<br />
The history of our Party is the history of the struggle against the petty-bourgeois parties—the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, Anarchists and nationalists—and of the utter defeat of these parties. If these parties had not been vanquished and driven out of the ranks of the working class, the unity of the working class could not have been achieved; and if the working class had not been united, it would have been impossible to achieve the victory of the proletarian revolution.<br />
<br />
If these parties, which at first stood for the preservation of capitalism, and later, after the October Revolution, for the restoration of capitalism, had not been utterly defeated, it would have been impossible to preserve the dictatorship of the proletariat, to defeat the foreign armed intervention, and to build up Socialism.<br />
<br />
It cannot be regarded as an accident that all the petty-bourgeois parties, which styled themselves "revolutionary" and "socialist" parties in order to deceive the people—the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Menshe-viks, Anarchists and nationalists—became counter-revolutionary parties even before the October Socialist Revolution, and later turned into agents of foreign bourgeois espionage services, into a gang of spies, wreckers, diversionists, assassins and traitors to the country.<blockquote>"The unity of the proletariat in the epoch of social revolution," Lenin says, "can be achieved only by the extreme revolutionary party of Marxism, and only by a relentless struggle against all other parties." (Lenin, ''Collected Works,'' Russ. ed., Vol. XXVI, p. 50.)</blockquote>4) The history of the Party further teaches us that unless the Party of the working class wages an uncompromising struggle against the opportunists within its own ranks, unless it smashes the capitulators in its own midst, it cannot preserve unity and discipline within its ranks, it cannot perform its role of organizer and leader of the proletarian revo- lution, nor its role as the builder of the new, Socialist society.<br />
<br />
The history of the development of the internal life of our Party is the history of the struggle against the opportunist groups within the Party—the "Economists," Mensheviks, Trotskyites, Bukharinites and nationalist deviators—and of the utter defeat of these groups.<br />
<br />
The history of our Party teaches us that all these groups of capitu-lators were in point of fact agents of Menshevism within our Party, the lees and dregs of Menshevism, the continuers of Menshevism. Like the Mensheviks, they acted as vehicles of bourgeois influence among the working class and in the Party. The struggle for the liquidation of these groups within the Party was therefore a continuation of the struggle for the liquidation of Menshevism.<br />
<br />
If we had not defeated the "Economists" and the Mensheviks, we could not have built the Party and led the working class to the proletarian revolution.<br />
<br />
If we had not defeated the Trotskyites and Bukharinites, we could not have brought about the conditions that are essential for the building of Socialism.<br />
<br />
If we had not defeated the nationalist deviators of all shades and colours, we could not have educated the people in the spirit of internationalism, we could not have safeguarded the banner of the great amity of the nations of the U.S.S.R., and we could not have built up the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.<br />
<br />
It may seem to some that the Bolsheviks devoted far too much time to this struggle against the opportunist elements within the Party, that they overrated their importance. But that is altogether wrong. Opportunism in our midst is like an ulcer in a healthy organism, and must not be tolerated. The Party is the leading detachment of the working class, its advanced fortress, its general staff. Sceptics, opportunists, capit-ulators and traitors cannot be tolerated on the directing staff of the working class. If, while it is carrying on a life and death fight against the bourgeoisie, there are capitulators and traitors on its own staff, within its own fortress, the working class will be caught between two fires, from the front and the rear. Clearly, such a struggle can only end in defeat. The easiest way to capture a fortress is from within. To attain victory, the Party of the working class, its directing staff, its advanced fortress, must first be purged of capitulators, deserters, scabs and traitors.<br />
<br />
It cannot be regarded as an accident that the Trotskyites, Bukharin-ites and nationalist deviators who fought Lenin and the Party ended just as the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary parties did, namely, by becoming agents of fascist espionage services, by turning spies, wreckers, assassins, diversionists and traitors to the country.<blockquote>"With reformists, Mensheviks, in our ranks," Lenin said, "it is ''impossible'' to achieve victory in the proletarian revolution, it is impossible to retain it. That is obvious in principle, and it has been strikingly confirmed by the experience both of Russia and Hungary . . . In Russia, difficult situations have arisen ''many times,'' when the Soviet regime would ''most certainly'' have been overthrown had Mensheviks, reformists and petty-bourgeois democrats remained in our Party..." (Lenin, ''Collected Works,'' Russ. ed., Vol. XXV, pp. 462-63.)<br />
<br />
"Our Party," Comrade Stalin says, "succeeded in creating internal unity and unexampled cohesion of its ranks primarily because it was able in good time to purge itself of the opportunist pollution, because it was able to rid its ranks of the Liquidators, the Men-sheviks. Proletarian parties develop and become strong by purging themselves of opportunists and reformists, social-imperialists and social-chauvinists, social-patriots and social-pacifists. The Party becomes strong by purging itself of opportunist elements." (Joseph Stalin, ''Leninism''.)</blockquote>5) The history of the Party further teaches us that a party cannot perform its role as leader of the working class if, carried away by success, it begins to grow conceited, ceases to observe the defects in its work, and fears to acknowledge its mistakes and frankly and honestly to correct them in good time.<br />
<br />
A party is invincible if it does not fear criticism and self-criticism, if it does not gloss over the mistakes and defects in its work, if it teaches and educates its cadres by drawing the lessons from the mistakes in Party work, and if it knows how to correct its mistakes in time.<br />
<br />
A party perishes if it conceals its mistakes, if it glosses over sore problems, if it covers up its shortcomings by pretending that all is well, if it is intolerant of criticism and self-criticism, if it gives way to self-complacency and vainglory and if it rests on its laurels.<blockquote>"The attitude of a political party towards its own mistakes," Lenin says, "is one of the most important and surest ways of judging how earnest the party is and how it ''in practice'' fulfils its obligations towards its ''class'' and the toiling ''masses''. Frankly admitting a mistake, ascertaining the reasons for it, analysing the conditions which led to it, and thoroughly discussing the means of correcting it—that is the earmark of a serious party; that is the way it should perform its duties, that is the way it should educate and train the class, and then the ''masses.''" (Lenin, ''Collected Works,'' Russ. ed., Vol. XXV, p. 200.)</blockquote>And further:<blockquote>"All revolutionary parties, which have hitherto perished, did so because they grew conceited, failed to see where their strength lay, ''and feared to speak of their weaknesses''. But we shall not perish, for we do not fear to speak of our weaknesses and will learn to overcome them." (Lenin, ''Collected Works,'' Russ. ed., Vol. XXVII, pp. 260-61.)</blockquote>6) Lastly, the history of the Party teaches us that unless it has wide connections with the masses, unless it constantly strengthens these connections, unless it knows how to hearken to the voice of the masses and understand their urgent needs, unless it is prepared not only to teach the masses, but to learn from the masses, a party of the working class cannot be a real mass party capable of leading the working class millions and all the labouring people.<br />
<br />
A party is invincible if it is able, as Lenin says, "to link itself with, to keep in close touch with, and, to a certain extent if you like, to merge with the broadest masses of the toilers—primarily with the proletariat, but also with the non-proletarian toiling masses." (Lenin, ''Collected Works,'' Russ. ed., Vol. XXV, p. 174.)<br />
<br />
A party perishes if it shuts itself up in its narrow party shell, if it severs itself from the masses, if it allows itself to be covered with bureaucratic rust.<blockquote>"We may take it as the rule," Comrade Stalin says, "that as long as the Bolsheviks maintain connection with the broad masses of the people they will be invincible. And, on the contrary, as soon as the Bolsheviks sever themselves from the masses and lose their connection with them, as soon as they become covered with bureaucratic rust, they will lose all their strength and become a mere cipher.<br />
<br />
"In the mythology of the ancient Greeks there was a celebrated hero, Antaeus, who, so the legend goes, was the son of Poseidon, god of the seas, and Gaea, goddess of the earth. Antaeus was very much attached to the mother who had given birth to him, suckled him and reared him. There was not a hero whom this Antaus did not vanquish. He was regarded as an invincible hero. Wherein lay his strength? It lay in the fact that every time he was hard pressed in a fight with an adversary he would touch the earth, the mother who had given birth to him and suckled him, and that gave him new strength. Yet he had a vulnerable spot—the danger of being detached from the earth in some way or other. His enemies were aware of this weakness and watched for him. One day an enemy appeared who took advantage of this vulnerable spot and vanquished Antaus. This was Hercules. How did Hercules vanquish Antaus? He lifted him from the earth, kept him suspended in the air, prevented him from touching the earth, and throttled him.<br />
<br />
"I think that the Bolsheviks remind us of the hero of Greek mythology, Antasus. They, like Antasus, are strong because they maintain connection with their mother, the masses, who gave birth to them, suckled them and reared them. And as long as they maintain connection with their mother, with the people, they have every chance of remaining invincible.</blockquote>"That is the key to the invincibility of Bolshevik leadership." (J. Stalin, ''Mastering Bolshevism,'' pp. 58-60.)<br />
<br />
Such are the chief lessons to be drawn from the historical path traversed by the Bolshevik Party.<br />
[[Category:Library works by Joseph Stalin]]<br />
[[Category:Library works about the Soviet Union]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:History_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union&diff=63703Library:History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union2024-03-05T03:10:51Z<p>RedCustodian: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Library work|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union|author=Commission of the C.C. of the C.P.S.U.(B.) and Joseph Stalin|publisher=Foreign Languages Publishing House|published_date=1938|published_location=Moscow|edition_date=1951|type=Book|source=[https://archive.org/details/historycpsushortcourse/page/6/mode/2up&#124; archive.org]|audiobook=[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lygu-El7U0 Audiobook part 1] <br> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbJsO7L4STo&t=34s Audiobook part 2]}}<br />
History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) Short Course was an attempt by the Central Committe of the CPSU to educate new members of the Party, as speedily as possible, to the history of the Party and the various ideological struggles that took place against opportunist and revisionist tendencies during the struggle for the DOTP, and in the course of Socialist Construction. <br />
== Introduction ==<br />
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) has traversed a long and glorious road, leading from the first tiny Marxist circles and groups that appeared in Russia in the eighties of the past century to the great Party of the Bolsheviks, which now directs the first Socialist State of Workers and Peasants in the world.<br />
<br />
The C.P.S.U.(B.) grew up on the basis of the working-class movement in pre-revolutionary Russia; it sprang from the Marxist circles and groups which had established connection with the working-class movement and imparted to it a Socialist consciousness. The C.P.S.U.(B.) has always been guided by the revolutionary teachings of Marxism- Leninism. In the new conditions of the era of imperialism, imperialist wars and proletarian revolutions, its leaders further developed the teachings of Marx and Engels and raised them to a new level.<br />
<br />
The C.P.S.U.(B.) grew and gained strength in a fight over fundamental principles waged against the petty-bourgeois parties within the working-class movement—the Socialist-Revolutionaries (and earlier still, against their predecessors, the Narodniks), the Mensheviks, Anarchists and bourgeois nationalists of all shades—and, within the Party itself, against the Menshevik, opportunist trends—the Trotskyites, Bukharinites, nationalist deviators and other anti-Leninist groups.<br />
<br />
The C.P.S.U.(B.) gained strength and became tempered in the revolutionary struggle against all enemies of the working class and of all working people—against landlords, capitalists, kulaks, wreckers, spies, against all the hirelings of the surrounding capitalist states.<br />
<br />
The history of the C.P.S.U.(B.) is the history of three revolutions: the bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1905, the bourgeois-democratic revolution of February 1917, and the Socialist revolution of October 1917.<br />
<br />
The history of the C.P.S.U.(B.) is the history of the overthrow of tsardom, of the overthrow of the power of the landlords and capitalists; it is the history of the rout of the armed foreign intervention during the Civil War; it is the history of the building of the Soviet state and of Socialist society in our country.<br />
<br />
The study of the history of the C.P.S.U.(B.) enriches us with the experience of the fight for Socialism waged by the workers and peasants of our country.<br />
<br />
The study of the history of the C.P.S.U.(B.), the history of the struggle of our Party against all enemies of Marxism-Leninism, against all enemies of the working people, helps us to master Bolshevism and sharpens our political vigilance.<br />
<br />
The study of the heroic history of the Bolshevik Party arms us with a knowledge of the laws of social development and of the political struggle, with a knowledge of the motive forces of revolution.<br />
<br />
The study of the history of the C.P.S.U.(B.) strengthens our certainty of the ultimate victory of the great cause of the Party of Lenin-Stalin, the victory of Communism throughout the world.<br />
<br />
This book sets forth briefly the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks).<br />
<br />
== The struggle for the creation of a social-democratic labour party in Russia (1883—1901) ==<br />
<br />
=== Abolition of serfdom and the development of industrial capitalism in Russia. Rise of the modern industrial proletariat. First steps of the working-class movement ===<br />
Tsarist Russia entered the path of capitalist development later than other countries. Prior to the sixties of the past century there were very few mills and factories in Russia. Manorial estates based on serfdom constituted the prevailing form of economy. There could be no real development of industry under serfdom. The involuntary labour of the serfs in agriculture was of low productivity. The whole course of economic development made the abolition of serfdom imperative. In 1861, the tsarist government, weakened by defeat in the Crimean War, and frightened by the peasant revolts against the landlords, was compelled to abolish serfdom.<br />
<br />
But even after serfdom had been abolished the landlords continued to oppress the peasants. In the process of "emancipation" they robbed the peasants by inclosing, cutting off, considerable portions of the land previously used by the peasants. These cut-off portions of land were called by the peasants ''otrezki'' (cuts). The peasants were compelled to pay about 2,000,000,000 rubles to the landlords as the redemption price for their "emancipation."<br />
<br />
After serfdom had been abolished the peasants were obliged to rent land from the landlords on most onerous terms. In addition to paying money rent, the peasants were often compelled by the landlord to cultivate without remuneration a definite portion of his land with their own implements and horses. This was called ''otrabotki'' or ''barshchina'' (labour rent, corvee). In most cases the peasants were obliged to pay the landlords rent in kind in the amount of one-half of their harvests. This was known as ''ispolu'' (half and half system).<br />
<br />
Thus the situation remained almost the same as it had been under serfdom, the only difference being that the peasant was now personally free, could not be bought and sold like a chattel.<br />
<br />
The landlords bled the backward peasant farms white by various methods of extortion (rent, fines). Owing to the oppression of the landlords the bulk of the peasantry were unable to improve their farms. Hence the extreme backwardness of agriculture in pre-revolutionary Russia, which led to frequent crop failures and famines.<br />
<br />
The survivals of serfdom, crushing taxation and the redemption payments to the landlords, which not infrequently exceeded the income of the peasant household, ruined the peasants, reduced them to pauperism and forced them to quit their villages in search of a livelihood. They went to work in the mills and factories. This was a source of cheap labour power for the manufacturers.<br />
<br />
Over the workers and peasants stood a veritable army of sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, gendarmes, constables, rural police, who protected the tsar, the capitalists and the landlords from the toiling and exploited people. Corporal punishment existed right up to 1903. Although serfdom had been abolished the peasants were flogged for the slightest offence and for the non-payment of taxes. Workers were manhandled by the police and the Cossacks, especially during strikes, when the workers downed tools because their lives had been made intolerable by the manufacturers. Under the tsars the workers and peasants had no political rights whatever. The tsarist autocracy was the worst enemy of the people.<br />
<br />
Tsarist Russia was a prison of nations. The numerous non-Russian nationalities were entirely devoid of rights and were subjected to constant insult and humiliation of every kind. The tsarist government taught the Russian population to look down upon the native peoples of the national regions as an inferior race, officially referred to them as ''inorodtsi'' (aliens), and fostered contempt and hatred of them. The tsarist government deliberately fanned national discord, instigated one nation against another, engineered Jewish pogroms and, in Transcaucasia, incited Tatars and Armenians to massacre each other.<br />
<br />
Nearly all, if not all, government posts in the national regions were held by Russian officials. All business in government institutions and in the courts was conducted in the Russian language. It was forbidden to publish newspapers and books in the languages of the non-Russian nationalities or to teach in the schools in the native tongue. The tsarist government strove to extinguish every spark of national culture and pursued a policy of forcible "Russification." Tsardom was a hangman and torturer of the non-Russian peoples.<br />
<br />
After the abolition of serfdom, the development of industrial capitalism in Russia proceeded at a fairly rapid pace in spite of the fact that it was still hampered by survivals of serfdom. During the twenty-five years, 1865-90, the number of workers employed in large mills and factories and on the railways increased from 706,000 to 1,433,000, or more than doubled.<br />
<br />
Large-scale capitalist industry in Russia began to develop even more rapidly in the nineties. By the end of that decade the number of workers employed in the large mills and factories, in the mining industry and on the railways amounted in the fifty European provinces of Russia alone to 2,207,000, and in the whole of Russia to 2,792,000 persons.<br />
<br />
This was a modern industrial proletariat, radically different from the workers employed in the factories of the period of serfdom and from the workers in small, handicraft and other kinds of industry, both because of the spirit of solidarity prevailing among the workers in big capitalist enterprises and because of their militant revolutionary qualities.<br />
<br />
The industrial boom of the nineties was chiefly due to intensive railroad construction. During the course of the decade (1890-1900) over 21,000 versts of new railway line were laid. The railways created a big demand for metal (for rails, locomotives and cars), and also for increasing quantities of fuel—coal and oil. This led to the development of the metal and fuel industries.<br />
<br />
In pre-revolutionary Russia, as in all capitalist countries, periods of industrial boom alternated with industrial crises, stagnation, which severely affected the working class and condemned hundreds of thousands of workers to unemployment and poverty.<br />
<br />
Although the development of capitalism in Russia proceeded fairly rapidly after the abolition of serfdom, nevertheless, in economic development Russia lagged considerably behind other capitalist countries. The vast majority of the population was still engaged in agriculture. In his celebrated work, ''The Development of Capitalism in Russia'' Lenin cited significant figures from the general census of the population of i897 which showed that about five-sixths of the total population were engaged in agriculture, and only one-sixth in large and small industry, trade, on the railways and waterways, in building work, lumbering, and so on.<br />
<br />
This shows that although capitalism was developing in Russia, she was still an agrarian, economically backward country, a petty-bourgeois country, that is, a country in which low-productive individual peasant farming based on small ownership still predominated.<br />
<br />
Capitalism was developing not only in the towns but also in the countryside. The peasantry, the most numerous class in pre-revolu-tionary Russia, was undergoing a process of disintegration, of cleavage. From among the more well-to-do peasants there was emerging an upper layer of kulaks, the rural bourgeoisie, while on the other hand many peasants were being ruined, and the number of poor peasants, rural proletarians and semi-proletarians, was on the increase. As to the middle peasants, their number decreased from year to year.<br />
<br />
In 1903 there were about ten million peasant households in Russia. In his pamphlet entitled ''To the Village Poor,'' Lenin calculated that of this total not less than three and a half million households consisted of peasants ''possessing no horses.''These were the poorest peasants who usually sowed only a small part of their land, leased the rest to the kulaks, and themselves left to seek other sources of livelihood. The position of these peasants came nearest to that of the proletariat. Lenin called them rural proletarians or semi-proletarians.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, one and a half million rich, kulak households (out of a total of ten million peasant households) concentrated in their hands half the total sown area of the peasants. This peasant bourgeoisie was growing rich by grinding down the poor and middle peasantry and profiting from the toil of agricultural labourers, and was developing into rural capitalists.<br />
<br />
The working class of Russia began to awaken already in the seventies, and especially in the eighties, and started a struggle against the capitalists. Exceedingly hard was the lot of the workers in tsarist Russia. In the eighties the working day in the mills and factories was not less than 12½ hours, and in the textile industry reached 14 to 15 hours. The exploitation of female and child labour was widely resorted to. Children worked the same hours as adults, but, like the women, received a much smaller wage. Wages were inordinately low. The majority of the workers were paid seven or eight rubles per month. The most highly paid workers in the metal works and foundries received no more than 35 rubles per month. There were no regulations for the protection of labour, with the result that workers were maimed and killed in large numbers. Workers were not insured, and all medical services had to be paid for. Housing conditions were appalling. In the factory-owned barracks, workers were crowded as many as 10 or 12 to a small "cell." In paying wages, the manufacturers often cheated the workers, compelled them to make their purchases in the factory-owned shops at exorbitant prices, and mulcted them by means of fines.<br />
<br />
The workers began to take a common stand and present joint demands to the factory workers for the improvement of their intolerable conditions. They would down tools and go on strike. The earlier strikes in the seventies and eighties were usually provoked by excessive fines, cheating and swindling of the workers over wages, and reductions in the rates of pay.<br />
<br />
In the earlier strikes, the workers, driven to despair, would sometimes smash machinery, break factory windows and wreck factory-owned shops and factory offices.<br />
<br />
The more advanced workers began to realize that if they were to be successful in their struggle against the capitalists, they needed organization. Workers' unions began to arise.<br />
<br />
In 1875 the South Russian Workers' Union was formed in Odessa. This first workers' organization lasted eight or nine months and was then smashed by the tsarist government.<br />
<br />
In 1878 the Northern Union of Russian Workers was formed in St. Petersburg, headed by Khalturin, a carpenter, and Obnorsky, a fitter. The program of the Union stated that its aims and objects were similar to those of the Social-Democratic labour parties of the West. The ultimate aim of the Union was to bring about a Socialist revolution—"the overthrow of the existing political and economic system, as an extremely unjust system." Obnorsky, one of the founders of the Union, had lived abroad for some time and had there acquainted himself with the activities of the Marxist Social-Democratic parties and of the First International, which was directed by Marx. This circumstance left its impress on the program of the Northern Union of Russian Workers. The immediate aim of the Union was to win political liberty and political rights for the people (freedom of speech, press, assembly, etc.). The immediate demands also included a reduction of the working day.<br />
<br />
The membership of the Union reached 200, and it had about as many sympathizers. It began to take part in workers' strikes, to lead them. The tsarist government smashed this workers' Union too.<br />
<br />
But the working-class movement continued to grow, spreading from district to district. The eighties were marked by a large number of strikes. In the space of five years (1881-86) there were as many as 48 strikes involving 80,000 workers.<br />
<br />
An exceptional part in the history of the revolutionary movement was played by the big strike that broke out at the Morozov mill in Orekhovo-Zuyevo in i885.<br />
<br />
About 8,000 workers were employed at this mill. Working conditions grew worse from day to day: there were five wage cuts between 1882 and 1884, and in the latter year rates were reduced by 25 per cent at one blow. In addition, Morozov, the manufacturer, tormented the workers with fines. It was revealed at the trial which followed the strike that of every ruble earned by the workers, from 30 to 50 kopeks went into the pocket of the manufacturer in the form of fines. The workers could not stand this robbery any longer and in January 1885 went out on strike. The strike had been organized beforehand. It was led by a politically advanced worker, Pyotr Moiseyenko, who had been a member of the Northern Union of Russian Workers and already had some revolutionary experience. On the eve of the strike Moiseyenko and others of the more class-conscious weavers drew up a number of demands for presentation to the mill owners; they were endorsed at a secret meeting of the workers. The chief demand was the abolition of the rapacious fines.<br />
<br />
This strike was suppressed by armed force. Over 600 workers were arrested and scores of them committed for trial.<br />
<br />
Similar strikes broke out in the mills of Ivanovo-Voznesensk in 1885.<br />
<br />
In the following year the tsarist government was compelled by its fear of the growth of the working-class movement to promulgate a law on fines which provided that the proceeds from fines were not to go into the pockets of the manufacturers but were to be used for the needs of the workers themselves.<br />
<br />
The Morozov and other strikes taught the workers that a great deal could be gained by organized struggle. The working-class movement began to produce capable leaders and organizers who staunchly championed the interests of the working class.<br />
<br />
At the same time, on the basis of the growth of the working-class movement and under the influence of the working-class movement of Western Europe, the first Marxist organizations began to arise in Russia.<br />
<br />
=== Narodism (populism) and Marxism in Russia. Plekhanov and his “emancipation of labour” group. Plekhanov's fight against narodism. Spread of Marxism in Russia ===<br />
Prior to the appearance of the Marxist groups revolutionary work in Russia was carried on by the Narodniks (Populists), who were opponents of Marxism.<br />
<br />
The first Russian Marxist group arose in 1883. This was the "Emancipation of Labour" group formed by G. V. Plekhanov abroad, in Geneva, where he had been obliged to take refuge from the persecution of the tsarist government for his revolutionary activities.<br />
<br />
Previously Plekhanov had himself been a Narodnik. But having studied Marxism while abroad, he broke with Narodism and became an outstanding propagandist of Marxism.<br />
<br />
The "Emancipation of Labour" group did a great deal to disseminate Marxism in Russia. They translated works of Marx and Engels into Russian— ''The Communist Manifesto, Wage-Labour and Capital, Socialism, Utopian and Scientific'', etc.—had them printed abroad and circulated them secretly in Russia. Plekhanov, Zasulich, Axelrod and other members of this group also wrote a number of works explaining the teachings of Marx and Engels, the ideas of ''scientific Socialism.''<br />
<br />
Marx and Engels, the great teachers of the proletariat, were the first to explain that, contrary to the opinion of the utopian Socialists, Socialism was not the invention of dreamers (utopians), but the inevitable outcome of the development of modern capitalist society. They showed that the capitalist system would fall, just as serfdom had fallen, and that capitalism was creating its own gravediggers in the person of the proletariat. They showed that only the class struggle of the proletariat, only the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, would rid humanity of capitalism and exploitation.<br />
<br />
Marx and Engels taught the proletariat to be conscious of its own strength, to be conscious of its class interests and to unite for a determined struggle against the bourgeoisie. Marx and Engels discovered the laws of development of capitalist society and proved scientifically that the development of capitalist society, and the class struggle going on within it, must inevitably lead to the fall of capitalism, to the victory of the proletariat, to the ''dictatorship of the proletariat.''<br />
<br />
Marx and Engels taught that it was impossible to get rid of the power of capital and to convert capitalist property into public property by peaceful means, and that the working class could achieve this only by revolutionary violence against the bourgeoisie, by ''a proletarian revolution,'' by establishing its own political rule—the dictatorship of the proletariat — which must crush the resistance of the exploiters and create a new, classless, Communist society.<br />
<br />
Marx and Engels taught that the industrial proletariat is the most revolutionary and therefore the most advanced class in capitalist society, and that only a class like the proletariat could rally around itself all the forces discontented with capitalism and lead them in the storming of capitalism. But in order to vanquish the old world and create a new, classless society, the proletariat must have its own working-class party, which Marx and Engels called the Communist Party.<br />
<br />
It was to the dissemination of the views of Marx and Engels that the first Russian Marxist group, Plekhanov's "Emancipation of Labour" group, devoted itself.<br />
<br />
The "Emancipation of Labour" group raised the banner of Marxism in the Russian press abroad at a time when no Social-Democratic movement in Russia yet existed. It was first necessary to prepare the theoretical, ideological ground for such a movement. The chief ideological obstacle to the spread of Marxism and of the Social-Democratic movement was the Narodnik views which at that time prevailed among the advanced workers and the revolutionary-minded intelligentsia.<br />
<br />
As capitalism developed in Russia the working class became a powerful and advanced force that was capable of waging an organized revolutionary struggle. But the leading role of the working class was not understood by the Narodniks. The Russian Narodniks erroneously held that the principal revolutionary force was not the working class, but the peasantry, and that the rule of the tsar and the landlords could be overthrown by means of peasant revolts alone. The Narodniks did not know the working class and did not realize that the peasants alone were incapable of vanquishing tsardom and the landlords without an alliance with the working class and without its guidance. The Narodniks did not understand that the working class was the most revolutionary and the most advanced class of society.<br />
<br />
The Narodniks first endeavoured to rouse the peasants for a struggle against the tsarist government. With this purpose in view, young revolutionary intellectuals donned peasant garb and flocked to the countryside—"to the people," as it used to be called. Hence the term "Narodnik," from the word ''narod'', the people. But they found no backing among the peasantry, for they did not have a proper knowledge or understanding of the peasants either. The majority of them were arrested by the police. Thereupon the Narodniks decided to continue the struggle against the tsarist autocracy single-handed, without the people, and this led to even more serious mistakes.<br />
<br />
A secret Narodnik society known as "Narodnaya Volya" ("People's Will") began to plot the assassination of the tsar. On March 1, 1881, members of the "Narodnaya Volya" succeeded in killing Tsar Alexander II with a bomb. But the people did not benefit from this in any way. The assassination of individuals could not bring about the overthrow of the tsarist autocracy or the abolition of the landlord class. The assassinated tsar was replaced by another, Alexander III, under whom the conditions of the workers and peasants became still worse.<br />
<br />
The method of combating tsardom chosen by the Narodniks, namely, by the assassination of individuals, by individual terrorism, was wrong and detrimental to the revolution. The policy of individual terrorism was based on the erroneous Narodnik theory of active "heroes" and a passive "mob," which awaited exploits from the "heroes." This false theory maintained that it is only outstanding individuals who make history, while the masses, the people, the class, the "mob," as the Narodnik writers contemptuously called them, are incapable of conscious, organized activity and can only blindly follow the "heroes." For this reason the Narodniks abandoned mass revolutionary work among the peasantry and the working class and changed to individual terrorism. They induced one of the most prominent revolutionaries of the time, Stepan Khalturin, to give up his work of organizing a revolutionary workers' union and to devote himself entirely to terrorism.<br />
<br />
By these assassinations of individual representatives of the class of exploiters, assassinations that were of no benefit to the revolution, the Narodniks diverted the attention of the working people from the struggle against that class as a whole. They hampered the development of the revolutionary initiative and activity of the working class and the peasantry.<br />
<br />
The Narodniks prevented the working class from understanding its leading role in the revolution and retarded the creation of an independent party of the working class.<br />
<br />
Although the Narodniks' secret organization had been smashed by the tsarist government, Narodnik views continued to persist for a long time among the revolutionary-minded intelligentsia. The surviving Narodniks stubbornly resisted the spread of Marxism in Russia and hampered the organization of the working class.<br />
<br />
Marxism in Russia could therefore grow and gain strength only by combating Narodism.<br />
<br />
The "Emancipation of Labour" group launched a fight against the erroneous views of the Narodniks and showed how greatly their views and methods of struggle were prejudicing the working-class movement.<br />
<br />
In his writings directed against the Narodniks, Plekhanov showed that their views had nothing in common with scientific Socialism, even though they called themselves Socialists.<br />
<br />
Plekhanov was the first to give a Marxist criticism of the erroneous views of the Narodniks. Delivering well-aimed blows at the Narodnik views, Plekhanov at the same time developed a brilliant defence of the Marxist views.<br />
<br />
What were the major errors of the Narodniks which Plekhanov hammered at with such destructive effect?<br />
<br />
First, the Narodniks asserted that capitalism was something "accidental" in Russia, that it would not develop, and that therefore the proletariat would not grow and develop either.<br />
<br />
Secondly, the Narodniks did not regard the working class as the foremost class in the revolution. They dreamed of attaining Socialism without the proletariat. They considered that the principal revolutionary force was the peasantry—led by the intelligentsia—and the peasant commune, which they regarded as the embryo and foundation of Socialism.<br />
<br />
Thirdly, the Narodniks' view of the whole course of human history was erroneous and harmful. They neither knew nor understood the laws of the economic and political development of society. In this respect they were quite backward. According to them, history was made not by classes, and not by the struggle of classes, but by outstanding individ-uals—"heroes"—who were blindly followed by the masses, the "mob," the people, the classes.<br />
<br />
In combating and exposing the Narodniks Plekhanov wrote a number of Marxist works which were instrumental in rearing and educating the Marxists in Russia. Such works of his as ''Socialism and the Political Struggle, Our Differences, On the Development of the Monistic View of History'' cleared the way for the victory of Marxism in Russia.<br />
<br />
In his works Plekhanov expounded the basic principles of Marxism. Of particular importance was his ''On the Development of the Monistic View of History,'' published in 1895. Lenin said that this book served to "rear a whole generation of Russian Marxists." (Lenin, ''Collected Works,'' Russ. ed., Vol. XIV, p. 347.)<br />
<br />
In his writings aimed against the Narodniks, Plekhanov showed that it was absurd to put the question the way the Narodniks did: should capitalism develop in Russia or not? As a matter of fact Russia ''had already entered'' the path of capitalist development, Plekhanov said, producing facts to prove it, and there was no force that could divert her from this path.<br />
<br />
The task of the revolutionaries was not to ''arrest'' the development of capitalism in Russia—that they could not do anyhow. Their task was to secure the support of the powerful revolutionary force brought into being by the development of capitalism, namely, the working class, to develop its class-consciousness, to organize it, and to help it to create its own working-class party.<br />
<br />
Plekhanov also shattered the second major error of the Narodniks, namely, their denial of the role of the proletariat as the vanguard in the revolutionary struggle. The Narodniks looked upon the rise of the proletariat in Russia as something in the nature of a "historical misfortune," and spoke of the "ulcer of proletarianism." Plekhanov, championing the teachings of Marxism, showed that they were fully applicable to Russia and that in spite of the numerical preponderance of the peasantry and the relative numerical weakness of the proletariat, it was on the proletariat and on its growth that the revolutionaries should base their chief hopes.<br />
<br />
Why on the proletariat?<br />
<br />
Because the proletariat, although it was still numerically small, was a labouring class which was connected with the ''most advanced'' form of economy, large-scale production, and which for this reason had a great future before it.<br />
<br />
Because the proletariat, as a class, was ''growing'' from year to year, was ''developing'' politically, easily lent itself to organization owing to the conditions of labour prevailing in large-scale production, and was the most revolutionary class owing to its proletarian status, for it had nothing to lose in the revolution but its chains.<br />
<br />
The case was different with the peasantry.<br />
<br />
The peasantry (meaning here the individual peasants, each of whom worked for himself—''Ed''.), despite its numerical strength, was a labouring class that was connected with the ''most backward'' form of economy, small-scale production, owing to which it had not and could not have any great future before it.<br />
<br />
Far from growing as a class, the peasantry was splitting up more and more into bourgeois (kulaks) and poor peasants (proletarians and semi-proletarians). Moreover, being scattered, it lent itself less easily than the proletariat to organization, and, consisting of small owners, it joined the revolutionary movement less readily than the proletariat.<br />
<br />
The Narodniks maintained that Socialism in Russia would come not through the dictatorship of the proletariat, but through the peasant commune, which they regarded as the embryo and basis of Socialism. But the commune was neither the basis nor the embryo of Socialism, nor could it be, because the commune was dominated by the kulaks—the bloodsuckers who exploited the poor peasants, the agricultural labourers and the economically weaker middle peasants. The formal existence of communal land ownership and the periodical redivision of the land according to the number of mouths in each peasant household did not alter the situation in any way. Those members of the commune used the land who owned draught cattle, implements and seed, that is, the well-to-do middle peasants and kulaks. The peasants who possessed no horses, the poor peasants, the small peasants generally, had to surrender their land to the kulaks and to hire themselves out as agricultural labourers. As a matter of fact, the peasant commune was a convenient means of masking the dominance of the kulaks and an inexpensive instrument in the hands of the tsarist government for the collection of taxes from the peasants on the basis of collective responsibility. That was why tsardom left the peasant commune intact. It was absurd to regard a commune of this character as the embryo or basis of Socialism.<br />
<br />
Plekhanov shattered the third major error of the Narodniks as well, namely, that "heroes," outstanding individuals, and their ideas played a prime role in social development, and that the role of the masses, the "mob," the people, classes, was insignificant. Plekhanov accused the Narodniks of ''idealism,'' and showed that the truth lay not with idealism, but with the ''materialism'' of Marx and Engels.<br />
<br />
Plekhanov expounded and substantiated the view of Marxist materialism. In conformity with Marxist materialism, he showed that in the long run the development of society is determined not by the wishes and ideas of outstanding individuals, but by the development of the material conditions of existence of society, by the changes in the mode of production of the material wealth required for the existence of society, by the changes in the mutual relations of classes in the production of material wealth, by the struggle of classes for place and position in the production and distribution of material wealth. It was not ideas that determined the social and economic status of men, but the social and economic status of men that determined their ideas. Outstanding individuals may become nonentities if their ideas and wishes run counter to the economic development of society, to the needs of the foremost class; and vice versa, outstanding people may really become outstanding individuals if their ideas and wishes correctly express the needs of the economic development of society, the needs of the foremost class.<br />
<br />
In answer to the Narodniks' assertion that the masses are nothing but a mob, and that it is heroes who make history and convert the mob into a people, the Marxists affirmed that it is not heroes that make history, but history that makes heroes, and that, consequently, it is not heroes who create a people, but the people who create heroes and move history onward. Heroes, outstanding individuals, may play an important part in the life of society only in so far as they are capable of correctly understanding the conditions of development of society and the ways of changing them for the better. Heroes, outstanding individuals, may become ridiculous and useless failures if they do not correctly understand the conditions of development of society and go counter to the historical needs of society in the conceited belief that they are "makers" of history.<br />
<br />
To this category of ill-starred heroes belonged the Narodniks.<br />
<br />
Plekhanov's writings and the fight he waged against the Narodniks thoroughly undermined their influence among the revolutionary intelligentsia. But the ideological destruction of Narodism was still far from complete. It was left to Lenin to deal the final blow to Narodism, as an enemy of Marxism.<br />
<br />
Soon after the suppression of the "Narodnaya Volya" Party the majority of the Narodniks renounced the revolutionary struggle against the tsarist government and began to preach a policy of reconciliation and agreement with it. In the eighties and nineties the Narodniks began to voice the interests of the kulaks.<br />
<br />
The "Emancipation of Labour" group prepared two drafts of a program for a Russian Social-Democratic party (the first in 1884 and the second in 1887). This was a very important preparatory step in the formation of a Marxist Social-Democratic party in Russia.<br />
<br />
But at the same time the "Emancipation of Labour" group was guilty of some very serious mistakes. Its first draft program still contained vestiges of the Narodnik views; it countenanced the tactics of individual terrorism. Furthermore, Plekhanov failed to take into account that in the course of the revolution the proletariat could and should lead the peasantry, and that only in an alliance with the peasantry could the proletariat gain the victory over tsardom. Plekhanov further considered that the liberal bourgeoisie was a force that could give support, albeit unstable support, to the revolution; but as to the peasantry, in some of his writings he discounted it entirely, declaring, for instance, that :<br />
<br />
"Apart from the bourgeoisie and the proletariat we perceive no social forces in our country in which oppositional or revolutionary combinations might find support." (Plekhanov, ''Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. III, p. 119.)<br />
<br />
These erroneous views were the germ of Plekhanov's future Menshevik views.<br />
<br />
Neither the "Emancipation of Labour" group nor the Marxist circles of that period had yet any practical connections with the working-class movement. It was a period in which the theory of Marxism, the ideas of Marxism, and the principles of the Social-Democratic program were just appearing and gaining a foothold in Russia. In the decade of 1884-94 the Social-Democratic movement still existed in the form of small separate groups and circles which had no connections, or very scant connections, with the mass working-class movement. Like an infant still unborn but already developing in its mother's womb, the Social-Democratic movement, as Lenin wrote, was in the ''"process of fatal development."''<br />
<br />
The "Emancipation of Labor" group, Lenin said, "only laid the theoretical foundations for the Social-Democratic movement and made the first step towards the working-class movement."<br />
<br />
The task of uniting Marxism and the working-class movement in Russia, and of correcting the mistakes of the "Emancipation of Labour" group fell to Lenin.<br />
<br />
=== Beginning of Lenin’s revolutionary activities. St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class ===<br />
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin), the founder of Bolshevism, was born in the city of Simbirsk (now Ulyanovsk) in 1870. In 1887 Lenin entered the Kazan University, but was soon arrested and expelled from the university for taking part in the revolutionary student movement. In Kazan Lenin joined a Marxist circle formed by one Fedoseyev. Lenin later removed to Samara and soon afterwards the first Marxist circle in that city was formed with Lenin as the central figure. Already in those days Lenin amazed everyone by his thorough knowledge of Marxism.<br />
<br />
At the end of 1893 Lenin removed to St. Petersburg. His very first utterances in the Marxist circles of that city made a deep impression on their members. His extraordinarily profound knowledge of Marx, his ability to apply Marxism to the economic and political situation of Russia at that time, his ardent and unshakable belief in the victory of the workers' cause, and his outstanding talent as an organizer made Lenin the acknowledged leader of the St. Petersburg Marxists.<br />
<br />
Lenin enjoyed the warm affection of the politically advanced workers whom he taught in the circles.<br />
<br />
"Our lectures," says the worker Babushkin recalling Lenin's teaching activities in the workers' circles, "were of a very lively and interesting character; we were all very pleased with these lectures and constantly admired the wisdom of our lecturer."<br />
<br />
In 1895 Lenin united all the Marxist workers' circles in St. Petersburg (there were already about twenty of them) into a single League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class. He thus prepared the way for the founding of a revolutionary Marxist workers' party.<br />
<br />
Lenin put before the League of Struggle the task of forming closer connections with the mass working-class movement and of giving it political leadership. Lenin proposed to pass from the ''propaganda'' of Marxism among the few politically advanced workers who gathered in the propaganda circles to political ''agitation'' among the broad masses of the working class on issues of the day. This turn towards mass agitation was of profound importance for the subsequent development of the working-class movement in Russia.<br />
<br />
The nineties were a period of industrial boom. The number of workers was increasing. The working-class movement was gaining strength. In the period of 1895-99, according to incomplete data, not less than 221,000 workers took part in strikes. The working-class movement was becoming an important force in the political life of the country. The course of events was corroborating the view which the Marxists had championed against the Narodniks, namely, that the working class was to play the leading role in the revolutionary movement.<br />
<br />
Under Lenin's guidance, the League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class linked up the struggle of the workers for economic demands—improvement of working conditions, shorter hours and higher wages—with the political struggle against tsardom. The League of Struggle educated the workers politically.<br />
<br />
Under Lenin's guidance, the St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class was the first body in Russia that began to ''unite Socialism with the working-class movement.'' When a strike broke out in some factory, the League of Struggle, which through the members of its circles was kept well posted on the state of affairs in the factories, immediately responded by issuing leaflets and Socialist proclamations. These leaflets exposed the oppression of the workers by the manufacturers, explained how the workers should fight for their interests, and set forth the workers' demands. The leaflets told the plain truth about the ulcers of capitalism, the poverty of the workers, their intolerably hard working day of 12 to 14 hours, and their utter lack of rights. They also put forward appropriate political demands. With the collaboration of the worker Babushkin, Lenin at the end of i 894 wrote the first agitational leaflet of this kind and an appeal to the workers of the Semyannikov Works in St. Petersburg who were on strike. In the autumn of i895 Lenin wrote a leaflet for the men and women strikers of the Thornton Mills. These mills belonged to English owners who were making millions in profits out of them. The working day in these mills exceeded 14 hours, while the wages of a weaver were about 7 rubles per month. The workers won the strike. In a short space of time the League of Struggle printed dozens of such leaflets and appeals to the workers of various factories. Every leaflet greatly helped to stiffen the spirit of the workers. They saw that the Socialists were helping and defending them.<br />
<br />
In the summer of 1896 a strike of 30,000 textile workers, led by the League of Struggle, took place in St. Petersburg. The chief demand was for shorter hours. This strike forced the tsarist government to pass, on June 2, 1897, a law limiting the working day to 11½ hours. Prior to this the working day was not limited in any way.<br />
<br />
In December I895 Lenin was arrested by the tsarist government. But even in prison he did not discontinue his revolutionary work. He assisted the League of Struggle with advice and direction and wrote pamphlets and leaflets for it. There he wrote a pamphlet entitled ''On Strikes'' and a leaflet entitled ''To the Tsarist Government,'' exposing its savage despotism. There too Lenin drafted a program for the party (he used milk as an invisible ink and wrote between the lines of a book on medicine).<br />
<br />
The St. Petersburg League of Struggle gave a powerful impetus to the amalgamation of the workers' circles in other cities and regions of Russia into similar leagues. In the middle of the nineties Marxist organizations arose in Transcaucasia. In 1894 a Workers' Union was formed in Moscow. Towards the end of the nineties a Social-Democratic Union was formed in Siberia. In the nineties Marxist groups arose in Ivanovo-Voznesensk, Yaroslavl and Kostroma and subsequently merged to form the Northern Union of the Social-Democratic Party. In the second half of the nineties Social-Democratic groups and unions were formed in Rostov-on-Don, Ekaterinoslav, Kiev, Nikolayev, Tula, Samara, Kazan, Orekhovo-Zuyevo and other cities.<br />
<br />
The importance of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class consisted in the fact that, as Lenin said, it was the first real ''rudiment of a revolutionary party which was backed by the working-class movement.''<br />
<br />
Lenin drew on the revolutionary experience of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle in his subsequent work of creating a Marxist Social-Democratic party in Russia.<br />
<br />
After the arrest of Lenin and his close associates, the leadership of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle changed considerably. New people appeared who called themselves the "young" and Lenin and his associates the "old fellows." These people pursued an erroneous political line. They declared that the workers should be called upon to wage only an economic struggle against their employers; as for the political struggle, that was the affair of the liberal bourgeoisie, to whom the leadership of the political struggle should be left.<br />
<br />
These people came to be called "Economists."<br />
<br />
They were the first group of compromisers and opportunists within the ranks of the Marxist organizations in Russia.<br />
<br />
=== Lenin’s struggle against narodism and “legal Marxism.” Lenin’s idea of an alliance of the working class and the peasantry. First Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party ===<br />
Although Plekhanov had already in the eighties dealt the chief blow to the Narodnik system of views, at the beginning of the nineties Narodnik views still found sympathy among certain sections of the revolutionary youth. Some of them continued to hold that Russia could avoid the capitalist path of development and that the principal role in the revolution would be played by the peasantry, and not by the working class. The Narodniks that still remained did their utmost to prevent the spread of Marxism in Russia, fought the Marxists and endeavoured to discredit them in every way. Narodism had to be completely ''smashed''ideologically if the further spread of Marxism and the creation of a Social-Democratic party were to be assured.<br />
<br />
This task was performed by Lenin.<br />
<br />
In his book, ''What the "Friends of the People" Are and How They Fight Against the Social-Democrats'' (1894), Lenin thoroughly exposed the true character of the Narodniks, showing that they were false "friends of the people" actually working against the people.<br />
<br />
Essentially, the Narodniks of the nineties had long ago renounced all revolutionary struggle against the tsarist government. The liberal Narodniks preached reconciliation with the tsarist government "They think," Lenin wrote in reference to the Narodniks of that period, "that if they simply plead with this government nicely enough and humbly enough, it will put everything right." (Lenin, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. I, p. 413.)*<br />
<br />
The Narodniks of the nineties shut their eyes to the condition of the poor peasants, to the class struggle in the countryside, and to the exploitation of the poor peasants by the kulaks, and sang praises to the development of kulak farming. As a matter of fact they voiced the interests of the kulaks.<br />
<br />
At the same time, the Narodniks in their periodicals baited the Marxists. They deliberately distorted and falsified the views of the Russian Marxists and claimed that the latter desired the ruin of the countryside and wanted "every muzhik to be stewed in the factory kettle." Lenin exposed the falsity of the Narodnik criticism and pointed out that it was not a matter of the "wishes" of the Marxists, but of the fact that capitalism was actually developing in Russia and that this development was inevitably accompanied by a growth of the proletariat. And the proletariat would be the gravedigger of the capitalist system.<br />
<br />
Lenin showed that it was the Marxists and not the Narodniks who were the real friends of the people, that it was the Marxists who wanted to throw off the capitalist and landlord yoke, to destroy tsardom.<br />
<br />
In his book, ''What the "Friends of the People" Are'', Lenin for the first time advanced the idea of a revolutionary alliance of the workers and peasants as the principal means of overthrowing tsardom, the landlords and the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
In a number of his writings during this period Lenin criticized the methods of political struggle employed by the principal Narodnik group, the "Narodnaya Volya," and later by the successors of the Narodniks, the Socialist-Revolutionaries—especially the tactics of individual terrorism. Lenin considered these tactics harmful to the revolutionary movement, for they substituted the struggle of individual heroes for the struggle of the masses. They signified a lack of confidence in the revolutionary movement of the people.<br />
<br />
In the book, ''What the "Friends of the People" Are,''Lenin outlined the main tasks of the Russian Marxists. In his opinion, the first duty of the Russian Marxists was to weld the disunited Marxist circles into a united Socialist workers' party. He further pointed out that it would be the working class of Russia, in alliance with the peasantry, that would overthrow the tsarist autocracy, after which the Russian proletariat, in alliance with the labouring and exploited masses, would, along with the proletariat of other countries, take the straight road of open political struggle to the victorious Communist revolution.<br />
<br />
Thus, over forty years ago, Lenin correctly pointed out to the working class its path of struggle, defined its role as the foremost revolutionary force in society, and that of the peasantry as the ally of the working class.<br />
<br />
The struggle waged by Lenin and his followers against Narodism led to the latter's complete ideological defeat already in the nineties.<br />
<br />
Of immense significance, too, was Lenin's struggle against "legal Marxism." It usually happens with big social movements in history that transient "fellow-travelers" fasten on them. The ''"legal Marxists,"'' as they were called, were such fellow-travelers. Marxism began to spread widely throughout Russia; and so we found bourgeois intellectuals decking themselves out in a Marxist garb. They published their articles in newspapers and periodicals that were legal, that is, allowed by the tsarist government. That is why they came to be called "legal Marxists."<br />
<br />
After their own fashion, they too fought Narodism. But they tried to make use of this fight and of the banner of Marxism in order to subordinate and adapt the working-class movement to the interests of bourgeois society, to the interests of the bourgeoisie. They cut out the very core of Marxism, namely, the doctrine of the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. One prominent legal Marxist, Peter Struve, extolled the bourgeoisie, and instead of calling for a revolutionary struggle against capitalism, urged that "we acknowledge our lack of culture and go to capitalism for schooling."<br />
<br />
In the fight against the Narodniks Lenin considered it permissible to come to a temporary agreement with the "legal Marxists" in order to use them against the Narodniks, as, for example, for the joint publication of a collection of articles directed against the Narodniks. At the same time, however, Lenin was unsparing in his criticism of the "legal Marxists" and exposed their liberal bourgeois nature.<br />
<br />
Many of these fellow-travelers later became Constitutional-Democrats (the principal party of the Russian bourgeoisie), and during the Civil War out-and-out White guards. <br />
<br />
Along with the Leagues of Struggle in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kiev and other places, Social-Democratic organizations arose also in the western national border regions of Russia. In the nineties the Marxist elements in the Polish nationalist party broke away to form the Social-Democratic Party of Poland and Lithuania. At the end of the nineties Latvian Social-Democratic organizations were formed, and in October 1897 the Jewish General Social-Democratic Union—known as the Bund—was founded in the western provinces of Russia.<br />
<br />
In 1898 several of the Leagues of Struggle—those of St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kiev and Ekaterinoslav—together with the Bund made the first attempt to unite and form a Social-Democratic party. For this purpose they summoned the First Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (R.S.D.L.P.), which was held in Minsk in March 1898.<br />
<br />
The First Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. was attended by only nine persons. Lenin was not present because at that time he was living in exile in Siberia. The Central Committee of the Party elected at the congress was very soon arrested. The Manifesto published in the name of the congress was in many respects unsatisfactory. It evaded the question of the conquest of political power by the proletariat, it made no mention of the hegemony of the proletariat, and said nothing about the allies of the proletariat in its struggle against tsardom and the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
In its decisions and in its Manifesto the congress announced the formation of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party.<br />
<br />
It is this formal act, which played a great revolutionary propagandist role, that constituted the significance of the First Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.<br />
<br />
But although the First Congress had been held, in reality no Marxist Social-Democratic Party was as yet formed in Russia. The congress did not succeed in uniting the separate Marxist circles and organizations and welding them together organizationally. There was still no common line of action in the work of the local organizations, nor was there a party program, party rules or a single leading centre.<br />
<br />
For this and for a number of other reasons, the ideological confusion in the local organizations began to increase, and this created favourable ground for the growth within the working-class movement of the opportunist trend known as "Economism."<br />
<br />
It required several years of intense effort on the part of Lenin and of ''Iskra (Spark)'', the newspaper he founded, before this confusion could be overcome, the opportunist vacillations put an end to, and the way prepared for the formation of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party.<br />
<br />
=== Lenin’s fight against “Economism.” Appearance of Lenin’s newspaper Iskra ===<br />
Lenin was not present at the First Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. He was at that time in exile in Siberia, in the village of Shushenskoye, where he had been banished by the tsarist government after a long period of imprisonment in St. Petersburg in connection with the prosecution of the League of Struggle.<br />
<br />
But Lenin continued his revolutionary activities even while in exile. There he finished a highly important scientific work, ''The Development of Capitalism in Russia,'' which completed the ideological destruction of Narodism. There, too, he wrote his well-known pamphlet, ''The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats.''<br />
<br />
Although Lenin was cut off from direct, practical revolutionary work, he nevertheless managed to maintain some connections with those engaged in this work; he carried on a correspondence with them from exile, obtained information from them and gave them advice. At this time Lenin was very much preoccupied with the "Economists." He realized better than anybody else that "Economism" was the main nucleus of compromise and opportunism, and that if "Economism" were to gain the upper hand in the working-class movement, it would undermine the revolutionary movement of the proletariat and lead to the defeat of Marxism.<br />
<br />
Lenin therefore started a vigorous attack on the "Economists" as soon as they appeared on the scene.<br />
<br />
The "Economists" maintained that the workers should engage only in the economic struggle; as to the political struggle, that should be left to the liberal bourgeoisie, whom the workers should support. In Lenin's eyes this tenet was a desertion of Marxism, a denial of the necessity for an independent political party of the working class, an attempt to convert the working class into a political appendage of the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
In 1899 a group of "Economists" (Prokopovich, Kuskova and others, who later became Constitutional-Democrats) issued a manifesto in which they opposed revolutionary Marxism, and insisted that the idea of an independent political party of the proletariat and of independent political demands by the working class be renounced. The "Economists" held that the political struggle was a matter for the liberal bourgeoisie, and that as far as the workers were concerned, the economic struggle against the employers was enough for them.<br />
<br />
When Lenin acquainted himself with this opportunist document he called a conference of Marxist political exiles living in the vicinity. Seventeen of them met and, headed by Lenin, issued a trenchant protest denouncing the views of the "Economists."<br />
<br />
This protest, which was written by Lenin, was circulated among the Marxist organizations all over the country and played an outstanding part in the development of Marxist ideas and of the Marxist party in Russia.<br />
<br />
The Russian "Economists" advocated the same views as the opponents of Marxism in the Social-Democratic parties abroad who were known as the Bernsteinites, that is, followers of the opportunist Bernstein.<br />
<br />
Lenin's struggle against the "Economists" was therefore at the same time a struggle against opportunism on an international scale.<br />
<br />
The fight against "Economism," the fight for the creation of an independent political party of the proletariat, was chiefly waged by ''Iskra,'' the illegal newspaper founded by Lenin.<br />
<br />
At the beginning of 1900, Lenin and other members of the League of Struggle returned from their Siberian exile to Russia. Lenin conceived the idea of founding a big illegal Marxist newspaper on an all-Russian scale. The numerous small Marxist circles and organizations which already existed in Russia were not yet linked up. At a moment when, in the words of Comrade Stalin, "amateurishness and the parochial outlook of the circles were corroding the Party from top to bottom, when ideological confusion was the characteristic feature of the internal life of the Party," the creation of an illegal newspaper on an all-Russian scale was the chief task of the Russian revolutionary Marxists. Only such a newspaper could link up the disunited Marxist organizations and prepare the way for the creation of a real party.<br />
<br />
But such a newspaper could not be published in tsarist Russia owing to police persecution. Within a month or two at most the tsar's sleuths would get on its track and smash it. Lenin therefore decided to publish the newspaper abroad. There it was printed on very thin but durable paper and secretly smuggled into Russia. Some of the issues of ''Iskra'' were reprinted in Russia by secret printing plants in Baku, Kishinev and Siberia.<br />
<br />
In the autumn of 1900 Lenin went abroad to make arrangements with the comrades in the "Emancipation of Labour" group for the publication of a political newspaper on an all-Russian scale. The idea had been worked out by Lenin in all its details while he was in exile. On his way back from exile he had held a number of conferences on the subject in Ufa, Pskov, Moscow and St. Petersburg. Everywhere he made arrangements with the comrades about codes for secret correspondence, addresses to which literature could be sent, and so on, and discussed with them plans for the future struggle.<br />
<br />
The tsarist government scented a most dangerous enemy in Lenin. Zubatov, an officer of gendarmes in the tsarist ''Okhrana'', expressed the opinion in a confidential report that "there is nobody bigger than Ulyanov [Lenin] in the revolution today," in view of which he considered it expedient to have Lenin assassinated.<br />
<br />
Abroad, Lenin came to an arrangement with the "Emancipation of Labour" group, namely, with Plekhanov, Axelrod and V. Zasulich, for the publication of Iskra under joint auspices. The whole plan of publication from beginning to end had been worked out by Lenin.<br />
<br />
The first issue of Iskra appeared abroad in December 1900. The title page bore the epigraph: "The ''Spark Will Kindle a Flame."'' These words were taken from the reply of the Decembrists to the poet Pushkin who had sent greetings to them in their place of exile in Siberia.<br />
<br />
And indeed, from the spark (''Iskra'') started by Lenin there subsequently flamed up the great revolutionary conflagration in which the tsarist monarchy of the landed nobility, and the power of the bourgeoisie were reduced to ashes.<br />
<br />
=== Brief summary ===<br />
The Marxist Social-Democratic Labour Party in Russia was formed in a struggle waged in the first place against Narodism and its views, which were erroneous and harmful to the cause of revolution.<br />
<br />
Only by ideologically shattering the views of the Narodniks was it possible to clear the way for a Marxist workers' party in Russia. A decisive blow to Narodism was dealt by Plekhanov and his "Emancipation of Labour" group in the eighties.<br />
<br />
Lenin completed the ideological defeat of Narodism and dealt it the final blow in the nineties.<br />
<br />
The "Emancipation of Labour" group, founded in 1883, did a great deal for the dissemination of Marxism in Russia; it laid the theoretical foundations for Social-Democracy and took the first step to establish connection with the working-class movement.<br />
<br />
With the development of capitalism in Russia the industrial proletariat rapidly grew in numbers. In the middle of the eighties the working class adopted the path of organized struggle, of mass action in the form of organized strikes. But the Marxist circles and groups only carried on propaganda and did not realize the necessity for passing to mass agitation among the working class; they therefore still had no practical connection with the working-class movement and did not lead it.<br />
<br />
The St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class, which Lenin formed in i895 and which started mass agitation among the workers and led mass strikes, marked a new stage — the transition to mass agitation among the workers and the union of Marxism with the working-class movement. The St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class was the rudiment of a revolutionary proletarian party in Russia. The formation of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle was followed by the formation of Marxist organizations in all the principal industrial centres as well as in the border regions.<br />
<br />
In i898 at the First Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. the first, although unsuccessful, attempt was made to unite the Marxist Social-Democratic organizations into a party. But this congress did not yet create a party : there was neither a party program nor party rules; there was no single leading centre, and there was scarcely any connection between the separate Marxist circles and groups.<br />
<br />
In order to unite and link together the separate Marxist organizations into a single party, Lenin put forward and carried out a plan for the founding of ''Iskra'', the first newspaper of the revolutionary Marxists on an all-Russian scale.<br />
<br />
The principal opponents to the creation of a single political working-class party at that period were the "Economists." They denied the necessity for such a party. They fostered the disunity and amateurish methods of the separate groups. It was against them that Lenin and the newspaper ''Iskra'' organized by him directed their blows.<br />
<br />
The appearance of the first issues of ''Iskra'' (1900-0I) marked a transition to a new period—a period in which a single Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party was really formed from the disconnected groups and circles.<br />
<br />
== Formation of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. Appearance of the Bolshevik and the Menshevik groups within the party (1901—1904) ==<br />
<br />
=== Upsurge of the revolutionary movement in Russia in 1901—1904 ===<br />
The end of the nineteenth century in Europe was marked by an industrial crisis. It soon spread to Russia. During the period of the crisis (1900-03) about 3,000 large and small enterprises were closed down and over 100,000 workers thrown on the streets. The wages of the workers that remained employed were sharply reduced. The insignificant concessions previously wrung from the capitalists as the result of stubborn economic strikes were now withdrawn.<br />
<br />
Industrial crisis and unemployment did not halt or weaken the working-class movement. On the contrary, the workers' struggle assumed an increasingly revolutionary character. From economic strikes, the workers passed to political strikes, and finally to demonstrations, put forward political demands for democratic liberties, and raised the slogan, "Down with the tsarist autocracy!"<br />
<br />
A May Day strike at the Obukhov munitions plant in St. Petersburg in 1901 resulted in a bloody encounter between the workers and troops. The only weapons the workers could oppose to the armed forces of the tsar were stones and lumps of iron. The stubborn resistance of the workers was broken. This was followed by savage reprisals: about 800 workers were arrested, and many were cast into prison or condemned to penal servitude and exile. But the heroic "Obukhov defence" made a profound impression on the workers of Russia and called forth a wave of sympathy among them.<br />
<br />
In March 1902 big strikes and a demonstration of workers took place in Batum, organized by the Batum Social-Democratic Committee. The Batum demonstration stirred up the workers and peasants of Transcaucasia.<br />
<br />
In 1902 a big strike broke out in Rostov-on-Don as well. The first to come out were the railwaymen, who were soon joined by the workers of many factories. The strike agitated all the workers. As many as 30,000 would gather at meetings held outside the city limits on several successive days. At these meetings Social-Democratic proclamations were read aloud and speakers addressed the workers. The police and the Cossacks were powerless to disperse these meetings, attended as they were by many thousands. When several workers were killed by the police, a huge procession of working people attended their funeral on the following day. Only by summoning troops from surrounding cities was the tsarist government able to suppress the strike. The struggle of the Rostov workers was led by the Don Committee of the R.S.D.L.P.<br />
<br />
The strikes that broke out in 1903 were of even larger dimensions. Mass political strikes took place that year in the south, sweeping Transcaucasia (Baku, Tiflis, Batum) and the large cities of the Ukraine (Odessa, Kiev, Ekaterinoslav). The strikes became increasingly stubborn and better organized. Unlike earlier actions of the working class, the political struggle of the workers was nearly everywhere directed by the Social-Democratic committees.<br />
<br />
The working class of Russia was rising to wage a revolutionary struggle against the tsarist regime.<br />
<br />
The working-class movement influenced the peasantry. In the spring and summer of 1902 a peasant movement broke out in the Ukraine (Poltava and Kharkov provinces) and in the Volga region. The peasants set fire to landlords' mansions, seized their land, and killed the detested ''zemsky nachalniks'' (rural prefects) and landlords. Troops were sent to quell the rebellious peasants. Peasants were shot down, hundreds were arrested, and their leaders and organizers were flung into prison, but the revolutionary peasant movement continued to grow.<br />
<br />
The revolutionary actions of the workers and peasants indicated that revolution was maturing and drawing near in Russia.<br />
<br />
Under the influence of the revolutionary struggle of the workers the opposition movement of the students against the government assumed greater intensity. In retaliation for the student demonstrations and strikes, the government shut down the universities, flung hundreds of students into prison, and finally conceived the idea of sending recalcitrant students into the army as common soldiers. In response, the students of all the universities organized a general strike in the winter of 1901-02. About thirty thousand students were involved in this strike.<br />
<br />
The revolutionary movement of the workers and peasants, and especially the reprisals against the students, induced also the liberal bourgeois and the liberal landlords who sat on what was known as the Zem-stvos to bestir themselves and to raise their voices in "protest" against the "excesses" of the tsarist government in repressing their student sons.<br />
<br />
The Zemstvo liberals had their stronghold in the Zemstvo boards. These were local government bodies which had charge of purely local affairs affecting the rural population (building of roads, hospitals and schools). The liberal landlords played a fairly prominent part on the Zem-stvo boards. They were closely associated with the liberal bourgeois, in fact were almost merged with them, for they themselves were beginning to abandon methods based on survivals of serfdom for capitalist methods of farming on their estates, as being more profitable. Of course, both these groups of liberals supported the tsarist government; but they were opposed to the "excesses" of tsardom, fearing that these "excesses" would only intensify the revolutionary movement. While they feared the "excesses" of tsardom, they feared revolution even more. In protesting against these "excesses," the liberals pursued two aims: first, to "bring the tsar to his senses," and secondly, by donning a mask of "profound dissatisfaction" with tsardom, to gain the confidence of the people, and to get them, or part of them, to break away from the revolution, and thus undermine its strength.<br />
<br />
Of course, the Zemstvo liberal movement offered no menace whatever to the existence of tsardom; nevertheless, it served to show that all was not well with the "eternal" pillars of tsardom.<br />
<br />
In 1902 the Zemstvo liberal movement led to the formation of the bourgeois "Liberation" group, the nucleus of the future principal party of the bourgeoisie in Russia—the Constitutional-Democratic Party.<br />
<br />
Perceiving that the movement of the workers and peasants was sweeping the country in a formidable torrent, the tsarist government did everything it could to stem the revolutionary tide. Armed force was used with increasing frequency to suppress the workers' strikes and demonstrations; the bullet and the knout became the government's usual reply to the actions of the workers and peasants; prisons and places of exile were filled to overflowing.<br />
<br />
While tightening up the measures of repression, the tsarist government tried at the same time to resort to other, non-repressive and more "flexible," measures to divert the workers from the revolutionary movement. Attempts were made to create bogus workers' organizations under the aegis of the gendarmes and police. They were dubbed organizations of "police socialism" or Zubatov organizations (after the name of a colonel of gendarmerie, Zubatov, who was the founder of these police-controlled workers' organizations). Through its agents the ''Okhrana'' tried to get the workers to believe that the tsarist government was itself prepared to assist them in securing the satisfaction of their economic demands. "Why engage in politics, why make a revolution, when the tsar himself is on the side of the workers?"—Zubatov agents would insinuate to the workers. Zubatov organizations were formed in several cities. On the model of these organizations and with the same purposes in view, an organization known as the Assembly of Russian Factory Workers of St. Petersburg was formed in 1904 by a priest by the name of Gapon.<br />
<br />
But the attempt of the tsarist ''Okhrana'' to gain control over the working-class movement failed. The tsarist government proved unable by such measures to cope with the growing working-class movement. The rising revolutionary movement of the working class swept these police-controlled organizations from its path.<br />
<br />
=== Lenin’s plan for the building of a Marxist party. Opportunism of the “Economists.” Iskra’s fight for Lenin’s plan. Lenin’s book ''What is to be Done?'' Ideological foundations of the Marxist party ===<br />
Notwithstanding the fact that the First Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Party had been held in 1898, and that it had announced the formation of the Party, no real party was as yet created. There was no party program or party rules. The Central Committee of the Party elected at the First Congress was arrested and never replaced, for there was nobody to replace it. Worse still, the ideological confusion and lack of organizational cohesion of the Party became even more marked after the First Congress.<br />
<br />
While the years 1884-94 were a period of victory over Narodism and of ideological preparation for the formation of a Social-Democratic Party, and the years 1894-98 a period in which an attempt, although unsuccessful, was made to weld the separate Marxist organizations into a Social-Democratic Party, the period immediately following 1898 was one of increased ideological and organizational confusion within the Party. The victory gained by the Marxists over Narodism and the revolutionary actions of the working class, which proved that the Marxists were right, stimulated the sympathy of the revolutionary youth for Marxism. Marxism became the fashion. This resulted in an influx into the Marxist organizations of throngs of young revolutionary intellectuals, who were weak in theory and inexperienced in political organization, and who ad only a vague, and for the most part incorrect, idea of Marxism, derived from the opportunist writings of the "legal Marxists" with which the press was filled. This resulted in the lowering of the theoretical and political standard of the Marxist organizations, in their infection with the "legal Marxist" opportunist tendencies, and in the aggravation of ideological confusion, political vacillation and organizational chaos.<br />
<br />
The rising tide of the working-class movement and the obvious proximity of revolution demanded a united and centralized party of the working class which would be capable of leading the revolutionary movement. But the local Party organizations, the local committees, groups and circles were in such a deplorable state, and their organizational disunity and ideological discord so profound, that the task of creating such a party was one of immense difficulty.<br />
<br />
The difficulty lay not only in the fact that the Party had to be built under the fire of savage persecution by the tsarist government, which every now and then robbed the organizations of their finest workers whom it condemned to exile, imprisonment and penal servitude, but also in the fact that a large number of the local committees and their members would have nothing to do with anything but their local, petty practical activities, did not realize the harm caused by the absence of organizational and ideological unity in the Party, were accustomed to the disunity and ideological confusion that prevailed within it, and believed that they could get along quite well without a united centralized party.<br />
<br />
If a centralized party was to be created, this backwardness, inertia, and narrow outlook of the local bodies had to be overcome.<br />
<br />
But this was not all. There was a fairly large group of people within the Party who had their own press—the ''Rabochaya Mysl (Workers' Thought)'' in Russia and ''Rabocheye Delo (Workers' Cause'') abroad— and who were trying to justify on theoretical grounds the lack of organizational cohesion and the ideological confusion within the Party, frequently even lauding such a state of affairs, and holding that the plan for creating a united and centralized political party of the working class was unnecessary and artificial.<br />
<br />
These were the "Economists" and their followers.<br />
<br />
Before a united political party of the proletariat could be created, the "Economists" had to be defeated.<br />
<br />
It was to this task and to the building of a working-class party that Lenin addressed himself.<br />
<br />
How to begin the building of a united party of the working class was a question on which opinions differed. Some thought that the building of the Party should be begun by summoning the Second Congress of the Party, which would unite the local organizations and create the Party. Lenin was opposed to this. He held that before convening a congress it was necessary to make the aims and objects of the Party clear, to ascertain what sort of a party was wanted, to effect an ideological demarcation from the "Economists," to tell the Party honestly and frankly that there existed two different opinions regarding the aims and objects of the Party—the opinion of the "Economists" and the opinion of the revolutionary Social-Democrats—to start a wide campaign in the press in favour of the views of revolutionary Social-Democracy—just as the "Economists" were conducting a campaign in their own press in favour of their own views—and to give the local organizations the opportunity to make a deliberate choice between these two trends. Only after this indispensable preliminary work had been done could a Party Congress be summoned. Lenin put it plainly :<blockquote>“Before we can unite, and in order that we may unite, we must first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation.”</blockquote>Lenin accordingly held that the building of a political party of the working class should be begun by the founding of a militant political newspaper on an all-Russian scale, which would carry on propaganda and agitation in favour of the views of revolutionary Social-Democracy —that the establishment of such a newspaper should be the first step in the building of the Party.<br />
<br />
In his well-known article, "Where to Begin?" Lenin outlined a concrete plan for the building of the Party, a plan which was later expanded in his famous work ''What is To Be Done?''<br />
<br />
"In our opinion," wrote Lenin in this article, "the starting point of our activities, the first practical step towards creating the organization desired,* finally, the main thread following which we would be able to develop, deepen and expand that organization unswervingly, should be the establishment of a political newspaper on an all-Russian scale...Without it we cannot systematically carry on that all-embracing propaganda and agitation, consistent in principle, which form the chief and constant task of Social-Democrats in general, and the particularly urgent task of the present moment when interest in politics, in questions of Socialism, has been aroused among the widest sections of the population." (''Ibid.,'' p. 19.)<br />
<br />
Lenin considered that such a newspaper would serve not only to weld the Party ideologically, but also to unite the local bodies within the Party organizationally. The network of agents and correspondents of the newspaper, representing the local organizations, would provide a skeleton around which the Party could be built up organizationally. For, Lenin said, "a newspaper is not only a collective propagandist and collective agitator, but also a collective organizer."<blockquote>“This network of agents," writes Lenin in the same article, "will form the skeleton of precisely the organization we need, namely, one that is sufficiently large to embrace the whole country, sufficiently wide and many-sided to effect a strict and detailed division of labour; sufficiently tried and tempered to be able unswervingly to carry on ''its own'' work under all circumstances, at all 'turns' and in all contingencies; sufficiently flexible to be able to avoid open battle against an enemy of overwhelming strength, when he has concentrated all his forces at one spot, and yet able to take advantage of the awkwardness of this enemy and to attack him whenever and wherever least expected.”</blockquote>''Iskra'' was to be such a newspaper.<br />
<br />
And ''Iskra'' did indeed become such a political-newspaper on an all-Russian scale which prepared the way for the ideological and organizational consolidation of the Party.<br />
<br />
As to the structure and composition of the Party itself, Lenin considered that it should consist of two parts: a) a close circle of regular cadres of leading Party workers, chiefly professional revolutionaries, that is, Party workers free from all occupation except Party work and possessing the necessary minimum of theoretical knowledge, political experience, organizational practice and the art of combating the tsarist police and of eluding them; and b) a broad network of local Party organizations and a large number of Party members enjoying the sympathy and support of hundreds of thousands of working people.<blockquote>“I assert,” Lenin wrote, 1) that no revolutionary movement can endure without a stable organization of leaders that maintains continuity; 2) that the wider the masses spontaneously drawn into the struggle...the more urgent the need of such an organization, and the more solid this organization must be...3) that such an organization must consist chiefly of people professionally engaged in revolutionary activity; 4) that in an autocratic state the more we ''confine'' the membership of such organization to people who are professionally engaged in revolutionary activity and who have been professionally trained in the art of combating the political police, the more difficult will it be to wipe out such an organization, and 5) the ''greater'' will be the number of people of the working class and of the other classes of society who will be able to join the movement and perform active work in it.” (''Ibid.'') pp. 138-39.)</blockquote>As to the character of the Party that was being built up and its role in relation to the working class, as well as its aims and objects, Lenin held that the Party should form the vanguard of the working class, that it should be the guiding force of the working-class movement, co-ordinating and directing the class struggle of the proletariat. The ultimate goal of the Party was the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. Its immediate aim was the overthrow of tsardom and the establishment of a democratic order. And inasmuch as the overthrow of capitalism was impossible without the preliminary overthrow of tsardom, the principal task of the Party at the given moment was to rouse the working class and the whole people for a struggle against tsardom, to develop a revolutionary movement of the people against it, and to overthrow it as the first and serious obstacle in the path of Socialism.<blockquote>“History,” Lenin wrote, “has now confronted us with an immediate task which is ''the most revolutionary'' of all the ''immediate'' tasks that confront the proletariat of any country. The fulfilment of this task, the destruction of the most powerful bulwark not only of European but also (it may now be said) of Asiatic reaction would make the Russian proletariat the vanguard of the international revolutionary proletariat.”</blockquote>And further:<blockquote>“We must bear in mind that the struggle with the government for partial demands, the winning of partial concessions, are only petty skirmishes with the enemy, petty encounters on the outposts, whereas the decisive engagement is still to come. Before us, in all its strength, stands the enemy's fortress, which is raining shot and shell upon us and mowing down our best fighters. We must capture this fortress; and we shall capture it if we unite all the forces of the awakening proletariat with all the forces of the Russian revolutionaries into one party, which will attract all that is alive and honest in Russia. And only then will the great prophecy of Pyotr Alexeyev, the Russian worker revolutionary, be fulfilled: 'the muscular arm of the working millions will be lifted, and the yoke of despotism, guarded by the soldiers' bayonets, will be smashed to atoms!'”</blockquote>Such was Lenin's plan for the creation of a party of the working class in autocratic tsarist Russia.<br />
<br />
The "Economists" showed no delay in launching an attack on Lenin's plan.<br />
<br />
They asserted that the general political struggle against tsardom was a matter for all classes, but primarily for the bourgeoisie, and that therefore it was of no serious interest to the working class, for the chief interest of the workers lay in the economic struggle against the employers for higher wages, better working conditions, etc. The primary and immediate aim of the Social-Democrats should therefore be not a political struggle against tsardom, and not the overthrow of tsardom, but the organization of the "economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government." By the economic struggle against the government they meant a struggle for better factory legislation. The "Economists" claimed that in this way it would be possible "to lend the economic struggle itself a political character."<br />
<br />
The "Economists" no longer dared openly to contest the need for a political party of the working class. But they considered that it should not be the guiding force of the working-class movement, that it should not interfere in the spontaneous movement of the working class, let alone direct it, but that it should follow in the wake of this movement, study it and draw lessons from it.<br />
<br />
The "Economists" furthermore asserted that the role of the conscious element in the working-class movement, the organizing and directing role of Socialist consciousness and Socialist theory, was insignificant, or almost insignificant; that the Social-Democrats should not elevate the minds of the workers to the level of Socialist consciousness, but, on the contrary, should adjust themselves and descend to the level of the average, or even of the more backward sections of the working class, and that the Social-Democrats should not try to impart a Socialist consciousness to the working class, but should wait until the spontaneous movement of the working class arrived of itself at a Socialist consciousness.<br />
<br />
As regards Lenin's plan for the organization of the Party, the "Economists" regarded it almost as an act of violence against the spontaneous movement.<br />
<br />
In the columns of ''Iskra,'' and especially in his celebrated work ''What is To Be Done?,'' Lenin launched a vehement attack against this opportunist philosophy of the "Economists" and demolished it.<br />
<br />
1) Lenin showed that to divert the working class from the general political struggle against tsardom and to confine its task to that of the economic struggle against the employers and the government, while leaving both employers and government intact, meant to condemn the workers to eternal slavery. The economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government was a trade union struggle for better terms in the sale of their labour power to the capitalists. The workers, however, wanted to fight not only for better terms in the sale of their labour power to the capitalists, but also for the abolition of the capitalist system itself which condemned them to sell their labour power to the capitalists and to suffer exploitation. But the workers could not develop their struggle against capitalism, their struggle for Socialism to the full, as long as the path of the working-class movement was barred by tsardom, that watchdog of capitalism. It was therefore the immediate task of the Party and of the working class to remove tsardom from the path and thus clear the way to Socialism.<br />
<br />
2) Lenin showed that to extol the spontaneous process in the working-class movement, to deny that the Party had a leading role to play, to reduce its role to that of a recorder of events, meant to preach ''khvostism'' (following in the tail), to preach the conversion of the Party into a tall-piece of the spontaneous process, into a passive force of the movement, capable only of contemplating the spontaneous process and allowing events to take their own course. To advocate this meant working for the destruction of the Party, that is, leaving the working class without a party—that is, leaving the working class unarmed. But to leave the working class unarmed when it was faced by such enemies as tsardom, which was armed to the teeth, and the bourgeoisie, which was organized on modern lines and had its own party to direct its struggle against the working class, meant to betray the working class.<br />
<br />
3) Lenin showed that to bow in worship of the spontaneous working-class movement and to belittle the importance of consciousness, of Socialist consciousness and Socialist theory, meant, in the first place, to insult the workers, who were drawn to consciousness as to light; in the second place, to lower the value of theory in the eyes of the Party, that is, to depreciate the instrument which helped the Party to understand the present and foresee the future; and, in the third place, it meant to sink completely and irrevocably into the bog of opportunism.<blockquote>“Without a revolutionary theory,” Lenin said, “there can be no revolutionary movement...The role of vanguard can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory.”</blockquote>4) Lenin showed that the "Economists" were deceiving the working class when they asserted that a Socialist ideology could arise from the spontaneous movement of the working class, for in reality the Socialist ideology arises not from the spontaneous movement, but from science. By denying the necessity of imparting a Socialist consciousness to the working class, the "Economists" were clearing the way for bourgeois ideology, facilitating its introduction and dissemination among the work- ing class, and, consequently, they were burying the idea of union between the working-class movement and Socialism, thus helping the bourgeoisie.<blockquote>“All worship of the spontaneity of the labour movement,” Lenin said, “all belittling of the role of 'the conscious element,' of the role of the party of Social-Democracy, ''means, altogether irrespective of whether the belittler likes it or not, strengthening the influence of the bourgeois ideology among the workers.''”</blockquote>And further:<blockquote>“The only choice is: either the bourgeois or the Socialist ideology. There is no middle course...Hence to belittle the Socialist ideology ''in any way, to turn away from it in the slightest degree'' means to strengthen the bourgeois ideology.”</blockquote>5) Summing up all these mistakes of the "Economists," Lenin came to the conclusion that they did not want a party of social revolution for the emancipation of the working class from capitalism, but a party of "social reform," which presupposed the preservation of capitalist rule, and that, consequently, the "Economists" were reformists who were betraying the fundamental interests of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
6) Lastly, Lenin showed that "Economism" was not an accidental phenomenon in Russia, but that the "Economists" were an instrument of bourgeois influence upon the working class, that they had allies in the West-European Social-Democratic parties in the person of the revisionists, the followers of the opportunist Bernstein. The opportunist trend in Social-Democratic parties was gaining strength in Western Europe; on the plea of "freedom to criticize" Marx, it demanded a "revision" of the Marxist doctrine (hence the term "revisionism"); it demanded renunciation of the revolution, of Socialism and of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin showed that the Russian "Economists" were pursuing a similar policy of renunciation of the revolutionary struggle, of Socialism and of the dictatorship of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
Such were the main theoretical principles expounded by Lenin in ''What is To Be Done?''<br />
<br />
As a result of the wide circulation of this book, by the time of the Second Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Party, that is, within a year after its publication (it appeared in March 1902), nothing but a distasteful memory remained of the ideological stand of "Economism," and to be called an "Economist" was regarded by the majority of the members of the Party as an insult.<br />
<br />
It was a complete ideological defeat for "Economism," for the ideology of opportunism, ''khvostism'' and spontaneity.<br />
<br />
But this does not exhaust the significance of Lenin's ''What is To Be Done?''<br />
<br />
The historic significance of this celebrated book lies in the fact that in it Lenin:<br />
<br />
1) For the first time in the history of Marxist thought, laid bare the ideological roots of opportunism, showing that they principally consisted in worshipping the spontaneous working-class movement and belittling the role of Socialist consciousness in the working-class movement;<br />
<br />
2) Brought out the great importance of theory, of consciousness, and of the Party as a revolutionizing and guiding force of the spontaneous working-class movement;<br />
<br />
3) Brilliantly substantiated the fundamental Marxist thesis that a Marxist party is a union of the working-class movement with Socialism;<br />
<br />
4) Gave a brilliant exposition of the ideological foundations of a Marxist party.<br />
<br />
The theoretical theses expounded in ''What is To Be Done?'' later became the foundation of the ideology of the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
Possessing such a wealth of theory, ''Iskra'' was able to, and actually did, develop an extensive campaign for Lenin's plan for the building of the Party, for mustering its forces, for calling the Second Party Congress, for revolutionary Social-Democracy, and against the "Economists," revisionists, and opportunists of all kinds.<br />
<br />
One of the most important things that ''Iskra'' did was to draft a program for the Party. The program of a workers' party, as we know, is a brief, scientifically formulated statement of the aims and objects of the struggle of the working class. The program defines both the ultimate goal of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat, and the demands for which the party fights while on the way to the achievement of the ultimate goal. The drafting of a program was therefore a matter of prime importance.<br />
<br />
During the drafting of the program serious differences arose on the editorial board of ''Iskra'' between Lenin, on the one hand, and Plekhanov and other members of the board, on the other. These differences and disputes almost led to a complete rupture between Lenin and Plekhanov. But matters did not come to a head at that time. Lenin secured the inclusion in the draft program of a most important clause on the dictatorship of the proletariat and of a clear statement on the leading role of the working class in the revolution.<br />
<br />
It was Lenin, too, who drew up the whole agrarian section of the program. Already at that time Lenin was in favour of the nationalization of the land, but he considered it necessary in the first stage of the struggle to put forward the demand for the return to the peasants of the ''otrezki'', that is, those portions of the land which had been cut off the peasants' land by the landlords at the time of "emancipation" of the peasants. Plekhanov was opposed to the demand for the nationalization of the land.<br />
<br />
The disputes between Lenin and Plekhanov over the Party program to some extent determined the future differences between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks.<br />
<br />
=== Second Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. Adoption of program and rules and formation of a single party. Differences at the Congress and appearance of two trends within the party: the Bolshevik and the Menshevik ===<br />
Thus the triumph of Lenin's principles and the successful struggle waged by Iskra for Lenin's plan of organization brought about all the principal conditions necessary for the creation of a party, or, as it was said at the time, of a real party. The Iskra trend gained the upper hand among the Social-Democratic organizations in Russia. The Second Party Congress could now be summoned.<br />
<br />
The Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. opened on July 17 (30, New Style), 1903. It was held abroad, in secret. It first met in Brussels, but the Belgian police requested the delegates to leave the country. Thereupon the congress transferred its sittings to London.<br />
<br />
Forty-three delegates in all, representing 26 organizations, assembled at the congress. Each committee was entitled to send two delegates, but some of them sent only one. The 43 delegates commanded 51 votes between them.<br />
<br />
The chief purpose of the congress was "to create a ''real'' party on that basis of principles and organization which had been advanced and elaborated by ''Iskra''." (Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. II, p. 412.)<br />
<br />
The composition of the congress was heterogeneous. The avowed "Economists" were not represented, because of the defeat they had suffered. But they had since disguised their views so artfully that they managed to smuggle several of their delegates into the congress. Moreover, the Bund delegates differed only ostensibly from the "Economists"; in reality they supported the "Economists."<br />
<br />
Thus the congress was attended not only by supporters of ''Iskra'', but also by its adversaries. Thirty-three of the delegates, that is, the majority, were supporters of ''Iskra''. But not all those who considered themselves ''Iskra''-ists were real Leninist ''Iskra''-ists. The delegates fell into several groups. The supporters of Lenin, or the firm ''Iskra''-ists, commanded 24 votes; nine of the ''Iskra''-ists followed Martov; these were unstable ''Iskra''-ists. Some of the delegates vacillated between ''Iskra'' and its opponents; they commanded 10 votes and constituted the Centre. The avowed opponents of ''Iskra'' commanded 8 votes (3 "Economists" and 5 Bundists). A split in the ranks of the ''Iskra''-ists would be enough to give the enemies of ''Iskra'' the upper hand.<br />
<br />
It will therefore be seen how complex the situation was at the congress. Lenin expended a great deal of energy to ensure the victory of ''Iskra''.<br />
<br />
The most important item on the agenda was the adoption of the Party program. The chief point which, during the discussion of the program, aroused the objections of the opportunist section of the congress was the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat. There were a number of other items in the program on which the opportunists did not agree with the revolutionary section of the congress. But they decided to put up the main fight on the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, on the plea that the programs of a number of foreign Social-Democratic parties contained no clause on the dictatorship of the proletariat, and that therefore the program of the Russian Social-Democratic Party could dispense with it too.<br />
<br />
The opportunists also objected to the inclusion in the Party program of demands on the peasant question. These people did not want revolution; they, therefore, fought shy of the ally of the working class—the peasantry—and adopted an unfriendly attitude towards it.<br />
<br />
The Bundists and the Polish Social-Democrats objected to the right of nations to self-determination. Lenin had always taught that the working class must combat national oppression. To object to the inclusion of this demand in the program was tantamount to a proposal to renounce proletarian internationalism and to become accomplices in national oppression.<br />
<br />
Lenin made short work of all these objections.<br />
<br />
The congress adopted the program proposed by ''Iskra''.<br />
<br />
This program consisted of two parts : a maximum program and a minimum program. The maximum program dealt with the principal aim of the working-class party, namely, the Socialist revolution, the overthrow of the power of the capitalists, and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The minimum program dealt with the immediate aims of the Party, aims to be achieved before the overthrow of the capitalist system and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, namely, the overthrow of the tsarist autocracy, the establishment of a democratic republic, the introduction of an 8-hour working day, the abolition of all survivals of serfdom in the countryside, and the restoration to the peasants of the cut-off lands (''otrezki'') of which they had been deprived by the landlords.<br />
<br />
Subsequently, the Bolsheviks replaced the demand for the return of the ''otrezki'' by the demand for the confiscation of all the landed estates.<br />
<br />
The program adopted by the Second Congress was a revolutionary program of the party of the working class.<br />
<br />
It remained in force until the Eighth Party Congress, held after the victory of the proletarian revolution, when our Party adopted a new program.<br />
<br />
Having adopted the program, the Second Party Congress proceeded to discuss the draft of the Party Rules. Now that the congress had adopted a program and had laid the foundation for the ideological unity of the Party, it had also to adopt Party Rules so as to put an end to amateurishness and the parochial outlook of the circles, to organizational disunity and the absence of strict discipline in the Party.<br />
<br />
The adoption of the program had gone through comparatively smoothly, but fierce disputes arose at the congress over the Party Rules. The sharpest differences arose over the formulation of the first paragraph of the rules, dealing with Party membership. Who could be a member of the Party, what was to be the composition of the Party, what was to be the organizational nature of the Party, an organized whole or something amorphous?—such were the questions that arose in connection with the first paragraph of the rules. Two different formulations contested the ground: Lenin's formulation, which was supported by Plekhanov and the firm ''Iskra''-ists; and Martov's formulation, which was supported by Axelrod, Zasulich, the unstable ''Iskra''-ists, Trotsky, and all the avowed opportunists at the congress.<br />
<br />
According to Lenin's formulation, one could be a member of the Party who accepted its program, supported it financially, and belonged to one of its organizations. Martov's formulation, while admitting that acceptance of the program and financial support of the Party were indispensable conditions of Party membership, did not, however, make it a condition that a Party member should belong to one of the Party organizations, maintaining that a Party member need not necessarily belong to a Party organization.<br />
<br />
Lenin regarded the Party as an ''organized'' detachment, whose members cannot just enroll themselves in the Party, but must be admitted into the Party by one of its organizations, and hence must submit to Party discipline. Martov, on the other hand, regarded the Party as something organizationally ''amorphous,'' whose members enroll themselves in the Party and are therefore not obliged to submit to Party discipline, inasmuch as they do not belong to a Party organization.<br />
<br />
Thus, unlike Lenin's formulation, Martov's formulation would throw the door of the Party wide open to unstable non-proletarian elements. On the eve of the bourgeois-democratic revolution there were people among the bourgeois intelligentsia who for a while sympathized with the revolution. From time to time they might even render some small service to the Party. But such people would not join an organization, submit to Party discipline, carry out Party tasks and run the accompanying risks. Yet Martov and the other Mensheviks proposed to regard such people as Party members, and to accord them the right and opportunity to influence Party affairs. They even proposed to grant any striker the right to "enrol" himself in the Party, although non-Socialists, Anarchists and Socialist-Revolutionaries also took part in strikes.<br />
<br />
And so it was that instead of a monolithic and militant party with a clearly defined organization, for which Lenin and the Leninists fought at the congress, the Martovites wanted a heterogeneous and loose, amorphous party, which could not be a militant party with firm discipline because of its heterogeneous character, if for no other reason.<br />
<br />
The breaking away of the unstable ''Iskra''-ists from the firm ''Iskra''-ists, their alliance with the Centrists, joined as they were by the avowed opportunists, turned the balance in favour of Martov on this point. By 28 votes to 22, with one abstention, the congress adopted Martov's formulation of the first paragraph of the Rules.<br />
<br />
After the split in the ranks of the ''Iskra''-ists over the first paragraph of the Rules the struggle at the congress became still more acute. The congress was coming to the last item on the agenda—the elections of the leading institutions of the Party: the editorial board of the central organ of the Party (''Iskra''), and the Central Committee. However, before the elections were reached, certain incidents occurred which changed the alignment of forces.<br />
<br />
In connection with the Party Rules, the congress had to deal with the question of the Bund. The Bund laid claim to a special position within the Party. It demanded to be recognized as the sole representative of the Jewish workers in Russia. To comply with this demand would have meant to divide the workers in the Party organizations according to nationality, and to renounce common territorial class organizations of the workers. The congress rejected the system of organization on national lines proposed by the Bund. Thereupon the Bundists quit the congress. Two "Economists" also left the congress when the latter refused to recognize their Foreign League as the representative of the Party abroad.<br />
<br />
The departure of these seven opportunists altered the balance of forces at the congress in favour of the Leninists.<br />
<br />
From the very outset Lenin focussed his attention on the composition of the central institutions of the Party. He deemed it necessary that the Central Committee should be composed of staunch and consistent revolutionaries. The Martovites strove to secure the predominance of unstable, opportunist elements on the Central Committee. The majority of the congress supported Lenin on this question. The Central Committee that was elected consisted of Lenin's followers.<br />
<br />
On Lenin's proposal, Lenin, Plekhanov and Martov were elected to the editorial board of ''Iskra''. Martov had demanded the election of all the six former members of the ''Iskra'' editorial board, the majority of whom were Martov's followers. This demand was rejected by the majority of the congress. The three proposed by Lenin were elected. Martov thereupon announced that he would not join the editorial board of the central organ.<br />
<br />
Thus, by its vote on the central institutions of the Party, the congress sealed the defeat of Martov's followers and the victory of Lenin's followers.<br />
<br />
From that time on, Lenin's followers, who received the majority of votes in the elections at the congress, have been called Bolsheviks (from ''bolshinstvo,'' majority), and Lenin's opponents, who received the minority of votes, have been called Mensheviks (from ''menshinstvo,'' minority).<br />
<br />
Summing up the work of the Second Congress, the following conclusions may be drawn:<br />
<br />
1) The congress sealed the victory of Marxism over "Economism," over open opportunism.<br />
<br />
2) The congress adopted a Program and Rules, created the Social-Democratic Party, and thus built the framework of a single party.<br />
<br />
3) The congress revealed the existence of grave differences over questions of organization which divided the Party into two sections, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, of whom the former championed the organizational principles of revolutionary Social-Democracy, while the latter sank into the bog of organizational looseness and of opportunism.<br />
<br />
4) The congress showed that the place of the old opportunists, the "Economists," who had already been defeated by the Party, was being taken by new opportunists, the Mensheviks.<br />
<br />
5) The congress did not prove equal to its task in matters of organization, showed vacillation, and at times even gave the preponderance to the Mensheviks; and although it corrected its position towards the end, it was nevertheless unable to expose the opportunism of the Mensheviks on matters of organization and to isolate them in the Party, or even to put such a task before the Party.<br />
<br />
This latter circumstance proved one of the main reasons why the struggle between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, far from subsiding after the congress, becameevenmoreacute.<br />
<br />
=== Splitting activities of the Menshevik leaders and sharpening of the struggle within the party after the second congress. Opportunism of the Menshevik. Lenin’s book, ''One step forward, two steps back''. Organizational principles of the Marxist party ===<br />
After the Second Congress the struggle within the Party became even more acute. The Mensheviks did their utmost to frustrate the decisions of the Second Congress and to seize the central institutions of the Party. They demanded that their representatives be included in the editorial board of ''Iskra'' and in the Central Committee in such numbers as would give them a majority on the editorial board and parity with the Bolsheviks on the Central Committee. As this ran directly counter to the decisions of the Second Congress, the Bolsheviks rejected the Menshevik's demand. Thereupon the Mensheviks, secretly from the Party, created their own anti-Party factional organization, headed by Martov, Trotsky and Axelrod, and, as Martov wrote, "broke into revolt against Leninism." The methods they adopted for combating the Party were, as Lenin expressed it, "to disorganize the whole Party work, damage the cause, and hamper all and everything." They entrenched themselves in the Foreign League of Russian Social-Democrats, nine-tenths of whom were emigre intellectuals isolated from the work in Russia, and from this position they opened fire on the Party, on Lenin and the Leninists.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks received considerable help from Plekhanov. At the Second Congress Plekhanov sided with Lenin. But after the Second Congress he allowed the Mensheviks to intimidate him with threats of a split. He decided to "make peace" with the Mensheviks at all costs. It was the deadweight of his earlier opportunist mistakes that dragged Plekhanov down to the Mensheviks. From an advocate of reconciliation with the opportunist Mensheviks he soon became a Menshevik himself. Plekhanov demanded that all the former Menshevik editors of the Iskra who had been rejected by the congress be included in the editorial board. Lenin, of course, could not agree to this and resigned from the ''Iskra'' editorial board in order to entrench himself in the Central Committee of the Party and to strike at the opportunists from this position. Acting by himself, and in defiance of the will of the congress, Plekhanov co-opted the former Menshevik editors to the editorial board of ''Iskra''. From that moment on, beginning with the 52nd issue of ''Iskra'', the Mensheviks converted it into their own organ and began to propagate their opportunist views in its columns.<br />
<br />
Ever since then Lenin's Bolshevik ''Iskra'' has been known in the Party as the ''old Iskra'', and the Menshevik, opportunist ''Iskra'' as the new Iskra.<br />
<br />
When it passed into the hands of the Mensheviks, ''Iskra'' became a weapon in the fight against Lenin and the Bolsheviks, and an organ for the propaganda of Menshevik opportunism, primarily on questions of organization. Joining forces with the "Economists" and the Bundists, the Mensheviks started a campaign in the columns of ''Iskra'', as they said, against Leninism. Plekhanov could not stick to his position as an advocate of conciliation, and soon he too joined the campaign. This was bound to happen by the very logic of things: whoever insists on a conciliatory attitude towards opportunists is bound to sink to opportunism himself. There began to flow from the columns of the new ''Iskra'', as from a cornucopia, articles and statements claiming that the Party ought not to be an organized whole; that free groups and individuals should be allowed within its ranks without any obligation to submit to the decisions of its organs; that every intellectual who sympathized with the Party, as well as "every striker" and "every participant in a demonstration," should be allowed to declare himself a Party member; that the demand for obedience to all the decisions of the Party was "formal and bureaucratic"; that the demand that the minority must submit to the majority meant the "mechanical suppression" of the will of Party members; that the demand that all Party members—both leaders and rank-and-filers— should equally observe Party discipline meant establishing "serfdom" within the Party; that what "we" needed in the Party was not centralism but anarchist "autonomism" which would permit individuals and Party organizations not to obey the decisions of the Party.<br />
<br />
This was unbridled propaganda of organizational license, which would undermine the Party principle and Party discipline; it was glorification of the individualism of the intelligentsia, and a justification of the anarchist contempt of discipline.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks were obviously trying to drag the Party back from the Second Congress to the old organizational disunity, to the old parochial outlook of the circles and the old amateurish methods.<br />
<br />
A vigorous rebuff had to be given the Mensheviks.<br />
<br />
This rebuff was administered by Lenin in his celebrated book, ''One Step Forward, Two Steps Back,'' published in May 1904.<br />
<br />
The following are the main organizational principles which Lenin expounded in his book, and which afterwards came to form the organizational foundations of the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
1) The Marxist Party is a part, a detachment, of the working class. But the working class has many detachments, and hence not every detachment of the working class can be called a party of the working class. The Party differs from other detachments of the working class primarily by the fact that it is not an ordinary detachment, but the ''vanguard'' detachment, a ''class-conscious'' detachment, a ''Marxist'' detachment of the working class, armed with a knowledge of the life of society, of the laws of its development and of the laws of the class struggle, and for this reason able to lead the working class and to direct its struggle. The Party must therefore not be confused with the working class, as the part must not be confused with the whole. One cannot demand that every striker be allowed to call himself a member of the Party, for whoever confuses Party and class lowers the level of consciousness of the Party to that of "every striker," destroys the Party as the class-conscious vanguard of the working class. It is not the task of the Party to ''lower'' its level to that of "every striker," but to ''elevate'' the masses of the workers, to ''elevate'' "every striker" to the level of the Party.<blockquote>“We are the party of a class,” Lenin wrote, “and therefore ''almost the entire class'' (and in times of war, in the period of civil war, the entire class) should act under the leadership of our Party, should adhere to our Party as closely as possible. But it would be Manilovism (smug complacency) and ''<nowiki/>'khvostism''' (following in the tail) to think that at any time under capitalism the entire class, or almost the entire class, would be able to rise to the level of consciousness and activity of its vanguard, of its Social-Democratic Party. No sensible Social-Democrat has ever yet doubted that under capitalism even the trade union organizations (which are more primitive and more comprehensible to the undeveloped strata) are unable to embrace the entire, or almost the entire working class. To forget the distinction between the vanguard and the whole of the masses which gravitate towards it, to forget the constant duty of the vanguard to ''raise'' ever wider strata to this most advanced level, means merely to deceive oneself, to shut one's eyes to the immensity of our tasks, and to narrow down these tasks.”</blockquote>2) The Party is not only the vanguard, the class-conscious detachment of the working class, but also an ''organized'' detachment of the working class, with its own discipline, which is binding on its members. Hence Party members must necessarily be members of some organization of the Party. If the Party were not an ''organized'' detachment of the class, not a ''system of organization'', but a mere agglomeration of persons who declare themselves to be Party members but do not belong to any Party organization and therefore are ''not organized'', hence not obliged to obey Party decisions, the Party would never have a united will, it could never achieve the united action of its members, and, consequently, it would be unable to direct the struggle of the working class. The Party can lead the practical struggle of the working class and direct it towards one aim only if all its members are ''organized'' in one common detachment, welded together by unity of will, unity of action and unity of discipline.<br />
<br />
The objection raised by the Mensheviks that in that case many intellectuals—for example, professors, university and high school students, etc.—would remain outside the ranks of the Party, since they would not want to join any of the organizations of the Party, either because they shrink from Party discipline, or, as Plekhanov said at the Second Congress, because they consider it "beneath their dignity to join some local organization"—this Menshevik objection recoiled on the heads of the Mensheviks themselves; for the Party does not need members who shrink from Party discipline and fear to join the Party organization. Workers did not fear discipline and organization, and they willingly join the organization if they have made up their minds to be Party members. It is the individualistic intellectuals who fear discipline and organization, and they would indeed remain outside the ranks of the Party. But that was all to the good, for the Party would be spared that influx of unstable elements, which had become particularly marked at that time, when the bourgeois democratic revolution was on the upgrade.<blockquote>“When I say,” Lenin wrote, “that the Party should be a ''sum'' (and not a mere arithmetical sum, but a complex) of ''organizations''. . . I thereby express clearly and precisely my wish, my demand, that the Party, as the vanguard of the class, should be as ''organized'' as possible, that the Party should admit to its ranks only such elements ''as lend themselves to at least a minimum of organization''...”</blockquote>And further:<blockquote>“Martov's formulation ''ostensibly'' defends the interests of the broad strata of the proletariat, but in ''fact,'' it serves the interests of the ''bourgeois intellectuals,'' who fight shy of proletarian discipline and organization. No one will undertake to deny that it is ''precisely its individualism'' and incapacity for discipline and organization that in general distinguish ''the intelligentsia as a separate stratum'' of modern capitalist society.”</blockquote>And again:<blockquote>“The proletariat is not afraid of organization and discipline...The proletariat will do nothing to have the worthy professors and high school students, who do not want to join an organization, recognized as Party members merely because they work under the control of an organization...It is not the proletariat, but ''certain intellectuals'' in our Party who lack self-training in the spirit of organization and discipline.”</blockquote>3) The Party is not merely an organized detachment, but "''the highest of all forms of organization''" of the working class, and it is its mission to guide all the other organizations of the working class. As the highest form of organization, consisting of the finest members of the class, armed with an advanced theory, with knowledge of the laws of the class struggle and with the experience of the revolutionary movement, the Party has every opportunity of guiding—and is obliged to guide—all the other organizations of the working class. The attempt of the Men-sheviks to belittle and depreciate the leading role of the Party tends to weaken all the other organizations of the proletariat which are guided by the Party, and, consequently, to weaken and disarm the proletariat, for "in its struggle for power the proletariat has no other weapon but organization." (Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. II, p. 466.)<br />
<br />
4) The Party is an ''embodiment of the connection'' of the vanguard of the working class with the ''working class millions''. However fine a vanguard the Party may be, and however well it may be organized, it cannot exist and develop without connections with the non-Party masses, and without multiplying and strengthening these connections. A party which shuts itself up in its own shell, isolates itself from the masses, and loses, or even relaxes, its connections with its class is bound to lose the confidence and support of the masses, and, consequently, is surely bound to perish. In order to live to the full and to develop, the Party must multiply its connections with the masses and win the confidence of the millions of its class.<blockquote>“In order to be a Social-Democratic ''party,''” Lenin said, “we must win the ''support'' precisely of the ''class''.”</blockquote>5) In order to function properly and to guide the masses systematically, the Party must be organized on the principle of ''centralism'', having one set of rules and uniform Party discipline, one leading organ— the Party Congress, and in the intervals between congresses—the Central Committee of the Party; the minority must submit to the majority, the various organizations must submit to the centre, and lower organizations to higher organizations. Falling these conditions, the party of the working class cannot be a real party and cannot carry out its tasks in guiding the class.<br />
<br />
Of course, as under the tsarist autocracy the Party existed illegally the Party organizations could not in those days be built up on the principle of election from below, and as a consequence, the Party had to be strictly conspiratorial. But Lenin considered that this ''temporary'' feature in the life of our Party would at once lapse with the elimination of tsardom, when the Party would become open and legal, and the Party organizations would be built up on the principles of democratic elections, of ''democratic centralism.''<blockquote>“''Formerly,''” Lenin wrote, “our Party was not a formally organized whole, but only the sum of separate groups, and, therefore, no other relations except those of ideological influence were possible between these groups. ''Now'' we have become an organized Party, and this implies the establishment of authority, the transformation of the power of ideas into the power of authority, the subordination of lower Party bodies to higher Party bodies.”</blockquote>Accusing the Mensheviks of organizational nihilism and of aristocratic anarchism which would not submit to the authority of the Party and its discipline, Lenin wrote:<blockquote>“This aristocratic anarchism is particularly characteristic of the Russian nihilist. He thinks of the Party organization as a monstrous 'factory'; he regards the subordination of the part to the whole and of the minority to the majority as 'serfdom'...division of labour under the direction of a centre evokes from him a tragicomical outcry against people being transformed into 'wheels and cogs' (to turn editors into contributors being considered a particularly atrocious species of such transformation); mention of the organizational rules of the Party calls forth a contemptuous grimace and the disdainful remark (intended for the 'formalists') that one could very well dispense with rules altogether.”</blockquote>6) In its practical work, if it wants to preserve the unity of its ranks, the Party must impose a ''common'' proletarian discipline, ''equally'' binding on all Party members, both leaders and rank-and-file. Therefore there should be no division within the Party into the "chosen few," on whom discipline is not binding, and the "many," on whom discipline is binding. If this condition is not observed, the integrity of the Party and the unity of its ranks cannot be maintained.<blockquote>“The complete absence of ''sensible'' arguments on the part of Martov and Co. against the editorial board appointed by the congress," Lenin wrote, "is best of all shown by their own catchword: 'We are not serfs!'...The mentality of the bourgeois intellectual, who regards himself as one of the 'chosen few' standing above mass organization and mass discipline, is expressed here with remarkable clarity...It seems to the individualism of the intelligentsia...that all proletarian organization and discipline is ''serfdom.''”</blockquote>And further:<blockquote>“As we proceed with the building of a ''real'' party, the class-conscious worker must learn to distinguish the mentality of the soldier of the proletarian army from the mentality of the bourgeois intellectual who makes a display of anarchist phraseology, he must learn to demand that the duties of a Party member be fulfilled not only by the rank-and-filers, but by the 'people at the top' as well.”</blockquote>Summing up his analysis of the differences, and defining the position of the Mensheviks as "opportunism in matters of organization," Lenin considered that one of the gravest sins of Menshevism lay in its underestimation of the importance of party ''organization'' as a weapon of the proletariat in the struggle for its emancipation. The Mensheviks held that the party ''organization'' of the proletariat was of no great importance for the victory of the revolution. Contrary to the Mensheviks, Lenin held that the ''ideological'' unity of the proletariat alone was ''not enough'' for victory; if victory was to be won, ideological unity would have to be "''consolidated''" by the "material unity of ''organization''" of the proletariat. Only on this condition, Lenin considered, could the proletariat become an invincible force.<blockquote>“In its struggle for power,” Lenin wrote, “the proletariat has no other weapon but organization. Disunited by the rule of anarchic competition in the bourgeois world, ground down by forced labour for capital, constantly thrust back to the 'lower depths' of utter destitution, savagery and degeneration, the proletariat can become, and inevitably will become, an invincible force only when its ideological unification by the principles of Marxism is consolidated by the material unity of an organization which will weld millions of toilers into an army of the working class. Neither the decrepit rule of Russian tsardom, nor the senile rule of international capital will be able to withstand this army.”</blockquote>With these prophetic words Lenin concludes his book.<br />
<br />
Such were the fundamental organizational principles set forth by Lenin in his famous book, ''One Step Forward, Two Steps Back.''<br />
<br />
The importance of this book lies primarily in the fact that it successfully upheld the Party principle against the circle principle, and the Party against the disorganizers; that it smashed the opportunism of the Men-sheviks on questions of organization, and laid the organizational foundations of the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
But this does not exhaust its significance. Its historic significance lies in the fact that in it Lenin, for the first time in the history of Marxism, elaborated the ''doctrine of the Party'' as the leading ''organization'' of the proletariat, as the principal ''weapon'' of the proletariat, without which the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be won.<br />
<br />
The circulation of Lenin's book, ''One Step Forward, Two Steps Back'', among the Party workers led the majority of the local organizations to rally to the side of Lenin.<br />
<br />
But the more closely the organizations rallied around the Bolsheviks, the more malicious became the behaviour of the Menshevik leaders.<br />
<br />
In the summer of 1904, thanks to Plekhanov's assistance and the treachery of Krassin and Noskov, two demoralized Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks captured the majority on the Central Committee. It was obvious that the Mensheviks were working for a split. The loss of ''Iskra'' and of the Central Committee put the Bolsheviks in a difficult position. It became necessary for them to organize their own Bolshevik newspaper.<br />
<br />
It became necessary to make arrangements for a new Party congress, the Third Congress, so as to set up a new Central Committee and to settle accounts with the Mensheviks.<br />
<br />
And this is what the Bolsheviks, headed by Lenin, set to work to do.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks started a campaign for the summoning of the Third Party Congress. In August 1904, under Lenin's guidance, a conference of twenty-two Bolsheviks was held in Switzerland. The conference adopted an appeal addressed "To the Party." This appeal served the Bolsheviks as a program in their struggle for the summoning of the Third Congress.<br />
<br />
At three regional conferences of Bolshevik Committees (Southern, Caucasian and Northern), a Bureau of Committees of the Majority was elected, which undertook the practical preparations for the Third Party Congress.<br />
<br />
On January 4, 1905, the first issue of the Bolshevik newspaper ''Vperyod (Forward)'' appeared.<br />
<br />
Thus two separate groups arose within the Party, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, each with its own central body and its own press.<br />
<br />
=== Brief summary ===<br />
In the period 1901-04, with the growth of the revolutionary working-class movement, the Marxist Social-Democratic organizations in Russia grew and gained strength. In the stubborn struggle over principles, waged against the "Economists," the revolutionary line of Lenin's ''Iskra'' gained the victory, and the ideological confusion and "amateurish methods of work" were overcome.<br />
<br />
''Iskra'' linked up the scattered Social-Democratic circles and groups and prepared the way for the convocation of the Second Party Congress. At the Second Congress, held in 1903, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party was formed, a Party Program and Rules were adopted, and the central leading organs of the Party were set up.<br />
<br />
In the struggle waged at the Second Congress for the complete victory of the ''Iskra'' trend in the R.S.D.L.P. there emerged two groups —the Bolshevik group and the Menshevik group.<br />
<br />
The chief differences between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks after the Second Congress centred round questions of organization.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks drew closer to the "Economists" and took their place within the Party. For the time being the opportunism of the Mensheviks revealed itself in questions of organization. The Mensheviks were opposed to a militant revolutionary party of the type advocated by Lenin. They wanted a loose, unorganized, ''khvostist'' party. They worked to split the ranks of the Party. With Plekhanov's help, they seized ''Iskra'' and the Central Committee, and used these central organs for their own purposes—to split the Party.<br />
<br />
Seeing that the Mensheviks were threatening a split, the Bolsheviks adopted measures to curb the splitters; they mustered the local organizations to back the convocation of a Third Congress, and they started their own newspaper, ''Vperyod.''<br />
<br />
Thus, on the eve of the first Russian revolution, when the Russo-Japanese war had already begun, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks acted as two separate political groups.<br />
<br />
== The Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks in the period of the Russo-Japanese war and the first Russian revolution (1904—1907) ==<br />
<br />
=== Russo-Japanese war. Further rise of the revolutionary movement in Russia. Strikes in St. Petersburg. Workers’ demonstration before the Winter Palace on January 9, 1905. Demonstration fired upon. Outbreak of the Revolution ===<br />
At the end of the nineteenth century the imperialist states began an intense struggle for mastery of the Pacific and for the partition of China. Tsarist Russia, too, took part in this struggle. In 1900, tsarist troops together with Japanese, German, British and French troops suppressed with unparalleled cruelty an uprising of the Chinese people directed against the foreign imperialists. Even before this the tsarist government had compelled China to surrender to Russia the Liaotung Peninsula with the fortress of Port Arthur. Russia secured the right to build railways on Chinese territory. A railway was built in Northern Manchuria—the Chinese-Eastern Railway—and Russian troops were stationed there to protect it. Northern Manchuria fell under the military occupation of tsarist Russia. Tsardom was advancing towards Korea. The Russian bourgeoisie was making plans for founding a "Yellow Russia" in Manchuria.<br />
<br />
Its annexations in the Far East brought tsardom into conflict with another marauder, Japan, which had rapidly become an imperialist country and was also bent on annexing territories on the Asiatic continent, in the first place at the expense of China. Like tsarist Russia, Japan was striving to lay her hands on Korea and Manchuria. Already at that time Japan dreamed of seizing Sakhalin and the Russian Far East. Great Britain, who feared the growing strength of tsarist Russia in the Far East, secretly sided with Japan. War between Russia and Japan was brewing. The tsarist government was pushed to this war by the big bourgeoisie, which was seeking new markets, and by the more reactionary sections of the landlord class.<br />
<br />
Without waiting for the tsarist government to declare war, Japan started hostilities herself. She had a good espionage service in Russia and anticipated that her foe would be unprepared for the struggle. In January 1904, without declaring war, Japan suddenly attacked the Russian fortress of Port Arthur and inflicted heavy losses on the Russian fleet lying in the harbour.<br />
<br />
That is how the Russo-Japanese War began.<br />
<br />
The tsarist government reckoned that the war would help to strengthen its political position and to check the revolution. But it miscalculated. The tsarist regime was shaken more than ever by the war.<br />
<br />
Poorly armed and trained, and commanded by incompetent and corrupt generals, the Russian army suffered defeat after defeat.<br />
<br />
Capitalists, government officials and generals grew rich on the war. Peculation was rampant. The troops were poorly supplied. When the army was short of ammunition, it would receive, as if in derision, carloads of icons. The soldiers said bitterly: "The Japanese are giving it to us with shells; we're to give it to them with icons." Special trains, instead of being used to evacuate the wounded, were loaded with property looted by the tsarist generals.<br />
<br />
The Japanese besieged and subsequently captured Port Arthur. After inflicting a number of defeats on the tsarist army, they finally routed it near Mukden. In this battle the tsarist army of 300,000 men lost about 120,000 men, killed, wounded or taken prisoner. This was followed by the utter defeat and destruction in the Straits of Tsushima of the tsarist fleet dispatched from the Baltic to relieve Port Arthur. The defeat at Tsushima was disastrous: of the twenty warships dispatched by the tsar, thirteen were sunk or destroyed and four captured. Tsarist Russia had definitely lost the war.<br />
<br />
The tsarist government was compelled to conclude an ignominious peace with Japan. Japan seized Korea and deprived Russia of Port Arthur and of half the Island of Sakhalin.<br />
<br />
The people had not wanted the war and realized how harmful it would be for the country. They paid heavily for the backwardness of tsarist Russia.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks adopted different attitudes towards the war.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks, including Trotsky, were sinking to a position of defending the "fatherland" of the tsar, the landlords and the capitalists. The Bolsheviks, headed by Lenin, on the other hand, held that the defeat of the tsarist government in this predatory war would be useful, as it would weaken tsardom and strengthen the revolution.<br />
<br />
The defeats of the tsarist armies opened the eyes of the masses to the rottenness of tsardom. Their hatred for the tsarist regime grew daily more intense. The fall of Port Arthur meant the beginning of the fall of the autocracy, Lenin wrote.<br />
<br />
The tsar wanted to use the war to stifle the revolution. He achieved the very opposite. The Russo-Japanese War hastened the outbreak of the revolution.<br />
<br />
In tsarist Russia the capitalist yoke was aggravated by the yoke of tsardom. The workers not only suffered from capitalist exploitation, from inhuman toil, but, in common with the whole people, suffered from a lack of all rights. The politically advanced workers therefore strove to lead the revolutionary movement of all the democratic elements in town and country against tsardom. The peasants were in dire need owing to lack of land and the numerous survivals of serfdom, and lived in a state of bondage to the landlords and kulaks. The nations inhabiting tsarist Russia groaned beneath a double yoke—that of their own landlords and capitalists and that of the Russian landlords and capitalists. The economic crisis of 1900-03 had aggravated the hardships of the toiling masses; the war intensified them still further. The war defeats added fuel to the hatred of the masses for tsardom. The patience of the people was coming to an end.<br />
<br />
As we see, there were grounds enough and to spare for revolution.<br />
<br />
In December 1904 a huge and well-organized strike of workers took place in Baku, led by the Baku Committee of the Bolsheviks. The strike ended in a victory for the workers and a collective agreement was concluded between the oilfield workers and owners, the first of its kind in the history of the working-class movement in Russia.<br />
<br />
The Baku strike marked the beginning of a revolutionary rise in Transcaucasia and in various parts of Russia.<br />
<br />
"The Baku strike was the signal for the glorious actions in January and February all over Russia." (''Stalin.'')<br />
<br />
This strike was like a clap of thunder heralding a great revolutionary storm.<br />
<br />
The revolutionary storm broke with the events of January 9 (22, New Style), 1905, in St. Petersburg.<br />
<br />
On January 3, 1905, a strike began at the biggest of the St. Petersburg plants, the Putilov (now the Kirov) Works. The strike was caused by the dismissal of four workers. It grew rapidly and was joined by other St. Petersburg mills and factories. The strike became general. The movement grew formidable. The tsarist government decided to crush it while it was still in its earliest phase.<br />
<br />
In 1904, prior to the Putilov strike, the police had used the services of an agent-provocateur, a priest by the name of Gapon, to form an organization of the workers known as the Assembly of Russian Factory Workers. This organization had its branches in all the districts of St. Petersburg. When the strike broke out the priest Gapon at the meetings of his society put forward a treacherous plan: all the workers were to gather on January 9 and, carrying church banners and portraits of the tsar, to march in peaceful procession to the Winter Palace and present a petition to the tsar stating their needs. The tsar would appear before the people, listen to them and satisfy their demands. Gapon undertook to assist the tsarist ''Okhrana'' by providing a pretext for firing on the workers and drowning the working-class movement in blood. But this police plot recoiled on the head of the tsarist government.<br />
<br />
The petition was discussed at workers' meetings where amendments were made. Bolsheviks spoke at these meetings without openly announcing themselves as such. Under their influence, the petition was supplemented by demands for freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of association for the workers, the convocation of a Constituent Assembly for the purpose of changing the political system of Russia, equality of all before the law, separation of church from the state, termination of the war, an 8-hour working day, and the handing over of the land to the peasants.<br />
<br />
At these meetings the Bolsheviks explained to the workers that liberty could not be obtained by petitions to the tsar, but would have to be won by force of arms. The Bolsheviks warned the workers that they would be fired upon. But they were unable to prevent the procession to the Winter Palace. A large part of the workers still believed that the tsar would help them. The movement had taken a strong hold on the masses.<br />
<br />
The petition of the St. Petersburg workers stated:<br />
<br />
"We, the workingmen of St. Petersburg, our wives, our children and our helpless old parents, have come to Thee, our Sovereign, to seek truth and protection. We are poverty-stricken, we are oppressed, we are burdened with unendurable toil; we suffer humiliation and are not treated like human beings...We have suffered in patience, but we are being driven deeper and deeper into the slough of poverty, lack of rights and ignorance; we are being strangled by despotism and tyranny...Our patience is exhausted. The dreaded moment has arrived when we would rather die than bear these intolerable sufferings any longer..."<br />
<br />
Early in the morning of January 9, 1905, the workers marched to the Winter Palace where the tsar was then residing. They came with their whole families—wives, children and old folk—carrying portraits of the tsar and church banners. They chanted hymns as they marched. They were unarmed. Over 140,000 persons gathered in the streets.<br />
<br />
They met with a hostile reception from Nicholas II. He gave orders to fire upon the unarmed workers. That day over a thousand workers were killed and more than two thousand wounded by the tsar's troops. The streets of St. Petersburg ran with workers' blood.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks had marched with the workers. Many of them were killed or arrested. There, in the streets running with workers' blood, the Bolsheviks explained to the workers who it was that bore the guilt for this heinous crime and how he was to be fought.<br />
<br />
January 9 came to be known as "Bloody Sunday:" On that day the workers received a bloody lesson. It was their faith in the tsar that was riddled by bullets on that day. They came to realize that they could win their rights only by struggle. That evening barricades were already being erected in the working-class districts. The workers said: "The tsar gave it to us; we'll now give it to him!"<br />
<br />
The fearful news of the tsar's bloody crime spread far and wide. The whole working class, the whole country was stirred by indignation and abhorrence. There was not a town where the workers did not strike in protest against the tsar's villainous act and did not put forward political demands. The workers now emerged into the streets with the slogan, "Down with autocracy!" In January the number of strikers reached the immense figure of 440,000. More workers came out on strike in one month than during the whole preceding decade. The working-class movement rose to an unprecedented height. Revolution in Russia had begun.<br />
<br />
=== Workers' political strikes and demonstrations. Growth of the revolutionary movement among the peasants. Revolt on the Battleship Potemkin ===<br />
After January 9 the revolutionary struggle of the workers grew more acute and assumed a political character. The workers began to pass from economic strikes and sympathy strikes to political strikes, to demonstrations, and in places to armed resistance to the tsarist troops. Particularly stubborn and well organized were the strikes in the big cities such as St. Petersburg, Moscow, Warsaw, Riga and Baku, where large numbers of workers were concentrated. The metal workers marched in the front ranks of the fighting proletariat. By their strikes, the vanguard of the workers stirred up the less class-conscious sections and roused the whole working class to the struggle. The influence of the Social-Democrats grew rapidly.<br />
<br />
The May Day demonstrations in a number of towns were marked by clashes with police and troops. In Warsaw, the demonstration was fired upon and several hundred persons were killed or wounded. At the call of the Polish Social-Democrats the workers replied to the shooting in Warsaw by a general protest strike. Strikes and demonstrations did not cease throughout the month of May. In that month over 200,000 workers went on strike throughout Russia. General strikes broke out in Baku, Lodz and Ivanovo-Voznesensk. More and more frequently the strikers and demonstrators clashed with the tsarist troops. Such clashes took place in a number of cities—Odessa, Warsaw, Riga, Lodz and others.<br />
<br />
Particularly acute was the struggle in Lodz, a large Polish industrial centre. The workers erected scores of barricades in the streets of Lodz and for three days (June 22-24, 1905) battled in the streets against the tsarist troops. Here armed action merged with a general strike. Lenin regarded these battles as the first armed action of the workers in Russia.<br />
<br />
The outstanding strike that summer was that of the workers of Ivanovo-Voznesensk. It lasted for about two and a half months, from the end of May to the beginning of August 1905. About 70,000 workers, among them many women, took part in the strike. It was led by the Bolshevik Northern Committee. Thousands of workers gathered almost daily outside the city on the banks of the River Talka. At these meetings they discussed their needs. The workers' meetings were addressed by Bolsheviks. In order to crush the strike, the tsarist authorities ordered the troops to disperse the workers and to fire upon them. Several scores of workers were killed and several hundred wounded. A state of emergency was proclaimed in the city. But the workers remained firm and would not return to work. They and their families starved, but would not surrender. It was only extreme exhaustion that in the end compelled them to return to work. The strike steeled the workers. It was an example of the courage, staunchness, endurance and solidarity of the working class. It was a real political education for the workers of Ivanovo-Voznesensk.<br />
<br />
During the strike the workers of Ivanovo-Voznesensk set up a Council of Representatives, which was actually one of the first Soviets of Workers' Deputies in Russia.<br />
<br />
The workers' political strikes stirred up the whole country.<br />
<br />
Following the town, the countryside began to rise. In the spring, peasant unrest broke out. The peasants marched in great crowds against the landlords, raided their estates, sugar refineries and distilleries, and set fire to their palaces and manors. In a number of places the peasants seized the land, resorted to wholesale cutting down of forests, and demanded hat the landed estates be turned over to the people. They seized the landlords' stores of grain and other products and divided them among the starving. The landlords fled in panic to the towns. The tsarist government dispatched soldiers and Cossacks to crush the peasants' revolts. The troops fired on the peasants, arrested the "ringleaders" and flogged and tortured them. But the peasants would not cease their struggle.<br />
<br />
The peasant movement spread ever wider in the central parts of Russia, the Volga region, and in Transcaucasia, especially in Georgia.<br />
<br />
The Social-Democrats penetrated deeper into the countryside. The Central Committee of the Party issued an appeal to the peasants entitled: "To You, Peasants, We Address Our Word!" The Social-Democratic committees in the Tver, Saratov, Poltava, Chernigov, Ekaterinoslav, Tiflis and many other provinces issued appeals to the peasants. In the villages, the Social-Democrats would arrange meetings, organize circles among the peasants, and set up peasant committees. In the summer of 1905 strikes of agricultural labourers, organized by Social-Democrats, occurred in many places.<br />
<br />
But this was only the beginning of the peasant struggle. The peasant movement affected only 85 uyezds (districts), or roughly one-seventh of the total number of uyezds in the European part of tsarist Russia.<br />
<br />
The movement of the workers and peasants and the series of reverses suffered by the Russian troops in the Russo-Japanese War had its influence on the armed forces. This bulwark of tsardom began to totter.<br />
<br />
In June 1905 a revolt broke out on the Potemkin, a battleship of the Black Sea Fleet. The battleship was at that time stationed near Odessa, where a general strike of the workers was in progress. The insurgent sailors wreaked vengeance on their more detested officers and brought the vessel to Odessa. The battleship Potemkin had gone over to the side of the revolution.<br />
<br />
Lenin attributed immense importance to this revolt. He considered it necessary for the Bolsheviks to assume the leadership of this movement and to link it up with the movement of the workers, peasants and the local garrisons.<br />
<br />
The tsar dispatched several warships against the ''Potemkin'', but the sailors of these vessels refused to fire on their insurgent comrades. For several days the red ensign of revolution waved from the mast of the battleship ''Potemkin''. But at that time, in 1905, the Bolshevik Party was not the only party leading the movement, as was the case later, in 1917. There were quite a number of Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and Anarchists on board the ''Potemkin''. Consequently, although individual Social-Democrats took part in the revolt, it lacked proper and sufficiently experienced leadership. At decisive moments part of the sailors wavered. The other vessels of the Black Sea Fleet did not join the revolt of the ''Potemkin''. Having run short of coal and provisions, the revolutionary battleship was compelled to make for the Rumanian shore and there surrender to the authorities.<br />
<br />
The revolt of the sailors on the battleship ''Potemkin'' ended in defeat. The sailors who subsequently fell into the hands of the tsarist government were committed for trial. Some were executed and others condemned to exile and penal servitude. But the revolt in itself was an event of the utmost importance. The ''Potemkin'' revolt was the first instance of mass revolutionary action in the army and navy, the first occasion on which a large unit of the armed forces of the tsar sided with the revolution. This revolt made the idea of the army and navy joining forces with the working class, the people, more comprehensible to and nearer to the heart of the workers and peasants, and especially of the soldiers and sailors themselves.<br />
<br />
The workers' recourse to mass political strikes and demonstrations, the growth of the peasant movement, the armed clashes between the people and the police and troops, and, finally, the revolt in the Black Sea Fleet, all went to show that conditions were ripening for an armed uprising of the people. This stirred the liberal bourgeoisie into action. Fearing the revolution, and at the same time frightening the tsar with the spectre of revolution, it sought to come to terms with the tsar against the revolution; it demanded slight reforms "for the people" so as to "pacify" the people, to split the forces of the revolution and thus avert the "horrors of revolution." "Better part with some of our land than part with our heads," said the liberal landlords. The liberal bourgeoisie was preparing to share power with the tsar. "The proletariat is fighting; the bourgeoisie is stealing towards power," Lenin wrote in those days in reference to the tactics of the working class and the tactics of the liberal bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
The tsarist government continued to suppress the workers and peasants with brutal ferocity. But it could not help seeing that it would never cope with the revolution by repressive measures alone. Therefore, without abandoning measures of repression, it resorted to a policy of manoeuvring. On the one hand, with the help of its agents-provocateurs, it incited the peoples of Russia against each other, engineering Jewish pogroms and mutual massacres of Armenians and Tatars. On the other hand, it promised to convene a "representative institution" in the shape of a ''Zemsky Sobor'' or a State Duma, and instructed the Minister Bulygin to draw up a project for such a Duma, stipulating, however, that it was to have no legislative powers. All these measures were adopted in order to split the forces of revolution and to sever from it the moderate sections of the people.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks declared a boycott of the Bulygin Duma with the aim of frustrating this travesty of popular representation.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks, on the other hand, decided not to sabotage the Duma and considered it necessary to take part in it.<br />
<br />
=== Tactical differences between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Third party congress. Lenin’s ''Two tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution''. Tactical foundations of the Marxist party ===<br />
The revolution had set in motion all classes of society. The turn in the political life of the country caused by the revolution dislodged them from their old wonted positions and compelled them to regroup themselves in conformity with the new situation. Each class and each party endeavoured to work out its tactics, its line of conduct, its attitude towards other classes, and its attitude towards the government. Even the tsarist government found itself compelled to devise new and unaccustomed tactics, as instanced by the promise to convene a "representative institution"—the Bulygin Duma.<br />
<br />
The Social-Democratic Party, too, had to work out its tactics. This was dictated by the growing tide of the revolution. It was dictated by the practical questions that faced the proletariat and brooked no delay: organization of armed uprising, overthrow of the tsarist government, creation of a provisional revolutionary government, participation of the Social-Democrats in this government, attitude towards the peasantry and towards the liberal bourgeoisie, etc. The Social-Democrats had to work out for themselves carefully considered and uniform Marxist tactics.<br />
<br />
But owing to the opportunism of the Mensheviks and their splitting activities, the Russian Social-Democratic Party was at that time divided into two groups. The split could not yet be considered complete, and ''formally'' the two groups were not yet two separate parties; but ''in reality'' they very much resembled two separate parties, each with its own leading centre and its own press.<br />
<br />
What helped to widen the split was the fact that to their old differences with the majority of the Party over ''organizational'' questions the Mensheviks added new differences, differences over ''tactical'' questions.<br />
<br />
The absence of a united party resulted in the absence of uniform party tactics.<br />
<br />
A way out of the situation may have been found by immediately summoning another congress, the Third Congress of the Party, establishing common tactics and binding the minority to carry out in good faith the decisions of the congress, the decisions of the majority. This was what the Bolsheviks proposed to the Mensheviks. But the Mensheviks would not hear of summoning the Third Congress. Considering it a crime to leave the Party any longer without tactics endorsed by the Party and binding upon all Party members, the Bolsheviks decided to take the initiative of convening the Third Congress into their own hands.<br />
<br />
All the Party organizations, both Bolshevik and Menshevik, were invited to the congress. But the Mensheviks refused to take part in the Third Congress and decided to hold one of their own. As the number of delegates at their congress proved to be small, they called it a conference, but actually it was a congress, a Menshevik party congress, whose decisions were considered binding on all Mensheviks.<br />
<br />
The Third Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Party met in London in April 1905. It was attended by 24 delegates representing 20 Bolshevik Committees. All the large organizations of the Party were represented.<br />
<br />
The congress condemned the Mensheviks as "a section that had split away from the Party" and passed on to the business on hand, the working out of the tactics of the Party.<br />
<br />
At the same time that this congress was held, the Mensheviks held their conference in Geneva.<br />
<br />
"Two congresses—two parties," was the way Lenin summed up the situation.<br />
<br />
Both the congress and the conference virtually discussed the same tactical questions, but the decisions they arrived at were diametrically opposite. The two sets of resolutions adopted by the congress and the conference respectively revealed the whole depth of the tactical difference between the Third Party Congress and the Menshevik conference, between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. Here are the main points of these differences.<br />
<br />
''Tactical line of the Third Party Congress.'' The congress held that despite the bourgeois-democratic character of the revolution in progress, despite the fact that it could not at the given moment go beyond the limits of what was possible within the framework of capitalism, it was primarily the proletariat that was interested in its complete victory, for the victory of this revolution would enable the proletariat to organize itself, to grow politically, to acquire experience and competence in political leadership of the toiling masses, and to proceed from the bourgeois revolution to the Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
Tactics of the proletariat designed to achieve the complete victory of the bourgeois-democratic revolution could find support only in the peasantry, for the latter could not settle scores with the landlords and obtain possession of their lands without the complete victory of the revolution. The peasantry was therefore the natural ally of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
The liberal bourgeoisie was not interested in the complete victory of this revolution, for it needed the tsarist regime as a whip against the workers and peasants, whom it feared more than anything else, and it would strive to preserve the tsarist regime, only somewhat restricting its powers. The liberal bourgeoisie would therefore attempt to end matters by coming to terms with the tsar on the basis of a constitutional monarchy.<br />
<br />
The revolution would win only if headed by the proletariat; if the proletariat, as the leader of the revolution, secured an alliance with the peasantry; if the liberal bourgeoisie were isolated; if the Social-Democratic Party took an active part in the organization of the uprising of the people against tsardom; if, as the result of a successful uprising, a provisional revolutionary government were set up that would be capable of destroying the counter-revolution root and branch and convening a Constituent Assembly representing the whole people; and if the Social-Democratic Party did not refuse, the circumstances being favourable, to take part in the provisional revolutionary government in order to carry the revolution to its conclusion.<br />
<br />
''Tactical line of the Menshevik conference.'' Inasmuch as the revolution was a bourgeois revolution, only the liberal bourgeoisie could be its leader. The proletariat should not establish close relations with the peasantry, but with the liberal bourgeoisie. The chief thing was not to frighten off the liberal bourgeoisie by a display of revolutionary spirit and not to give it a pretext to recoil from the revolution, for if it were to recoil from the revolution, the revolution would be weakened.<br />
<br />
It was possible that the uprising would prove victorious; but after the triumph of the uprising the Social-Democratic Party should step aside so as not to frighten away the liberal bourgeoisie. It was possible that as a result of the uprising a provisional revolutionary government would be set up; but the Social-Democratic Party should under no circumstances take part in it, because this government would not be Socialist in character, and because—and this was the chief thing—by its participation in this government and by its revolutionary spirit, the Social-Democratic Party might frighten off the liberal bourgeoisie and thus undermine the revolution.<br />
<br />
It would be better for the prospects of the revolution if some sort of representative institution were convened, of the nature of a Zemsky Sobor or a State Duma, which could be subjected to the pressure of the working class from without so as to transform it into a Constituent Assembly or impel it to convene a Constituent Assembly.<br />
<br />
The proletariat had its own specific, purely wage-worker interests, and it should attend to these interests only and not try to become the leader of the bourgeois revolution, which, being a general political revolution, concerned all classes and not the proletariat alone.<br />
<br />
Such, in brief, were the two tactics of the two groups of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party.<br />
<br />
In his historic book, ''Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution'', Lenin gave a classical criticism of the tactics of the Mensheviks and a brilliant substantiation of the Bolshevik tactics.<br />
<br />
This book appeared in July 1905, that is, two months after the Third Party Congress. One might assume from its title that Lenin dealt in it only with tactical questions relating to the period of the bourgeois-democratic revolution and had only the Russian Mensheviks in mind. But as a matter of fact when he criticized the tactics of the Mensheviks he at the same time exposed the tactics of international opportunism; and when he substantiated the Marxist tactics in the period of the bourgeois revolution and drew the distinction between the bourgeois revolution and the Socialist revolution, he at the same time formulated the fundamental principles of the Marxist tactics in the period of transition from the bourgeois revolution to the Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
The fundamental tactical principles expounded by Lenin in his pamphlet, ''Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution,'' were as follows:<br />
<br />
1) The main tactical principle, one that runs through Lenin's whole book, is that the proletariat can and must be the ''leader'' of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, the ''guiding force'' of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia.<br />
<br />
Lenin admitted the bourgeois character of this revolution, for, as he said, "it is incapable of ''directly'' overstepping the bounds of a mere democratic revolution." However, he held that it was not a revolution of the upper strata, but a people's revolution, one that would set in motion the whole people, the whole working class, the whole peasantry. Hence the attempts of the Mensheviks to belittle the significance of the bourgeois revolution for the proletariat, to depreciate the role of the proletariat in it, and to keep the proletariat away from it were in Lenin's opinion a betrayal of the interests of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
"Marxism," Lenin said, "teaches the proletarian not to keep aloof from the bourgeois revolution, not to be indifferent to it, not to allow the leadership of the revolution to be assumed by the bourgeoisie, but, on the contrary, to take a most energetic part in it, to fight most resolutely for consistent proletarian democracy, for carrying the revolution to its conclusion." (Lenin, ''Selected Works,'' Vol.-III, p. 77.)<br />
<br />
"We must not forget," Lenin says further, "that there is not, nor can there be, at the present time, any other means of bringing Socialism nearer, than complete political liberty, than a democratic republic." (''Ibid''., p. 122.)<br />
<br />
Lenin foresaw two possible outcomes of the revolution:<br />
<br />
a) Either it would end in a decisive victory over tsardom, in the overthrow of tsardom and the establishment of a democratic republic;<br />
<br />
b) Or, if the forces were inadequate, it might end in a deal between the tsar and the bourgeoisie at the expense of the people, in some sort of curtailed constitution, or, most likely, in some caricature of a constitution.<br />
<br />
The proletariat was interested in the better outcome of the two, that is, in a decisive victory over tsardom. But such an outcome was possible only if the proletariat succeeded in becoming the leader and guide of the revolution.<br />
<br />
"The outcome of the revolution," Lenin said, "depends on whether the working class will play the part of a subsidiary to the bourgeoisie, a subsidiary that is powerful in the force of its onslaught against the autocracy but impotent politically, or whether it will play the part of leader of the people's revolution." (''Ibid''., p. 41.)<br />
<br />
Lenin maintained that the proletariat had every ''possibility'' of escaping the fate of a subsidiary to the bourgeoisie, and of becoming the leader of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. This possibility, according to Lenin, arises from the following.<br />
<br />
First, "the proletariat, being, by virtue of its very position, the most advanced and the only consistently revolutionary class, is for that very reason called upon to play the leading part in the general democratic revolutionary movement in Russia." (Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. VIII, p. 75.)<br />
<br />
Secondly, the proletariat has its own political party, which is independent of the bourgeoisie and which enables the proletariat to weld itself "into a united and independent political force." (''Ibid''., p. 75.)<br />
<br />
Thirdly, the proletariat is more interested than the bourgeoisie in a decisive victory of the revolution, in view of which ''"in a certain sense'' the bourgeois revolution is ''more advantageous'' to the proletariat than to the bourgeoisie." (''Ibid''., p. 57.)<br />
<br />
"It is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie," Lenin wrote, "to rely on certain remnants of the past as against the proletariat, for instance, on the monarchy, the standing army, etc. It is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie if the bourgeois revolution does not too resolutely sweep away all the remnants of the past, but leaves some of them, ''i.e.'', if this revolution is not fully consistent, if it is not complete and if it is not determined and relentless...It is of greater advantage to the bourgeoisie if the necessary changes in the direction of bourgeois democracy take place more slowly, more gradually, more cautiously, less resolutely, by means of reforms and not by means of revolution...if these changes develop as little as possible the independent revolutionary activity, initiative and energy of the common people, ''i.e.'', the peasantry and especially the workers, for otherwise it will be easier for the workers, as the French say, 'to hitch the rifle from one shoulder to the other,' ''i.e.,'' to turn against the bourgeoisie the guns which the bourgeois revolution will place in their hands, the liberty which the revolution will bring, the democratic institutions which will spring up on the ground that is cleared of serfdom. On the other hand, it is more advantageous for the working class if the necessary changes in the direction of bourgeois democracy take place by way of revolution and not by way of reform; for the way of reform is the way of delay, of procrastination, of the painfully slow decomposition of the putrid parts of the national organism. It is the proletariat and the peasantry that suffer first of all and most of all from their putrefaction. The revolutionary way is the way of quick amputation, which is the least painful to the proletariat, the way of the direct removal of the decomposing parts, the way of fewest concessions to and least consideration for the monarchy and the disgusting, vile, rotten and contaminating institutions which go with it." (Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. III, pp. 756.)<br />
<br />
"That," Lenin continues, "is why the proletariat fights in the front ranks for a republic and contemptuously rejects silly and unworthy advice to take care not to frighten away the bourgeoisie." (Ibid., p. 108.)<br />
<br />
In order to convert the ''possibility'' of the proletarian leadership of the revolution into a ''reality'', in order that the proletariat might actually become the leader, the guiding force of the bourgeois revolution, at least two conditions were needed, according to Lenin.<br />
<br />
First, it was necessary for the proletariat to have an ally who was interested in a decisive victory over tsardom and who might be disposed to accept the leadership of the proletariat. This was dictated by the very idea of leadership, for a leader ceases to be a leader if there is nobody to lead, a guide ceases to be a guide if there is nobody to guide. Lenin considered that the peasantry was such an ally.<br />
<br />
Secondly, it was necessary that the class, which was fighting the proletariat for the leadership of the revolution and striving to become its sole leader, should be forced out of the arena of leadership and isolated. This too was dictated by the very idea of leadership, which precluded the possibility of there being two leaders of the revolution. Lenin considered that the liberal bourgeoisie was such a class.<br />
<br />
"Only the proletariat can be a consistent fighter for democracy," Lenin said. "It may become a victorious fighter for democracy only if the peasant masses join its revolutionary struggle." (''Ibid''., p. 86.)<br />
<br />
And further:<br />
<br />
"The peasantry includes a great number of semi-proletarian as well as petty-bourgeois elements. This causes it also to be unstable and compels the proletariat to unite in a strictly class party. But the instability of the peasantry differs radically from the instability of the bourgeoisie, for at the present time the peasantry is interested not so much in the absolute preservation of private property as in the confiscation of the landed estates, one of the principal forms of private property. While this does not cause the peasantry to become Socialist or cease to be petty-bourgeois, the peasantry is capable of becoming a whole-hearted and most radical adherent of the democratic revolution. The peasantry will inevitably become such if only the progress of revolutionary events, which is enlightening it, is not interrupted too soon by the treachery of the bourgeoisie and the defeat of the proletariat. Subject to this condition, the peasantry will inevitably become a bulwark of the revolution and the republic, for only a completely victorious revolution can give the peasantry ''everything'' in the sphere of agrarian reforms — ''everything'' that the peasants desire, of which they dream, and of which they truly stand in need." (''Ibid''., pp. 108-09.)<br />
<br />
Analysing the objections of the Mensheviks, who asserted that these Bolshevik tactics "will compel the bourgeois classes to recoil from the cause of the revolution and thus curtail its scope," and characterizing these objections as "tactics of betrayal of the revolution," as "tactics which would convert the proletariat into a wretched appendage of the bourgeois classes," Lenin wrote:<br />
<br />
"Those who really understand the role of the peasantry in the victorious Russian revolution would not dream of saying that the sweep of the revolution would be diminished if the bourgeoisie recoiled from it. For, as a matter of fact, the Russian revolution will begin to assume its real sweep, will really assume the widest revolutionary sweep possible in the epoch of bourgeois-democratic revolution, only when the bourgeoisie recoils from it and when the masses of the peasantry come out as active revolutionaries side by side with the proletariat. In order that it may be consistently carried to its conclusion, our democratic revolution must rely on such forces as are capable of paralysing the inevitable inconsistency of the bourgeoisie, ''i.e''., capable precisely of 'causing it to recoil from the revolution.'" (''Ibid''., p. 110.)<br />
<br />
Such is the main tactical principle regarding the proletariat as the leader of the bourgeois revolution, the fundamental tactical principle regarding the hegemony (leading role) of the proletariat in the bourgeois revolution, expounded by Lenin in his book, ''Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution.''<br />
<br />
This was a new line of the Marxist party on questions of tactics in the bourgeois-democratic revolution, a line fundamentally different from the tactical lines hitherto existing in the arsenal of Marxism. The situation before had been that in the bourgeois revolution—in Western Europe, for instance—it was the bourgeoisie that played the leading part, the proletariat willy-nilly playing the part of its subsidiary, while the peasantry was a reserve of the bourgeoisie. The Marxists considered such a combination more or less inevitable, at the same time stipulating that the proletariat must as far as possible fight for its own immediate class demands and have its own political party. Now, under the new historical conditions, according to Lenin, the situation was changing in such a way that the proletariat was becoming the guiding force of the bourgeois revolution, the bourgeoisie was being edged out of the leadership of the revolution, while the peasantry was becoming a reserve of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
The claim that Plekhanov "also stood" for the hegemony of the proletariat is based upon a misunderstanding. Plekhanov flirted with the idea of the hegemony of the proletariat and was not averse to recognizing it in words—that is true. But in reality he was opposed to this idea in its essence. The hegemony of the proletariat implies the leading role of the proletariat in the bourgeois revolution, accompanied by a policy of ''alliance'' between the proletariat and the peasantry and a policy of ''isolation'' of the liberal bourgeoisie; whereas Plekhanov, as we know, was opposed to the policy of isolating the liberal bourgeoisie, ''favoured'' a policy of ''agreement'' with the liberal bourgeoisie, and was ''opposed'' to a policy of alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry. As a matter of fact, Plekhanov's tactical line was the Menshevik line which rejected the hegemony of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
2 ) Lenin considered that the most effective means of overthrowing tsardom and achieving a democratic republic was a victorious armed uprising of the people. Contrary to the Mensheviks, Lenin held that "the general democratic revolutionary movement ''has already brought about the'' necessity for an armed uprising," that "the organization of the proletariat for uprising" had already "been placed on the order of the day as one of the essential, principal and ''indispensable'' tasks of the Party," and that it was necessary "to adopt the most energetic measures to arm the proletariat and to ensure the possibility of directly leading the uprising." (Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. VIII, p. 75.)<br />
<br />
To guide the masses to an uprising and to turn it into an uprising of the whole people, Lenin deemed it necessary to issue such slogans, such appeals to the masses as would set free their revolutionary initiative, organize them for insurrection and disorganize the machinery of power of tsardom. He considered that these slogans were furnished by the tactical decisions of the Third Party Congress, to the defence of which his book ''Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution'' was devoted.<br />
<br />
The following, he considered, were these slogans:<br />
<br />
a) "Mass political strikes, which may be of great importance at the beginning and in the very process of the insurrection" (''ibid''., p. 75);<br />
<br />
b) "Immediate realization, in a revolutionary way, of the 8-hour working day and of the other immediate demands of the working class" (''ibid''., p. 47);<br />
<br />
c) "Immediate organization of revolutionary peasant committees in order to carry out" in a revolutionary way "all the democratic changes," including the confiscation of the landed estates (''ibid''., p. 88);<br />
<br />
d) Arming of the workers.<br />
<br />
Here two points are of particular interest:<br />
<br />
First, the tactics of realizing ''in a revolutionary way'' the 8-hour day in the towns, and the democratic changes in the countryside, that is, a way which disregards the authorities, disregards the law, which ignores both the authorities and the law, breaks the existing laws and establishes a new order by unauthorized action, as an accomplished fact. This was a new tactical method, the use of which paralysed the machinery of power of tsardom and set free the activity and creative initiative of the masses. These tactics gave rise to the revolutionary strike committees in the towns and the revolutionary peasant committees in the countryside, the former of which later developed into the Soviets of Workers' Deputies and the latter into the Soviets of Peasants' Deputies.<br />
<br />
Secondly, the use of ''mass political strikes,'' the use of general political strikes, which later, in the course of the revolution, were of prime importance in the revolutionary mobilization of the masses. This was a new and very important weapon in the hands of the proletariat, a weapon hitherto unknown in the practice of the Marxist parties and one that subsequently gained recognition.<br />
<br />
Lenin held that following the victorious uprising of the people the tsarist government should be replaced by a provisional revolutionary government. It would be the task of the provisional revolutionary government to consolidate the conquests of the revolution, to crush the resistance of the counter-revolution and to give effect to the minimum program of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. Lenin maintained that unless these tasks were accomplished a decisive victory over tsardom would be impossible. And in order to accomplish these tasks and achieve a decisive victory over tsardom, the provisional revolutionary government would have to be not an ordinary kind of government, but a government of the dictatorship of the victorious classes, of the workers and peasants; it would have to be a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. Citing Marx's well-known thesis that "after a revolution every provisional organization of the state requires a dictatorship, and an energetic dictatorship at that," Lenin came to the conclusion that if the provisional revolutionary government was to ensure a decisive victory over tsardom, it could be nothing else but a dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry.<br />
<br />
"A decisive victory of the revolution over tsardom is ''the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry,''" Lenin said. ". . . And such a victory will be precisely a dictatorship, i.e., it must inevitably rely on military force, on the arming of the masses, on an uprising and not on institutions of one kind or another, established in a 'lawful' or 'peaceful' way. It can be only a dictatorship, for the realization of the changes which are urgently and absolutely indispensable for the proletariat and the peasantry will call forth the desperate resistance of the landlords, of the big bourgeoisie, and of tsardom. Without a dictatorship it is impossible to break down that resistance and to repel the counter-revolutionary attempts. But of course it will be a democratic, not a Socialist dictatorship. It will not be able (without a series of intermediary stage of revolutionary development) to affect the foundations of capitalism. At best it may bring about a radical redistribution of landed property in favour of the peasantry, establish consistent and full democracy, including the formation of a republic, eradicate all the oppressive features of Asiatic bondage, not only in village but also in factory life, lay the foundation for a thorough improvement in the position of the workers and for a rise in their standard of living, and—last but not least—carry the revolutionary conflagration into Europe. Such a victory will by no means as yet transform our bourgeois revolution into a Socialist revolution; the democratic revolution will not directly overstep the bounds of bourgeois social and economic relationships; nevertheless, the significance of such a victory for the future development of Russia and of the whole world will be immense. Nothing will raise the revolutionary energy of the world proletariat so much, nothing will shorten the path leading to its complete victory to such an extent, as this decisive victory of the revolution that has now started in Russia." (Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. III, p. 82-3.)<br />
<br />
As to the attitude of the Social-Democrats towards the provisional revolutionary government and as to whether it would be permissible for them to take part in it, Lenin fully upheld the resolution of the Third Party Congress on the subject, which reads:<br />
<br />
"Subject to the relation of forces, and other factors which cannot be exactly determined beforehand, representatives of our Party may participate in the provisional revolutionary government for the purpose of relentless struggle against all counter-revolutionary attempts and of the defence of the independent interests of the working class; an indispensable condition for such participation is that the Party should exercise strict control over its representatives and that the independence of the Social-Democratic Party, which is striving for a complete Socialist revolution and, consequently, is irreconcilably hostile to all the bourgeois parties, should be strictly maintained; whether the participation of Social-Democrats in the provisional revolutionary government prove possible or not, we must propagate among the broadest masses of the proletariat the necessity for permanent pressure to be brought to bear upon the provisional government by the armed proletariat, led by the Social-Democratic Party, for the purpose of defending, consolidating and extending the gains of the revolution." (''Ibid''., pp. 46-7.)<br />
<br />
As to the Mensheviks' objection that the provisional government would still be a bourgeois government, that the Social-Democrats could not be permitted to take part in such a government unless one wanted to commit the same mistake as the French Socialist Millerand when he joined the French bourgeois government, Lenin parried this objection by pointing out that the Mensheviks were here mixing up two ''different'' things and were betraying their inability to treat the question as Marxists should. In France it was a question of Socialists taking part in a ''reactionary'' bourgeois government at a time when ''there was no'' revolutionary situation in the country, which made it incumbent upon the Socialists not to join such a government; in Russia, on the other hand, it was a question of Socialists taking part in a ''revolutionary'' bourgeois government fighting for the victory ''of the revolution'' at a time when the revolution was ''in full swing'', a circumstance which would make it ''permissible'' for, and, under favourable circumstances, incumbent upon the Social-Democrats to take part in such a government in order to strike at the counterrevolution not only "from below," from without, but also "from above," from within the government.<br />
<br />
3) While advocating the victory of the bourgeois revolution and the achievement of a democratic republic, Lenin had not the least intention of coming to a halt in the democratic stage and confining the scope of the revolutionary movement to the accomplishment of bourgeois-democratic tasks. On the contrary, Lenin maintained that following upon the accomplishment of the democratic tasks, the proletariat and the other exploited masses would have to begin a struggle, this time for the ''Socialist'' revolution. Lenin knew this and regarded it as the duty of Social-Democrats to do everything to make the bourgeois-democratic revolution pass into the Socialist revolution. Lenin held that the dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry was necessary not in order to ''end'' the revolution at the point of consummation of its victory over tsardom, but in order to ''prolong'' the state of revolution as much as possible, to destroy the last remnants of counter-revolution, to make the flame of revolution spread to Europe, and, having in the meantime given the proletariat the opportunity ''of'' educating itself politically and organizing itself into a great army, to begin the direct transition to the Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
Dealing with the scope of the bourgeois revolution, and with the character the Marxist party should lend it, Lenin wrote:<br />
<br />
"The proletariat must carry to completion the democratic revolution, by allying to itself the mass of the peasantry in order to crush by force the resistance of the autocracy and to paralyse the instability of the bourgeoisie. The proletariat must accomplish the Socialist revolution by allying to itself the mass of the semi-proletarian elements of the population in order to crush by force the resistance of the bourgeoisie and to paralyse the instability of the peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie. Such are the tasks of the proletariat, which the new Iskraists (that is, Mensheviks—''Ed.'') ''always'' present so narrowly in their arguments and resolutions about the scope of the revolution." (''Ibid''., pp. 110-11.) And further:<br />
<br />
"At the head of the whole of the people, and particularly of the peasantry—for complete freedom, for a consistent democratic revolution, for a republic! At the head of all the toilers and the exploited—for Socialism! Such must in practice be the policy of the revolutionary proletariat, such is the class slogan which must permeate and determine the solution of every tactical problem, of every practical step of the workers' party during the revolution." (Ibid., p. 124.)<br />
<br />
In order to leave nothing unclear, two months after the appearance of the ''Two Tactics'' Lenin wrote an article entitled "Attitude of Social-Democrats to the Peasant Movement," in which he explained:<br />
<br />
"From the democratic revolution we shall at once, and just in accordance with the measure of our strength, the strength of the class-conscious and organized proletariat, begin to pass to the Socialist revolution. We stand for uninterrupted revolution. We shall not stop half way." (''Ibid''., p. 145.)<br />
<br />
This was a new line in the question of the relation between the bourgeois revolution and the Socialist revolution, a new theory of a regrouping of forces around the proletariat, towards the end of the bourgeois revolution, for a direct transition to the Socialist revolution—the theory of the bourgeois-democratic revolution ''passing into'' the Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
In working out this new line, Lenin based himself, first, on the well-known thesis of uninterrupted revolution advanced by Marx at the end of the forties of the last century in the Address to the Communist League, and, secondly, on the well-known idea of the necessity of combining the peasant revolutionary movement with the proletarian revolution which Marx expressed in a letter to Engels in 1856, saying that: "the whole thing in Germany will depend on the possibility of backing the proletarian revolution by some second edition of the Peasants' War." However, these brilliant ideas of Marx were not developed subsequently in the works of Marx and Engels, while the theoreticians of the Second International did their utmost to bury them and consign them to oblivion. To Lenin fell the task of bringing these forgotten ideas of Marx to light and restoring them to their full rights. But in restoring these Marxian ideas, Lenin did not—and could not—confine himself to merely repeating them, but developed them further and moulded them into a harmonious theory of Socialist revolution by introducing a new factor, an ''indispensable'' factor of the Socialist revolution, namely, an ''alliance'' of the proletariat with the semi-proletarian elements of town and country as a ''condition'' for the victory of the proletarian revolution.<br />
<br />
This line confuted the tactical position of the West-European Social-Democratic parties who took it for granted that after the bourgeois revolution the peasant masses, including the poor peasants, would necessarily desert the revolution, as a result of which the bourgeois revolution would be followed by a prolonged ''interval'', a long "lull" lasting fifty or a hundred years, if not longer, during which the proletariat would be "peacefully" exploited and the bourgeoisie would "lawfully" enrich itself until the time came round for a new revolution, a Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
This was a new theory which held that the Socialist revolution would be accomplished not by the proletariat in isolation as against the ''whole'' bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat as the leading class which would have as ''allies'' the semi-proletarian elements of the population, the "toiling and exploited millions."<br />
<br />
According to this theory the hegemony of the proletariat in the bourgeois revolution, the proletariat ''being in alliance'' with the peasantry, would grow into the hegemony of the proletariat in the Socialist revolution, the proletariat now ''being in alliance'' with the other labouring and exploited masses, while the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry would prepare the ground for the Socialist dictatorship of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
It refuted the theory current among the West-European Social-Democrats who denied the revolutionary potentialities of the semi-proletarian masses of town and country and took for granted that "apart from the bourgeoisie and the proletariat we perceive no social forces in our country in which oppositional or revolutionary combinations might find support" (these were Plekhanov's words, typical of the West-European Social-Democrats).<br />
<br />
The West-European Social-Democrats held that in the Socialist revolution the proletariat would stand ''alone'', against the ''whole'' bourgeoisie, ''without'' allies, against ''all'' the non-proletarian classes and strata. They would not take account of the fact that capital exploits not only the proletarians but also the semi-proletarian millions of town and country, who are crushed by capitalism and who may become allies of the proletariat in the struggle for the emancipation of society from the capitalist yoke. The West-European Social-Democrats therefore held that conditions were not yet ripe for a Socialist revolution in Europe, that the conditions could be considered ripe only when the proletariat became the majority of the nation, the majority of society, as a result of the further economic development of society.<br />
<br />
This spurious anti-proletarian standpoint of the West-European Social-Democrats was completely upset by Lenin's theory of the Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
Lenin's theory did not yet contain any direct conclusion regarding the possibility of a victory of Socialism in one country, taken singly. But it did contain all, or nearly all, the fundamental elements necessary for the drawing of such a conclusion sooner or later.<br />
<br />
As we know, Lenin arrived at this conclusion ten years later, in 1915.<br />
<br />
Such are the fundamental tactical principles expounded by Lenin in his historic book, ''Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution.''<br />
<br />
The historic significance of this book consists above all in the fact that in it Lenin ideologically shattered the petty-bourgeois tactical line of the Mensheviks, armed the working class of Russia for the further development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, for a new onslaught on tsardom, and put before the Russian Social-Democrats a clear perspective of the necessity of the bourgeois revolution passing into the Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
But this does not exhaust the significance of Lenin's book. Its invaluable significance consists in that it enriched Marxism with a new theory of revolution and laid the foundation for the revolutionary tactics of the Bolshevik Party with the help of which in 1917 the proletariat of our country achieved the victory over capitalism.<br />
<br />
=== Further Rise of the Revolution. All-Russian Political Strike of October 1905. Retreat of Tsardom. The Tsar’s manifesto. Rise of the Soviets of workers’ deputies ===<br />
By the autumn of 1905 the revolutionary movement had swept the whole country and gained tremendous momentum.<br />
<br />
On September 19 a printers' strike broke out in Moscow. It spread to St. Petersburg and a number of other cities. In Moscow itself the printers' strike was supported by the workers in other industries and developed into a general political strike.<br />
<br />
In the beginning of October a strike started on the Moscow-Kazan Railway. Within two days it was joined by all the railwaymen of the Moscow railway junction and soon all the railways of the country were in the grip of the strike. The postal and telegraph services came to a standstill. In various cities of Russia the workers gathered at huge meetings and decided to down tools. The strike spread to factory after factory, mill after mill, city after city, and region after region. The workers were joined by the minor employees, students and intellectuals — lawyers, engineers and doctors.<br />
<br />
The October political strike became an all-Russian strike which embraced nearly the whole country, including the most remote districts, and nearly all the workers, including the most backward strata. About one million industrial workers alone took part in the general political strike, not counting the large number of railwaymen, postal and telegraph employees and others. The whole life of the country came to a standstill. The government was paralysed.<br />
<br />
The working class headed the struggle of the masses against the autocracy.<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik slogan of a mass political strike had borne fruit. The October general strike revealed the power and might of the proletarian movement and compelled the mortally frightened tsar to issue his Manifesto of October 17, 1905. This Manifesto promised the people "the unshakable foundations of civil liberty: real inviolability of person, and freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and association." It promised to convene a legislative Duma and to extend the franchise to all classes of the population.<br />
<br />
Thus, Bulygin's deliberative Duma was swept away by the tide of revolution. The Bolshevik tactics of boycotting the Bulygin Duma proved to have been right.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, the Manifesto of October 17 was a fraud on the people, a trick of the tsar to gain some sort of respite in which to lull the credulous and to win time to rally his forces and then to strike at the revolution. In words the tsarist government promised liberty, but actually it granted nothing substantial. So far, promises were all that the workers and peasants had received from the government. Instead of the broad political amnesty which was expected, on October 21 amnesty was granted to only a small section of political prisoners. At the same time, with the object of dividing the forces of the people, the government engineered a number of sanguinary Jewish pogroms, in which many thousands of people perished; and in order to crush the revolution it created police-controlled gangster organizations known as the League of the Russian People and the League of Michael the Archangel. These organizations, in which a prominent part was played by reactionary landlords, merchants, priests, and semi-criminal elements of the vagabond type, were christened by the people "Black-Hundreds." The Black-Hundreds, with the support of the police, openly manhandled and murdered politically advanced workers, revolutionary intellectuals and students, burned down meeting places and fired upon assemblies of citizens. These so far were the only results of the tsar's Manifesto.<br />
<br />
There was a popular song at the time which ran :<br />
<br />
"The tsar caught fright, issued a Manifesto:<br />
<br />
Liberty for the dead, for the living — arrest."<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks explained to the masses that the Manifesto of October 17 was a trap. They branded the conduct of the government after the promulgation of the Manifesto as provocative. The Bolsheviks called the workers to arms, to prepare for armed uprising.<br />
<br />
The workers set about forming fighting squads with greater energy than ever. It became clear to them that the first victory of October 17, wrested by the general political strike, demanded of them further efforts, the continuation of the struggle for the overthrow of tsardom.<br />
<br />
Lenin regarded the Manifesto of October 17 as an expression of a certain temporary equilibrium of forces: the proletariat and the peasantry, having wrung the Manifesto from the tsar, were still not strong enough to overthrow tsardom, ''whereas tsardom was no longer able'' to rule by the old methods alone and had been compelled to give a paper promise of "civil liberties" and a "legislative" Duma.<br />
<br />
In those stormy days of the October political strike, in the fire of the struggle against tsardom, the revolutionary creative initiative of the working-class masses forged a new and powerful weapon—the Soviets of Workers' Deputies.<br />
<br />
The Soviets of Workers' Deputies — which were assemblies of delegates from all mills and factories—represented a type of mass political organization of the working class which the world had never seen before. The Soviets that first arose in 1905 were the ''prototype'' of the Soviet power which the proletariat, led by the Bolshevik Party, set up in 1917. The Soviets were a new revolutionary form of the creative initiative of the people. They were set up exclusively by the revolutionary sections of the population, in defiance of all laws and prescripts of tsar-dom. They were a manifestation of the independent action of the people who were rising to fight tsardom.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks regarded the Soviets as the embryo of revolutionary power. They maintained that the strength and significance of the Soviets would depend solely on the strength and success of the uprising.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks regarded the Soviets neither as embryonic organs of revolutionary power nor as organs of uprising. They looked upon the Soviets as organs of local self-government, in the nature of democratized municipal government bodies.<br />
<br />
In St. Petersburg, elections to the Soviet of Workers' Deputies took place in all the mills and factories on October 13 (26, New Style) 1905. The first meeting of the Soviet was held that night. Moscow followed St. Petersburg in forming a Soviet of Workers' Deputies.<br />
<br />
The St. Petersburg Soviet of Workers' Deputies, being the Soviet of the most important industrial and revolutionary centre of Russia, the capital of the tsarist empire, ought to have played a decisive role in the Revolution of 1905. However, it did not perform its task, owing to its bad, Menshevik leadership. As we know, Lenin had not yet arrived in St. Petersburg; he was still abroad. The Mensheviks took advantage of Lenin's absence to make their way into the St. Petersburg Soviet and to seize hold of its leadership. It was not surprising under such circumstances that the Mensheviks Khrustalev, Trotsky, Parvus and others managed to turn the St. Petersburg Soviet against the policy of an uprising. Instead of bringing the soldiers into close contact with the Soviet and linking them up with the common struggle, they demanded that the soldiers be withdrawn from St. Petersburg. The Soviet, instead of arming the workers and preparing them for an uprising, just marked time and was against preparations for an uprising.<br />
<br />
Altogether different was the role played in the revolution by the Moscow Soviet of Workers' Deputies. From the very first the Moscow Soviet pursued a thoroughly revolutionary policy. The leadership of the Moscow Soviet was in the hands of the Bolsheviks. Thanks to them, side by side with the Soviet of Workers' Deputies, there arose in Moscow a Soviet of Soldiers' Deputies. The Moscow Soviet became an organ of armed uprising.<br />
<br />
In the period, October to December 1905, Soviets of Workers' Deputies were set up in a number of large towns and in nearly all the working-class centres. Attempts were made to organize Soviets of Soldiers' and Sailors' Deputies and to unite them with the Soviets of Workers' Deputies. In some localities Soviets of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies were formed.<br />
<br />
The influence of the Soviets was tremendous. In spite of the fact that they often arose spontaneously, lacked definite structure and were loosely organized, they acted as a governmental power. Without legal authority, they introduced freedom of the press and an 8-hour working day. They called upon the people not to pay taxes to the tsarist government. In some cases they confiscated government funds and used them for the needs of the revolution.<br />
<br />
=== December armed uprising. Defeat of the uprising. Retreat of the revolution. First State Duma. Fourth (Unity) Party Congress ===<br />
During October and November 1905 the revolutionary struggle of the masses went on developing with intense vigour. Workers' strikes continued.<br />
<br />
The struggle of the peasants against the landlords assumed wide dimensions in the autumn of 1905. The peasant movement embraced over one-third of the uyezds of the country. The provinces of Saratov, Tambov, Chernigov, Tiflis, Kutais and several others were the scenes of veritable peasant revolts. Yet the onslaught of the peasant masses was still inadequate. The peasant movement lacked organization and leadership.<br />
<br />
Unrest increased also among the soldiers in a number of cities— Tiflis, Vladivostok, Tashkent, Samarkand, Kursk, Sukhum, Warsaw, Kiev, and Riga. Revolts broke out in Kronstadt and among the sailors of the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol (November 1905). But the revolts were isolated, and the tsarist government was able to suppress them.<br />
<br />
Revolts in units of the army and navy were frequently provoked by the brutal conduct of the officers, by bad food ("bean riots"), and similar causes. The bulk of the sailors and soldiers in revolt did not yet clearly realize the necessity for the overthrow of the tsarist government, for the energetic prosecution of the armed struggle. They were still too peaceful and complacent; they frequently made the mistake of releasing officers who had been arrested at the outbreak of the revolt, and would allow themselves to be placated by the promises and coaxing of their superiors.<br />
<br />
The revolutionary movement had approached the verge of armed insurrection. The Bolsheviks called upon the masses to rise in arms against the tsar and the landlords, and explained to them that this was inevitable. The Bolsheviks worked indefatigably in preparing for armed uprising. Revolutionary work was carried on among the soldiers and sailors, and military organizations of the Party were set up in the armed forces. Workers' fighting squads were formed in a number of cities, and their members taught the use of arms. The purchase of arms from abroad and the smuggling of them into Russia was organized, prominent members of the Party taking part in arranging for their transportation.<br />
<br />
In November 1905 Lenin returned to Russia. He took a direct part in the preparations for armed uprising, while keeping out of the way of the tsar's gendarmes and spies. His articles in the Bolshevik newspaper, ''Novaya Zhizn (New Life)'', served to guide the Party in its day-to-day work.<br />
<br />
At this period Comrade Stalin was carrying on tremendous revolutionary work in Transcaucasia. He exposed and lashed the Mensheviks as foes of the revolution and of the armed uprising. He resolutely prepared the workers for the decisive battle against the autocracy. Speaking at a meeting of workers in Tiflis on the day the tsar's Manifesto was announced, Comrade Stalin said:<br />
<br />
"What do we need in order to really win? We need three things: first—arms, second—arms, third—arms and arms again!"<br />
<br />
In December 1905 a Bolshevik Conference was held in Tammerfors, Finland. Although the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks formally belonged to one Social-Democratic Party, they actually constituted two different parties, each with its own leading centre. At this conference Lenin and Stalin met for the first time. Until then they had maintained contact by correspondence and through comrades.<br />
<br />
Of the decisions of the Tammerfors Conference, the following two should be noted: one on the restoration of the unity of the Party, which had virtually been split into two parties, and the other on the boycott of the First Duma, known as the Witte Duma.<br />
<br />
As by that time the armed uprising had already begun in Moscow, the conference, on Lenin's advice, hastily completed its work and dispersed to enable the delegates to participate personally in the uprising.<br />
<br />
But the tsarist government was not dozing either. It too was preparing for a decisive struggle. Having concluded peace with Japan, and thus lessened the difficulties of its position, the tsarist government assumed the offensive against the workers and peasants. It declared martial law in a number of provinces where peasant revolts were rife, issued the brutal commands "take no prisoners" and "spare no bullets," and gave orders for the arrest of, the leaders of the revolutionary movement and the dispersal of the Soviets of Workers' Deputies.<br />
<br />
In reply to this, the Moscow Bolsheviks and the Moscow Soviet of Workers' Deputies which they led, and which was connected with the broad masses of the workers, decided to make immediate preparations for armed uprising. On December 5 (18) the Moscow Bolshevik Committee resolved to call upon the Soviet to declare a general political strike with the object of turning it into an uprising in the course of the struggle. This decision was supported at mass meetings of the workers. The Moscow Soviet responded to the will of the working class and unanimously resolved to start a general political strike.<br />
<br />
When the Moscow proletariat began the revolt, it had a fighting organization of about one thousand combatants, more than half of whom were Bolsheviks. In addition there were fighting squads in several of the Moscow factories. In all, the insurrectionaries had a force of about two thousand combatants. The workers expected to neutralize the garrison and to win over a part of it to their side.<br />
<br />
The political strike started in Moscow on December 7 (20). However, efforts to spread it to the whole country failed; it met with inadequate support in St. Petersburg, and this reduced the chances of success of the uprising from the very outset. The Nikolayevskaya (now the October) Railway remained in the hands of the tsarist government. Traffic on this line was not suspended, which enabled the government to transfer regiments of the Guard from St. Petersburg to Moscow for the suppression of the uprising.<br />
<br />
In Moscow itself the garrison vacillated. The workers had begun the uprising partly in expectation of receiving support from the garrison. But the revolutionaries had delayed too long, and the government managed to cope with the unrest in the garrison.<br />
<br />
The first barricades appeared in Moscow on December 9 (22). Soon the streets of the city were covered with barricades. The tsarist government brought artillery into action. It concentrated a force many times exceeding the strength of the insurrectionaries. For nine days on end several thousand armed workers waged a heroic fight. It was only by bringing regiments from St. Petersburg, Tver and the Western Territory that the tsarist government was able to crush the uprising. On the very eve of the fighting the leadership of the uprising was partly arrested and partly isolated. The members of the Moscow Bolshevik Committee were arrested. The armed action took the form of disconnected uprisings of separate districts Deprived of a directing centre, and lacking a common plan of operations for the whole city, the districts mainly confined themselves to defensive action. This was the chief source of weakness of the Moscow uprising and one of the causes of its defeat, as Lenin later pointed out.<br />
<br />
The uprising assumed a particularly stubborn and bitter character in the Krasnaya Presnya district of Moscow. This was the main stronghold and centre of the uprising. Here the best of the fighting squads, led by Bolsheviks, were concentrated. But Krasnaya Presnya was suppressed by fire and sword; it was drenched in blood and ablaze with the fires caused by artillery. The Moscow uprising was crushed.<br />
<br />
The uprising was not confined to Moscow. Revolutionary uprisings broke out in a number of other cities and districts. There were armed uprisings in Krasnoyarsk, Motovlikha (Perm), Novorossisk, Sormovo, Sevastapol and Kronstadt.<br />
<br />
The oppressed nationalities of Russia also rose in armed struggle. Nearly the whole of Georgia was up in arms. A big uprising took place in the Ukraine, in the cities of Gorlovka, Alexandrovsk and Lugansk (now Voroshilovgrad) in the Donetz Basin. A stubborn struggle was waged in Latvia. In Finland the workers formed their Red Guard and rose in revolt.<br />
<br />
But all these uprisings, like the uprising in Moscow, were crushed with inhuman ferocity by the autocracy.<br />
<br />
The appraisals of the December armed uprising given by the Men-sheviks and the Bolsheviks differed.<br />
<br />
"They should not have taken to arms," was the rebuke the Menshe-vik Plekhanov flung at the Party after the uprising. The Mensheviks argued that an uprising was unnecessary and pernicious, that it could be dispensed with in the revolution, that success could be achieved not by armed uprising, but by peaceful methods of struggle.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks branded this stand as treachery. They maintained that the experience of the Moscow armed uprising had but confirmed that the working class could wage a successful armed struggle. In reply to Plekhanov's rebuke—"they should not have taken to arms"—Lenin said:<br />
<br />
"On the contrary, we should have taken to arms more resolutely, energetically and aggressively; we should have explained to the masses that it was impossible to confine ourselves to a peaceful strike and that a fearless and relentless armed fight was indispensable." (Lenin, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. III, p. 348.)<br />
<br />
The uprising of December 1905 was the climax of the revolution. The tsarist autocracy defeated the uprising. Thereafter the revolution took a turn and began to recede. The tide of revolution gradually subsided.<br />
<br />
The tsarist government hastened to take advantage of this defeat to deal the final blow to the revolution. The tsar's hangmen and jailers began their bloody work. Punitive expeditions raged in Poland, Latvia, Esthonia, Transcaucasia and Siberia.<br />
<br />
But the revolution was not yet crushed. The workers and revolutionary peasants retreated slowly, putting up a fight. New sections of the workers were drawn into the struggle. Over a million workers took part in strikes in 1906; 740,000 in 1907. The peasant movement embraced about one-half of the uyezds of tsarist Russia in the first half of 1906, and one-fifth in the second half of the year. Unrest continued in the army and navy.<br />
<br />
The tsarist government, in combating the revolution, did not confine itself to repressive measures. Having achieved its first successes by repressive measures, it decided to deal a fresh blow at the revolution by convening a new Duma, a "legislative" Duma. It hoped in this way to sever the peasants from the revolution and thus put an end to it. In December c the tsarist government promulgated a law providing for the convocation of a new, a "legislative" Duma as distinct from the old, "deliberative" Bulygin Duma, which had been swept away as the result of the Bolshevik boycott. The tsarist election law was of course anti-democratic. Elections were not universal. Over half the population —for example, women and over two million workers—were deprived of the right of vote altogether. Elections were not equal. The electorate was divided into four curias, as they were called: the agrarian (landlords), the urban (bourgeoisie), the peasant and the worker curias. Election was not direct, but by several stages. There was actually no secret ballot. The election law ensured the overwhelming preponderance in the Duma of a handful of landlords and capitalists over the millions of workers and peasants.<br />
<br />
The tsar intended to make use of the Duma to divert the masses from the revolution. In those days a large proportion of the peasants believed that they could obtain land through the Duma. The Constitutional-Democrats, Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries deceived workers and peasants by stating that the system the people needed could be obtained without uprising, without revolution. It was to fight this fraud on the people that the Bolsheviks announced and pursued the tactics of boycotting the First State Duma. This was in accordance with the decision passed by the Tammerfors Conference.<br />
<br />
In their fight against tsardom, the workers demanded the unity of the forces of the Party, the unification of the party of the proletariat. Armed with the decision of the Tammerfors Conference on unity, the Bolsheviks supported this demand of the workers and proposed to the Mensheviks that a unity congress of the Party be called. Under the pressure of the workers, the Mensheviks had to consent to unification.<br />
<br />
Lenin was in favour of unification, but only of such unification as would not cover up the differences that existed over the problems of the revolution. Considerable damage was done to the Party by the conciliators (Bogdanov, Krassin and others), who tried to prove that no serious differences existed between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. Lenin fought the conciliators, insisting that the Bolsheviks should come to the congress with their own platform, so that the workers might clearly see what the position of the Bolsheviks was and on what basis unification was being effected. The Bolsheviks drew up such a platform and submitted it to the Party members for discussion.<br />
<br />
The Fourth Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., known as the Unity Congress, met in Stockholm (Sweden) in April 1906. It was attended by 111 delegates with right of vote, representing 57 local organizations of the Party. In addition, there were representatives from the national Social-Democratic parties: 3 from the Bund, 3 from the Polish Social-Democratic Party, and 3 from the Lettish Social-Democratic organization.<br />
<br />
Owing to the smash-up of the Bolshevik organizations during and after the December uprising, not all of them were able to send delegates. Moreover, during the "days of liberty" of 1905, the Mensheviks had admitted into their ranks a large number of petty-bourgeois intellectuals who had nothing whatever in common with revolutionary Marxism. It will suffice to say that the Tiflis Mensheviks (and there were very few industrial workers in Tiflis) sent as many delegates to the congress as the largest of the proletarian organizations, the St. Petersburg organization. The result was that at the Stockholm Congress the Mensheviks had a majority, although, it is true, an insignificant one.<br />
<br />
This composition of the congress determined the Menshevik character of the decisions on a number of questions.<br />
<br />
Only ''formal'' unity was effected at this congress. In reality, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks retained their own views and their own independent organizations.<br />
<br />
The chief questions discussed at the Fourth Congress were the agrarian question, the current situation and the class tasks of the proletariat, policy towards the State Duma, and organizational questions.<br />
<br />
Although the Mensheviks constituted the majority at this congress they were obliged to agree to Lenin's formulation of the first paragraph of the Party Rules dealing with Party membership, in order not to antagonize the workers.<br />
<br />
On the agrarian question, Lenin advocated the ''nationalization'' of the land. He held that the nationalization of the land would be possible only with the victory of the revolution, after tsardom had been overthrown. Under such circumstances the nationalization of the land would make it easier for the proletariat, in alliance with the poor peasants, to pass to the Socialist revolution. Nationalization of the land meant the confiscation of all the landed estates without compensation and turning them over to the peasantry. The Bolshevik agrarian program called upon the peasants to rise in revolution against the tsar and the landlords.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks took up a different position. They advocated a program of ''municipalization''. According to this program, the landed estates were not to be placed at the disposal of the village communities, not even given to the village communities for use, but were to be placed at the disposal of the municipalities (that is, the local organs of self-government, or Zemstvos), and each peasant was to rent as much of this land as he could afford.<br />
<br />
The Menshevik program of municipalization was one of compromise, and therefore prejudicial to the revolution. It could not mobilize the peasants for a revolutionary struggle and was not designed to achieve the complete abolition of landlord property rights in land. The Menshevik program was designed to stop the revolution halfway. The Mensheviks did not want to rouse the peasants for revolution.<br />
<br />
The Menshevik program received the majority of the votes at the congress.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks particularly betrayed their anti-proletarian, opportunist nature during the discussion of the resolution on the current situation and on the State Duma. The Menshevik Martynov frankly spoke in opposition to the hegemony of the proletariat in the revolution. Comrade Stalin, replying to the Mensheviks, put the matter very bluntly:<br />
<br />
"Either the hegemony of the proletariat, or the hegemony of the democratic bourgeoisie—that is how the question stands in the Party, that is where we differ."<br />
<br />
As to the State Duma, the Mensheviks extolled it in their resolution as the best means of solving the problems of the revolution and of liberating the people from tsardom. The Bolsheviks, on the contrary, regarded the Duma as an impotent appendage of tsardom, as a screen for the evils of tsardom, which the latter would discard as soon as it proved inconvenient.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee elected at the Fourth Congress consisted of three Bolsheviks and six Mensheviks. The editorial board of the central press organ was formed entirely of Mensheviks.<br />
<br />
It was clear that the internal Party struggle would continue.<br />
<br />
After the Fourth Congress the conflict between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks broke out with new vigour. In the local organizations, which were formally united, reports on the congress were often made by two speakers: one from the Bolsheviks and another from the Mensheviks. The result of the discussion of the two lines was that in most cases the majority of the members of the organizations sided with the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
Events proved that the Bolsheviks were right. The Menshevik Central Committee elected at the Fourth Congress increasingly revealed its opportunism and its utter inability to lead the revolutionary struggle of the masses. In the summer and autumn of 1906 the revolutionary struggle of the masses took on new vigour. Sailors' revolts broke out in Kronstadt and Sveaborg; the peasants' struggle against the landlords flared up. Yet the Menshevik Central Committee issued opportunist slogans, which the masses did not follow.<br />
<br />
=== Dispersion of the First State Duma. Convocation of the Second State Duma. Fifth Party Congress. Dispersion of the Second State Duma. Causes of the defeat of the First Russian Revolution ===<br />
As the First State Duma did not prove docile enough, the tsarist government dispersed it in the summer of 1906. The government resorted to even more drastic repressions against the people, extended the ravaging activities of the punitive expeditions throughout the country, and announced its decision of shortly calling a Second State Duma. The tsarist government was obviously growing more insolent. It no longer feared the revolution, for it saw that the revolution was on the decline<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks had to decide whether to participate in the Second Duma or to boycott it. By boycott, the Bolsheviks usually meant an active boycott, and not the mere passive abstention from voting in the elections. The Bolsheviks regarded active boycott as a revolutionary means of warning the people against the attempts of the tsar to divert them from the path of revolution to the path of tsarist "constitution," as a means of frustrating these attempts and organizing a new onslaught of the people on tsardom.<br />
<br />
The experience of the boycott of the Bulygin Duma had shown that a boycott was "the only correct tactics, as fully proved by events." (Lenin, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. III, p. 393.) This boycott was successful because it not only warned the people against the danger of the path of tsarist constitutionalism but frustrated the very birth of the Duma. The boycott was successful because it was carried out during the ''rising tide'' of the revolution and was supported by this tide, and not when the revolution was receding. The summoning of the Duma could be frustrated only during the ''high tide'' of the revolution.<br />
<br />
The boycott of the Witte Duma, ''i.e''., the First Duma, took place after the December uprising had been defeated, when the tsar proved to be the victor, that is, at a time when there was reason to believe that the revolution had begun to recede.<br />
<br />
"But," wrote Lenin, "it goes without saying that at that time there were as yet no grounds to regard this victory (of the tsar—''Ed.'') as a decisive victory. The uprising of December 1905 had its sequel in a series of disconnected and partial military uprisings and strikes in the summer of 1906. The call to boycott the Witte Duma was a call to concentrate these uprisings and make them general." (Lenin, ''Collected Works,'' Russ. ed., Vol. XII, p. 20.)<br />
<br />
The boycott of the Witte Duma was unable to frustrate its convocation although it considerably undermined its prestige and weakened the faith of a part of the population in it. The boycott was unable to frustrate the convocation of the Duma because, as subsequently became clear, it took place at a time when the revolution was receding, when it was on the decline. For this reason the boycott of the First Duma in 1906 was unsuccessful. In this connection Lenin wrote in his famous pamphlet, ''"Left-Wing" Communism, An Infantile Disorder:''<br />
<br />
"The Bolshevik boycott of 'parliament' in 1905 enriched the revolutionary proletariat with highly valuable political experience and showed that in combining legal with illegal, parliamentary with extra-parliamentary forms of struggle, it is sometimes useful and even essential to reject parliamentary forms...The boycott of the 'Duma' by the Bolsheviks in 1906 was however a mistake, although a small and easily remediable one...What applies to individuals applies—with necessary modifications—to politics and parties. Not he is wise who makes no mistakes. There are no such men nor can there be. He is wise who makes not very serious mistakes and who knows how to correct them easily and quickly. (Lenin, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. X, p. 74.)<br />
<br />
As to the Second State Duma, Lenin held that in view of the changed situation and the decline of the revolution, the Bolsheviks "must reconsider the question of boycotting the State Duma." (Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. III, p. 392.)<br />
<br />
"History has shown," Lenin wrote, "that when the Duma assembles opportunities arise for carrying on useful agitation both from within the Duma and, in connection with it, outside—that the tactics of joining forces with the revolutionary peasantry against the Constitutional-Democrats can be applied in the Duma." (''Ibid''., p. 396.)<br />
<br />
All this showed that one had to know not only how to advance resolutely, to advance in the front ranks, when the revolution was in the ascendant, but also how to retreat properly, to be the last to retreat, when the revolution was no longer in the ascendant, changing one's tactics as the situation changed; to retreat not in disorder, but in an organized way, calmly and without panic, utilizing every minute opportunity to withdraw the cadres from under enemy fire, to reform one's ranks to muster one's forces and to prepare for a new offensive against the enemy.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks decided to take part in the elections to the Second Duma.<br />
<br />
But the Bolsheviks did not go to the Duma for the purpose of carrying on organic "legislative" work inside it in a bloc with the Constitutional-Democrats, as the Mensheviks did, but for the purpose of utilizing it as a platform in the interests of the revolution.<br />
<br />
The Menshevik Central Committee, on the contrary, urged that election agreements be formed with the Constitutional-Democrats, and that support be given to the Constitutional-Democrats in the Duma, for in their eyes the Duma was a legislative body that was capable of bridling the tsarist government.<br />
<br />
The majority of the Party organizations expressed themselves against the policy of the Menshevik Central Committee.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks demanded that a new Party congress be called.<br />
<br />
In May 1907 the Fifth Party Congress met in London. At the time of this congress the R.S.D.L.P. (together with the national Social-Democratic organizations) had a membership of nearly 150,000. In all, 336 delegates attended the congress, of whom 105 were Bolsheviks and 97 Mensheviks. The remaining delegates represented the national Social-Democratic organizations—the Polish and Lettish Social-Democrats and the Bund—which had been admitted into the R.S.D.L.P. at the previous congress.<br />
<br />
Trotsky tried to knock together a group of his own at the congress, a centrist, that is, semi-Menshevik, group, but could get no following.<br />
<br />
As the Bolsheviks had the support of the Poles and the Letts, they had a stable majority at the congress.<br />
<br />
One of the main questions at issue at the congress was that of policy towards the bourgeois parties. There had already been a struggle between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks on this question at the Second Congress. The fifth Congress gave a Bolshevik estimate of all the non-proletarian parties—Black-Hundreds, Octobrists (Union of October Seventeenth), Constitutional-Democrats and Socialist-Revolutionaries— and formulated the Bolshevik tactics to be pursued in regard to these parties.<br />
<br />
The congress approved the policy of the Bolsheviks and decided to wage a relentless struggle both against the Black-Hundred parties—the League of the Russian People, the monarchists, the Council of the United Nobility—and against the Octobrists, the Commercial and Industrial Party and the Party of Peaceful Renovation. All these parties were outspokenly counter-revolutionary.<br />
<br />
As regards the liberal bourgeoisie, the Constitutional-Democratic Party, the congress recommended a policy of uncompromising exposure; the false and hypocritical "democracy" of the Constitutional-Democratic Party was to be exposed and the attempts of the liberal bourgeoisie to gain control of the peasant movement combated.<br />
<br />
As to the so-called Narodnik or Trudovik parties (the Popular Socialists, the Trudovik Group and the Socialist-Revolutionaries), the congress recommended that their attempts to mask themselves as Socialists be exposed. At the same time the congress considered it permissible now and then to conclude agreements with these parties for a joint and simultaneous attack on tsardom and the Constitutional-Democratic bourgeoisie, inasmuch as these parties were at that time democratic parties and expressed the interests of the petty bourgeoisie of town and country.<br />
<br />
Even before this congress, the Mensheviks had proposed that a so-called "labour congress" be convened. The Mensheviks' idea was to call a congress at which Social-Democrats, Socialist-Revolutionaries and Anarchists should all be represented. This "labour" congress was to form something in the nature of a "non-partisan party," or a "broad" petty-bourgeois labour party without a program. Lenin exposed this as a pernicious attempt on the part of the Mensheviks to liquidate the Social-Democratic Labour Party and to dissolve the vanguard of the working class in the petty-bourgeois mass. The congress vigorously condemned the Menshevik call for a "labour congress."<br />
<br />
Special attention was devoted at the congress to the subject of the trade unions. The Mensheviks advocated "neutrality" of the trade unions; in other words, they were opposed to the Party playing a leading role in them. The congress rejected the Mensheviks' motion and adopted the resolution submitted by the Bolsheviks. This resolution stated that the Party must gain the ideological and political leadership in the trade unions.<br />
<br />
The Fifth Congress was a big victory for the Bolsheviks in the working-class movement. But the Bolsheviks did not allow this to turn their heads; nor did they rest on their laurels. That was not what Lenin taught them. The Bolsheviks knew that more fighting with the Men-sheviks was still to come.<br />
<br />
In an article entitled "Notes of a Delegate" which appeared in 1907, Comrade Stalin assessed the results of the congress as follows:<br />
<br />
"The actual unification of the advanced workers of all Russia into a single all-Russian party under the banner of ''revolutionary'' Social-Democracy—that is the significance of the London Congress, that is its general character."<br />
<br />
In this article Comrade Stalin cited data showing the ''composition'' of the congress. They show that the Bolshevik delegates were sent to the congress chiefly by the big industrial centres (St. Petersburg, Moscow, the Urals, Ivanovo-Voznesensk, etc.), whereas the Mensheviks got their mandates from districts where small production prevailed, where artisans, semi-proletarians predominated, as well as from a number of purely rural areas.<br />
<br />
"Obviously," says Comrade Stalin, summing up the results of the congress, "the tactics of the Bolsheviks are the tactics of the proletarians in big industry, the tactics of those areas where the class contradictions are especially clear and the class struggle especially acute. Bolshevism is the tactics of the real proletarians. On the other hand, it is no less obvious that the tactics of the Mensheviks are primarily the tactics of the handicraft workers and the peasant semi-proletarians, the tactics of those areas where the class contradictions are not quite clear and the class struggle is masked. Menshevism is the tactics of the semi-bourgeois elements among the proletariat. So say the figures." (Verbatim ''Report of the Fifth Congress of the-R.S.D.L.P.,'' Russ. ed., 1935, pp. xi and xii.)<br />
<br />
When the tsar dispersed the First Duma he expected that the Second Duma would be more docile. But the Second Duma, too, belied his expectations. The tsar thereupon decided to disperse it, too, and to convoke a Third Duma on a more restricted franchise, in the hope that this Duma would prove more amenable.<br />
<br />
Shortly after the Fifth Congress, the tsarist government effected what is known as the ''coup d'etat'' of June 3. On June 3, 1907, the tsar dispersed the Second State Duma. The sixty-five deputies of the Social-Democratic group in the Duma were arrested and exiled to Siberia. A new election law was promulgated. The rights of the workers and peasants were still further curtailed. The tsarist government continued its offensive.<br />
<br />
The tsar's Minister Stolypin intensified the campaign of bloody reprisals against the workers and peasants. Thousands of revolutionary workers and peasants were shot by punitive expeditions, or hanged. In the tsarist dungeons revolutionaries were tortured mentally and physically. Particularly savage was the persecution of the working-class organizations, especially the Bolsheviks. The tsar's sleuths were searching for Lenin, who was living in hiding in Finland. They wanted to wreak their vengeance on the leader of the revolution. In December 1907 Lenin managed at great risk to make his way abroad and again became an exile.<br />
<br />
The dark period of the Stolypin reaction set in.<br />
<br />
The first Russian revolution thus ended in defeat.<br />
<br />
The causes that contributed to this defeat were as follows :<br />
<br />
1 ) In the revolution, there was still no stable alliance of the workers and peasants against tsardom. The peasants rose in struggle against the landlords and were willing to join in an alliance with the workers against them. But they did not yet realize that the landlords could not be overthrown unless the tsar were overthrown, they did not realize that the tsar was acting hand-in-hand with the landlords, and large numbers of the peasants still had faith in the tsar and placed their hopes in the tsarist State Duma. That is why a considerable section of the peasants were disinclined to join in alliance with the workers for the overthrow of tsardom. The peasants had more faith in the compromising Socialist-Revolutionary Party than in the real revolutionaries—the Bolsheviks. As a result, the struggle of the peasants against the landlords was not sufficiently organized. Lenin said :<br />
<br />
"The peasants' actions were too scattered, too unorganized and not sufficiently aggressive, and that was one of the fundamental causes of the defeat of the revolution." (Lenin, ''Collected Works,'' Russ. ed., Vol. XIX, p. 354.)<br />
<br />
2) The disinclination of a large section of the peasants to join the workers for the overthrow of tsardom also influenced the conduct of the army, which largely consisted of peasants' sons clad in soldiers' uniforms. Unrest and revolt broke out in certain units of the tsar's army, but the majority of the soldiers still assisted the tsar in suppressing the strikes and uprisings of the workers.<br />
<br />
3) Neither was the action of the workers sufficiently concerted. The advanced sections of the working class started a heroic revolutionary struggle in 1905. The more backward sections—the workers in the less industrialized provinces, those who lived in the villages—came into action more slowly. Their participation in the revolutionary struggle became particularly active in 1906, but by then the vanguard of the working class had already been considerably weakened.<br />
<br />
4) The working class was the foremost and principal force of the revolution; but the necessary unity and solidarity in the ranks of the party of the working class were lacking. The R.S.D.L.P.—the party of the working class—was split into two groups: the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks pursued a consistent revolutionary line and called upon the workers to overthrow tsardom. The Mensheviks, by their compromising tactics, hampered the revolution, confused the minds of large numbers of workers and split the working class. Therefore, the workers did not always act concertedly in the revolution, and the working class, still lacking unity within its own ranks, could not become the real leader of the revolution.<br />
<br />
5) The tsarist autocracy received help in crushing the Revolution of 1905 from the West-European imperialists. The foreign capitalists feared for their investments in Russia and for their huge profits. Moreover, they feared that if the Russian revolution were to succeed the workers of other countries would rise in revolution, too. The West-European imperialists therefore came to the assistance of the hangman-tsar. The French bankers granted a big loan to the tsar for the suppression of the revolution. The German kaiser kept a large army in readiness to intervene in aid of the Russian tsar.<br />
<br />
6) The conclusion of peace with Japan in September 1905 was of considerable help to the tsar. Defeat in the war and the menacing growth of the revolution had induced the tsar to hasten the signing of peace. The loss of the war weakened tsardom. The conclusion of peace strengthened the position of the tsar.<br />
<br />
=== Brief summary ===<br />
The first Russian revolution constituted a whole historical stage in the development of our country. This historical stage consisted of two periods: the first period, when the tide of revolution rose from the general political strike in October to the armed uprising in December and took advantage of the weakness of the tsar, who had suffered defeat on the battlefields of Manchuria, to sweep away the Bulygin Duma and wrest concession after concession from the tsar; and the second period, when tsardom, having recovered after the conclusion of peace with Japan, took advantage of the liberal bourgeoisie's fear of the revolution, took advantage of the vacillation of the peasants, cast them a sop in the form of the Witte Duma, and passed to the offensive against the working class, against the revolution.<br />
<br />
In the short period of only three years of revolution (1905-07) the working class and the peasantry received a rich political education, such as they could not have received in thirty years of ordinary peaceful development. A few years of revolution made clear what could not be made clear in the course of decades of peaceful development.<br />
<br />
The revolution disclosed that tsardom was the sworn enemy of the people, that tsardom was like the proverbial hunchback whom only the grave could cure.<br />
<br />
The revolution showed that the liberal bourgeoisie was seeing an alliance with the tsar, and not with the people, that it was a counterrevolutionary force, an agreement with which would be tantamount to a betrayal of the people.<br />
<br />
The revolution showed that only the working class could be the leader of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, that it alone could force aside the liberal Constitutional-Democratic bourgeoisie, destroy its influence over the peasantry, rout the landlords, carry the revolution to its conclusion and clear the way for Socialism.<br />
<br />
Lastly, the revolution showed that the labouring peasantry, despite its vacillations, was the only important force capable of forming an alliance with the working class.<br />
<br />
Two lines were contending within the R.S.D.L.P. during the revolution, the line of the Bolsheviks and the line of the Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks took as their course the extension of the revolution, the overthrow of tsardom by armed uprising, the hegemony of the working class, the isolation of the Constitutional-Democratic bourgeoisie, an alliance with the peasantry, the formation of a provisional revolutionary government consisting of representatives of the workers and peasants, the victorious completion of the revolution. The Mensheviks, on the contrary, took as their course the liquidation of the revolution. Instead of overthrowing tsardom by uprising, they proposed to reform and "improve" it; instead of the hegemony of the proletariat, they proposed the hegemony of the liberal bourgeoisie; instead of an alliance with the peasantry, they proposed an alliance with the Constitutional-Democratic bourgeoisie; instead of a provisional government, they proposed a State Duma as the centre of the "revolutionary forces" of the country.<br />
<br />
Thus the Mensheviks sank into the morass of compromise and became vehicles of the bourgeois influence on the working class, virtual agents of the bourgeoisie within the working class.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks proved to be the only revolutionary Marxist force in the Party and thecountry.<br />
<br />
It was natural that, in view of such profound differences, the R.S.D.L.P. proved in fact to be split into two parties, the party of the Bolsheviks and the party of the Mensheviks. The Fourth Party Congress changed nothing in the actual state of affairs within the Party. It only preserved and somewhat strengthened formal unity in the Party. The Fifth Party Congress took a step towards actual unity in the Party, a unity achieved under the banner of Bolshevism.<br />
<br />
Reviewing the revolutionary movement, the Fifth Party Congress condemned the line of the Mensheviks as one of compromise, and approved the Bolshevik line as a revolutionary Marxist line. In doing so it once more confirmed what had already been confirmed by the whole course of the first Russian revolution.<br />
<br />
The revolution showed that the Bolsheviks knew how to advance when the situation demanded it, that they had learned to advance in the front ranks and to lead the whole people in attack. But the revolution also showed that the Bolsheviks knew how to retreat in an orderly way when the situation took an unfavourable turn, when the revolution was on the decline, and that the Bolsheviks had learned to retreat properly, without panic or commotion, so as to preserve their cadres, rally their forces, and, having reformed their ranks in conformity with the new situation, once again to resume the attack on the enemy.<br />
<br />
It is impossible to defeat the enemy without knowing how to attack properly.<br />
<br />
It is impossible to avoid utter rout in the event of defeat without knowing how to retreat properly, to retreat without panic and without confusion.<br />
<br />
== The Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks in the period of the Stolypin reaction. The Bolsheviks constitute themselves an independent marxist party (1908—1912) ==<br />
<br />
=== Stolypin reaction. Disintegration among the oppositional intelligentsia. Decadence. Desertion of a section of the party intelligentsia to the enemies of Marxism and attempts to revise the theory of Marxism. Lenin’s rebutal of the revisionists in his ''Materialism and empiriocriticism'' and his defense of the theoretical foundations of the Marxist party ===<br />
The Second State Duma was dissolved by the tsarist government on June 3, 1907. This is customarily referred to in history as the ''coup d'etat'' of June 3. The tsarist government issued a new law on the elections to the Third State Duma, and thus violated its own Manifesto of October 17, 1905, which stipulated that new laws could be issued only with the consent of the Duma. The members of the Social-Democratic group in the Second Duma were committed for trial; the representatives of the working class were condemned to penal servitude and exile.<br />
<br />
The new election law was so drafted as to increase considerably the number of representatives of the landlords and the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie in the Duma. At the same time the representation of the peasants and workers, small as it was, was reduced to a fraction of its former size.<br />
<br />
Black-Hundreds and Constitutional-Democrats preponderated in the Third Duma. Of a total of 442 deputies, 171 were Rights (Black-Hundreds), 113 were Octobrists or members of kindred groups, 101 were Constitutional-Democrats or members of kindred groups, 13 were Trudoviki, and 18 were Social-Democrats.<br />
<br />
The Rights (so called because they occupied the benches on the right-hand side of the Duma) represented the worst enemies of the workers and peasants—the Black-Hundred feudal landlords, who had subjected the peasants to mass floggings and shootings during the suppression of the peasant movement, and organizers of Jewish pogroms, of the manhandling of demonstrating workers and of the brutal burning of premises where meetings were being held during the revolution. The Rights stood for the most ruthless suppression of the working people, and for the unlimited power of the tsar; they were opposed to the tsar's Manifesto of October 17, 1905.<br />
<br />
The Octobrist Party, or the Union of October Seventeenth, closely adhered to the Rights in the Duma. The Octobrists represented the interests of big industrial capital, and of the big landlords who ran their estates on capitalist lines (at the beginning of the Revolution of 1905 a large number of the big landlords belonging to the Constitutional-Democratic Party went over to the Octobrists). The only thing that distinguished the Octobrists from the Rights was their acceptance—only in words at that—of the Manifesto of October 17. The Octobrists fully supported both the home and foreign policy of the tsarist government.<br />
<br />
The Constitutional-Democratic Party had fewer seats in the Third Duma than in the First and Second Dumas. This was due to the transfer of part of the landlord vote from the Constitutional-Democrats to the Octobrists.<br />
<br />
There was a small group of petty-bourgeois democrats, known as Trudoviki, in the Third Duma. They vacillated between the Constitutional-Democrats and the labour democrats (Bolsheviks). Lenin pointed out that although the Trudoviki in the Duma were extremely weak, they represented the ''masses'', the peasant masses. The vacillation of the Trudoviki between the Constitutional-Democrats and the labour democrats was an inevitable consequence of the class position of the small owners. Lenin set before the Bolshevik deputies, the labour democrats, the task of "helping the weak petty-bourgeois democrats, of wresting them from the influence of the liberals, of rallying the democratic camp against the counter-revolutionary Constitutional-Democrats, and not only against the Rights..." (Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. XV, p. 486.)<br />
<br />
During the Revolution of 1905, and especially after its defeat, the Constitutional-Democrats increasingly revealed themselves as a counterrevolutionary force. Discarding their "democratic" mask more and more, they acted like veritable monarchists, defenders of tsardom. In 1909 a group of prominent Constitutional-Democrat writers published a volume of articles entitled ''Vekhi (Landmarks)'' in which, on behalf of the bourgeoisie, they thanked the tsar for crushing the revolution. Cringing and fawning upon the tsarist government, the government of the knout and the gallows, the Constitutional-Democrats bluntly stated in this book that "we should bless this government, which alone, with its bayonets and jails, protects us (the liberal bourgeoisie) from the ire of the people."<br />
<br />
Having dispersed the Second State Duma and disposed of the Social-Democratic group of the Duma, the tsarist government zealously set about destroying the political and economic organizations of the proletariat. Convict prisons, fortresses and places of exile were filled to overflowing with revolutionaries. They were brutally beaten up in the prisons, tormented and tortured. The Black-Hundred terror raged unchecked. The tsar's Minister Stolypin set up gallows all over the country. Several thousand revolutionaries were executed. In those days the gallows was known as the "Stolypin necktie."<br />
<br />
In its efforts to crush the revolutionary movement of the workers and peasants the tsarist government could not confine itself to acts of repression, punitive expeditions, shootings, jailings and sentences of penal servitude. It perceived with alarm that the naive faith of the peasants in "the little father, the tsar" was steadily vanishing. It therefore re- sorted to a broad manoeuvre. It conceived the idea of creating a solid support for itself in the countryside, in the large class of rural bourgeoisie —the kulaks.<br />
<br />
On November 9, 1906, Stolypin issued a new agrarian law enabling the peasants to leave the communes and to set up separate farms. Stolypin's agrarian law broke down the system of communal land tenure. The peasants were invited to take possession of their allotments as private property and to withdraw from the communes. They could now sell their allotments, which they were not allowed to do before. When a peasant left his commune the latter was obliged to allot land to him in a single tract (''khutor, otrub'').<br />
<br />
The rich peasants, the kulaks, now had the opportunity to buy up the land of the poor peasants at low prices. Within a few years after the promulgation of the law, over a million poor peasants had lost their land altogether and had been completely ruined. As the poor peasants lost their land the number of kulak farmholds grew. These were sometimes regular estates employing hired labour—farm hands—on a large scale. The government compelled the peasants to allot the best land of the communes to the kulak farmers.<br />
<br />
During the "emancipation" of the peasants the landlords had robbed the peasants of their land; now the kulaks began to rob the communes of their land, securing the best plots and buying up the allotments of poor peasants at low prices.<br />
<br />
The tsarist government advanced large loans to the kulaks for the purchase of land and the outfitting of their farms. Stolypin wanted to turn the kulaks into small landlords, into loyal defenders of the tsarist autocracy.<br />
<br />
In the nine years 1906-15 alone, over two million households withdrew from the communes.<br />
<br />
As a result of the Stolypin policy the condition of the peasants with small land allotments, and of the poor peasants, grew worse than ever. The process of differentiation among the peasantry became more marked. The peasants began to come into collision with the kulak farmers.<br />
<br />
At the same time, the peasants began to realize that they would never gain possession of the landed estates as long as the tsarist government and the State Duma of the landlords and Constitutional-Democrats existed.<br />
<br />
During the period when kulak farmholds were being formed in large numbers (1907-09), the peasant movement began to decline, but soon after, in 1910, 1911, and later, owing to the clashes between the members of the village communes and the kulak farmers, the peasant movement against the landlords and the kulak farmers grew in intensity.<br />
<br />
There were big changes also in industry after the revolution. The concentration of industry in the hands of increasingly powerful capitalist groups proceeded much more rapidly. Even before the Revolution of 1905, the capitalists had begun to form associations with the object of raising prices within the country and of using the super-profits thus obtained for the encouragement of export trade so as to enable them to dump goods abroad at low prices and to capture foreign markets. These capitalist associations (monopolies) were called trusts and syndicates. After the revolution their number became still greater. There was also an increase in the number of big banks, whose role in industry became more important. The flow of foreign capital into Russia increased.<br />
<br />
Thus capitalism in Russia was turning into monopoly capitalism, imperialist capitalism, on a growing scale.<br />
<br />
After several years of stagnation, industry began to revive: the output of coal, metal, oil, textiles and sugar increased. Grain exports assumed large dimensions.<br />
<br />
Although Russia at that time made some industrial progress, she was still backward compared with Western Europe, and still dependent on foreign capitalists. Russia did not produce machinery and machine tools —they were imported from abroad. She had no automobile industry or chemical industry; she did not produce artificial fertilizers. Russia also lagged behind other capitalist countries in the manufacture of armaments.<br />
<br />
Pointing to the low level of consumption of metals in Russia as an indication of the country's backwardness, Lenin wrote :<br />
<br />
"In the half-century following the emancipation of the peasants the consumption of iron in Russia has increased five-fold; yet Russia remains an incredibly and unprecedentedly backward country, poverty-stricken and semi-barbaric, equipped with modern implements of production to one-fourth the extent of England, one-fifth the extent of Germany, and one-tenth the extent of America." (Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. XVI, p. 543.)<br />
<br />
One direct result of Russia's economic and political backwardness was the dependence both of Russian capitalism and of tsardom itself on West-European capitalism.<br />
<br />
This found expression in the fact that such highly important branches of industry as coal, oil, electrical equipment, and metallurgy were in the hands of foreign capital, and that tsarist Russia had to import nearly all her machinery and equipment from abroad.<br />
<br />
It also found expression in the fettering foreign loans. To pay interest on these loans tsardom squeezed hundreds of millions of rubles out of the people annually.<br />
<br />
It moreover found expression in the secret treaties with Russia's "allies," by which the tsarist government undertook in the event of war to send millions of Russian soldiers to support the "allies" on the imperialist fronts and to protect the tremendous profits of the British and French capitalists.<br />
<br />
The period of the Stolypin reaction was marked by particularly savage assaults on the working class by the gendarmerie and police, the tsarist agents-provocateurs and Black-Hundred ruffians. But it was not only the underlings of the tsar who harassed and persecuted the workers. No less zealous in this respect were the factory and mill owners, whose offensive against the working class became particularly aggressive in the years of industrial stagnation and increasing unemployment. The factory owners declared mass lockouts and drew up black lists of class-conscious workers who took an active part in strikes. Once a person was blacklisted he could never hope to find employment in any of the plants belonging to the manufacturers' association in that particular branch of industry. Already in 1908 wage rates were cut by 10 to 15 per cent. The working day was everywhere increased to 10 or 12 hours. The system of rapacious fines again flourished.<br />
<br />
The defeat of the Revolution of 1905 started a process of disintegration and degeneration in the ranks of the fellow-travelers of the revolution. Degenerate and decadent tendencies grew particularly marked among the intelligentsia. The fellow-travelers who came from the bourgeois camp to join the movement during the upsurge of the revolution deserted the Party in the days of reaction. Some of them joined the camp of the open enemies of the revolution, others entrenched themselves in such legally functioning working-class societies as still survived, and endeavoured to divert the proletariat from the path of revolution and to discredit the revolutionary party of the proletariat. Deserting the revolution the fellow-travelers tried to win the good graces of the reactionaries and to live in peace with tsardom.<br />
<br />
The tsarist government took advantage of the defeat of the revolution to enlist the more cowardly and self-seeking fellow-travelers of the revolution as agents-provocateurs. These vile Judases were sent by the tsarist ''Okhrana'' into the working class and Party organizations, where they spied from within and betrayed revolutionaries.<br />
<br />
The offensive of the counter-revolution was waged on the ideological front as well. There appeared a whole horde of fashionable writers who "criticized" Marxism, and "demolished" it, mocked and scoffed at the revolution, extolled treachery, and lauded sexual depravity under the guise of the "cult of individuality."<br />
<br />
In the realm of philosophy increasing attempts were made to "criticize" and revise Marxism; there also appeared all sorts of religious trends camouflaged by pseudo-scientific theories.<br />
<br />
"Criticizing" Marxism became fashionable.<br />
<br />
All these gentlemen, despite their multifarious colouring, pursued one common aim: to divert the masses from the revolution.<br />
<br />
Decadence and scepticism also affected a section of the Party intelligentsia, those who considered themselves Marxists but had never held firmly to the Marxist position. Among them were writers like Bogdanov, Bazarov, Lunacharsky (who had sided with the Bolsheviks in 1905), Yushkevich and Valentinov (Mensheviks). They launched their "criticism" simultaneously against the philosophical foundations of Marxist theory, ''i.e''., against dialectical materialism, and against the fundamental Marxist principles of historical science, ''i.e.'', against historical materialism. This criticism differed from the usual criticism in that it was not conducted openly and squarely, but in a veiled and hypocritical form under the guise of "defending" the fundamental positions of Marxism. These people claimed that in the main they were Marxists, but that they wanted to "improve" Marxism—by ridding it of certain of its fundamental principles. In reality, they were hostile to Marxism, for they tried to undermine its theoretical foundations, although they hypocritically denied their hostility to Marxism and two-facedly continued to style themselves Marxists. The danger of this hypocritical criticism lay in the fact that it was calculated to deceive rank-and-file members of the Party and might lead them astray. The more hypocritical grew this criticism, which aimed at undermining the theoretical foundations of Marxism, the more dangerous it was to the Party, for the more it merged with the general campaign of the reactionaries against the Party, against the revolution. Some of the intellectuals who had deserted Marxism went so far as to advocate the founding of a new religion (these were known as "god-seekers" and "god-builders").<br />
<br />
It became urgent for the Marxists to give a fitting retort to these renegades from Marxist theory, to tear the mask from their faces and thoroughly expose them, and thus safeguard the theoretical foundations of the Marxist Party.<br />
<br />
One might have thought that this task would have been undertaken by Plekhanov and his Menshevik friends who regarded themselves as "eminent Marxist theoreticians." But they preferred to fire off one or two insignificant critical notes of the newspaper type and quit the field.<br />
<br />
It was Lenin who accomplished this task in his famous book ''Materialism and Empirio-Criticism,'' published in 1909.<br />
<br />
"In the course of less than half a year," Lenin wrote, "four books devoted mainly and almost entirely to attacks on dialectical materialism have made their appearance. These include first and foremost ''Studies in'' (?—it would have been more proper to say 'against') ''the Philosophy of Marxism'' (St. Petersburg, 1908), a symposium by Bazarov, Bogdanov, Lunacharsky, Berman, Helfond, Yushkevich and Suvorov; Yushkevich's ''Materialism and Critical Realism;'' Ber-man's ''Dialectics in the Light of the Modern Theory of Knowledge'' and Valentinov's ''The Philosophic Constructions of Marxism''...All these people, who, despite the sharp divergence of their political views, are united in their hostility toward dialectical materialism, at the same time claim to be Marxists in philosophy! Engels' dialectics is 'mysticism,' says Berman. Engels' views have become 'antiquated,' remarks Bazarov casually, as though it were a self-evident fact. Materialism thus appears to be refuted by our bold warriors, who proudly allude to the 'modern theory of knowledge,' 'recent philosophy' (or 'recent positivism'), the 'philosophy of modern natural science,' or even the 'philosophy of natural science of the twentieth century.'" (Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. XI, p. 89.)<br />
<br />
Replying to Lunacharsky, who, in justification of his friends—the revisionists in philosophy—said, "perhaps we have gone astray, but we are seeking," Lenin wrote:<br />
<br />
"As for myself, I too am a 'seeker' in philosophy. Namely, the task I have set myself in these comments (i.e., ''Materialism and Empirio-Criticism'' — Ed.) is to find out what was the stumbling block to these people who under the guise of Marxism are offering something incredibly muddled, confused and reactionary." (''Ibid''., p. 90.)<br />
<br />
But as a matter of fact, Lenin's book went far beyond this modest task. Actually, the book is something more than a criticism of Bogdanov, Yushkevich, Bazarov and Valentinov and their teachers in philosophy, Avenarius and Mach, who endeavoured in their writings to offer a refined and polished idealism as opposed to Marxist materialism; it is at the same time a defence of the theoretical foundations of Marxism— dialectical and historical materialism—and a materialist generalization of everything important and essential acquired by science, and especially the natural sciences, in the course of a whole historical period, the period from Engels' death to the appearance of Lenin's ''Materialism and Empirio-Criticism''.<br />
<br />
Having effectively criticized in this book the Russian empirio-criticists and their foreign teachers, Lenin comes to the following conclusions regarding philosophical and theoretical revisionism:<br />
<br />
1) "An ever subtler falsification of Marxism, an ever subtler presentation of anti-materialist doctrines under the guise of Marxism —this is the characteristic feature of modern revisionism in political economy, in questions of tactics and in philosophy generally." (''Ibid''., p. 382.)<br />
<br />
2) "The whole school of Mach and Avenarius is moving towards idealism." (''Ibid''., p. 406.)<br />
<br />
3) "Our Machians have all got stuck in idealism." (Ibid., p. 396.)<br />
<br />
4) "Behind the gnosiological scholasticism of empirio-criticism it is impossible not to see the struggle of parties in philosophy, a struggle which in the last analysis expresses the tendencies and ideology of the antagonistic classes in modern society." (''Ibid''., p. 407.)<br />
<br />
5) "The objective, class role of empirio-criticism reduces itself to nothing but that of servitor of the fideists (the reactionaries who hold faith above science—''ed''.) in their struggle against materialism in general and historical materialism in particular." (''Ibid''., p. 407.)<br />
<br />
6) "Philosophical idealism is...a road to clerical obscurantism." (''Ibid''., p. 84.)<br />
<br />
In order to appreciate the tremendous part played by Lenin's book in the history of our Party and to realize what theoretical treasure Lenin safeguarded from the motley crowd of revisionists and renegades of the period of the Stolypin reaction, we must acquaint ourselves, if only briefly, with the fundamentals of dialectical and historical materialism.<br />
<br />
This is all the more necessary because dialectical and historical materialism constitute the theoretical basis of Communism, the theoretical foundations of the Marxist party, and it is the duty of every active member of our Party to know these principles and hence to study them.<br />
<br />
What, then, is<br />
<br />
1) Dialectical materialism?<br />
<br />
2) Historical materialism?<br />
<br />
=== Dialectical and historical materialism ===<br />
Dialectical materialism is the world outlook of the Marxist-Leninist party. It is called dialectical materialism because its approach to the phenomena of nature, its method of studying and apprehending them, is ''dialectical'', while its interpretation of the phenomena of nature, its conception of these phenomena, its theory, is ''materialistic''.<br />
<br />
Historical materialism is the extension of the principles of dialectical materialism to the study of social life, an application of the principles of dialectical materialism to the phenomena of the life of society, to the study of society and its history.<br />
<br />
When describing their dialectical method, Marx and Engels usually refer to Hegel as the philosopher who formulated the main features of dialectics. This, however, does not mean that the dialectics of Marx and Engels is identical with the dialectics of Hegel. As a matter of fact, Marx and Engels took from the Hegelian dialectics only its "rational kernel," casting aside its idealistic shell, and developed it further so as to lend it a modern scientific form.<br />
<br />
"My dialectic method," says Marx, "is fundamentally not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the process of thinking, which, under the name of 'the Idea,' he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurge (creator) of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of 'the Idea.' With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought." (Karl Marx, ''Capital'', Vol, I, p. xxx, International Publishers, 1939.)<br />
<br />
When describing their materialism, Marx and Engels usually refer to Feuerbach as the philosopher who restored materialism to its rights. This, however, does not mean that the materialism of Marx and Engels is identical with Feuerbach's materialism. As a matter of fact, Marx and Engels took from Feuerbach's materialism its "inner kernel," developed it into a scientific-philosophical theory of materialism and cast aside its idealistic and religious-ethical encumbrances. We know that Feuerbach, although he was fundamentally a materialist, objected to the name materialism. Engels more than once declared that "in spite of the materialist foundation, Feuerbach remained bound by the traditional idealist fetters," and that "the real idealism of Feuerbach becomes evident as soon as we come to his philosophy of religion and ethics." (Karl Marx, ''Selected Works'', Vol. I, pp. 439, 442.)<br />
<br />
Dialectics comes from the Greek ''dialego'', to discourse, to debate. In ancient times dialectics was the art of arriving at the truth by disclosing the contradictions in the argument of an opponent and overcoming these contradictions. There were philosophers in ancient times who believed that the disclosure of contradictions in thought and the clash of opposite opinions was the best method of arriving at the truth. This dialectical method of thought, later extended to the phenomena of nature, developed into the dialectical method of apprehending nature, which regards the phenomena of nature as being in constant movement and undergoing constant change, and the development of nature as the result of the development of the contradictions in nature, as the result of the interaction of opposed forces in nature.<br />
<br />
In its essence, dialectics is the direct opposite of metaphysics.<br />
<br />
1) The principal features of the Marxist ''dialectical method'' are as follows:<br />
<br />
a) Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard nature as an accidental agglomeration of things, of phenomena, unconnected with, isolated from, and independent of, each other, but as a connected and integral whole, in which things, phenomena, are organically connected with, dependent on, and determined by, each other.<br />
<br />
The dialectical method therefore holds that no phenomenon in nature can be understood if taken by itself, isolated from surrounding phenomena, inasmuch as any phenomenon in any realm of nature may become meaningless to us if it is not considered in connection with the surrounding conditions, but divorced from them; and that, vice versa, any phenomenon can be understood and explained if considered in its inseparable connection with surrounding phenomena, as one conditioned by surrounding phenomena.<br />
<br />
b) Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that nature is not a state of rest and immobility, stagnation and immutability, but a state of continuous movement and change, of continuous renewal and development, where something is always arising and developing, and something always disintegrating and dying away.<br />
<br />
The dialectical method therefore requires that phenomena should be considered not only from the standpoint of their interconnection and interdependence, but also from the standpoint of their movement, their change, their development, their coming into being and going out of being.<br />
<br />
The dialectical method regards as important primarily not that which at the given moment seems to be durable and yet is already beginning to die away, but that which is arising and developing, even though at the given moment it may appear to be not durable, for the dialectical method considers invincible only that which is arising and developing.<br />
<br />
"All nature," says Engels, "from the smallest thing to the biggest, from a grain of sand to the sun, from the protista (the primary living cell—''Ed''.) to man, is in a constant state of coming into being and going out of being, in a constant flux, in a ceaseless state of movement and change." (F. Engels, ''Dialectics of Nature''.)<br />
<br />
Therefore, dialectics, Engels says, "takes things and their perceptual images essentially in their inter-connection, in their concatenation, in their movement, in their rise and disappearance." (''Ibid.'')<br />
<br />
c) Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard the process of development as a simple process of growth, where quantitative changes do not lead to qualitative changes, but as a development which passes from insignificant and imperceptible quantitative changes to open, fundamental changes, to qualitative changes; a development in which the qualitative changes occur not gradually, but rapidly and abruptly, taking the form of a leap from one state to another; they occur not accidentally but as the natural result of an accumulation of imperceptible and gradual quantitative changes.<br />
<br />
The dialectical method therefore holds that the process of development should be understood not as movement in a circle, not as a simple repetition of what has already occurred, but as an onward and upward movement, as a transition from an old qualitative state to a new qualitative state, as a development from the simple to the complex, from the lower to the higher:<br />
<br />
"Nature," says Engels, "is the test of dialectics, and it must be said for modern natural science that it has furnished extremely rich and daily increasing materials for this test, and has thus proved that in the last analysis nature's process is dialectical and not metaphysical, that it does not move in an eternally uniform and constantly repeated circle, but passes through a real history. Here prime mention should be made of Darwin, who dealt a severe blow to the metaphysical conception of nature by proving that the organic world of today, plants and animals, and consequently man too, is all a product of a process of development that has been in progress for millions of years." (F. Engels, ''Anti-Duhring''.)<br />
<br />
Describing dialectical development as a transition from quantitative changes to qualitative changes, Engels says:<br />
<br />
"In physics...every change is a passing of quantity into quality, as a result of quantitative change of some form of movement either inherent in a body or imparted to it. For example, the temperature of water has at first no effect on its liquid state; but as the temperature of liquid water rises or falls, a moment arrives when this state of cohesion changes and the water is converted in one case into steam and in the other into ice...A definite minimum current is required to make a platinum wire glow; every metal has its melting temperature; every liquid has a definite freezing point and boiling point at a given pressure, as far as we are able with the means at our disposal to attain the required temperatures; finally, every gas has its critical point at which, by proper pressure and cooling, it can be converted into a liquid state...What are known as the constants of physics (the point at which one state passes into another—''Ed''.) are in most cases nothing but designations for the nodal points at which a quantitative (change) increase or decrease of movement causes a qualitative change in the state of the given body, and at which, consequently, quantity is transformed into quality." (''Dialectics of Nature?'')<br />
<br />
Passing to chemistry, Engels continues:<br />
<br />
"Chemistry may be called the science of the qualitative changes which take place in bodies as the effect of changes of quantitative composition. This was already known to Hegel...Take oxygen: if the molecule contains three atoms instead of the customary two, we get ozone, a body definitely distinct in odour and reaction from ordinary oxygen. And what shall we say of the different proportions in which oxygen combines with nitrogen or sulphur, and each of which produces a body qualitatively different from all other bodies!" (''Ibid''.)<br />
<br />
Finally, criticizing Duhring, who scolded Hegel for all he was worth, but surreptitiously borrowed from him the well-known thesis that the transition from the insentient world to the sentient world, from the kingdom of inorganic matter to the kingdom of organic life, is a leap to a new state, Engels says:<br />
<br />
"This is precisely the Hegelian nodal line of measure relations, in which, at certain definite nodal points, the purely quantitative increase or decrease gives rise to a ''qualitative leap'' for example, in the case of water which is heated or cooled, where boiling-point and freezing-point are the nodes at which—under normal pressure—the leap to a new aggregate state takes place, and where consequently quantity is transformed into quality." (F. Engels, ''Anti-Duhring''.)<br />
<br />
d) Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that internal contradictions are inherent in all things and phenomena of nature, for they all have their negative and positive sides, a past and a future, something dying away and something developing; and that the struggle between these opposites, the struggle between the old and the new, between that which is dying away and that which is being born, between that which is disappearing and that which is developing, constitutes the internal content of the process of development, the internal content of the transformation of quantitative changes into qualitative changes.<br />
<br />
The dialectical method therefore holds that the process of development from the lower to the higher takes place not as a harmonious unfolding of phenomena, but as a disclosure of the contradictions inherent in things and phenomena, as a "struggle" of opposite tendencies which operate on the basis of these contradictions.<br />
<br />
"In its proper meaning," Lenin says, "dialectics is the study of the contradiction ''within the very essence of things.''" (Lenin, ''Philosophical Notebooks'', Russ. ed., p. 263.)<br />
<br />
And further:<br />
<br />
"Development is the 'struggle' of opposites." (Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. XI, pp. 81-2.)<br />
<br />
Such, in brief, are the principal features of the Marxist dialectical method.<br />
<br />
It is easy to understand how immensely important is the extension of the principles of the dialectical method to the study of social life and the history of society, and how immensely important is the application of these principles to the history of society and to the practical activities of the party of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
If there are no isolated phenomena in the world, if all phenomena are interconnected and interdependent, then it is clear that every social system and every social movement in history must be evaluated not from the standpoint of "eternal justice" or some other preconceived idea, as is not infrequently done by historians, but from the standpoint of the conditions which gave rise to that system or that social movement and with which they are connected.<br />
<br />
The slave system would be senseless, stupid and unnatural under modern conditions. But under the conditions of a disintegrating primitive communal system, the slave system is a quite understandable and natural phenomenon, since it represents an advance on the primitive communal system.<br />
<br />
The demand for a bourgeois-democratic republic when tsardom and bourgeois society existed, as, let us say, in Russia in 1905, was a quite understandable, proper and revolutionary demand, for at that time a bourgeois republic would have meant a step forward. But now, under the conditions of the U.S.S.R., the demand for a bourgeois-democratic republic would be a meaningless and counter-revolutionary demand, for a bourgeois republic would be a retrograde step compared with the Soviet republic.<br />
<br />
Everything depends on the conditions, time and place.<br />
<br />
It is clear that without such a ''historical'' approach to social phenomena, the existence and development of the science of history is impossible, for only such an approach saves the science of history from becoming a jumble of accidents and an agglomeration of most absurd mistakes.<br />
<br />
Further, if the world is in a state of constant movement and development, if the dying away of the old and the upgrowth of the new is a law of development, then it is clear that there can be no "immutable" social systems, no "eternal principles" of private property and exploitation, no "eternal ideas" of the subjugation of the peasant to the landlord, of the worker to the capitalist.<br />
<br />
Hence the capitalist system can be replaced by the Socialist system, just as at one time the feudal system was replaced by the capitalist system.<br />
<br />
Hence we must not base our orientation on the strata of society which are no longer developing, even though they at present constitute the predominant force, but on those strata which are developing and have a future before them, even though they at present do not constitute the predominant force.<br />
<br />
In the eighties of the past century, in the period of the struggle between the Marxists and the Narodniks, the proletariat in Russia constituted an insignificant minority of the population, whereas the individual peasants constituted the vast majority of the population. But the proletariat was developing as a class, whereas the peasantry as a class was disintegrating. And just because the proletariat was developing as a class the Marxists based their orientation on the proletariat. And they were not mistaken, for, as we know, the proletariat subsequently grew from an insignificant force into a first-rate historical and political force.<br />
<br />
Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must look forward, not backward.<br />
<br />
Further, if the passing of slow quantitative changes into rapid and abrupt qualitative changes is a law of development, then it is clear that revolutions made by oppressed classes are a quite natural and inevitable phenomenon.<br />
<br />
Hence the transition from capitalism to Socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke of capitalism cannot be effected by slow changes, by reforms, but only by a qualitative change of the capitalist system, by revolution.<br />
<br />
Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must be a revolutionary, not a reformist.<br />
<br />
Further, if development proceeds by way of the disclosure of internal contradictions, by way of collisions between opposite forces on the basis of these contradictions and so as to overcome these contradictions, then it is clear that the class struggle of the proletariat is a quite natural and inevitable phenomenon.<br />
<br />
Hence we must not cover up the contradictions of the capitalist system, but disclose and unravel them; we must not try to check the class struggle but carry it to its conclusion.<br />
<br />
Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must pursue an uncompromising proletarian class policy, not a reformist policy of harmony of the interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, not a compromisers' policy of "the growing of capitalism into Socialism."<br />
<br />
Such is the Marxist dialectical method when applied to social life, to the history of society.<br />
<br />
As to Marxist philosophical materialism, it is fundamentally the direct opposite of philosophical idealism.<br />
<br />
2) The principal features of Marxist philosophical ''materialism'' are as follows:<br />
<br />
a) Contrary to idealism, which regards the world as the embodiment of an "absolute idea," a "universal spirit," "consciousness," Marx's philosophical materialism holds that the world is by its very nature ''material'', that the multifold phenomena of the world constitute different forms of matter in motion, that interconnection and interdependence of phenomena, as established by the dialectical method, are a law of the development of moving matter, and that the world develops in accordance with the laws of movement of matter and stands in no need of a "universal spirit."<br />
<br />
"The materialist world outlook," says Engels, "is simply the conception of nature as it is, without any reservations." (MS of ''Ludwig Feuerbach''.)<br />
<br />
Speaking of the materialist views of the ancient philosopher Heraclitus, who held that "the world, the all in one, was not created by any god or any man, but was, is and ever will be a living flame, systematically flaring up and systematically dying down," Lenin comments: "A very good exposition of the rudiments of dialectical materialism." (Lenin, ''Philosophical Notebooks'', Russ. ed., p. 318.)<br />
<br />
b) Contrary to idealism, which asserts that only our mind really exists, and that the material world, being, nature, exists only in our mind, in our sensations, ideas and perceptions, the Marxist materialist philosophy holds that matter, nature, being, is an objective reality existing outside and independent of our mind; that matter is primary, since it is the source of sensations, ideas, mind, and that mind is secondary, derivative, since it is a reflection of matter, a reflection of being; that thought is a product of matter which in its development has reached a high degree of perfection, namely, of the brain, and the brain is the organ of thought; and that therefore one cannot separate thought from matter without committing a grave error. Engels says:<br />
<br />
"The question of the relation of thinking to being, the relation of spirit to nature is the paramount question of the whole of philosophy...The answers which the philosophers gave to this question split them into two great camps. Those who asserted the primacy of spirit to nature...comprised the camp of ''idealism''. The others, who regarded nature as primary, belong to the various schools of materialism." (Karl Marx, ''Selected Works'', Vol. I, pp. 430-31.)<br />
<br />
And further:<br />
<br />
"The material, sensuously perceptible world to which we ourselves belong is the only reality...Our consciousness and thinking, however supra-sensuous they may seem, are the product of a material, bodily organ, the brain. Matter is not a product of mind, but mind itself is merely the highest product of matter." (''Ibid''., p. 435.) Concerning the question of matter and thought, Marx says:<br />
<br />
"It is impossible to separate thought from matter that thinks. ''Matter is the subject of all changes''." (''Ibid.'', p. 397.)<br />
<br />
Describing the Marxist philosophy of materialism, Lenin says:<br />
<br />
"Materialism in general recognizes objectively real being (matter) as independent of consciousness, sensation, experience...Consciousness is only the reflection of being, at best, an approximately true (adequate, ideally exact) reflection of it." (Lenin, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. XI, p. 378.) And further:<br />
<br />
(a) "Matter is that which, acting upon our sense-organs, produces sensation; matter is the objective reality given to us in sensation...Matter, nature, being, the physical—is primary, and spirit, consciousness, sensation, the psychical—is secondary." (''Ibid.''., pp. 208, 209.)<br />
<br />
(b) "The world picture is a picture of how matter moves and of how ''<nowiki/>'matter thinks.''<nowiki/>'" (''Ibid.''., p. 403.)<br />
<br />
(c) "The brain is the organ of thought." (''Ibid.''., p. i25.)<br />
<br />
c) Contrary to idealism, which denies the possibility of knowing the world and its laws, which does not believe in the authenticity of our knowledge, does not recognize objective truth, and holds that the world is full of "things-in-themselves" that can never be known to science, Marxist philosophical materialism holds that the world and its laws are fully knowable, that our knowledge of the laws of nature, tested by experiment and practice, is authentic knowledge having the validity of objective truth, and that there are no things in the world which are unknowable, but only things which are still not known, but which will be disclosed and made known by the efforts of science and practice.<br />
<br />
Criticizing the thesis of Kant and other idealists that the world is unknowable and that there are "things-in-themselves" which are unknowable, and defending the well-known materialist thesis that our knowledge is authentic knowledge, Engels writes:<br />
<br />
"The most telling refutation of this as of all other philosophical fancies is practice, viz., experiment and industry. If we are able to prove the correctness of our conception of a natural process by making it ourselves, bringing it into being out of its conditions and using it for our own purposes into the bargain, then there is an end of the Kantian 'thing-in-itself.' The chemical substances produced in the bodies of plants and animals remained such 'things-in-themselves' until organic chemistry began to produce them one after another, whereupon the 'thing-in-itself' became a thing for us, as for instance, alizarin, the colouring matter of the madder, which we no longer trouble to grow in the madder roots in the field, but produce much more cheaply and simply from coal tar. For three hundred years the Copernican solar system was a hypothesis, with a hundred, a thousand or ten thousand chances to one in its favour, but still always a hypothesis. But when Leverrier, by means of the data provided by this system, not only deduced the necessity of the existence of an unknown planet, but also calculated the position in the heavens which this planet must necessarily occupy, and when Galle really found this planet, the Copernican system was proved." (Karl Marx, ''Selected Works'', Vol. I, pp. 432-33.)<br />
<br />
Accusing Bogdanov, Bazarov, Yushkevich and the other followers of Mach of fideism, and defending the well-known materialist thesis that our scientific knowledge of the laws of nature is authentic knowledge, and that the laws of science represent objective truth, Lenin says:<br />
<br />
"Contemporary fideism does not at all reject science; all it rejects is the 'exaggerated claims' of science, to wit, its claim to objective truth. If objective truth exists (as the materialists think), if natural science, reflecting the outer world in human 'experience,' is alone capable of giving us objective truth, then all fideism is absolutely refuted." (Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. XI, p. 189.)<br />
<br />
Such, in brief, are the characteristic features of the Marxist philosophical materialism.<br />
<br />
It is easy to understand how immensely important is the extension of the principles of philosophical materialism to the study of social life, of the history of society, and how immensely important is the application of these principles to the history of society and to the practical activities of the party of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
If the connection between the phenomena of nature and their interdependence are laws of the development of nature, it follows, too, that the connection and interdependence of the phenomena of social life are laws of the development of society, and not something accidental.<br />
<br />
Hence social life, the history of society, ceases to be an agglomeration of "accidents," and becomes the history of the development of society according to regular laws, and the study of the history of society becomes a science.<br />
<br />
Hence the practical activity of the party of the proletariat must not be based on the good wishes of "outstanding individuals," not on the dictates of "reason," "universal morals," etc., but on the laws of development of society and on the study of these laws.<br />
<br />
Further, if the world is knowable and our knowledge of the laws of development of nature is authentic knowledge, having the validity of objective truth, it follows that social life, the development of society, is also knowable, and that the data of science regarding the laws of development of society are authentic data having the validity of objective truths.<br />
<br />
Hence the science of the history of society, despite all the complexity of the phenomena of social life, can become as precise a science as, let us say, biology, and capable of making use of the laws of development of society for practical purposes.<br />
<br />
Hence the party of the proletariat should not guide itself in its practical activity by casual motives, but by the laws of development of society, and by practical deductions from these laws.<br />
<br />
Hence Socialism is converted from a dream of a better future for humanity into a science.<br />
<br />
Hence the bond between science and practical activity, between theory and practice, their unity, should be the guiding star of the party of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
Further, if nature, being, the material world, is primary, and mind, thought, is secondary, derivative; if the material world represents objective reality existing independently of the mind of men, while the mind is a reflection of this objective reality, it follows that the material life of society, its being, is also primary, and its spiritual life secondary, derivative, and that the material life of society is an objective reality existing independently of the will of men, while the spiritual life of society is a reflection of this objective reality, a reflection of being.<br />
<br />
Hence the source of formation of the spiritual life of society, the origin of social ideas, social theories, political views and political institutions, should not be sought for in the ideas, theories, views and political institutions themselves, but in the conditions of the material life of society, in social being, of which these ideas, theories, views, etc., are the reflection.<br />
<br />
Hence, if in different periods of the history of society different social ideas, theories, views and political institutions are to be observed; if under the slave system we encounter certain social ideas, theories, views and political institutions, under feudalism others, and under capitalism others still, this is not to be explained by the "nature," the "properties" of the ideas, theories, views and political institutions themselves but by the different conditions of the material life of society at different periods of social development.<br />
<br />
Whatever is the being of a society, whatever are the conditions of material life of a society, such are the ideas, theories, political views and political institutions of that society.<br />
<br />
In this connection, Marx says: "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." (Karl Marx, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. I, p. 356.)<br />
<br />
Hence, in order not to err in policy, in order not to find itself in the position of idle dreamers, the party of the proletariat must not base its activities on abstract "principles of human reason," but on the concrete conditions of the material life of society, as the determining force of social development; not on the good wishes of "great men," but on the real needs of development of the material life of society.<br />
<br />
The fall of the utopians, including the Narodniks, Anarchists and Socialist-Revolutionaries, was due, among other things, to the fact that they did not recognize the primary role which the conditions of the material life of society play in the development of society, and, sinking to idealism, did not base their practical activities on the needs of the development of the material life of society, but, independently of and in spite of these needs, on "ideal plans" and "all-embracing projects" divorced from the real life of society.<br />
<br />
The strength and vitality of Marxism-Leninism lie in the fact that it does base its practical activity on the needs of the development of the material life of society and never divorces itself from the real life of society.<br />
<br />
It does not follow from Marx's words, however, that social ideas, theories, political views and political institutions are of no significance in the life of society, that they do not reciprocally affect social being, the development of the material conditions of the life of society. We have been speaking so far of the ''origin'' of social ideas, theories, views and political institutions, of ''the way they arise'', of the fact that the spiritual life of society is a reflection of the conditions of its material life. As regards the ''significance'' of social ideas, theories, views and political institutions, as regards their ''role'' in history, historical materialism, far from denying them, stresses the role and importance of these factors in the life of society, in its history.<br />
<br />
There are different kinds of social ideas and theories. There are old ideas and theories which have outlived their day and which serve the interests of the moribund forces of society. Their significance lies in the fact that they hamper the development, the progress of society. Then there are new and advanced ideas and theories which serve the interests of the advanced forces of society. Their significance lies in the fact that they facilitate the development, the progress of society; and their significance is the greater the more accurately they reflect the needs of development of the material life of society.<br />
<br />
New social ideas and theories arise only after the development of the material life of society has set new tasks before society. But once they have arisen they become a most potent force which facilitates the carrying out of the new tasks set by the development of the material life of society, a force which facilitates the progress of society. It is precisely here that the tremendous organizing, mobilizing and transforming value of new ideas, new theories, new political views and new political institutions manifests itself. New social ideas and theories arise precisely because they are necessary to society, because it is ''impossible'' to carry out the urgent tasks of development of the material life of society without their organizing, mobilizing and transforming action. Arising out of the new tasks set by the development of the material life of society, the new social ideas and theories force their way through, become the possession of the masses, mobilize and organize them against the moribund forces of society, and thus facilitate the overthrow of these forces which hamper the development of the material life of society.<br />
<br />
Thus social ideas, theories and political institutions, having arisen on the basis of the urgent tasks of the development of the material life of society, the development of social being, themselves then react upon social being, upon the material life of society, creating the conditions necessary for completely carrying out the urgent tasks of the material life of society, and for rendering its further development possible.<br />
<br />
In this connection, Marx says:<br />
<br />
"Theory becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses." (''Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie''.)<br />
<br />
Hence, in order to be able to influence the conditions of material life of society and to accelerate their development and their improvement, the party of the proletariat must rely upon such a social theory, such a social idea as correctly reflects the needs of development of the material life of society, and which is therefore capable of setting into motion broad masses of the people and of mobilizing them and organizing them into a great army of the proletarian party, prepared to smash the reactionary forces and to clear the way for the advanced forces of society.<br />
<br />
The fall of the "Economists" and Mensheviks was due among other things to the fact that they did not recognize the mobilizing, organizing and transforming role of advanced theory, of advanced ideas and, sinking to vulgar materialism, reduced the role of these factors almost to nothing, thus condemning the Party to passivity and inanition.<br />
<br />
The strength and vitality of Marxism-Leninism are derived from the fact that it relies upon an advanced theory which correctly reflects the needs of development of the material life of society, that it elevates theory to a proper level, and that it deems it its duty to utilize every ounce of the mobilizing, organizing and transforming power of this theory.<br />
<br />
That is the answer historical materialism gives to the question of the relation between social being and social consciousness, between the conditions of development of material life and the development of the spiritual life of society.<br />
<br />
It now remains to elucidate the following question: what, from the viewpoint of historical materialism, is meant by the "conditions of material life of society" which in the final analysis determine the physiognomy of society, its ideas, views, political institutions, etc.?<br />
<br />
What, after all, are these "conditions of material life of society," what are their distinguishing features?<br />
<br />
There can be no doubt that the concept "conditions of material life of society" includes, first of all, nature which surrounds society, geographical environment, which is one of the indispensable and constant conditions of material life of society and which, of course, influences the development of society. What role does geographical environment play in the development of society? Is geographical environment the chief force determining the physiognomy of society, the character of the social system of men, the transition from one system to another?<br />
<br />
Historical materialism answers this question in the negative.<br />
<br />
Geographical environment is unquestionably one of the constant and indispensable conditions of development of society and, of course, influences the development of society, accelerates or retards its development. But its influence is not the ''determining'' influence, inasmuch as the changes and development of society proceed at an incomparably faster rate than the changes and development of geographical environment. In the space of three thousand years three different social systems have been successively superseded in Europe: the primitive communal system, the slave system and the feudal system. In the eastern part of Europe, in the U.S.S.R., even four social systems have been superseded. Yet during this period geographical conditions in Europe have either not changed at all, or have changed so slightly that geography takes no note of them. And that is quite natural. Changes in geographical environment of any importance require millions of years, whereas a few hundred or a couple of thousand years are enough for even very important changes in the system of human society.<br />
<br />
It follows from this that geographical environment cannot be the chief cause, the ''determining'' cause of social development, for that which remains almost unchanged in the course of tens of thousands of years cannot be the chief cause of development of that which undergoes fundamental changes in the course of a few hundred years.<br />
<br />
Further, there can be no doubt that the concept "conditions of material life of society" also includes growth of population, density of population of one degree or another, for people are an essential element of the conditions of material life of society, and without a definite minimum number of people there can be no material life of society. Is not growth of population the chief force that determines the character of the social system of man?<br />
<br />
Historical materialism answers this question too in the negative.<br />
<br />
Of course, growth of population does influence the development of society, does facilitate or retard the development of society, but it cannot be the chief force of development of society, and its influence on the development of society cannot be the ''determining'' influence because, by itself, growth of population does not furnish the clue to the question why a given social system is replaced precisely by such and such a new system and not by another, why the primitive communal system is succeeded precisely by the slave system, the slave system by the feudal system, and the feudal system by the bourgeois system, and not by some other.<br />
<br />
If growth of population were the determining force of social development, then a higher density of population would be bound to give rise to a correspondingly higher type of social system. But we do not find this to be the case. The density of population in China is four times as great as in the U.S.A., yet the U.S.A. stands higher than China in the scale of social development, for in China a semi-feudal system still prevails, whereas the U.S.A. has long ago reached the highest stage of development of capitalism. The density of population in Belgium is nineteen times as great as in the U.S.A., and twenty-six times as great as in the U.S.S.R. Yet the U.S.A. stands higher than Belgium in the scale of social development; and as for the U.S.S.R., Belgium lags a whole historical epoch behind this country, for in Belgium the capitalist system prevails, whereas the U.S.S.R. has already done away with capitalism and has set up a Socialist system.<br />
<br />
It follows from this that growth of population is not, and cannot be, the chief force of development of society, the force which ''determines'' the character of the social system, the physiognomy of society.<br />
<br />
What, then, is the chief force in the complex of conditions of material life of society which determines the physiognomy of society, the character of the social system, the development of society from one system to another?<br />
<br />
This force, historical materialism holds, is the ''method of procuring the means of life'' necessary for human existence, the ''mode of production of material values''—food, clothing, footwear, houses, fuel, instruments of production, etc.—which are indispensable for the life of development of society.<br />
<br />
In order to live, people must have food, clothing, footwear, shelter, fuel, etc.; in order to have these material values, people must produce them; and in order to produce them, people must have the instruments of production with which food, clothing, footwear, shelter, fuel, etc., are produced; they must be able to produce these instruments and to use them.<br />
<br />
The ''instruments of production'' wherewith material values are produced, the ''people'' who operate the instruments of production and carry on the production of material values thanks to a certain ''production experience'' and ''labour skill''—all these elements jointly constitute the ''productive forces'' of society.<br />
<br />
But the productive forces are only one aspect of production, only one aspect of the mode of production, an aspect that expresses the relation of men to the objects and forces of nature which they make use of for the production of material values. Another aspect of production, another aspect of the mode of production, is the relation of men to each other in the process of production, men's ''relations of production''. Men carry on a struggle against nature and utilize nature for the production of material values not in isolation from each other, not as separate individuals, but in common, in groups, in societies. Production, therefore, is at all times and under all conditions social production. In the production of material values men enter into mutual relations of one kind or another within production, into relations of production of one kind or another. These may be relations of co-operation and mutual help between people who are free from exploitation; they may be relations of domination and subordination; and, lastly, they may be transitional from one form of relations of production to another. But whatever the character of the relations of production may be, always and in every system, they constitute just as essential an element of production as the productive forces of society.<br />
<br />
"In production," Marx says, "men not only act on nature but also on one another. They produce only by co-operating in a certain way and mutually exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations with one another and only within these social connections and relations does their action on nature, does production, take place." (Karl Marx, ''Selected Works'', Vol." I,~ p.~ 264.)<br />
<br />
Consequently, production, the mode of production, embraces both the productive forces of society and men's relations of production, and is thus the embodiment of their unity in the process of production of material values.<br />
<br />
One of the features ''of'' production is that it never stays at one point for a long time and is always in a state of change and development, and that, furthermore, changes in the mode of production inevitably call forth changes in the whole social system, social ideas, political views and political institutions—they call forth a reconstruction of the whole social and political order. At different stages of development people make use of different modes of production, or, to put it more crudely, lead different manners of life. In the primitive commune there is one mode of production, under slavery there is another mode of production, under feudalism a third mode of production, and so on. And, correspondingly, men's social system, the spiritual life of men, their views and political institutions also vary.<br />
<br />
Whatever is the mode of production of a society, such in the main is the society itself, its ideas and theories, its political views and institutions.<br />
<br />
Or, to put it more crudely, whatever is man's manner of life, such is his manner of thought.<br />
<br />
This means that the history of development of society is above all the history of the development of production, the history of the modes of production which succeed each other in the course of centuries, the history of the development of productive forces and people's relations of production.<br />
<br />
Hence the history of social development is at the same time the history of the producers of material values themselves, the history of the labouring masses who are the chief force in the process of production and who carry on the production of material values necessary for the existence of society.<br />
<br />
Hence, if historical science is to be a real science, it can no longer reduce the history of social development to the actions of kings and generals, to the actions of "conquerors" and "subjugators" of states, but must above all devote itself to the history of the producers of material values, the history of the labouring masses, the history of peoples.<br />
<br />
Hence the clue to the study of the laws of history of society must not be sought in men's minds, in the views and ideas of society, but in the mode of production practised by society in any given historical period; it must be sought in the economic life of society.<br />
<br />
Hence the prime task of historical science is to study and disclose the laws of production, the laws of development of the productive forces and of the relations of production, the laws of economic development of society.<br />
<br />
Hence, if the party of the proletariat is to be a real party, it must above all acquire a knowledge of the laws of development of production, of the laws of economic development of society.<br />
<br />
Hence, if it is not to err in policy, the party of the proletariat must both in drafting its program and in its practical activities proceed primarily from the laws of development of production, from the laws of economic development of society.<br />
<br />
''A second feature'' of production is that its changes and development always begin with changes and development of the productive forces, and, in the first place, with changes and development of the instruments of production. Productive forces are therefore the most mobile and revolutionary element of production. First the productive forces of society change and develop, and then, ''depending'' on these changes and ''in conformity with them'', men's relations of production, their economic relations, change. This, however, does not mean that the relations of production do not influence the development of the productive forces and that the latter are not dependent on the former. While their development is dependent on the development of the productive forces, the relations of production in their turn react upon the development of the productive forces, accelerating or retarding it. In this connection it should be noted that the relations of production cannot for too long a time lag behind and be in a state of contradiction to the growth of the productive forces, inasmuch as the productive forces can develop in full measure only when the relations of production correspond to the character, the state of the productive forces and allow full scope for their development. Therefore, however much the relations of production may lag behind the development of the productive forces, they must, sooner or later, come into correspondence with—and actually do come into correspondence with—the level of development of the productive forces, the character of the productive forces. Otherwise we would have a fundamental violation of the unity of the productive forces and the relations of production within the system of production, a disruption of production as a whole, a crisis of production, a destruction of productive forces.<br />
<br />
An instance in which the relations of production do not correspond to the character of the productive forces, conflict with them, is the economic crises in capitalist countries, where private capitalist ownership of the means of production is in glaring incongruity with the social character of the process of production, with the character of the productive forces. This results in economic crises, which lead to the destruction of productive forces. Furthermore, this incongruity itself constitutes the economic basis of social revolution, the purpose of which is to destroy the existing relations of production and to create new relations of production corresponding to the character of the productive forces.<br />
<br />
In contrast, an instance in which the relations of production completely correspond to the character of the productive forces is the Socialist national economy of the U.S.S.R., where the social ownership of the means of production fully corresponds to the social character of the process of production, and where, because of this, economic crises and the destruction of productive forces are unknown.<br />
<br />
Consequently, the productive forces are not only the most mobile and revolutionary element in production, but are also the determining element in the development of production.<br />
<br />
Whatever are the productive forces such must be the relations of production<br />
<br />
While the state of the productive forces furnishes an answer to the question—with what instruments of production do men produce the material values they need?—the state of the relations of production furnishes the answer to another question—who owns the ''means of production'' (the land, forests, waters, mineral resources, raw materials, instruments of production, production premises, means of transportation and communication, etc.), who commands the means of production, whether the whole of society, or individual persons, groups, or classes which utilize them for the exploitation of other persons, groups or classes?<br />
<br />
Here is a rough picture of the development of productive forces from ancient times to our day. The transition from crude stone tools to the bow and arrow, and the accompanying transition from the life of hunters to the domestication of animals and primitive pasturage; the transition from stone tools to metal tools (the iron axe, the wooden plough fitted with an iron colter, etc.), with a corresponding transition to tillage and agriculture; a further improvement in metal tools for the working up of materials, the introduction of the blacksmith's bellows, the introduction of pottery, with a corresponding development of handicrafts, the separation of handicrafts from agriculture, the development of an independent handicraft industry and, subsequently, of manufacture; the transition from handicraft tools to machines and the transformation of handicraft and manufacture into machine industry; the transition to the machine system and the rise of modern large-scale machine industry—such is a general and far from complete picture of the development of the productive forces of society in the course of man's history. It will be clear that the development and improvement of the instruments of production were effected by men who were related to production, and not independently of men; and, consequently, the change and development of the instruments of production were accompanied by a change and development of men, as the most important element of the productive forces, by a change and development of their production experience, their labour skill, their ability to handle the instruments of production.<br />
<br />
In conformity with the change and development of the productive forces of society in the course of history, men's relations of production, their economic relations also changed and developed.<br />
<br />
Five ''main'' types of relations of production are known to history: primitive communal, slave, feudal, capitalist and Socialist.<br />
<br />
The basis of the relations of production under the primitive communal system is that the means of production are socially owned. This in the main corresponds to the character of the productive forces of that period. Stone tools, and, later, the bow and arrow, precluded the possibility of men individually combating the forces of nature and beasts of prey. In order to gather the fruits of the forest, to catch fish, to build some sort of habitation, men were obliged to work in common if they did not want to die of starvation, or fall victim to beasts of prey or to neighbouring societies. Labour in common led to the common ownership of the means of production, as well as of the fruits of production. Here the conception of private ownership of the means of production did not yet exist, except for the personal ownership of certain implements of production which were at the same time means of defence against beasts of prey. Here there was no exploitation, no classes.<br />
<br />
The basis of the relations of production under the slave system is that the slave owner owns the means of production; he also owns the worker in production—the slave, whom he can sell, purchase, or kill as though he were an animal. Such relations of production in the main correspond to the state of the productive forces of that period. Instead of stone tools, men now have metal tools at their command; instead of the wretched and primitive husbandry of the hunter, who knew neither pasturage, nor tillage, there now appear pasturage, tillage, handicrafts, and a division of labour between these branches of production. There appears the possibility of the exchange of products between individuals and between societies, of the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, the actual accumulation of the means of production in the hands of a minority, and the possibility of subjugation of the majority by a minority and their conversion into slaves. Here we no longer find the common and free labour of all members of society in the production process—here there prevails the forced labour of slaves, who are exploited by the non-labouring slave owners. Here, therefore, there is no common ownership of the means of production or of the fruits of production. It is replaced by private ownership. Here the slave owner appears as the prime and principal property owner in the full sense of the term.<br />
<br />
Rich and poor, exploiters and exploited, people with full rights and people with no rights, and a fierce class struggle between them—such is the picture of the slave system.<br />
<br />
The basis of the relations of production under the feudal system is that the feudal lord owns the means of production and does not fully own the worker in production—the serf, whom the feudal lord can no longer kill, but whom he can buy and sell. Alongside of feudal ownership there exists individual ownership by the peasant and the handicraftsman of his implements of production and his private enterprise based on his personal labour. Such relations of production in the main correspond to the state of the productive forces of that period. Further improvements in the smelting and working of iron; the spread of the iron plough and the loom; the further development of agriculture, horticulture, viniculture and dairying; the appearance of manufactories alongside of the handicraft workshops—such are the characteristic features of the state of the productive forces.<br />
<br />
The new productive forces demand that the labourer shall display some kind of initiative in production and an inclination for work, an interest in work. The feudal lord therefore discards the slave, as a labourer who has no interest in work and is entirely without initiative, and prefers to deal with the serf, who has his own husbandry, implements of production, and a certain interest in work essential for the cultivation of the land and for the payment in kind of a part of his harvest to the feudal lord.<br />
<br />
Here private ownership is further developed. Exploitation is nearly as severe as it was under slavery—it is only slightly mitigated. A class struggle between exploiters and exploited is the principal feature of the feudal system.<br />
<br />
The basis of the relations of production under the capitalist system is that the capitalist owns the means of production, but not the workers in production—the wage labourers, whom the capitalist can neither kill nor sell because they are personally free, but who are deprived of means of production and, in order not to die of hunger, are obliged to sell their labour power to the capitalist and to bear the yoke of exploitation. Alongside of capitalist property in the means of production, we find, at first on a wide scale, private property of the peasants and handicraftsmen in the means of production, these peasants and handicraftsmen no longer being serfs, and their private property being based on personal labour. In place of the handicraft workshops and manufactories there appear huge mills and factories equipped with machinery. In place of the manorial estates tilled by the primitive implements of production of the peasant, there now appear large capitalist farms run on scientific lines and supplied with agricultural machinery.<br />
<br />
The new productive forces require that the workers in production shall be better educated and more intelligent than the downtrodden and ignorant serfs, that they be able to understand machinery and operate it properly. Therefore, the capitalists prefer to deal with wage workers who are free from the bonds of serfdom and who are educated enough to be able properly to operate machinery.<br />
<br />
But having developed productive forces to a tremendous extent, capitalism has become enmeshed in contradictions which it is unable to solve. By producing larger and larger quantities of commodities, and reducing their prices, capitalism intensifies competition, ruins the mass of small and medium private owners, converts them into proletarians and reduces their purchasing power, with the result that it becomes impossible to dispose of the commodities produced. On the other hand, by expanding production and concentrating millions of workers in huge mills and factories, capitalism lends the process of production a social character and thus undermines its own foundation, inasmuch as the social character of the process of production demands the social ownership of the means of production; yet the means of production remain private capitalist property, which is incompatible with the social character of the process of production.<br />
<br />
These irreconcilable contradictions between the character of the productive forces and the relations of production make themselves felt in periodical crises of overproduction, when the capitalists, finding no effective demand for their goods owing to the ruin of the mass of the population which they themselves have brought about, are compelled to burn products, destroy manufactured goods, suspend production, and destroy productive forces at a time when millions of people are forced to suffer unemployment and starvation, not because there are not enough goods, but because there is an overproduction of goods.<br />
<br />
This means that the capitalist relations of production have ceased to correspond to the state of productive forces of society and have come into irreconcilable contradiction with them.<br />
<br />
This means that capitalism is pregnant with revolution, whose mission it is to replace the existing capitalist ownership of the means of production by Socialist ownership.<br />
<br />
This means that the main feature of the capitalist system is a most acute class struggle between the exploiters and the exploited.<br />
<br />
The basis of the relations of production under the Socialist system, which so far has been established only in the U.S.S.R., is the social ownership of the means of production. Here there are no longer exploiters and exploited. The goods produced are distributed according to labour performed, on the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." Here the mutual relations of people in the process of production are marked by comradely co-operation and the Socialist mutual assistance of workers who are free from exploitation. Here the relations of production fully correspond to the state of productive forces, for the social character of the process of production is reinforced by the social ownership of the means of production.<br />
<br />
For this reason Socialist production in the U.S.S.R. knows no periodical crises of overproduction and their accompanying absurdities.<br />
<br />
For this reason, the productive forces here develop at an accelerated pace, for the relations of production that correspond to them offer full scope for such development.<br />
<br />
Such is the picture of the development of men's relations of production in the course of human history.<br />
<br />
Such is the dependence of the development of the relations of production on the development of the production forces of society, and primarily, on the development of the instruments of production, the dependence by virtue of which the changes and development of the productive forces sooner or later lead to corresponding changes and development of the relations of production.<br />
<br />
"The use and fabrication of instruments of labour," <sup>1</sup> says Marx, "although existing in the germ among certain species of animals, is specifically characteristic of the human labour-process, and Franklin therefore defines man as a tool-making animal. Relics of bygone instruments of labour possess the same importance for the investigation of extinct economic forms of society, as do fossil bones for the determination of extinct species of animals. It is not the articles made, but how they are made, and by what instruments that enables us to distinguish different economic epochs...Instruments of labour not only supply a standard of the degree of development to which human labour has attained but they are also indicators of the social conditions under which that labour is carried on." (Karl Marx, ''Capital'', Vol. I, p, 159.)<br />
<br />
And further:<br />
<br />
a) "Social relations are closely bound up with productive forces. In acquiring new productive forces men change their mode of production; and in changing their mode of production, in changing the way of earning their living, they change all their social conditions. The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist." (Karl Marx, ''The Poverty of Philosophy'', p. 92.)<br />
<br />
b) "There is a continual movement of growth in productive forces, of destruction in social relations, of formation in ideas; the only immutable thing is the abstraction of movement." (''Ibid''., p. 93.)<br />
<br />
Speaking of historical materialism as formulated in ''The Communist Manifesto,'' Engels says :<br />
<br />
"Economic production and the structure of society of every historical epoch necessarily arising therefrom constitute the foundation for the political and intellectual history of that epoch;...consequently ever since the dissolution of the primeval communal ownership of land all history has been a history of class struggles, of struggles between exploited and exploiting, between dominated and dominating classes at various stages of social evolution;...this struggle, however, has now reached a stage where the exploited and oppressed class (the proletariat) can no longer emancipate itself from the class which exploits and oppresses it (the bourgeoisie), without at the same time forever freeing the whole of society from exploitation, oppression and class struggles." (Preface to the German edition of ''The Communist Manifesto''—Karl Marx, ''Selected Works'', Vol. I, pp. 192-93.)<br />
<br />
A third feature of production is that the rise of new productive forces and of the relations of production corresponding to them does not take place separately from the old system, after the disappearance of the old system, but within the old system; it takes place not as a result of the deliberate and conscious activity of man, but spontaneously, unconsciously, independently of the will of man. It takes place spontaneously and independently of the will of man for two reasons.<br />
<br />
First, because men are not free to choose one mode of production or another, because as every new generation enters life it finds productive forces and relations of production already existing as the result of the work of former generations, owing to which it is obliged at first to accept and adapt itself to everything it finds ready made in the sphere of production in order to be able to produce material values.<br />
<br />
Secondly, because, when improving one instrument of production or another, one element of the productive forces or another, men do not realize, do not understand or stop to reflect what ''social'' results these improvements will lead to, but only think of their everyday interests, of lightening their labour and of securing some direct and tangible advantage for themselves.<br />
<br />
When, gradually and gropingly, certain members of primitive communal society passed from the use of stone tools to the use of iron tools, they, of course, did not know and did not stop to reflect what ''social'' results this innovation would lead to; they did not understand or realize that the change to metal tools meant a revolution in production, that it would in the long run lead to the slave system. They simply wanted to lighten their labour and secure an immediate and tangible advantage; their conscious activity was confined within the narrow bounds of this everyday personal interest.<br />
<br />
When, in the period of the feudal system, the young bourgeoisie of Europe began to erect, alongside of the small guild workshops, large manufactories, and thus advanced the productive forces of society, it, of course, did not know and did not stop to reflect what ''social'' consequences this innovation would lead to; it did not realize or understand that this "small" innovation would lead to a regrouping of social forces which was to end in a revolution both against the power of kings, whose favours it so highly valued, and against the nobility, to whose ranks its foremost representatives not infrequently aspired. It simply wanted to lower the cost of producing goods, to throw large quantities of goods on the markets of Asia and of recently discovered America, and to make bigger profits. Its conscious activity was confined within the narrow bounds of this commonplace practical aim.<br />
<br />
When the Russian capitalists, in conjunction with foreign capitalists, energetically implanted modern large-scale machine industry in Russia, while leaving tsardom intact and turning the peasants over to the tender mercies of the landlords, they, of course, did not know and did not stop to reflect what social consequences this extensive growth of productive forces would lead to, they did not realize or understand that this big leap in the realm of the productive forces of society would lead to a regrouping of social forces that would enable the proletariat to effect a union with the peasantry and to bring about a victorious Socialist revolution. They simply wanted to expand industrial production to the limit, to gain control of the huge home market, to become monopolists, and to squeeze as much profit as possible out of the national economy. Their conscious activity did not extend beyond their commonplace, strictly practical interests. Accordingly, Marx says:<br />
<br />
"In the social production which men carry on (that is, in the production of the material values necessary to the life of men—''Ed''.) they enter into definite relations that are indispensable and ''independent'' <sup>2</sup> of their will; these relations of production correspond to a definite stage of development of their material forces of production." (Karl Marx, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. I, p. 356.)<br />
<br />
This, however, does not mean that changes in the relations of production, and the transition from old relations of production to new relations of production proceed smoothly, without conflicts, without upheavals. On the contrary, such a transition usually takes place by means of the revolutionary overthrow of the old relations of production and the establishment of new relations of production. Up to a certain period the development of the productive forces and the changes in the realm of the relations of production proceed spontaneously, independently of the will of men. But that is so only up to a certain moment, until the new and developing productive forces have reached a proper state of maturity. After the new productive forces have matured, the existing relations of production and their upholders—the ruling classes—become that "insuperable" obstacle which can only be removed by the conscious action of the new classes, by the forcible acts of these classes, by revolution. Here there stands out in bold relief the ''tremendous role'' of new social ideas, of new political institutions, of a new political power, whose mission it is to abolish by force the old relations of production. Out of the conflict between the new productive forces and the old relations of production, out of the new economic demands of society there arise new social ideas; the new ideas organize and mobilize the masses; the masses become welded into a new political army, create a new revolutionary power, and make use of it to abolish by force the old system of relations of production, and firmly to establish the new system. The spontaneous process of development yields place to the conscious actions of men, peaceful development to violent upheaval, evolution to revolution.<br />
<br />
"The proletariat," says Marx, "during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class...by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production." (''The Communist Manifesto''—Karl Marx, ''Selected Works'', Vol. I, p. 228.)<br />
<br />
And further:<br />
<br />
a) "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, ''i.e.'', of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible." (''Ibid''., p. 227.)<br />
<br />
b) "Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one." (Karl Marx, ''Capital'', Vol. I, p. 776.)<br />
<br />
Here is the brilliant formulation of the essence of historical materialism given by Marx in 1859 in his historic Preface to his famous book, ''Critique of Political Economy'':<br />
<br />
"In the social production which men carry on they enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will; these relations of production correspond to a definite stage of development of their material forces of production. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society— the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production in material life determines the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of their development, the material forces of production in society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or—what is but a legal expression for the same thing—with the property relations within which they have been at work before. From forms of development of the forces of production these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, esthetic or philosophic—in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social forces of production and the relations of production. No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have been developed; and new higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore, mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, we will always find that the task itself arises only when the material conditions necessary for its solution already exists or are at least in the process of formation." (Karl Marx, ''Selected Works'', Vol. I, pp. 356-57.)<br />
<br />
Such is Marxist materialism as applied to social life, to the history of society.<br />
<br />
Such are the principal features of dialectical and historical materialism.<br />
<br />
It will be seen from this what a theoretical treasure was safeguarded by Lenin for the Party and protected from the attacks of the revisionists and renegades, and how important was the appearance of Lenin's book, ''Materialism and Empirio-Criticism'', for the development of our Party.<br />
<br />
=== Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in the period of the Stolypin reaction. Struggle of the Bolsheviks against the liquidators and Otzovists ===<br />
During the years of reaction, the work in the Party organizations was far more difficult than during the preceding period of development of the revolution. The Party membership had sharply declined. Many of the petty-bourgeois fellow-travelers of the Party, especially the intellectuals, deserted its ranks from fear of persecution by the tsarist government.<br />
<br />
Lenin pointed out that at such moments revolutionary parties should perfect their knowledge. During the period of rise of the revolution they learned how to advance; during the period of reaction they should learn how to retreat properly, how to go underground, how to preserve and strengthen the illegal party, how to make use of legal opportunities, of all legally existing, especially mass, organizations in order to strengthen their connections with the masses.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks retreated in panic, not believing that a new rise in the tide of revolution was possible; they disgracefully renounced the revolutionary demands of the program and the revolutionary slogans of the Party; they wanted to liquidate, to abolish, the revolutionary illegal party of the proletariat. For this reason, Mensheviks of this type came to be known as ''Liquidators''.<br />
<br />
Unlike the Mensheviks, the Bolsheviks were certain that within the next few years there would be a rise in the tide of revolution, and held that it was the duty of the Party to prepare the masses for this new rise. The fundamental problems of the revolution had not been solved. The peasants had not obtained the landlords' land, the workers had not obtained the 8-hour day, the tsarist autocracy, so detested by the people, had not been overthrown, and it had again suppressed the meagre political liberties which the people had wrung from it in 1905. Thus the causes which had given rise to the Revolution of 1905 still remained in force. That is why the Bolsheviks were certain that there would be a new rise of the revolutionary movement, prepared for it and mustered the forces of the working class.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks derived their certainty that a new rise in the tide of the revolution was inevitable also from the fact that the Revolution of 1905 had taught the working class to fight for its rights in mass revolutionary struggle. During the period of reaction, when the capitalists took the offensive, the workers could not forget these lessons of 1905. Lenin quoted letters from workers in which they told how factory owners were again oppressing and humiliating them, and in which they said: "''Wait, another 1905 will come!''"<br />
<br />
The fundamental political aim of the Bolsheviks remained what it had been in 1905, namely, to overthrow tsardom, to carry the bourgeois-democratic revolution to its conclusion and to proceed to the Socialist revolution. Never for a moment did the Bolsheviks forget this aim, and they continued to put before the masses the principal revolutionary slogans —a democratic republic, the confiscation of the landed estates, and an 8-hour day.<br />
<br />
But the ''tactics'' of the Party could not remain what they had been during the rising tide of the revolution in 1905. For example, it would have been wrong in the immediate future to call the masses to a general political strike or to an armed uprising, for the revolutionary movement was on the decline, the working class was in a state of extreme fatigue, and the position of the reactionary classes had been strengthened considerably. The Party had to reckon with the new situation. Offensive tactics had to be replaced by defensive tactics, the tactics of mustering forces, the tactics of withdrawing the cadres underground and of carrying on the work of the Party from underground, the tactics of combining illegal work with work in the legal working-class organizations.<br />
<br />
And the Bolsheviks proved able to accomplish this.<br />
<br />
"We knew how to work during the long years preceding the revolution. Not for nothing do they say that we are as firm as a rock. The Social-Democrats have formed a proletarian party which will not lose heart at the failure of the first armed onslaught, will not lose its head, and will not be carried away by adventures," wrote Lenin. (Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. XII, p. 126.)<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks strove to preserve and strengthen the illegal Party organizations. But at the same time they deemed it essential to utilize every legal opportunity, every legal opening to maintain and preserve connections with the masses and thus strengthen the Party.<br />
<br />
"This was a period when our Party turned from the open revolutionary struggle against tsardom to roundabout methods of struggle, to the utilization of each and every legal opportunity—from mutual aid societies to the Duma platform. This was a period of retreat after we had been defeated in the Revolution of 1905. This turn made it incumbent upon us to master new methods of struggle, in order to muster our forces and resume the open revolutionary struggle against tsardom." (J. Stalin, ''Verbatim Report of the Fifteenth Party Congress,'' Russ. ed., pp. 366-67, 1935.)<br />
<br />
The surviving legal organizations served as a sort of screen for the underground organizations of the Party and as a means of maintaining connections with the masses. In order to preserve their connections with the masses, the Bolsheviks made use of the trade unions and other legally existing public organizations, such as sick benefit societies, workers' cooperative societies, clubs, educational societies and People's Houses. The Bolsheviks made use of the platform of the State Duma to expose the policy of the tsarist government, to expose the Constitutional-Democrats, and to win the support of the peasants for the proletariat. The preservation of the illegal Party organization, and the direction of all other forms of political work through this organization, enabled the Party to pursue a correct line and to muster forces in preparation for a new rise in the tide of revolution.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks carried out their revolutionary line in a fight on ''two fronts'', a fight against the two varieties of opportunism within the Party—against the ''Liquidators,'' who were open adversaries of the Party, and against what were known as the ''Otzovists'', who were concealed foes of the Party.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks, headed by Lenin, waged a relentless struggle against liquidationism from the very inception of this opportunist trend. Lenin pointed out that the Liquidators were agents of the liberal bourgeoisie within the Party.<br />
<br />
In December 1908, the Fifth (All-Russian) Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. was held in Paris. On Lenin's motion, this conference condemned liquidationism, that is, the attempts of a certain section of the Party intellectuals (Mensheviks) "to liquidate the existing organization of the R.S.D.L.P. and to replace it at all costs, even at the price of down-right renunciation of the program, tactics and traditions of the Party, by an amorphous association functioning legally." ''(C.P.S.U.[B.] in Resolutions,'' Russ. ed., Part I, p. 128.)<br />
<br />
The conference called upon all Party organizations to wage a resolute struggle against the attempts of the Liquidators.<br />
<br />
But the Mensheviks did not abide by this decision of the conference and increasingly committed themselves to liquidationism, betrayal of the revolution, and collaboration with the Constitutional-Democrats. The Mensheviks were more and more openly renouncing the revolutionary program of the proletarian Party, the demands for a democratic republic, for an 8-hour day and for the confiscation of the landed estates. They wanted, at the price of renouncing the program and tactics of the Party, to obtain the consent of the tsarist government to the existence of an open, legal, supposedly "labour" party. They were prepared to make peace with and to adapt themselves to the Stolypin regime. That is why the Liquidators were also called the "Stolypin Labour Party."<br />
<br />
Besides fighting the overt adversaries of the revolution, the Liquidators, who were headed by Dan, Axelrod, and Potressov, and assisted by Martov, Trotsky and other Mensheviks, the Bolsheviks also waged a relentless struggle against the covert Liquidators, the Otzovists, who camouflaged their opportunism by "Left" phraseology. Otzovists was the name given to certain former Bolsheviks who demanded the recall (''otzyv'' means recall) of the workers' deputies from the State Duma and the discontinuation of work in legally existing organizations altogether.<br />
<br />
In 1908 a number of Bolsheviks demanded the recall of the Social-Democratic deputies from the State Duma. Hence, they were called Otzovists. The Otzovists formed their own group (Bogdanov, Luna-charsky, Alexinsky, Pokrovsky, Bubnov and others) which started a struggle against Lenin and Lenin's line. The Otzovists stubbornly refused to work in the trade unions and other legally existing societies. In doing so they did great injury to the workers' cause. The Otzovists were driving a wedge between the Party and the working class, tending to deprive the Party of its connections with the non-party masses; they wanted to seclude themselves within the underground organization, yet at the same time they placed it in jeopardy by denying it the opportunity of utilizing legal cover. The Otzovists did not understand that in the State Duma, and through the State Duma, the Bolsheviks could influence the peasantry, could expose the policy of the tsarist government and the policy of the Constitutional-Democrats, who were trying to gain the following of the peasantry by fraud. The Otzovists hampered the mustering of forces for a new advance of the revolution. The Otzovists were therefore "Liquidators inside-out": they endeavoured to destroy the possibility of utilizing the legally existing organizations and, in fact, renounced proletarian leadership of the broad non-party masses, renounced revolutionary work.<br />
<br />
A conference of the enlarged editorial board of the Bolshevik newspaper ''Proletary'', summoned in 1909 to discuss the conduct of the Otzovists, condemned them. The Bolsheviks announced that they had nothing in common with the Otzovists and expelled them from the Bolshevik organization.<br />
<br />
Both the Liquidators and the Otzovists were nothing but petty-bourgeois fellow-travelers of the proletariat and its Party. When times were hard for the proletariat the true character of the Liquidators and Otzovists became revealed with particular clarity.<br />
<br />
=== Struggle of the Bolsheviks against Trotskyism. Anti-party August bloc ===<br />
At a time when the Bolsheviks were waging a relentless struggle on two fronts—against the Liquidators and against the Otzovists—defend-ing the consistent line of the proletarian party, Trotsky supported the Menshevik Liquidators. It was at this period that Lenin branded him "Judas Trotsky." Trotsky formed a group of writers in Vienna (Austria) and began to publish an allegedly non-factional, but in reality Menshevik newspaper. "Trotsky behaves like a most despicable careerist and fac-tionalist...He pays lip service to the Party, but behaves worse than any other factionalist," wrote Lenin at the time.<br />
<br />
Later, in 1912, Trotsky organized the August Bloc, a bloc of all the anti-Bolshevik groups and trends directed against Lenin and the Bolshevik Party. The Liquidators and the Otzovists united in this anti-Bolshevik bloc, thus demonstrating their kinship. Trotsky and the Trot-skyites took up a liquidationist stand on all fundamental issues. But Trotsky masked his liquidationism under the guise of Centrism, that is, conciliation-ism; he claimed that he belonged to neither the Bolsheviks nor the Men-sheviks and that he was trying to reconcile them. In this connection, Lenin said that Trotsky was more vile and pernicious than the open Liquidators, because he was trying to deceive the workers into believing that he was "above factions," whereas in fact he entirely supported the Menshevik Liquidators. The Trotskyites were the principal group that fostered Centrism.<br />
<br />
"Centrism," writes Comrade Stalin, "is a political concept. Its ideology is one of adaptation, of subordination of the interests of the proletariat to the interests of the petty-bourgeoisie ''within one common party''. This ideology is alien and abhorrent to Leninism." (Stalin, ''Leninism'', Vol. II, "The Industrialization of the Country and the Right Deviation in the C.P.S.U.," p. 97.)<br />
<br />
At this period Kamenev, Zinoviev and Rykov were actually covert agents of Trotsky, for they often helped him against Lenin. With the aid of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Rykov and other covert allies of Trotsky, a Plenum of the Central Committee was convened in January 1910 ''against Lenin's wishes''. By that time the composition of the Central Committee had changed owing to the arrest of a number of Bolsheviks, and the vacillating elements were able to force through anti-Leninist decisions. Thus, it was decided at this plenum to close down the Bolshevik newspaper ''Proletary'' and to give financial support to Trotsky's newspaper ''Pravda'', published in Vienna. Kamenev joined the editorial board of Trotsky's newspaper and together with Zinoviev strove to make it the organ of the Central Committee.<br />
<br />
It was only on Lenin's insistence that the January Plenum of the Central Committee adopted a resolution condemning liquidationism and otzovism, but here too Zinoviev and Kamenev insisted on Trotsky's proposal that the Liquidators should not be referred to as such.<br />
<br />
It turned out as Lenin had foreseen and forewarned: only the Bolsheviks obeyed the decision of the plenum of the Central Committee and closed down their organ, ''Proletary'', whereas the Mensheviks continued to publish their financial liquidationist newspaper ''Golos Sotsial-Demokrat (Voice of the Social-Democrat)''.<br />
<br />
Lenin's position was fully supported by Comrade Stalin who published a special article in ''Sotsial-Demokrat'', No. ii, in which he condemned the conduct of the accomplices of Trotskyism, and spoke of the necessity of putting an end to the abnormal situation created within the Bolshevik group by the treacherous conduct of Kamenev, Zinoviev and Rykov. The article advanced as immediate tasks what was later carried into effect at the Prague Party Conference, namely, convocation of a general Party conference, publication of a Party newspaper appearing legally, and creation of an illegal practical Party centre in Russia. Comrade Stalin's article was based on decisions of the Baku Committee, which fully supported Lenin.<br />
<br />
To counteract Trotsky's anti-Party August Bloc, which consisted exclusively of anti-Party elements, from the Liquidators and Trotskyites to the Otzovists and "god-builders," a Party bloc was formed consisting of people who wanted to preserve and strengthen the illegal proletarian Party. This bloc consisted of the Bolsheviks, headed by Lenin, and a small number of pro-Party Mensheviks, headed by Plekhanov. Plekha-nov and his group of pro-Party Mensheviks, while maintaining the Men-shevik position on a number of questions, emphatically dissociated themselves from the August Bloc and the Liquidators and sought to reach agreement with the Bolsheviks. Lenin accepted Plekhanov's proposal and consented to a temporary bloc with him against the anti-Party elements on the ground that such a bloc would be advantageous to the Party and fatal to the Liquidators.<br />
<br />
Comrade Stalin fully supported this bloc. He was in exile at the time and from there wrote a letter to Lenin, saying:<br />
<br />
"In my opinion the line of the bloc (Lenin-Plekhanov) is the only correct one: i) this line, and it alone, answers to the real interests of the work in Russia, which demands that all Party elements should rally together; 2) this line, and it alone, will expedite the process of emancipation of the legal organizations from the yoke of the Liquidators, by digging a gulf between the Mek <sup>3</sup> workers and the Liquidators, and dispersing and disposing of the latter." (''Lenin and Stalin'', Russ. ed., Vol. I, pp. 529-30.)<br />
<br />
Thanks to a skilful combination of illegal and legal work, the Bolsheviks were able to become a serious force in the legal workers' organizations. This was revealed, incidentally, in the great influence which the Bolsheviks exercised on the workers' groups at four legally held congresses that took place at that period—a congress of people's universities, a women's congress, a congress of factory physicians, and a temperance congress. The speeches of the Bolsheviks at these congresses were of great political value and awakened a response all over the country. For example, at the congress of people's universities, the Bolshevik workers' delegation exposed the policy of tsardom which stifled all cultural activity, and contended that no real cultural progress in the country was conceivable unless tsardom were abolished. The workers' delegation at the congress of factory physicians told of the frightfully unsanitary conditions in which the workers had to live and work, and drew the conclusion that factory hygiene could not be properly ensured until tsardom was overthrown.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks gradually squeezed the Liquidators out of the various legal organizations that still survived. The peculiar tactics of a united front with the Plekhanov pro-Party group enabled the Bolsheviks to win over a number of Menshevik worker organizations (in the Vyborg district, Ekaterinoslav, etc.).<br />
<br />
In this difficult period the Bolsheviks set an example of how legal work should be combined with illegal work.<br />
<br />
=== Prague party conference, 1912. Bolsheviks constitute themselves an independent Marxist party ===<br />
The fight against the Liquidators and Otzovists, as well as against the Trotskyites, confronted the Bolsheviks with the urgent necessity of uniting all the Bolsheviks and forming them into an independent Bolshevik Party. This was absolutely essential not only in order to put an end to the opportunist trends within the Party which were splitting the working class, but also in order to complete the work of mustering the forces of the working class and preparing it for a new upward swing of the revolution.<br />
<br />
But before this task could be accomplished the Party had to be rid of opportunists, of Mensheviks.<br />
<br />
No Bolshevik now doubted that it was unthinkable for the Bolsheviks to remain in one party with the Mensheviks. The treacherous conduct of the Mensheviks in the period of the Stolypin reaction, their attempts to liquidate the proletarian party and to organize a new, reformist party, made a rupture with them inevitable. By remaining in one party with the Mensheviks, the Bolsheviks in one way or another accepted moral responsibility for the behaviour of the Mensheviks. But for the Bolsheviks to accept moral responsibility for the open treachery of the Mensheviks was unthinkable, unless they themselves wanted to become traitors to the Party and the working class. Unity with the Mensheviks within a single party was thus assuming the character of a betrayal of the working class and its party. Consequently, the actual rupture with the Mensheviks had to be carried to its conclusion: a formal organizational rupture and the expulsion of the Mensheviks from the Party.<br />
<br />
Only in this way was it possible to restore the revolutionary party of the proletariat with a single program, single tactics, and a single class organization.<br />
<br />
Only in this way was it possible to restore the real (not just formal) unity of the Party, which the Mensheviks had destroyed.<br />
<br />
This task was to be performed by the Sixth General Party Conference, for which the Bolsheviks were making preparations.<br />
<br />
But this was only one aspect of the matter. A formal rupture with the Mensheviks and the formation by the Bolsheviks of a separate party was, of course, a very important political task. But the Bolsheviks were confronted with another and even more important task. The task of the Bolsheviks was not merely to break with the Mensheviks and formally constitute themselves a separate party, but above all, having broken with the Mensheviks, to create a ''new'' party, to create a party of a ''new type'', different from the usual Social-Democratic parties of the West, one that was free of opportunist elements and capable of leading the proletariat in a struggle for power.<br />
<br />
In fighting the Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks of all shades, from Axel-rod and Martynov to Martov and Trotsky, invariably used weapons borrowed from the arsenal of the West-European Social-Democrats. They wanted in Russia a party similar, let us say, to the German or French Social-Democratic Party. They fought the Bolsheviks just because they sensed something new in them, something unusual and different from the Social-Democrats of the West. And what did the Social-Democratic parties of the West represent at that time? A mixture, a hodge-podge of Marxist and opportunist elements, of friends and foes of the revolution, of supporters and opponents of the Party principle, the former gradually becoming ideologically reconciled to the latter, and virtually subordinated to them. Conciliation with the opportunists, with the traitors to the revolution, for the sake of what?—the Bolsheviks asked the West-European Social-Democrats. For the sake of "peace within the Party," for the sake of "unity"—the latter replied. Unity with whom, with the opportunists? Yes, they replied, with the opportunists. It was clear that such parties could not be revolutionary parties.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks could not help seeing that after Engels' death the West-European Social-Democratic parties had begun to degenerate from parties of social revolution into parties of "social reforms," and that each of these parties, as an organization, had already been converted from a leading force into an appendage of its own parliamentary group.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks could not help knowing that such a party boded no good to the proletariat, that such a party was not capable of leading the working class to revolution.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks could not help knowing that the proletariat needed, not such a party, but a different kind of party, a new and genuinely Marxist party, which would be irreconcilable towards the opportunists and revolutionary towards the bourgeoisie, which would be firmly knit and monolithic, which would be a party of social revolution, a party of the dictatorship of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
It was this new kind of party that the Bolsheviks wanted. And the Bolsheviks worked to build up such a party. The whole history of the struggle against the "Economists," Mensheviks, Trotskyites, Otzovists and idealists of all shades, down to the empirio-criticists, was a history of the building up of just such a party. The Bolsheviks wanted to create a new party, a ''Bolshevist'' party, which would serve as a model for all who wanted to have a real revolutionary Marxist party. The Bolsheviks had been working to build up such a party ever since the time of the old Iskra. They worked for it stubbornly, persistently, in spite of everything. A fundamental and decisive part was played in this work by the writings of Lenin—''What Is To Be Done?, Two Tactics,'' etc. Lenin's ''What Is To Be Done?'' was the ''ideological'' preparation for such a party. Lenin's ''One Step Forward, Two Steps Back'' was the ''organizational'' preparation for such a party. Lenin's ''Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution'' was the ''political'' preparation for such a party. And, lastly, Lenin's ''Materialism and Empirio-Criticism'' was the ''theoretical'' preparation for such a party.<br />
<br />
It may be safely said that never in history has any political group been so thoroughly prepared to constitute itself a party as the Bolshevik group was.<br />
<br />
The conditions were therefore fully ripe and ready for the Bolsheviks to constitute themselves a party.<br />
<br />
It was the task of the Sixth Party Conference to crown the completed work by expelling the Mensheviks and formally constituting the new party, the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
The Sixth All-Russian Party Conference was held in Prague in January 1912. Over twenty Party organizations were represented. The conference, therefore, had the significance of a regular Party congress.<br />
<br />
In the statement of the conference which announced that the shattered central apparatus of the Party had been restored and a Central Committee set up, it was declared that the period of reaction had been the most difficult the Russian Social-Democratic Party had experienced since it had taken shape as a definite organization. In spite of all persecution, in spite of the severe blows dealt it from without and the treachery and vacillation of the opportunists within, the party of the proletariat had preserved intact its banner and its organization.<br />
<br />
"Not only have the banner of the Russian Social-Democratic Party, its program and its revolutionary traditions survived, but so has its organization, which persecution may have undermined and weakened, but could never utterly destroy"—the statement of the conference declared.<br />
<br />
The conference recorded the first symptoms of a new rise of the working-class movement in Russia and a revival in Party work.<br />
<br />
In its resolution on the reports presented by the local organizations, the conference noted that "energetic work is being conducted everywhere among the Social-Democratic workers with the object of strengthening the local illegal Social-Democratic organizations and groups."<br />
<br />
The conference noted that the most important rule of Bolshevik tactics in periods of retreat, namely, to combine illegal work with legal work within the various legally existing workers' societies and unions, was being observed in all the localities.<br />
<br />
The Prague Conference elected a Bolshevik Central Committee of the Party, consisting of Lenin, Stalin, Ordjonikidze, Sverdlov, Spanda-ryan, Goloshchekin and others. Comrades Stalin and Sverdlov were elected to the Central Committee in their absence, as they were in exile at the time. Among the elected alternate members of the Central Committee was Comrade Kalinin.<br />
<br />
For the direction of revolutionary work in Russia a practical centre (the Russian Bureau of the C.C.) was set up with Comrade Stalin at its head and including Comrades Y. Sverdlov, S. Spandaryan, S. Ordjo-nikidze, M. Kalinin and Goloshchekin.<br />
<br />
The Prague Conference reviewed the whole preceding struggle of the Bolsheviks against opportunism and decided to expel the Mensheviks from the Party.<br />
<br />
By expelling the Mensheviks from the Party, the Prague Conference formally inaugurated the independent existence of the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
Having routed the Mensheviks ideologically and organizationally and expelled them from the Party, the Bolsheviks preserved the old banner of the Party—of the R.S.D.L.P. That is why the Bolshevik Party continued until 1918 to call itself the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, adding the word "Bolsheviks" in brackets.<br />
<br />
Writing to Gorky at the beginning of 1912, on the results of the Prague Conference, Lenin said:<br />
<br />
"At last we have succeeded, in spite of the Liquidator scum, in restoring the Party and its Central Committee. I hope you will rejoice with us over the fact." (Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. XXIX, p. 19.)<br />
<br />
Speaking of the significance of the Prague Conference, Comrade Stalin said:<br />
<br />
"This conference was of the utmost importance in the history of our Party, for it drew a boundary line between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks and amalgamated the Bolshevik organizations all over the country into a united Bolshevik Party." (''Verbatim Report of the Fifteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.[B.]'', Russ. ed., pp. 361-362.)<br />
<br />
After the expulsion of the Mensheviks and the constitution by the Bolsheviks of an independent party, the Bolshevik Party became firmer and stronger. ''The Party strengthens itself by purging its ranks of opportunist elements''—that is one of the maxims of the Bolshevik Party, which is a party of a new type fundamentally different from the Social-Democratic parties of the Second International. Although the parties of the Second International called themselves Marxist parties, in reality they tolerated foes of Marxism, avowed opportunists, in their ranks and allowed them to corrupt and to ruin the Second International. The Bolsheviks, on the contrary, waged a relentless struggle against the opportunists, purged the proletarian party of the filth of opportunism and succeeded in creating a party of a new type, a Leninist Party, the Party which later achieved the dictatorship of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
If the opportunists had remained within the ranks of the proletarian party, the Bolshevik Party could not have come out on the broad highway and led the proletariat, it could not have taken power and set up the dictatorship of the proletariat, it could not have emerged victorious from the Civil War and built Socialism.<br />
<br />
The Prague Conference decided to put forward as the chief immediate political slogans of the Party the demands contained in the minimum program: a democratic republic, an 8-hour day, and the confiscation of the landed estates.<br />
<br />
It was under these revolutionary slogans that the Bolsheviks conducted their campaign in connection with the elections to the Fourth State Duma.<br />
<br />
It was these slogans that guided the new rise of the revolutionary movement of the working-class masses in the years 1912-14.<br />
<br />
=== Brief summary ===<br />
The years 1908-12 were a most difficult period for revolutionary work. After the defeat of the revolution, when the revolutionary movement was on the decline and the masses were fatigued, the Bolsheviks changed their tactics and passed from the direct struggle against tsardom to a roundabout struggle. In the difficult conditions that prevailed during the Stolypin reaction, the Bolsheviks made use of the slightest legal opportunity to maintain their connections with the masses (from sick benefit societies and trade unions to the Duma platform). The Bolsheviks indefatigably worked to muster forces for a new rise of the revolutionary movement.<br />
<br />
In the difficult conditions brought about by the defeat of the revolution, the disintegration of the oppositional trends, the disappointment with the revolution, and the increasing endeavours of intellectuals who had deserted the Party (Bogdanov, Bazarov and others) to revise its theoretical foundations, the Bolsheviks were the only force in the Party who did not furl the Party banner, who remained faithful to the Party program, and who beat off the attacks of the "critics" of Marxist theory (Lenin's ''Materialism and Empirio-Criticism''). What helped the leading core of the Bolsheviks, centred around Lenin, to safeguard the Party and its revolutionary principles was that this core had been tempered by Marxist-Leninist ideology and had grasped the perspectives of the revolution. "Not for nothing do they say that we are as firm as a rock," Lenin stated in referring to the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks at that period were drawing farther and farther away from the revolution. They became Liquidators, demanding the liquidation, abolition, of the illegal revolutionary party of the proletariat; they more and more openly renounced the Party program and the revolutionary aims and slogans of the Party, and endeavoured to organize their own, reformist party, which the workers christened a "Stolypin Labour Party." Trotsky supported the Liquidators, pharisaically using the slogan "unity of the Party" as a screen, but actually meaning unity with the Liquidators.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, some of the Bolsheviks, who did not understand the necessity for the adoption of new and roundabout ways of combating tsardom, demanded that legal opportunities should not be utilized and that the workers' deputies in the State Duma be recalled. These Otzovists were driving the Party towards a rupture with the masses and were hampering the mustering of forces for a new rise of the revolution. Using "Left" phraseology as a screen, the Otzovists, like the Liquidators, in essence renounced the revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
The Liquidators and Otzovists united against Lenin in a common bloc, known as the August Bloc, organized by Trotsky.<br />
<br />
In the struggle against the Liquidators and Otzovists, in the struggle against the August Bloc, the Bolsheviks gained the upper hand and succeeded in safeguarding the illegal proletarian party.<br />
<br />
The outstanding event of this period was the Prague Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. (January 1912). At this conference the Mensheviks were expelled from the Party, and the formal unity of the Bolsheviks with the Mensheviks within one party was ended forever. From a political group, the Bolsheviks formally constituted themselves an independent party, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks). The Prague Conference inaugurated a party of a new type, the party of Leninism, the ''Bolshevik'' Party.<br />
<br />
The purge of the ranks of the proletarian party of opportunists, Mensheviks, effected at the Prague Conference, had an important and decisive influence on the subsequent development of the Party and the revolution. If the Bolsheviks had not expelled the betrayers of the workers' cause, the Menshevik compromisers, from the Party, the proletarian party would have been unable in 1917 to rouse the masses for the fight for the dictatorship of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
== The Bolshevik party during the new rise of the working-class movement before the first imperialist war (1912—1914) ==<br />
<br />
=== Rise of the revolutionary movement in the Period 1912—1914 ===<br />
The triumph of the Stolypin reaction was shortlived. A government which would offer the people nothing but the knout and the gallows could not endure. Repressive measures became so habitual that they ceased to inspire fear in the people. The fatigue felt by the workers in the years immediately following the defeat of the revolution began to wear off. The workers resumed the struggle. The Bolsheviks' forecast that a new rise in the tide of revolution was inevitable proved correct. In 1911 the number of strikers already exceeded 100,000, whereas in each of the previous years it had been no more than 50,000 or 60,000. The Prague Party Conference, held in January 1912, could already register the beginnings of a revival of the working-class movement. But the real rise in the revolutionary movement began in April and May 1912, when mass political strikes broke out in connection with the shooting down of workers in the Lena goldfields.<br />
<br />
On April 4, 1912, during a strike in the Lena goldfields in Siberia, over 500 workers were killed or wounded upon the orders of a tsarist officer of the gendarmerie. The shooting down of an unarmed body of Lena miners who were peacefully proceeding to negotiate with the management stirred the whole country. This new bloody deed of the tsarist autocracy was committed to break an economic strike of the miners and thus please the masters of the Lena goldfields, the British capitalists. The British capitalists and their Russian partners derived huge profits from the Lena goldfields—over 7,000,000 rubles annually—by most shamelessly exploiting the workers. They paid the workers miserable wages and supplied them with rotten food unfit to eat. Unable to endure the oppression and humiliation any longer, six thousand workers of the Lena goldfields went on strike.<br />
<br />
The proletariat of St. Petersburg, Moscow and all other industrial centres and regions replied to the Lena shooting by mass strikes, demonstrations and meetings.<br />
<br />
We were so dazed and shocked that we could not at once find words to express our feelings. Whatever protest we made would be but a pale reflection of the anger that seethed in the hearts of all of us. Nothing can help us, neither tears nor protests, but an organized mass struggle"—the workers of one group of factories declared in their resolution.<br />
<br />
The furious indignation of the workers was further aggravated when the tsarist Minister Makarov, who was interpellated by the Social-Democratic group in the State Duma on the subject of the Lena massacre, insolently declared: "So it was, so it will be!" The number of participants in the political protest strikes against the bloody massacre of the Lena workers rose to 300,000.<br />
<br />
The Lena events were like a hurricane which rent the atmosphere of "peace" created by the Stolypin regime.<br />
<br />
This is what Comrade Stalin wrote in this connection in 1912 in the St. Petersburg Bolshevik newspaper, ''Zvezda (Star):'' "The Lena shooting has broken the ice of silence and the river of the people's movement has begun to flow. The ice is broken!...All that was evil and pernicious in the present regime, all the ills of much-suffering Russia were focussed in the one fact, the Lena events. That is why it was the Lena shooting that served as a signal for the strikes and demonstrations."<br />
<br />
The efforts of the Liquidators and Trotskyites to bury the revolution had been in vain. The Lena events showed that the forces of revolution were alive, that a tremendous store of revolutionary energy had accumulated in the working class. The May Day strikes of 1912 involved about 400,000 workers. These strikes bore a marked political character and were held under the Bolshevik revolutionary slogans of a democratic republic, an 8-hour day, and the confiscation of the landed estates. These main slogans were designed to unite not only the broad masses of the workers, but also the peasants and soldiers for a revolutionary onslaught on the autocracy.<br />
<br />
"The huge May Day strike of the proletariat of all Russia and the accompanying street demonstrations, revolutionary proclamations, and revolutionary speeches to gatherings of workers have clearly shown that Russia has entered the phase of a rise in the revolution" —wrote Lenin in an article entitled "The Revolutionary Rise." (Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. XV, p. 533.)<br />
<br />
Alarmed by the revolutionary spirit of the workers, the Liquidators came out against the strike movement; they called it a "strike fever." The Liquidators and their ally, Trotsky, wanted to substitute for the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat a "petition campaign." They invited the workers to sign a petition, a scrap of paper, requesting the granting of "rights" (abolition of the restrictions on the right of association, the right to strike, etc.), which was then to be sent to the State Duma. The Liquidators managed to collect only 1,300 signatures at a time when hundreds of thousands of workers backed the revolutionary slogans of the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
The working class followed the path indicated by the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
The economic situation in the country at that period was as follows:<br />
<br />
In 1910 industrial stagnation had already been succeeded by a revival, an extension of production in the main branches of industry. Whereas the output of pig iron had amounted to 186,000,000 poods in 1910, and to 256,000,000 poods in 1912, in 1913 it amounted to 283,000,000 poods. The output of coal rose from 1,522,000,000 poods in 1910 to 2,214,000,000 poods in 1913.<br />
<br />
The expansion of capitalist industry was accompanied by a rapid growth of the proletariat. A distinguishing feature of the development of industry was the further concentration of production in large plants. Whereas in 1901 the number of workers engaged in large plants employing 500 workers and over amounted to 46.7 per cent of the total number of workers, the corresponding figure in 1910 was already about 54 per cent, or over half the total number of workers. Such a degree of concentration of industry was unprecedented. Even in a country so industrially developed as the United States only about one-third the total number of workers were employed in large plants at that period.<br />
<br />
The growth of the proletariat and its concentration in large enterprises, combined with the existence of such a revolutionary party as the Bolshevik Party, were converting the working class of Russia into the greatest force in the political life of the country. The barbarous methods of exploitation of the workers practised in the factories, combined with the intolerable police regime of the tsarist underlings, lent every big strike a political character. Furthermore, the intertwining of the economic and political struggles imparted exceptional revolutionary force to the mass strikes.<br />
<br />
In the van of the revolutionary working-class movement marched the heroic proletariat of St. Petersburg; St. Petersburg was followed by the Baltic Provinces, Moscow and the Moscow Province, the Volga region and the south of Russia. In 1913 the movement spread to the Western Territory, Poland and the Caucasus. In all, 725,000 workers, according to official figures, and over one million workers according to fuller statistics, took part in strikes in 1912, and 861,000 according to official figures, and 1,272,000 according to fuller statistics, took part in strikes in 1913. In the first half of 1914 the number of strikers already amounted to about one and a half million.<br />
<br />
Thus the revolutionary rise of 1912-14, the sweep of the strike movement, created a situation in the country similar to that which had existed at the beginning of the Revolution of 1905.<br />
<br />
The revolutionary mass strikes of the proletariat were of moment to the ''whole people.'' They were directed against the autocracy, and they met with the sympathy of the vast majority of the labouring population. The manufacturers retaliated by locking out the workers. In 1913, in the Moscow Province, the capitalists threw 50,000 textile workers on the streets. In March 1914, 70,000 workers were discharged in St. Petersburg in a single day. The workers of other factories and branches of industry assisted the strikers and their locked-out comrades by mass collections and sometimes by sympathy strikes.<br />
<br />
The rising working-class movement and the mass strikes also stirred up the peasants and drew them into the struggle. The peasants again began to rise against the landlords; they destroyed manors and kulak farmholds. In the years 1910-14 there were over 13,000 outbreaks of peasant disaffection.<br />
<br />
Revolutionary outbreaks also took place among the armed forces. In 1912 there was an armed revolt of troops in Turkestan. Revolt was brewing in the Baltic Fleet and in Sevastopol.<br />
<br />
The revolutionary strike movement and demonstrations, led by the Bolshevik Party, showed that the working class was fighting not for partial demands, not for "reforms," but for the liberation of the people from tsardom. The country was heading for a new revolution.<br />
<br />
In the summer of 1912, Lenin removed from Paris to Galicia (formerly Austria) in order to be nearer to Russia. Here he presided over two conferences of members of the Central Committee and leading Party workers, one of which took place in Cracow at the end of 1912, and the other in Poronino, a small town near Cracow, in the autumn of 1913. These conferences adopted decisions on important questions of the working-class movement: the rise in the revolutionary movement, the tasks of the Party in connection with the strikes, the strengthening of the illegal organizations, the Social-Democratic group in the Duma, the Party press, the labour insurance campaign.<br />
<br />
=== The Bolshevik newspaper ''Pravda''. The Bolshevik group in the Fourth State Duma ===<br />
A powerful instrument used by the Bolshevik Party to strengthen its organizations and to spread its influence among the masses was the Bolshevik daily newspaper ''Pravda (Truth)'', published in St. Petersburg. It was founded, according to Lenin's instructions, on the initiative of Stalin, Olminsky and Poletayev. ''Pravda'' was a mass working-class paper founded simultaneously with the new rise of the revolutionary movement. Its first issue appeared on April 22 (May 5, New Style), 1912. This was a day of real celebration for the workers. In honour of ''Pravda's'' appearance it was decided henceforward to celebrate May 5 as workers' press day.<br />
<br />
Previous to the appearance of ''Pravda'' , the Bolsheviks already had a weekly newspaper called Zvezda, intended for advanced workers. ''Zvezda'' played an important part at the time of the Lena events. It printed a number of trenchant political articles by Lenin and Stalin which mobilized the working class for the struggle. But in view of the rising revolutionary tide, a weekly newspaper no longer met the requirements of the Bolshevik Party. A daily mass political newspaper designed for the broadest sections of the workers was needed. ''Pravda'' was such a newspaper.<br />
<br />
''Pravda'' played an exceptionally important part at this period. It gained support for Bolshevism among broad masses of the working class. Because of incessant police persecution, fines, and confiscations of issues due to the publication of articles and letters not to the liking of the censor, ''Pravda'' could exist only with the active support of tens of thousands of advanced workers. ''Pravda'' was able to pay the huge fines only thanks to large collections made among the workers. Not infrequently, considerable portions of confiscated issues of ''Pravda'' nevertheless found their way into the hands of readers, because the more active workers would come to the printing shop at night and carry away bundles of the newspaper.<br />
<br />
The tsarist government suppressed ''Pravda'' eight times in the space of two and a half years; but each time, with the support of the workers, it reappeared under a new but similar name, ''e.g., Za Pravdu (For Truth), Put Pravdy (Path of Truth), Trudovaya Pravda (Labour Truth).''<br />
<br />
While the average circulation of Pravda was 40,000 copies per day, the circulation of ''Luch (Ray),'' the Menshevik daily, did not exceed 15,000 or 16,000.<br />
<br />
The workers regarded ''Pravda'' as their own newspaper; they had great confidence in it and were very responsive to its calls. Every copy was read by scores of readers, passing from hand to hand; it moulded their class consciousness, educated them, organized them, and summoned them to the struggle.<br />
<br />
What did ''Pravda'' write about?<br />
<br />
Every issue contained dozens of letters from workers describing their life, the savage exploitation and the various forms of oppression and humiliation they suffered at the hands of the capitalists, their managers and foremen. These were trenchant and telling indictments of capitalist conditions. ''Pravda'' often reported cases of suicide of unemployed and starving workers who had lost hope of ever finding jobs again.<br />
<br />
''Pravda'' wrote of the needs and demands of the workers of various factories and branches of industry, and told how the workers were fighting for their demands. Almost every issue contained reports of strikes at various factories. In big and protracted strikes, the newspaper helped to organize collections among the workers of other factories and branches of industry for the support of the strikers. Sometimes tens of thousands of rubles were collected for the strike funds, huge sums for those days when the majority of the workers received not more than 70 or 80 kopeks per day. This fostered a spirit of proletarian solidarity among the workers and a consciousness of the unity of interests of all workers.<br />
<br />
The workers reacted to every political event, to every victory or defeat, by sending to ''Pravda'' letters, greetings, protests, etc. In its articles ''Pravda'' dealt with the tasks of the working-class movement from a consistent Bolshevik standpoint. A legally published newspaper could not call openly for the overthrow of tsardom. It had to resort to hints, which, however, the class-conscious workers understood very well, and which they explained to the masses. When, for example, ''Pravda'' wrote of the "full and uncurtailed demands of the Year Five," the workers understood that this meant the revolutionary slogans of the Bolsheviks, namely, the overthrow of tsardom, a democratic republic, the confiscation of the landed estates, and an 8-hour day.<br />
<br />
''Pravda'' organized the advanced workers on the eve of the elections to the Fourth Duma. It exposed the treacherous position of those who advocated an agreement with the liberal bourgeoisie, the advocates of the "Stolypin Labour Party"—the Mensheviks. ''Pravda'' called upon the workers to vote for those who advocated the "full and uncurtailed demands of the Year Five," that is, the Bolsheviks. The elections were indirect, held in a series of stages: first, meetings of workers elected delegates; then these delegates chose electors; and it was these electors who participated in the elections of the workers' deputy to the Duma. On the day of the elections of the electors ''Pravda'' published a list of Bolshevik candidates and recommended the workers to vote for this list. The list could not be published earlier without exposing those on the list to the danger of arrest.<br />
<br />
''Pravda'' helped to organize the mass actions of the proletariat. At the time of a big lockout in St. Petersburg in the spring of 1914, when it was inexpedient to declare a mass strike, ''Pravda'' called upon the workers to resort to other forms of struggle, such as mass meetings in the factories and demonstrations in the streets. This could not be stated openly in the newspaper. But the call was understood by class-conscious workers when they read an article by Lenin bearing the modest title "Forms of the Working-Class Movement" and stating that at the given moment strikes should yield place to a higher form of the working-class movement—which meant a call to organize meetings and demonstrations.<br />
<br />
In this way the illegal revolutionary activities of the Bolsheviks were combined with legal forms of agitation and organization of the masses of the workers through ''Pravda'' .<br />
<br />
''Pravda'' not only wrote of the life of the workers, their strikes and demonstrations, but also regularly described the life of the peasants, the famines from which they suffered, their exploitation by the feudal landlords. It described how as a result of the Stolypin "reform" the kulak farmers robbed the peasants of the best parts of their land. ''Pravda'' drew the attention of the class-conscious workers to the widespread and burning discontent in the countryside. It taught the proletariat that the objectives of the Revolution of 1905 had not been attained, and that a new revolution was impending. It taught that in this second revolution the proletariat must act as the real leader and guide of the people, and that in this revolution it would have so powerful an ally as the revolutionary peasantry.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks worked to get the proletariat to drop the idea of revolution, to stop thinking of the people, of the starvation of the peasants, of the domination of the Black-Hundred feudal landlords, and to fight only for "freedom of association," to present "petitions" to this effect to the tsarist government. The Bolsheviks explained to the workers that this Menshevik gospel of renunciation of revolution, renunciation of an alliance with the peasantry, was being preached in the interests of the bourgeoisie, that the workers would most certainly defeat tsardom if they won over the peasantry as their ally, and that bad shepherds like the Mensheviks should be driven out as enemies of the revolution.<br />
<br />
What did ''Pravda'' write about in its "Peasant Life" section?<br />
<br />
Let us take, as an example, several letters relating to the year 1913.<br />
<br />
One letter from Samara, headed "An Agrarian Case," reports that of 45 peasants of the village of Novokhasbulat, Bugulma uyezd, accused of interfering with a surveyor who was marking out communal land to be allotted to peasants withdrawing from the commune, the majority were condemned to long terms of imprisonment.<br />
<br />
A brief letter from the Pskov Province states that the "peasants of the village of Psitsa (near Zavalye Station) offered armed resistance to the rural police. Several persons were wounded. The clash was due to an agrarian dispute. Rural police have been dispatched to Psitsa, and the vice-governor and the procurator are on the way to the village."<br />
<br />
A letter from the Ufa Province reported that peasant's allotments were being sold off in great numbers, and that famine and the law permitting withdrawal from the village communes were causing increasing numbers of peasants to lose their land. Take the hamlet of Borisovka. Here there are 27 peasant households owning 543 dessiatins of arable land between them. During the famine five peasants sold 31 dessiatins outright at prices varying from 25 to 33 rubles per dessiatin, though land is worth three or four times as much. In this village, too, seven peasants have mortgaged between them 177 dessiatins of arable land, receiving 18 to 20 rubles per dessiatin for a term of six years at a rate of 12 per cent per annum. When the poverty of the population and the usurious rate of interest are borne in mind, it may be safely said that half of the 177 dessiatins is bound to pass into the possession of the usurer, for it is not likely that even half the debtors can repay so large a sum in six years.<br />
<br />
In an article printed in ''Pravda'' and entitled "Big Landlord and Small Peasant Land Ownership in Russia," Lenin strikingly demonstrated to the workers and peasants what tremendous landed property was in the hands of the parasite landlords. Thirty thousand big landlords alone owned about 70,000,000 dessiatins of land between them. An equal area fell to the share of 10,000,000 peasant households. On an average, the big landlords owned 2,300 dessiatins each, while peasant households, including the kulaks, owned 7 dessiatins each; moreover, five million households of small peasants, that is, half the peasantry, owned no more than one or two dessiatins each. These figures clearly showed that the root of the poverty of the peasants and the recurrent famines lay in the large landed estates, in the survivals of serfdom, of which the peasants could rid themselves only by a revolution led by the working class.<br />
<br />
Through workers connected with the countryside, ''Pravda'' found its way into the villages and roused the politically advanced peasants to a revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
At the time ''Pravda'' was founded the illegal Social-Democratic organizations were entirely under the direction of the Bolsheviks. On the other hand, the legal forms of organization, such as the Duma group, the press, the sick benefit societies, the trade unions, had not yet been fully wrested from the Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks had to wage a determined struggle to drive the Liquidators out of the legally existing organizations of the working class. Thanks to ''Pravda'' , this fight ended in victory.<br />
<br />
''Pravda'' stood in the centre of the struggle for the Party principle, for the building up of a mass working-class revolutionary party. ''Pravda'' rallied the legally existing organizations around the illegal centres of the Bolshevik Party and directed the working-class movement towards one definite aim—preparation for revolution.<br />
<br />
''Pravda'' had a vast number of worker correspondents. In one year alone it printed over eleven thousand letters from workers. But it was not only by letters that ''Pravda'' maintained contact with the working-class masses. Numbers of workers from the factories visited the editorial office every day. In the ''Pravda'' editorial office was concentrated a large share of the organizational work of the Party. Here meetings were arranged with representatives from Party nuclei; here reports were received of Party work in the mills and factories; and from here were transmitted the instructions of the St. Petersburg Committee and the Central Committee of the Party.<br />
<br />
As a result of two and a half years of persistent struggle against the Liquidators for the building up of a mass revolutionary working-class party, by the summer of 1914 the Bolsheviks had succeeded in winning the support of ''four-fifths'' of the politically active workers of Russia for the Bolshevik Party and for the ''Pravda'' tactics. This was borne out, for instance, by the fact that out of a total number of 7,000 workers' groups which collected money for the labour press in 1914, 5,600 groups collected for the Bolshevik press, and only 1,400 groups for the Menshevik press. But, on the other hand, the Mensheviks had a large number of "rich friends" among the liberal bourgeoisie and the bourgeois intelligentsia who advanced over half the funds required for the maintenance of the Menshevik newspaper.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks at that time were called "Pravdists." A whole generation of the revolutionary proletariat was reared by ''Pravda'' , the generation which subsequently made the October Socialist Revolution. ''Pravda'' was backed by tens and hundreds of thousands of workers. During the rise of the revolutionary movement (1912-14) the solid foundation was laid of a mass Bolshevik Party, a foundation which no persecution by tsardom could destroy during the imperialist war.<br />
<br />
"The ''Pravda'' of 1912 was the laying of the corner-stone of the victory of Bolshevism in 1917." (''Stalin''.)<br />
<br />
Another legally functioning central organ of the Party was the Bolshevik group in the Fourth State Duma.<br />
<br />
In 1912 the government decreed elections to the Fourth Duma. Our Party attributed great importance to participation in the elections. The Duma Social-Democratic group and ''Pravda'' were the chief bases of the revolutionary work of the Bolshevik Party among the masses, functioning legally on a countrywide scale.<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik Party acted independently, under its own slogans, in the Duma elections, simultaneously attacking both the government parties and the liberal bourgeoisie (Constitutional-Democrats). The slogans of the Bolsheviks in the election campaign were a democratic republic, an 8-hour day and the confiscation of the landed estates.<br />
<br />
The elections to the Fourth Duma were held in the autumn of 1912. At the beginning of October, the government, dissatisfied with the course of the elections in St. Petersburg, tried to encroach on the electoral rights of the workers in a number of the large factories. In reply, the St. Petersburg Committee of our Party, on Comrade Stalin's proposal, called upon the workers of the large factories to declare a one-day strike. Placed in a difficult position, the government was forced to yield, and the workers were able at their meetings to elect whom they wanted. The vast majority of the workers voted for the Mandate ''(Nakaz)'' to their delegates and the deputy, which had been drawn up by Comrade Stalin. The "Mandate of the Workingmen of St. Petersburg to Their Labour Deputy" called attention to the unaccomplished tasks of 1905.<br />
<br />
"We think," the Mandate stated, "that Russia is on the eve of the onset of mass movements, which will perhaps be more profound than in 1905...As in 1905, in the van of these movements will be the most advanced class in Russian society, the Russian proletariat. Its only ally can be the much-suffering peasantry, which is vitally interested in the emancipation of Russia."<br />
<br />
The Mandate declared that the future actions of the people should take the form of a struggle on two fronts—against the tsarist government and against the liberal bourgeoisie, which was seeking to come to terms with tsardom.<br />
<br />
Lenin attached great importance to the Mandate, which called the workers to a revolutionary struggle. And in their resolutions the workers responded to this call.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks scored a victory in the elections, and Comrade Badayev was elected to the Duma by the workers of St. Petersburg.<br />
<br />
The workers voted in the elections to the Duma separately from other sections of the population (this was known as the worker curia). Of the nine deputies elected from the worker curia, six were members of the Bolshevik Party: Badayev, Petrovsky, Muranov, Samoilov, Shagov and Malinovsky (the latter subsequently turned out to be an agent-provocateur). The Bolshevik deputies were elected from the big industrial centres, in which not less than four-fifths of the working class were concentrated. On the other hand, several of the elected Liquidators did not get their mandates from the worker curia, that is, were not elected by the workers. The result was that there were seven Liquidators in the Duma as against six Bolsheviks. At first the Bolsheviks and Liquidators formed a joint Social-Democratic group in the Duma. In October 1913, after a stubborn struggle against the Liquidators, who hampered the revolutionary work of the Bolsheviks, the Bolshevik deputies, on the instructions of the Central Committee of the Party, withdrew from the joint Social-Democratic group and formed an independent Bolshevik group.<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik deputies made revolutionary speeches in the Duma in which they exposed the autocratic system and interpellated the government on cases of repression of the workers and on the inhuman exploitation of the workers by the capitalists.<br />
<br />
They also spoke in the Duma on the agrarian question, calling upon the peasants to fight the feudal landlords, and exposing the Constitutional-Democratic Party, which was opposed to the confiscation and handing over of the landed estates to the peasants.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks introduced a bill in the State Duma providing for an 8-hour working day; of course it was not adopted by this Black-Hundred Duma, but it had great agitational value.<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik group in the Duma maintained close connections with the Central Committee of the Party and with Lenin, from whom they received instructions. They were directly guided by Comrade Stalin while he was living in St. Petersburg.<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik deputies did not confine themselves to work within the Duma, but were very active outside the Duma as well. They visited mills and factories and toured the working-class centres of the country where they made speeches, arranged secret meetings at which they explained the decisions of the Party, and formed new Party organizations. The deputies skilfully combined legal activities with illegal, underground work.<br />
<br />
=== Victory of the Bolsheviks in the legally existing organizations. Continued rise of the revolutionary movement. Eve of the imperialist war ===<br />
The Bolshevik Party during this period set an example of leadership in all forms and manifestations of the class struggle of the proletariat. It built up illegal organizations. It issued illegal leaflets. It carried on secret revolutionary work among the masses. At the same time it steadily gained the leadership of the various legally existing organizations of the working class. The Party strove to win over the trade unions and gain influence in People's Houses, evening universities, clubs and sick benefit societies. These legally existing organizations had long served as the refuge of the Liquidators. The Bolsheviks started an energetic struggle to convert the legally existing societies into strongholds of our Party. By skilfully combining illegal work with legal work, the Bolsheviks won over a majority of the trade union organizations in the two capital cities, St. Petersburg and Moscow. Particularly brilliant was the victory gained in the election of the Executive Committee of the Metal Workers' Union in St. Petersburg in 1913; of the 3,000 metal workers attending the meeting, barely 150 voted for the Liquidators.<br />
<br />
The same may be said of so important a legal organization as the Social-Democratic group in the Fourth State Duma. Although the Men-sheviks had seven deputies in the Duma and the Bolsheviks six, the Menshevik deputies, chiefly elected from non-working class districts, represented barely one-fifth of the working class, whereas the Bolshevik deputies, who were elected from the principal industrial centres of the country (St. Petersburg, Moscow, Ivanovo-Voznesensk, Gostroma, Eka-terinoslav and Kharkov), represented over four-fifths of the working class of the country. The workers regarded the six Bolsheviks (Badayev, Petrovsky and the others) and not the seven Mensheviks as their deputies.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks succeeded in winning over the legally existing organizations because, in spite of savage persecution by the tsarist government and vilification by the Liquidators and the Trotskyites, they were able to preserve the illegal Party and maintain firm discipline in their ranks, they staunchly defended the interests of the working class, had close connections with the masses, and waged an uncompromising struggle against the enemies of the working-class movement.<br />
<br />
Thus the victory of the Bolsheviks and the defeat of the Mensheviks in the legally existing organizations developed all along the line. Both in respect to agitational work from the platform of the Duma and in respect to the labour press and other legally existing organizations, the Mensheviks were forced into the background. The revolutionary movement took strong hold of the working class, which definitely rallied around the Bolsheviks and swept the Mensheviks aside.<br />
<br />
To culminate all, the Mensheviks also proved bankrupt as far as the national question was concerned. The revolutionary movement in the border regions of Russia demanded a clear program on the national question. But the Mensheviks had no program, except the "cultural autonomy" of the Bund, which could satisfy nobody. Only the Bolsheviks had a Marxist program on the national question, as set forth in Comrade Stalin's article, "Marxism and the National Question," and in Lenin's articles, "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination" and "Critical Notes on the National Question."<br />
<br />
It is not surprising that after the Mensheviks had suffered such defeats, the August Bloc should begin to break up. Composed as it was of heterogeneous elements, it could not withstand the onslaught of the Bolsheviks and began to fall apart. Formed for the purpose of combating Bolshevism, the August Bloc soon went to pieces under the blows of the Bolsheviks. The first to quit the bloc were the Fperyod-ites (Bogda-nov, Lunacharsky and others); next went the Letts, and the rest followed suit.<br />
<br />
Having suffered defeat in their struggle against the Bolsheviks, the Liquidators appealed for help to the Second International. The Second International came to their aid. Under the pretence of acting as a "conciliator" between the Bolsheviks and the Liquidators, and establishing "peace in the Party," the Second International demanded that the Bolsheviks should desist from criticizing the compromising policy of the Liquidators. But the Bolsheviks were irreconcilable: they refused to abide by the decisions of the opportunist Second International and would agree to make no concessions.<br />
<br />
The victory of the Bolsheviks in the legally existing organizations was not, and could not have been, accidental. It was not accidental, not only because the Bolsheviks alone had a correct Marxist theory, a clear program, and a revolutionary proletarian party which had been steeled and tempered in battle, but also because the victory of the Bolsheviks reflected the rising tide of revolution.<br />
<br />
The revolutionary movement of the workers steadily developed, spreading to town after town and region after region. In the beginning of 1914, the workers' strikes, far from subsiding, acquired a new momentum. They became more and more stubborn and embraced ever larger numbers of workers. On January 9, 250,000 workers were on strike, St. Petersburg accounting for 140,000. On May 1, over half a million workers were on strike, St. Petersburg accounting for more than 250,000. The workers displayed unusual steadfastness in the strikes. A strike at the Obukhov Works in St. Petersburg lasted for over two months, and another at the Lessner Works for about three months. Wholesale poisoning of workers at a number of St. Petersburg factories was the cause of a strike of 115,000 workers which was accompanied by demonstrations. The movement continued to spread. In the first half of 1914 (including the early part of July) a total of 1,425,000 workers took part in strikes.<br />
<br />
In May a general strike of oil workers, which broke out in Baku, focussed the attention of the whole proletariat of Russia. The strike was conducted in an organized way. On June 20 a demonstration of 20,000 workers was held in Baku. The police adopted ferocious measures against the Baku workers. A strike broke out in Moscow as a mark of protest and solidarity with the Baku workers and spread to other districts.<br />
<br />
On July 3 a meeting was held at the Putilov Works in St. Petersburg in connection with the Baku strike. The police fired on the workers. A wave of indignation swept over the St. Petersburg proletariat. On July 4, at the call of the St. Petersburg Party Committee, 90,000 St. Petersburg workers stopped work in protest; the number rose to 130,000 on July 7, 150,000 on July 8 and 200,000 on July 11.<br />
<br />
Unrest spread to all the factories, and meetings and demonstrations were held everywhere. The workers even started to throw up barricades. Barricades were erected also in Baku and Lodz. In a number of places the police fired on the workers. The government adopted "emergency" measures to suppress the movement; the capital was turned into an armed camp; ''Pravda'' was suppressed.<br />
<br />
But at that moment a new factor, one of international import, appeared on the arena. This was the imperialist war, which was to change the whole course of events. It was during the revolutionary developments of July that Poincare, the French President, arrived in St. Petersburg to discuss with the tsar the war that was about to begin. A few days later Germany declared war on Russia. The tsarist government took advantage of the war to smash the Bolshevik organizations and to crush the working-class movement. The advance of the revolution was interrupted by the World War, in which the tsarist government sought salvation from revolution.<br />
<br />
=== Brief summary ===<br />
During the period of the new rise of the revolution (1912-14), the Bolshevik Party headed the working-class movement and led it forward to a new revolution under Bolshevik slogans. The Party ably combined illegal work with legal work. Smashing the resistance of the Liquidators and their friends—the Trotskyites and Otzovists—the Party gained the leadership of all forms of the legal movement and turned the legally existing organizations into bases of its revolutionary work.<br />
<br />
In the fight against the enemies of the working class and their agents within the working-class movement, the Party consolidated its ranks and extended its connections with the working class. Making wide use of the Duma as a platform for revolutionary agitation, and having founded a splendid mass workers' newspaper, ''Pravda'' , the Party trained a new generation of revolutionary workers—the Pravdists. During the imperialist war this section of the workers remained faithful to the banner of internationalism and proletarian revolution. It subsequently formed the core of the Bolshevik Party during the revolution of October 1917.<br />
<br />
On the eve of the imperialist war the Party led the working class in its revolutionary actions. These were vanguard engagements which were interrupted by the imperialist war only to be resumed three years later to end in the overthrow of tsardom. The Bolshevik Party entered the difficult period of the imperialist war with the banners of proletarian internationalism unfurled.<br />
<br />
== The Bolshevik party in the period of the imperialist war. The second revolution in Russia (1914—March 1917) ==<br />
<br />
=== Outbreak and causes of the imperialist war ===<br />
On July 14 (27, New Style), 1914, the tsarist government proclaimed a general mobilization. On July 19 (August 1, New Style) Germany declared war on Russia.<br />
<br />
Russia entered the war.<br />
<br />
Long before the actual outbreak of the war the Bolsheviks, headed by Lenin, had foreseen that it was inevitable. At international Socialist congresses Lenin had put forward proposals the purpose of which was to determine a revolutionary line of conduct for the Socialists in the event of war.<br />
<br />
Lenin had pointed out that war is an inevitable concomitant of capitalism. Plunder of foreign territory, seizure and spoliation of colonies and the capture of new markets had many times already served as causes of wars of conquest waged by capitalist states. For capitalist countries war is just as natural and legitimate a condition of things as the exploitation of the working class.<br />
<br />
Wars became inevitable particularly when, at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century, capitalism definitely entered the highest and last stage of its development—imperialism. Under imperialism the powerful capitalist associations (monopolies) and the banks acquired a dominant position in the life of the capitalist states. Finance capital became master in the capitalist states. Finance capital demanded new markets, the seizure of new colonies, new fields for the export of capital, new sources of raw material.<br />
<br />
But by the end of the nineteenth century the whole territory of the globe had already been divided up among the capitalist states. Yet in the era of imperialism the development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly and by leaps: some countries, which previously held a foremost position, now develop their industry at a relatively slow rate, while others, which were formerly backward, overtake and outstrip them by rapid leaps. The relative economic and military strength of the imperialist states was undergoing a change. There arose a striving for a redi-vision of the world, and the struggle for this redivision made imperialist war inevitable. The war of 1914 was a war for the redivision of the world and of spheres of influence. All the imperialist states had long been preparing for it. The imperialists of all countries were responsible for the war.<br />
<br />
But in particular, preparations for this war were made by Germany and Austria, on the one hand, and by France and Great Britain, as well as by Russia, which was dependent on the latter two, on the other. The Triple Entente, an alliance of Great Britain, France and Russia, was formed in 1907. Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy formed another imperialist alliance. But on the outbreak of the war of 1914 Italy left this alliance and later joined the Entente. Germany and Austria-Hungary were supported by Bulgaria and Turkey.<br />
<br />
Germany prepared for the imperialist war with the design of taking away colonies from Great Britain and France, and the Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic Provinces from Russia. By building the Baghdad railway, Germany created a menace to Britain's domination in the Near East. Great Britain feared the growth of Germany's naval armaments.<br />
<br />
Tsarist Russia strove for the partition of Turkey and dreamed of seizing Constantinople and the straits leading from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean (the Dardanelles). The plans of the tsarist government also included the seizure of Galicia, a part of Austria-Hungary.<br />
<br />
Great Britain strove by means of war to smash its dangerous competitor—Germany—whose goods before the war were steadily driving British goods out of the world markets. In addition, Great Britain intended to seize Mesopotamia and Palestine from Turkey and to secure a firm foothold in Egypt.<br />
<br />
The French capitalists strove to take away from Germany the Saar Basin and Alsace-Lorraine, two rich coal and iron regions, the latter of which Germany had seized from France in the war of 1870-71.<br />
<br />
Thus the imperialist war was brought about by profound antagonisms between two groups of capitalist states.<br />
<br />
This rapacious war for the redivision of the world affected the interests of all the imperialist countries, with the result that Japan, the United States and a number of other countries were subsequently drawn into it.<br />
<br />
The war became a world war.<br />
<br />
The bourgeoisie kept the preparations for imperialist war a profound secret from their people. When the war broke out each imperialist government endeavoured to prove that it had not attacked its neighbours, but had been attacked by them. The bourgeoisie deceived the people, concealing the true aims of the war and its imperialist, annexationist character. Each imperialist government declared that it was waging war in defence of its country.<br />
<br />
The opportunists of the Second International helped the bourgeoisie to deceive the people. The Social-Democrats of the Second International vilely betrayed the cause of Socialism, the cause of the international solidarity of the proletariat. Far from opposing the war, they assisted the bourgeoisie in inciting the workers and peasants of the belligerent countries against each other on the plea of defending the fatherland.<br />
<br />
That Russia entered the imperialist war on the side of the Entente, on the side of France and Great Britain, was not accidental. It should be borne in mind that before 1914 the most important branches of Russian industry were in the hands of foreign capitalists, chiefly those of France, Great Britain and Belgium, that is, the Entente countries. The most important of Russia's metal works were in the hands of French capitalists. In all, about three-quarters (72 per cent) of the metal industry depended on foreign capital. The same was true of the coal industry of the Donetz Basin. Oilfields owned by British and French capital accounted for about half the oil output of the country. A considerable part of the profits of Russian industry flowed into foreign banks, chiefly British and French. All these circumstances, in addition to the thousands of millions borrowed by the tsar from France and Britain in loans, chained tsardom to British and French imperialism and converted Russia into a tributary, a semi-colony of these countries.<br />
<br />
The Russian bourgeoisie went to war with the purpose of improving its position: to seize new markets, to make huge profits on war contracts, and at the same time to crush the revolutionary movement by taking advantage of the war situation.<br />
<br />
Tsarist Russia was not ready for war. Russian industry lagged far behind that of other capitalist countries. It consisted predominantly of out-of-date mills and factories with worn-out machinery. Owing to the existence of land ownership based on semi-serfdom, and the vast numbers of impoverished and ruined peasants, her agriculture could not provide a solid economic base for a prolonged war.<br />
<br />
The chief mainstay of the tsar was the feudal landlords. The Black-Hundred big landlords, in alliance with the big capitalists, domineered the country and the State Duma. They wholly supported the home and foreign policy of the tsarist government. The Russian imperialist bourgeoisie placed its hopes in the tsarist autocracy as a mailed fist that could ensure the seizure of new markets and new territories, on the one hand, and crush the revolutionary movement of the workers and peasants, on the other.<br />
<br />
The party of the liberal bourgeoisie—the Constitutional-Democratic Party—made a show of opposition, but supported the foreign policy of the tsarist government unreservedly.<br />
<br />
From the very outbreak of the war, the petty-bourgeois parties, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks, using the flag of Socialism as a screen, helped the bourgeoisie to deceive the people by concealing the imperialist, predatory character of the war. They preached the necessity of defending, of protecting the bourgeois "fatherland" from the "Prussian barbarians"; they supported a policy of "civil peace," and thus helped the government of the Russian tsar to wage war, just as the German Social-Democrats helped the government of the German kaiser to wage war on the "Russian barbarians."<br />
<br />
Only the Bolshevik Party remained faithful to the great cause of revolutionary internationalism and firmly adhered to the Marxist position of a resolute struggle against the tsarist autocracy, against the landlords and capitalists, against the imperialist war. From the very outbreak of the war the Bolshevik Party maintained that it had been started, not for the defence of the country, but for the seizure of foreign territory, for the spoliation of foreign nations in the interests of the landlords and capitalists, and that the workers must wage a determined war on this war.<br />
<br />
The working class supported the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
True, the bourgeois jingoism displayed in the early days of the war by the intelligentsia and the kulak sections of the peasantry also infected a certain section of the workers. But these were chiefly members of the ruffian "League of the Russian People" and some workers who were under the influence of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks. They naturally did not, and could not, reflect the sentiments of the working class. It was these elements who took part in the jingo demonstrations of the bourgeoisie engineered by the tsarist government in the early days of the war.<br />
<br />
=== Parties of the Second International side with their imperialist governments. Disintegration of the Second International into separate chauvinist parties ===<br />
Lenin had time and again warned against the opportunism of the Second International and the wavering attitude of its leaders. He had always insisted that the leaders of the Second International only talked of being opposed to war, and that if war were to break out they would change their attitude, desert to the side of the imperialist bourgeoisie and become supporters of the war. What Lenin had foretold was borne out in the very first days of the war.<br />
<br />
In 1910, at the Copenhagen Congress of the Second International, it was decided that Socialists in parliament should vote against war credits. At the time of the Balkan War of 1912, the Basle World Congress of the Second International declared that the workers of all countries considered it a crime to shoot one another for the sake of increasing the profits of the capitalists. That is what they said, that is what they proclaimed in their resolutions.<br />
<br />
But when the storm burst, when the imperialist war broke out, and the time had come to put these decisions into effect, the leaders of the Second International proved to be traitors, betrayers of the proletariat and servitors of the bourgeoisie. They became supporters of the war.<br />
<br />
On August 4, 1914, the German Social-Democrats in parliament voted for the war credits; they voted to support the imperialist war. So did the overwhelming majority of the Socialists in France, Great Britain, Belgium and other countries.<br />
<br />
The Second International ceased to exist. Actually it broke up into separate social-chauvinist parties which warred against each other.<br />
<br />
The leaders of the Socialist parties betrayed the proletariat and adopted the position of social-chauvinism and defence of the imperialist bourgeoisie. They helped the imperialist governments to hoodwink the working class and to poison it with the venom of nationalism. Using the defence of the fatherland as a plea, these social-traitors began to incite the German workers against the French workers, and the British and French workers against the German workers. Only an insignificant minority of the Second International kept to the internationalist position and went against the current; true, they did not do so confidently and definitely enough, but go against the current they did.<br />
<br />
Only the Bolshevik Party immediately and unhesitatingly raised the banner of determined struggle against the imperialist war. In the theses on the war that Lenin wrote in the autumn of 1914, he pointed out that the fall of the Second International was not accidental. The Second International had been ruined by the opportunists, against whom the foremost representatives of the revolutionary proletariat had long been warning.<br />
<br />
The parties of the Second International had already been infected by opportunism before the war. The opportunists had openly preached renunciation of the revolutionary struggle; they had preached the theory of the "peaceful growing of capitalism into Socialism." The Second International did not want to combat opportunism; it wanted to live in peace with opportunism, and allowed it to gain a firm hold. Pursuing a conciliatory policy towards opportunism, the Second International itself became opportunist.<br />
<br />
The imperialist bourgeoisie systematically bribed the upper stratum of skilled workers, the so-called labour aristocracy, by means of higher wages and other sops, using for this purpose part of the profits it derived from the colonies, from the exploitation of backward countries. This section of workers had produced quite a number of trade union and cooperative leaders, members of municipal and parliamentary bodies, journalists and functionaries of Social-Democratic organizations. When the war broke out, these people, fearing to lose their positions, became foes of revolution and most zealous defenders of their own bourgeoisies, of their own imperialist governments.<br />
<br />
The opportunists became social-chauvinists.<br />
<br />
The social-chauvinists, the Russian Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries among their number, preached ''class peace'' between the workers and the bourgeoisie at home and war on other nations abroad. They deceived the masses by concealing from them who was really responsible for the war and declaring that the bourgeoisie of their particular country was not to blame. Many social-chauvinists became ministers of the imperialist governments of their countries.<br />
<br />
No less dangerous to the cause of the proletariat were the covert social-chauvinists, the so-called Centrists. The Centrists—Kautsky, Trotsky, Martov and others—justified and defended the avowed social-chauvinists, thus joining the social-chauvinists in betraying the proletariat; they masked their treachery by "Leftist" talk about combating the war, talk designed to deceive the working class. As a matter of fact, the Centrists supported the war, for their proposal not to vote against war credits, but merely to abstain when a vote on the credits was being taken, meant supporting the war. Like the social-chauvinists, they demanded the renunciation of the class struggle during the war so as not to hamper their particular imperialist government in waging the war. The Centrist Trotsky opposed Lenin and the Bolshevik Party on all the important questions of the war and Socialism.<br />
<br />
From the very outbreak of the war Lenin began to muster forces for the creation of a new International, the Third International. In the manifesto against the war it issued in November 19i4, the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party already called for the formation of the Third International in place of the Second International which had suffered disgraceful bankruptcy.<br />
<br />
In February 1915, a conference of Socialists of the Entente countries was held in London. Comrade Litvinov, on Lenin's instructions, spoke at this conference demanding that the Socialists (Vandervelde, Sembat and Guesde) should resign from the bourgeois government of Belgium and France, completely break with the imperialists and refuse to collaborate with them. He demanded that all Socialists should wage a determined struggle against their imperialist governments and condemn the voting of war credits. But no voice in support of Litvinov was raised at this conference.<br />
<br />
At the beginning of September 1915 the first conference of internationalists was held in Zimmerwald. Lenin called this conference the "first step" in the development of an international movement against the war. At this conference Lenin formed the Zimmerwald Left group. But within the Zimmerwald Left group only the Bolshevik Party, headed by Lenin, took a correct and thoroughly consistent stand against the war. The Zimmerwald Left group published a magazine in German called the ''Vorbote (Herald)'', to which Lenin contributed articles.<br />
<br />
In 1916 the internationalists succeeded in convening a second conference in the Swiss village of Kienthal. It is known as the Second Zim-merwald Conference. By this time groups of internationalists had been formed in nearly every country and the cleavage between the internationalist elements and the social-chauvinists had become more sharply defined. But the most important thing was that by this time the masses themselves had shifted to the Left under the influence of the war and its attendant distress. The manifesto drawn up by the Kienthal Conference was the result of an agreement between various conflicting groups; it was an advance on the Zimmerwald Manifesto.<br />
<br />
But like the Zimmerwald Conference, the Kienthal Conference did not accept the basic principles of the Bolshevik policy, namely, the conversion of the imperialist war into a civil war, the defeat of one's own imperialist government in the war, and the formation of the Third International. Nevertheless, the Kienthal Conference helped to crystallize the internationalist elements of whom the Communist Third International was subsequently formed.<br />
<br />
Lenin criticized the mistakes of the inconsistent internationalists among the Left Social-Democrats, such as Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Lieb-knecht, but at the same time he helped them to take the correct position.<br />
<br />
=== Theory and tactics of the Bolshevik Party on the question of war, peace and revolution ===<br />
The Bolsheviks were not mere pacifists who sighed for peace and confined themselves to the propaganda of peace, as the majority of the Left Social-Democrats did. The Bolsheviks advocated an active revolutionary struggle for peace, to the point of overthrowing the rule of the bellicose imperialist bourgeoisie. The Bolsheviks linked up the cause of peace with the cause of the victory of the proletarian revolution, holding that the surest way of ending the war and securing a just peace, a peace without annexations and indemnities, was to overthrow the rule of the imperialist bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
In opposition to the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary renunciation of revolution and their treacherous slogan of preserving "civil peace" in time of war, the Bolsheviks advanced the slogan of "''converting the imperialist war into a civil, war.''" This slogan meant that the labouring people, including the armed workers and peasants clad in soldiers' uniform, were to turn their weapons against their own bourgeoisie and overthrow its rule if they wanted to put an end to the war and achieve a just peace.<br />
<br />
In opposition to the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary policy of defending the bourgeois fatherland, the Bolsheviks advanced the policy of "the ''defeat of one's own government in the imperialist war''." This meant voting against war credits, forming illegal revolutionary organizations in the armed forces, supporting fraternization among the soldiers at the front, organizing revolutionary actions of the workers and peasants against the war, and turning these actions into an uprising against one's own imperialist government.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks maintained that the lesser evil for the people would be the military defeat of the tsarist government in the imperialist war, for this would facilitate the victory of the people over tsardom and the success of the struggle of the working class for emancipation from capitalist slavery and imperialist wars. Lenin held that the policy of working for the defeat of one's own imperialist government must be pursued not only by the Russian revolutionaries, but by the revolutionary parties of the working class in ''all'' the belligerent countries.<br />
<br />
It was not to ''every kind'' of war that the Bolsheviks were opposed. They were only opposed to wars of conquest, imperialist wars. The Bolsheviks held that there are two kinds of war:<br />
<br />
a) ''Just'' wars, wars that are not wars of conquest but wars of liberation, waged to defend the people from foreign attack and from attempt to enslave them, or to liberate the people from capitalist slavery, or, lastly, to liberate colonies and dependent countries from the yoke of imperialism; and<br />
<br />
b) ''Unjust'' wars, wars of conquest, waged to conquer and enslave foreign countries and foreign nations.<br />
<br />
Wars of the first kind the Bolsheviks supported. As to wars of the second kind, the Bolsheviks maintained that a resolute struggle must be waged against them to the point of revolution and the overthrow of one's own imperialist government.<br />
<br />
Of great importance to the working class of the world was Lenin's theoretical work during the war. In the spring of 1916 Lenin wrote a book entitled ''Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism''. In this book he showed that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, a stage at which it has already become transformed from "progressive" capitalism to parasitic capitalism, decaying capitalism, and that imperialism is moribund capitalism. This, of course, did not mean that capitalism would die away of itself, without a revolution of the proletariat, that it would just rot on the stalk. Lenin always taught that without a revolution of the working class capitalism cannot be overthrown. Therefore, while defining imperialism as moribund capitalism, Lenin at the same time showed that "imperialism is the eve of the social revolution of the proletariat."<br />
<br />
Lenin showed that in the era of imperialism the capitalist yoke becomes more and more oppressive, that under imperialism the revolt of the proletariat against the foundations of capitalism grows, and that the elements of a revolutionary outbreak accumulate in capitalist countries. Lenin showed that in the era of imperialism the revolutionary crisis in the colonial and dependent countries becomes more acute, that the elements of revolt against imperialism, the elements of a war of liberation from imperialism accumulate.<br />
<br />
Lenin showed that under imperialism the unevenness of development and the contradictions of capitalism have grown particularly acute, that the struggle for markets and fields for the export of capital, the struggle for colonies, for sources of raw material, makes periodical imperialist wars for the redivision of the world inevitable.<br />
<br />
Lenin showed that it is just this unevenness of development of capitalism that gives rise to imperialist wars, which undermine the strength of imperialism and make it possible to break the front of imperialism at its weakest point.<br />
<br />
From all this Lenin drew the conclusion that it was quite possible for the proletariat to break the imperialist front in one place or in several places, that the victory of Socialism was ''possible'' first in several countries or even in one country, taken singly, that the simultaneous victory of Socialism in all countries was ''impossible'' owing to the unevenness of development of capitalism, and that Socialism would be victorious first in one country or in several countries, while the others would remain bourgeois countries for some time longer.<br />
<br />
Here is the formulation of this brilliant deduction as given by Lenin in two articles written during the imperialist war:<br />
<br />
1 ) "Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of Socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country, taken singly. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organized its own Socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world, attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries..." (From the article, "The United States of Europe Slogan," written in August, 1915.—Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. V, p. 141.)<br />
<br />
2) "The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in the various countries. It cannot be otherwise under the commodity production system. From this it follows irrefutably that Socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois for some time. This must not only create friction, but a direct striving on the part of the bourgeoisie of other countries to crush the victorious proletariat of the Socialist country. In such cases a war on our part would be a legitimate and just war. It would be a war for Socialism, for the liberation of other nations from the bourgeoisie." (From the article, "War Program of the Proletarian Revolution," written in the autumn of 1916.—Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. XIX, p. 325.)<br />
<br />
This was a new and complete theory of the Socialist revolution, a theory affirming the possibility of the victory of Socialism in separate countries, and indicating the conditions of this victory and its prospects, a theory whose fundamentals were outlined by Lenin as far back as 1905 in his pamphlet, ''Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution''.<br />
<br />
This theory fundamentally differed from the view current among the Marxists in the period of ''pre-imperialist'' capitalism, when they held that the victory of Socialism in one separate country was impossible, and that it would take place simultaneously in all the civilized countries. On the basis of the facts concerning imperialist capitalism set forth in his remarkable book, ''Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism'', Lenin displaced this view as obsolete and set forth a new theory, from which it follows that the simultaneous victory of Socialism in all countries is ''impossible,'' while the victory of Socialism in one capitalist country, taken singly, is ''possible''.<br />
<br />
The inestimable importance of Lenin's theory of Socialist revolution lies not only in the fact that it has enriched Marxism with a new theory and has advanced Marxism, but also in the fact that it opens up a revolutionary perspective for the proletarians of separate countries, that it unfetters their initiative in the onslaught on their own, national bourgeoisie, that it teaches them to take advantage of a war situation to organize this onslaught, and that it strengthens their faith in the victory of the proletarian revolution.<br />
<br />
Such was the theoretical and tactical stand of the Bolsheviks on the questions of war, peace and revolution.<br />
<br />
It was on the basis of this stand that the Bolsheviks carried on their practical work in Russia.<br />
<br />
At the beginning of the war, in spite of severe persecution by the police, the Bolshevik members of the Duma—Badayev, Petrovsky, Mu-ranov, Samoilov and Shagov—visited a number of organizations and addressed them on the policy of the Bolsheviks towards the war and revolution. In November 1914 a conference of the Bolshevik group in the State Duma was convened to discuss policy towards the war. On the third day of the conference all present were arrested. The court sentenced the Bolshevik members of the State Duma to forfeiture of civil rights and banishment to Eastern Siberia. The tsarist government charged them with "high treason."<br />
<br />
The picture of the activities of the Duma members unfolded in court did credit to our Party. The Bolshevik deputies conducted themselves manfully, transforming the tsarist court into a platform from which they exposed the annexationist policy of tsardom.<br />
<br />
Quite different was the conduct of Kamenev, who was also tried in this case. Owing to his cowardice, he abjured the policy of the Bolshevik Party at the first contact with danger. Kamenev declared in court that he did not agree with the Bolsheviks on the question of the war, and to prove this he requested that the Menshevik Jordansky be summoned as witness.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks worked very effectively against the War Industry Committees set up to serve the needs of war, and against the attempts of the Mensheviks to bring the workers under the influence of the imperialist bourgeoisie. It was of vital interest to the bourgeoisie to make everybody believe that the imperialist war was a people's war. During the war the bourgeoisie managed to attain considerable influence in affairs of state and set up a countrywide organization of its own known as the Unions of Zemstvos and Towns. It was necessary for the bourgeoisie to bring the workers, too, under its leadership and influence. It conceived a way to do this, namely, by forming "Workers' Groups" of the War Industry Committees. The Mensheviks jumped at this idea. It was to the advantage of the bourgeoisie to have on these War Industry Committees representatives of the workers who would urge the working class masses to increase productivity of labour in the factories producing shells, guns, rifles, cartridges and other war material. "Everything for the war, all for the war"—was the slogan of the bourgeoisie. Actually, this slogan meant "get as rich as you can on war contracts and seizures of foreign territory." The Mensheviks took an active part in this pseudo-patriotic scheme of the bourgeoisie. They helped the capitalists by conducting an intense campaign among the workers to get them to take part in the elections of the "Workers' Groups" of the War Industry Committees. The Bolsheviks were against this scheme. They advocated a boycott of the War Industry Committees and were successful in securing this boycott. But some of the workers, headed by a prominent Menshevik, Gvozdev, and an agent-provocateur, Abrosimov, did take part in the activities of the War Industry Committees. When, however, the workers' delegates met, in September 1915, for the final elections of the "Workers' Groups" of the War Industry Committees, it turned out that the majority of the delegates were opposed to participation in them. A majority of the workers' delegates adopted a trenchant resolution opposing participation in the War Industry Committees and declared that the workers had made it their aim to fight for peace and for the overthrow of tsardom.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks also developed extensive activities in the army and navy. They explained to the soldiers and sailors who was to blame for the unparalleled horrors of the war and the sufferings of the people; they explained that there was only one way out for the people from the imperialist shambles, and that was revolution. The Bolsheviks formed nuclei in the army and navy, at the front and in the rear, and distributed leaflets calling for a fight against the war.<br />
<br />
In Kronstadt, the Bolsheviks formed a "Central Collective of the Kronstadt Military Organization" which had close connections with the Petrograd Committee of the Party. A military organization of the Petrograd Party Committee was set up for work among the garrison.<br />
<br />
In August 1916, the chief of the Petrograd ''Okhrana'' reported that "in the Kronstadt Collective, things are very well organized, conspira-torially, and its members are all taciturn and cautious people. This Collective also has representatives on shore."<br />
<br />
At the front, the Party agitated for fraternization between the soldiers of the warring armies, emphasizing the fact that the world bourgeoisie was the enemy, and that the war could be ended only by converting the imperialist war into a civil war and turning one's weapons against one's own bourgeoisie and its government. Cases of refusal of army units to take the offensive became more and more frequent. There were already such instances in 1915, and even more in 1916.<br />
<br />
Particularly extensive were the activities of the Bolsheviks in the armies on the Northern Front, in the Baltic provinces. At the beginning of 1917 General Ruzsky, Commander of the Army on the Northern Front, informed Headquarters that the Bolsheviks had developed intense revolutionary activities on that front.<br />
<br />
The war wrought a profound change in the life of the peoples, in the life of the working class of the world. The fate of states, the fate of nations, the fate of the Socialist movement was at stake. The war was therefore a touchstone, a test for all parties and trends calling themselves Socialist. Would these parties and trends remain true to the cause of Socialism, to the cause of internationalism, or would they choose to betray the working class, to furl their banners and lay them at the feet of their national bourgeoisie?—that is how the question stood at the time.<br />
<br />
The war showed that the parties of the Second International had not stood the test, that they had betrayed the working class and had surrendered their banners to the imperialist bourgeoisie of their own countries.<br />
<br />
And these parties, which had cultivated opportunism in their midst, and which had been brought up to make concessions to the opportunists, to the nationalists, could not have acted differently.<br />
<br />
The war showed that the Bolshevik Party was the only party which had passed the test with flying colours and had remained consistently faithful to the cause of Socialism, the cause of proletarian internationalism.<br />
<br />
And that was to be expected : only a party of a new type, only a party fostered in the spirit of uncompromising struggle against opportunism, only a party that was free from opportunism and nationalism, only such a party could stand the great test and remain faithful to the cause of the working class, to the cause of Socialism and internationalism.<br />
<br />
And the Bolshevik Party was such a party.<br />
<br />
=== Defeat of the tsarist army. Economic disruption. Crisis of Tsardom ===<br />
The war had already been in progress for three years. Millions of people had been killed in the war, or had died of wounds or from epidemics caused by war conditions. The bourgeoisie and landlords were making fortunes out of the war. But the workers and peasants were suffering increasing hardship and privation. The war was undermining the economic life of Russia. Some fourteen million able-bodied men had been torn from economic pursuits and drafted into the army. Mills and factories were coming to a standstill. The crop area had diminished owing to a shortage of labour. The population and the soldiers at the front went hungry, barefoot and naked. The war was eating up the resources of the country.<br />
<br />
The tsarist army suffered defeat after defeat. The German artillery deluged the tsarist troops with shells, while the tsarist army lacked guns, shells and even rifles. Sometimes three soldiers had to share one rifle. While the war was in progress it was discovered that Sukhomlinov, the tsar's Minister of War, was a traitor, who was connected with German spies, and was carrying out the instructions of the German espionage service to disorganize the supply of munitions and to leave the front without guns and rifles. Some of the tsarist ministers and generals surreptitiously assisted the success of the German army: together with the tsarina, who had German ties, they betrayed military secrets to the Germans. It is not surprising that the tsarist army suffered reverses and was forced to retreat. By 19i6 the Germans had already seized Poland and part of the Baltic provinces.<br />
<br />
All this aroused hatred and anger against the tsarist government among the workers, peasants, soldiers and intellectuals, fostered and intensified the revolutionary movement of the masses against the war and against tsardom, both in the rear and at the front, in the central and in the border regions.<br />
<br />
Dissatisfaction also began to spread to the Russian imperialist bourgeoisie. It was incensed by the fact that rascals like Rasputin, who were obviously working for a separate peace with Germany, lorded it at the tsar's court. The bourgeoisie grew more and more convinced that the tsarist government was incapable of waging war successfully. It feared that the tsar might, in order to save his position, conclude a separate peace with the Germans. The Russian bourgeoisie therefore decided to engineer a palace coup with the object of deposing Tsar Nicholas II and replacing him by his brother, Michael Romanov, who was connected with the bourgeoisie. In this way it wanted to kill two birds with one stone: first, to get into power itself and ensure the further prosecution of the imperialist war, and, secondly, to prevent by a small palace coup the outbreak of a big popular revolution, the tide of which was swelling.<br />
<br />
In this the Russian bourgeoisie had the full support of the British and French governments who saw that the tsar was incapable of carrying on the war. They feared that he might end it by concluding a separate peace with the Germans. If the tsarist government were to sign a separate peace, the British and French governments would lose a war ally which not only diverted enemy forces to its own fronts, but also supplied France with tens of thousands of picked Russian soldiers. The British and French governments therefore supported the attempts of the Russian bourgeoisie to bring about a palace coup.<br />
<br />
The tsar was thus isolated.<br />
<br />
While defeat followed defeat at the front, economic disruption grew more and more acute. In January and February 1917 the extent and acuteness of the disorganization of the food, raw material and fuel supply reached a climax. The supply of foodstuffs to Petrograd and Moscow had almost ceased. One factory after another closed down and this aggravated unemployment. Particularly intolerable was the condition of the workers. Increasing numbers of the people were arriving at the conviction that the only way out of the intolerable situation was to overthrow the tsarist autocracy.<br />
<br />
Tsardom was clearly in the throes of a mortal crisis.<br />
<br />
The bourgeoisie thought of solving the crisis by a palace coup.<br />
<br />
But the people solved it in their own way.<br />
<br />
=== The February revolution. Fall of Tsardom. Formation of soviets of workers’ and soldiers’ deputies. Formation of the provisional government. Dual power ===<br />
The year 1917 was inaugurated by the strike of January 9. In the course of this strike demonstrations were held in Petrograd, Moscow, Baku and Nizhni-Novgorod. In Moscow about one-third of the workers took part in the strike of January 9. A demonstration of two thousand persons on Tverskoi Boulevard was dispersed by mounted police. A demonstration on the Vyborg Chaussee in Petrograd was joined by soldiers.<br />
<br />
"The idea of a general strike," the Petrograd police reported, "is daily gaining new followers and is becoming as popular as it was in 1905."<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries tried to direct this incipient revolutionary movement into the channels the liberal bourgeoisie needed. The Mensheviks proposed that a procession of workers to the State Duma be organized on February 14, the day of its opening. But the working-class masses followed the Bolsheviks, and went, not to the Duma, but to a demonstration.<br />
<br />
On February 18, 1917, a strike broke out at the Putilov Works in Petrograd. On February 22 the workers of most of the big factories were on strike. On International Women's Day, February 23 (March 8), at the call of the Petrograd Bolshevik Committee, working women came out in the streets to demonstrate against starvation, war and tsar-dom. The Petrograd workers supported the demonstration of the working women by a city-wide strike movement. The political strike began to grow into a general political demonstration against the tsarist system.<br />
<br />
On February 24 (March 9) the demonstration was resumed with even greater vigour. About 200,000 workers were already on strike.<br />
<br />
On February 25 (March 10) the whole of working-class Petrograd had joined the revolutionary movement. The political strikes in the districts merged into a general political strike of the whole city. Demonstrations and clashes with the police took place everywhere. Over the masses of workers floated red banners bearing the slogans: "Down with the tsar!" "Down with the war!" "We want bread!"<br />
<br />
On the morning of February 26 (March 11) the political strike and demonstration began to assume the character of an uprising. The workers disarmed police and gendarmes and armed themselves. Nevertheless, the clashes with the police ended with the shooting down of a demonstration on Znamenskaya Square.<br />
<br />
General Khabalov, Commander of the Petrograd Military Area, announced that the workers must return to work by February 28 (March 13), otherwise they would be sent to the front. On February 25 (March 10) the tsar gave orders to General Khabalov: "I command you to put a stop to the disorders in the capital not later than tomorrow."<br />
<br />
But "to put a stop" to the revolution was no longer possible.<br />
<br />
On February 26 (March 11) the 4 th Company of the Reserve Battalion of the Pavlovsky Regiment opened fire, not on the workers, however, but on squads of mounted police who were engaged in a skirmish with the workers. A most energetic and persistent drive was made to win over the troops, especially by the working women, who addressed themselves directly to the soldiers, fraternized with them and called upon them to help the people to overthrow the hated tsarist autocracy.<br />
<br />
The practical work of the Bolshevik Party at that time was directed by the Bureau of the Central Committee of our Party which had its quarters in Petrograd and was headed by Comrade Molotov. On February 26 (March 11) the Bureau of the Central Committee issued a manifesto calling for the continuation of the armed struggle against tsardom and the formation of a Provisional Revolutionary Government.<br />
<br />
On February 27 (March 12) the troops in Petrograd refused to fire on the workers and began to line up with the people in revolt. The number of soldiers who had joined the revolt by the morning of February 27 was still no more than 10,000, but by the evening it already exceeded 60,000.<br />
<br />
The workers and soldiers who had risen in revolt began to arrest tsarist ministers and generals and to free revolutionaries from jail. The released political prisoners joined the revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
In the streets, shots were still being exchanged with police and gendarmes posted with machine guns in the attics of houses. But the troops rapidly went over to the side of the workers, and this decided the fate of the tsarist autocracy.<br />
<br />
When the news of the victory of the revolution in Petrograd spread to other towns and to the front, the workers and soldiers everywhere began to depose the tsarist officials.<br />
<br />
The February bourgeois-democratic revolution had won.<br />
<br />
The revolution was victorious because its vanguard was the working class which headed the movement of millions of peasants clad in soldiers' uniform demanding "peace, bread and liberty." It was the hegemony of the proletariat that determined the success of the revolution.<br />
<br />
"The revolution was made by the proletariat. The proletariat displayed heroism; it shed its blood; it swept along with it the broadest masses of the toiling and poor population," wrote Lenin in the early days of the revolution. (Lenin, ''Collected Works,'' Russ. ed., Vol. XX, pp. 23-4.)<br />
<br />
The First Revolution, that of 1905, had prepared the way for the swift success of the Second Revolution, that of 1917.<br />
<br />
"Without the tremendous class battles," Lenin wrote, "and the revolutionary energy displayed by the Russian proletariat during the three years, 1905-07, the second revolution could not possibly have been so rapid in the sense that its initial stage was completed in a few days." (Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. VI, pp. 3-4.)<br />
<br />
Soviets arose in the very first days of the revolution. The victorious revolution rested on the support of the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. The workers and soldiers who rose in revolt created Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. The Revolution of 1905 had shown that the Soviets were organs of armed uprising and at the same time the embryo of a new, revolutionary power. The idea of Soviets lived in the minds of the working-class masses, and they put it into effect as soon as tsardom was overthrown, with this difference, however, that in 1905 it was Soviets only of ''Workers'<nowiki/>'' Deputies that were formed, whereas in February 1917, on the initiative of the Bolsheviks, there arose Soviets of ''Workers'<nowiki/>'' and ''Soldiers''' Deputies.<br />
<br />
While the Bolsheviks were directly leading the struggle of the masses in the streets, the compromising parties, the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, were seizing the seats in the Soviets, and building up a majority there. This was partly facilitated by the fact that the majority of the leaders of the Bolshevik Party were in prison or exile (Lenin was in exile abroad and Stalin and Sverdlov in banishment in Siberia) while the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries were freely promenading the streets of Petrograd. The result was that the Petrograd Soviet and its Executive Committee were headed by representatives of the compromising parties: Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries. This was also the case in Moscow and a number of other cities. Only in Ivanovo-Voznesensk, Krasnoyarsk and a few other places did the Bolsheviks have a majority in the Soviets from the very outset.<br />
<br />
The armed people—the workers and soldiers—sent their representatives to the Soviet as to an organ of power of the people. They thought and believed that the Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies would carry out all the demands of the revolutionary people, and that, in the first place, peace would be concluded.<br />
<br />
But the unwarranted trustfulness of the workers and soldiers served them in evil stead. The Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks had not the slightest intention of terminating the war, of securing peace. They planned to take advantage of the revolution to continue the war. As to the revolution and the revolutionary demands of the people, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks considered that the revolution was already over, and that the task now was to seal it and to pass to a "normal" constitutional existence side by side with the bourgeoisie. The Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik leaders of the Petrograd Soviet therefore did their utmost to shelve the question of terminating the war, to shelve the question of peace, and to hand over the power to the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
On February 27 (March 12), 1917, the liberal members of the Fourth State Duma, as the result of a backstairs agreement with the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik leaders, set up a Provisional Committee of the State Duma, headed by Rodzyanko, the President of the Duma, a landlord and a monarchist. And a few days later, the Provisional Committee of the State Duma and the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik leaders of the Executive Committee of the Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, acting secretly from the Bolsheviks, came to an agreement to form a new government of Russia—a bourgeois Provisional Government, headed by Prince Lvov, the man whom, prior to the February Revolution, even Tsar Nicholas II was about to make the Prime Minister of his government. The Provisional Government included Milyukov, the head of the Constitutional-Democrats, Guchkov, the head of the Octobrists, and other prominent representatives of the capitalist class, and, as the representative of the "democracy," the Socialist-Revolutionary Kerensky.<br />
<br />
And so it was that the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik leaders of the Executive Committee of the Soviet surrendered the power to the bourgeoisie. Yet when the Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies learned of this, its majority formally approved of the action of the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik leaders, despite the protest of the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
Thus a new state power arose in Russia, consisting, as Lenin said, of representatives of the "bourgeoisie and landlords who had become bourgeois."<br />
<br />
But alongside of the bourgeois government there existed another power—the Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. The soldier deputies on the Soviet were mostly peasants who had been mobilized for the war. The Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies was an organ of the alliance of workers and peasants against the tsarist regime, and at the same time it was an organ of their power, an organ of the dictatorship of the working class and the peasantry.<br />
<br />
The result was a peculiar interlocking of two powers, of two dictatorships: the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, represented by the Provisional Government, and the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, represented by the Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies.<br />
<br />
The result was a ''dual power.''<br />
<br />
How is it to be explained that the majority in the Soviets at first consisted of Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries?<br />
<br />
How is it to be explained that the victorious workers and peasants ''voluntarily'' surrendered the power to the representatives of the bourgeoisie?<br />
<br />
Lenin explained it by pointing out that millions of people, inexperienced in politics, had awakened and pressed forward to political activity. These were for the most part small owners, peasants, workers who had recently been peasants, people who stood midway between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Russia was at that time the most petty-bourgeois of all the big European countries. And in this country, "a gigantic petty-bourgeois wave has swept over everything and overwhelmed the class-conscious proletariat, not only by force of numbers but also ideologically; that is, it has infected and imbued very wide circles of workers with the petty-bourgeois political outlook." (Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. VI, p. 49.)<br />
<br />
It was this elemental petty-bourgeois wave that swept the petty-bourgeois Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary parties to the fore.<br />
<br />
Lenin pointed out that another reason was the change in the composition of the proletariat that had taken place during the war and the inadequate class-consciousness and organization of the proletariat at the beginning of the revolution. During the war big changes had taken place in the proletariat itself. About 40 per cent of the regular workers had been drafted into the army. Many small owners, artisans and shopkeepers, to whom the proletarian psychology was alien, had gone to the factories in order to evade mobilization.<br />
<br />
It was these petty-bourgeois sections of the workers that formed the soil which nourished the petty-bourgeois politicians—the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries.<br />
<br />
That is why large numbers of the people, inexperienced in politics, swept into the elemental petty-bourgeois vortex, and intoxicated with the first successes of the revolution, found themselves in its early months under the sway of the compromising parties and consented to surrender the state power to the bourgeoisie in the naive belief that a bourgeois power would not hinder the Soviets in their work.<br />
<br />
The task that confronted the Bolshevik Party was, by patient work of explanation, to open the eyes of the masses to the imperialist character of the Provisional Government, to expose the treachery of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks and to show that peace could not be secured unless the Provisional Government were replaced by a government of Soviets.<br />
<br />
And to this work the Bolshevik Party addressed itself with the utmost energy.<br />
<br />
It resumed the publication of its legal periodicals. The newspaper ''Pravda'' appeared in Petrograd five days after the February Revolution, and the ''Sotsial-Demokrat'' in Moscow a few days later. The Party was assuming leadership of the masses, who were losing their confidence in the liberal bourgeoisie and in the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries. It patiently explained to the soldiers and peasants the necessity of acting jointly with the working class. It explained to them that the peasants would secure neither peace nor land unless the revolution were further developed and the bourgeois Provisional Government replaced by a government of Soviets.<br />
<br />
=== Brief summary ===<br />
The imperialist war arose owing to the uneven development of the capitalist countries, to the upsetting of equilibrium between the principal powers, to the imperialists' need for a redivision of the world by means of war and for the creation of a new equilibrium.<br />
<br />
The war would not have been so destructive, and perhaps would not even have assumed such dimensions, if the parties of the Second International had not betrayed the cause of the working class, if they had not violated the anti-war decisions of the congresses of the Second International, if they had dared to act and to rouse the working class against their imperialist governments, against the warmongers.<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik Party was the only proletarian party which remained faithful to the cause of Socialism and internationalism and which organized civil war against its own imperialist government. All the other parties of the Second International, being tied to the bourgeoisie through their leaders, found themselves under the sway of imperialism and deserted to the side of the imperialists.<br />
<br />
The war, while it was a reflection of the general crisis of capitalism, at the same time aggravated this crisis and weakened world capitalism. The workers of Russia and the Bolshevik Party were the first in the world successfully to take advantage of the weakness of capitalism. They forced a breach in the imperialist front, overthrew the tsar and set up Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies.<br />
<br />
Intoxicated by the first successes of the revolution, and lulled by the assurances of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries that from now on everything would go well, the bulk of the petty-bourgeoisie, the soldiers, as well as the workers, placed their confidence in the Provisional Government and supported it.<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik Party was confronted with the task of explaining to the masses of workers and soldiers, who had been intoxicated by the first successes, that the complete victory of the revolution was still a long way off, that as long as the power was in the hands of the bourgeois Provisional Government, and as long as the Soviets were dominated by the compromisers—the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries—the people would secure neither peace, nor land, nor bread, and that in order to achieve complete victory, one more step had to be taken and the power transferred to the Soviets.<br />
<br />
== The Bolshevik party in the period of preparation and realization of the October socialist revolution (April 1917—1918) ==<br />
<br />
=== Situation in the country after the February revolution. Party emerges from underground and passes to open political work. Lenin arrives in Petrograd. Lenin’s April theses. Party’s policy of transition to socialist revolution ===<br />
The course of events and the conduct of the Provisional Government daily furnished new proofs of the correctness of the Bolshevik line. It became increasingly evident that the Provisional Government stood not for the people but against the people, not for peace but for war, and that it was unwilling and unable to give the people peace, land or bread. The explanatory work of the Bolsheviks found a fruitful soil.<br />
<br />
While the workers and soldiers were overthrowing the tsarist government and destroying the monarchy root and branch, the Provisional Government definitely wanted to preserve the monarchy. On March 2, 1917, it secretly commissioned Guchkov and Shulgin to go and see the tsar. The bourgeoisie wanted to transfer the power to Nicholas Romanov's brother, Michael. But when, at a meeting of railwaymen, Guchkov ended his speech with the words, "Long live Emperor Michael," the workers demanded that Guchkov be immediately arrested and searched. "Horse-radish is no sweeter than radish," they exclaimed indignantly.<br />
<br />
It was clear that the workers would not permit the restoration of the monarchy.<br />
<br />
While the workers and peasants who were shedding their blood making the revolution expected that the war would be terminated, while they were fighting for bread and land and demanding vigorous measures to end the economic chaos, the Provisional Government remained deaf to these vital demands of the people. Consisting as it did of prominent representatives of the capitalists and landlords, this government had no intention of satisfying the demand of the peasants that the land be turned over to them. Nor could they provide bread for the working people, because to do so they would have to encroach on the interests of the big grain dealers and to take grain from the landlords and the kulaks by every available means; and this the government did not dare to do, for it was itself tied up with the interests of these classes. Nor could it give the people peace. Bound as it was to the British and French imperialists, the Provisional Government had no intention of terminating the war; on the contrary, it endeavoured to take advantage of the revolution to make Russia's participation in the imperialist war even more active, and to realize its imperialist designs of seizing Constantinople, the Straits and Galicia.<br />
<br />
It was clear that the people's confidence in the policy of the Provisional Government must soon come to an end.<br />
<br />
It was becoming clear that the dual power which had arisen after the February Revolution could not last long, for the course of events demanded the concentration of power in the hands of one authority: either the Provisional Government or the Soviets.<br />
<br />
It was true that the compromising policy of the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries still met with support among the masses. There were quite a number of workers, and an even larger number of soldiers and peasants, who still believed that "the Constituent Assembly will soon come and arrange everything in a peaceful way," and who thought that the war was not waged for purposes of conquest, but from necessity— to defend the state. Lenin called such people honestly-mistaken supporters of the war. These people still considered the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik policy, which was one of promises and coaxing, the correct policy. But it was clear that promises and coaxing could not suffice for long, as the course of events and the conduct of the Provisional Government were daily revealing and proving that the compromising policy of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks was a policy of procrastination and of hoodwinking the credulous.<br />
<br />
The Provisional Government did not always confine itself to a covert struggle against the revolutionary movement of the masses, to backstairs scheming against the revolution. It sometimes attempted to make an open assault on the democratic liberties, to "restore discipline," especially among the soldiers, to "establish order," that is, to direct the revolution into channels that suited the needs of the bourgeoisie. But all its efforts in this direction failed, and the people eagerly exercised their democratic liberties, namely, freedom of speech, press, association, assembly and demonstration. The workers and soldiers endeavoured to make full use of their newly-won democratic rights in order to take an active part in the political life of the country, to get an intelligent understanding of the situation and to decide what was to be done next.<br />
<br />
After the February Revolution, the organizations of the Bolshevik Party, which had worked illegally under the extremely difficult conditions of tsardom, emerged from underground and began to develop political and organizational work openly. The membership of the Bolshevik organizations at that time did not exceed 40,000 or 45,000. But these were all staunch revolutionaries, steeled in the struggle. The Party Committees were reorganized on the principle of democratic centralism. All Party bodies, from top to bottom, were made elective.<br />
<br />
When the Party began its legal existence, differences within its ranks became apparent. Kamenev and several workers of the Moscow organization, for example, Rykov, Bubnov and Nogin, held a semi-Menshevik position of conditionally supporting the Provisional Government and the policy of the partisans of the war. Stalin, who had just returned from exile, Molotov and others, together with the majority of the Party, upheld a policy of no-confidence in the Provisional Government, opposed the partisans of the war, and called for an active struggle for peace, a struggle against the imperialist war. Some of the Party workers vacillated, which was a manifestation of their political backwardness, a consequence of long years of imprisonment or exile.<br />
<br />
The absence of the leader of the Party, Lenin, was felt.<br />
<br />
On April 3 (16), 1917, after a long period of exile, Lenin returned to Russia.<br />
<br />
Lenin's arrival was of tremendous importance to the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
While still in Switzerland, Lenin, upon receiving the first news of the revolution, had written his "Letters From Afar" to the Party and to the working class of Russia, in which he said:<br />
<br />
"Workers, you have displayed marvels of proletarian heroism, the heroism of the people, in the civil war against tsardom. You must now display marvels of organization, organization of the proletariat and of the whole people, in order to prepare the way for your victory in the second stage of the revolution." (Lenin, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. VI, p. 11.)<br />
<br />
Lenin arrived in Petrograd on the night of April 3. Thousands of workers, soldiers and sailors assembled at the Finland Railway Station and in the station square to welcome him. Their enthusiasm as Lenin alighted from the train was indescribable. They lifted their leader shoulder high and carried him to the main waiting room of the station. There the Mensheviks Chkheidze and Skobelev launched into speeches of "welcome" on behalf of the Petrograd Soviet, in which they "expressed the hope" that they and Lenin would find a "common language." But Lenin did not stop to listen; sweeping past them, he went out to the masses of workers and soldiers. Mounting an armoured car, he delivered his famous speech in which he called upon the masses to fight for the victory of the Socialist revolution. "Long live the Socialist revolution!" were the words with which Lenin concluded this first speech after long years of exile.<br />
<br />
Back in Russia, Lenin flung himself vigorously into revolutionary work. On the morrow of his arrival he delivered a report on the subject of the war and the revolution at a meeting of Bolsheviks, and then repeated the theses of this report at a meeting attended by Mensheviks as well as Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
These were Lenin's famous April Theses, which provided the Party and the proletariat with a clear revolutionary line for the transition from the bourgeois to the Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
Lenin's theses were of immense significance to the revolution and to the subsequent work of the Party. The revolution was a momentous turn in the life of the country. In the new conditions of the struggle that followed the overthrow of tsardom, the Party needed a new orientation to advance boldly and confidently along the new road. Lenin's theses gave the Party this orientation.<br />
<br />
Lenin's April Theses laid down for the Party a brilliant plan of struggle for the transition from the bourgeois-democratic to the Socialist revolution, from the first stage of the revolution to the second stage—the stage of the Socialist revolution. The whole history of the Party had prepared it for this great task. As far back as 1905, Lenin had said in his pamphlet, ''Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution,'' that after the overthrow of tsardom the proletariat would proceed to bring about the Socialist revolution. The new thing in the theses was that they gave a concrete, theoretically grounded plan for the initial stage of the transition to the Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
The transitional steps in the economic field were: nationalization of all the land and confiscation of the landed estates, amalgamation of all the banks into one national bank to be under the control of the Soviet of Workers' Deputies, and establishment of control over the social production and distribution of products.<br />
<br />
In the political field, Lenin proposed the transition from a parliamentary republic to a republic of Soviets. This was an important step forward in the theory and practice of Marxism. Hitherto, Marxist theoreticians had regarded the parliamentary republic as the best political form of transition to Socialism. Now Lenin proposed to replace the parliamentary republic by a Soviet republic as the most suitable form of political organization of society in the period of transition from capitalism to Socialism.<br />
<br />
"The specific feature of the present situation in Russia," the theses stated, "is that it represents a ''transition'' from the first stage of the revolution—which, owing to the insufficient class-consciousness and organization of the proletariat, placed the power in the hands of the bourgeoisie—''to the second'' stage, which must place the power in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest strata of the peasantry." (''Ibid''., p. 22.)<br />
<br />
"Not a parliamentary republic—to return to a parliamentary republic from the Soviets of Workers' Deputies would be a retrograde step—but a republic of Soviets of Workers', Agricultural Labourers' and Peasants' Deputies throughout the country, from top to bottom." (''Ibid''., p. 23.)<br />
<br />
Under the new government, the Provisional Government, the war continued to be a predatory imperialist war, Lenin said. It was the task of the Party to explain this to the masses and to show them that unless the bourgeoisie were overthrown, it would be impossible to end the war by a truly democratic peace and not a rapacious peace.<br />
<br />
As regards the Provisional Government, the slogan Lenin put forward was: "No support for the Provisional Government!"<br />
<br />
Lenin further pointed out in the theses that our Party was still in the minority in the Soviets, that the Soviets were dominated by a bloc of Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, which was an instrument of bourgeois influence on the proletariat. Hence, the Party's task consisted in the following:<br />
<br />
"It must be explained to the masses that the Soviets of Workers' Deputies are the ''only possible'' form of revolutionary government, and that therefore our task is, as long as ''this'' government yields to the influence of the bourgeoisie, to present a patient, systematic, and persistent ''explanation'' of the errors of their tactics, an explanation especially adapted to the practical needs of the masses. As long as we are in the minority we carry on the work of criticizing and exposing errors and at the same time we preach the necessity of transferring the entire power of state to the Soviets of Workers' Deputies..." (''Ibid''., p. 23.)<br />
<br />
This meant that Lenin was not calling for a revolt against the Provisional Government, which at that moment enjoyed the confidence of the Soviets, that he was not demanding its overthrow, but that he wanted, by means of explanatory and recruiting work, to win a majority in the Soviets, to change the policy of the Soviets, and through the Soviets to alter the composition and policy of the government.<br />
<br />
This was a line envisaging a peaceful development of the revolution.<br />
<br />
Lenin further demanded that the "soiled shirt" be discarded, that is, that the Party no longer call itself a Social-Democratic Party. The parties of the Second International and the Russian Mensheviks called themselves Social-Democrats. This name had been tarnished and disgraced by the opportunists, the betrayers of Socialism. Lenin proposed that the Party of the Bolsheviks should be called the ''Communist Party,'' which was the name given by Marx and Engels to their party. This name was scientifically correct, for it was the ultimate aim of the Bolshevik Party to achieve Communism. Mankind can pass directly from capitalism only to Socialism, that is, to the common ownership of the means of production and the distribution of products according to the work performed by each. Lenin said that our Party looked farther ahead. Socialism was inevitably bound to pass gradually into Communism, on the banner of which is inscribed the maxim: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."<br />
<br />
Lastly, Lenin in his theses demanded the creation of a new International, the Third, Communist International, which would be free of opportunism and social-chauvinism.<br />
<br />
Lenin's theses called forth a frenzied outcry from the bourgeoisie, the Mensheviks andtheSocialist-Revolutionaries.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks issued a proclamation to the workers which began with the warning: "the revolution is in danger." The danger, in the opinion of the Mensheviks, lay in the fact that the Bolsheviks had advanced the demand for the transfer of power to the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies.<br />
<br />
Plekhanov in his newspaper, ''Yedinstvo (Unity),'' wrote an article in which he termed Lenin's speech a ''"raving speech."'' He quoted the words of the Menshevik Chkheidze, who said: "Lenin alone will remain outside the revolution, and we shall go our own way."<br />
<br />
On April 14 a Petrograd City Conference of Bolsheviks was held. The conference approved Lenin's theses and made them the basis of its work.<br />
<br />
Within a short while the local organizations of the Party had also approved Lenin's theses.<br />
<br />
The whole Party, ''with the exception of a few individuals of the type of Kamenev, Rykov and Pyatakov, received Lenin's theses with profound satisfaction.''<br />
<br />
=== Beginning of the crisis of the provisional government. April conference of the Bolshevik Party ===<br />
While the Bolsheviks were preparing for the further development of the revolution, the Provisional Government continued to work against the people. On April 18, Milyukov, Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Provisional Government, informed the Allies that "the whole people desire to continue the World War until a decisive victory is achieved and that the Provisional Government intends fully to observe the obligations undertaken towards our allies."<br />
<br />
Thus the Provisional Government pledged its loyalty to the tsarist treaties and promised to go on shedding as much of the people's blood as the imperialists might require for a "victorious finish."<br />
<br />
On April 19 this statement ("Milyukov's note") became known to the workers and soldiers. On April 20 the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party called upon the masses to protest against the imperialist policy of the Provisional Government. On April 20-21 (May 3-4), 1917, not less than 100,000 workers and soldiers, stirred to indignation by "Milyukov's note," took part in a demonstration. Their banners bore the demands: "Publish the secret treaties!" "Down with the war!" "All power to the Soviets!" The workers and soldiers marched from the outskirts of the city to the centre, where the Provisional Government was sitting. On the Nevsky Prospect and other places clashes with groups of bourgeois took place.<br />
<br />
The more outspoken counter-revolutionaries, like General Kornilov, demanded that fire be opened on the demonstrators, and even gave orders to that effect. But the troops refused to carry out the orders.<br />
<br />
During the demonstration, a small group of members of the Petro-grad Party Committee (Bagdatyev and others) issued a slogan demanding the immediate overthrow of the Provisional Government. The Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party sharply condemned the conduct of these "Left" adventurers, considering this slogan untimely and incorrect, a slogan that hampered the Party in its efforts to win over a majority in the Soviets and ran counter to the Party line of a peaceful development of the revolution.<br />
<br />
The events of April 20-21 signified the beginning of the crisis of the Provisional Government.<br />
<br />
This was the first serious rift in the compromising policy of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries.<br />
<br />
On May 2, 1917, under the pressure of the masses, Milyukov and Guchkov were dropped from the Provisional Government.<br />
<br />
The first ''coalition'' Provisional Government was formed. It included, in addition to representatives of the bourgeoisie, Mensheviks (Skobelev and Tsereteli) and Socialist-Revolutionaries (Chernov, Ker-ensky and others).<br />
<br />
Thus the Mensheviks, who in 1905 had declared it impermissible for representatives of the Social-Democratic Party to take part in a ''revolutionary'' Provisional Government, now found it permissible for their representatives to take part in a ''counter-revolutionary'' Provisional Government.<br />
<br />
The Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries had thus deserted to the camp of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
On April 24, 1917, the Seventh (April) Conference of the Bolshevik Party assembled. For the first time in the existence of the Party a Bolshevik Conference met openly. In the history of the Party this conference holds a place of importance equal to that of a Party Congress.<br />
<br />
The All-Russian April Conference showed that the Party was growing by leaps and bounds. The conference was attended by 133 delegates with vote and by 18 with voice but no vote. They represented 80,000 organized members of the Party.<br />
<br />
The conference discussed and laid down the Party line on all basic questions of the war and revolution: the current situation, the war, the Provisional Government, the Soviets, the agrarian question, the national question, etc.<br />
<br />
In his report, Lenin elaborated the principles he had already set forth in the April Theses. The task of the Party was to effect the transition from the first stage of the revolution, "which placed the power in the hands of the bourgeoisie...''to the second'' stage, which must place the power in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest strata of the peasantry" ''(Lenin)''. The course the Party should take was to prepare for the Socialist revolution. The immediate task of the Party was set forth by Lenin in the slogan: "All power to the Soviets!"<br />
<br />
The slogan, "All power to the Soviets!" meant that it was necessary to put an end to the dual power, that is, the division of power between the Provisional Government and the Soviets, to transfer the ''whole'' power to the Soviets, and to drive the representatives of the landlords and capitalists out of the organs of government.<br />
<br />
The conference resolved that one of the most important tasks of the Party was untiringly to explain to the masses the truth that "the Provisional Government is by its nature an organ of the rule of the landlords and the bourgeoisie," as well as to show how fatal was the compromising policy of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks who were deceiving the people with false promises and subjecting them to the blows of the imperialist war and counter-revolution.<br />
<br />
Kamenev and Rykov opposed Lenin at the Conference. Echoing the Mensheviks, they asserted that Russia was not ripe for a Socialist revolution, and that only a bourgeois republic was possible in Russia. They recommended the Party and the working class to confine themselves to "controlling" the Provisional Government. In reality, they, like the Mensheviks, stood for the preservation of capitalism and of the power of the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Zinoviev, too, opposed Lenin at the conference; it was on the question whether the Bolshevik Party should remain within the Zimmerwald alliance, or break with it and form a new International. As the years of war had shown, while this alliance carried on propaganda for peace, it did not actually break with the bourgeois partisans of the war. Lenin therefore insisted on immediate withdrawal from this alliance and on the formation of a new, Communist International. Zinoviev proposed that the Party should remain within the Zimmerwald alliance. Lenin vigorously condemned Zinoviev's proposal and called his tactics "arch-opportunist and pernicious."<br />
<br />
The April Conference also discussed the agrarian and national questions.<br />
<br />
In connection with Lenin's report on the agrarian question, the conference adopted a resolution calling for the confiscation of the landed estates, which were to be placed at the disposal of the peasant committees, and for the nationalization of all the land. The Bolsheviks called upon the peasants to fight for the land, showing them that the Bolshevik Party was the only revolutionary party, the only party that was really helping the peasants to overthrow the landlords.<br />
<br />
Of great importance was Comrade Stalin's report on the national question. Even before the revolution, on the eve of the imperialist war, Lenin and Stalin had elaborated the fundamental principles of the policy of the Bolshevik Party on the national question. Lenin and Stalin declared that the proletarian party must support the national liberation movement of the oppressed peoples against imperialism. Consequently, the Bolshevik Party advocated the right of nations to self-determination even to the point of secession and formation of independent states. This was the view defended by Comrade Stalin, in his report delivered at the conference on behalf of the Central Committee.<br />
<br />
Lenin and Stalin were opposed by Pyatakov, who, together with Bukharin, had already during the war taken up a national-chauvinist stand on the national question. Pyatakov and Bukharin were opposed to the right of nations to self-determination.<br />
<br />
The resolute and consistent position of the Party on the national question, its struggle for the complete equality of nations and for the abolition of all forms of national oppression and national inequality, secured for the Party the sympathy and support of the oppressed nationalities.<br />
<br />
The text of the resolution on the national question adopted by the April Conference is as follows:<br />
<br />
"The policy of national oppression, inherited from the autocracy and monarchy, is supported by the landlords, capitalists and petty bourgeoisie in order to protect their class privileges and to cause disunity among the workers of the various nationalities. Modern imperialism, which increases the striving to subjugate weak nations, is a new factor intensifying national oppression.<br />
<br />
"To the extent that the elimination of national oppression is achievable at all in capitalist society, it is possible only under a consistently democratic republican system and state administration that guarantee complete equality for all nations and languages.<br />
<br />
"The right of all the nations forming part of Russia freely to secede and form independent states must be recognized. To deny them this right, or to fail to take measures guaranteeing its practical realization, is equivalent to supporting a policy of seizure and annexation. It is only the recognition by the proletariat of the right of nations to secede that can ensure complete solidarity among the workers of the various nations and help to bring the nations closer together on truly democratic lines...<br />
<br />
"The right of nations freely to secede must not be confused with the expediency of secession of a given nation at a given moment. The party of the proletariat must decide the latter question quite independently in each particular case from the standpoint of the interests of the social development as a whole and of the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat for Socialism.<br />
<br />
"The Party demands broad regional autonomy, the abolition of supervision from above, the abolition of a compulsory state language and the determination of the boundaries of the self-governing and autonomous regions by the local population itself in accordance with the economic and social conditions, the national composition of the population, and so forth.<br />
<br />
"The party of the proletariat resolutely rejects what is known as 'national cultural autonomy,' under which education, etc., is removed from the competence of the state and placed within the competence of some kind of national Diets. National cultural autonomy artificially divides the workers living in one locality, and even working in the same industrial enterprise, according to their various 'national cultures'; in other words it strengthens the ties between the workers and the bourgeois culture of individual nations, whereas the aim of the Social-Democrats is to develop the international culture of the world proletariat.<br />
<br />
"The Party demands that a fundamental law shall be embodied in the constitution annulling all privileges enjoyed by any nation whatever and all infringements of the rights of national minorities.<br />
<br />
"The interests of the working class demand that the workers of all the nationalities of Russia should have common proletarian organizations: political, trade union, educational institutions of the co-operatives and so forth. Only such common organizations of the workers of the various nationalities will make it possible for the proletariat to wage a successful struggle against international capital and bourgeois nationalism." (Lenin and Stalin, ''The Russian Revolution'', pp. 52-3.)<br />
<br />
Thus the April Conference exposed the opportunist, anti-Leninist stand of Kamenev, Zinoviev, Pyatakov, Bukharin, Rykov and their small following.<br />
<br />
The conference unanimously supported Lenin by taking up a precise stand on all important questions and adopting a course leading to the victory of the Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
=== Successes of the Bolshevik Party in the capital. Abortive offensive of the armies of the provisional government. Suppression of the July demonstration of workers and soldiers ===<br />
On the basis of the decisions of the April Conference, the Party developed extensive activities in order to win over the masses, and to train and organize them for battle. The Party line in that period was, by patiently explaining the Bolshevik policy and exposing the compromising policy of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, to isolate these parties from the masses and to win a majority in the Soviets.<br />
<br />
In addition to the work in the Soviets, the Bolsheviks carried on extensive activities in the trade unions and in the factory committees.<br />
<br />
Particularly extensive was the work of the Bolsheviks in the army. Military organizations began to arise everywhere. The Bolsheviks worked indefatigably at the front and in the rear to organize the soldiers and sailors. A particularly important part in making the soldiers active revolutionaries was played at the front by the Bolshevik newspaper, ''Okopnaya Pravda (Trench Truth)''.<br />
<br />
Thanks to Bolshevik propaganda and agitation, already in the early months of the revolution the workers in many cities held new elections to the Soviets, especially to the district Soviets, drove out the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries and elected followers of the Bolshevik Party in their stead.<br />
<br />
The work of the Bolsheviks yielded splendid results, especially in Petrograd.<br />
<br />
A Petrograd Conference of Factory Committees was held from May 30 to June 3, 1917. At this conference three-quarters of the delegates already supported the Bolsheviks. Almost the entire Petrograd proletariat supported the Bolshevik slogan—"All power to the Soviets!"<br />
<br />
On June 3 (16), 1917, the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets met. The Bolsheviks were still in the minority in the Soviets; they had a little over 100 delegates at this congress, compared with 700 or 800 Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and others.<br />
<br />
At the First Congress of Soviets, the Bolsheviks insistently stressed the fatal consequences of compromise with the bourgeoisie and exposed the imperialist character of the war. Lenin made a speech at the congress in which he showed the correctness of the Bolshevik line and declared that only a government of Soviets could give bread to the working people, land to the peasants, secure peace and lead the country out of chaos.<br />
<br />
A mass campaign was being conducted at that time in the working-class districts of Petrograd for the organization of a demonstration and for the presentation of demands to the Congress of Soviets. In its anxiety to prevent the workers from demonstrating without its authorization, and in the hope of utilizing the revolutionary sentiments of the masses for its own ends, the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet decided to call a demonstration for June 18 (July 1). The Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries expected that it would take place under anti-Bolshevik slogans. The Bolshevik Party began energetic preparations for this demonstration. Comrade Stalin wrote in ''Pravda'' that ". . . it is our task to make sure that the demonstration in Petrograd on June 18 takes place under our revolutionary slogans."<br />
<br />
The demonstration of June 18, 1917, was held at the graves of the martyrs of the revolution. It proved to be a veritable review of the forces of the Bolshevik Party. It revealed the growing revolutionary spirit of the masses and their growing confidence in the Bolshevik Party. The slogans displayed by the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries calling for confidence in the Provisional Government and urging the continuation of the war were lost in a sea of Bolshevik slogans. Four hundred thousand demonstrators carried banners bearing the slogans: "Down with the war!" "Down with the ten capitalist Ministers!" "All power to the Soviets!"<br />
<br />
It was a complete fiasco for the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, a fiasco for the Provisional Government in the capital of the country.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, the Provisional Government received the support of the First Congress of the Soviets and decided to continue the imperialist policy. On that very day, June 18, the Provisional Government, in obedience to the wishes of the British and French imperialists, drove the soldiers at the front to take the offensive. The bourgeoisie regarded this as the only means of putting an end to the revolution. In the event of the success of the offensive, the bourgeoisie hoped to take the whole power into its own hands, to push the Soviets out of the arena, and to crush the Bolsheviks. Again, in the event of its failure, the entire blame could be thrown upon the Bolsheviks by accusing them of disintegrating the army.<br />
<br />
There could be no doubt that the offensive would fail. And fail it did. The soldiers were worn out, they did not understand the purpose of the offensive, they had no confidence in their officers who were alien to them, there was a shortage of artillery and shells. All this made the failure of the offensive a foregone conclusion.<br />
<br />
The news of the offensive at the front, and then of its collapse, roused the capital. The indignation of the workers and soldiers knew no bounds. It became apparent that when the Provisional Government proclaimed a policy of peace it was hoodwinking the people, and that it wanted to continue the imperialist war. It became apparent that the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviets and the Petrograd Soviet were unwilling or unable to check the criminal deeds of the Provisional Government and themselves trailed in its wake.<br />
<br />
The revolutionary indignation of the Petrograd workers and soldiers boiled over. On July 3 (16) spontaneous demonstrations started in the Vyborg District of Petrograd. They continued all day. The separate demonstrations grew into a huge general armed demonstration demanding the transfer of power to the Soviets. The Bolshevik Party was opposed to armed action at that time, for it considered that the revolutionary crisis had not yet matured, that the army and the provinces were not yet prepared to support an uprising in the capital, and that an isolated and premature rising might only make it easier for the counter-revolutionaries to crush the vanguard of the revolution. But when it became obviously impossible to keep the masses from demonstrating, the Party resolved to participate in the demonstration in order to lend it a peaceful and organized character. This the Bolshevik Party succeeded in doing. Hundreds of thousands of men and women marched to the headquarters of the Petrograd Soviet and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of Soviets, where they demanded that the Soviets take the power into their own hands, break with the imperialist bourgeoisie, and pursue an active peace policy.<br />
<br />
Notwithstanding the pacific character of the demonstration, reactionary units—detachments of officers and cadets were brought out against it. The streets of Petrograd ran with the blood of workers and soldiers. The most ignorant and counter-revolutionary units of the army were summoned from the front to suppress the workers.<br />
<br />
After suppressing the demonstration of workers and soldiers, the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, in alliance with the bourgeoisie and Whiteguard generals, fell upon the Bolshevik Party. The ''Pravda'' premises were wrecked. ''Pravda, Soldatskaya Pravda (Soldiers' Truth)'' and a number of other Bolshevik newspapers were suppressed. A worker named Voinov was killed by cadets in the street merely for selling ''Listok Pravdy (Pravda Bulletin)''. Disarming of the Red Guards began. Revolutionary units of the Petrograd garrison were withdrawn from the capital and dispatched to the trenches. Arrests were carried out in the rear and at the front. On July 7 a warrant was issued for Lenin's arrest. A number of prominent members of the Bolshevik Party were arrested. The Trud printing plant, where the Bolshevik publications were printed, was wrecked. The Procurator of the Petrograd Court of Sessions announced that Lenin and a number of other Bolsheviks were being charged with "high treason" and the organization of an armed uprising. The charge against Lenin was fabricated at the headquarters of General Denikin, and was based on the testimony of spies and agents-provocateurs.<br />
<br />
Thus the coalition Provisional Government—which included such leading representatives of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries as Tsereteli, Skobelev, Kerensky and Chernov—sank to the depths of downright imperialism and counter-revolution. Instead of a policy of peace, it had adopted the policy of continuing war. Instead of protecting the democratic rights of the people, it had adopted the policy of nullifying these rights and suppressing the workers and soldiers by force of arms.<br />
<br />
What Guchkov and Milyukov, the representatives of the bourgeoisie, had hesitated to do, was done by the "socialists" Kerensky and Tsereteli, Chernov and Skobelev.<br />
<br />
The dual power had come to an end.<br />
<br />
It ended in favour of the bourgeoisie, for the whole power had passed into the hands of the Provisional Government, while the Soviets, with their Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik leaders, had become an appendage of the Provisional Government.<br />
<br />
The peaceful period of the revolution had ended, for now the bayonet had been placed on the agenda.<br />
<br />
In view of the changed situation, the Bolshevik Party decided to change its tactics. It went underground, arranged for a safe hiding place for its leader, Lenin, and began to prepare for an uprising with the object of overthrowing the power of the bourgeoisie by force of arms and setting up the power of the Soviets.<br />
<br />
=== The Bolshevik Party adopts the course of preparing for armed uprising. Sixth party congress ===<br />
The Sixth Congress of the Bolshevik Party met in Petrograd in the midst of a frenzied campaign of Bolshevik-baiting in the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois press. It assembled ten years after the Fifth (London) Congress and five years after the Prague Conference of the Bolsheviks. The congress, which was held secretly, sat from July 26 to August 3, 1917. All that appeared in the press was an announcement of its convocation, the place of meeting was not divulged. The first sittings were held in the Vyborg District, the later ones in a school near the Narva Gate, where a House of Culture now stands. The bourgeois press demanded the arrest of the delegates. Detectives frantically scoured the city trying to discover the meeting place of the congress, but in vain.<br />
<br />
And so, five months after the overthrow of tsardom, the Bolsheviks were compelled to meet in secret, while Lenin, the leader of the proletarian party, was forced to go into hiding and took refuge in a shanty near Razliv Station.<br />
<br />
He was being hunted high and low by the sleuths of the Provisional Government and was therefore unable to attend the congress; but he guided its labours from his place of concealment through his close colleagues and disciples in Petrograd: Stalin, Sverdlov, Molotov, Ordjoni-kidze.<br />
<br />
The congress was attended by 157 delegates with vote and 128 with voice but no vote. At that time the Party had a membership of about 240,000. On July 3, i.e., before the workers' demonstration was broken up, when the Bolsheviks were still functioning legally, the Party had 41 publications, of which 29 were in Russian and 12 in other languages.<br />
<br />
The persecution to which the Bolsheviks and the working class were subjected during the July days, far from diminishing the influence of our Party, only enhanced it. The delegates from the provinces cited numerous facts to show that the workers and soldiers had begun to desert the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries en masse, contemptuously styling them "social-jailers." Workers and soldiers belonging to the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary parties were tearing up their membership cards in anger and disgust and applying for admission to the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
The chief items discussed at the congress were the political report of the Central Committee and the political situation. Comrade Stalin made the reports on both these questions. He showed with the utmost clarity how the revolution was growing and developing despite all the efforts of the bourgeoisie to suppress it. He pointed out that the revolution had placed on the order of the day the task of establishing workers' control over the production and distribution of products, of turning over the land to the peasants, and of transferring the power from the bourgeoisie to the working class and poor peasantry. He said that the revolution was assuming the character of a Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
The political situation in the country had changed radically after the July days. The dual power had come to an end. The Soviets, led by Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, had refused to take over full power and had therefore lost all power. The power was now concentrated in the hands of the bourgeois Provisional Government, and the latter was continuing to disarm the revolution, to smash its organizations and to destroy the Bolshevik Party. All possibility of a peaceful development of the revolution had vanished. Only one thing remained, Comrade Stalin said, namely, to take power by force, by overthrowing the Provisional Government. And only the proletariat, in alliance with the poor peasants, could take power by force.<br />
<br />
The Soviets, still controlled by the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, had landed in the camp of the bourgeoisie, and under existing conditions could be expected to act only as subsidiaries of the Provisional Government. Now, after the July days, Comrade Stalin said, the slogan "All power to the Soviets!" had to be withdrawn. However, the temporary withdrawal of this slogan did not in any way imply a renunciation of the struggle for the power of the Soviets. It was not the Soviets in general, as organs of revolutionary struggle, that were in question, but only the existing Soviets, the Soviets controlled by the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries.<br />
<br />
"The peaceful period of the revolution has ended," said Comrade Stalin, "a non-peaceful period has begun, a period of clashes and explosions." (Lenin and Stalin, ''Russian Revolution,'' pp. 139-140.)<br />
<br />
The Party was headed for armed uprising.<br />
<br />
There were some at the congress who, reflecting the bourgeois influence, opposed the adoption of the course of Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
The Trotskyite Preobrazhensky proposed that the resolution on the conquest of power should state that the country could be directed towards Socialism only in the event of a proletarian revolution in the West.<br />
<br />
This Trotskyite motion was opposed by Comrade Stalin. He said :<br />
<br />
"The possibility is not excluded that Russia will be the country that will lay the road to Socialism...We must discard the antiquated idea that only Europe can show us the way. There is dogmatic Marxism and creative Marxism. I stand by the latter." (p. 146.)<br />
<br />
Bukharin, who held a Trotskyite position, asserted that the peasants supported the war, that they were in a bloc with the bourgeoisie and would not follow the working class.<br />
<br />
Retorting to Bukharin, Comrade Stalin showed that there were different kinds of peasants: there were the rich peasants who supported the imperialist bourgeoisie, and there were the poor peasants who sought an alliance with the working class and would support it in a struggle for the victory of the revolution.<br />
<br />
The congress rejected Preobrazhensky's and Bukharin's amendments and approved the resolution submitted by Comrade Stalin.<br />
<br />
The congress discussed the economic platform of the Bolsheviks and approved it. Its main points were the confiscation of the landed estates and the nationalization of all the land, the nationalization of the banks, the nationalization of large-scale industry, and workers' control over production and distribution.<br />
<br />
The congress stressed the importance of the fight for workers' control over production, which was later to play a significant part during the nationalization of the large industrial enterprises.<br />
<br />
In all its decisions, the Sixth Congress particularly stressed Lenin's principle of an alliance between the proletariat and the poor peasantry as a condition for the victory of the Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
The congress condemned the Menshevik theory that the trade unions should be neutral. It pointed out that the momentous tasks confronting the working class of Russia could be accomplished only if the trade unions remained militant class organizations recognizing the political leadership of the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
The congress adopted a resolution on the Youth Leagues, which at that time frequently sprang up spontaneously. As a result of the Party's subsequent efforts it succeeded in definitely securing the adherence of these young organizations which became a reserve of the Party.<br />
<br />
The congress discussed whether Lenin should appear for trial. Kamenev, Rykov, Trotsky and others had held even before the congress that Lenin ought to appear before the counter-revolutionary court. Comrade Stalin was vigorously opposed to Lenin's appearing for trial. This was also the stand of the Sixth Congress, for it considered that it would be a lynching, not a trial. The congress had no doubt that the bourgeoisie wanted only one thing—the physical destruction of Lenin as the most dangerous enemy of the bourgeoisie. The congress protested against the police persecution of the leaders of the revolutionary proletariat by the bourgeoisie, and sent a message of greeting to Lenin.<br />
<br />
The Sixth Congress adopted new Party Rules. These rules provided that all Party organizations shall be built on the principle of ''democratic centralism''.<br />
<br />
This meant :<br />
<br />
1) That all directing bodies of the Party, from top to bottom, shall be elected;<br />
<br />
2) That Party bodies shall give periodical accounts of their activities to their respective Party organizations;<br />
<br />
3) That there shall be strict Party discipline and the subordination of the minority to the majority;<br />
<br />
4) That all decisions of higher bodies shall be absolutely binding on lower bodies and on all Party members.<br />
<br />
The Party Rules provided that admission of new members to the Party shall be through local Party organizations on the recommendation of two Party members and on the sanction of a general membership meeting of the local organization.<br />
<br />
The Sixth Congress admitted the ''Mezhrayontsi'' and their leader, Trotsky, into the Party. They were a small group that had existed in Petrograd since 1913 and consisted of Trotskyite-Mensheviks and a number of former Bolsheviks who had split away from the Party. During the war, the ''Mezhrayonsti'' were a Centrist organization. They fought the Bolsheviks, but in many respects disagreed with the Men-sheviks, thus occupying an intermediate, centrist, vacillating position. During the Sixth Party Congress the ''Mezhrayonsti'' declared that they were in agreement with the Bolsheviks on all points and requested admission to the Party. The request was granted by the congress in the expectation that they would in time become real Bolsheviks. Some of the ''Mezhrayonsti,'' Volodarsky and Uritsky, for example, actually did become Bolsheviks. As to Trotsky and some of his close friends, they, as it later became apparent, had joined not to work in the interests of the Party, but to disrupt and destroy it from within.<br />
<br />
The decisions of the Sixth Congress were all intended to prepare the proletariat and the poorest peasantry for an armed uprising. The Sixth Congress headed the Party for armed uprising, for the Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
The congress issued a Party manifesto calling upon the workers, soldiers and peasants to muster their forces for decisive battles with the bourgeoisie. It ended with the words:<br />
<br />
"Prepare, then, for new battles, comrades-in-arms! Staunchly, manfully and calmly, without yielding to provocation, muster your forces and form your fighting columns! Rally under the banner of the Party, proletarians and soldiers! Rally under our banner, downtrodden of the villages!"<br />
<br />
=== General Kornilov’s plot against the revolution. Suppression of the plot. Petrograd and Moscow soviets go over to the Bolsheviks ===<br />
Having seized all power, the bourgeoisie began preparations to destroy the now weakened Soviets and to set up an open counter-revolutionary dictatorship. The millionaire Ryabushinsky insolently declared that the way out of the situation was "for the gaunt hand of famine, of destitution of the people, to seize the false friends of the people—the democratic Soviets and Committees—by the throat." At the front, courts-martial wreaked savage vengeance on the soldiers, and meted out death sentences wholesale. On August 3, 1917, General Kornilov, the Commander-in-Chief, demanded the introduction of the death penalty behind the lines as well.<br />
<br />
On August 12, a Council of State, convened by the Provisional Government to mobilize the forces of the bourgeoisie and the landlords, opened in the Grand Theatre in Moscow. The Council was attended chiefly by representatives of the landlords, the bourgeoisie, the generals, the officers and Cossacks. The Soviets were represented by Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries.<br />
<br />
In protest against the convocation of the Council of State, the Bolsheviks on the day of its opening called a general strike in Moscow in which the majority of the workers took part. Simultaneously, strikes took place in a number of other cities.<br />
<br />
The Socialist-Revolutionary Kerensky threatened in a fit of boasting at the Council to suppress "by iron and blood" every attempt at a revolutionary movement, including unauthorized attempts of the peasants to seize the lands of the landlords.<br />
<br />
The counter-revolutionary General Kornilov bluntly demanded that "the Committees and Soviets be abolished."<br />
<br />
Bankers, merchants and manufacturers flocked to Kornilov at General Headquarters, promising him money and support.<br />
<br />
Representatives of the "Allies," Britain and France, also came to General Kornilov, demanding that action against the revolution be not delayed.<br />
<br />
General Kornilov's plot against the revolution was coming to a head.<br />
<br />
Kornilov made his preparations openly. In order to distract attention, the conspirators started a rumour that the Bolsheviks were preparing an uprising in Petrograd to take place on August 27 — the end of the first six months of the revolution. The Provisional Government, headed by Kerensky, furiously attacked the Bolsheviks, and intensified the terror against the proletarian party. At the same time, General Kornilov massed troops in order to move them against Petrograd, abolish the Soviets and set up a military dictatorship.<br />
<br />
Kornilov had come to a preliminary agreement with Kerensky regarding his counter-revolutionary action. But no sooner had Kornilov's action begun than Kerensky made an abrupt right-about-face and dissociated himself from his ally. Kerensky feared that the masses who would rise against the Kornilovites and crush them would at the same time sweep away Kerensky's bourgeois government as well, unless it at once dissociated itself from the Kornilov affair.<br />
<br />
On August 25 Kornilov moved the Third Mounted Corps under the command of General Krymov against Petrograd, declaring that he intended to "save the fatherland." In face of the Kornilov revolt, the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party called upon the workers and soldiers to put up active armed resistance to the counter-revolution. The workers hurriedly began to arm and prepared to resist. The Red Guard detachments grew enormously during these days. The trade unions mobilized their members. The revolutionary military units in Petro-grad were also held in readiness for battle. Trenches were dug around Petrograd, barbed wire entanglements erected, and the railway tracks leading to the city were torn up. Several thousand armed sailors arrived from Kronstadt to defend the city. Delegates were sent to the "Savage Division" which was advancing on Petrograd; when these delegates explained the purpose of Kornilov's action to the Caucasian mountaineers of whom the "Savage Division" was made up, they refused to advance. Agitators were also dispatched to other Kornilov units. Wherever there was danger, Revolutionary Committees and headquarters were set up to fight Kornilov.<br />
<br />
In those days the mortally terrified Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik leaders, Kerensky among them, turned for protection to the Bolsheviks, for they were convinced that the Bolsheviks were the only effective force in the capital that was capable of routing Kornilov.<br />
<br />
But while mobilizing the masses to crush the Kornilov revolt, the Bolsheviks did not discontinue their struggle against the Kerensky government. They exposed the government of Kerensky, the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries, to the masses, pointing out that their whole policy was in effect assisting Kornilov's counter-revolutionary plot.<br />
<br />
The result of these measures was that the Kornilov revolt was crushed. General Krymov committed suicide. Kornilov and his fellow-conspirators, Denikin and Lukomsky, were arrested. (Very soon, however, Kerensky had them released.)<br />
<br />
The rout of the Kornilov revolt revealed in a flash the relative strength of the revolution and the counter-revolution. It showed that the whole counter-revolutionary camp was doomed, from the generals and the Constitutional-Democratic Party to the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries who had become entangled in the meshes of the bourgeoisie. It became obvious that the influence of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries among the masses had been completely undermined by the policy of prolonging the unbearable strain of the war, and by the economic chaos caused by the protracted war.<br />
<br />
The defeat of the Kornilov revolt further showed that the Bolshevik Party had grown to be the decisive force of the revolution and was capable of foiling any attempt at counter-revolution. Our Party was not yet the ruling party, but during the Kornilov days it acted as the real ruling power, for its instructions were unhesitatingly carried out by the workers and soldiers.<br />
<br />
Lastly, the rout of the Kornilov revolt showed that the seemingly dead Soviets actually possessed tremendous latent power of revolutionary resistance. There could be no doubt that it was the Soviets and their Revolutionary Committees that barred the way of the Kornilov troops and broke their strength.<br />
<br />
The struggle against Kornilov put new vitality into the languishing Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. It freed them from the sway of the policy of compromise. It led them into the open road of revolutionary struggle, and turned them towards the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
The influence of the Bolsheviks in the Soviets grew stronger than ever.<br />
<br />
Their influence spread rapidly in the rural districts as well.<br />
<br />
The Kornilov revolt made it clear to the broad masses of the peasantry that if the landlords and generals succeeded in smashing the Bolsheviks and the Soviets, they would next attack the peasantry. The mass of the poor peasants therefore began to rally closer to the Bolsheviks. As to the middle peasants, whose vacillations had retarded the development of the revolution in the period from April to August 1917, after the rout of Kornilov they definitely began to swing towards the Bolshevik Party, joining forces with the poor peasants. The broad masses of the peasantry were coming to realize that only the Bolshevik Party could deliver them from the war, and that only this Party was capable of crushing the landlords and was prepared to turn over the land to the peasants. The months of September and October 1917 witnessed a tremendous increase in the number of seizures of landed estates by the peasants. Unauthorized ploughing of the fields of landlords became widespread. The peasants had taken the road of revolution and neither coaxing nor punitive expeditions could any longer halt them.<br />
<br />
The tide of revolution was rising.<br />
<br />
There ensued a period of revival of the Soviets, of a change in their composition, their ''bolshevization''. Factories, mills and military units held new elections and sent to the Soviets representatives of the Bolshevik Party in place of Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries. On August 31, the day following the victory over Kornilov, the Petrograd Soviet endorsed the Bolshevik policy. The old Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary Presidium of the Petrograd Soviet, headed by Chkheidze, resigned, thus clearing the way for the Bolsheviks. On September 5, the Moscow Soviet of Workers' Deputies went over to the Bolsheviks. The Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik Presidium of the Moscow Soviet also resigned and left the way clear for the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
This meant that the chief conditions for a successful uprising were now ripe<br />
<br />
The slogan "All power to the Soviets!" was again on the order of the day.<br />
<br />
But it was no longer the old slogan, the slogan of transferring the power to Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary Soviets. This time it was a slogan calling for an uprising of the Soviets against the Provisional Government, the object being to transfer the whole power in the country to the Soviets now led by the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
Disintegration set in among the compromising parties.<br />
<br />
Under the pressure of the revolutionary peasants, a Left wing formed within the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, known as the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries, who expressed their disapproval of the policy of compromise with the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Among the Mensheviks, too, their appeared a group of "Lefts," the so-called "Internationalists," who gravitated towards the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
As to the Anarchists, a group whose influence was insignificant to start with, they now definitely disintegrated into minute groups, some of which merged with criminal elements, thieves and provocateurs, the dregs of society; others became expropriators "by conviction," robbing the peasants and small townfolk, and appropriating the premises and funds of workers' clubs; while others still openly went over to the camp of the counter-revolutionaries, and devoted themselves to feathering their own nests as menials of the bourgeoisie. They were all opposed to authority of any kind, particularly and especially to the revolutionary authority of the workers and peasants, for they knew that a revolutionary government would not allow them to rob the people and steal public property.<br />
<br />
After the rout of Kornilov, the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries made one more attempt to stem the rising tide of revolution. With this purpose in view, on September 12, 1917, they convened an All-Russian Democratic Conference, consisting of representatives of the Socialist parties, the compromising Soviets, trade unions, Zemstvos, commercial and industrial circles and military units. The conference set up a Provisional Council of the Republic, known as the Pre-parliament. The compromisers hoped with the help of the Pre-parliament to halt the revolution and to divert the country from the path of a Soviet revolution to the path of bourgeois constitutional development, the path of bourgeois parliamentarism. But this was a hopeless attempt on the part of political bankrupts to turn back the wheel of revolution. It was bound to end in a fiasco, and end in a fiasco it did. The workers jeered at the parliamentary efforts of the compromisers and called the ''Predparlament'' (Pre-parliament) a "''predbannik"'' ("pre-bath-house").<br />
<br />
The Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party decided to boycott the Pre-parliament. True, the Bolshevik group in the Pre-parliament, consisting of people like Kamenev and Teodorovich, were loath to leave it, but the Central Committee of the Party compelled them to do so.<br />
<br />
Kamenev and Zinoviev stubbornly insisted on participation in the Pre-parliament, striving thereby to divert the Party from its preparations for the uprising. Comrade Stalin, speaking at a meeting of the Bolshevik group of the All-Russian Democratic Conference, vigorously opposed participation in the Pre-parliament. He called the Pre-parlia-ment a "Kornilov abortion."<br />
<br />
Lenin and Stalin considered that it would be a grave mistake to participate in the Pre-parliament even for a short time, for it might encourage in the masses the false hope that the Pre-parliament could really do something for the working people.<br />
<br />
At the same time, the Bolsheviks made intensive preparations for the convocation of the Second Congress of Soviets, in which they expected to have a majority. Under the pressure of the Bolshevik Soviets, and notwithstanding the subterfuges of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries on the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets was called for the second half of October 1917.<br />
<br />
=== October uprising in Petrograd and arrest of the provisional government. Second congress of soviets and formation of the soviet government. Decrees of the second congress of soviets on peace and land. Victory of the socialist revolution. Reasons for the victory of the socialist revolution ===<br />
The Bolsheviks began intensive preparations for the uprising. Lenin declared that, having secured a majority in the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies in both the capitals—Moscow and Petrograd—the Bolsheviks could and should take the state power into their own hands. Reviewing the path that had been traversed, Lenin stressed the fact that "the majority of the people are ''for'' us." In his articles and letters to the Central Committee and the Bolshevik organizations, Lenin outlined a detailed plan for the uprising showing how the army units, the navy and the Red Guards should be used, what key positions in Petrograd should be seized in order to ensure the success of the uprising, and so forth.<br />
<br />
On October 7, Lenin secretly arrived in Petrograd from Finland. On October 10, 1917, the historic meeting of the Central Committee of the Party took place at which it was decided to launch the armed uprising within the next few days. The historic resolution of the Central Committee of the Party, drawn up by Lenin, stated:<br />
<br />
"The Central Committee recognizes that the international position of the Russian revolution (the revolt in the German navy which is an extreme manifestation of the growth throughout Europe of the world Socialist revolution; the threat of conclusion of peace by the imperialists with the object of strangling the revolution in Russia) as well as its military position (the indubitable decision of the Russian bourgeoisie and Kerensky and Co. to surrender Petrograd to the Germans), and the fact that the proletarian party has gained a majority in the Soviets—all this, taken in conjunction with the peasant revolt and the swing of popular confidence towards our Party (the elections in Moscow), and, finally, the obvious preparations being made for a second Kornilov affair (the withdrawal of troops from Petrograd, the dispatch of Cossacks to Petrograd, the surrounding of Minsk by Cossacks, etc.)—all this places the armed uprising on the order of the day.<br />
<br />
"Considering therefore that an armed uprising is inevitable, and that the time for it is fully ripe, the Central Committee instructs all Party organizations to be guided accordingly, and to discuss and decide all practical questions (the Congress of Soviets of the Northern Region, the withdrawal of troops from Petrograd, the action of our people in Moscow and Minsk, etc.) from this point of view." (Lenin, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. VI, p. 303.)<br />
<br />
Two members of the Central Committee, Kamenev and Zinoviev, spoke and voted against this historic decision. Like the Mensheviks, they dreamed of a bourgeois parliamentary republic, and slandered the working class by asserting that it was not strong enough to carry out a Socialist revolution, that it was not mature enough to take power.<br />
<br />
Although at this meeting Trotsky did not vote against the resolution directly, he moved an amendment which would have reduced the chances of the uprising to nought and rendered it abortive. He proposed that the uprising should not be started before the Second Congress of Soviets met, a proposal which meant delaying the uprising, divulging its date, and forewarning the Provisional Government.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party sent its representatives to the Donetz Basin, the Urals, Helsingfors, Kronstadt, the SouthWestern Front and other places to organize the uprising. Comrades Voroshilov, Molotov, Dzerzhinsky, Ordjonikidze, Kirov, Kaganovich, Kuibyshev, Frunze, Yaroslavsky and others were specially assigned by the Party to direct the uprising in the provinces. Comrade Zhdanov carried on the work among the armed forces in Shadrinsk, in the Urals. Comrade Yezhov made preparations for an uprising of the soldiers on the Western Front, in Byelorussia. The representatives of the Central Committee acquainted the leading members of the Bolshevik organizations in the provinces with the plan of the uprising and mobilized them in readiness to support the uprising in Petrograd.<br />
<br />
On the instructions of the Central Committee of the Party, a ''Revolutionary Military Committee'' of the Petrograd Soviet was set up. This body became the legally functioning headquarters of the uprising.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile the counter-revolutionaries, too, were hastily mustering their forces. The officers of the army formed a counter-revolutionary organization known as the Officers' League. Everywhere the counterrevolutionaries set up headquarters for the formation of shock-battalions. By the end of October the counter-revolutionaries had 43 shock battalions at their command. Special battalions of Cavaliers of the Cross of St. George were formed.<br />
<br />
Kerensky's government considered the question of transferring the seat of government from Petrograd to Moscow. This made it clear that it was preparing to surrender Petrograd to the Germans in order to forestall the uprising in the city. The protest of the Petrograd workers and soldiers compelled the Provisional Government to remain in Petrograd.<br />
<br />
On October 16 an enlarged meeting of the Central Committee of the Party was held. This meeting elected a ''Party Centre'', headed by Comrade Stalin, to direct the uprising. This Party Centre was the leading core of the Revolutionary Military Committee of the Petrograd Soviet and had practical direction of the whole uprising.<br />
<br />
At the meeting of the Central Committee the capitulators Zinoviev and Kamenev again opposed the uprising. Meeting with a rebuff, they came out openly in the press against the uprising, against the Party. On October 18 the Menshevik newspaper, ''Novaya Zhizn,'' printed a statement by Kamenev and Zinoviev declaring that the Bolsheviks were making preparations for an uprising, and that they (Kamenev and Zinoviev) considered it an adventurous gamble. Kamenev and Zinoviev thus disclosed to the enemy the decision of the Central Committee regarding the uprising, they revealed that an uprising had been planned to take place within a few days This was treachery. Lenin wrote in this connection: "Kamenev and Zinoviev have ''betrayed'' the decision of the Central Committee of their Party on the armed uprising to Rod-zyanko and Kerensky." Lenin put before the Central Committee the question of Zinoviev's and Kamenev's expulsion from the Party.<br />
<br />
Forewarned by the traitors, the enemies of the revolution at once began to take measures to prevent the uprising and to destroy the directing staff of the revolution—the Bolshevik Party. The Provisional Government called a secret meeting which decided upon measures for combating the Bolsheviks On October 19 the Provisional Government hastily summoned troops from the front to Petrograd. The streets were heavily patrolled. The counter-revolutionaries succeeded in massing especially large forces in Moscow. The Provisional Government drew up a plan: on the eve of the Second Congress of Soviets the Smolny— the headquarters of the Bolshevik Central Committee—was to be attacked and occupied and the Bolshevik directing centre destroyed. For this purpose the government summoned to Petrograd troops in whose loyalty it believed.<br />
<br />
But the days and even the hours of the Provisional Government were already numbered. Nothing could now halt the victorious march of the Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
On October 21 the Bolsheviks sent commissars of the Revolutionary Military Committee to all revolutionary army units. Throughout the remaining days before the uprising energetic preparations for action were made in the army units and in the mills and factories. Precise instructions were also issued to the warships ''Aurora'' and ''Zarya Svobody''.<br />
<br />
At a meeting of the Petrograd Soviet, Trotsky in a fit of boasting blabbed to the enemy the date on which the Bolsheviks had planned to begin the armed uprising. In order not to allow Kerensky's government to frustrate the uprising, the Central Committee of the Party decided to start and carry it through before the appointed time, and set its date for the day before the opening of the Second Congress of Soviets.<br />
<br />
Kerensky began his attack on the early morning of October 24 (November 6) by ordering the suppression of the central organ of the Bolshevik Party, ''Rabochy Put (Workers' Path)'', and the dispatch of armoured cars to its editorial premises and to the printing plant of the Bolsheviks. By 10 a.m., however, on the instructions of Comrade Stalin, Red Guards and revolutionary soldiers pressed back the armoured cars and placed a reinforced guard over the printing plant and the ''Rabochy Put'' editorial offices. Towards 11 a.m. ''Rabochy Put'' came out with a call for the ''overthrow'' of the Provisional Government. Simultaneously, on the instructions of the Party Centre of the uprising, detachments of revolutionary soldiers and Red Guards were rushed to the Smolny. The uprising had begun.<br />
<br />
On the night of October 24 Lenin arrived at the Smolny and assumed personal direction of the uprising. All that night revolutionary units of the army and detachments of the Red Guard kept arriving at the Smolny. The Bolsheviks directed them to the centre of the capital, to surround the Winter Palace, where the Provisional Government had entrenched itself.<br />
<br />
On October 25 (November 7), Red Guards and revolutionary troops occupied the railway stations, post office, telegraph office, the Ministries and the State Bank.<br />
<br />
The Pre-parliament was dissolved.<br />
<br />
The Smolny, the headquarters of the Petrograd Soviet and of the Bolshevik Central Committee, became the headquarters of the revolution, from which all fighting orders emanated.<br />
<br />
The Petrograd workers in those days showed what a splendid schooling they had received under the guidance of the Bolshevik Party. The revolutionary units of the army, prepared for the uprising by the work of the Bolsheviks, carried out fighting orders with precision and fought side by side with the Red Guard. The navy did not lag behind the army. Kronstadt was a stronghold of the Bolshevik Party, and had long since refused to recognize the authority of the Provisional Government. The cruiser Aurora trained its guns on the Winter Palace, and on October 25 their thunder ushered in a new era, the era of the Great Socialist Revolution.<br />
<br />
On October 25 (November 7) the Bolsheviks issued a manifesto "To the Citizens of Russia" announcing that the bourgeois Provisional Government had been deposed and that state power had passed into the hands of the Soviets.<br />
<br />
The Provisional Government had taken refuge in the Winter Palace under the protection of cadets and shock battalions. On the night of October 25 the revolutionary workers, soldiers and sailors took the Winter Palace by storm and arrested the Provisional Government.<br />
<br />
The armed uprising in Petrograd had won.<br />
<br />
The Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets opened in the Smolny at 10:45 p.m. on October 25 (November 7), 1917, when the uprising in Petrograd was already in the full flush of victory and the power in the capital had actually passed into the hands of the Petrograd Soviet.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks secured an overwhelming majority at the congress. The Mensheviks, Bundists and Right Socialist-Revolutionaries, seeing that their day was done, left the congress, announcing that they refused to take any part in its labours. In a statement which was read at the Congress of Soviets they referred to the October Revolution as a "military plot." The congress condemned the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries and, far from regretting their departure, welcomed it, for, it declared, thanks to the withdrawal of the traitors the congress had become a real revolutionary congress of workers' and soldiers' deputies. The congress proclaimed that all power had passed to the Soviets:<br />
<br />
"Backed by the will of the vast majority of the workers, soldiers and peasants, backed by the victorious uprising of the workers and the garrison which had taken place in Petrograd, the Congress takes the power into its own hands"—the proclamation of the Second Congress of Soviets read.<br />
<br />
On the night of October 26 (November 8), 1917, the Second Congress of Soviets adopted the ''Decree on Peace''. The congress called upon the belligerent countries to conclude an immediate armistice for a period of not less than three months to permit negotiations for peace. While addressing itself to the governments and peoples of all the belligerent countries, the congress at the same time appealed to "the class-conscious workers of the three most advanced nations of mankind and the largest states participating in the present war, namely, Great Britain, France and Germany." It called upon these workers to help "to bring to a successful conclusion the cause of peace, and at the same time the cause of the emancipation of the toiling and exploited masses of the population from all forms of slavery and all forms of exploitation."<br />
<br />
That same night the Second Congress of Soviets adopted the ''Decree on Land'', which proclaimed that "landlord ownership of land is abolished forthwith without compensation." The basis adopted for this agrarian law was a Mandate (''Nakaz'') of the peasantry, compiled from 242 mandates of peasants of various localities. In accordance with this Mandate private ownership of land was to be abolished forever and replaced by public, or state ownership of the land. The lands of the landlords, of the tsar's family and of the monasteries were to be turned over to all the toilers for their free use.<br />
<br />
By this decree the peasantry received from the October Socialist Revolution over 150,000,000 dessiatins (over 400,000,000 acres) of land that had formerly belonged to the landlords, the bourgeoisie, the tsar's family, the monasteries and the churches.<br />
<br />
Moreover, the peasants were released from paying rent to the landlords, which had amounted to about 500,000,000 gold rubles annually.<br />
<br />
All mineral resources (oil, coal, ores, etc.), forests and waters became the property of the people.<br />
<br />
Lastly, the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets formed the first Soviet Government—the Council of People's Commissars—which consisted entirely of Bolsheviks. Lenin was elected Chairman of the first Council of People's Commissars.<br />
<br />
This ended the labours of the historic Second Congress of Soviets.<br />
<br />
The congress delegates dispersed to spread the news of the victory of the Soviets in Petrograd and to ensure the extension of the power of the Soviets to the whole country.<br />
<br />
Not everywhere did power pass to the Soviets at once. While in Petrograd the Soviet Government was already in existence, in Moscow fierce and stubborn fighting continued in the streets several days longer. In order to prevent the power from passing into the hands of the Moscow Soviet, the counter-revolutionary Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary parties, together with Whiteguards and cadets, started an armed fight against the workers and soldiers. It took several days to rout the rebels and to establish the power of the Soviets in Moscow.<br />
<br />
In Petrograd itself, and in several of its districts, counter-revolutionary attempts to overthrow the Soviet power were made in the very first days of the victory of the revolution. On November 10, 1917, Kerensky, who during the uprising had fled from Petrograd to the Northern Front, mustered several Cossack units and dispatched them against Petrograd under the command of General Krasnov. On November 11, 1917, a counter-revolutionary organization calling itself the "Committee for the Salvation of the Fatherland and the Revolution," headed by Socialist-Revolutionaries, raised a mutiny of cadets in Petro-grad. But the mutiny was suppressed by sailors and Red Guards without much difficulty by the evening of the same day, and on November 13 General Krasnov was routed near the Pulkovo Hills. Lenin personally directed the suppression of the anti-Soviet mutiny, just as he had personally directed the October uprising. His inflexible firmness and calm confidence of victory inspired and welded the masses. The enemy was smashed. Krasnov was taken prisoner and pledged his "word of honour" to terminate the struggle against the Soviet power. And on his "word of honour" he was released. But, as it later transpired, the general violated his word of honour. As to Kerensky, disguised as a woman, he managed to "disappear in an unknown direction."<br />
<br />
In Moghilev, at the General Headquarters of the Army, General Dukhonin, the Commander-in-Chief, also attempted a mutiny. When the Soviet Government instructed him to start immediate negotiations for an armistice with the German Command, he refused to obey. Thereupon Dukhonin was dismissed by order of the Soviet Government. The counter-revolutionary General Headquarters was broken up and Du-khonin himself was killed by the soldiers, who had risen against him.<br />
<br />
Certain notorious opportunists within the Party—Kamenev, Zinoviev, Rykov, Shlyapnikov and others—also made a sally against the Soviet power. They demanded the formation of an "all-Socialist government" to include Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, who had just been overthrown by the October Revolution. On November 15, 1917, the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party adopted a resolution rejecting agreement with these counter-revolutionary parties, and proclaiming Kamenev and Zinoviev strikebreakers of the revolution. On November 17, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Rykov and Milyutin, disagreeing with the policy of the Party, announced their resignation from the Central Committee. That same day, November 17, Nogin, in his own name and in the names of Rykov, V. Milyutin, Teodorovich, A. Shlyapnikov, D. Ryazanov, Yurenev and Larin, members of the Council of People's Commissars, announced their disagreement with the policy of the Central Committee of the Party and their resignation from the Council of People's Commissars. The desertion of this handful of cowards caused jubilation among the enemies of the October Revolution. The bourgeoisie and its henchmen proclaimed with malicious glee the collapse of Bolshevism and presaged the early end of the Bolshevik Party. But not for a moment was the Party shaken by this handful of deserters. The Central Committee of the Party contemptuously branded them as deserters from the revolution and accomplices of the bourgeoisie, and proceeded with its work.<br />
<br />
As to the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries, they, desirous of retaining their influence over the peasant masses, who definitely sympathized with the Bolsheviks, decided not to quarrel with the latter and for the time being to maintain a united front with them. The Congress of Peasant Soviets which took place in November 1917 recognized all the gains of the October Socialist Revolution and endorsed the decrees of the Soviet Government. An agreement was concluded with the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries and several of their number were given posts on the Council of People's Commissars (Kolegayev, Spiridonova, Proshyan and Steinberg). However, this agreement lasted only until the signing of the Peace of Brest-Litovsk and the formation of the Committees of the Poor Peasants, when a deep cleavage took place among the peasantry and when the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries, coming more and more to reflect the interests of the kulaks, started a revolt against the Bolsheviks and were routed by the Soviet Government.<br />
<br />
In the interval from October 1917 to February 1918 the Soviet revolution spread throughout the vast territory of the country at such a rapid rate that Lenin referred to it as a "triumphal march" of Soviet power.<br />
<br />
The Great October Socialist Revolution had won.<br />
<br />
There were several reasons for this comparatively easy victory of the Socialist revolution in Russia. The following chief reasons should be noted:<br />
<br />
1) The October Revolution was confronted by an enemy so comparatively weak, so badly organized and so politically inexperienced as the Russian bourgeoisie. Economically still weak, and completely dependent on government contracts, the Russian bourgeoisie lacked sufficient political self-reliance and initiative to find a way out of the situation. It had neither the experience of the French bourgeoisie, for example, in political combination and political chicanery on a broad scale nor the schooling of the British bourgeoisie in broadly conceived crafty compromise. It had but recently sought to reach an understanding with the tsar; yet now that the tsar had been overthrown by the February Revolution, and the bourgeoisie itself had come to power, it was unable to think of anything better than to continue the policy of the detested tsar in all its essentials. Like the tsar, it stood for "war to a victorious finish," although the war was beyond the country's strength and had reduced the people and the army to a state of utter exhaustion. Like the tsar, it stood for the preservation in the main of big landed property, although the peasantry was perishing from lack of land and the weight of the landlord's yoke. As to its labour policy the Russian bourgeoisie outstripped even the tsar in its hatred of the working class, for it not only strove to preserve and strengthen the yoke of the factory owners, but to render it intolerable by wholesale lockouts.<br />
<br />
It is not surprising that the people saw no essential difference between the policy of the tsar and the policy of the bourgeoisie, and that they transferred their hatred of the tsar to the Provisional Government of the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
As long as the compromising Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik parties possessed a certain amount of influence among the people, the bourgeoisie could use them as a screen and preserve its power. But after the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries had exposed themselves as agents of the imperialist bourgeoisie, thus forfeiting their influence among the people, the bourgeoisie and its Provisional Government were left without a support.<br />
<br />
2) The October Revolution was headed by so revolutionary a class as the working class of Russia, a class which had been steeled in battle, which had in a short space passed through two revolutions, and which by the eve of the third revolution had won recognition as the leader of the people in the struggle for peace, land, liberty and Socialism. If the revolution had not had a leader like the working class of Russia, a leader that had earned the confidence of the people, there would have been no alliance between the workers and peasants, and without such an alliance the victory of the October Revolution would have been impossible.<br />
<br />
3) The working class of Russia had so effective an ally in the revolution as the poor peasantry, which comprised the overwhelming majority of the peasant population. The experience of eight months of revolution —which may unhesitatingly be compared to the experience of several decades of "normal" development—had not been in vain as far as the mass of the labouring peasants were concerned. During this period they had had the opportunity to test all the parties of Russia in practice and convince themselves that neither the Constitutional-Democrats, nor the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks would seriously quarrel with the landlords or sacrifice themselves for the interests of the peasants; that there was only one party in Russia—the Bolshevik Party—which was in no way connected with the landlords and which was prepared to crush them in order to satisfy the needs of the peasants. This served as a solid basis for the alliance of the proletariat and the poor peasantry. The existence of this alliance between the working class and the poor peasantry determined the conduct of the middle peasants, who had long been vacillating and only on the eve of the October uprising wholeheartedly swung over towards the revolution and joined forces with the poor peasants.<br />
<br />
It goes without saying that without this alliance the October Revolution could not have been victorious.<br />
<br />
4) The working class was headed by a party so tried and tested in political battles as the Bolshevik Party. Only a party like the Bolshevik Party, courageous enough to lead the people in decisive attack, and cautious enough to keep clear of all the submerged rocks in its path to the goal—only such a party could so skilfully merge into one common revolutionary torrent such diverse revolutionary movements as the general democratic movement for peace, the peasant democratic movement for the seizure of the landed estates, the movement of the oppressed nationalities for national liberation and national equality, and the Socialist movement of the proletariat for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
Undoubtedly, the merging of these diverse revolutionary streams into one common powerful revolutionary torrent decided the fate of capitalism in Russia.<br />
<br />
5) The October Revolution began at a time when the imperialist war was still at its height, when the principal bourgeois states were split into two hostile camps, and when, absorbed in mutual war and undermining each other's strength, they were unable to intervene effectively in "Russian affairs" and actively to oppose the October Revolution.<br />
<br />
This undoubtedly did much to facilitate the victory of the October Socialist Revolution.<br />
<br />
=== Struggle of the Bolshevik Party to consolidate the soviet power. Peace of Brest-Litovsk. Seventh party congress ===<br />
In order to consolidate the Soviet power, the old, bourgeois state machine had to be shattered and destroyed and a new, Soviet state machine set up in its place. Further, it was necessary to destroy the survivals of the division of society into estates and the regime of national oppression, to abolish the privileges of the church, to suppress the counterrevolutionary press and counter-revolutionary organizations of all kinds, legal and illegal, and to dissolve the bourgeois Constituent Assembly. Following on the nationalization of the land, all large-scale industry had also to be nationalized. And, lastly, the state of war had to be ended, for the war was hampering the consolidation of the Soviet power more than anything else.<br />
<br />
All these measures were carried out in the course of a few months, from the end of 1917 to the middle of 1918.<br />
<br />
The sabotage of the officials of the old Ministries, engineered by the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, was smashed and overcome. The Ministries were abolished and replaced by Soviet administrative machinery and appropriate People's Commissariats. The Supreme Council of National Economy was set up to administer the industry of the country. The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission (Vecheka) was created to combat counter-revolution and sabotage, and F. Dzerzhinsky was placed at its head. The formation of a Red Army and Navy was decreed. The Constituent Assembly, the elections to which had largely been held prior to the October Revolution, and which refused to recognize the decrees of the Second Congress of Soviets on peace, land and the transfer of power to the Soviets, was dissolved.<br />
<br />
In order to put an end to the survivals of feudalism, the estates system, and inequality in all spheres of social life, decrees were issued abolishing the estates, removing restrictions based on nationality or religion, separating the church from the state and the schools from the church, establishing equality for women and the equality of all the nationalities of Russia.<br />
<br />
A special edict of the Soviet Government known as "The Declaration of Rights of the Peoples of Russia" laid down as a law the right of the peoples of Russia to unhampered development and complete equality.<br />
<br />
In order to undermine the economic power of the bourgeoisie and to create a new, Soviet national economy, and, in the first place, to create a new, Soviet industry, the banks, railways, foreign trade, the mercantile fleet and all large enterprises in all branches of industry — coal, metal, oil, chemicals, machine-building, textiles, sugar, etc.— were nationalized.<br />
<br />
To render our country financially independent of the foreign capitalists and free from exploitation by them, the foreign loans contracted by the Russian tsar and the Provisional Government were annulled. The people of our country refused to pay debts which had been incurred for the continuation of the war of conquest and which had placed our country in bondage to foreign capital.<br />
<br />
These and similar measures undermined the very root of the power of the bourgeoisie, the landlords, the reactionary officials and the counterrevolutionary parties, and considerably strengthened the position of the Soviet Government within the country.<br />
<br />
But the position of the Soviet Government could not be deemed fully secure as long as Russia was in a state of war with Germany and Austria. In order finally to consolidate the Soviet power, the war had to be ended. The Party therefore launched the fight for peace from the moment of the victory of the October Revolution.<br />
<br />
The Soviet Government called upon "all the belligerent peoples and their governments to start immediate negotiations for a just, democratic peace." But the "allies"—Great Britain and France—refused to accept the proposal of the Soviet Government. In view of this refusal, the Soviet Government, in compliance with the will of the Soviets, decided to start negotiations with Germany and Austria.<br />
<br />
The negotiations began on December 3 in Brest-Litovsk. On December 5 an armistice was signed.<br />
<br />
The negotiations took place at a time when the country was in a state of economic disruption, when war-weariness was universal, when our troops were abandoning the trenches and the front was collapsing. It became clear in the course of the negotiations that the German imperialists were out to seize huge portions of the territory of the former tsarist empire, and to turn Poland, the Ukraine and the Baltic countries into dependencies of Germany.<br />
<br />
To continue the war under such conditions would have meant staking the very existence of the new-born Soviet Republic. The working class and the peasantry were confronted with the necessity of accepting onerous terms of peace, of retreating before the most dangerous marauder of the time—German imperialism—in order to secure a respite in which to strengthen the Soviet power and to create a new army, the Red Army, which would be able to defend the country from enemy attack.<br />
<br />
All the counter-revolutionaries, from the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries to the most arrant Whiteguards, conducted a frenzied campaign against the conclusion of peace. Their policy was clear: they wanted to wreck the peace negotiations, provoke a German offensive and thus imperil the still weak Soviet power and endanger the gains of the workers and peasants.<br />
<br />
Their allies in this sinister scheme were Trotsky and his accomplice Bukharin, the latter, together with Radek and Pyatakov, heading a group which was hostile to the Party but camouflaged itself under the name of "Left Communists." Trotsky and the group of "Left Communists" began a fierce struggle within the Party against Lenin, demanding the continuation of the war. These people were clearly playing into the hands of the German imperialists and the counterrevolutionaries within the country, for they were working to expose the young Soviet Republic, which had not yet any army, to the blows of German imperialism.<br />
<br />
This was really a policy of provocateurs, skilfully masked by Left phraseology.<br />
<br />
On February 10, 1918, the peace negotiations in Brest-Litovsk were broken off. Although Lenin and Stalin, in the name of the Central Committee of the Party, had insisted that peace be signed, Trotsky, who was chairman of the Soviet delegation at Brest-Litovsk, treacherously violated the direct instructions of the Bolshevik Party. He announced that the Soviet Republic refused to conclude peace on the terms proposed by Germany. At the same time he informed the Germans that the Soviet Republic would not fight and would continue to demobilize the army.<br />
<br />
This was monstrous. The German imperialists could have desired nothing more from this traitor to the interests of the Soviet country.<br />
<br />
The German government broke the armistice and assumed the offensive. The remnants of our old army crumbled and scattered before the onslaught of the German troops. The Germans advanced swiftly, seizing enormous territory and threatening Petrograd. German imperialism invaded the Soviet land with the object of overthrowing the Soviet power and converting our country into its colony. The ruins of the old tsarist army could not withstand the armed hosts of German imperialism, and steadily retreated under their blows.<br />
<br />
But the armed intervention of the German imperialists was the signal for a mighty revolutionary upsurge in the country. The Party and the Soviet Government issued the call—"The Socialist fatherland is in danger!" And in response the working class energetically began to form regiments of the Red Army. The young detachments of the new army—the army of the revolutionary people—heroically resisted the German marauders who were armed to the teeth. At Narva and Pskov the German invaders met with a resolute repulse. Their advance on Petrograd was checked. February 23—the day the forces of German imperialism were repulsed—is regarded as the birthday of the Red Army.<br />
<br />
On February 18, 1918, the Central Committee of the Party had approved Lenin's proposal to send a telegram to the German government offering to conclude an immediate peace. But in order to secure more advantageous terms, the Germans continued to advance, and only on February 22 did the German government express its willingness to sign peace. The terms were now far more onerous than those originally proposed.<br />
<br />
Lenin, Stalin and Sverdlov had to wage a stubborn fight on the Central Committee against Trotsky, Bukharin and the other Trotskyites before they secured a decision in favour of the conclusion of peace. Bukharin and Trotsky, Lenin declared, "actually ''helped'' the German imperialists and ''hindered'' the growth and development of the revolution in Germany." (Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. XXII, p. 307.)<br />
<br />
On February 23, the Central Committee decided to accept the terms of the German Command and to sign the peace treaty. The treachery of Trotsky and Bukharin cost the Soviet Republic dearly. Latvia, Es-thonia, not to mention Poland, passed into German hands; the Ukraine was severed from the Soviet Republic and converted into a vassal of the German state. The Soviet Republic undertook to pay an indemnity to the Germans.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the "Left Communists" continued their struggle against Lenin, sinking deeper and deeper into the slough of treachery.<br />
<br />
The Moscow Regional Bureau of the Party, of which the "Left Communists" (Bukharin, Ossinsky, Yakovleva, Stukov and Mantsev) had temporarily seized control, passed a resolution of no-confidence in the Central Committee, a resolution designed to split the Party. The Bureau declared that it considered "a split in the Party in the very near future scarcely avoidable." The "Left Communists" even went so far in their resolution as to adopt an anti-Soviet stand. "In the interests of the international revolution," they declared, "we consider it expedient to consent to the possible loss of the Soviet power, which has now become purely formal."<br />
<br />
Lenin branded this decision as "strange and monstrous."<br />
<br />
At that time the real cause of this anti-Party behaviour of Trotsky and the "Left Communists" was not yet clear to the Party. But the recent trial of the Anti-Soviet "Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites" (beginning of 1938) has now revealed that Bukharin and the group of "Left Communists" headed by him, together with Trotsky and the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries, were at that time secretly conspiring against the Soviet Government. Now it is known that Bukharin, Trotsky and their fellow-conspirators had determined to wreck the Peace of Brest-Litovsk, arrest V. I. Lenin, J. V. Stalin and Y. M. Sverdlov, assassinate them, and form a new government consisting of Bukharinites, Trotskyites and "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries.<br />
<br />
While hatching this clandestine counter-revolutionary plot, the group of "Left Communists," with the support of Trotsky, openly attacked the Bolshevik Party, trying to split it and to disintegrate its ranks. But at this grave juncture the Party rallied around Lenin, Stalin and Sverdlov and supported the Central Committee on the question of peace as on all other questions.<br />
<br />
The "Left Communist" group was isolated and defeated.<br />
<br />
In order that the Party might pronounce its final decision on the question of peace the Seventh Party Congress was summoned.<br />
<br />
The congress opened on March 6, 1918. This was the first congress held after our Party had taken power. It was attended by 46 delegates with vote and 58 delegates with voice but no vote, representing 145,000 Party members. Actually, the membership of the Party at that time was not less than 270,000. The discrepancy was due to the fact that, owing to the urgency with which the congress met, a large number of the organizations were unable to send delegates in time; and the organizations in the territories then occupied by the Germans were unable to send delegates at all.<br />
<br />
Reporting at this congress on the Brest-Litovsk Peace, Lenin said that ". . . the severe crisis which our Party is now experiencing, owing to the formation of a Left opposition within it, is one of the gravest crises the Russian revolution has experienced." (Lenin, ''Selected Works,''Vol. VII, pp. 293-94.)<br />
<br />
The resolution submitted by Lenin on the subject of the Brest-Litovsk Peace was adopted by 30 votes against 12, with 4 abstentions.<br />
<br />
On the day following the adoption of this resolution, Lenin wrote an article entitled "A Distressful Peace," in which he said:<br />
<br />
"Intolerably severe are the terms of peace. Nevertheless, history will claim its own...Let us set to work to organize, organize and organize. Despite all trials, the future is ours." (Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. XXII, p. 288.)<br />
<br />
In its resolution, the congress declared that further military attacks by imperialist states on the Soviet Republic were inevitable, and that therefore the congress considered it the fundamental task of the Party to adopt the most energetic and resolute measures to strengthen the self-discipline and discipline of the workers and peasants, to prepare the masses for self-sacrificing defence of the Socialist country, to organize the Red Army, and to introduce universal military training.<br />
<br />
Endorsing Lenin's policy with regard to the Peace of Brest-Litovsk, the congress condemned the position of Trotsky and Bukharin and stigmatized the attempt of the defeated "Left Communists" to continue their splitting activities at the congress itself.<br />
<br />
The Peace of Brest-Litovsk gave the Party a respite in which to consolidate the Soviet power and to organize the economic life of the country.<br />
<br />
The peace made it possible to take advantage of the conflicts within the imperialist camp (the war of Austria and Germany with the Entente, which was still in progress) to disintegrate the forces of the enemy, to organize a Soviet economic system and to create a Red Army.<br />
<br />
The peace made it possible for the proletariat to retain the support of the peasantry and to accumulate strength for the defeat of the White-guard generals in the Civil War.<br />
<br />
In the period of the October Revolution Lenin taught the Bolshevik Party how to advance fearlessly and resolutely when conditions favoured an advance. In the period of the Brest-Litovsk Peace Lenin taught the Party how to retreat in good order when the forces of the enemy are obviously superior to our own, in order to prepare with the utmost energy for a new offensive.<br />
<br />
History has fully proved the correctness of Lenin's line.<br />
<br />
It was decided at the Seventh Congress to change the name of the Party and to alter the Party Program. The name of the Party was changed to the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)—R.C.P.(B.). Lenin proposed to call our Party a Communist Party because this name precisely corresponded to the aim of the Party, namely, the achievement of Communism.<br />
<br />
A special commission, which included Lenin and Stalin, was elected to draw up a new Party program, Lenin's draft program having been accepted as a basis.<br />
<br />
Thus the Seventh Congress accomplished a task of profound historical importance: it defeated the enemy hidden within the Party's ranks— the "Left Communists" and Trotskyites; it succeeded in withdrawing the country from the imperialist war; it secured peace and a respite; it enabled the Party to gain time for the organization of the Red Army; and it set the Party the task of introducing Socialist order in the national economy.<br />
<br />
=== Lenin’s plan for the initial steps in socialist construction. Committees of the poor peasants and the curbing of the kulaks. Revolt of the “left” socialist-revolutionaries and its suppression. Fifth congress of soviets and adoption of the constitution of the RSFSR ===<br />
Having concluded peace and thus gained a respite, the Soviet Government set about the work of Socialist construction. Lenin called the period from November 1917 to February 1918 the stage of "the Red Guard attack on capital." During the first half of 1918 the Soviet Government succeeded in breaking the economic might of the bourgeoisie, in concentrating in its own hands the key positions of the national economy (mills, factories, banks, railways, foreign trade, mercantile fleet, etc.), smashing the bourgeois machinery of state power, and victoriously crushing the first attempts of the counter-revolution to overthrow the Soviet power.<br />
<br />
But this was by no means enough. If there was to be progress, the destruction of the old order had to be followed by the building of a new. Accordingly, in the spring of 1918, a transition was begun "from the expropriation of the expropriators" to a new stage of Socialist construction—the organizational consolidation of the victories gained, the building of the Soviet national economy. Lenin held that the utmost advantage should be taken of the respite in order to begin to lay the foundation of the Socialist economic system. The Bolsheviks had to learn to organize and manage production in a new way. The Bolshevik Party had convinced Russia, Lenin wrote; the Bolshevik Party had wrested Russia for the people from the hands of the rich, and now the Bolsheviks must learn to govern Russia.<br />
<br />
Lenin held that the chief task at the given stage was to keep account of everything the country produced and to exercise control over the distribution of all products. Petty-bourgeois elements predominated in the economic system of the country. The millions of small owners in town and country were a breeding ground for capitalism. These small owners recognized neither labour discipline nor civil discipline; they would not submit to a system of state accounting and control. What was particularly dangerous at this difficult juncture was the petty-bourgeois welter of speculation and profiteering, the attempts of the small owners and traders to profit by the people's want.<br />
<br />
The Party started a vigorous war on slovenliness in work, on the absence of labour discipline in industry. The masses were slow in acquiring new habits of labour. The struggle for labour discipline consequently became the major task of the period.<br />
<br />
Lenin pointed to the necessity of developing Socialist emulation in industry; of introducing the piece rate system; of combating wage equalization; of resorting—in addition to methods of education and persuasion—to methods of compulsion with regard to those who wanted to grab as much as possible from the state, with regard to idlers and profiteers. He maintained that the new discipline—the discipline of labour, the discipline of comradely relations, Soviet discipline—was something that would be evolved by the labouring millions in the course of their daily, practical work, and that "this task will take up a whole historical epoch." (Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. VII, p. 393.)<br />
<br />
All these problems of Socialist construction, of the new, Socialist relations of production, were dealt with by Lenin in his celebrated work, ''The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government.''<br />
<br />
The "Left Communists," acting in conjunction with the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, fought Lenin over these questions too. Bukharin, Ossinsky and others were opposed to the introduction of discipline, one-man management in the enterprises, the employment of bourgeois experts in industry, and the introduction of efficient business methods. They slandered Lenin by claiming that this policy would mean a return to bourgeois conditions. At the same time, the "Left Communists" preached the Trotskyite view that Socialist construction and the victory of socialism in Russia were impossible.<br />
<br />
The "Left" phraseology of the "Left Communists" served to camouflage their defence of the kulaks, idlers and profiteers who were opposed to discipline and hostile to the state regulation of economic life, to accounting and control.<br />
<br />
Having settled on the principles of organization of the new, Soviet industry, the Party proceeded to tackle the problems of the countryside, which at this period was in the throes of a struggle between the poor peasants and the kulaks. The kulaks were gaining strength and seizing the lands confiscated from the landlords. The poor peasants needed assistance. The kulaks fought the proletarian government and refused to sell grain to it at fixed prices. They wanted to starve the Soviet state into renouncing Socialist measures. The Party set the task of smashing the counter-revolutionary kulaks. Detachments of industrial workers were sent into the countryside with the object of organizing the poor peasants and ensuring the success of the struggle against the kulaks, who were holding back their grain surpluses.<br />
<br />
"Comrades, workers, remember that the revolution is in a critical situation," Lenin wrote. "Remember that ''you alone'' can save the revolution, nobody else. What we need is tens of thousands of picked, politically advanced workers, loyal to the cause of Socialism, incapable of succumbing to bribery and the temptations of pilfering, and capable of creating an iron force against the kulaks, profiteers, marauders, bribers and disorganizers." (Lenin, ''Collected Works,'' Russ. ed., Vol. XXIII, p. 25.)<br />
<br />
"The struggle for bread is a struggle for Socialism," Lenin said. And it was under this slogan that the sending of workers' detachments to the rural districts was organized. A number of decrees were issued establishing a food dictatorship and conferring emergency powers on the organs of the People's Commissariat of Food for the purchase of grain at fixed prices.<br />
<br />
A decree was issued on June 11, 1918, providing for the creation of ''Committees of the Poor Peasants.'' These committees played an important part in the struggle against the kulaks, in the redistribution of the confiscated land and the distribution of agricultural implements, in the collection of food surpluses from the kulaks, and in the supply of foodstuffs to the working-class centres and the Red Army. Fifty million hectares of kulak land passed into the hands of the poor and middle peasants. A large portion of the kulaks' means of production was confiscated and turned over to the poor peasants.<br />
<br />
The formation of the Committees of the Poor Peasants was a further stage in the development of the Socialist revolution in the countryside. The committees were strongholds of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the villages. It was largely through them that enlistment for the Red Army was carried out among the peasants.<br />
<br />
The proletarian campaign in the rural districts and the organization of the Committees of the Poor Peasants consolidated the Soviet power in the countryside and were of tremendous political importance in winning over the middle peasants to the side of the Soviet Government.<br />
<br />
At the end of 1918, when their task had been completed, the Committees of the Poor Peasants were merged with the rural Soviets and their existence was thus terminated.<br />
<br />
At the Fifth Congress of Soviets which opened on July 4, 1918, the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries launched a fierce attack on Lenin in defence of the kulaks. They demanded the discontinuation of the fight against the kulaks and of the dispatch of workers' food detachments into the countryside. When the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries saw that the majority of the congress was firmly opposed to their policy, they started a revolt in Moscow and seized Tryokhsvyatitelsky Alley, from which they began to shell the Kremlin. This foolhardy outbreak was put down by the Bolsheviks within a few hours. Attempts at revolt were made by "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries in other parts of the country, but everywhere these outbreaks were speedily suppressed.<br />
<br />
As the trial of the Anti-Soviet "Block of Rights and Trotskyites" has now established, the revolt of the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries was started with the knowledge and consent of Bukharin and Trotsky and was part of a general counter-revolutionary conspiracy of the Bu-kharinites, Trotskyites and "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries against the Soviet power.<br />
<br />
At this juncture, too, a "Left" Socialist-Revolutionary by name of Blumkin, afterwards an agent of Trotsky, made his way into the German Embassy and assassinated Mirbach, the German Ambassador in Moscow, with the object of provoking a war with Germany. But the Soviet Government managed to avert war and to frustrate the provocateur designs of the counter-revolutionaries.<br />
<br />
The Fifth Congress of Soviets adopted the First Soviet Constitution —the Constitution of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic.<br />
<br />
=== Brief summary ===<br />
During the eight months, February to October 1917, the Bolshevik Party accomplished the very difficult task of winning over the majority of the working class and the majority in the Soviets, and enlisting the support of millions of peasants for the Socialist revolution. It wrested these masses from the influence of the petty-bourgeois parties (Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and Anarchists), by exposing the policy of these parties step by step and showing that it ran counter to the interests of the working people. The Bolshevik Party carried on extensive political work at the front and in the rear, preparing the masses for the October Socialist Revolution.<br />
<br />
The events of decisive importance in the history of the Party at this period were Lenin's arrival from exile abroad, his April Theses, the April Party Conference and the Sixth Party Congress. The Party decisions were a source of strength to the working class and inspired it with confidence in victory; in them the workers found solutions to the important problems of the revolution. The April Conference directed the efforts of the Party to the struggle for the transition from the bourgeois-democratic revolution to the Socialist revolution. The Sixth Congress headed the Party for an armed uprising against the bourgeoisie and its Provisional Government.<br />
<br />
The compromising Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik parties, the Anarchists, and the other non-Communist parties completed the cycle of their development: they all became bourgeois parties even before the October Revolution and fought for the preservation and integrity of the capitalist system. The Bolshevik Party was the only party which led the struggle of the masses for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of the power of the Soviets.<br />
<br />
At the same time, the Bolsheviks defeated the attempts of the capitulators within the Party—Zinoviev, Kamenev, Rykov, Bukharin, Trotsky and Pyatakov—to deflect the Party from the path of Socialist revolution.<br />
<br />
Headed by the Bolshevik Party, the working class, in alliance with the poor peasants, and with the support of the soldiers and sailors, overthrew the power of the bourgeoisie, established the power of the Soviets, set up a new type of state—a Socialist Soviet state—abolished the landlords' ownership of land, turned over the land to the peasants for their use, nationalized all the land in the country, expropriated the capitalists, achieved the withdrawal of Russia from the war and obtained peace, that is, obtained a much-needed respite, and thus created the conditions for the development of Socialist construction.<br />
<br />
The October Socialist Revolution smashed capitalism, deprived the bourgeoisie of the means of production and converted the mills, factories, land, railways and banks into the property of the whole people, into public property.<br />
<br />
It established the dictatorship of the proletariat and turned over the government of the vast country to the working class, thus making it the ruling class.<br />
<br />
The October Socialist Revolution thereby ushered in a new era in the history of mankind—the era of proletarian revolutions.<br />
<br />
== The Bolshevik party in the period of foreign military intervention and civil war (1918—1920) ==<br />
<br />
=== Beginning of foreign military intervention. First period of the civil war ===<br />
The conclusion of the Peace of Brest-Litovsk and the consolidation of the Soviet power, as a result of a series of revolutionary economic measures adopted by it, at a time when the war in the West was still in full swing, created profound alarm among the Western imperialists, especially those of the Entente countries.<br />
<br />
The Entente imperialists feared that the conclusion of peace between Germany and Russia might improve Germany's position in the war and correspondingly worsen the position of their own armies. They feared, moreover, that peace between Russia and Germany might stimulate the craving for peace in all countries and on all fronts, and thus interfere with the prosecution of the war and damage the cause of the imperialists. Lastly, they feared that the existence of a Soviet government on the territory of a vast country, and the success it had achieved at home after the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie, might serve as an infectious example for the workers and soldiers of the West. Profoundly discontented with the protracted war, the workers and soldiers might follow in the footsteps of the Russians and turn their bayonets against their masters and oppressors. Consequently, the Entente governments decided to intervene in Russia by armed force with the object of overthrowing the Soviet Government and establishing a bourgeois government, which would restore the bourgeois system in the country, annul the peace treaty with the Germans and re-establish the military front against Germany and Austria.<br />
<br />
The Entente imperialists launched upon this sinister enterprise all the more readily because they were convinced that the Soviet Government was unstable; they had no doubt that with some effort on the part of its enemies its early fall would be inevitable.<br />
<br />
The achievements of the Soviet Government and its consolidation created even greater alarm among the deposed classes the landlords and capitalists; in the ranks of the vanquished parties—the Constitutional-Democrats, Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Anarchists and the bourgeois nationalists of all hues; and among the Whiteguard generals, Cossack officers, etc.<br />
<br />
From the very first days of the victorious October Revolution, all these hostile elements began to shout from the housetops that there was no ground in Russia for a Soviet power, that it was doomed, that it was bound to fall within a week or two, or a month, or two or three months at most. But as the Soviet Government, despite the imprecations of its enemies, continued to exist and gain strength, its foes within Russia were forced to admit that it was much stronger than they had imagined, and that its overthrow would require great efforts and a fierce struggle on the part of all the forces of counter-revolution. They therefore decided to embark upon counter-revolutionary insurrectionary activities on a broad scale: to mobilize the forces of counter-revolution, to assemble military cadres and to organize revolts, especially in the Cossack and kulak districts.<br />
<br />
Thus, already in the first half of 1918, two definite forces took shape that were prepared to embark upon the overthrow of the Soviet power, namely, the foreign imperialists of the Entente and the counterrevolutionaries at home.<br />
<br />
Neither of these forces possessed all the requisites needed to undertake the overthrow of the Soviet Government singly. The counter-revolutionaries in Russia had certain military cadres and man-power, drawn principally from the upper classes of the Cossacks and from the kulaks, enough to start a rebellion against the Soviet Government. But they possessed neither money nor arms. The foreign imperialists, on the other hand, had the money and the arms, but could not "release" a sufficient number of troops for purposes of intervention; they could not do so, not only because these troops were required for the war with Germany and Austria, but because they might not prove altogether reliable in a war against the Soviet power.<br />
<br />
The conditions of the struggle against the Soviet power dictated a union of the two anti-Soviet forces, foreign and domestic. And this union was effected in the first half of 1918.<br />
<br />
This was how the foreign military intervention against the Soviet power supported by counter-revolutionary revolts of its foes at home originated.<br />
<br />
This was the end of the respite in Russia and the beginning of the Civil War, which was a war of the workers and peasants of the nations of Russia against the foreign and domestic enemies of the Soviet power.<br />
<br />
The imperialists of Great Britain, France, Japan and America started their military intervention without any declaration of war, although the intervention was a war, a war against Russia, and the worst kind of war at that. These "civilized" marauders secretly and stealthily made their way to Russian shores and landed their troops on Russia's territory.<br />
<br />
The British and French landed troops in the north, occupied Archangel and Murmansk, supported a local Whiteguard revolt, overthrew the Soviets and set up a White "Government of North Russia."<br />
<br />
The Japanese landed troops in Vladivostok, seized the Maritime Province, dispersed the Soviets and supported the Whiteguard rebels, who subsequently restored the bourgeois system.<br />
<br />
In the North Caucasus, Generals Kornilov, Alexeyev and Denikin, with the support of the British and French, formed a Whiteguard "Volunteer Army," raised a revolt of the upper classes of the Cossacks and started hostilities against the Soviets.<br />
<br />
On the Don, Generals Krasnov and Mamontov, with the secret support of the German imperialists (the Germans hesitated to support them openly owing to the peace treaty between Germany and Russia), raised a revolt of Don Cossacks, occupied the Don region and started hostilities against the Soviets.<br />
<br />
In the Middle Volga region and in Siberia, the British and French instigated a revolt of the Czechoslovak Corps. This corps, which consisted of prisoners of war, had received permission from the Soviet Government to return home through Siberia and the Far East. But on the way it was used by the Socialist-Revolutionaries and by the British and French for a revolt against the Soviet Government. The revolt of the corps served as a signal for a revolt of the kulaks in the Volga region and in Siberia, and of the workers of the Votkinsk and Izhevsk Works, who were under the influence of the Socialist-Revolutionaries. A White-guard-Socialist-Revolutionary government was set up in the Volga region, in Samara, and a Whiteguard government of Siberia, in Omsk.<br />
<br />
Germany took no part in the intervention of this British-French-Japanese-American bloc; nor could she do so, since she was at war with this bloc if for no other reason. But in spite of this, and notwithstanding the existence of a peace treaty between Russia and Germany, no Bolshevik doubted that Kaiser Wilhelm's government was just as rabid an enemy of Soviet Russia as the British-French-Japanese-American invaders. And, indeed, the German imperialists did their utmost to isolate, weaken and destroy Soviet Russia. They snatched from it the Ukraine—true, it was in accordance with a "treaty" with the Whiteguard Ukrainian Rada (Council)—brought in their troops at the request of the Rada and began mercilessly to rob and oppress the Ukrainian people, forbidding them to maintain any connections whatever with Soviet Russia. They severed Transcaucasia from Soviet Russia, sent German and Turkish troops there at the request of the Georgian and Azerbaidjan nationalists and began to play the masters in Tiflis and in Baku. They supplied, not openly, it is true, abundant arms and provisions to General Krasnov, who had raised a revolt against the Soviet Government on the Don.<br />
<br />
Soviet Russia was thus cut off from her principal sources of food, raw material and fuel.<br />
<br />
Conditions were hard in Soviet Russia at that period. There was a shortage of bread and meat. The workers were starving. In Moscow and Petrograd a bread ration of one-eighth of a pound was issued to them every other day, and there were times when no bread was issued at all. The factories were at a standstill, or almost at a standstill, owing to a lack of raw materials and fuel. But the working class did not lose heart. Nor did the Bolshevik Party. The desperate struggle waged to overcome the incredible difficulties of that period showed how inexhaustible is the energy latent in the working class and how immense the prestige of the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
The Party proclaimed the country an armed camp and placed its economic, cultural and political life on a war footing. The Soviet Government announced that "the Socialist fatherland is in danger," and called upon the people to rise in its defence. Lenin issued the slogan, "All for the front!"—and hundreds of thousands of workers and peasants volunteered for service in the Red Army and left for the front. About half the membership of the Party and of the Young Communist League went to the front. The Party roused the people for a ''war for the fatherland'', a war against the foreign invaders and against the revolts of the exploiting classes whom the revolution had overthrown. The Council of Workers' and Peasants' Defence, organized by Lenin, directed the work of supplying the front with reinforcements, food, clothing and arms. The substitution of compulsory military service for the volunteer system brought hundreds of thousands of new recruits into the Red Army and very shortly raised its strength to over a million men.<br />
<br />
Although the country was in a difficult position, and the young Red Army was not yet consolidated, the measures of defence adopted soon yielded their first fruits. General Krasnov was forced back from Tsaritsyn, whose capture he had regarded as certain, and driven beyond the River Don. General Denikin's operations were localized within a small area in the North Caucasus, while General Kornilov was killed in action against the Red Army. The Czechoslovaks and the White-guard-Socialist-Revolutionary bands were ousted from Kazan, Simbirsk and Samara and driven to the Urals. A revolt in Yaroslavl headed by the Whiteguard Savinkov and organized by Lockhart, chief of the British Mission in Moscow, was suppressed, and Lockhart himself arrested. The Socialist-Revolutionaries, who had assassinated Comrades Uritsky and Volodarsky and had made a villainous attempt on the life of Lenin, were subjected to a Red terror in retaliation for their White terror against the Bolsheviks, and were completely routed in every important city in Central Russia.<br />
<br />
The young Red Army matured and hardened in battle.<br />
<br />
The work of the Communist Commissars was of decisive importance in the consolidation and political education of the Red Army and in raising its discipline and fighting efficiency.<br />
<br />
But the Bolshevik Party knew that these were only the first, not the decisive successes of the Red Army. It was aware that new and far more serious battles were still to come, and that the country could recover the lost food, raw material and fuel regions only by a prolonged and stubborn struggle with the enemy. The Bolsheviks therefore undertook intense preparations for a protracted war and decided to place the whole country at the service of the front. The Soviet Government introduced ''War Communism''. It took under its control the middle-sized and small industries, in addition to large-scale industry, so as to accumulate goods for the supply of the army and the agricultural population. It introduced a state monopoly of the grain trade, prohibited private trading in grain and established the surplus-appropriation system, under which all surplus produce in the hands of the peasants was to be registered and acquired by the state at fixed prices, so as to accumulate stores of grain for the provisioning of the army and the workers. Lastly, it introduced universal labour service for all classes. By making physical labour compulsory for the bourgeoisie and thus releasing workers for other duties of greater importance to the front, the Party was giving practical effect to the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat."<br />
<br />
All these measures, which were necessitated by the exceptionally difficult conditions of national defence, and bore a temporary character, were in their entirety known as War Communism.<br />
<br />
The country prepared itself for a long and exacting civil war, for a war against the foreign and internal enemies of the Soviet power. By the end of 1918 it had to increase the strength of the army threefold, and to accumulate supplies for this army.<br />
<br />
Lenin said at that time:<br />
<br />
"We had decided to have an army of one million men by the spring; now we need an army of three million. We can get it. And we will get it."<br />
<br />
=== Defeat of Germany in the war. Revolution in Germany. Founding of the Third International. Eighth party congress ===<br />
While the Soviet country was preparing for new battles against the forces of foreign intervention, in the West decisive events were taking place in the belligerent countries, both on the war fronts and in their interior. Germany and Austria were suffocating in the grip of war and a food crisis. Whereas Great Britain, France and the United States were continually drawing upon new resources, Germany and Austria were consuming their last meagre stocks. The situation was such that Germany and Austria, having reached the stage of extreme exhaustion, were on the brink of defeat.<br />
<br />
At the same time, the peoples of Germany and Austria were seething with indignation against the disastrous and interminable war, and against their imperialist governments who had reduced them to a state of exhaustion and starvation. The revolutionary influence of the October Revolution also had a tremendous effect, as did the fraternization of the Soviet soldiers with the Austrian and German soldiers at the front even before the Peace of Brest-Litovsk, the actual termination of the war with Soviet Russia and the conclusion of peace with her. The people of Russia had brought about the end of the detested war by overthrowing their imperialist government, and this could not but serve as an object lesson to the Austrian and German workers. And the German soldiers who had been stationed on the Eastern front and who after the Peace of Brest-Litovsk were transferred to the Western front could not but undermine the morale of the German army on that front by their accounts of the fraternization with the Soviet soldiers and of the way the Soviet soldiers had got rid of the war. The disintegration of the Austrian army from the same causes had begun even earlier.<br />
<br />
All this served to accentuate the craving for peace among the German soldiers; they lost their former fighting efficiency and began to retreat in face of the onslaught of the Entente armies. In November 1918 a revolution broke out in Germany, and Wilhelm and his government were overthrown.<br />
<br />
Germany was obliged to acknowledge defeat and to sue for peace.<br />
<br />
Thus at one stroke Germany was reduced from a first-rate power to a second-rate power.<br />
<br />
As far as the position of the Soviet Government was concerned, this circumstance had certain disadvantages, inasmuch as it made the Entente countries, which had started armed intervention against the Soviet power, the dominant force in Europe and Asia, and enabled them to intervene more actively in the Soviet country and to blockade her, to draw the noose more tightly around the Soviet power. And this was what actually happened, as we shall see later. On the other hand, it had its advantages, which outweighed the disadvantages and fundamentally improved the position of Soviet Russia. In the first place, the Soviet Government was now able to annul the predatory Peace of Brest-Litovsk, to stop paying the indemnities, and to start an open struggle, military and political, for the liberation of Esthonia, Latvia, Byelorussia, Lithuania, the Ukraine and Transcaucasia from the yoke of German imperialism. Secondly, and chiefly, the existence in the centre of Europe, in Germany, of a republican regime and of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies was bound to revolutionize, and actually did revolutionize, the countries of Europe, and this could not but strengthen the position of the Soviet power in Russia. True, the revolution in Germany was not a Socialist but a bourgeois revolution, and the Soviets were an obedient tool of the bourgeois parliament, for they were dominated by the Social-Democrats, who were compromisers of the type of the Russian Mensheviks. This in fact explains the weakness of the German revolution. How weak it really was is shown, for example, by the fact that it allowed the German Whiteguards to assassinate such prominent revolutionaries as Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht with impunity. Nevertheless, it was a revolution: Wilhelm had been overthrown, and the workers had cast off their chains; and this in itself was bound to unloose the revolution in the West, was bound to call forth a rise in the revolution in the European countries.<br />
<br />
The tide of revolution in Europe began to mount. A revolutionary movement started in Austria, and a Soviet Republic arose in Hungary. With the rising tide of the revolution Communist parties came to the surface.<br />
<br />
A real basis now existed for a union of the Communist parties, for the formation of the Third, Communist International.<br />
<br />
In March 1919, on the initiative of the Bolsheviks, headed by Lenin, the First Congress of the Communist Parties of various countries, held in Moscow, founded the Communist International. Although many of the delegates were prevented by the blockade and imperialist persecution from arriving in Moscow, the most important countries of Europe and America were represented at this First Congress. The work of the congress was guided by Lenin.<br />
<br />
Lenin reported on the subject of bourgeois democracy and the dictatorship of the proletariat. He brought out the importance of the Soviet system, showing that it meant genuine democracy for the working people. The congress adopted a manifesto to the proletariat of all countries calling upon them to wage a determined struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat and for the triumph of Soviets all over the world.<br />
<br />
The congress set up an Executive Committee of the Third, Communist International (E.C.C.I.).<br />
<br />
Thus was founded an international revolutionary proletarian organization of a new type—the Communist International—the Marxist-Leninist International.<br />
<br />
The Eighth Congress of our Party met in March 1919. It assembled in the midst of a conflict of contradictory factors—on the one hand, the reactionary bloc of the Entente countries against the Soviet Government had grown stronger, and, on the other, the rising tide of revolution in Europe, especially in the defeated countries, had considerably improved the position of the Soviet country.<br />
<br />
The congress was attended by 301 delegates with vote, representing 313,766 members of the Party, and 102 delegates with voice but no vote.<br />
<br />
In his inaugural speech, Lenin paid homage to the memory of Y. M. Sverdlov, one of the finest organizing talents in the Bolshevik Party, who had died on the eve of the congress.<br />
<br />
The congress adopted a new Party Program. This program gives a description of capitalism and of its highest phase—imperialism. It compares two systems of state—the bourgeois-democratic system and the Soviet system. It details the specific tasks of the Party in the struggle for Socialism: completion of the expropriation of the bourgeoisie; administration of the economic life of the country in accordance with a single Socialist plan; participation of the trade unions in the organization of the national economy; Socialist labour discipline; utilization of bourgeois experts in the economic field under the control of Soviet bodies; gradual and systematic enlistment of the middle peasantry in the work of Socialist construction.<br />
<br />
The congress adopted Lenin's proposal to include in the program in addition to a definition of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, the description of industrial capitalism and simple commodity production contained in the old program adopted at the Second Party Congress. Lenin considered it essential that the program should take account of the complexity of our economic system and note the existence of diverse economic formations in the country, including small commodity production, as represented by the middle peasants. Therefore, during the debate on the program, Lenin vigorously condemned the anti-Bolshevik views of Bukharin, who proposed that the clauses dealing with capitalism, small commodity production, the economy of the middle peasant, be left out of the program. Bukharin's views represented a Menshevik-Trotsky-ite denial of the role played by the middle peasant in the development of the Soviet state. Furthermore, Bukharin glossed over the fact that the small commodity production of the peasants bred and nourished kulak elements.<br />
<br />
Lenin further refuted the anti-Bolshevik views of Bukharin and Pyatakov on the national question. They spoke against the inclusion in the program of a clause on the right of nations to self-determination; they were against the equality of nations, claiming that it was a slogan that would hinder the, victory of the proletarian revolution and the union of the proletarians of different nationalities. Lenin overthrew these utterly pernicious, imperialist, chauvinist views of Bukharin and Pyatakov.<br />
<br />
An important place in the deliberations of the Eighth Congress was devoted to policy towards the middle peasants. The Decree on the Land had resulted in a steady growth in the number of middle peasants, who now comprised the majority of the peasant population. The attitude and conduct of the middle peasantry, which vacillated between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, was of momentous importance for the fate of the Civil War and Socialist construction. The outcome of the Civil War largely depended on which way the middle peasant would swing, which class would win his allegiance—the proletariat or the bourgeoisie. The Czechoslovaks, the Whiteguards, the kulaks, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks were able to overthrow the Soviet power in the Volga region in the summer of 19i8 because they were supported by a large section of the middle peasantry. The same was true during the revolts raised by the kulaks in Central Russia. But in the autumn of 19i8 the mass of the middle peasants began to swing over to the Soviet power. The peasants saw that victories of the Whites were followed by the restoration of the power of the landlords, the seizure of peasants' land, and the robbery, flogging and torture of peasants. The activities of the Committees of the Poor Peasants, which crushed the kulaks, also contributed to the change in the attitude of the peasantry. Accordingly, in November 1918, Lenin issued the slogan:<br />
<br />
"Learn to come to an agreement with the middle peasant, while not for a moment renouncing the struggle against the kulak and at the same time firmly relying solely on the poor peasant." (Lenin, ''Selected Works'', Vol. VIII, p. 150.)<br />
<br />
Of course, the middle peasants did not cease to vacillate entirely, but they drew closer to the Soviet Government and began to support it more solidly. This to a large extent was facilitated by the policy towards the middle peasants laid down by the Eighth Party Congress.<br />
<br />
The Eighth Congress marked a turning point in the policy of the Party towards the middle peasants. Lenin's report and the decisions of the congress laid down a new line of the Party on this question. The congress demanded that the Party organizations and all Communists should draw a strict distinction and division between the middle peasant and the kulak, and should strive to win the former over to the side of the working class by paying close attention to his needs. The backwardness of the middle peasants had to be overcome by persuasion and not by compulsion and coercion. The congress therefore gave instructions that no compulsion be used in the carrying out of Socialist measures in the countryside (formation of communes and agricultural artels). In all cases affecting the vital interests of the middle peasant, a practical agreement should be reached with him and concessions made with regard to the ''methods'' of realizing Socialist changes. The congress laid down the policy of a ''stable alliance'' with the middle peasant, the ''leading role'' in this alliance to be maintained by the proletariat.<br />
<br />
The new policy towards the middle peasant proclaimed by Lenin at the Eighth Congress required that the proletariat should rely on the poor peasant, maintain a stable alliance with the middle peasant and fight the kulak. The policy of the Party before the Eighth Congress was in general one of ''neutralizing'' the middle peasant. This meant that the Party strove to prevent the middle peasant from siding with the kulak and with the bourgeoisie in general. But now this was not enough. The Eighth Congress passed from a policy of neutralization of the middle peasant to a policy of ''stable alliance'' with him for the purpose of the struggle against the Whiteguards and foreign intervention and for the successful building of Socialism.<br />
<br />
The policy adopted by the congress towards the middle peasants, who formed the bulk of the peasantry, played a decisive part in ensuring success in the Civil War against foreign intervention and its Whiteguard henchmen. In the autumn of 1919, when the peasants had to choose between the Soviet power and Denikin, they supported the Soviets, and the proletarian dictatorship was able to vanquish its most dangerous enemy.<br />
<br />
The problems connected with the building up of the Red Army held a special place in the deliberations of the congress, where the so-called "Military Opposition" appeared in the field. This "Military Opposition" comprised quite a number of former members of the now shattered group of "Left Communists"; but it also included some Party workers who had never participated in any opposition, but were dissatisfied with the way Trotsky was conducting the affairs of the army. The majority of the delegates from the army were distinctly hostile to Trotsky; they resented his veneration for the military experts of the old tsarist army, some of whom were betraying us outright in the Civil War, and his arrogant and hostile attitude towards the old Bolshevik cadres in the army. Instances of Trotsky's "practices" were cited at the congress. For example, he had attempted to shoot a number of prominent army Communists serving at the front, just because they had incurred his displeasure. This was directly playing into the hands of the enemy. It was only the intervention of the Central Committee and the protests of military men that saved the lives of these comrades.<br />
<br />
But while fighting Trotsky's distortions of the military policy of the Party, the "Military Opposition" held incorrect views on a number of points concerning the building up of the army. Lenin and Stalin vigorously came out against the "Military Opposition," because the latter defended the survivals of the guerrilla spirit and resisted the creation of a regular Red Army, the utilization of the military experts of the old army and the establishment of that iron discipline without which no army can be a real army. Comrade Stalin rebutted the "Military Opposition" and demanded the creation of a regular army inspired with the spirit of strictest discipline.<br />
<br />
He said:<br />
<br />
"Either we create a real worker and peasant—primarily a peasant—army, strictly disciplined army, and defend the Republic, or we perish."<br />
<br />
While rejecting a number of proposals made by the "Military Opposition," the congress dealt a blow at Trotsky by demanding an improvement in the work of the central military institutions and the enhancement of the role of the Communists in the army.<br />
<br />
A Military Commission was set up at the congress; thanks to its efforts the decision on the military question was adopted by the congress unanimously.<br />
<br />
The effect of this decision was to strengthen the Red Army and to bring it still closer to the Party.<br />
<br />
The congress further discussed Party and Soviet affairs and the guiding role of the Party in the Soviets. During the debate on the latter question the congress repudiated the view of the opportunist Sapronov-Ossinsky group which held that the Party should not guide the work of the Soviets.<br />
<br />
Lastly, in view of the huge influx of new members into the Party, the congress outlined measures to improve the social composition of the Party and decided to conduct a re-registration of its members.<br />
<br />
This initiated the first purge of the Party ranks.<br />
<br />
=== Extension of intervention. Blockade of the soviet country. Kolchak’s campaign and defeat. Denikin’s campaign and defeat. A three-months’ respite. Ninth party congress ===<br />
Having vanquished Germany and Austria, the Entente states decided to hurl large military forces against the Soviet country. After Germany's defeat and the evacuation of her troops from the Ukraine and Transcaucasia, her place was taken by the British and French, who dispatched their fleets to the Black Sea and landed troops in Odessa and in Transcaucasia. Such was the brutality of the Entente forces of intervention that they did not hesitate to shoot whole batches of workers and peasants in the occupied regions. Their outrages reached such lengths in the end that after the occupation of Turkestan they carried off to the Trans-caspian region twenty-six leading Baku Bolsheviks—including Comrades Shaumyan, Fioletov, Djaparidze, Malygin, Azizbekov, Korganov—and with the aid of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, had them brutally shot.<br />
<br />
The interventionists soon proclaimed a ''blockade'' of Russia. All sea routes and other lines of communication with the external world were cut.<br />
<br />
The Soviet country was surrounded on nearly every side.<br />
<br />
The Entente countries placed their chief hopes in Admiral Kolchak, their puppet in Omsk, Siberia. He was proclaimed "supreme ruler of Russia" and all the counter-revolutionary forces in the country placed themselves under his command.<br />
<br />
The Eastern Front thus became the main front.<br />
<br />
Kolchak assembled a huge army and in the spring of 1919 almost reached the Volga. The finest Bolshevik forces were hurled against him; Young Communist Leaguers and workers were mobilized. In April 1919, Kolchak's army met with severe defeat at the hands of the Red Army and very soon began to retreat along the whole front.<br />
<br />
At the height of the advance of the Red Army on the Eastern Front, Trotsky put forward a suspicious plan: he proposed that the advance should be halted before it reached the Urals, the pursuit of Kolchak's army discontinued, and troops transferred from the Eastern Front to the Southern Front. The Central Committee of the Party fully realized that the Urals and Siberia could not be left in Kolchak's hands, for there, with the aid of the Japanese and British, he might recuperate and retrieve his former position. It therefore rejected this plan and gave instructions to proceed with the advance. Trotsky disagreed with these instructions and tendered his resignation, which the Central Committee declined, at the same time ordering him to refrain at once from all participation in the direction of the operations on the Eastern Front. The Red Army pursued its offensive against Kolchak with greater vigour than ever; it inflicted a number of new defeats on him and freed of the Whites the Urals and Siberia, where the Red Army was supported by a powerful partisan movement in the Whites' rear.<br />
<br />
In the summer of 1919, the imperialists assigned to General Yude-nich, who headed the counter-revolutionaries in the north-west (in the Baltic countries, in the vicinity of Petrograd), the task of diverting the attention of the Red Army from the Eastern Front by an attack on Petrograd. Influenced by the counter-revolutionary agitation of former officers, the garrisons of two forts in the vicinity of Petrograd mutinied against the Soviet Government. At the same time a counter-revolutionary plot was discovered at the Front Headquarters. The enemy threatened Petrograd. But thanks to the measures taken by the Soviet Government with the support of the workers and sailors, the mutinous forts were cleared of Whites, and Yudenich's troops were defeated and driven back into Esthonia.<br />
<br />
The defeat of Yudenich near Petrograd made it easier to cope with Kolchak, and by the end of 1919 his army was completely routed. Kol-chak himself was taken prisoner and shot by sentence of the Revolutionary Committee in Irkutsk.<br />
<br />
That was the end of Kolchak.<br />
<br />
The Siberians had a popular song about Kolchak at that time:<br />
<br />
"Uniform British, Epaulettes from<br />
<br />
France, Japanese tobacco, Kolchak<br />
<br />
leads the dance.<br />
<br />
Uniform in tatters,<br />
<br />
Epaulettes all gone,<br />
<br />
So is the tobacco,<br />
<br />
Kolchak's day is done."<br />
<br />
Since Kolchak had not justified their hopes, the interventionists altered their plan of attack on the Soviet Republic. The troops landed in Odessa had to be withdrawn, for contact with the army of the Soviet Republic had infected them with the revolutionary spirit and they were beginning to rebel against their imperialist masters. For example, there was the revolt of French sailors in Odessa led by Andre Marty. Accordingly, now that Kolchak had been defeated, the Entente centred its attention on General Denikin, Kornilov's confederate and the organizer of the "Volunteer Army." Denikin at that time was operating against the Soviet Government in the south, in the Kuban region. The Entente supplied his army with large quantities of ammunition and equipment and sent it north against the Soviet Government.<br />
<br />
The Southern Front now became the chief front.<br />
<br />
Denikin began his main campaign against the Soviet Government in the summer of 1919. Trotsky had disrupted the Southern Front, and our troops suffered defeat after defeat. By the middle of October the Whites had seized the whole of the Ukraine, had captured Orel and were nearing Tula, which supplied our army with cartridges, rifles and machine-guns. The Whites were approaching Moscow. The situation of the Soviet Republic became grave in the extreme. The Party sounded the alarm and called upon the people to resist. Lenin issued the slogan, "All for the fight against Denikin!" Inspired by the Bolsheviks, the workers and peasants mustered all their forces to smash the enemy.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee sent Comrades Stalin, Voroshilov, Ordjoni-kidze and Budyonny to the Southern Front to prepare the rout of Denikin. Trotsky was removed from the direction of the operations of the Red Army in the south. Before Comrade Stalin's arrival, the Command of the Southern Front, in conjunction with Trotsky, had drawn up a plan to strike the main blow at Denikin from Tsaritsyn in the direction of Novorossisk, through the Don Steppe, where there were no roads and where the Red Army would have to pass through regions inhabited by Cossacks, who were at that time largely under the influence of the Whiteguards. Comrade Stalin severely criticized this plan and submitted to the Central Committee his own plan for the defeat of Denikin. According to this plan the main blow was to be delivered by way of Khar-kov-Donetz Basin-Rostov. This plan would ensure the rapid advance of our troops against Denikin, for they would be moving through working class and peasant regions where they would have the open sympathy of the population. Furthermore, the dense network of railway lines in this region would ensure our armies the regular supply of all they required.<br />
<br />
Lastly, this plan would make it possible to release the Donetz Coal Basin and thus supply our country with fuel.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee of the Party accepted Comrade Stalin's plan. In the second half of October 1919, after fierce resistance, Deni-kin was defeated by the Red Army in the decisive battles of Orel and Voronezh. He began a rapid retreat, and, pursued by our forces, fled to the south. At the beginning of 1920 the whole of the Ukraine and the North Caucasus had been cleared of Whites.<br />
<br />
During the decisive battles on the Southern Front, the imperialists again hurled Yudenich's corps against Petrograd in order to divert our forces from the south and thus improve the position of Denikin's army. The Whites approached the very gates of Petrograd. The heroic proletariat of the premier city of the revolution rose in a solid wall for its defence. The Communists, as always, were in the vanguard. After fierce fighting, the Whites were defeated and again flung beyond our borders back into Esthonia.<br />
<br />
And that was the end of Denikin.<br />
<br />
The defeat of Kolchak and Denikin was followed by a brief respite.<br />
<br />
When the imperialists saw that the Whiteguard armies had been smashed, that intervention had failed, and that the Soviet Government was consolidating its position all over the country, while in Western Europe the indignation of the workers against military intervention in the Soviet Republic was rising, they began to change their attitude towards the Soviet state. In January 1920, Great Britain, France, and Italy decided to call off the blockade of Soviet Russia.<br />
<br />
This was an important breach in the wall of intervention.<br />
<br />
It did not, of course, mean that the Soviet country was done with intervention and the Civil War. There was still the danger of attack by imperialist Poland. The forces of intervention had not yet been finally driven out of the Far East, Transcaucasia and the Crimea. But Soviet Russia had secured a temporary breathing space and was able to divert more forces to economic development. The Party could now devote its attention to economic problems.<br />
<br />
During the Civil War many skilled workers had left industry owing to the closing down of mills and factories. The Party now took measures to return them to industry to work at their trades. The railways were in a grave condition and several thousand Communists were assigned to the work of restoring them, for unless this was done the restoration of the major branches of industry could not be seriously undertaken. The organization of the food supply was extended and improved. The drafting of a plan for the electrification of Russia was begun. Nearly five million Red Army men were under arms and could not be demobilized owing to the danger of war. A part of the Red Army was therefore converted into ''labour armies'' and used in the economic field. The Council of Workers' and Peasants' Defence was transformed into the ''Council of Labour and Defence,'' and a ''State Planning Commission'' (Gosplan) set up to assist it.<br />
<br />
Such was the situation when the Ninth Party Congress opened.<br />
<br />
The congress met at the end of March 1920. It was attended by 554 delegates with vote, representing 611,978 Party members, and 162 delegates with voice but no vote.<br />
<br />
The congress defined the immediate tasks of the country in the sphere of transportation and industry. It particularly stressed the necessity of the trade unions taking part in the building up of the economic life.<br />
<br />
Special attention was devoted by the congress to a single economic plan for the restoration, in the first place, of the railways, the fuel industry and the iron and steel industry. The major item in this plan was a project for the electrification of the country, which Lenin advanced as "a great program for the next ten or twenty years." This formed the basis of the famous plan of the State Commission for the Electrification of Russia (GOELRO), the provisions of which have today been far exceeded.<br />
<br />
The congress rejected the views of an anti-Party group which called itself "The Group of Democratic-Centralism" and was opposed to one-man management and the undivided responsibility of industrial directors. It advocated unrestricted "group management" under which nobody would be personally responsible for the administration of industry. The chief figures in this anti-Party group were Sapronov, Ossinsky and Y. Smirnov. They were supported at the congress by Rykov and Tomsky.<br />
<br />
=== Polish gentry attack Soviet Russia. General Wrangel’s campaign. Failure of the Polish plan. Rout of Wrangel. End of the intervention ===<br />
Notwithstanding the defeat of Kolchak and Denikin, notwithstanding the fact that the Soviet Republic was steadily regaining its territory by clearing the Whites and the forces of intervention out of the Northern Territory, Turkestan, Siberia, the Don region, the Ukraine, etc., notwithstanding the fact that the Entente states were obliged to call off the blockade of Russia, they still refused to reconcile themselves to the idea that the Soviet power had proved impregnable and had come out victorious. They therefore resolved to make one more attempt at intervention in Soviet Russia. This time they decided to utilize both Pilsud-ski, a bourgeois counter-revolutionary nationalist, the virtual head of the Polish state, and General Wrangel, who had rallied the remnants of Denikin's army in the Crimea and from there was threatening the Donetz Basin and the Ukraine.<br />
<br />
The Polish gentry and Wrangel, as Lenin put it, were the two hands with which international imperialism attempted to strangle Soviet Russia.<br />
<br />
The plan of the Poles was to seize the Soviet Ukraine west of the Dnieper, to occupy Soviet Byelorussia, to restore the power of the Polish magnates in these regions, to extend the frontiers of the Polish state so that they stretched "from sea to sea," from Danzig to Odessa, and, in return for his aid, to help Wrangel smash the Red Army and restore the power of the landlords and capitalists in Soviet Russia.<br />
<br />
This plan was approved by the Entente states.<br />
<br />
The Soviet Government made vain attempts to enter into negotiations with Poland with the object of preserving peace and averting war. Pilsudski refused to discuss peace. He wanted war. He calculated that the Red Army, fatigued by its battles with Kolchak and Denikin, would not be able to withstand the attack of the Polish forces.<br />
<br />
The short breathing space had come to an end.<br />
<br />
In April 1920 the Poles invaded the Soviet Ukraine and seized Kiev. At the same time, Wrangel took the offensive and threatened the Donetz Basin.<br />
<br />
In reply, the Red Army started a counter-offensive against the Poles along the whole front. Kiev was recaptured and the Polish warlords driven out of the Ukraine and Byelorussia. The impetuous advance of the Red troops on the Southern Front brought them to the very gates of Lvov in Galicia, while the troops on the Western Front were nearing Warsaw. The Polish armies were on the verge of utter defeat.<br />
<br />
But success was frustrated by the suspicious actions of Trotsky and his followers at the General Headquarters of the Red Army. Through the fault of Trotsky and Tukhachevsky, the advance of the Red troops on the Western Front, towards Warsaw, proceeded in an absolutely unorganized manner: the troops were allowed no opportunity to consolidate the positions that they won, the advance detachments were led too far ahead, while reserves and ammunition were left too far in the rear. As a result, the advance detachments were left without ammunition and reserves and the front was stretched out endlessly. This made it easy to force a breach in the front. The result was that when a small force of Poles broke through our Western Front at one point, our troops, left without ammunition, were obliged to retreat. As regards the troops on the Southern Front, who had reached the gates of Lvov and were pressing the Poles hard, they were forbidden by Trotsky, that ill-famed "chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council," to capture Lvov. He ordered the transfer of the Mounted Army, the main force on the Southern Front, far to the north-east. This was done on the pretext of helping the Western Front, although it was not difficult to see that the best, and in fact only possible, way of helping the Western Front was to capture Lvov. But the withdrawal of the Mounted Army from the Southern Front, its departure from Lvov, virtually meant the retreat of our forces on the Southern Front as well. This wrecker's order issued by Trotsky thus forced upon our troops on the Southern Front an incomprehensible and absolutely unjustified retreat—to the joy of the Polish gentry.<br />
<br />
This was giving direct assistance, indeed—not to our Western Front, however, but to the Polish gentry and the Entente<br />
<br />
Within a few days the advance of the Poles was checked and our troops began preparations for a new counter-offensive. But, unable to continue the war, and alarmed by the prospect of a Red counter-offensive, Poland was obliged to renounce her claims to the Ukrainian territory west of the Dnieper and to Byelorussia and preferred to conclude peace. On October 20, 1920, the Peace of Riga was signed. In accordance with this treaty Poland retained Galicia and part of Byelorussia.<br />
<br />
Having concluded peace with Poland, the Soviet Republic decided to put an end to Wrangel. The British and French had supplied him with guns, rifles, armoured cars, tanks, aeroplanes and ammunition of the latest type. He had Whiteguard shock regiments, mainly consisting of officers. But Wrangel failed to rally any considerable number of peasants and Cossacks in support of the troops he had landed in the Kuban and the Don regions. Nevertheless, he advanced to the very gates of the Donetz Basin, creating a menace to our coal region. The position of the Soviet Government at that time was further complicated by the fact that the Red Army was suffering greatly from fatigue. The troops were obliged to advance under extremely difficult conditions: while conducting an offensive against Wrangel, they had at the same time to smash Makhno's anarchist bands who were assisting Wrangel. But although Wrangel had the superiority in technical equipment, although the Red Army had no tanks, it drove Wrangel into the Crimean Peninsula and there bottled him up. In November 1920 the Red forces captured the fortified position of Perekop, swept into the Crimea, smashed Wrangel's forces and cleared the Peninsula of the Whiteguards and the forces of intervention. The Crimea became Soviet territory.<br />
<br />
The failure of Poland's imperialist plans and the defeat of Wrangel ended the period of intervention.<br />
<br />
At the end of 1920 there began the liberation of Transcaucasia: Azerbaidjan was freed from the yoke of the bourgeois nationalist Mussa-vatists, Georgia from the Menshevik nationalists, and Armenia from the Dashnaks. The Soviet power triumphed in Azerbaidjan, Armenia and Georgia.<br />
<br />
This did not yet mean the end of all intervention. That of the Japanese in the Far East lasted until 1922. Moreover, new attempts at intervention were made (Ataman Semyonov and Baron Ungern in the East, the Finnish Whites in Karelia in 192i). But the principal ene<br />
<br />
mies of the Soviet country, the principal forces of intervention, were shattered by the end of 1920.<br />
<br />
The war of the foreign interventionists and the Russian Whiteguards against the Soviets ended in a victory for the Soviets.<br />
<br />
The Soviet Republic preserved its independence and freedom.<br />
<br />
This was the end of foreign military intervention and Civil War.<br />
<br />
This was a historic victory for the Soviet power.<br />
<br />
=== How and why the Soviet Republic defeated the combined forces of British-French-Japanese-Polish intervention and of the Bourgeois-Landlord-Whiteguard counter-revolution in Russia ===<br />
If we study the leading European and American newspapers and periodicals of the period of intervention, we shall easily find that there was not a single prominent writer, military or civilian, not a single military expert who believed that the Soviet Government could win. On the contrary, all prominent writers, military experts and historians of revolution of all countries and nations, all the so-called savants, were unanimous in declaring that the days of the Soviets were numbered, that their defeat was inevitable.<br />
<br />
They based their certainty of the victory of the forces of intervention on the fact that whereas Soviet Russia had no organized army and had to create its Red Army under fire, so to speak, the interventionists and Whiteguards did have an army more or less ready to hand.<br />
<br />
Further, they based their certainty on the fact that the Red Army had no experienced military men, the majority of them having gone over to the counter-revolution, whereas the interventionists and Whiteguards did have such men.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, they based their certainty on the fact that, owing to the backwardness of Russia's war industry, the Red Army was suffering from a shortage of arms and ammunition; that what it did have was of poor quality, while it could not obtain supplies from abroad because Russia was hermetically sealed on all sides by the blockade. The army of the interventionists and Whiteguards, on the other hand, was abundantly supplied, and would continue to be supplied, with first-class arms, ammunition and equipment.<br />
<br />
Lastly, they based their certainty on the fact that the army of the interventionists and Whiteguards occupied the richest food-producing regions of Russia, whereas the Red Army had no such regions and was suffering from a shortage of provisions.<br />
<br />
And it was a fact that the Red Army did suffer from all these handicaps and deficiencies.<br />
<br />
In this respect—but only in this respect—the gentlemen of the intervention were absolutely right.<br />
<br />
How then is it to be explained that the Red Army, although suffering from such grave shortcomings, was able to defeat the army of the interventionists and Whiteguards which did not suffer from such shortcomings?<br />
<br />
1. The Red Army was victorious because the Soviet Government's policy for which the Red Army was fighting was a right policy, one that corresponded to the interests of the people, and because the people under- stood and realized that it was the right policy, their own policy, and sup- ported it unreservedly.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks knew that an army that fights for a wrong policy, for a policy that is not supported by the people, cannot win. The army of the interventionists and Whiteguards was such an army. It had everything: experienced commanders and first-class arms, ammunition, equipment and provisions. It lacked only one thing—the support and sympathy of the peoples of Russia; for the peoples of Russia could not and would not support the policy of the interventionists and Whiteguard "rulers" because it was a policy hostile to the people. And so the interventionist and Whiteguard army was defeated.<br />
<br />
2. The Red Army was victorious because it was absolutely loyal and faithful to its people, for which reason the people loved and supported it and looked upon it as their own army. The Red Army is the offspring of the people, and if it is faithful to its people, as a true son is to his mother, it will have the support of the people and is bound to win. An army, however, that goes against its people must suffer defeat.<br />
<br />
3. The Red Army was victorious because the Soviet Government was able to muster the whole rear, the whole country, to serve the needs of the front. An army without a strong rear to support the front in every way is doomed to defeat. The Bolsheviks knew this and that is why they converted the country into an armed camp to supply the front with arms, ammunition, equipment, food and reinforcements.<br />
<br />
4. The Red Army was victorious because: a) the Red Army men understood the aims and purposes of the war and recognized their justice; b) the recognition of the justice of the aims and purposes of the war strengthened their discipline and fighting efficiency; and c) as a result, the Red Army throughout displayed unparalleled self-sacrifice and unexampled mass heroism in battle against the enemy.<br />
<br />
5. The Red Army was victorious because its leading core, both at the front and in the rear, was the Bolshevik Party, united in its solidarity and discipline, strong in its revolutionary spirit and readiness for any sacrifice in the common cause, and unsurpassed in its ability to organize millions and to lead them properly in complex situations.<br />
<br />
"It is only because of the Party's vigilance and its strict discipline," said Lenin, "because the authority of the Party united all government departments and institutions, because the slogans issued by the Central Committee were followed by tens, hundreds, thousands and finally millions of people as one man, because incredible sacrifices were made, that the miracle took place and we were able to win, in spite of repeated campaigns of the imperialists of the Entente and of the whole world." (Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. XXV, p. 96.)<br />
<br />
6. The Red Army was victorious because: a) it was able to produce from its own ranks military commanders of a new type, men like Frunze, Voroshilov, Budyonny, and others; b) in its ranks fought such talented heroes who came from the people as Kotovsky, Chapayev, Lazo, Shchors, Parkhomenko, and many others; c) the political education of the Red Army was in the hands of men like Lenin, Stalin, Molotov, Kalinin, Sverdlov, Kaganovich, Ordjonikidze, Kirov, Kuibyshev, Mikoyan, Zhdanov, Andreyev, Petrovsky, Yaroslavsky, Yezhov, Dzerzhinsky, Shchadenko, Mekhlis, Khrushchev, Shvernik, Shkiryatov, and others; d) the Red Army possessed such outstanding organizers and agitators as the military commissars, who by their work cemented the ranks of the Red Army men, fostered in them the spirit of discipline and military daring, and energetically—swiftly and relentlessly—cut short the treacherous activities of certain of the commanders, while on the other hand, they boldly and resolutely supported the prestige and renown of commanders, Party and non-Party, who had proved their loyalty to the Soviet power and who were capable of leading the Red Army units with a firm hand.<br />
<br />
"Without the military commissars we would not have had a Red Army," Lenin said.<br />
<br />
7. The Red Army was victorious because in the rear of the White armies, in the rear of Kolchak, Denikin, Krasnov and Wrangel, there secretly operated splendid Bolsheviks, Party and non-Party, who raised the workers and peasants in revolt against the invaders, against the White-guards, undermined the rear of the foes of the Soviet Government, and thereby facilitated the advance of the Red Army. Everybody knows that the partisans of the Ukraine, Siberia, the Far East, the Urals, Byelorussia and the Volga region, by undermining the rear of the Whiteguards and the invaders, rendered invaluable service to the Red Army.<br />
<br />
8. The Red Army was victorious because the Soviet Republic was not alone in its struggle against Whiteguard counter-revolution and foreign intervention, because the struggle of the Soviet Government and its successes enlisted the sympathy and support of the proletarians of the whole world. While the imperialists were trying to stifle the Soviet Republic by intervention and blockade, the workers of the imperialist countries sided with the Soviets and helped them. Their struggle against the capitalists of the countries hostile to the Soviet Republic helped in the end to force the imperialists to call off the intervention. The workers of Great Britain, France and the other intervening powers called strikes, refused to load munitions consigned to the invaders and the White-guard generals, and set up Councils of Action whose work was guided by the slogan—"Hands off Russia!"<br />
<br />
"The international bourgeoisie has only to raise its hand against us to have it seized by its own workers," Lenin said. (''Ibid''., p. 405.)<br />
<br />
=== Brief summary ===<br />
Vanquished by the October Revolution, the landlords and capitalists, in conjunction with the Whiteguard generals, conspired with the governments of the Entente countries against the interests of their own country for a joint armed attack on the Soviet land and for the overthrow of the Soviet Government. This formed the basis of the military intervention of the Entente and of the Whiteguard revolts in the border Aregions of Russia, as a result of which Russia was cut off from her sources of food and raw material.<br />
<br />
The military defeat of Germany and the termination of the war between the two imperialist coalitions in Europe served to strengthen the Entente and to intensify the intervention, and created new difficulties for Soviet Russia.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, the revolution in Germany and the incipient revolutionary movement in the European countries created favourable international conditions for the Soviet power and relieved the position of the Soviet Republic.<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik Party roused the workers and peasants for a war ''for the fatherland'', a war against the foreign invaders and the bourgeois and landlord Whiteguards. The Soviet Republic and its Red Army defeated one after another the puppets of the Entente—Kolchak, Yude-nich, Denikin, Krasnov and Wrangel, drove out of the Ukraine and Byelorussia another puppet of the Entente, Pilsudski, and thus beat off the forces of foreign intervention and drove them out of the Soviet country.<br />
<br />
Thus the first armed attack of international capital on the land of Socialism ended in a complete fiasco.<br />
<br />
In the period of intervention, the parties which had been smashed by the revolution, the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, Anarchists and nationalists, supported the Whiteguard generals and the invaders, hatched counter-revolutionary plots against the Soviet Republic and resorted to terrorism against Soviet leaders. These parties, which had enjoyed a certain amount of influence among the working class before the October Revolution, completely exposed themselves before the masses as counterrevolutionary parties during the Civil War.<br />
<br />
The period of Civil War and intervention witnessed the political collapse of these parties and the final triumph of the Communist Party in Soviet Russia.<br />
<br />
== The Bolshevik party in the period of transition to the peaceful work of economic restoration (1921—1925) ==<br />
<br />
=== Soviet Republic after the defeat of the intervention and end of the civil war. Difficulties of the restoration period ===<br />
Having ended the war, the Soviet Republic turned to the work of peaceful economic development. The wounds of war had to be healed. The shattered economic life of the country had to be rebuilt, its industry, railways and agriculture restored.<br />
<br />
But the work of peaceful development had to be undertaken in extremely difficult circumstances. The victory in the Civil War had not been an easy one. The country had been reduced to a state of ruin by four years of imperialist war and three years of war against the intervention.<br />
<br />
The gross output of agriculture in 1920 was only about ''one-half'' of the pre-war output—that of the poverty-stricken Russian countryside of tsarist days. To make matters worse, in 1920 there was a harvest failure in many of the provinces. Agriculture was in sore straits.<br />
<br />
Even worse was the plight of industry, which was in a state of complete dislocation. The output of large-scale industry in 1920 was a little over ''one-seventh'' of pre-war. Most of the mills and factories were at a standstill; mines and collieries were wrecked and flooded. Gravest of all was the condition of the iron and steel industry. The total output of pig-iron in 1921 was only 116,300 tons, or about 3 per cent of the pre-war output. There was a shortage of fuel. Transport was disrupted. Stocks of metal and textiles in the country were nearly exhausted. There was an acute shortage of such prime necessities as bread, fats, meat, footwear, clothing, matches, salt, kerosene, and soap.<br />
<br />
While the war was on, people put up with the shortage and scarcity, and were sometimes even oblivious to it. But now that the war was over, they suddenly felt that this shortage and scarcity were intolerable and began to demand that they be immediately remedied.<br />
<br />
Discontent appeared among the peasants. The fire of the Civil War had welded and steeled a military and political alliance of the working class and the peasantry. This alliance rested on a definite basis: the peasants received from the Soviet Government land and protection against the landlords and kulaks; the workers received from the peasantry foodstuffs under the surplus-appropriation system. Now this basis was no longer adequate.<br />
<br />
The Soviet state had been compelled to appropriate all surplus produce from the peasants for the needs of national defence. Victory in the Civil War would have been impossible without the surplus-appropriation system, without the policy of War Communism. This policy was necessitated by the war and intervention. As long as the war was on, the peasantry had acquiesced in the surplus-appropriation system and had paid no heed to the shortage of commodities; but when the war ended and there was no longer any danger of the landlords returning, the peasants began to express dissatisfaction with having to surrender all their surpluses, with the surplus-appropriation system, and to demand a sufficient supply of commodities.<br />
<br />
As Lenin pointed out, the whole system of War Communism had come into collision with the interests of the peasantry.<br />
<br />
The spirit of discontent affected the working class as well. The proletariat had borne the brunt of the Civil War, had heroically and self-sacrificingly fought the Whiteguard and foreign hordes, and the ravages of economic disruption and famine. The best, the most class-conscious, self-sacrificing and disciplined workers were inspired by Socialist enthusiasm. But the utter economic disruption had its influence on the working class, too. The few factories and plants still in operation were working spasmodically. The workers were reduced to doing odd jobs for a living, making cigarette lighters and engaging in petty bartering for food in the villages ("bag-trading"). The class basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat was being weakened; the workers were scattering, decamping for the villages, ceasing to be workers and becoming declassed. Some of the workers were beginning to show signs of discontent owing to hunger and weariness.<br />
<br />
The Party was confronted with the necessity of working out a new line of policy on all questions affecting the economic life of the country, a line that would meet the new situation.<br />
<br />
And the Party proceeded to work out such a line of policy on questions of economic development.<br />
<br />
But the class enemy was not dozing. He tried to exploit the distressing economic situation and the discontent of the peasants for his own purposes. Kulak revolts, engineered by Whiteguards and Socialist-Revolutionaries, broke out in Siberia, the Ukraine and the Tambov province (Antonov's rebellion). All kinds of counter-revolutionary elements — Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Anarchists, Whiteguards, bourgeois nationalists—became active again. The enemy adopted new tactics of struggle against the Soviet power. He began to borrow a Soviet garb, and his slogan was no longer the old bankrupt "Down with the Soviets!" but a new slogan: "For the Soviets, but without Communists!"<br />
<br />
A glaring instance of the new tactics of the class enemy was the counter-revolutionary mutiny in Kronstadt. It began in March 1921, a week before the Tenth Party Congress. Whiteguards, in complicity with Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and representatives of foreign states, assumed the lead of the mutiny. The mutineers at first used a "Soviet" signboard to camouflage their purpose of restoring the power and property of the capitalists and landlords. They raised the cry: "Soviets without Communists!" The counter-revolutionaries tried to exploit the discontent of the petty bourgeois masses in order to overthrow the power of the Soviets under a pseudo-Soviet slogan.<br />
<br />
Two circumstances facilitated the outbreak of the Kronstadt mutiny: the deterioration in the composition of the ships' crews, and the weakness of the Bolshevik organization in Kronstadt. Nearly all the old sailors who had taken part in the October Revolution were at the front, heroically fighting in the ranks of the Red Army. The naval replenishments consisted of new men, who had not been schooled in the revolution. These were a perfectly raw peasant mass who gave expression to the peasantry's discontent with the surplus-appropriation system. As for the Bolshevik organization in Kronstadt, it had been greatly weakened by a series of mobilizations for the front. This enabled the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and Whiteguards to worm their way into Kron-stadt and to seize control of it.<br />
<br />
The mutineers gained possession of a first-class fortress, the fleet, and a vast quantity of arms and ammunition. The international counterrevolutionaries were triumphant. But their jubilation was premature. The mutiny was quickly put down by Soviet troops. Against the Kron-stadt mutineers the Party sent its finest sons—delegates to the Tenth Congress, headed by Comrade Voroshilov. The Red Army men advanced on Kronstadt across a thin sheet of ice; it broke in places and many were drowned. The almost impregnable forts of Kronstadt had to be taken by storm; but loyalty to the revolution, bravery and readiness to die for the Soviets won the day. The fortress of Kronstadt fell before the onslaught of the Red troops. The Kronstadt mutiny was suppressed.<br />
<br />
=== Party discussion on the Trade Unions. Tenth party congress. Defeat of the opposition. Adoption of the New Economic Policy (NEP) ===<br />
The Central Committee of the Party, its Leninist majority, saw clearly that now that the war was over and the country had turned to peaceful economic development, there was no longer any reason for maintaining the rigid regime of War Communism—the product of war and blockade.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee realized that the need for the surplus-appropriation system had passed, that it was time to supersede it by a tax in kind so as to enable the peasants to use the greater part of their surpluses at their own discretion. The Central Committee realized that this measure would make it possible to revive agriculture, to extend the cultivation of grain and industrial crops required for the development of industry, to revive the circulation of commodities, to improve supplies to the towns, and to create a new foundation, an economic foundation for the alliance of workers and peasants.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee realized also that the prime task was to revive industry, but considered that this could not be done without enlisting the support of the working class and its trade unions; it considered that the workers could be enlisted in this work by showing them that the economic disruption was just as dangerous an enemy of the people as the intervention and the blockade had been, and that the Party and the trade unions could certainly succeed in this work if they exercised their influence on the working class not by military commands, as had been the case at the front, where commands were really essential, but by methods of persuasion, by convincing it.<br />
<br />
But not all members of the Party were of the same mind as the Central Committee. The small opposition groups—the Trotskyites, "Workers' Opposition," "Left Communists," "Democratic-Centralists," etc.—wavered and vacillated in face of the difficulties attending the transition to peaceful economic construction. There were in the Party quite a number of ex-members of the Menshevik, Socialist-Revolutionary, Bund and Borotbist parties, and all kinds of semi-nationalists from the border regions of Russia. Most of them allied themselves with one opposition group or another. These people were not real Marxists, they were ignorant of the laws of economic development, and had not had a Leninist-Party schooling, and they only helped to aggravate the confusion and vacillations of the opposition groups. Some of them thought that it would be wrong to relax the rigid regime of War Communism, that, on the contrary, "the screws must be tightened." Others thought that the Party and the state should stand aside from the economic restoration, and that it should be left entirely in the hands of the trade unions.<br />
<br />
It was clear that with such confusion reigning among certain groups in the Party, lovers of controversy, opposition "leaders" of one kind or another were bound to try to force a discussion upon the Party.<br />
<br />
And that is just what happened.<br />
<br />
The discussion started over the role of the trade unions, although the trade unions were not the chief problem of Party policy at the time.<br />
<br />
It was Trotsky who started the discussion and the fight against Lenin, against the Leninist majority of the Central Committee. With the intention of aggravating the situation, he came out at a meeting of Communist delegates to the Fifth All-Russian Trade Union Conference, held at the beginning of November 1920, with the dubious slogans of "tightening the screws" and "shaking up the trade unions." Trotsky demanded that the trade unions be immediately "governmentalized." He was against the use of persuasion in relations with the working class, and was in favour of introducing military methods in the trade unions. Trotsky was against any extension of democracy in the trade unions, against the principle of electing trade union bodies.<br />
<br />
Instead of methods of persuasion, without which the activities of working-class organizations are inconceivable, the Trotskyites proposed methods of sheer compulsion, of dictation. Applying this policy wherever they happened to occupy leading positions in the trade unions, the Trotskyites caused conflicts, disunity and demoralization in the unions. By their policy the Trotskyites were setting the mass of the non-Party workers against the Party, were splitting the working class.<br />
<br />
As a matter of fact, the discussion on the trade unions was of much broader import than the trade union question. As was stated later in the resolution of the Plenum of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) adopted on January 17, 1925, the actual point at issue was "the policy to be adopted towards the peasantry, who were rising against War Communism, the policy to be adopted towards the mass of the non-Party workers, and, in general, what was to be the approach of the Party to the masses in the period when the Civil War was coming to an end." (''Resolutions of the C.P.S.U.[B.]'', Russ ed., Part I, p. 651.)<br />
<br />
Trotsky's lead was followed by other anti-Party groups: the "Workers' Opposition" (Shlyapnikov, Medvedyev, Kollontai and others), the "Democratic-Centralists" (Sapronov, Drobnis, Boguslavsky, Ossinsky, V. Smirnov and others), the "Left Communists" (Bukharin, Preobra-zhensky).<br />
<br />
The "Workers' Opposition" put forward a slogan demanding that the administration of the entire national economy be entrusted to an "All-Russian Producers' Congress." They wanted to reduce the role of the Party to nought, and denied the importance of the dictatorship of the proletariat to economic development. The "Workers' Opposition" contended that the interests of the trade unions were opposed to those of the Soviet state and the Communist Party. They held that the trade unions, and not the Party, were the highest form of working-class organization. The "Workers' Opposition" was essentially an anarcho-syndicalist anti-Party group.<br />
<br />
The "Democratic-Centralists" (Decists) demanded complete freedom for factions and groupings. Like the Trotskyites, the "Democratic-Centralists" tried to undermine the leadership of the Party in the Soviets and in the trade unions. Lenin spoke of the "Democratic-Centralists" as a faction of "champion shouters," and of their platform as a Socialist-Revolutionary-Menshevik platform.<br />
<br />
Trotsky was assisted in his fight against Lenin and the Party by Bukharin. With Preobrazhensky, Serebryakov and Sokolnikov, Bukharin formed a "buffer" group. This group defended and shielded the Trotskyites, the most vicious of all factionalists. Lenin said that Bukharin's behaviour was the "acme of ideological depravity." Very soon, the Bukharinites openly joined forces with the Trotskyites against Lenin.<br />
<br />
Lenin and the Leninists concentrated their fire on the Trotskyites as the backbone of the anti-Party groupings. They condemned the Trotskyites for ignoring the difference between trade unions and military bodies and warned them that military methods could not be applied to the trade unions. Lenin and the Leninists drew up a platform of their own, entirely contrary in spirit to the platforms of the opposition groups. In this platform, the trade unions were defined as a school of administration, a school of management, a school of Communism. The trade unions should base all their activities on methods of persuasion. Only then would the trade unions rouse the workers as a whole to combat the economic disruption and be able to enlist them in the work of Socialist construction.<br />
<br />
In this fight against the opposition groupings, the Party organizations rallied around Lenin. The struggle took an especially acute form in Moscow. Here the opposition concentrated its main forces, with the object of capturing the Party organization of the capital. But these factionalist intrigues were frustrated by the spirited resistance of the Moscow Bolsheviks. An acute struggle broke out in the Ukrainian Party organizations as well. Led by Comrade Molotov, then the secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Ukraine, the Ukrainian Bolsheviks routed the Trotskyites and Shlyapnikovites. The Communist Party of the Ukraine remained a loyal support of Lenin's Party. In Baku, the routing of the opposition was led by Comrade Ordjonikidze. In Central Asia, the fight against the anti-Party groupings were headed by Comrade L. Kaganovich.<br />
<br />
All the important local organizations of the Party endorsed Lenin's platform.<br />
<br />
On March 8, 1921, the Tenth Party Congress opened. The congress was attended by 694 delegates with vote, representing 732,521 Party members, and 296 delegates with voice but no vote.<br />
<br />
The congress summed up the discussion on the trade unions and endorsed Lenin's platform by an overwhelming majority.<br />
<br />
In opening the congress, Lenin said that the discussion had been an inexcusable luxury. He declared that the enemies had speculated on the inner Party strife and on a split in the ranks of the Communist Party.<br />
<br />
Realizing how extremely dangerous the existence of factional groups was to the Bolshevik Party and the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Tenth Congress paid special attention to ''Party unity''. The report on this question was made by Lenin. The congress passed condemnation on all the opposition groups and declared that they were "in fact helping the class enemies of the proletarian revolution."<br />
<br />
The congress ordered the immediate dissolution of all factional groups and instructed all Party organizations to keep a strict watch to prevent any outbreaks of factionalism, non-observance of the congress decision to be followed by unconditional and immediate expulsion from the Party. The congress authorized the Central Committee, in the event of members of that body violating discipline, or reviving or tolerating factionalism, to apply to them all Party penalties, including expulsion from the Central Committee and from the Party.<br />
<br />
These decisions were embodied in a special resolution on "Party Unity," moved by Lenin and adopted by the congress.<br />
<br />
In this resolution, the congress reminded all Party members that unity and solidarity of the ranks of the Party, unanimity of will of the vanguard of the proletariat were particularly essential at that juncture, when a number of circumstances had, during the time of the Tenth Congress, increased the vacillation among the petty-bourgeois population of the country.<blockquote>"Notwithstanding this," read the resolution, "even before the general Party discussion on the trade unions, certain signs of factionalism had been apparent in the Party, viz., the formation of groups with separate platforms, striving to a certain degree to segregate and create their own group discipline. All class-conscious workers must clearly realize the perniciousness and impermissibility of factionalism of any kind, for in practice factionalism inevitably results in weakening team work. At the same time it inevitably leads to intensified and repeated attempts by the enemies of the Party, who have fastened themselves onto it because it is the governing party, to widen the cleavage (in the Party) and to use it for counter-revolutionary purposes."</blockquote>Further, in the same resolution, the congress said:<blockquote>"The way the enemies of the proletariat take advantage of every deviation from the thoroughly consistent Communist line was most strikingly shown in the case of the Kronstadt mutiny, when the bourgeois counter-revolutionaries and Whiteguards in all countries of the world immediately expressed their readiness to accept even the slogans of the Soviet system, if only they might thereby secure the overthrow of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia, and when the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the bourgeois counter-revolutionaries in general resorted in Kronstadt to slogans calling for an insurrection against the Soviet Government of Russia ostensibly in the interest of Soviet power. These facts fully prove that the Whiteguards strive, and are able to disguise themselves as Communists, and even as people "more Left" than the Communists, solely for the purpose of weakening and overthrowing the bulwark of the proletarian revolution in Russia. Menshevik leaflets distributed in Petrograd on the eve of the Kronstadt mutiny likewise show how the Mensheviks took advantage of the disagreements in the R.C.P. actually in order to egg on and support the Kronstadt mutineers, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Whiteguards, while claiming to be opponents of mutiny and supporters of the Soviet power, only with supposedly slight modifications."</blockquote>The resolution declared that in its propaganda the Party must explain in detail the harm and danger of factionalism to Party unity and to the unity of purpose of the vanguard of the proletariat, which is a fundamental condition for the success of the dictatorship of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, the congress resolution stated, the Party must explain in its propaganda the ''peculiarity'' of the latest tactical methods employed by the enemies of the Soviet power.<blockquote>"These enemies," read the resolution, "having realized the hopelessness of counter-revolution under an openly Whiteguard flag, are now doing their utmost to utilize the disagreements within the R.C.P. and to further the counter-revolution in one way or another by transferring the power to the political groupings which outwardly are closest to the recognition of the Soviet power." (''Resolutions of the C.P.S.U.[B.]'', Russ. ed., Part I, pp. 373-74.)</blockquote>The resolution further stated that in its propaganda the Party "must also teach the lessons of preceding revolutions in which the counter-revolutionaries usually supported the petty-bourgeois groupings which stood closest to the extreme revolutionary Party, in order to undermine and overthrow the revolutionary dictatorship, and thus pave the way for the subsequent complete victory of the counter-revolution, of the capitalists and landlords."<br />
<br />
Closely allied to the resolution on "Party Unity" was the resolution on "The Syndicalist and Anarchist Deviation in our Party," also moved by Lenin and adopted by the congress. In this resolution the Tenth Congress passed condemnation on the so-called "Workers' Opposition." The congress declared that the propaganda of the ideas of the anarcho-syndicalist deviation was incompatible with membership in the Communist Party, and called upon the Party vigorously to combat this deviation.<br />
<br />
The Tenth Congress passed the highly important decision to replace the surplus-appropriation system by a tax in kind, to adopt the ''New Economic Policy'' (NEP).<br />
<br />
This turn from War Communism to NEP is a striking instance of the wisdom and farsightedness of Lenin's policy.<br />
<br />
The resolution of the congress dealt with the substitution of a tax in kind for the surplus-appropriation system. The tax in kind was to be lighter than the assessments under the surplus-appropriation system. The total amount of the tax was to be announced each year before the spring sowing. The dates of delivery under the tax were to be strictly specified. All produce over and above the amount of the tax was to be entirely at the disposal of the peasant, who would be at liberty to sell these surpluses at will. In his speech, Lenin said that freedom of trade would at first lead to a certain revival of capitalism in the country. It would be necessary to permit private trade and to allow private manufacturers to open small businesses. But no fears need be entertained on this score. Lenin considered that a certain freedom of trade would give the peasant an economic incentive, induce him to produce more and would lead to a rapid improvement of agriculture; that, on this basis, the state-owned industries would be restored and private capital displaced; that strength and resources having been accumulated, a powerful industry could be created as the economic foundation of Socialism, and that then a determined offensive could be undertaken to destroy the remnants of capitalism in the country.<br />
<br />
War Communism had been an attempt to take the fortress of the capitalist elements in town and countryside by assault, by a frontal attack. In this offensive the Party had gone too far ahead, and ran the risk of being cut off from its base. Now Lenin proposed to retire a little, to retreat for a while nearer to the base, to change from an assault of the fortress to the slower method of siege, so as to gather strength and resume the offensive.<br />
<br />
The Trotskyites and other oppositionists held that NEP was ''nothing but'' a retreat. This interpretation suited their purpose, for their line was to restore capitalism. This was a most harmful, anti-Leninist interpretation of NEP. The fact is that only a year after NEP was introduced Lenin declared at the Eleventh Party Congress that ''the retreat had come to an end'', and he put forward the slogan : ''"Prepare for an offensive on private capital.''" (Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. XXVII (p. 213.)<br />
<br />
The oppositionists, poor Marxists and crass ignoramuses in questions of Bolshevik policy as they were, understood neither the meaning of NEP nor the character of the retreat undertaken at the beginning of NEP. We have dealt with the meaning of NEP above. As for the character of the retreat, there are retreats and retreats. There are times when a party or an army has to retreat because it has suffered defeat. In such cases, the army or party retreats to preserve itself and its ranks for new battles. It was no such retreat that Lenin proposed when NEP was introduced, because, far from having suffered defeat or discomfiture, the Party had itself defeated the interventionists and White-guards in the Civil War. But there are other times, when in its advance a victorious party or army runs too far ahead, without providing itself with an adequate base in the rear. This creates a serious danger. So as not to lose connection with its base, an experienced party or army generally finds it necessary in such cases to fall back a little, to draw closer to and establish better contact with its base, in order to provide itself with all it needs, and then resume the offensive more confidently and with guarantee of success. It was this kind of temporary retreat that Lenin effected by the New Economic Policy. Reporting to the Fourth Congress of the Communist International on the reasons that prompted the introduction of NEP, Lenin plainly said, "in our economic offensive we ran too far ahead, we did not provide ourselves with an adequate base," and so it was necessary to make a temporary retreat to a secure rear.<br />
<br />
The misfortune of the opposition was that, in their ignorance, they did not understand, and never understood to the end of their days, this feature of the retreat under NEP.<br />
<br />
The decision of the Tenth Congress on the New Economic Policy ensured a durable economic alliance of the working class and the peasantry for the building of Socialism.<br />
<br />
This prime object was served by yet another decision of the congress —the decision on the national question. The report on the national question was made by Comrade Stalin. He said that we had abolished national oppression, but that this was not enough. The task was to do away with the evil heritage of the past—the economic, political and cultural backwardness of the formerly oppressed peoples. They had to be helped to catch up with Central Russia.<br />
<br />
Comrade Stalin further referred to two anti-Party deviations on the national question: dominant-nation (Great-Russian) chauvinism and local nationalism. The congress condemned both deviations as harmful and dangerous to Communism and proletarian internationalism. At the same time, it directed its main blow at the bigger danger, dominant-nation chauvinism, ''i.e.,'' the survivals and hangovers of the attitude towards the nationalities such as the Great-Russian chauvinists had displayed towards the non-Russian peoples under tsardom.<br />
<br />
=== First results of NEP. Eleventh party congress. Formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Lenin’s Illness. Lenin’s co-operative plan. Twelfth party congress ===<br />
The New Economic Policy was resisted by the unstable elements in the Party. The resistance came from two quarters. First there were the "Left" shouters, political freaks like Lominadze, Shatskin and others, who argued that NEP meant a renunciation of the gains of the October Revolution, a return to capitalism, the downfall of the Soviet power. Because of their political illiteracy and ignorance of the laws of economic development, these people did not understand the policy of the Party, fell into a panic, and sowed dejection and discouragement. Then there were the downright capitulators, like Trotsky, Radek, Zinoviev, Sokolnikov, Kamenev, Shlyapnikov, Bukharin, Rykov and others, who did not believe that the Socialist development of our country was possible, bowed before the "omnipotence" of capitalism and, in their endeavour to strengthen the position of capitalism in the Soviet country, demanded far-reaching concessions to private capital, both home and foreign, and the surrender of a number of key positions of the Soviet power in the economic field to private capitalists, the latter to act either as concessionaries or as partners of the state in mixed joint stock companies.<br />
<br />
Both groups were alien to Marxism and Leninism.<br />
<br />
Both were exposed and isolated by the Party, which passed severe stricture on the alarmists and the capitulators.<br />
<br />
This resistance to the Party policy was one more reminder that the Party needed to be purged of unstable elements. Accordingly, the Central Committee in 1921 organized a Party purge, which helped to considerably strengthen the Party. The purging was done at open meetings, in the presence and with the participation of non-Party people. Lenin advised that the Party be thoroughly cleansed "of rascals, bureaucrats, dishonest or wavering Communists, and of Mensheviks who have repainted their 'facade' but who have remained Mensheviks at heart." (Lenin, ''Collected Works'', Russ. ed., Vol. XXVII, p. 13.)<br />
<br />
Altogether, nearly 170,000 persons, or about 25 per cent of the total membership, were expelled from the Party as a result of the purge.<br />
<br />
The purge greatly strengthened the Party, improved its social composition, increased the confidence of the masses in it, and heightened its prestige. The Party became more closely welded and better disciplined.<br />
<br />
The correctness of the New Economic Policy was proved in its very first year. Its adoption served greatly to strengthen the alliance of workers and peasants on a new basis. The dictatorship of the proletariat gained in might and strength. Kulak banditry was almost completely liquidated. The middle peasants, now that the surplus-appropriation system had been abolished, helped the Soviet Government to fight the kulak bands. The Soviet Government retained all the key positions in the economic field: large-scale industry, the means of transport, the banks, the land, and home and foreign trade. The Party achieved a definite turn for the better on the economic front. Agriculture soon began to forge ahead. Industry and the railways could record their first successes. An economic revival began, still very slow but sure. The workers and the peasants felt and perceived that the Party was on the right track.<br />
<br />
In March 1922, the Party held its Eleventh Congress. It was attended by 522 voting delegates, representing 532,000 Party members, which was less than at the previous congress. There were 165 delegates with voice but no vote. The reduction in the membership was due to the Party purge which had already begun.<br />
<br />
At this congress the Party reviewed the results of the first year of the New Economic Policy. These results entitled Lenin to declare at the congress:<blockquote>"For a year we have been retreating. In the name of the Party we must now call a halt. The purpose pursued by the retreat has been achieved. This period is drawing, or has drawn, to a close. Now our purpose is different—to regroup our forces." (''Ibid''., p. 238.)</blockquote>Lenin said that NEP meant a life and death struggle between capitalism and Socialism. "Who will win?"—that was the question. In order that we might win, the bond between the working class and the peasantry, between Socialist industry and peasant agriculture, had to be made secure by developing the exchange of goods between town and country to the utmost. For this purpose the art of management and of efficient trading would have to be learned.<br />
<br />
At that period, trade was the main link in the chain of problems that confronted the Party. Unless this problem were solved it would be impossible to develop the exchange of goods between town and country, to strengthen the economic alliance between the workers and peasants, impossible to advance agriculture, or to extricate industry from its state of disruption.<br />
<br />
Soviet trade at that time was still very undeveloped. The machinery of trade was highly inadequate. Communists had not yet learned the art of trade; they had not studied the enemy, the Nepman, or learned how to combat him. The private traders, or Nepmen, had taken advantage of the undeveloped state of Soviet trade to capture the trade in textiles and other goods in general demand. The organization of state and co-operative trade became a matter of utmost importance.<br />
<br />
After the Eleventh Congress, work in the economic sphere was resumed with redoubled vigour. The effects of the recent harvest failure were successfully remedied. Peasant farming showed rapid recovery. The railways began to work better. Increasing numbers of factories and plants resumed operation.<br />
<br />
In October 1922, the Soviet Republic celebrated a great victory Vladivostok, the last piece of Soviet territory to remain in the hands of the invaders, was wrested by the Red Army and the Far Eastern partisan from the hands of the Japanese.<br />
<br />
The whole territory of the Soviet republic having been cleared of interventionists, and the needs of Socialist construction and national defence demanding a further consolidation of the union of the Soviet peoples, the necessity now arose of welding the Soviet republics closer together in a single federal state. All the forces of the people had to be combined for the work of building Socialism. The country had to be made impregnable. Conditions had to be created for the all-round development of every nationality in our country. This required that all the Soviet nations should be brought into still closer union.<br />
<br />
In December 1922 the First All-Union Congress of Soviets was held, at which, on the proposal of Lenin and Stalin, a voluntary state union of the Soviet nations was formed—the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.). Originally, the U.S.S.R. comprised the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (R.S.F.S.R.), the Trancaucasian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (T.S.F.S.R.), the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (Ukr. S.S.R.) and the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (B.S.S.R.). Somewhat later, three independent Union Soviet Republics—the Uzbek, Turkmen and Tadjik—were formed in Central Asia. All these republics have now united in a single union of Soviet states—the U.S.S.R.—on a voluntary and equal basis, each of them being reserved the right of freely seceding from the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
The formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics meant the consolidation of the Soviet power and a great victory for the Leninist-Stalinist policy of the Bolshevik Party on the national question.<br />
<br />
In November 1922, Lenin made a speech at a plenary meeting of the Moscow Soviet in which he reviewed the five years of Soviet rule and expressed the firm conviction that "NEP Russia will become Socialist Russia." This was his last speech to the country. That same autumn a great misfortune overtook the Party: Lenin fell seriously ill. His illness was a deep and personal affliction to the whole Party and to all the working people. All lived in trepidation for the life of their beloved Lenin. But even in illness Lenin did not discontinue his work. When already a very sick man, he wrote a number of highly important articles. In these last writings he reviewed the work already performed and outlined a plan for the building of Socialism in our country by enlisting the peasantry in the cause of Socialist construction. This contained his co-operative plan for securing the participation of the peasantry in the work of building Socialism.<br />
<br />
Lenin regarded co-operative societies in general, and agricultural cooperative societies in particular, as a means of transition—a means within the reach and understanding of the peasant millions—from small, individual farming to large-scale producing associations, or collective farms. Lenin pointed out that the line to be followed in the development of agriculture in our country was to draw the peasants into the work of building Socialism through the co-operative societies, gradually to introduce the collective principle in agriculture, first in the selling, and then in the growing of farm produce. With the dictatorship of the proletariat and the alliance of the working class and the peasantry, with the leadership of the peasantry by the proletariat made secure, and with the existence of a Socialist industry, Lenin said, a properly organized producing cooperative system embracing millions of peasants was the means whereby a complete Socialist society could be built in our country.<br />
<br />
In April 1923, the Party held its Twelfth Congress. Since the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks this was the first congress at which Lenin was unable to be present. The congress was attended by 408 voting delegates, representing 386,000 Party members. This was less than was represented at the previous congress, the reduction being due to the fact that in the interval the Party purge had continued and had resulted in the expulsion of a considerable percentage of the Party membership. There were 417 delegates with voice but no vote.<br />
<br />
The Twelfth Party Congress embodied in its decisions the recommendations made by Lenin in his recent articles and letters.<br />
<br />
The congress sharply rebuked those who took NEP to mean a retreat from the Socialist position, a surrender to capitalism, and who advocated a return to capitalist bondage. Proposals of this kind were made at the congress by Radek and Krassin, followers of Trotsky. They proposed that we should throw ourselves on the tender mercies of foreign capitalists, surrender to them, in the form of concessions, branches of industry that were of vital necessity to the Soviet state. They proposed that we pay the tsarist government's debts annulled by the October Revolution. The Party stigmatized these capitulatory proposals as treachery. It did not reject the policy of granting concessions, but favoured it only in such industries and in such dimensions as would be of advantage to the Soviet state.<br />
<br />
Bukharin and Sokolnikov had even prior to the congress proposed the abolition of the state monopoly of foreign trade. The proposal was also based on the conception that NEP was a surrender to capitalism. Lenin had branded Bukharin as a champion of the profiteers, Nepmen and kulaks. The Twelfth Congress firmly repelled the attempts to undermine the monopoly of foreign trade.<br />
<br />
The congress also repelled Trotsky's attempt to foist upon the Party a policy towards the peasantry that would have been fatal, and stated that the predominance of small peasant farming in the country was a fact not to be forgotten. It emphatically declared that the development of industry, including heavy industry, must not run counter to the interests of the peasant masses, but must be based on a close bond with the peasants, in the interests of the whole working population. These decisions were an answer to Trotsky, who had proposed that we should build up our industry by exploiting the peasants, and who in fact did not accept the policy of an alliance of the proletariat with the peasantry.<br />
<br />
At the same time, Trotsky had proposed that big plants like the Putilov, Bryansk and others, which were of importance to the country's defence, should be closed down allegedly on the grounds that they were unprofitable. The congress indignantly rejected Trotsky's proposals.<br />
<br />
On Lenin's proposal, sent to the congress in written form, the Twelfth Congress united the Central Control Commission of the Party and the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection into one body. To this united body were entrusted the important duties of safeguarding the unity of our Party, strengthening Party and civil discipline, and improving the Soviet state apparatus in every way.<br />
<br />
An important item on the agenda of the congress was the national question, the report on which was made by Comrade Stalin. Comrade Stalin stressed the international significance of our policy on the national question. To the oppressed peoples in the East and West, the Soviet Union was a model of the solution of the national question and the abolition of national oppression. He pointed out that energetic measures were needed to put an end to economic and cultural inequality among the peoples of the Soviet Union. He called upon the Party to put up a determined fight against deviations in the national question—Great-Russian chauvinism and local bourgeois nationalism.<br />
<br />
The nationalist deviators and their dominant-nation policy towards the national minorities were exposed at the congress. At that time the Georgian nationalist deviators, Mdivani and others, were opposing the Party. They had been against the formation of the Trancaucasian Federation and were against the promotion of friendship between the peoples of Transcaucasia. The deviators were behaving like outright dominant-nation chauvinists towards the other nationalities of Georgia. They were expelling non-Georgians from Tiflis wholesale, especially Armenians; they had passed a law under which Georgian women who married non-Georgians lost their Georgian citizenship. The Georgian nationalist deviators were supported by Trotsky, Radek, Bukharin, Skrypnik and Rakovsky.<br />
<br />
Shortly after the congress, a special conference of Party workers from the national republics was called to discuss the national question. Here were exposed a group of Tatar bourgeois nationalists—Sultan-Galiev and others—and a group of Uzbek nationalist deviators—Faizulla Khodjayev and others.<br />
<br />
The Twelfth Party Congress reviewed the results of the New Economic Policy for the past two years. They were very heartening results and inspired confidence in ultimate victory.<blockquote>"Our Party has remained solid and united; it has stood the test of a momentous turn, and is marching on with flying colours," Comrade Stalin declared at the congress.</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Struggle against the difficulties of economic restoration. Trotskyites take advantage of Lenin’s illness to increase their activity. New party discussion. Defeat of the Trotskyites. Death of Lenin. The Lenin enrollment. Thirteenth party congress ===<br />
The struggle to restore the national economy yielded substantial results in its very first year. By 1924 progress was to be observed in all fields. The crop area had increased considerably since 1921, and peasant farming was steadily improving. Socialist industry was growing and expanding. The working class had greatly increased in numbers. Wages had risen. Life had become easier and better for the workers and peasants as compared with 1920 and 1921.<br />
<br />
But the effects of the economic disruption still made themselves felt. Industry was still below the pre-war level, and its development was still far behind the country's demand. At the end of 1923 there were about a million unemployed; the national economy was progressing too slowly to absorb unemployment. The development of trade was being hindered by the excessive prices of manufactured goods, prices which the Nepmen, and the Nepman elements in our trading organizations, were imposing on the country. Owing to this, the Soviet ruble began to fluctuate violently and to fall in value. These factors impeded the improvement of the condition of the workers and peasants.<br />
<br />
In the autumn of 1923, the economic difficulties were somewhat aggravated owing to violations of the Soviet price policy by our industrial and commercial organizations. There was a yawning gap between the prices of manufactures and the prices of farm produce. Grain prices were low, while prices of manufacturers were inordinately high. Industry was burdened with excessive overhead costs which increased the price of goods. The money which the peasants received for their grain rapidly depreciated. To make matters worse, the Trotskyite Pyatakov, who was at that time on the Supreme Council of National Economy, gave managers and directors criminal instructions to grind all the profit they could out of the sale of manufactured goods and to force up prices to the maximum, ostensibly for the purpose of developing industry. As a matter of fact, this Nepman policy could only narrow the base of industry and undermine it. It became unprofitable for the peasantry to purchase manufactured goods, and they stopped buying them. The result was a sales crisis, from which industry suffered. Difficulties arose in the payment of wages. This provoked discontent among the workers. At some factories the more backward workers stopped work.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee of the Party adopted measures to remove these difficulties and anomalies. Steps were taken to overcome the sales crisis. Prices of consumers' goods were reduced. It was decided to reform the currency and to adopt a firm and stable currency unit, the cher-vonetz. The normal payment of wages was resumed. Measures were outlined for the development of trade through state and co-operative channels and for the elimination of private traders and profiteers.<br />
<br />
What was now required was that everybody should join in the common effort, roll up his sleeves, and set to work with gusto. That is the way all who were loyal to the Party thought and acted. But not so the Trotskyites. They took advantage of the absence of Lenin, who was incapacitated by grave illness, to launch a new attack on the Party and its leadership. They decided that this was a favourable moment to smash the Party and overthrow its leadership. They used everything they could as a weapon against the Party: the defeat of the revolution in Germany and Bulgaria in the autumn of 1923, the economic difficulties at home, and Lenin's illness. It was at this moment of difficulty for the Soviet state, when the Party's leader was stricken by sickness, that Trotsky started his attack on the Bolshevik Party. He mustered all the anti-Leninist elements in the Party and concocted an opposition platform against the Party, its leadership, and its policy. This platform was called the Declaration of the Forty-Six Oppositionists. All the opposition groupings—the Trotskyites, Democratic-Centralists, and the remnants of the "Left Communist" and "Workers' Opposition" groups—united to fight the Leninist Party. In their declaration, they prophesied a grave economic crisis and the fall of the Soviet power, and demanded freedom of factions and groups as the only way out of the situation.<br />
<br />
This was a fight for the restoration of factionalism which the Tenth Party Congress, on Lenin's proposal, had prohibited.<br />
<br />
The Trotskyites did not make a single definite proposal for the improvement of agriculture or industry, for the improvement of the circulation of commodities, or for the betterment of the condition of the working people. This did not even interest them. The only thing that interested them was to take advantage of Lenin's absence in order to restore factions within the Party, to undermine its foundations and its Central Committee.<br />
<br />
The platform of the forty-six was followed up by the publication of a letter by Trotsky in which he vilified the Party cadres and levelled new slanderous accusations against the Party. In this letter Trotsky harped on the old Menshevik themes which the Party had heard from him many times before.<br />
<br />
First of all the Trotskyites attacked the Party apparatus. They knew that without a strong apparatus the Party could not live and function. The opposition tried to undermine and destroy the Party apparatus, to set the Party members against it, and the young members against the old stalwarts of the Party. In this letter Trotsky played up to the students, the young Party members who were not acquainted with the history of the Party's fight against Trotskyism. To win the support of the students, Trotsky flatteringly referred to them as the "Party's surest barometer," at the same time declaring that the Leninist old guard had degenerated. Alluding to the degeneration of the leaders of the Second International, he made the foul insinuation that the old Bolshevik guard was going the same way. By this outcry about the degeneration of the Party, Trotsky tried to hide his own degeneration and his anti-Party scheming.<br />
<br />
The Trotskyites circulated both oppositionist documents, viz., the platform of the forty-six and Trotsky's letter, in the districts and among the Party nuclei and put them up for discussion by the Party membership.<br />
<br />
They challenged the Party to a discussion.<br />
<br />
Thus the Trotskyites forced a general discussion on the Party, just as they did at the time of the controversy over the trade union question before the Tenth Party Congress.<br />
<br />
Although the Party was occupied with the far more important problems of the country's economic life, it accepted the challenge and opened the discussion.<br />
<br />
The whole Party was involved in the discussion. The fight took a most bitter form. It was fiercest of all in Moscow, for the Trotskyites endeavoured above all to capture the Party organization in the capital. But the discussion was of no help to the Trotskyites. It only disgraced them. They were completely routed both in Moscow and all other parts of the Soviet Union. Only a small number of nuclei in universities and offices voted for the Trotskyites.<br />
<br />
In January 1924 the Party held its Thirteenth Conference. The conference heard a report by Comrade Stalin, summing up the results of the discussion. The conference condemned the Trotskyite opposition, declaring that it was a ''petty-bourgeois deviation'' from Marxism. The decisions of the conference were subsequently endorsed by the Thirteenth Party Congress and the Fifth Congress of the Communist International. The international Communist proletariat supported the Bolshevik Party in its fight against Trotskyism.<br />
<br />
But the Trotskyites did not cease their subversive work. In the autumn of 1924, Trotsky published an article entitled, "The Lessons of October" in which he attempted to substitute Trotskyism for Leninism. It was a sheer slander on our Party and its leader, Lenin. This defamatory broadsheet was seized upon by all enemies of Communism and of the Soviet Government. The Party was outraged by this unscrupulous distortion of the heroic history of Bolshevism. Comrade Stalin denounced Trotsky's attempt to substitute Trotskyism for Leninism. He declared that "it is the duty of the Party to bury Trotskyism as an ideological trend."<br />
<br />
An effective contribution to the ideological defeat of Trotskyism and to the defense of Leninism was Comrade Stalin's theoretical work, ''Foundations of Leninism'' published in 1924. This book is a masterly exposition and a weighty theoretical substantiation of Leninism. It was, and is today, a trenchant weapon of Marxist-Leninist theory in the hands of Bolsheviks all over the world.<br />
<br />
In the battles against Trotskyism, Comrade Stalin rallied the Party around its Central Committee and mobilized it to carry on the fight for the victory of Socialism in our country. Comrade Stalin proved that Trotskyism had to be ideologically demolished if the further victorious advance to Socialism was to be ensured.<br />
<br />
Reviewing this period of the fight against Trotskyism, Comrade Stalin said:<blockquote>"Unless Trotskyism is defeated, it will be impossible to achieve victory under the conditions of NEP, it will be impossible to convert present-day Russia into a Socialist Russia."</blockquote>But the successes attending the Party's Leninist policy were clouded by a most grievous calamity which now befell the Party and the working class. On January 21, 1924, Lenin, our leader and teacher, the creator of the Bolshevik Party, passed away in the village of Gorki, near Moscow. Lenin's death was received by the working class of the whole world as a most cruel loss. On the day of Lenin's funeral the international proletariat proclaimed a five-minute stoppage of work. Railways, mills and factories came to a standstill. As Lenin was borne to the grave, the working people of the whole world paid homage to him in overwhelming sorrow, as to a father and teacher, their best friend and defender.<br />
<br />
The loss of Lenin caused the working class of the Soviet Union to rally even more solidly around the Leninist Party. In those days of mourning every class-conscious worker defined his attitude to the Communist Party, the executor of Lenin's behest. The Central Committee of the Party received thousands upon thousands of applications from workers for admission to the Party. The Central Committee responded to this movement and proclaimed a mass admission of politically advanced workers into the Party ranks. Tens of thousands of workers flocked into the Party; they were people prepared to give their lives for the cause of the Party, the cause of Lenin. In a brief space of time over two hundred and forty thousand workers joined the ranks of the Bolshevik Party. They were the foremost section of the working class, the most class-conscious and revolutionary, the most intrepid and disciplined. This was the ''Lenin Enrolment''.<br />
<br />
The reaction to Lenin's death demonstrated how close are our Party's ties with the masses, and how high a place the Leninist Party holds in the hearts of the workers.<br />
<br />
In the days of mourning for Lenin, at the Second Congress of Soviets of the U.S.S.R., Comrade Stalin made a solemn vow in the name of the Party. He said:<blockquote>"We Communists are people of a special mould. We are made of a special stuff. We are those who form the army of the great proletarian strategist, the army of Comrade Lenin. There is nothing higher than the honour of belonging to this army. There is nothing higher than the title of member of the Party whose founder and leader is Comrade Lenin...<br />
<br />
"Departing from us, Comrade Lenin adjured us to hold high and guard the purity of the great title of member of the Party. We vow to you, Comrade Lenin, that we will fulfil your behest with honour!...<br />
<br />
"Departing from us, Comrade Lenin adjured us to guard the unity of our Party as the apple of our eye. We vow to you, Comrade Lenin, that this behest, too, we will fulfil with honour!...<br />
<br />
"Departing from us, Comrade Lenin adjured us to guard and strengthen the dictatorship of the proletariat. We vow to you, Comrade Lenin, that we will spare no effort to fulfil this behest, too, with honour!...<br />
<br />
"Departing from us, Comrade Lenin adjured us to strengthen with all our might the alliance of the workers and the peasants. We vow to you, Comrade Lenin, that this behest, too, we will fulfil with honour!...<br />
<br />
"Comrade Lenin untiringly urged upon us the necessity of maintaining the voluntary union of the nations of our country, the necessity for fraternal co-operation between them within the framework of the Union of Republics. Departing from us, Comrade Lenin adjured us to consolidate and extend the Union of Republics. We vow to you, Comrade Lenin, that this behest, too, we will fulfil with honour!...<br />
<br />
"More than once did Lenin point out to us that the strengthening of the Red Army and the improvement of its condition is one of the most important tasks of our Party...Let us vow then, comrades, that we will spare no effort to strengthen our Red Army and our Red Navy...<br />
<br />
"Departing from us, Comrade Lenin adjured us to remain faithful to the principles of the Communist International. We vow to you, Comrade Lenin, that we will not spare our lives to strengthen and extend the union of the toilers of the whole world—the Communist International!" (Joseph Stalin, ''The Lenin Heritage.'')</blockquote>This was the vow made by the Bolshevik Party to its leader, Lenin, whose memory will live throughout the ages.<br />
<br />
In May 1924 the Party held its Thirteenth Congress. It was attended by 748 voting delegates, representing a Party membership of 735,88i. This marked increase in membership in comparison with the previous congress was due to the admission of some 250,000 new members under the Lenin Enrolment. There were 4i6 delegates with voice but no vote.<br />
<br />
The congress unanimously condemned the platform of the Trotskyite opposition, defining it as a petty-bourgeois deviation from Marxism, as a revision of Leninism, and endorsed the resolutions of the Thirteenth Party Conference on "Party Affairs" and "The Results of the Discussion."<br />
<br />
With the purpose of strengthening the bond between town and country, the congress gave instructions for a further expansion of industry, primarily of the light industries, while placing particular stress on the necessity for a rapid development of the iron and steel industry.<br />
<br />
The congress endorsed the formation of the People's Commissariat of Internal Trade and set the trading bodies the task of gaining control of the market and ousting private capital from the sphere of trade.<br />
<br />
The congress gave instructions for the increase of cheap state credit to the peasantry so as to oust the usurer from the countryside.<br />
<br />
The congress called for the maximum development of the co-operative movement among the peasantry as the paramount task in the countryside.<br />
<br />
Lastly, the congress stressed the profound importance of the Lenin Enrolment and drew the Party's attention to the necessity of devoting greater efforts to educating the young Party members—and above all the recruits of the Lenin Enrolment—in the principles of Leninism.<br />
<br />
=== The Soviet Union towards the end of the restoration period. The question of socialist construction and the victory of socialism in our country. Zinoviev-Kamenev “new opposition.” Fourteenth party congress. Policy of socialist industrialization of the country ===<br />
For over four years the Bolshevik Party and the working class had been working strenuously along the lines of the New Economic Policy. The heroic work of economic restoration was approaching completion. The economic and political might of the Soviet Union was steadily growing.<br />
<br />
By this time the international situation had undergone a change. Capitalism had withstood the first revolutionary onslaught of the masses after the imperialist war. The revolutionary movement in Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Poland and a number of other countries had been crushed. The bourgeoisie had been aided in this by the leaders of the compromising Social-Democratic parties. A temporary ebb in the tide of revolution set in. There began a temporary, partial stabilization of capitalism in Western Europe, a partial consolidation of the position of capitalism. But the stabilization of capitalism did not eliminate the basic contradictions rending capitalist society. On the contrary, the partial stabilization of capitalism aggravated the contradictions between the workers and the capitalists, between imperialism and the colonial nations, between the imperialist groups of the various countries. The stabilization of capitalism was preparing for a new explosion of contradictions, for new crises in the capitalist countries.<br />
<br />
Parallel with the stabilization of capitalism, proceeded the stabilization of the Soviet Union. But these two processes of stabilization were fundamentally different in character. Capitalist stabilization presaged a new crisis of capitalism. The stabilization of the Soviet Union meant a further growth of the economic and political might of the Socialist country.<br />
<br />
Despite the defeat of the revolution in the West, the position of the Soviet Union in the international arena continued to grow stronger, although, it is true, at a slower rate.<br />
<br />
In 1922, the Soviet Union had been invited to an international economic conference in Genoa, Italy. At the Genoa Conference the imperialist governments, emboldened by the defeat of the revolution in the capitalist countries, tried to bring new pressure to bear on the Soviet Republic, this time in diplomatic form. The imperialists presented brazen demands to the Soviet Republic. They demanded that the factories and plants which had been nationalized by the October Revolution be returned to the foreign capitalists; they demanded the payment of the debts of the tsarist government. In return, the imperialist states promised some trifling loans to the Soviet Government.<br />
<br />
The Soviet Union rejected these demands.<br />
<br />
The Genoa Conference was barren of result.<br />
<br />
The threat of a new intervention contained in the ultimatum of Lord Curzon, the British Foreign Secretary, in 1923, also met with the rebuff it deserved.<br />
<br />
Having tested the strength of the Soviet Government and convinced themselves of its stability, the capitalist states began one after another to resume diplomatic relations with our country. In 1924 diplomatic relations were restored with Great Britain, France, Japan and Italy.<br />
<br />
It was plain that the Soviet Union had been able to win a prolonged breathing space, a period of peace.<br />
<br />
The domestic situation had also changed. The self-sacrificing efforts of the workers and peasants, led by the Bolshevik Party, had borne fruit. The rapid development of the national economy was manifest. In the fiscal year 1924-25, agricultural output had already approached the pre-war level, amounting to 87 per cent of the pre-war output. In 1925 the large-scale industries of the U.S.S.R. were already producing about ''three-quarters'' of the pre-war industrial output. In the fiscal year 1924-25, the Soviet Union was able to invest 385,000,000 rubles in capital construction work. The plan for the electrification of the country was proceeding successfully. Socialism was consolidating its key positions in the national economy. Important successes had been won in the struggle against private capital in industry and trade.<br />
<br />
Economic progress was accompanied by a further improvement in the condition of the workers and peasants. The working class was growing rapidly. Wages had risen, and so had productivity of labour. The standard of living of the peasants had greatly improved. In 1924-25, the Workers' and Peasants' Government was able to assign nearly 290,000,000 rubles for the purpose of assisting the small peasants. The improvement in the condition of the workers and peasants led to greater political activity on the part of the masses. The dictatorship of the proletariat was now more firmly established. The prestige and influence of the Bolshevik Party had grown.<br />
<br />
The restoration of the national economy was approaching completion. But mere economic restoration, the mere attainment of the prewar level, was not enough for the Soviet Union, the land of Socialism in construction. The pre-war level was the level of a backward country. The advance had to be continued beyond that point. The prolonged breathing space gained by the Soviet state ensured the possibility of further development.<br />
<br />
But this raised the question in all its urgency: what were to be the perspectives, the character of our development, of our construction, what was to be the destiny of Socialism in the Soviet Union? In what direction was economic development in the Soviet Union to be carried on, in the direction of Socialism, or in some other direction? Should we and could we build a Socialist economic system; or were we fated but to manure the soil for another economic system, the capitalist economic system? Was it possible at all to build a Socialist economic system in the U.S.S.R., and, if so, could it be built in spite of the delay of the revolution in the capitalist countries, in spite of the stabilization of capitalism? Was it at all possible to build a Socialist economic system by way of the New Economic Policy, which, while it was strengthening and augmenting the forces of Socialism in the country in every way, nevertheless still promoted a certain growth of capitalism? How was a Socialist economic system to be constructed, from which end should its construction begin? All these questions confronted the Party towards the end of the restoration period, and no longer as theoretical questions, but as practical questions, as questions of everyday economic policy.<br />
<br />
All these questions needed straightforward and plain answers, so that our Party members engaged in the development of industry and agriculture, as well as the people generally, might know in what direction to work, towards Socialism, or towards capitalism.<br />
<br />
Unless plain answers were given to these questions, all our practical work of construction would be without perspective, work in the dark, labour in vain.<br />
<br />
The Party gave plain and definite answers to all these questions.<br />
<br />
Yes, replied the Party, a Socialist economic system could be and should be built in our country, for we had everything needed for the building of a Socialist economic system, for the building of a complete Socialist society. In October 19i7 the working class had vanquished capitalism ''politically'', by establishing its own political dictatorship. Since then the Soviet Government had been taking every measure to shatter the economic power of capitalism and to create conditions for the building of a Socialist economic system. These measures were: the expropriation of the capitalists and landlords; the conversion of the land, factories, mills, railways and the banks into public property; the adoption of the New Economic Policy; the building up of a state-owned Socialist industry; and the application of Lenin's co-operative plan. Now the main task was to proceed to build a new, Socialist economic system all over the country and thus smash capitalism ''economically'' as well. All our practical work, all our actions must be made to serve this main purpose. The working class could do it, and would do it. The realization of this colossal task must begin with the industrialization of the country. The Socialist industrialization of the country was the chief link in the chain; with it the construction of a Socialist economic system must begin. Neither the delay of the revolution in the West, nor the partial stabilization of capitalism in the non-Soviet countries could stop our advance— to Socialism. The New Economic Policy could only make this task easier, for it had been introduced by the Party with the specific purpose of facilitating the laying of a Socialist foundation for our economic system.<br />
<br />
Such was the Party's answer to the question—was the victory of Socialist construction possible in our country?<br />
<br />
But the Party knew that the problem of the victory of Socialism in one country did not end there. The construction of Socialism in the Soviet Union would be a momentous turning point in the history of mankind, a victory for the working class and peasantry of the U.S.S.R., marking a new epoch in the history of the world. Yet this was an internal affair of the U.S.S.R. and was only a part of the problem of the victory of Socialism. The other part of the problem was its international aspect. In substantiating the thesis that Socialism could be victorious in one country, Comrade Stalin had repeatedly pointed out that the question should be viewed from two aspects, the domestic and the international. As for the domestic aspect of the question, i.e., the class relations within the country, the working class and the peasantry of the U.S.S.R. were fully capable of vanquishing their own bourgeoisie ''economically'' and building a complete Socialist society. But there was also the international aspect of the question, namely, the sphere of foreign relations, the sphere of the relations between the Soviet Union and the capitalist countries, between the Soviet people and the international bourgeoisie, which hated the Soviet system and was seeking the chance to start again armed intervention in the Soviet Union, to make new attempts to restore capitalism in the U.S.S.R. And since the U.S.S.R. was as yet the only Socialist country, all the other countries remaining capitalist, the U.S.S.R. continued to be encircled by a capitalist world, which gave rise to the danger of capitalist intervention. Clearly, there would be a danger of capitalist intervention as long as this capitalist encirclement existed. Could the Soviet people by their own efforts destroy this external danger, the danger of capitalist intervention in the U.S.S.R.? No, they could not. They could not, because in order to destroy the danger of capitalist intervention the capitalist encirclement would have to be destroyed; and the capitalist encirclement could be destroyed only as a result of victorious proletarian revolutions in at least several countries. It followed from this that the victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., as expressed in the abolition of the capitalist economic system and the building of a Socialist economic system, could not be considered a ''final'' victory, inasmuch as the danger of foreign armed intervention and of attempts to restore capitalism had not been eliminated, and inasmuch as the Socialist country had no guarantee against this danger. To destroy the danger of foreign capitalist intervention, the capitalist encirclement would have to be destroyed.<br />
<br />
Of course, as long as the Soviet Government pursued a correct policy, the Soviet people and their Red Army would be able to beat off a new foreign capitalist intervention just as they had beaten off the first capitalist intervention of 1918-20. But this would not mean that the danger of new capitalist intervention would be eliminated. The defeat of the first intervention did not destroy the danger of new intervention, inasmuch as the source of the danger of intervention—the capitalist encirclement—continued to exist. Neither would the danger of intervention be destroyed by the defeat of the new intervention if the capitalist encirclement continued to exist.<br />
<br />
It followed from this that the victory of the proletarian revolution in the capitalist countries was a matter of vital concern to the working people of the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
Such was the Party's line on the question of the victory of Socialism in our country.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee demanded that this line be discussed at the forthcoming Fourteenth Party Conference, and that it be endorsed and accepted as the line of the Party, as a Party law, ''binding'' upon all Party members.<br />
<br />
This line of the Party came as a thunderbolt to the oppositionists, above all, because the Party lent it a specific and practical character, linked it with a practical plan for the Socialist industrialization of the country, and demanded that it be formulated as a Party law, as a resolution of the Fourteenth Party Conference, binding upon all Party members.<br />
<br />
The Trotskyites opposed this Party line and set up against it the Menshevik "theory of permanent revolution," which it would be an insult to Marxism to call a Marxist theory, and which denied the possibility of the victory of Socialist construction in the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
The Bukharinites did not venture to oppose the Party line outspokenly. But they furtively set up against it their own "theory" of the peaceful growing of the bourgeoisie into Socialism, amplifying it with a "new" slogan—"Get Rich!" According to the Bukharinites, the victory of Socialism meant fostering and encircling the bourgeoisie, not destroying it.<br />
<br />
Zinoviev and Kamenev ventured forth with the assertion that the victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. was impossible because of the country's technical and economic backwardness, but they soon found it prudent to hide under cover.<br />
<br />
The Fourteenth Party Conference (April, 1925) condemned all these capitulatory "theories" of the open and covert oppositionists and affirmed the Party line of working for the victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., adopting a resolution to this effect.<br />
<br />
Driven to the wall, Zinoviev and Kamenev preferred to vote for this resolution. But the Party knew that they had only postponed their struggle and had decided to "give battle to the Party" at the Fourteenth Party Congress. They were mustering a following in Leningrad and forming the so-called "New Opposition."<br />
<br />
The Fourteenth Party Congress opened in December 1925.<br />
<br />
The situation within the Party was tense and strained. Never in its history had there been a case when the whole delegation from an important Party centre like Leningrad had prepared to come out in opposition to their Central Committee.<br />
<br />
The congress was attended by 665 delegates with vote and 641 with voice but no vote, representing 643,000 Party members and 445,000 candidate members, or a little less than at the previous congress. The reduction was due to a partial purge, a purge of the Party organizations in universities and offices to which anti-Party elements had gained entrance.<br />
<br />
The political report of the Central Committee was made by Comrade Stalin. He drew a vivid picture of the growth of the political and economic might of the Soviet Union. Thanks to the advantages of the Soviet economic system, both industry and agriculture had been restored in a comparatively short space of time and were approaching the pre-war level. But good as these results were, Comrade Stalin proposed that we should not rest there, for they could not nullify the fact that our country still remained a backward, agrarian country. Two-thirds of the total production of the country was provided by agriculture and only one-third by industry. Comrade Stalin said that the Party was now squarely confronted with the problem of converting our country into an industrial country, economically independent of capitalist countries. This could be done, and must be done. It was now the cardinal task of the Party to fight for the Socialist industrialization of the country, for the victory of Socialism.<blockquote>"The conversion of our country from an agrarian into an industrial country able to produce the machinery it needs by its own efforts—that is the essence, the basis of our general line," said Comrade Stalin.</blockquote>The industrialization of the country would ensure its economic independence, strengthen its power of defence and create the conditions for the victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
The Zinovievites opposed the general line of the Party. As against Stalin's plan of Socialist industrialization, the Zinovievite Sokolnikov put forward a bourgeois plan, one that was then in vogue among the imperialist sharks. According to this plan, the U.S.S.R. was to remain an agrarian country, chiefly producing raw materials and foodstuffs, exporting them, and importing machinery, which it did not and should not produce itself. As conditions were in 1925, this was tantamount to a plan for the economic enslavement of the U.S.S.R. by the industrially-developed foreign countries, a plan for the perpetuation of the industrial backwardness of the U.S.S.R. for the benefit of the imperialist sharks of the capitalist countries.<br />
<br />
The adoption of this plan would have converted our country into an impotent agrarian, agricultural appendage of the capitalist world; it would have left it weak and defenceless against the surrounding capitalist world, and in the end would have been fatal to the cause of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
The congress condemned the economic "plan" of the Zinovievites as a plan for the enslavement of the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
Equally unsuccessful were the other sorties of the "New Opposition" as, for instance, when they asserted (in defiance of Lenin) that our state industries were not Socialist industries, or when they declared (again in defiance of Lenin) that the middle peasant could not be an ally of the working class in the work of Socialist construction.<br />
<br />
The congress condemned these sorties of the "New Opposition" as anti-Leninist.<br />
<br />
Comrade Stalin laid bare the Trotskyite-Menshevik essence of the "New Opposition." He showed that Zinoviev and Kamenev were only harping on the old tunes of the enemies of the Party with whom Lenin had waged so relentless a struggle.<br />
<br />
It was clear that the Zinovievites were nothing but ill-disguised Trotskyites.<br />
<br />
Comrade Stalin stressed the point that the main task of our Party was to maintain a firm alliance between the working class and the middle peasant in the work of building Socialism. He pointed to two deviations on the peasant question existing in the Party at that time, both of which constituted a menace to this alliance. The first deviation was the one that underestimated and belittled the kulak danger, the second was the one that stood in panic fear of the kulak and underestimated the role of the middle peasant. To the question, which deviation was worse, Comrade Stalin replied: "One is as bad as the other. And if these deviations are allowed to develop they may disintegrate and destroy the Party. Fortunately there are forces in our Party capable of ridding it of both deviations."<br />
<br />
And the Party did indeed rout both deviations, the "Left" and the Right, and rid itself of them.<br />
<br />
Summing up the debate on the question of economic development, the Fourteenth Party Congress unanimously rejected the capitulatory plans of the oppositionists and recorded in its now famous resolution:<blockquote>"In the sphere of economic development, the congress holds that in our land, the land of the dictatorship of the proletariat, there is 'every requisite for the building of a complete Socialist society' (Lenin). The congress considers that the main task of our Party is to fight for the victory of Socialist construction in the U.S.S.R."</blockquote>The Fourteenth Party Congress adopted new Party Rules.<br />
<br />
Since the Fourteenth Congress our Party has been called the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)—the C.P.S.U.(B.).<br />
<br />
Though defeated at the congress, the Zinovievites did not submit to the Party. They started a fight against the decisions of the Fourteenth Congress. Immediately following the congress, Zinoviev called a meeting of the Leningrad Provincial Committee of the Young Communist League, the leading group of which had been reared by Zinoviev, Za-lutsky, Bakayev, Yevdokimov, Kuklin, Safarov and other double-dealers in a spirit of hatred of the Leninist Central Committee of the Party. At this meeting, the Leningrad Provincial Committee passed a resolution unparalleled in the history of the Y.C.L.: it refused to abide by the decisions of the Fourteenth Party Congress.<br />
<br />
But the Zinovievite leaders of the Leningrad Y.C.L. did not in any way reflect the mind of the mass of Young Communist Leaguers of Leningrad. They were therefore easily defeated, and soon the Leningrad organization recovered the place in the Y.C.L. to which it was entitled.<br />
<br />
Towards the close of the Fourteenth Congress a group of congress delegates—Comrades Molotov, Kirov, Voroshilov, Kalinin, Andreyev and others—were sent to Leningrad to explain to the members of the Leningrad Party organization the criminal, anti-Bolshevik nature of the stand taken up at the congress by the Leningrad delegation, who had secured their mandates under false pretences. The meetings at which the reports on the congress were made were marked by stormy scenes. An extraordinary conference of the Leningrad Party organization was called. The overwhelming majority of the Party members of Leningrad (over 97 per cent) fully endorsed the decisions of the Fourteenth Party Congress and condemned the anti-Party Zinovievite "New Opposition." The latter already at that time were generals without an army.<br />
<br />
The Leningrad Bolsheviks remained in the front ranks of the Party of Lenin-Stalin.<br />
<br />
Summing up the results of the Fourteenth Party Congress, Comrade Stalin wrote:<blockquote>"The historical significance of the Fourteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U. lies in the fact that it was able to expose the very roots of the mistakes of the New Opposition, that it spurned their scepticism and sniveling, that it clearly and distinctly indicated the path of the further struggle for Socialism, opened before the Party the prospect of victory, and thus armed the proletariat with an invincible faith in the victory of Socialist construction." (Stalin, ''Leninism,'' Vol. I, p. 319.)</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Brief summary ===<br />
The years of transition to the peaceful work of economic restoration constituted one of the most crucial periods in the history of the Bolshevik Party. In a tense situation, the Party was able to effect the difficult turn from the policy of War Communism to the New Economic Policy. The Party reinforced the alliance of the workers and peasants on a new economic foundation. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was formed.<br />
<br />
By means of the New Economic Policy, decisive results were obtained in the restoration of the economic life of the country. The Soviet Union emerged from the period of economic restoration with success and entered a new period, the period of industrialization of the country.<br />
<br />
The transition from Civil War to peaceful Socialist construction was accompanied by great difficulties, especially in the early stages. The enemies of Bolshevism, the anti-Party elements in the ranks of the C.P.S.U.(B.), waged a desperate struggle against the Leninist Party all through this period. These anti-Party elements were headed by Trotsky. His henchmen in this struggle were Kamenev, Zinoviev and Bukharin. After the death of Lenin, the oppositionists calculated on demoralizing the ranks of the Bolshevik Party, on splitting the Party, and infecting it with disbelief in the possibility of the victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. In point of fact, the Trotskyites were trying to form another party in the U.S.S.R., a political organization of the new bourgeoisie, a party of capitalist restoration.<br />
<br />
The Party rallied under the banner of Lenin around its Leninist Central Committee, around Comrade Stalin, and inflicted defeat both on the Trotskyites and on their new friends in Leningrad, the Zinoviev-Kamenev New Opposition.<br />
<br />
Having accumulated strength and resources, the Bolshevik Party brought the country to a new stage in its history—the stage of Socialist industrialization.<br />
<br />
== The Bolshevik party in the struggle for the socialist industrialization of the country (1926—1929) ==<br />
<br />
=== Difficulties in the period of socialist industrialization and the fight to overcome them. Formation of the anti-party bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites. Anti-soviet actions of the bloc. Defeat of the bloc ===<br />
After the Fourteenth Congress, the Party launched a vigorous struggle for the realization of the general line of the Soviet Government — the ''Socialist industrialization'' of the country.<br />
<br />
In the restoration period the task had been to revive agriculture before all else, so as to obtain raw materials and foodstuffs, to restore and to set going the industries, the existing mills and factories.<br />
<br />
The Soviet Government coped with this task with comparative ease.<br />
<br />
But in the restoration period there were three major shortcomings:<br />
<br />
First, the mills and factories were old, equipped with worn-out and antiquated machinery, and might soon go out of commission. The task now was to re-equip them on up-to-date lines.<br />
<br />
Secondly, industry in the restoration period rested on too narrow a foundation: it lacked machine-building plants absolutely indispensable to the country. Hundreds of these plants had to be built, for without them no country can be considered as being really industrialized. The task now was to build these plants and to equip them on up-to-date lines.<br />
<br />
Thirdly, the industries in this period were mostly light industries. These were developed and put on their feet. But, beyond a certain point, the further development even of the light industries met an obstacle in the weakness of heavy industry, not to mention the fact that the country had other requirements which could be satisfied only by a well-developed heavy industry. The task now was to tip the scales in favour of heavy industry.<br />
<br />
All these new tasks were to be accomplished by the policy of Socialist industrialization.<br />
<br />
It was necessary to build up a large number of new industries, industries which had not existed in tsarist Russia—new machinery, machine-tool, automobile, chemical, and iron and steel plants—to organize the production of engines and power equipment, and to increase the mining of ore and coal. This was essential for the victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
It was necessary to create a new munitions industry, to erect new works for the production of artillery, shells, aircraft, tanks and machine guns. This was essential for the defence of the U.S.S.R., surrounded as it was by a capitalist world.<br />
<br />
It was necessary to build tractor works and plants for the production of modern agricultural machinery, and to furnish agriculture with these machines, so as to enable millions of small individual peasant farms to pass to large-scale collective farming. This was essential for the victory of Socialism in the countryside.<br />
<br />
All this was to be achieved by the policy of industrialization, for that is what the Socialist industrialization of the country meant.<br />
<br />
Clearly, construction work on so large a scale would necessitate the investment of thousands of millions of rubles. To count on foreign loans was out of the question, for the capitalist countries refused to grant loans. We had to build with our own resources, without foreign assistance. But we were then a poor country.<br />
<br />
There lay one of the chief difficulties.<br />
<br />
Capitalist countries as a rule built up their heavy industries with funds obtained from abroad, whether by colonial plunder, or by exacting indemnities from vanquished nations, or else by foreign loans. The Soviet Union could not as a matter of principle resort to such infamous means of obtaining funds as the plunder of colonies or of vanquished nations. As for foreign loans, that avenue was closed to the U.S.S.R., as the capitalist countries refused to lend it anything. The funds had to be found ''inside'' the country.<br />
<br />
And they were found. Financial sources were tapped in the U.S.S.R. such as could not be tapped in any capitalist country. The Soviet state had taken over all the mills, factories, and lands which the October Socialist Revolution had wrested from the capitalists and landlords, all the means of transportation, the banks, and home and foreign trade. The profits from the state-owned mills and factories, and from the means of transportation, trade and the banks now went to further the expansion of industry, and not into the pockets of a parasitic capitalist class.<br />
<br />
The Soviet Government had annulled the tsarist debts, on which the people had annually paid hundreds of millions of gold rubles in interest alone. By abolishing the right of the landlords to the land, the Soviet Government had freed the peasantry from the annual payment of about 500,000,000 gold rubles in rent. Released from this burden, the peasantry was in a position to help the state to build a new and powerful industry. The peasants had a vital interest in obtaining tractors and other agricultural machinery.<br />
<br />
All these sources of revenue were in the hands of the Soviet state. They could yield hundreds and thousands of millions of rubles for the creation of a heavy industry. All that was needed was a business-like approach, the strictly economical expenditure of funds, rationalization of industry, reduction of costs of production, elimination of unproductive expenditure, etc.<br />
<br />
And this was the course the Soviet Government adopted.<br />
<br />
Thanks to a regime of strict economy, the funds available for capital development increased from year to year. This made it possible to start on gigantic construction works like the Dnieper Hydro-Electric Power Station, the Turkestan-Siberian Railway, the Stalingrad Tractor Works, a number of machine-tool works, the AMO (ZIS) Automobile Works and others.<br />
<br />
Whereas in 1926-27 about 1,000,000,000 rubles were invested in industry, three years later it was found possible to invest about 5,000,000,000 rubles.<br />
<br />
Industrialization was making steady headway.<br />
<br />
The capitalist countries looked upon the growing strength of the Socialist economic system in the U.S.S.R. as a threat to the existence of the capitalist system. Accordingly, the imperialist governments did everything they could to bring new pressure to bear on the U.S.S.R., to create a feeling of uncertainty and uneasiness in the country, and to frustrate, or at least to impede, the industrialization of the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
In May 1927, the British Conservative Die-hards, then in office, organized a provocative raid on Arcos (the Soviet trading body in Great Britain). On May 26, 1927, the British Conservative Government broke off diplomatic and trade relations with the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
On June 7, 1927, Comrade Voikov, the Soviet Ambassador in Warsaw, was assassinated by a Russian Whiteguard, a naturalized Polish subject.<br />
<br />
About this time, too, in the U.S.S.R. itself, British spies and diversionists hurled bombs at a meeting in a Party club in Leningrad, wounding about 30 people, some of them severely.<br />
<br />
In the summer of 1927, almost simultaneous raids were made on the Soviet Embassies and Trade Representations in Berlin, Peking, Shanghai and Tientsin.<br />
<br />
This created additional difficulties for the Soviet Government.<br />
<br />
But the U.S.S.R. refused to be intimidated and easily repulsed the provocative attempts of the imperialists and their agents.<br />
<br />
No less were the difficulties caused to the Party and the Soviet state by the subversive activities of the Trotskyites and other oppositionists. Comrade Stalin had good reason to say that "something like a united front from Chamberlain to Trotsky is being formed" against the Soviet Government. In spite of the decisions of the Fourteenth Party Congress and the professions of loyalty of the oppositionists, the latter had not laid down their arms. On the contrary, they intensified their efforts to undermine and split the Party.<br />
<br />
In the summer of 1926, the Trotskyites and Zinovievites united to form an anti-Party bloc, made it a rallying point for the remnants of all the defeated opposition groups, and laid the foundation of their secret anti-Leninist party, thereby grossly violating the Party Rules and the decisions of Party congresses forbidding the formation of factions. The Central Committee of the Party gave warning that unless this anti-Party bloc—which resembled the notorious Menshevik August Bloc— were dissolved, matters might end badly for its adherents. But the supporters of the bloc would not desist.<br />
<br />
That autumn, on the eve of the Fifteenth Party Conference, they made a sortie at Party meetings in the factories of Moscow, Leningrad and other cities, attempting to force a new discussion on the Party. The platform they tried to get the Party members to discuss was a rehash of the usual Trotskyite-Menshevik anti-Leninist platform. The Party members gave the oppositionists a severe rebuff, and in some places simply ejected them from the meetings. The Central Committee again warned the supporters of the bloc, stating that the Party could not tolerate their subversive activities any longer.<br />
<br />
The opposition then submitted to the Central Committee a statement signed by Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Sokolnikov condemning their own factional work and promising to be loyal in the future. Nevertheless, the bloc continued to exist and its adherents did not stop their underhand work against the Party. They went on banding together their anti-Leninist party, started an illegal printing press, collected membership dues from their supporters and circulated their platform.<br />
<br />
In view of the behaviour of the Trotskyites and Zinovievites, the Fifteenth Party Conference (November 1926) and the Enlarged Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International (December 1926) discussed the question of the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites and adopted resolutions stigmatizing the adherents of this bloc as splitters whose platform was downright Menshevism.<br />
<br />
But even this failed to bring them to their senses. In 1927, just when the British Conservatives broke off diplomatic and trade relations with the U.S.S.R., the bloc attacked the Party with renewed vigour. It concocted a new anti-Leninist platform, the so-called "Platform of the Eighty-Three" and began to circulate it among Party members, at the same time demanding that the Central Committee open a new general Party discussion.<br />
<br />
This was perhaps the most mendacious and pharisaical of all opposition platforms.<br />
<br />
In their platform, the Trotskyites and Zinovievites professed that they had no objection to observing Party decisions and that they were all in favour of loyalty, but in reality they grossly violated the Party decisions, and scoffed at the very idea of loyalty to the Party and to its Central Committee.<br />
<br />
In their platform, they professed they had no objection to Party unity and were against splits, but in reality they grossly violated Party unity, worked for a split, and already had their own, illegal, anti-Leninist party which had all the makings of an anti-Soviet, counter-revolutionary party.<br />
<br />
In their platform, they professed they were all in favour of the policy of industrialization, and even accused the Central Committee of not proceeding with industrialization fast enough, but in reality they did nothing but carp at the Party resolution on the victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., scoffed at the policy of Socialist industrialization, demanded the surrender of a number of mills and factories to foreigners in the form of concessions, and pinned their main hopes on foreign capitalist concessions in the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
In their platform, they professed they were all in favour of the collective-farm movement, and even accused the Central Committee of not proceeding with collectivization fast enough, but in reality they scoffed at the policy of enlisting the peasants in the work of Socialist construction, preached the idea that "unresolvable conflicts" between the working class and the peasantry were inevitable, and pinned their hopes on the "cultured leaseholders" in the countryside, in other words, on the kulaks.<br />
<br />
This was the most mendacious of all the platforms of the opposition. It was meant to deceive the Party.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee refused to open a general discussion immediately. It informed the opposition that a general discussion could be opened only in accordance with the Party Rules, namely, two months before a Party congress.<br />
<br />
In October 1927, that is, two months before the Fifteenth Congress, the Central Committee of the Party announced a general Party discussion, and the fight began. Its result was truly lamentable for the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites: 724,000 Party members voted for the policy of the Central Committee; 4,000, or less than one per cent, for the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites. The anti-Party bloc was completely routed. The overwhelming majority of the Party members were unanimous in rejecting the platform of the bloc.<br />
<br />
Such was the clearly expressed will of the Party, for whose judgment the oppositionists themselves had appealed.<br />
<br />
But even this lesson was lost on the supporters of the bloc. Instead of submitting to the will of the Party they decided to frustrate it. Even before the discussion had closed, perceiving that ignominious failure awaited them, they decided to resort to more acute forms of struggle against the Party and the Soviet Government and to stage an open demonstration of protest in Moscow and Leningrad. The day they chose for their demonstration was November 7, the anniversary of the October Revolution, the day on which the working people of the U.S.S.R. annually hold their countrywide revolutionary demonstration. Thus, the Trotskyites and Zinovievites planned to hold a parallel demonstration. As was to be expected, the supporters of the bloc managed to bring out into the streets only a miserable handful of their satellites. These satellites and their patrons were overwhelmed by the general demonstration and swept off the streets.<br />
<br />
Now there was no longer any doubt that the Trotskyites and Zinovievites had become definitely anti-Soviet. During the general Party discussion they had appealed to the Party against the Central Committee; now, during their puny demonstration, they had taken the course of appealing to the hostile classes against the Party and the Soviet state. Once they had made it their aim to undermine the Bolshevik Party, they were bound to go to the length of undermining the Soviet state, for in the Soviet Union the Bolshevik Party and the state are inseparable. That being the case, the ringleaders of the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites had outlawed themselves from the Party, for men who had sunk to the depths of anti-Soviet action could no longer be tolerated in the ranks of the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
On November 14, 1927, a joint meeting of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission expelled Trotsky and Zinoviev from the Party.<br />
<br />
=== Progress of socialist industrialization. Agriculture lags. Fifteenth party congress. Policy of collectivization in agriculture. Rout of the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites. Political duplicity ===<br />
By the end of 1927 the decisive success of the policy of Socialist industrialization was unmistakable. Under the New Economic Policy industrialization had made considerable progress in a short space of time. The gross output of industry and agriculture (including the timber industry and fisheries) had reached and even surpassed the pre-war level. Industrial output had risen to 42 per cent of the total output of the country, which was the pre-war ratio.<br />
<br />
The Socialist sector of industry was rapidly growing at the expense of the private sector, its output having risen from 81 per cent of the total output in 1924-25 to 86 per cent in 1926-27, the output of the private sector dropping from 19 per cent to 14 per cent in the same period.<br />
<br />
This meant that industrialization in the U.S.S.R. was of a pronounced Socialist character, that industry was developing towards the victory of the Socialist system of production, and that as far as industry was concerned, the question—"Who will win?"—had already been decided in favour of Socialism.<br />
<br />
No less rapid was the displacement of the private dealer in the sphere of trade, his share in the retail market having fallen from 42 per cent in 1924-25 to 32 per cent in 1926-27, not to mention the wholesale market, where the share of the private dealer had fallen from 9 per cent to 5 per cent in the same period.<br />
<br />
Even more rapid was the rate of growth of ''large-scale'' Socialist industry, which in 1927, the first year ''after'' the restoration period, increased its output over the previous year by 18 per cent. This was a record increase, one beyond the reach of the large-scale industry of even the most advanced capitalist countries.<br />
<br />
But in agriculture, especially grain growing, the picture was different. Although agriculture as a whole had passed the pre-war level, the gross yield of its most important branch—grain growing—was only 91 per cent of pre-war, while the marketed share of the harvest, that is, the amount of grain sold for the supply of the towns, scarcely attained 37 per cent of the pre-war figure. Furthermore, all the signs pointed to the danger of a further decline in the amount of marketable grain.<br />
<br />
This meant that the process of the splitting up of the large farms that used to produce for the market, into small farms, and of the small farms into dwarf farms, a process which had begun in 1918, was still going on; that these small and dwarf peasant farms were reverting practically to a natural form of economy and were able to supply only a negligible quantity of grain for the market; that while in the 1927 period the grain crop was only slightly below that of the pre-war period, the marketable surplus for the supply of the towns was only a little more than one-third of the pre-war marketable surplus.<br />
<br />
There could be no doubt that if such a state of affairs in grain farming were to continue, the army and the urban population would be faced with chronic famine.<br />
<br />
This was a crisis in grain farming which was bound to be followed by a crisis in livestock farming.<br />
<br />
The only escape from this predicament was a change to large-scale farming which would permit the use of tractors and agricultural machines and secure a several-fold increase of the marketable surplus of grain. The country had the alternative: either to adopt large-scale ''capitalist'' farming, which would have meant the ruin of the peasant masses, destroyed the alliance between the working class and the peasantry, increased the strength of the kulaks, and led to the downfall of Socialism in the countryside; or to take the course of amalgamating the small peasant holdings into large ''Socialist'' farms, collective farms, which would be able to use tractors and other modern machines for a rapid advancement of grain farming and a rapid increase in the marketable surplus of gain.<br />
<br />
It is clear that the Bolshevik Party and the Soviet state could only take the second course, the collective farm way of developing agriculture.<br />
<br />
In this, the Party was guided by the following precepts of Lenin regarding the necessity of passing from small peasant farming to large-scale, co-operative, collective farming:<br />
<br />
# "There is no escape from poverty for the small farm." (Lenin, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. VIII, p. 195.)<br />
# "If we continue as of old on our small farms, even as free citizens on free land, we shall still be faced with inevitable ruin." (Lenin, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. VI, p. 370.)<br />
# "If peasant farming is to develop further, we must firmly assure also its transition to the next stage, and this next stage must inevitably be one in which the small, isolated peasant farms, the least profitable and most backward, will by a process of gradual amalgamation form large-scale collective farms." (Lenin, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. IX, p. 151.)<br />
# "Only if we succeed in proving to the peasants in practice the advantages of common, collective, co-operative, artel cultivation of the soil, only if we succeed in helping the peasant by means of co-operative or artel farming, will the working class, which holds the state power, be really able to convince the peasant of the correctness of its policy and to secure the real and durable following of the millions of peasants." (Lenin, ''Selected Works,'' Vol. VIII, p. 198.)<br />
<br />
Such was the situation prior to the Fifteenth Party Congress.<br />
<br />
The Fifteenth Party Congress opened on December 2, 1927. It was attended by 898 delegates with vote and 771 delegates with voice but no vote, representing 887,233 Party members and 348,957 candidate members.<br />
<br />
In his report on behalf of the Central Committee, Comrade Stalin referred to the good results of industrialization and the rapid expansion of Socialist industry, and set the Party the following task:<blockquote>"To extend and consolidate our Socialist key position in all economic branches in town and country and to pursue a course of eliminating the capitalist elements from the national economy."</blockquote>Comparing agriculture with industry and noting the backwardness of the former, especially of grain growing, owing to the scattered state of agriculture, which precluded the use of modern machinery, Comrade Stalin emphasized that such an unenviable state of agriculture was endangering the entire national economy.<blockquote>"What is the way out?" Comrade Stalin asked.<br />
<br />
"The way out," he said, "is to turn the small and scattered peasant farms into large united farms based on the common cultivation of the soil, to introduce collective cultivation of the soil on the basis of a new and higher technique. The way out is to unite the small and dwarf peasant farms gradually but surely, not by pressure, but by example and persuasion, into large farms based on common, cooperative, collective cultivation of the soil with the use of agricultural machines and tractors and scientific methods of intensive agriculture. There is no other way out."</blockquote>The Fifteenth Congress passed a resolution calling for the fullest development of ''collectivization'' in agriculture. The congress adopted a plan for the extension and consolidation of the collective farms and state farms and formulated explicit instructions concerning the methods to be used in the struggle for collectivization in agriculture.<br />
<br />
At the same time, the congress gave directions:<blockquote>"To develop further the offensive against the kulaks and to adopt a number of new measures which would restrict the development of capitalism in the countryside and guide peasant farming towards Socialism." (Resolutions of the ''C.P.S.U.[B.''], Russ. ed., Part II, p. 260.)</blockquote>Finally, in view of the fact that economic planning had taken firm root, and with the object of organizing a systematic offensive of Socialism against the capitalist elements along the entire economic front, the congress gave instructions to the proper bodies for the drawing up of the ''First Five-Year Plan'' for the development of the national economy.<br />
<br />
After passing decisions on the problems of Socialist construction, the congress proceeded to discuss the question of liquidating the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites.<br />
<br />
The congress recognized that "the opposition has ideologically broken with Leninism, has degenerated into a Menshevik group, has taken the course of capitulation to the forces of the international and home bourgeoisie, and has objectively become a tool of counter-revolution against the regime of the proletarian dictatorship." (''Ibid''., p. 232.)<br />
<br />
The congress found that the differences between the Party and the opposition had developed into differences of program, and that the Trotsky opposition had taken the course of struggle against the Soviet power. The congress therefore declared that adherence to the Trotsky opposition and the propagation of its views were incompatible with membership of the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
The congress approved the decision of the joint meeting of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission to expel Trotsky and Zinoviev from the Party and resolved on the expulsion of all active members of the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites, such as Radek, Preobrazhensky, Rakovsky, Pyatakov, Serebryakov, I. Smirnov, Kamenev, Sarkis, Safarov, Lifshitz, Mdivani, Smilga and the whole "Democratic-Centralism" group (Sapronov, V. Smirnov, Boguslavsky, Drobnis and others).<br />
<br />
Defeated ideologically and routed organizationally, the adherents of the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites lost the last vestiges of their influence among the people.<br />
<br />
Shortly after the Fifteenth Party Congress, the expelled anti-Leninists began to hand in statements, recanting Trotskyism and asking to be reinstated in the Party. Of course, at that time the Party could not yet know that Trotsky, Rakovsky, Radek, Krestinsky, Sokolnikov and others had long been enemies of the people, spies recruited by foreign espionage services, and that Kamenev, Zinoviev, Pyatakov and others were already forming connections with enemies of the U.S.S.R. in capitalist countries for the purpose of "collaboration" with them against the Soviet people. But experience had taught the Party that any knavery might be expected from these individuals, who had often attacked Lenin and the Leninist Party at the most crucial moments. It was therefore sceptical of the statements they had made in their applications for reinstatement. As a preliminary test of their sincerity, it made their reinstatement in the Party dependent on the following conditions:<br />
<br />
a) They must publicly denounce Trotskyism as an anti-Bolshevik and anti-Soviet ideology.<br />
<br />
b) They must publicly acknowledge the Party policy as the only correct policy.<br />
<br />
c) They must unconditionally abide by the decisions of the Party and its bodies.<br />
<br />
d) They must undergo a term of probation, during which the Party would test them; on the expiration of this term, the Party would consider the reinstatement of each applicant separately, depending on the results of the test.<br />
<br />
The Party considered that in any case the public acceptance of these points by the expelled would be all to the good of the Party, because it would break the unity of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite ranks, undermine their morale, demonstrate once more the right and the might of the Party, and enable the Party, if the applicants were sincere, to reinstate its former workers in its ranks, and if they were not sincere, to unmask them in the public eye, no longer as misguided individuals, but as unprincipled careerists, deceivers of the working class and incorrigible double-dealers.<br />
<br />
The majority of the expelled accepted the terms of reinstatement and made public statements in the press to this effect.<br />
<br />
Desiring to be clement to them, and loath to deny them an opportunity of once again becoming men of the Party and of the working class, the Party reinstated them in its ranks.<br />
<br />
However, time showed that, with few exceptions, the recantations of the "leading lights" of the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites were false and hypocritical from beginning to end.<br />
<br />
It turned out that even before they had handed in their applications, these gentry had ceased to represent a political trend ready to defend their views before the people, and had become an unprincipled gang of careerists who were prepared publicly to trample on the last remnants of their own views, publicly to praise the views of the Party, which were alien to them, and—like chameleons—to adopt any colouring, provided they could maintain themselves in the ranks of the Party and the working class and have the opportunity to do harm to the working class and to its Party.<br />
<br />
The "leading lights" of the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites proved to be political swindlers, political double-dealers.<br />
<br />
Political double-dealers usually begin with deceit and prosecute their nefarious ends by deceiving the people, the working class, and the Party of the working class. But political double-dealers are not to be regarded as mere humbugs. Political double-dealers are an unprincipled gang of political careerists who, having long ago lost the confidence of the people, strive to insinuate themselves once more into their confidence by deception, by chameleon-like changes of colour, by fraud, by any means, only that they might retain the title of political figures. Political double-dealers are an unprincipled gang of political careerists who are ready to seek support anywhere, even among criminal elements, even among the scum of society, even among the mortal enemies of the people, only that they might be able, at a "propitious" moment, again to mount the political stage and to clamber on to the back of the people as their "rulers."<br />
<br />
The "leading lights" of the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites were political double-dealers of this very description.<br />
<br />
=== Offensive against the kulaks. The Bukharin-Rykov anti-party group. Adoption of the first five-year plan. Socialist emulation. Beginning of the mass collective-farm movement ===<br />
The agitation conducted by the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites against the Party policy, against the building of Socialism, and against collectivization, as well as the agitation conducted by the Bukharinites, who said that nothing would come of the collective farms, that the kulaks should be let alone because they would "grow" into Socialism of themselves, and that the enrichment of the bourgeoisie represented no danger to Socialism—all found an eager response among the capitalist elements in the country, and above all among the kulaks. The kulaks now knew from comments in the press that they were not alone, that they had defenders and intercessors in the persons of Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Rykov and others. Naturally, this could not but stiffen the kulaks' spirit of resistance against the policy of the Soviet Government. And, in fact, the resistance of the kulaks became increasingly stubborn. They refused en masse to sell to the Soviet state their grain surpluses, of which they had considerable hoards. They resorted to terrorism against the collective farmers, against Party workers and government officials in the countryside, and burned down collective farms and state granaries.<br />
<br />
The Party realized that until the resistance of the kulaks was broken, until they were defeated in open fight in full view of the peasantry, the working class and the Red Army would suffer from a food shortage, and the movement for collectivization among the peasants could not assume a mass character.<br />
<br />
In pursuance of the instructions of the Fifteenth Party Congress, the Party launched a determined offensive against the kulaks, putting into effect the slogan: rely firmly on the poor peasantry, strengthen the alliance with the middle peasantry, and wage a resolute struggle against the kulaks. In answer to the kulaks' refusal to sell their grain surpluses to the state at the fixed prices, the Party and the Government adopted a number of emergency measures against the kulaks, applied Article 107 of the Criminal Code empowering the courts to confiscate grain surpluses from kulaks and profiteers in case they refused to sell them to the state at the fixed prices, and granted the poor peasants a number of privileges, under which 25 per cent of the confiscated kulak grain was placed at their disposal.<br />
<br />
These emergency measures had their effect: the poor and middle peasants joined in the resolute fight against the kulaks; the kulaks were isolated, and the resistance of the kulaks and the profiteers was broken. By the end of 1928, the Soviet state already had sufficient stocks of grain at its disposal, and the collective-farm movement began to advance with surer strides.<br />
<br />
That same year, a large organization of wreckers, consisting of bourgeois experts, was discovered in the Shakhty district of the Donetz Coal Basin. The Shakhty wreckers were closely connected with the former mine owners—Russian and foreign capitalists—and with a foreign military espionage service. Their aim was to disrupt the development of Socialist industry and to facilitate the restoration of capitalism in the U.S.S.R. The wreckers had deliberately mismanaged the mines in order to reduce the output of coal, spoiled machinery and ventilation apparatus, caused roof-falls and explosions, and set fire to pits, plants and power-stations. The wreckers had deliberately obstructed the improvement of the workers' conditions and had infringed the Soviet labour protection laws.<br />
<br />
The wreckers were put on trial and met with their deserts.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee of the Party directed all Party organizations to draw the necessary conclusions from the Shakhty case. Comrade Stalin declared that Bolshevik business executives must themselves become experts in the technique of production, so as no longer to be the dupes of the wreckers among the old bourgeois experts, and that the training of new technical personnel from the ranks of the working class must be accelerated.<br />
<br />
In accordance with a decision of the Central Committee, the training of young experts in the technical colleges was improved. Thousands of Party members, members of the Young Communist League and non-Party people devoted to the cause of the working class were mobilized for study.<br />
<br />
Before the Party took the offensive against the kulaks, and while it was engaged in liquidating the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites, the Bukharin-Rykov group had been more or less lying low, holding themselves as a reserve of the anti-Party forces, not venturing to support the Trotskyites openly, and sometimes even acting together with the Party against the Trotskyites. But when the Party assumed the offensive against the kulaks, and adopted emergency measures against them, the Bukharin-Rykov group threw off their mask and began to attack the Party policy openly. The kulak soul of the Bukharin-Rykov group got the better of them, and they began to come out openly in defence of the kulaks. They demanded the repeal of the emergency measures, frightening the simple-minded with the argument that otherwise agriculture would begin to "decay," and even affirming that this process had already begun. Blind to the growth of the collective farms and state farms, those superior forms of agricultural organization, and perceiving the decline of kulak farming, they represented the decay of the latter as the decay of agriculture. In order to provide a theoretical backing for their case, they concocted the absurd "theory of the subsidence of the class-struggle," maintaining, on the strength of this theory, that the class struggle would grow milder with every victory gained by Socialism against the capitalist elements, that the class struggle would soon subside altogether and the class enemy would surrender all his positions without a fight, and that, consequently, there was no need for an offensive against the kulaks. In this way they tried to furbish up their threadbare bourgeois theory that the kulaks would peaceably grow into Socialism, and rode roughshod over the well-known thesis of Leninism that the resistance of the class enemy would assume more acute forms as the progress of Socialism cut the ground from under his feet and that the class struggle could "subside" only after the class enemy was destroyed.<br />
<br />
It was easy to see that in the Bukharin-Rykov group the Party was faced with a group of Right opportunists who differed from the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites only in form, only in the fact that the Trotskyite and Zinovievite capitulators had had some opportunity of masking their true nature with Left, revolutionary vociferations about "permanent revolution," whereas the Bukharin-Rykov group, attacking the Party as they did for taking the offensive against the kulaks, could not possibly mask their capitulatory character and had to defend the reactionary forces in our country, the kulaks in particular, openly, without mask or disguise.<br />
<br />
The Party understood that sooner or later the Bukharin-Rykov group was bound to join hands with the remnants of the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites for common action against the Party.<br />
<br />
Parallel with their political pronouncements, the Bukharin-Rykov group "worked" to muster and organize their following. Through Bukharin, they banded together young bourgeois elements like Slepkov, Maretsky, Eichenwald, Goldenberg; through Tomsky—high bureaucrats in the trade unions (Melnichansky, Dogadov and others); through Rykov—demoralized high Soviet officials (A. Smirnov, Eismont, V. Schmidt, and others). The group readily attracted people who had degenerated politically, and who made no secret of their capitulatory sentiments.<br />
<br />
About this time the Bukharin-Rykov group gained the support of high functionaries in the Moscow Party organization (Uglanov, Kotov, Ukhanov, Ryutin, Yagoda, Polonsky, and others). A section of the Rights kept under cover, abstaining from open attacks on the Party line. In the Moscow Party press and at Party meetings, it was advocated that concessions must be made to the kulaks, that heavy taxation of kulaks was inadvisable, that industrialization was burdensome to the people, and that the development of heavy industry was premature. Uglanov opposed the Dnieper hydro-electric scheme and demanded that funds be diverted from heavy industry to the light industries. Uglanov and the other Right capitulators maintained that Moscow was and would remain a gingham city, and that there was no need to build engineering works in Moscow.<br />
<br />
The Moscow Party organization unmasked Uglanov and his followers, gave them a final warning and rallied closer than ever around the Central Committee of the Party. At a plenary meeting of the Moscow Committee of the C.P.S.U.(B.), held in 1928, Comrade Stalin said that a fight must be waged on two fronts, with the fire concentrated on the Right deviation. The Rights, Comrade Stalin said, were kulak agents inside the Party.<blockquote>"The triumph of the Right deviation in our Party would unleash the forces of capitalism, undermine the revolutionary position of the proletariat and increase the chances of restoring capitalism in our country," said Comrade Stalin. (Stalin, ''Leninism'', Vol. II.)</blockquote>At the beginning of 1929 it was discovered that Bukharin, authorized by the group of Right capitulators, had formed connections with the Trotskyites, through Kamenev, and was negotiating an agreement with them for a joint struggle against the Party. The Central Committee exposed these criminal activities of the Right capitulators and warned them that this affair might end lamentably for Bukharin, Rykov, Tom-sky and the rest. But the Right capitulators would not heed the warning. At a meeting of the Central Committee they advanced a new anti-Party platform, in the form of a declaration, which the Central Committee condemned. It warned them again, reminding them of what had happened to the bloc of Trotskyites and Zinovievites. In spite of this, the Bukharin-Rykov group persisted in their anti-Party activities. Rykov, Tomsky and Bukharin tendered to the Central Committee their resignations, believing that they would intimidate the Party thereby. The Central Committee passed condemnation on this saboteur policy of resignations. Finally, a plenum of the Central Committee, held in November 1929, declared that the propaganda of the views of the Right opportunists was incompatible with membership of the Party; it resolved that Bukharin, as the instigator and leader of the Right capitulators, be removed from the Political Bureau of the Central Committee, and issued a grave warning to Rykov, Tomsky and other members of the Right opposition.<br />
<br />
Perceiving that matters had taken a lamentable turn, the chieftains of the Right capitulators submitted a statement acknowledging their errors and the correctness of the political line of the Party.<br />
<br />
The Right capitulators decided to effect a temporary retreat so as to preserve their ranks from debacle.<br />
<br />
This ended the first stage of the Party's fight against the Right capitulators.<br />
<br />
The new differences within the Party did not escape the attention of the external enemies of the Soviet Union. Believing that the "new dissensions" in the Party were a sign of its weakness, they made a new attempt to involve the U.S.S.R. in war and to thwart the work of industrialization before it had got properly under way. In the summer of 1929, the imperialists provoked a conflict between China and the Soviet Union, and instigated the seizure of the Chinese Eastern Railway (which belonged to the U.S.S.R.) by the Chinese militarists, and an attack on our Far-Eastern frontier by troops of the Chinese Whites. But this raid of the Chinese militarists was promptly liquidated, the militarists, routed by the Red Army, retreated and the conflict ended in the signing of a peace agreement with the Manchurian authorities.<br />
<br />
The peace policy of the U.S.S.R. once more triumphed in the face of all obstacles, notwithstanding the intrigues of external enemies and the "dissensions" within the Party.<br />
<br />
Soon after this diplomatic and trade relations between the U.S.S.R. and Great Britain, which had been severed by the British Conservatives, were resumed.<br />
<br />
While successfully repulsing the attacks of the external and internal enemies, the Party was busily engaged in developing heavy industry, organizing Socialist emulation, building up state farms and collective farms, and, lastly, preparing the ground for the adoption and execution of the First Five-Year Plan for the development of the national economy.<br />
<br />
In April 1929, the Party held its Sixteenth Conference, with the First Five-Year Plan as the main item on the agenda. The conference rejected the "minimal" variant of the Five-Year Plan advocated by the Right capitulators and adopted the "optimal" variant as binding under all circumstances.<br />
<br />
Thus, the Party adopted the celebrated First Five-Year Plan for the construction of Socialism.<br />
<br />
The Five-Year-Plan fixed the volume of capital investments in the national economy in the period 1928-33 at 64,600,000,000 rubles. Of this sum, 19,500,000,000 rubles were to be invested in industrial and electric-power development, 10,000,000,000 rubles in transport development and 23,200,000,000 rubles in agriculture.<br />
<br />
This was a colossal plan for the equipment of industry and agriculture of the U.S.S.R. with modern technique.<blockquote>"The fundamental task of the Five-Year Plan," said Comrade Stalin, "was to create such an industry in our country as would be able to re-equip and reorganize, not only the whole of industry, but also transport and agriculture—on the basis of Socialism." (Stalin, ''Problems of Leninism'', Russ. ed., p. 485.)</blockquote>For all the immensity of this plan, it did not nonplus or surprise the Bolsheviks. The way for it had been prepared by the whole course of development of industrialization and collectivization and it had been preceded by a wave of labour enthusiasm which caught up the workers and peasants and which found expression in ''Socialist emulation''.<br />
<br />
''The Sixteenth Party Conference adopted an appeal to all working people, calling'' for the further development of Socialist emulation.<br />
<br />
Socialist emulation had produced many an instance of exemplary labour and of a new attitude to labour. In many factories, collective farms and state farms, the workers and collective farmers drew up ''counter-plans'' for an output exceeding that provided for in the state plans. They displayed heroism in labour. They not only fulfilled, but exceeded the plans of Socialist development laid down by the Party and the Government. The attitude to labour had changed. From the involuntary and penal servitude it had been under capitalism, it was becoming "a matter of honour, a matter of glory, a matter of valour and heroism." (''Stalin.'')<br />
<br />
New industrial construction on a gigantic scale was in progress all over the country. The Dnieper hydro-electric scheme was in full swing. Construction work on the Kramatorsk and Gorlovka Iron and Steel Works and the reconstruction of the Lugansk Locomotive Works had begun in the Donetz Basin. New collieries and blast furnaces came into being. The Urals Machine-Building Works and the Berezniki and Solikamsk Chemical Works were under construction in the Urals. Work was begun on the construction of the iron and steel mills of Magnitogorsk. The erection of big automobile plants in Moscow and Gorky was well under way, as was the construction of giant tractor plants, harvester combine plants, and a mammoth agricultural machinery plant in Rostov-on-Don. The Kuznetsk collieries, the Soviet Union's second coal base, were being extended. An immense tractor works sprang up in the steppe near Stalingrad in the space of eleven months. In the erection of the Dnieper Hydro-Electric Station and the Stalingrad Tractor Works, the workers beat world records in productivity of labour.<br />
<br />
History had never known industrial construction on such a gigantic scale, such enthusiasm for new development, such labour heroism on the part of the working-class millions.<br />
<br />
It was a veritable upsurge of labour enthusiasm, produced and stimulated by Socialist emulation.<br />
<br />
This time the peasants did not lag behind the workers. In the countryside, too, this labour enthusiasm began to spread among the peasant masses who were organizing their collective farms. The peasants definitely began to turn to collective farming. In this a great part was played by the state farms and the machine and tractor stations. The peasants would come in crowds to the state farms and machine and tractor stations to watch the operation of the tractors and other agricultural machines, admire their performance and there and then resolve: "Let's join the collective farm." Divided and disunited, each on his tiny, dwarf individually-run farm, destitute of anything like serviceable implements or traction, having no way of breaking up large tracts of virgin soil, without prospect of any improvement on their farms, crushed by poverty, isolated and left to their own devices, the peasants had at last found a way out, an avenue to a better life, in the amalgamation of their small farms into co-operative undertakings, collective farms; in tractors, which are able to break up any "hard ground," any virgin soil; in the assistance rendered by the state in the form of machines, money, men, and counsel; in the opportunity to free themselves from bondage to the kulaks, who had been quite recently defeated by the Soviet Government and forced to the ground, to the joy of the millions of peasants.<br />
<br />
On this basis began the mass collective-farm movement, which later developed rapidly, especially towards the end of 1929, progressing at an unprecedented rate, a rate unknown even to our Socialist industry.<br />
<br />
In 1928 the total crop area of the collective farms was 1,390,000 hectares, in 1929 it was 4,262,000 hectares, while in 1930 the ploughing plan of the collective farms was already 15,000,000 hectares.<blockquote>"It must be admitted," said Comrade Stalin in his article, "A Year of Great Change" (1929), in reference to the collective farms, "that such an impetuous speed of development is unequalled even in our socialized large-scale industry, which in general is noted for its outstanding speed of development."<br />
<br />
This was a turning point in the development of the collective-farm movement.<br />
<br />
This was the beginning of a mass collective-farm movement.<br />
<br />
"What is the new feature of the present collective-farm movement?" asked Comrade Stalin in his article, "A Year of Great Change." And he answered:<br />
<br />
"The new and decisive feature of the present collective-farm movement is that the peasants are joining the collective farms not in separate groups, as was formerly the case, but in whole villages, whole ''volosts'' (rural districts), whole districts and even whole areas. And what does that mean? It means that ''the middle peasant has joined the collective-farm movement''. And that is the basis of that radical change in the development of agriculture which represents the most important achievement of the Soviet Government..."</blockquote>This meant that the time was becoming ripe, or had already become ripe, for the elimination of the kulaks as a class, on the basis of solid collectivization.<br />
<br />
=== Brief summary ===<br />
During the period 1926-29, the Party grappled with and overcame immense difficulties on the home and foreign fronts in the fight for the Socialist industrialization of the country. The efforts of the Party and the working class ended in the victory of the policy of Socialist industrialization.<br />
<br />
In the main, one of the most difficult problems of industrialization had been solved, namely, the problem of accumulating funds for the building of a heavy industry. The foundations were laid of a heavy industry capable of re-equipping theentirenational economy.<br />
<br />
The First Five-Year Plan of Socialist construction was adopted. The building of new factories, state farms and collective farms was developed on a vast scale.<br />
<br />
This advance towards Socialism was attended by a sharpening of the class struggle in the country and a sharpening of the struggle within the Party. The chief results of this struggle were that the resistance of the kulaks was crushed, the bloc of Trotskyite and Zinovievite capitulators was exposed as an anti-Soviet bloc, the Right capitulators were exposed as agents of the kulaks, the Trotskyites were expelled from the Party, and the views of the Trotskyites and the Right opportunists were declared incompatible with membership of the C.P.S.U.(B.).<br />
<br />
Defeated ideologically by the Bolshevik Party, and having lost all support among the working class, the Trotskyites ceased to be a political trend and became an unprincipled, careerist clique of political swindlers, a gang of political double-dealers.<br />
<br />
Having laid the foundations of a heavy industry, the Party mustered the working class and the peasantry for the fulfilment of the First Five-Year Plan for the Socialist reconstruction of the U.S.S.R. Socialist emulation developed all over the country among millions of working people, giving rise to a mighty wave of labour enthusiasm and originating a new labour discipline.<br />
<br />
This period ended with a year of great change, signalized by sweeping victories of Socialism in industry, the first important successes in agriculture, the swing of the middle peasant towards the collective farms, and the beginning of a mass collective-farm movement.<br />
<br />
== The Bolshevik party in the struggle for the collectivization of agriculture (1930—1934) ==<br />
<br />
=== International situation in 1930—1934. Economic crisis in the capitalist countries. Japanese annexation of Manchuria. Fascists’ advent to power in Germany. Two seats of war ===<br />
While in the U.S.S.R. important progress had been made in the Socialist industrialization of the country and industry was rapidly developing, in the capitalist countries a devastating world economic crisis of unprecedented dimensions had broken out at the end of 1929 and grew steadily more acute in the three following years. The industrial crisis was interwoven with an agrarian crisis, which made matters still worse for the capitalist countries.<br />
<br />
In the three years of economic crisis (1930-33), industrial output in the U.S.A. had sunk to 65 per cent, in Great Britain to 86 per cent, in Germany to 66 per cent and in France to 77 per cent of the 1929 output. Yet in this same period industrial output in the U.S.S.R. more than doubled, amounting in 1933 to 201 per cent of the 1929 output.<br />
<br />
This was but an additional proof of the superiority of the Socialist economic system over the capitalist economic system. It showed that the country of Socialism is the only country in the world which is exempt from economic crises.<br />
<br />
The world economic crisis condemned 24,000,000 unemployed to starvation, poverty and misery. The agrarian crisis brought suffering to tens of millions of peasants.<br />
<br />
The world economic crisis further aggravated the contradictions between the imperialist states, between the victor countries and the vanquished countries, between the imperialist states and the colonial and dependent countries, between the workers and the capitalists, between the peasants and the landlords.<br />
<br />
In his report on behalf of the Central Committee to the Sixteenth Party Congress, Comrade Stalin pointed out that the bourgeoisie would seek a way out of the economic crisis, on the one hand, by crushing the working class through the establishment of fascist dictatorship, i.e., the dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, most imperialistic capitalist elements, and, on the other hand, by fomenting war for the re-division of colonies and spheres of influence at the expense of the poorly defended countries.<br />
<br />
That is just what happened.<br />
<br />
In 1932 the war danger was aggravated by Japan. Perceiving that, owing to the economic crisis, the European powers and the U.S.A. were wholly engrossed in their domestic affairs, the Japanese imperialists decided to seize the opportunity and bring pressure to bear on poorly defended China, in an attempt to subjugate her and to lord it over the country. Unscrupulously exploiting "local incidents" they themselves had provoked, the Japanese imperialists, like robbers, without declaring war on China, marched their troops into Manchuria. The Japanese soldiery seized the whole of Manchuria, thereby preparing a convenient ''place d'armes'' for the conquest of North China and for an attack on the U.S.S.R. Japan withdrew from the League of Nations in order to leave her hands free, and began to arm at a feverish pace.<br />
<br />
This impelled the U.S.A., Britain and France to strengthen their naval armaments in the Far East. It was obvious that Japan was out to subjugate China and to eject the European and American imperialist powers from that country. They replied by increasing their armaments.<br />
<br />
But Japan was pursuing another purpose, too, namely, to seize the Soviet Far East. Naturally, the U.S.S.R. could not shut its eyes to this danger, and began intensively to strengthen the defences of its Far Eastern territory.<br />
<br />
Thus, in the Far East, thanks to the Japanese fascist imperialists, there arose the first seat of war.<br />
<br />
But it was not only in the Far East that the economic crisis aggravated the contradictions of capitalism. It aggravated them in Europe too. The prolonged crisis in industry and agriculture, the huge volume of unemployment, and the growing insecurity of the poorer classes fanned the discontent of the workers and peasants. The discontent of the working class grew into revolutionary disaffection. This was particularly the case in Germany, which was economically exhausted by the war, by the payment of reparations to the Anglo-French victors, and by the economic crisis, and the working class of which languished under a double yoke, that of the home and the foreign, the British and French, bourgeoisie. The extent of this discontent was clearly indicated by the six million votes cast for the German Communist Party at the last Reichstag elections, before the fascists came to power. The German bourgeoisie perceived that the bourgeois-democratic liberties preserved in Germany might play them an evil trick, that the working class might use these liberties to extend the revolutionary movement. They therefore decided that there was only one way of maintaining the power of the bourgeoisie in Germany, and that was to abolish the bourgeois liberties, to reduce the Reichstag to a cipher, and to establish a terrorist bourgeois-nationalist dictatorship, which would be able to suppress the working class and base itself on the petty-bourgeois masses who wanted to revenge Germany's defeat in the war. And so they called to power the fascist party—which in order to hoodwink the people calls itself the National-Socialist Party—well knowing that the fascist party, first, represents that section of the imperialist bourgeoisie which is the most reactionary and most hostile to the working class, and, secondly, that it is the most pronounced party of revenge, one capable of beguiling the millions of the nationalistically minded petty bourgeoisie. In this they were assisted by the traitors to the working class, the leaders of the German Social-Democratic Party, who paved the way for fascism by their policy of compromise.<br />
<br />
These were the conditions which brought about the accession to power of the German fascists in 1933.<br />
<br />
Analysing the events in Germany in his report to the Seventeenth Party Congress, Comrade Stalin said:<blockquote>"The victory of fascism in Germany must be regarded not only as a symptom of the weakness of the working class and a result of the betrayals of the working class by the Social-Democratic Party, which paved the way for fascism; it must also be regarded as a symptom of the weakness of the bourgeoisie, of the fact that the bourgeoisie is already unable to rule by the old methods of parliamentarism and bourgeois democracy, and, as a consequence, is compelled in its home policy to resort to terroristic methods of rule..." (J. Stalin, ''Seventeenth Congress of the C.P.S.U''., "Report on the Work of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U.[B.]," p. 17.)</blockquote>The German fascists inaugurated their home policy by setting fire to the Reichstag, brutally suppressing the working class, destroying its organizations, and abolishing the bourgeois-democratic liberties. They inaugurated their foreign policy by withdrawing from the League of Nations and openly preparing for a war for the forcible revision of the frontiers of the European states to the advantage of Germany.<br />
<br />
Thus, in the centre of Europe, thanks to the German fascists, there arose a second seat of war.<br />
<br />
Naturally, the U.S.S.R. could not shut its eyes to so serious a fact, and began to keep a sharp watch on the course of events in the West and to strengthen its defences on the Western frontiers.<br />
<br />
=== From the policy of restricting the kulak elements to the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class. Struggle against distortions of the party policy in the collective-farm movement. Offensive against the capitalist elements along the whole line. Sixteenth party congress ===<br />
The mass influx of the peasants into the collective farms in 1929 and 1930 was a result of the whole preceding work of the Party and the Government. The growth of Socialist industry, which had begun the mass production of tractors and machines for agriculture; the vigorous measures taken against the kulaks during the grain-purchasing campaigns of 1928 and 1929; the spread of agricultural co-operative societies, which gradually accustomed the peasants to collective farming; the good results obtained by the first collective farms and state farms— all this prepared the way for solid collectivization, when the peasants of entire villages, districts and regions joined the collective farms.<br />
<br />
Solid collectivization was not just a peaceful process—the overwhelming bulk of the peasantry simply joining the collective farms—but was a struggle of the peasant masses against the kulaks. Solid collectivization meant that all the land in a village area in which a collective farm was formed passed into the hands of the collective farm; but a considerable portion of this land was held by the kulaks, and therefore the peasants would expropriate them, driving them from the land, dispossessing them of their cattle and machinery and demanding their arrest and eviction from the district by the Soviet authorities.<br />
<br />
Solid collectivization therefore meant the elimination of the kulaks.<br />
<br />
This was a policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class, on the basis of solid collectivization.<br />
<br />
By this time, the U.S.S.R. had a strong enough material base to allow it to put an end to the kulaks, break their resistance, eliminate them as a class and replace kulak farming by collective and state farming.<br />
<br />
In 1927 the kulaks still produced over 600,000,000 poods of grain, of which about 130,000,000 poods were available for sale. In that year the collective and state farms had only 35,000,000 poods of grain available for sale. In 1929, thanks to the Bolshevik Party's firm policy of developing state farms and collective farms, and likewise to the progress made by Socialist industry in supplying the countryside with tractors and agricultural machinery, the collective farms and state farms had become an important factor. In that year the collective farms and state farms already produced no less than 400,000,000 poods of grain, of which over 130,000,000 poods were marketed. This was more than the kulaks had marketed in 1927. And in 1930 the collective farms and state farms were to produce, and actually did produce, over 400,000,000 poods of grain for the market, which was incomparably more than had been marketed by the kulaks in 1927.<br />
<br />
Thus, thanks to the changed alignment of class forces in the economic life of the country, and the existence of the necessary material base for the replacement of the kulak grain output by that of the collective and state farms, the Bolshevik Party was able to proceed from the policy of ''restricting'' the kulaks to a new policy, the policy of ''eliminating them as a class'', on the basis of solid collectivization.<br />
<br />
Prior to 1929, the Soviet Government had pursued a policy of restricting the kulaks. It had imposed higher taxes on the kulak, and had required him to sell grain to the state at fixed prices; by the law on the renting of land it had to a certain extent restricted the amount of land he could use; by the law on the employment of hired labour on private farms it had limited the scope of his farm. But it had not yet pursued a policy of eliminating the kulaks, since the laws on the renting of land and the hiring of labour allowed them to carry on, while the prohibition of their expropriation gave them a certain guarantee in this respect. The effect of this policy was to arrest the growth of the kulak class, some sections of which, unable to withstand the pressure of these restrictions, were forced out of business and ruined. But this policy did not destroy the economic foundations of the kulaks as a class, nor did it tend to eliminate them. It was a policy of restricting the kulaks, not of eliminating them. This policy was essential up to a certain time, that is, as long as the collective farms and state farms were still weak and unable to replace the kulaks in the production of grain.<br />
<br />
At the end of 1929, with the growth of the collective farms and state farms, the Soviet Government turned sharply from this policy to the policy of eliminating the kulaks, of destroying them as a class. It repealed the laws on the renting of land and the hiring of labour, thus, depriving the kulaks both of land and of hired labourers. It lifted the ban on the expropriation of the kulaks. It permitted the peasants to confiscate cattle, machines and other farm property from the kulaks for the benefit of the collective farms. The kulaks were expropriated. They were expropriated just as the capitalists had been expropriated in the sphere of industry in 1918, with this difference, however, that the kulaks' means of production did not pass into the hands of the state, but into the hands of the peasants united in the collective farms.<br />
<br />
This was a profound revolution, a leap from an old qualitative state of society to a new qualitative state, equivalent in its consequences to the revolution of October 1917.<br />
<br />
The distinguishing feature of this revolution is that it was accomplished ''from above'', on the initiative of the state, and directly supported ''from below'' by the millions of peasants, who were fighting to throw off kulak bondage and to live in freedom in the collective farms.<br />
<br />
This revolution, at one blow, solved three fundamental problems of Socialist construction:<br />
<br />
a) It eliminated the most numerous class of exploiters in our country, the kulak class, the mainstay of capitalist restoration;<br />
<br />
b) It transferred the most numerous labouring class in our country, the peasant class, from the path of individual farming, which breeds capitalism, to the path of co-operative, collective, Socialist farming;<br />
<br />
c) It furnished the Soviet regime with a Socialist base in agriculture—the most extensive and vitally necessary, yet least developed, branch of national economy.<br />
<br />
This destroyed the last mainsprings of the restoration of capitalism within the country and at the same time created new and decisive conditions for the building up of a Socialist economic system.<br />
<br />
Explaining the reasons for the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class, and summing up the results of the mass movement of the peasants for solid collectivization, Comrade Stalin wrote in 1929:<blockquote>"The last hope of the capitalists of all countries, who are dreaming of restoring capitalism in the U.S.S.R.—'the sacred principle of private property'—is collapsing and vanishing. The peasants, whom they regarded as material manuring the soil for capitalism, are abandoning en masse the lauded banner of ‘private property' and are taking to the path of collectivism, the path of Socialism. The last hope for the restoration of capitalism is crumbling." (Stalin, ''Leninism'', Vol. II, "A Year of Great Change.")</blockquote>The policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class was embodied in the historic resolution on "The Rate of Collectivization and State Measures to Assist the Development of Collective Farms" adopted by the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U.(B.) on January 5, 1930. In this decision, full account was taken of the diversity of conditions in the various districts of the U.S.S.R. and the varying degrees to which the regions were ripe for collectivization.<br />
<br />
Different rates of collectivization were established, for which purpose the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U.(B.) divided the regions of the U.S.S.R. into three groups.<br />
<br />
The first group included the principal grain-growing areas: viz., the North Caucasus (the Kuban, Don and Terek), the Middle Volga and the Lower Volga, which were ripest for collectivization since they had the most tractors, the most state farms, and the most experience in fighting the kulaks, gained in past grain-purchasing campaigns. The Central Committee proposed that in this group of grain-growing areas collectivization should in the main be completed in the spring of 1931.<br />
<br />
The second group of grain-growing areas, the Ukraine, the Central Black-Earth Region, Siberia, the Urals, Kazakhstan and others could complete collectivization in the main in the spring of 1932.<br />
<br />
The other regions, territories and republics (Moscow Region, Transcaucasia, the republics of Central Asia, etc.) could extend the process of collectivization to the end of the Five-Year Plan, that is, to 1933.<br />
<br />
In view of the growing speed of collectivization, the Central Committee of the Party considered it necessary to accelerate the construction of plants for the production of tractors, harvester combines, tractor-drawn machinery, etc. Simultaneously, the Central Committee demanded that "the tendency to underestimate the importance of horse traction at the present stage of the collective-farm movement, a tendency which was leading to the reckless disposal and sale of horses, be resolutely checked."<br />
<br />
State loans to collective farms for the year 1929-30 were doubled (500,000,000 rubles) as compared with the original plan.<br />
<br />
The expense of the surveying and demarcation of the lands of the collective farms was to be borne by the state.<br />
<br />
The resolution contained the highly important direction that the ''chief form'' of the collective-farm movement at the given stage must be the agricultural artel, in which only the ''principal'' means of production are collectivized.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee most seriously warned Party organizations "against any attempts whatsoever to force the collective-farm movement by ‘decrees' from above, which might involve the danger of the substitution of mock-collectivization for real Socialist emulation in the organization of collective farms." (''Resolutions of the C.P.S.U.[B.]'', Russ. ed., Part II, page 662.)<br />
<br />
In this resolution the Central Committee made it clear how the Party's new policy in the countryside should be applied.<br />
<br />
The policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class and of solid collectivization stimulated a powerful collective-farm movement. The peasants of whole villages and districts joined the collective farms, sweeping the kulaks from their path and freeing themselves from kulak bondage.<br />
<br />
But with all the phenomenal progress of collectivization, certain faults on the part of Party workers, distortions of the Party policy in collective farm development, soon revealed themselves. Although the Central Committee had warned Party workers not to be carried away by the success of collectivization, many of them began to force the pace of collectivization artificially, without regard to the conditions of time and place, and heedless of the degree of readiness of the peasants to join the collective farms.<br />
<br />
It was found that the ''voluntary'' principle of forming collective farms was being violated, and that in a number of districts the peasants were being forced into the collective farms under threat of being dispossessed, disfranchised, and so on.<br />
<br />
In a number of districts, preparatory work and patient explanation of the underlying principles of the Party's policy with regard to collectivization were being replaced by bureaucratic decreeing from above, by exaggerated, fictitious figures regarding the formation of collective farms, by an artificial inflation of the percentage of collectivization.<br />
<br />
Although the Central Committee had specified that the chief form of the collective-farm movement must be the agricultural artel, in which only the ''principal'' means of production are collectivized, in a number of places pigheaded attempts were made to skip the artel form and pass straight to the commune; dwellings, milch-cows, small livestock, poultry, etc., not exploited for the market, were collectivized.<br />
<br />
Carried away by the initial success of collectivization, persons in authority in certain regions violated the Central Committee's explicit instructions regarding the pace and time limits of collectivization. In their zeal for inflated figures, the leadership of the Moscow Region gave the cue to their subordinates to complete collectivization by the spring of 1930, although they had no less than three years (till the end of 1932) for this purpose. Even grosser were the violations in Transcaucasia and Central Asia.<br />
<br />
Taking advantage of these distortions of policy for their own provocative ends, the kulaks and their toadies would themselves propose that communes be formed instead of agricultural artels, and that dwellings, small livestock and poultry be collectivized forthwith. Furthermore, the kulaks instigated the peasants to slaughter their animals before entering the collective farms, arguing that "they will be taken away anyhow."<br />
<br />
The class enemy calculated that the distortions and mistakes committed by the local organizations in the process of collectivization would incense the peasantry and provoke revolts against the Soviet Government.<br />
<br />
As a result of the mistakes of Party organizations and the downright provocateur actions of the class enemy, in the latter half of February 1930, against the general background of the unquestionable success of collectivization, there were dangerous signs of serious discontent among the peasantry in a number of districts. Here and there, the kulaks and their agents even succeeded in inciting the peasants to outright anti-Soviet actions.<br />
<br />
Having received a number of alarming signals of distortions of the Party line that might jeopardize collectivization, the Central Committee of the Party immediately proceeded to remedy the situation, to set the Party workers the task of rectifying the mistakes as quickly as possible. On March 2, 1930, by decision of the Central Committee, Comrade Stalin's article, "Dizzy With Success," was published. This article was a warning to all who had been so carried away by the success of collectivization as to commit gross mistakes and depart from the Party line, to all who were trying to coerce the peasants to join the collective farms. The article laid the utmost emphasis on the principle that the formation of collective farms must be voluntary, and on the necessity of making allowances for the diversity of conditions in the various districts of the U.S.S.R. when determining the pace and methods of collectivization. Comrade Stalin reiterated that the chief form of the collective-farm movement was the agricultural artel, in which only the principal means of production, chiefly those used in grain growing, are collectivized, while household land, dwellings, part of the dairy cattle, small livestock, poultry, etc., are not collectivized.<br />
<br />
Comrade Stalin's article was of the utmost political moment. It helped the Party organizations to rectify their mistakes and dealt a severe blow to the enemies of the Soviet Government who had been hoping to take advantage of the distortions of policy to set the peasants against the Soviet Government. The broad mass of the peasants now saw that the line of the Bolshevik Party had nothing in common with the pigheaded "Left" distortions of local authorities. The article set the minds of the peasants at rest.<br />
<br />
In order to complete the work begun by Comrade Stalin's article in rectifying distortions and mistakes, the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U.(B.) decided to strike another blow at them, and on March 5, 1930, published its resolution on "Measures to Combat the Distortions of the Party Line in the Collective-Farm Movement."<br />
<br />
This resolution made a detailed analysis of the mistakes committed, showing that they were the result of a departure from the Leninist-Stalinist line of the Party, the result of a flagrant breach of Party instructions.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee pointed out that these "Left" distortions were of direct service to the class enemy.<br />
<br />
The Central Committee gave directions that "persons who are unable or unwilling earnestly to combat distortions of the Party line must be removed from their posts and ''replaced." (Resolutions of the C.P.S.U.[B.]'', Part II, p. 663.)<br />
<br />
The Central Committee changed the leadership of certain regional and territorial Party organizations (Moscow Region, Transcaucasia) which had committed political mistakes and proved incapable of rectifying them.<br />
<br />
On April 3, 1930, Comrade Stalin's "Reply to Collective Farm Comrades" was published, in which he indicated the ''root cause'' of the mistakes in the peasant question and the major mistakes committed in the collective-farm movement, viz., an incorrect approach to the middle peasant, violation of the Leninist principle that the formation of collective farms must be voluntary, violation of the Leninist principle that allowance must be made for the diversity of conditions in the various districts of the U.S.S.R., and the attempts to skip the artel form and to pass straight to the commune.<br />
<br />
The result of all these measures was that the Party secured the correction of the distortions of policy committed by local Party workers in a number of districts.<br />
<br />
It required the utmost firmness on the part of the Central Committee and its ability to go ''against the current'' in order to promptly correct that considerable body of Party workers who, carried away by success, had been rapidly straying from the Party line.<br />
<br />
The Party succeeded in correcting the distortions of the Party line in the collective-farm movement.<br />
<br />
This made it possible to consolidate the success of the collective-farm movement.<br />
<br />
It also made possible a new and powerful advance of the collective-farm movement.<br />
<br />
Prior to the Party's adoption of the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class, an energetic offensive against the capitalist elements with the object of eliminating them had been waged chiefly in the towns, on the industrial front. So far, the countryside, agriculture, had been lagging behind the towns, behind industry. Consequently, the offensive had not borne an all-round, complete and general character. But now that the backwardness of the countryside was becoming a thing of the past, now that the peasants' fight for the elimination of the kulak class had taken clear shape, and the Party had adopted the policy of eliminating the kulak class, the offensive against the capitalist elements assumed a general character, the partial offensive developed into an offensive along the whole front. By the time the Sixteenth Party Congress was convened, the general offensive against the capitalist elements was proceeding all along the line.<br />
<br />
The Sixteenth Party Congress met on June 26, 1930. It was attended by 1,268 delegates with vote and 891 delegates with voice but no vote, representing 1,260,874 Party members and 711,609 candidate members.<br />
<br />
The Sixteenth Party Congress is known in the annals of the Party as "the congress of the sweeping offensive of Socialism ''along the whole front,'' of the elimination of the kulaks as a class, and of the realization of solid collectivization." (''Stalin''.)<br />
<br />
Presenting the political report of the Central Committee, Comrade Stalin showed what big victories had been won by the Bolshevik Party in developing the Socialist offensive.<br />
<br />
Socialist industrialization had progressed so far that the share of industry in the total production of the country now predominated over that of agriculture. In the fiscal year 1929-30, the share of industry already comprised no less than 53 per cent of the total production of the country, while the share of agriculture was about 47 per cent.<br />
<br />
In the fiscal year 1926-27, at the time of the Fifteenth Party Congress, the ''total'' output of industry had been only 102.5 per cent of the pre-war output; in the year 1929-30, at the time of the Sixteenth Congress, it was already about 180 per cent.<br />
<br />
Heavy industry—the production of means of production, machine-building—was steadily growing in power.<blockquote>"...We are on the eve of the transformation of our country from an ''agrarian'' to an ''industrial'' country," declared Comrade Stalin at the congress, amidst hearty acclamation.</blockquote>Still, the high ''rate'' of industrial development, Comrade Stalin explained, was not to be confused with the ''level'' of industrial development. Despite the unprecedented rate of development of Socialist industry, we were still ''far behind'' the advanced capitalist countries as regards the ''level'' of industrial development. This was so in the case of electric power, in spite of the phenomenal progress of electrification in the U.S.S.R. This was the case with metal. According to the plan, the output of pig-iron in the U.S.S.R. was to be 5,500,000 tons in the year 1929-30, when the output of pig-iron in Germany in 1929 was 13,400,000 tons, and in France 10,450,000 tons. In order to make good our technical and economic backwardness in the minimum of time, our rate of industrial development had to be further accelerated, and a most resolute fight waged against the opportunists who were striving to reduce the rate of development of Socialist industry.<blockquote>"...People who talk about the necessity of ''reducing'' the rate of development of our industry are enemies of Socialism, agents of our class enemies," said Comrade Stalin. (Stalin, ''Leninism'', Vol. II, "Political Report of the Central Committee to the Sixteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.")</blockquote>After the program of the first year of the First Five-Year Plan had been successfully fulfilled and surpassed, a slogan originated among the masses— ''"Fulfil the Five-Year Plan in Four Years."'' A number of branches of industry (oil, peat, general machine-building, agricultural machinery, electrical equipment) were carrying out their plans so successfully that their five-year-plans could be fulfilled in two and a half or three years. This proved that the slogan "The Five-Year Plan in Four Years" was quite feasible, and thus exposed the opportunism of the sceptics who doubted it.<br />
<br />
The Sixteenth Congress instructed the Central Committee of the Party to "ensure that the ''spirited Bolshevik tempo'' of Socialist construction be maintained, and that the ''Five-Year Plan be actually fulfilled in four years."''<br />
<br />
By the time of the Sixteenth Party Congress, a momentous change had taken place in the development of agriculture in the U.S.S.R. The broad masses of the peasantry had turned towards Socialism. On May 1, 1930, collectivization in the principal grain-growing regions embraced 40-50 per cent of the peasant households (as against 2-3 per cent in the spring of 1928). The crop area of the collective farms reached 36,000,000 hectares.<br />
<br />
Thus the increased program (30,000,000 hectares), laid down in the resolution of the Central Committee of January 5, 1930, was more than fulfilled. The five-year program of collective farm development had been fulfilled more than one and a half times in the space of two years.<br />
<br />
In three years the amount of produce marketed by the collective farms had increased more than forty-fold. Already in 1930 more than half the marketed grain in the country came from the collective farms, quite apart from the grain produced by the state farms.<br />
<br />
This meant that from now on the fortunes of agriculture would be decided not by the individual peasant farms, but by the collective and state farms.<br />
<br />
While, before the mass influx of the peasantry into the collective farms, the Soviet power had leaned mainly on Socialist industry, now it began to lean also on the rapidly expanding Socialist sector of agriculture, the collective and state farms.<br />
<br />
The collective farm peasantry, as the Sixteenth Party Congress stated in one of its resolutions, had become "a real and firm mainstay of the Soviet power."<br />
<br />
=== Policy of reconstructing all branches of the national economy. Importance of technique. Further spread of the collective-farm movement. Political departments of the machine and tractor stations. Results of the fulfillment of the five-year plan in four years. Victory of socialism along the whole front. Seventeenth party congress ===<br />
When heavy industry and especially the machine-building industry had been built up and placed securely on their feet, and it was moreover clear that they were developing at a fairly rapid pace, the next task that faced the Party was to reconstruct all branches of the national economy on modern, up-to-date lines. Modern technique, modern machinery had to be supplied to the fuel industry, the metallurgical industry, the light industries, the food industry, the timber industry, the armament industry, the transport system, and to agriculture. In view of the colossal increase in the demand for farm produce and manufactured goods, it was necessary to double and treble output in all branches of production. But this could not be done unless the factories and mills, the state farms and collective farms were adequately supplied with up-to-date equipment, since the requisite increase of output could not be secured with the old equipment.<br />
<br />
Unless the major branches of the national economy were reconstructed, it would be impossible to satisfy the new and ever growing demands of the country and its economic system.<br />
<br />
Without reconstruction, it would be impossible to complete the offensive of Socialism along the whole front, for the capitalist elements in town and country had to be fought and vanquished not only by a new organization of labour and property, but also by a new technique, by technical superiority.<br />
<br />
Without reconstruction, it would be impossible to overtake and outstrip the technically and economically advanced capitalist countries, for although the U.S.S.R. had surpassed the capitalist countries in rate of industrial development, it still lagged a long way behind them in level of industrial development, in quantity of industrial output.<br />
<br />
In order that we might catch up with them, every branch of production had to be equipped with new technique and reconstructed on the most up-to-date technical lines.<br />
<br />
The question of technique had thus become of decisive importance.<br />
<br />
The main impediment was not so much an insufficiency of modern machinery and machine-tools—for our machine-building industry was in a position to produce modern equipment—as the wrong attitude of our business executives to technique, their tendency to underrate the importance of technique in the period of reconstruction and to disdain it. In their opinion, technical matters were the affair of the "experts," something of second-rate importance, to be left in charge of the "bourgeois experts"; they considered that Communist business executives need not interfere in the technical side of production and should attend to something more important, namely, the "general" management of industry.<br />
<br />
The bourgeois "experts" were therefore given a free hand in matters of production, while the Communist business executives reserved to themselves the function of "general" direction, the signing of papers.<br />
<br />
It need scarcely be said that with such an attitude, "general" direction was bound to degenerate into a mere parody of direction, a sterile signing of papers, a futile fussing with papers.<br />
<br />
It is clear that if Communist business executives had persisted in this disdainful attitude of technical matters, we would never have been able to overtake the advanced capitalist countries, let alone outstrip them. This attitude, especially in the reconstruction period, would have doomed our country to backwardness, and would have lowered our rates of development. As a matter of fact, this attitude to technical matters was a screen, a mask for the secret wish of a certain section of the Communist business executives to retard, to reduce the rate of industrial development, so as to be able to "take it easy" by shunting the responsibility for production on to the "experts."<br />
<br />
It was necessary to get Communist business executives to turn their attention to technical matters, to acquire a taste for technique; they needed to be shown that it was vital for Bolshevik business executives to master modern technique, otherwise we would run the risk of condemning our country to backwardness and stagnation.<br />
<br />
Unless this problem were solved further progress would be impossible.<br />
<br />
Of utmost importance in this connection was the speech Comrade Stalin made at the First Conference of Industrial Managers in February 1931.<blockquote>"It is sometimes asked," said Comrade Stalin, "whether it is not possible to slow down the tempo a bit, to put a check on the movement. No, comrades, it is not possible! The tempo must not be reduced!...To slacken the tempo would mean falling behind. And those who fall behind get beaten. But we do not want to be beaten. No, we refuse to be beaten! "Incidentally, the history of old Russia is one unbroken record of the beatings she suffered for falling behind, for her backwardness. She was beaten by the Mongol khans. She was beaten by the Turkish beys. She was beaten by the Swedish feudal lords. She was beaten by the Polish and Lithuanian gentry. She was beaten by the British and French capitalists. She<br />
<br />
"We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they crush us...<br />
<br />
"In ten years at most we must make good the distance we are lagging behind the advanced capitalist countries. We have all the ‘objective' opportunities for this. The only thing lacking is the ability to make proper use of these opportunities. And that depends on us. ''Only'' on us! It is time we learned to use these opportunities. It is time to put an end to the rotten policy of non-interference in production. It is time to adopt a new policy, a policy adapted to the times the policy of interfering in everything. If you are a factory manager, then interfere in all the affairs of the factory, look into everything, let nothing escape you, learn and learn again. Bolsheviks must master technique. It is time Bolsheviks themselves became experts. ''In the period of reconstruction technique decides everything."'' (Stalin, ''Leninism'', Vol. II, "The Tasks of Business Managers." )</blockquote>The historic importance of Comrade Stalin's speech lay in the fact that it put an end to the disdainful attitude of Communist business executives to technique, made them face the question of technique, opened a new phase in the struggle for the mastery of technique by the Bolsheviks themselves, and thereby helped to promote the work of economic reconstruction.<br />
<br />
From then on technical knowledge ceased to be a monopoly of the bourgeois "experts," and became a matter of vital concern to the Bolshevik business executives themselves, while the word "expert" ceased to be a term of disparagement and became the honourable title of Bolsheviks who had mastered technique.<br />
<br />
From then on there were bound to appear—and there actually did appear—thousands upon thousands, whole battalions of Red experts, who had mastered technique and were able to direct industries.<br />
<br />
This was a new, Soviet technical intelligentsia, an intelligentsia of the working class and the peasantry, and they now constitute the main force in the management of our industries.<br />
<br />
All this was bound to promote, and actually did promote, the work of economic reconstruction.<br />
<br />
Reconstruction was not confined to industry and transport. It developed even more rapidly in agriculture. The reason is not far to seek: agriculture was less mechanized than other branches, and here the need for modern machinery was felt more acutely than elsewhere. And it was urgently essential to increase the supply of modern agricultural machines now that the number of collective farms was growing from month to month and week to week, and with it the demand for thousands upon thousands of tractors and other agricultural machines.<br />
<br />
The year 1931 witnessed a further advance in the collective-farm movement. In the principal grain-growing districts over 80 per cent of the peasant farms had already amalgamated to form collective farms. Here, solid collectivization had in the main already been achieved. In the less important grain-growing districts and in the districts growing industrial crops about 50 per cent of the peasant farms had joined the collective farms. By now there were 500,000 collective farms and 4,000 state farms, which together cultivated two-thirds of the total crop area of the country, the individual peasants cultivating only one-third.<br />
<br />
This was a tremendous victory for Socialism in the countryside.<br />
<br />
But the progress of the collective-farm movement was so far to be measured in breadth rather than in depth: the collective farms were increasing in number and were spreading to district after district, but there was no commensurate improvement in the work of the collective farms or in the skill of their personnel. This was due to the fact that the growth of the leading cadres and trained personnel of the collective farms was not keeping pace with the numerical growth of the collective farms themselves. The consequence was that the work of the new collective farms was not always satisfactory, and the collective farms themselves were still weak. They were also held back by the shortage in the countryside of literate people indispensable to the collective farms (bookkeepers, stores managers, secretaries, etc.), and by the inexperience of the peasants in the management of large-scale collective enterprises. The collective farmers were the individual peasants of yesterday; they had experience in farming small plots of land, but none in managing big, collective farms. This experience could not be acquired in a day.<br />
<br />
The first stages of collective farm work were consequently marred by serious defects. It was found that work was still badly organized in the collective farms; labour discipline was slack. In many collective farms the income was distributed not by the number of work-day-units, but by the number of mouths to feed in the family. It often happened that slackers got a bigger return than conscientious hard-working collective farmers. These defects in the management of collective farms lowered the incentive of their members. There were many cases of members absenting themselves from work even at the height of the season, leaving part of the crops unharvested until the winter snows, while the reaping was done so carelessly that large quantities of grain were lost. The absence of individual responsibility for machines and horses, and for work generally, weakened the collective farms and reduced their revenues.<br />
<br />
The situation was particularly bad wherever former kulaks and their toadies had managed to worm their way into collective farms and to secure positions of trust in them. Not infrequently former kulaks would betake themselves to districts where they were unknown, and there make their way into the collective farms with the deliberate intention of sabotaging and doing mischief. Sometimes, owing to lack of vigilance on the part of Party workers and Soviet officials, kulaks managed to get into collective farms even in their own districts. What made it easier for former kulaks to penetrate into the collective farms was that they had radically changed their tactics. Formerly the kulaks had fought the collective farms openly, had savagely persecuted collective farm leading cadres and foremost collective farmers, nefariously murdering them, burning down their houses and barns. By these methods they had thought to intimidate the peasantry and to deter them from joining the collective farms. Now that their open struggle against the collective farms had failed, they changed their tactics. They laid aside their sawn-off shotguns and posed as innocent, unoffending folk who would not hurt a fly. They pretended to be loyal Soviet supporters. Once inside the collective farms they stealthily carried on their sabotage. They strove to disorganize the collective farms from within, to undermine labour discipline and to muddle the harvest accounts and the records of work performed. It was part of their sinister scheme to destroy the horses of the collective farms by deliberately infecting them with glanders, mange and other diseases, or disabling them by neglect or other methods, in which they were often successful. They did damage to tractors and farm machinery.<br />
<br />
The kulaks were often able to deceive the collective farmers and commit sabotage with impunity because the collective farms were still weak and their personnel still inexperienced.<br />
<br />
To put an end to the sabotage of the kulaks and to expedite the work of strengthening the collective farms, the latter had to be given urgent and effective assistance in men, advice and leadership.<br />
<br />
This assistance was forthcoming from the Bolshevik Party. In January 1933, the Central Committee of the Party adopted a decision to organize ''political departments'' in the machine and tractor stations serving the collective farms. Some 17,000 Party members were sent into the countryside to work in these political departments and to aid the collective farms.<br />
<br />
This assistance was highly effective.<br />
<br />
In two years (1933 and 1934) the political departments of the machine and tractor stations did a great deal to build up an active body of collective farmers, to eliminate the defects in the work of the collective farms, to consolidate them, and to rid them of kulak enemies and wreckers.<br />
<br />
The political departments performed their task with credit: they strengthened the collective farms both in regard to organization and efficiency, trained skilled personnel for them, improved their management and raised the political level of the collective farm members.<br />
<br />
Of great importance in stimulating the collective farmers to strive for the strengthening of the collective farms was the First All-Union Congress of Collective Farm Shock Workers (February 1933) and the speech made by Comrade Stalin at this congress.<br />
<br />
Contrasting the old, pre-collective farm system in the countryside with the new, collective farm system, Comrade Stalin said:<blockquote>"Under the old system the peasants each worked in isolation, following the ancient methods of their forefathers and using antiquated implements of labour; they worked for the landlords and capitalists, the kulaks and profiteers; they lived in penury while they enriched others. Under the new, collective farm system, the peasants work in common, co-operatively, with the help of modern implements—tractors and agricultural machinery; they work for themselves and their collective farms; they live without capitalists and landlords, without kulaks and profiteers; they work with the object of raising their standard of welfare and culture from day to day." (Stalin, ''Problems of Leninism'', Russ. ed., p. 528.)</blockquote>Comrade Stalin showed in this speech what the peasants had achieved by adopting the collective farm way. The Bolshevik Party had helped millions of poor peasants to join the collective farms and to escape from servitude to the kulaks. By joining the collective farms, and having the best lands and the finest instruments of production at their disposal, millions of poor peasants who had formerly lived in penury had now as collective farmers risen to the level of middle peasants, and had attained material security.<br />
<br />
This was the first step in the development of collective farms, the first achievement.<br />
<br />
The next step, Comrade Stalin said, was to raise the collective farmers—both former poor peasants and former middle peasants—to an even higher level, to make all the collective farmers prosperous and all the collective farms Bolshevik.<blockquote>"Only one thing is now needed for the collective farmers to become prosperous," Comrade Stalin said, "and that is for them to work in the collective farms conscientiously, to make efficient use of the tractors and machines, to make efficient use of the draught cattle, to cultivate the land efficiently, and to cherish collective farm property." (''Ibid''., pp. 532-3.)</blockquote>Comrade Stalin's speech made a profound impression on the millions of collective farmers and became a practical program of action for the collective farms.<br />
<br />
By the end of 1934 the collective farms had become a strong and invincible force. They already embraced about three-quarters of all the peasant households in the Soviet Union and about 90 per cent of the total crop area.<br />
<br />
In 1934 there were already 281,000 tractors and 32,000 harvester combines at work in the Soviet countryside. The spring sowing in that year was completed fifteen to twenty days earlier than in 1933, and thirty to forty days earlier than in 1932, while the plan of grain deliveries to the state was fulfilled three months earlier than in 1932.<br />
<br />
This showed how firmly established the collective farms had become in two years, thanks to the tremendous assistance given them by the Party and the workers' and peasants' state.<br />
<br />
This solid victory of the collective farm system and the attendant improvement of agriculture enabled the Soviet Government to abolish the rationing of bread and all other products and to introduce the unrestricted sale of foodstuffs.<br />
<br />
Since the political departments of the machine and tractor stations had served the purpose for which they had been temporarily created, the Central Committee decided to convert them into ordinary Party bodies by merging them with the district Party Committees in their localities.<br />
<br />
All these achievements, both in agriculture and in industry, were made possible by the successful fulfilment of the Five-Year Plan.<br />
<br />
By the beginning of 1933 it was evident that the First Five-Year Plan had already been fulfilled ahead of time, fulfilled in four years and three months.<br />
<br />
This was a tremendous, epoch-making victory of the working class and peasantry of the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
Reporting to a plenary meeting of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of the Party, held in January 1933, Comrade Stalin reviewed the results of the First Five-Year Plan. The report made it clear that in the period which it took to fulfil the First Five-Year Plan, the Party and the Soviet Government had achieved the following major results.<br />
<br />
a) The U.S.S.R. had been converted from an agrarian country into an industrial country, for the proportion of industrial output to the total production of the country had risen to 70 per cent.<br />
<br />
b) The Socialist economic system had eliminated the capitalist elements in the sphere of industry and had become the sole economic system in industry.<br />
<br />
c) The Socialist economic system had eliminated the kulaks as a class in the sphere of agriculture, and had become the predominant force in agriculture.<br />
<br />
d) The collective farm system had put an end to poverty and want in the countryside, and tens of millions of poor peasants had risen to a level of material security.<br />
<br />
e) The Socialist system in industry had abolished unemployment, and while retaining the 8-hour day in a number of branches, had introduced the 7-hour day in the vast majority of enterprises and the 6-hour day in unhealthy occupations.<br />
<br />
f) The victory of Socialism in all branches of the national economy had abolished the exploitation of man by man.<br />
<br />
The sum and substance of the achievements of the First Five-Year Plan was that they had completely emancipated the workers and peasants from exploitation and had opened the way to a prosperous and cultured life for ALL working people in the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
In January 1934 the Party held its Seventeenth Congress. It was attended by 1,225 delegates with vote and 736 delegates with voice but no vote, representing 1,874,488 Party members and 935,298 candidate members.<br />
<br />
The congress reviewed the work of the Party since the last congress. It noted the decisive results achieved by Socialism in all branches of economic and cultural life and placed on record that the general line of the Party had triumphed along the whole front.<br />
<br />
The Seventeenth Party Congress is known in history as the "Congress of Victors."<br />
<br />
Reporting on the work of the Central Committee, Comrade Stalin pointed to the fundamental changes that had taken place in the U.S.S.R. during the period under review.<blockquote>"During this period, the U.S.S.R. has become radically transformed and has cast off the integument of backwardness and mediaevalism. From an agrarian country it has become an industrial country. From a country of small individual agriculture it has become a country of collective, large-scale mechanized agriculture. From an ignorant, illiterate and uncultured country it has become—or rather it is becoming—a literate and cultured country covered by a vast network of higher, intermediate and elementary schools teaching in the languages of the nationalities of the U.S.S.R. (Stalin, ''Seventeenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.'', "Report on the Work of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U.[B.]," p. 30.)</blockquote>By this time 99 per cent of the industry of the country was Socialist industry. Socialist agriculture—the collective farms and state farms— embraced about 90 per cent of the total crop area of the country. As to trade, the capitalist elements had been completely ousted from this domain.<br />
<br />
When the New Economic Policy was being introduced, Lenin said that there were the elements of five social-economic formations in our country. The first was patriarchal economy, which was largely a natural form of economy, ''i.e.,'' which practically carried on no trade. The second formation was small commodity production, as represented by the majority of the peasant farms, those which sold agricultural produce, and by the artisans. In the first years of NEP this economic formation embraced the majority of the population. The third formation was private capitalism, which had begun to revive in the early period of NEP. The fourth formation was state capitalism, chiefly in the form of concessions, which had not developed to any considerable extent. The fifth formation was Socialism: Socialist industry, which was still weak, state farms and collective farms, which were economically insignificant at the beginning of NEP, state trade and co-operative societies, which were also weak at that time.<br />
<br />
Of all these formations, Lenin said, the Socialist formation must gain the upper hand.<br />
<br />
The New Economic Policy was designed to bring about the complete victory of Socialist forms of economy.<br />
<br />
And by the time of the Seventeenth Party Congress this aim had already been achieved.<blockquote>"We can now say," said Comrade Stalin, "that the first, the third and the fourth social-economic formations no longer exist; the second social-economic formation has been forced into a secondary position, while the fifth social-economic formation—the Socialist formation—now holds unchallenged sway and is the sole commanding force in the whole national economy." (''Ibid''., p. 33.)</blockquote>An important place in Comrade Stalin's report was given to the question of ideological-political leadership. He warned the Party that although its enemies, the opportunists and nationalist deviators of all shades and complexions, had been defeated, remnants of their ideology still lingered in the minds of some Party members and often asserted themselves. The survivals of capitalism in economic life and particularly in the minds of men provided a favourable soil for the revival of the ideology of the defeated anti-Leninist groups. The development of people's mentality does not keep pace with their economic position. As a consequence, survivals of bourgeois ideas still remained in men's minds and would continue to do so even though capitalism had been abolished in economic life. It should also be borne in mind that the surrounding capitalist world, against which we had to keep our powder dry, was working to revive and foster these survivals.<br />
<br />
Comrade Stalin also dwelt on the survivals of capitalism in men's minds on the national question, where they were particularly tenacious. The Bolshevik Party was fighting on two fronts, both against the deviation to Great-Russian chauvinism and against the deviation to local nationalism. In a number of republics (the Ukraine, Byelorussia, and others) the Party organizations had relaxed the struggle against local nationalism, and had allowed it to grow to such an extent that it had allied itself with hostile forces, the forces of intervention, and had become a danger to the state. In reply to the question, which deviation in the national question was the major danger, Comrade Stalin said:<blockquote>"The major danger is the deviation against which we have ceased to fight, thereby allowing it to grow into a danger to the state." (''Ibid''., p. 81.)</blockquote>Comrade Stalin called upon the Party to be more active in ideological-political work, systematically to expose the ideology and the remnants of the ideology of the hostile classes and of the trends hostile to Leninism.<br />
<br />
He further pointed out in his report that the adoption of correct decisions does not in itself guarantee the success of a measure. In order to guarantee success, it was necessary to ''put the right people in the right place, people able to give effect to the decisions of the leading organs and to keep a check on the fulfilment'' of decisions. Without these organizational measures there was a risk of decisions remaining scraps of paper, divorced from practical life. Comrade Stalin referred in support of this to Lenin's famous maximum that the chief thing in organizational work was the ''choice of personnel and the keeping of a check on the fulfilment of decisions''. Comrade Stalin said that the disparity between adopted decisions and the organizational work of putting these decisions into effect and of keeping a check on their fulfilment was the chief evil in our practical work.<br />
<br />
In order to keep a better check on the fulfilment of Party and Government decisions, the Seventeenth Party Congress set up a Party Control Commission under the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U.(B.) and a Soviet Control Commission under the Council of People's Commissars of the U.S.S.R. in place of the combined Central Control Commission and Workers' and Peasants' Inspection, this body having completed the tasks for which it had been set up by the Twelfth Party Congress.<br />
<br />
Comrade Stalin formulated the organizational tasks of the Party in the new stage as follows:<br />
<br />
1) Our organizational work must be adapted to the requirements of the political line of the Party;<br />
<br />
2) Organizational leadership must be raised to the level of political leadership.<br />
<br />
3) Organizational leadership must be made fully equal to the task of ensuring the realization of the political slogans and decisions of the Party.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, Comrade Stalin warned the Party that although Socialism had achieved great successes, successes of which we could be justly proud, we must not allow ourselves to be carried away, to get "swelled head," to be lulled by success.<blockquote>"...We must not lull the Party, but sharpen its vigilance; we must not lull it to sleep, but keep it ready for action; not disarm it, but arm it; not demobilize it, but hold it in a state of mobilization for the fulfilment of the Second Five-Year Plan," said Comrade Stalin. (''Ibid''., p. 96.)</blockquote>The Seventeenth Congress heard reports from Comrades Molotov and Kuibyshev on the Second Five-Year Plan for the development of the national economy. The program of the Second Five-Year Plan was even vaster than that of the First Five-Year Plan. By the end of the Second Five-Year Plan period, in 1937, industrial output was to be increased approximately eightfold in comparison with pre-war. Capital development investments in all branches in the period of the Second Five-Year Plan were to amount to 133,000,000,000 rubles, as against a little over 64,000,000,000 rubles in the period of the First Five-Year Plan.<br />
<br />
This immense scope of new capital construction work would ensure the complete technical re-equipment of all branches of the national economy.<br />
<br />
The Second Five-Year Plan was to complete in the main the mechanization of agriculture. Aggregate tractor power was to increase from 2,250,000 hp. in 1932 to over 8,000,000 hp. in 1937. The plan provided for the extensive employment of scientific agricultural methods (correct crop rotation, use of selected seed, autumn ploughing, etc.).<br />
<br />
A tremendous plan for the technical reconstruction of the means of transport and communication was outlined.<br />
<br />
The Second Five-Year Plan contained an extensive program for the further improvement of the material and cultural standards of the workers and peasants.<br />
<br />
The Seventeenth Congress paid great attention to matters of organization and adopted decisions on the work of the Party and the Soviets in connection with a report made by Comrade Kaganovich. The question of organization had acquired even greater importance now that the general line of the Party had won and the Party policy had been tried and tested by the experience of millions of workers and peasants. The new and complex tasks of the Second Five-Year Plan called for a higher standard of work in all spheres.<br />
<br />
"The major tasks of the Second Five-Year Plan, viz., to completely eliminate the capitalist elements, to overcome the survivals of capitalism in economic life and in the minds of men, to complete the reconstruction of the whole national economy on modern technical lines, to learn to use the new technical equipment and the new enterprises, to mechanize agriculture and increase its productivity—insistently and urgently confront us with the problem of ''improving work in all spheres, first and foremost in practical organizational leadership''," it was stated in the decisions of the congress on organizational questions. (''Resolutions of the C.P.S.U.[B.]'', Russ. ed., Part II, p. 591.)<br />
<br />
The Seventeenth Congress adopted new Party Rules, which differ from the old ones firstly by the addition of a preamble. This preamble gives a brief definition of the Communist Party, and a definition of its role in the struggle of the proletariat and its place in the organism of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The new rules enumerate in detail the duties of Party members. Stricter regulations governing the admission of new members and a clause concerning sympathizers' groups were introduced. The new rules give a more detailed exposition of the organizational structure of the Party, and formulate anew the clauses dealing with the Party nuclei, or primary organizations, as they have been called since the Seventeenth Party Congress. The clauses dealing with inner-Party democracy and Party discipline were also formulated anew.<br />
<br />
=== Degeneration of the Bukharinites into political double-dealers. Degeneration of the Trotskyite double-dealers into a white-guard gang of assassins and spies. Foul murder of S. M. Kirov. Measures of the party to heighten Bolshevik vigilance. ===<br />
The achievements of Socialism in our country were a cause of rejoicing not only to the Party, and not only to the workers and collective farmers, but also to our Soviet intelligentsia, and to all honest citizens of the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
But they were no cause of rejoicing to the remnants of the defeated exploiting classes; on the contrary, they only enraged them the more as time went on.<br />
<br />
They infuriated the lickspittles of the defeated classes—the puny remnants of the following of Bukharin and Trotsky.<blockquote>These gentry were guided in their evaluation of the achievements of the workers and collective farmers not by the interests of the people, who applauded every such achievement, but by the interests of their own wretched and putrid faction, which had lost all contact with the realities of life. Since the achievements of Socialism in our country meant the victory of the policy of the Party and the utter bankruptcy of their own policy, these gentry, instead of admitting the obvious facts and joining the common cause, began to revenge themselves on the Party and the people for their own failure, for their own bankruptcy; they began to resort to foul play and sabotage against the cause of the workers and collective farmers, to blow up pits, set fire to factories, and commit acts of wrecking in collective and state farms, with the object of undoing the achievements of the workers and collective farmers and evoking popular discontent against the Soviet Government. And in order, while doing so, to shield their puny group from exposure and destruction, they simulated loyalty to the Party, fawned upon it, eulogized it, cringed before it more and more, while in reality continuing their underhand, subversive activities against the workers and peasants.</blockquote>At the Seventeenth Party Congress, Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky made repentant speeches, praising the Party and extolling its achievements to the skies. But the congress detected a ring of insincerity and duplicity in their speeches; for what the Party expects from its members is not eulogies and rhapsodies over its achievements, but conscientious work on the Socialist front. And this was what the Bukharinites had showed no signs of for a long time. The Party saw that the hollow speeches of these gentry were in reality meant for their supporters outside the congress, to serve as a lesson to them in duplicity, and a call to them not to laydowntheirarms.<br />
<br />
Speeches were also made at the Seventeenth Congress by the Trotskyites Zinoviev and Kamenev, who lashed themselves extravagantly for their mistakes, and eulogized the Party no less extravagantly for its achievements. But the congress could not help seeing that both their nauseating self-castigation and their fulsome praise of the Party were only meant to hide an uneasy and unclean conscience. However, the Party did not yet know or suspect that while these gentry were making their cloying speeches at the congress they were hatching a villainous plot against the life of S. M. Kirov.<br />
<br />
On December 1, 1934, S. M. Kirov was foully murdered in the Smolny, in Leningrad, by a shot from a revolver.<br />
<br />
The assassin was caught red-handed and turned out to be a member of a secret counter-revolutionary group made up of members of an anti-Soviet group of Zinovievites in Leningrad.<br />
<br />
S. M. Kirov was loved by the Party and the working class, and his murder stirred the people profoundly, sending a wave of wrath and deep sorrow through the country.<br />
<br />
The investigation established that in 1933 and 1934 an underground counter-revolutionary terrorist group had been formed in Leningrad consisting of former members of the Zinoviev opposition and headed by a so-called "Leningrad Centre." The purpose of this group was to murder leaders of the Communist Party. S. M. Kirov was chosen as the first victim. The testimony of the members of this counter-revolutionary group showed that they were connected with representatives of foreign capitalist states and were receiving funds from them.<br />
<br />
The exposed members of this organization were sentenced by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R. to the supreme penalty—to be shot.<br />
<br />
Soon afterwards the existence of an underground counter-revolutionary organization called the "Moscow Centre" was discovered. The preliminary investigation and the trial revealed the villainous part played by Zinoviev, Kamenev, Yevdokimov and other leaders of this organization in cultivating the terrorist mentality among their followers, and in plotting the murder of members of the Party Central Committee and of the Soviet Government.<br />
<br />
To such depths of duplicity and villainy had these people sunk that Zinoviev, who was one of the organizers and instigators of the assassination of S. M. Kirov, and who had urged the murderer to hasten the crime, wrote an obituary of Kirov speaking of him in terms of eulogy, and demanded that it be published.<br />
<br />
The Zinovievites simulated remorse in court; but they persisted in their duplicity even in the dock. They concealed their connection with Trotsky. They concealed the fact that together with the Trotskyites they had sold themselves to fascist espionage services. They concealed their spying and wrecking activities. They concealed from the court their connections with the Bukharinites, and the existence of a united Trotsky-Bukharin gang of fascist hirelings.<br />
<br />
As it later transpired, the murder of Comrade Kirov was the work of this united Trotsky-Bukharin gang.<br />
<br />
Even then, in 1935, it had become clear that the Zinoviev group was a camouflaged Whiteguard organization whose members fully deserved to be treated as Whiteguards.<br />
<br />
A year later it became known that the actual, real and direct organizers of the murder of Kirov were Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev and their accomplices, and that they had also made preparations for the assassination of other members of the Central Committee. Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bakayev, Yevdokimov, Pikel, I. N. Smirnov, Mrachkovsky, Ter-Vaganyan, Reingold and others were committed for trial. Confronted by direct evidence, they had to admit publicly, in open court, that they had not only organized the assassination of Kirov, but had been planning to murder all the other leaders of the Party and the Government. Later investigation established the fact that these villains had been engaged in espionage and in organizing acts of diversion. The full extent of the monstrous moral and political depravity of these men, their despicable villainy and treachery, concealed by hypocritical professions of loyalty to the Party, were revealed at a trial in Moscow, 1936.<br />
<br />
The chief instigator and ringleader of this gang of assassins and spies was Judas Trotsky. Trotsky's assistants and agents in carrying out his counter-revolutionary instructions were Zinoviev, Kamenev and their Trotskyite underlings. They were preparing to bring about the defeat of the U.S.S.R. in the event of attack by imperialist countries; they had become defeatists with regard to the workers' and peasants' state; they had become despicable tools and agents of the German and Japanese fascists.<br />
<br />
The main lesson which the Party organizations had to draw from the trials of the persons implicated in the foul murder of S. M. Kirov was that they must put an end to their own political blindness and political heedlessness, and must increase their vigilance and the vigilance of all Party members.<br />
<br />
In a circular letter to Party organizations on the subject of the foul murder of S. M. Kirov, the Central Committee of the Party stated:<blockquote>"a) We must put an end to the opportunist complacency engendered by the enormous assumption that as we grow stronger the enemy will become tamer and more inoffensive. This assumption is an utter fallacy. It is a recrudescence of the Right deviation, which assured all and sundry that our enemies would little by little creep into Socialism and in the end become real Socialists. The Bolsheviks have no business to rest on their laurels; they have no business to sleep at their posts. What we need is not complacency, but vigilance, real Bolshevik revolutionary vigilance. It should be remembered that the more hopeless the position of the enemies, the more eagerly will they dutch at ‘extreme measures' as the only recourse of the doomed in their struggle against the Soviet power. We must remember this, and be vigilant.<br />
<br />
"b) We must properly organize the teaching of the history of the Party to Party members, the study of all and sundry anti-Party groups in the history of our Party, their methods of combating the Party line, their tactics and—still more the tactics and methods of our Party in combating anti-Party groups, the tactics and methods which have enabled our Party to vanquish and demolish these groups. Party members should not only know how the Party combated and vanquished the Constitutional-Democrats, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and Anarchists, but also how it combated and vanquished the Trotskyites, the ‘Democratic-Centralists,' the ‘Workers' Opposition,' the Zinovievites, the Right deviators, the Right-Leftist freaks and the like. It should never be forgotten that a knowledge and understanding of the history of our Party is a most important and essential means of fully ensuring the revolutionary vigilance of the Party members."</blockquote>Of enormous importance in this period was the purge of the Party ranks from adventitious and alien elements, begun in 1933, and especially the careful verification of the records of Party members and the exchange of old Party cards for new ones undertaken after the foul murder of S. M. Kirov.<br />
<br />
Prior to the verification of the records of Party members, irresponsibility and negligence in the handling of Party cards had prevailed in many Party organizations. In a number of the organizations utterly intolerable chaos in the registration of Communists was revealed, a state of affairs which enemies had been turning to their nefarious ends, using the possession of a Party card as a screen for espionage, wrecking, etc. Many leaders of Party organizations had entrusted the enrolment of new members and the issuance of Party cards to persons in minor positions, and often even to Party members of untested reliability.<br />
<br />
In a circular letter to all organizations dated May 13, 1935, on the subject of the registration, safekeeping and issuance of Party cards, the Central Committee instructed all organizations to make a careful verification of the records of Party members and "to establish Bolshevik order in our own Party home."<br />
<br />
The verification of the records of Party members was of great political value. In connection with the report of Comrade Yezhov, Secretary of the Central Committee, on the results of the verification of the records of Party members, a plenary meeting of the Central Committee of the Party adopted a resolution on December 25, 1935, declaring that this verification was an organizational and political measure of enormous importance in strengthening the ranks of the C.P.S.U.(B.)<br />
<br />
After the verification of the records of Party members and the exchange of Party cards, the admission of new members into the Party was resumed. In this connection the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U.(B.) demanded that new members should not be admitted into the Party wholesale, but on the basis of a strictly individual enrolment of "people really advanced and really devoted to the cause of the working class, the finest people of our country, drawn above all from among the workers, and also from among peasants and active intelligentsia, who had been tried and tested in various sectors of the struggle for Socialism."<br />
<br />
In resuming the admission of new members to the Party, the Central Committee instructed Party organizations to bear in mind that hostile elements would persist in their attempts to worm their way into the ranks of the C.P.S.U.(B.). Consequently:<blockquote>"It is the task of every Party organization to increase Bolshevik vigilance to the utmost, to hold aloft the banner of the Leninist Party, and to safeguard the ranks of the Party from the penetration of alien, hostile and adventitious elements." (Resolution of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U.[B.], September 29, 1936, published in ''Pravda'' No. 270, 1936.)</blockquote>Purging and consolidating its ranks, destroying the enemies of the Party and relentlessly combating distortions of the Party line, the Bolshevik Party rallied closer than ever around its Central Committee under whose leadership the Party and the Soviet land now passed to a new stage—the completion of the construction of a classless, Socialist society.<br />
<br />
=== Brief summary ===<br />
In the period 1930-34 the Bolshevik Party solved what was, after the winning of power, the most difficult historical problem of the proletarian revolution, namely, to get the millions of small peasant owners to adopt the path of collective farming, the path of Socialism.<br />
<br />
The elimination of the kulaks, the most numerous of the exploiting classes, and the adoption of collective farming by the bulk of the peasants led to the destruction of the last roots of capitalism in the country, to the final victory of Socialism in agriculture, and to the complete consolidation of the Soviet power in the countryside.<br />
<br />
After overcoming a number of difficulties of an organizational character, the collective farms became firmly established and entered upon the path of prosperity.<br />
<br />
The effect of the First Five-Year Plan was to lay an unshakable foundation of a Socialist economic system in our country in the shape of a first-class Socialist heavy industry and collective mechanized agriculture, to put an end to unemployment, to abolish the exploitation of man by man, and to create the conditions for the steady improvement of the material and cultural standards of our working people.<br />
<br />
These colossal achievements were attained by the working class, the collective farmers, and the working people of our country generally, thanks to the bold, revolutionary and wise policy of the Party and the Government.<br />
<br />
The surrounding capitalist world, striving to undermine and disrupt the might of the U.S.S.R., worked with redoubled energy to organize gangs of assassins, wreckers and spies within the U.S.S.R. This hostile activity of the capitalist encirclement became particularly marked with the advent of fascism to power in Germany and Japan. In the Trotskyites and Zinovievites, fascism found faithful servants who were ready to spy, sabotage, commit acts of terrorism and diversion, and to work for the defeat of the U.S.S.R. in order to restore capitalism.<br />
<br />
The Soviet Government punished these degenerates with an iron hand, dealing ruthlessly with these enemies of the people and traitors to the country.<br />
<br />
== The Bolshevik party in the struggle to complete the building of the socialist society. Introduction of the new constitution (1935—1937) ==<br />
<br />
=== International situation in 1935—1937. Temporary mitigation of the economic crisis. Beginning of a new economic crisis. Seizure of Ethiopia by Italy. German and Italian intervention in Spain. Japanese invasion of central China. Beginning of the second imperialist war ===<br />
The economic crisis that had broken out in the capitalist countries in the latter half of 1929 lasted until the end of 1933. After that industry ceased to decline, the crisis was succeeded by a period of stagnation, and was then followed by a certain revival, a certain upward trend. But this upward trend was not of the kind that ushers in an industrial boom on a new and higher basis. World capitalist industry was unable even to reach the level of 1929, attaining by the middle of 1937 only 95-96 per cent of that level. And already in the second half of 1937 a new economic crisis began, affecting first of all the United States. By the end of 1937 the number of unemployed in the U.S.A. had again risen to ten million. In Great Britain, too, unemployment was rapidly increasing.<br />
<br />
The capitalist countries thus found themselves faced with a new economic crisis before they had even recovered from the ravages of the preceding one.<br />
<br />
The result was that the contradictions between the imperialist countries, as likewise between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, grew still more acute. As a consequence, the aggressor states redoubled their efforts to recoup themselves for the losses caused by the economic crisis at home at the expense of other, poorly defended, countries. The two notorious aggressor states, Germany and Japan, were this time joined by a third—Italy.<br />
<br />
In 1935, fascist Italy attacked Ethiopia and subjugated her. She did so without any reason or justification in "international law"; she attacked her like a robber, without declaring war, as is now the vogue with the fascists. This was a blow not only at Ethiopia, but also at Great Britain, at her sea routes from Europe to India and to Asia generally. Great Britain vainly attempted to prevent Italy from establishing herself in Ethiopia. Italy later withdrew from the League of Nations so as to leave her hands free, and began to arm on an intensive scale.<br />
<br />
Thus, on the shortest sea routes between Europe and Asia, a new war knot was tied.<br />
<br />
Fascist Germany tore up the Versailles Peace Treaty by a unilateral act, and adopted a scheme for the ''forcible'' revision of the map of Europe. The German fascists made no secret of the fact that they were seeking to subjugate the neighbouring states, or, at least, to seize such of their territories as were peopled by Germans. Accordingly, they planned first to seize Austria, then to strike at Czechoslovakia, then, maybe, at Poland—which also has a compact territory peopled by Germans and bordering on Germany—and then . . . well, then "we shall see."<br />
<br />
In the summer of 1936, Germany and Italy started military intervention against the Spanish Republic. Under the guise of supporting the Spanish fascists, they secured the opportunity of surreptitiously landing troops on Spanish territory, in the rear of France, and stationing their fleets in Spanish waters—in the zones of the Balearic Islands and Gibraltar in the south, the Atlantic Ocean in the west, and the Bay of Biscay in the north. At the beginning of 1938 the German fascists seized Austria, thus establishing themselves in the middle reaches of the Danube and expanding in the south of Europe, towards the Adriatic Sea.<br />
<br />
same time assuring the world that they were fighting the Spanish "Reds" and harboured no other designs. But this was a crude and shallow camouflage designed to deceive simpletons. As a matter of fact, they were striking at Great Britain and France, by bestriding the sea communications of these countries with their vast African and Asiatic colonial possessions.<br />
<br />
As to the seizure of Austria, this at any rate could not be passed off as a struggle against the Versailles Treaty, as part of Germany"s effort to protect her "national" interests by recovering territory lost in the first Imperialist War. Austria had not formed part of Germany, either before or after the war. The ''forcible'' annexation of Austria was a glaring imperialist seizure of foreign territory. It left no doubt as to fascist Germany"s designs to gain a dominant position on the West European continent.<br />
<br />
This was above all a blow at the interests of France and Great Britain.<br />
<br />
Thus, in the south of Europe, in the zone of Austria and the Adriatic, and in the extreme west of Europe, in the zone of Spain and the waters washing her shores, new war knots were tied.<br />
<br />
In 1937, the Japanese fascist militarists seized Peiping, invaded Central China and occupied Shanghai. Like the Japanese invasion of Manchuria several years earlier, the invasion of Central China was effected by the customary Japanese method, in robber fashion, by the dishonest exploitation of various "local incidents" engineered by the Japanese themselves, and in violation of all "international standards," treaties, agreements, etc. The seizure of Tientsin and Shanghai placed the keys of the immense China market in the hands of Japan. As long as Japan holds Shanghai and Tientsin, she can at any moment oust Great Britain and the U.S.A. from Central China, where they have huge investments.<br />
<br />
Of course, the heroic struggle of the Chinese people and their army against the Japanese invaders, the tremendous national revival in China, her huge resources of man-power and territory, and, lastly, the determination of the Chinese National Government to fight the struggle for emancipation to a finish, until the invaders are completely driven out from Chinese territory, all go to show beyond a doubt that there is no future for the Japanese imperialists in China, and never will be.<br />
<br />
But it is nevertheless true that for the time being Japan holds the keys of China"s trade, and that her war on China is in effect a most serious blow at the interests of Great Britain and the U.S.A.<br />
<br />
Thus, in the Pacific, in the zone of China, one more war knot was tied.<br />
<br />
All these facts show that a second imperialist war has actually begun. It began stealthily, without any declaration of war. States and nations have, almost imperceptibly, slipped into the orbit of a second imperialist war. It was the three aggressor states, the fascist ruling circles of Germany, Italy and Japan, that began the war in various parts of the world. It is being waged over a huge expanse of territory, stretching from Gibraltar to Shanghai. It has already drawn over five hundred million people into its orbit. In the final analysis, it is being waged against the capitalist interests of Great Britain, France and the U.S.A., since its object is a redivision of the world and of the spheres of influence in favour of the aggressor countries and at the expense of the so-called democratic states.<br />
<br />
A distinguishing feature of the second imperialist war is that so far it is being waged and extended by the aggressor powers, while the other powers, the "democratic" powers, against whom in fact the war is directed, pretend that it does not concern them, wash their hands of it, draw back, boast of their love of peace, scold the fascist aggressors, and . . . surrender their positions to the aggressors bit by bit, at the same time asserting that they are preparing to resist.<br />
<br />
This war, it will be seen, is of a rather strange and one-sided character. But that does not prevent it from being a brutal war of unmitigated conquest waged at the expense of the poorly defended peoples of Ethiopia, Spain and China.<br />
<br />
It would be wrong to attribute this one-sided character of the war to the military or economic weakness of the "democratic" states. The "democratic" states are, of course, stronger than the fascist states. The one-sided character of the developing world war is due to the absence of a united front of the "democratic" states against the fascist powers. The so-called democratic states, of course, do not approve of the "excesses" of the fascist states and fear any accession of strength to the latter. But they fear even more the working-class movement in Europe and the movement of national emancipation in Asia, and regard fascism as an "excellent antidote" to these "dangerous" movements. For this reason the ruling circles of the "democratic" states, especially the ruling Conservative circles of Great Britain, confine themselves to a policy of pleading with the overweening fascist rulers "not to go to extremes," at the same time giving them to understand that they "fully comprehend" and on the whole sympathize with their reactionary police policy towards the working-class movement and the national emancipation movement. In this respect, the ruling circles of Britain are roughly pursuing the same policy as was pursued under tsardom by the Russian liberal-monarchist bourgeois, who, while fearing the "excesses" of tsarist policy, feared the people even more, and therefore resorted to a policy of pleading with the tsar and, consequently, of ''conspiring'' with the tsar against the people. As we know, the liberal-monarchist bourgeoisie of Russia paid dearly for this dual policy. It may be presumed that history will exact retribution also from the ruling circles of Britain, and of their friends in France and the U.S.A.<br />
<br />
Clearly, the U.S.S.R. could not shut its eyes to such a turn in the international situation and ignore the ominous events. Any war, however small, started by the aggressors, constitutes a menace to the peaceable countries. The second imperialist war, which has so "imperceptibly" stolen upon the nations and has involved over five hundred million people, is bound all the more to represent a most serious danger to all nations, and to the U.S.S.R. in the first place. This is eloquently borne out by the formation of the "Anti-Communist Bloc" by Germany, Italy and Japan. Therefore, our country, while pursuing its policy of peace, set to work to further strengthen its frontier defences and the fighting efficiency of its Red Army and Navy. Towards the end of 1934 the U.S.S.R. joined the League of Nations. It did so in the knowledge that the League in spite of its weakness, might nevertheless serve as a place where aggressors can be exposed, and as a certain instrument of peace, however feeble, that might hinder the outbreak of war. The Soviet Union considered that in times like these even so weak an international organization as the League of Nations should not be ignored. In May 1935 a treaty of mutual assistance against possible attack by aggressors was signed between France and the U.S.S.R. A similar treaty was simultaneously concluded between the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia. In March 1936 the U.S.S.R. signed a treaty of mutual assistance with the Mongolian People"s Republic, and in August 1937 a pact of non-aggression with the Republic of China.<br />
<br />
=== Further progress of industry and agriculture in the USSR. Second five-year plan fulfilled ahead of time. Reconstruction of agriculture and completion of collectivization. Importance of cadres. Stakhanov movement. Rising standard of welfare. Rising cultural standard. Strength of the soviet revolution ===<br />
Whereas, three years after the economic crisis of 1930-33, a new economic crisis began in the capitalist countries, in the U.S.S.R. industry continued to make steady progress ''during the whole of this period''. Whereas by the middle of 1937 world capitalist industry, as a whole, had barely attained 95-96 per cent of the level of production of 1929, only to be caught in the throes of a new crisis in the second half of 1937, the industry of the U.S.S.R. in its steady cumulative progress, had by the end of 1937 attained 428 per cent of the output of 1929, or over 700 per cent of the pre-war output.<br />
<br />
These achievements were a direct result of the policy of reconstruction so persistently pursued by the Party and the Government.<br />
<br />
The result of these achievements was that the Second Five-Year Plan of industry was fulfilled ahead of time. It was completed by April 1, 1937, that is, in four years and three months.<br />
<br />
This was a most important victory for Socialism. Progress in agriculture presented very much the same picture. The total area under all crops increased from 105,000,000 hectares in 1913 (pre-war) to 135,000,000 hectares in 1937. The grain harvest increased from 4,800,000,000 poods in 1913, to 6,800,000,000 poods in 1937, the raw cotton crop from 44,000,000 poods to 154,000,000 poods, the flax crop (fibre) from 19,000,000 poods to 31,000,000 poods, the sugar-beet crop from 654,000,000 poods to 1,311,000,000 poods, and the oil-seed crop from 129,000,000 poods to 306,000,000 poods.<br />
<br />
It should be mentioned that in 1937 the collective farms alone (without the state farms) produced a marketable surplus of over 1,700,000,000 poods of grain, which was at least 400,000,000 poods more than the landlords, kulaks and peasants together marketed in 1913.<br />
<br />
Only one branch of agriculture—livestock farming—still lagged behind the pre-war level and continued to progress at a slower rate.<br />
<br />
As to collectivization in agriculture, it might be considered completed. The number of peasant households that had joined the collective farms by 1937 was 18,500,000 or 93 per cent of the total number of peasant households, while the grain crop area of the collective farms amounted to 99 per cent of the total grain crop area of the peasants.<br />
<br />
The fruits of the reconstruction of agriculture and of the extensive supply of tractors and machinery for agricultural purposes were now manifest.<br />
<br />
As a result of the completion of the reconstruction of industry and agriculture the national economy was now abundantly supplied with first-class technique. Industry, agriculture, the transport system and the army had received huge quantities of modern technique—machinery and machine tools, tractors and agricultural machines, locomotives and steamships, artillery and tanks, aeroplanes and warships. Tens and hundreds of thousands of trained people were required, people capable of harnessing all this technique and getting the most out of it. Without this, without a sufficient number of people who had mastered technique, there was a risk of technique becoming so much dead and unused metal. This was a serious danger, a result of the fact that the growth in the number of trained people, cadres, capable of harnessing, making full use of technique ''was not keeping pace with'', and even ''lagging far behind'', the spread of technique. Matters were further complicated by the fact that a considerable number of our industrial executives did not realize this danger and believed that technique would just "do the job by itself." Whereas, formerly, they had underrated the importance of technique and treated it with disdain, now they began to overrate it and turn it into a fetish. They did not realize that without people who had mastered technique, technique was a dead thing. They did not realize that to make technique highly productive, people who had mastered technique were required.<br />
<br />
Thus the problem of cadres who had mastered technique became one of prime importance.<br />
<br />
The executives who displayed an excessive zeal for technique and a consequent underestimation of the importance of trained people, cadres, had to have their attention turned to the study and mastery of technique, and to the necessity of doing everything to train numerous cadres capable of harnessing technique and getting the most out of it.<br />
<br />
Whereas formerly, at the beginning of the reconstruction period, when the country suffered from a dearth of technique, the Party had issued the slogan, "technique in the period of reconstruction decides everything," now, when there was an abundance of technique, when the reconstruction had in the main been completed, and when the country was experiencing an acute dearth of cadres, it became incumbent on the Party to issue a new slogan, one that would focus attention, not so much on technique, as on people, on cadres capable of utilizing technique to the full.<br />
<br />
Of great importance in this respect was the speech made by Comrade Stalin to the graduates from the Red Army Academies in May 1935.<blockquote>"Formerly," said Comrade Stalin, "we used to say that "technique decides everything." This slogan helped us to put an end to the dearth in technique and to create a vast technical base in every branch of activity for the equipment of our people with first-class technique. That is very good. But it is not enough, it is not enough by far. In order to set technique going and to utilize it to the full, we need people who have mastered technique, we need cadres capable of mastering and utilizing this technique according to all the rules of the art. Without people who have mastered technique, technique is dead. In the charge of people who have mastered technique, technique can and should perform miracles. If in our first-class mills and factories, in our state farms and collective farms and in our Red Army we had sufficient cadres capable of harnessing this technique, our country would secure results three times and four times as great as at present. That is why emphasis must now be laid on people, on cadres, on workers who have mastered technique. That is why the old slogan, "technique decides everything," which is a reflection of a period already passed, a period in which we suffered from a dearth of technique, must now be replaced by a new slogan, the slogan ''"cadres decide everything.''" That is the main thing now...<br />
<br />
"It is time to realize that of all the valuable capital the world possesses, the most valuable and most decisive is people, cadres. It must be realized that under our present conditions ''"cadres decide everything."'' If we have good and numerous cadres in industry, agriculture, transport and the army—our country will be invincible. If we do not have such cadres—we shall be lame on both legs."</blockquote>Thus the prime task now was to accelerate the training of technical cadres and rapidly to master the new technique with the object of securing a continued rise in productivity of labour.<br />
<br />
The most striking example of the growth of such cadres, of the mastering of the new technique by our people, and of the continued rise in productivity of labour was the Stakhanov movement. It originated and developed in the Donetz Basin, in the coal industry, and spread to other branches of industry, to the railways, and then to agriculture. It was called the Stakhanov movement after its originator, Alexei Stakha-nov, a coal-hewer in the Central Irmino Colliery (Donetz Basin). Sta-khanov had been preceded by Nikita Izotov, who had broken all previous records in coal hewing. On August 31, 1935, Stakhanov hewed 102 tons of coal in one shift and thus fulfilled the standard output fourteen times over. This inaugurated a mass movement of workers and collective farmers for raising the standards of output, for a new advance in productivity of labour. Busygin in the automobile industry, Smetanin in the shoe industry, Krivonoss on the railways, Musinsky in the timber industry, Evdokia Vinogradova and Maria Vinogradova in the textile industry, Maria Demchenko, Maria Gnatenko, P. Angelina, Polagutin, Kolesov, Borin and Kovardak in agriculture—these were the first pioneers of the Stakhanov movement.<br />
<br />
They were followed by other pioneers, whole battalions of them, who surpassed the productivity of labour of the earlier pioneers.<br />
<br />
Tremendous stimulus was given to the Stakhanov movement by the First All-Union Conference of Stakhanovites held in the Kremlin in November 1935, and by the speech Comrade Stalin made there.<blockquote>"The Stakhanov movement," Comrade Stalin said in this speech, "is the expression of a new wave of Socialist emulation, a new and higher stage of Socialist emulation...In the past, some three years ago, in the period of the first stage of Socialist emulation, Socialist emulation was not necessarily associated with modern technique. At that time, in fact, we had hardly any modern technique. The present stage of Socialist emulation, the Stakhanov movement, on the other hand, is necessarily associated with modern technique. The Stakhanov movement would be inconceivable without a new and higher technique. We have before us people like Comrade Stakhanov, Busygin, Smetanin, Krivonoss, the Vinogradovas and many others, new people, working men and women, who have completely mastered the technique of their jobs, have harnessed it and driven ahead. We had no such people, or hardly any such people, some three years ago...The significance of the Stakhanov movement lies in the fact that it is a movement which is smashing the old technical standards, because they are inadequate, which in a number of cases is surpassing the productivity of labour of the foremost capitalist countries, and is thus creating the practical possibility of further consolidating Socialism in our country, of converting our country into the most prosperous of all countries."</blockquote>Describing the methods of work of the Stakhanovites, and bringing out the tremendous significance of the Stakhanov movement for the future of our country, Comrade Stalin went on to say:<blockquote>"Look at our comrades, the Stakhanovites, more closely. What type of people are they? They are mostly young or middle-aged working men and women, people with culture and technical knowledge, who show examples of precision and accuracy in work, who are able to appreciate the time factor in work and who have learned to count not only the minutes, but also the seconds. The majority of them have taken the technical minimum courses and are continuing their technical education. They are free of the conservatism and stagnation of certain engineers, technicians and business executives; they are marching boldly forward, smashing the antiquated technical standards and creating new and higher standards; they are introducing amendments into the designed capacities and economic plans drawn up by the leaders of our industry; they often supplement and correct what the engineers and technicians have to say, they often teach them and impel them forward, for they are people who have completely mastered the technique of their job and who are able to squeeze out of technique the maximum that can- be squeezed out of it. Today the Stakhanovites are still few in number, but who can doubt that tomorrow there will be ten times more of them? Is it not clear that the Stakhanovites are innovators in our industry, that the Stakhanov movement represents the future of our industry, that it contains the seed of the future rise in the cultural and technical level of the working class, that it opens to us the path by which alone can be achieved those high indices of productivity of labour which are essential for the transition from Socialism to Communism and for the elimination of the distinction between mental labour and manual labour."</blockquote>The spread of the Stakhanov movement and the fulfillment of the Second Five-Year Plan ahead of time created the conditions for a new rise in the standard of welfare and culture of the working people.<br />
<br />
During the period of the Second Five-Year Plan real wages of workers and office employees had more than doubled. The total payroll increased from 34,000,000,000 rubles in 1933 to 81,000,000,000 rubles in 1937. The state social insurance fund increased from 4,600,000,000 rubles to 5,600,000,000 rubles in the same period. In 1937 alone, about 10,000,000,000 rubles were expended on the state insurance of workers and employees, on improving living conditions and on meeting cultural requirements, on sanatoria, health resorts, rest homes and on medical service.<br />
<br />
In the countryside, the collective farm system had been definitely consolidated. This was greatly assisted by the Rules of the Agricultural Artel, adopted by the Second Congress of Collective Farm Shock Workers in February 1935, and the assignment to the collective farms of the land cultivated by them in perpetual tenure. The consolidation of the collective farm system put an end to poverty and insecurity among the rural population. Whereas formerly, some three years earlier, the collective farmers had received one or two kilograms of grain per work-day-unit, now the majority of the collective farmers in the grain-growing regions were receiving from five to twelve kilograms, and many as much as twenty kilograms per work-day-unit, besides other kinds of produce and money income. There were millions of collective farm households in the grain-growing regions who now received as their yearly returns from 500 to 1,500 poods of grain, and in the cotton, sugar beet, flax, livestock, grape growing, citrus fruit growing and fruit and vegetable growing regions, tens of thousands of rubles in annual income. The collective farms had become prosperous. It was now the chief concern of the household of a collective farmer to build new granaries and storehouses, inasmuch as the old storage places, which were designed for a meagre annual supply, no longer met even one-tenth of the household"s requirements.<br />
<br />
In 1936, in view of the rising standard of welfare of the people, the government passed a law prohibiting abortion, at the same time adopting an extensive program for the building of maternity homes, nurseries, milk centres and kindergartens. In 1936, 2,174,000,000 rubles were assigned for these measures, as compared with 875,000,000 rubles in 1935. A law was passed providing for considerable grants to large families. Grants to a total of over 1,000,000,000 rubles were made in 1937 under this law.<br />
<br />
The introduction of universal compulsory education and the building of new schools led to the rapid cultural progress of the people. Schools were built in large numbers all over the country. The number of pupils in elementary and intermediate schools increased from 8,000,000 in 1914 to 28,000,000 in the school year 1936-37. The number of university students increased from 112,000 to 542,000 in the same period.<br />
<br />
This was a veritable cultural revolution.<br />
<br />
The rise in the standard of welfare and culture of the masses was a reflection of the strength, might and invincibility of our Soviet revolution. Revolutions in the past perished because, while giving the people freedom, they were unable to bring about any serious improvement in their material and cultural conditions. Therein lay their chief weakness. Our revolution differs from all other revolutions in that it not only freed the people from tsardom and capitalism, but also brought about a radical improvement in the welfare and cultural condition of the people. Therein lies its strength and invincibility.<blockquote>"Our proletarian revolution," said Comrade Stalin at the First All-Union Conference of Stakhanovites, "is the only revolution in the world which had the opportunity of showing the people not only political results but also material results. Of all workers" revolutions we know only one which managed to achieve power. That was the Paris Commune. But it did not last long. True, it endeavoured to smash the fetters of capitalism, but it did not have time enough to smash them, and still less to show the people the beneficial material results of revolution. Our revolution is the only one which not only smashed the fetters of capitalism and brought the people freedom, but also succeeded in creating the material conditions of a prosperous life for the people. Therein lies the strength and invincibility of our revolution."</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== Eighth congress of soviets. Adoption of the new constitution of the USSR ===<br />
In February 1935, the Seventh Congress of Soviets of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics passed a decision to change the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. which had been adopted in 1924. The change of the Constitution was necessitated by the vast changes that had taken place in the life of the U.S.S.R. since the first Constitution of the Soviet Union had been adopted in 1924. During this period the relation of class forces within the country had completely changed; a new Socialist industry had been created, the kulaks had been smashed, the collective farm system had triumphed, and the Socialist ownership of the means of production had been established in every branch of national economy as the basis of Soviet society. The victory of Socialism made possible the further democratization of the electoral system and the introduction of universal, equal and direct suffrage with secret ballot.<br />
<br />
The new Constitution of the U.S.S.R. was drafted by a Constitution Commission set up for the purpose, under the chairmanship of Comrade Stalin. The draft was thrown open to nationwide discussion, which lasted five and a half months. It was then submitted to the Extraordinary Eighth Congress of Soviets.<br />
<br />
The Eighth Congress of Soviets, specially convened to approve or reject the draft of the new Constitution of the U.S.S.R., met in November1936.<br />
<br />
Reporting to the congress on the draft of the new Constitution, Comrade Stalin enumerated the principal changes that had taken place in the Soviet Union since the adoption of the 1924 Constitution.<br />
<br />
The 1924 Constitution had been drawn up in the early period of NEP. At that time the Soviet Government still permitted the develop ent of capitalism alongside of the development of Socialism. The Soviet Government planned in the course of competition between the two systems—the capitalist system and the Socialist system—to organize and ensure the victory of Socialism over capitalism in the economic field. The question, "Who will win?" had not yet been settled. Industry, with its old and inadequate technical equipment, had not attained even the pre-war level. Even less enviable was the picture presented by agriculture. The state farms and collective farms were mere islands in a boundless ocean of individual peasant farms. The question then was not of eliminating the kulaks, but merely of restricting them. The Socialist sector accounted for only about 50 per cent of the country"s trade.<br />
<br />
Entirely different was the picture presented by the U.S.S.R. in 1936. By that time the economic life of the country had undergone a complete change. The capitalist elements had been entirely eliminated and the Socialist system had triumphed in all spheres of economic life. There was now a powerful Socialist industry which had increased output seven times compared with the pre-war output and had completely ousted private industry. Mechanized Socialist farming in the form of collective farms and state farms, equipped with up-to-date machinery and run on the largest scale in the world, had triumphed in agriculture. By 1936, the kulaks had been completely eliminated as a class, and the individual peasants no longer played any important role in the economic life of the country. Trade was entirely concentrated in the hands of the state and the co-operatives. The exploitation of man by man had been abolished forever. Public, Socialist ownership of the means of production had been firmly established as the unshakable foundation of the new, Socialist system in all branches of economic life. In the new, Socialist society, crises, poverty, unemployment and destitution had disappeared forever. The conditions had been created for a prosperous and cultured life for all members of Soviet society.<br />
<br />
The class composition of the population of the Soviet Union, said Comrade Stalin in his report, had changed correspondingly. The landlord class and the old big imperialist bourgeoisie had already been eliminated in the period of the Civil War. During the years of Socialist construction all the exploiting elements—capitalists, merchants, kulaks and profiteers—had been eliminated. Only insignificant remnants of the eliminated exploiting classes persisted, and their complete elimination was a matter of the very near future.<br />
<br />
The working people of the U.S.S.R.—workers, peasants and intellectuals—had undergone profound change in the period of Socialist construction.<br />
<br />
The working class had ceased to be an exploited class bereft of means of production, as it is under capitalism. It had abolished capitalism, taken away the means of production from the capitalists and turned them into public property. It had ceased to be a proletariat in the proper, the old meaning of the term. The proletariat of the U.S.S.R., possessing the state power, had been transformed into an entirely new class. It had become a working class emancipated from exploitation, a working class which had abolished the capitalist economic system and had established Socialist ownership of the means of production. Hence, it was a working class the like of which the history of mankind had never known before.<br />
<br />
No less profound were the changes that had taken place in the condition of the peasantry of the U.S.S.R. In the old days, over twenty million scattered individual peasant households, small and middle, had delved away in isolation on their small plots, using backward technical equipment. They were exploited by landlords, kulaks, merchants, profiteers, usurers, etc. Now an entirely new peasantry had grown up in the U.S.S.R. There were no longer any landlords, kulaks, merchants and usurers to exploit the peasants. The overwhelming majority of the peasant households had joined the collective farms, which were based not on private ownership, but on collective ownership of the means of production, collective ownership which had grown from collective labour. This was a new type of peasantry, a peasantry emancipated from all exploitation. It was a peasantry the like of which the history of mankind had never known before.<br />
<br />
The intelligentsia in the U.S.S.R. had also undergone a change. It had for the most part become an entirely new intelligentsia. The majority of its members came from the ranks of the workers and peasants. It no longer served capitalism, as the old intelligentsia did; it served Socialism. It had become an equal member of the Socialist society. Together with the workers and peasants, it was building a new Socialist society. This was a new type of intelligentsia, which served the people and was emancipated from all exploitation. It was an intelligentsia the like of which the history of mankind had never known before.<br />
<br />
Thus the old class dividing lines between the working people of the U.S.S.R. were being obliterated, the old class exclusiveness was disappearing. The economic and political contradictions between the workers, the peasants and the intellectuals were declining and becoming obliterated. The foundation for the moral and political unity of society had been created.<br />
<br />
These profound changes in the life of the U.S.S.R., these decisive achievements of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., were reflected in the new Constitution.<br />
<br />
According to the new Constitution, Soviet society consists of two friendly classes—the workers and peasants—class distinctions between the two still remaining. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a Socialist state of workers and peasants.<br />
<br />
The political foundation of the U.S.S.R. is formed by the Soviets of Deputies of the Working People, which developed and grew strong as a result of the overthrow of the power of the landlords and capitalists and the achievement of the dictatorship of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
All power in the U.S.S.R. belongs to the working people of town and country as represented by the Soviets of Deputies of the Working People.<br />
<br />
The highest organ of state power in the U.S.S.R. is the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
The Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., consisting of two Chambers with equal rights, the Soviet of the Union and the Soviet of Nationalities, is elected by the citizens of the U.S.S.R. for a term of four years on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot.<br />
<br />
Elections to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., as to all Soviets of Deputies of the Working People, are ''universal''. This means that all citizens of the U.S.S.R. who have reached the age of eighteen, irrespective of race or nationality, religion, standard of education, domicile, social origin, property status or past activities, have the right to vote in the election of deputies and to be elected, with the exception of the insane and persons convicted by court of law to sentences including deprivation of electoral rights.<br />
<br />
Elections of deputies are ''equal''. This means that each citizen is entitled to one vote and that all citizens participate in the elections on an equal footing.<br />
<br />
Elections of deputies are ''direct.'' This means that all Soviets of Deputies of the Working People, from rural and city Soviets of Deputies of the Working People up to and including the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., are elected by the citizens by direct vote.<br />
<br />
The Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. at a joint sitting of both Chambers elects the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet and the Council of People"s Commissars of the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
The economic foundation of the U.S.S.R. is the Socialist system of economy and the Socialist ownership of the means of production. In the U.S.S.R. is realized the Socialist principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."<br />
<br />
All citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed the right to work, the right to rest and leisure, the right to education, the right to maintenance in old age and in case of sickness or disability.<br />
<br />
Women are accorded equal rights with men in all spheres of life.<br />
<br />
The equality of the citizens of the U.S.S.R., irrespective of their nationality or race, is an indefeasible law.<br />
<br />
Freedom of conscience and freedom of anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.<br />
<br />
In order to strengthen Socialist society, the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, press, assembly and meeting, the right to unite in public organizations, inviolability of person, inviolability of domicile and privacy of correspondence, the right of asylum for foreign citizens persecuted for defending the interests of the working people or for their scientific activities, or for their struggle for national liberation.<br />
<br />
The new Constitution also imposes serious duties on all citizens of the U.S.S.R.: the duty of observing the laws, maintaining labour discipline, honestly performing public duties, respecting the rules of the Socialist community, safeguarding and strengthening public, Socialist property, and defending the Socialist fatherland.<blockquote>"To defend the fatherland is the sacred duty of every citizen of the U.S.S.R."</blockquote>Dealing with the right of citizens to unite in various societies, one of the articles of the Constitution states :<blockquote>"The most active and politically conscious citizens in the ranks of the working class and other strata of the working people unite in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), which is the vanguard of the working people in their struggle to strengthen and develop the Socialist system and which represents the leading core of all organizations of the working people, both public and state."</blockquote>The Eighth Congress of Soviets unanimously approved and adopted the draft of the new Constitution of the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
The Soviet country thus acquired a new Constitution, a Constitution embodying the victory of Socialism and workers" and peasants" democracy.<br />
<br />
In this way the Constitution gave legislative embodiment to the epoch-making fact that the U.S.S.R. had entered a new stage of development, the stage of the completion of the building of a Socialist society and the gradual transition to Communist society, where the guiding principle of social life will be the Communist principle: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."<br />
<br />
=== Liquidation of the remnants of the Bukharin-Trotsky gang of spies, wreckers and traitors to the country. Preparations for the election of the supreme soviet of the USSR. Broad inner-party democracy as the party’s course. Election of the supreme soviet of the USSR ===<br />
In 1937, new facts came to light regarding the fiendish crimes of the Bukharin-Trotsky gang. The trial of Pyatakov, Radek and others, the trial of Tukhachevsky, Yakir and others, and, lastly, the trial of Bukharin, Rykov, Krestinsky, Rosengoltz and others, all showed that the Bukharinites and Trotskyites had long ago joined to form a common band of enemies of the people, operating as the "Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites."<br />
<br />
The trials showed that these dregs of humanity, in conjunction with the enemies of the people, Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev, had been in conspiracy against Lenin, the Party and the Soviet state ever since the early days of the October Socialist Revolution. The insidious attempts to thwart the Peace of Brest-Litovsk at the beginning of 1918 the plot against Lenin and the conspiracy with the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries for the arrest and murder of Lenin, Stalin and Sverdlov in the spring of 1918, the villainous shot that wounded Lenin in the summer of 1918, the revolt of the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries in the summer of 1918, the deliberate aggravation of differences in the Party in 1921 with the object of undermining and overthrowing Lenin"s leadership from within, the attempts to overthrow the Party leadership during Lenin"s illness and after his death, the betrayal of state secrets and the supply of information of an espionage character to foreign espionage services, the vile assassination of Kirov, the acts of wrecking, diversion and explosions, the dastardly murder of Menzhinsky, Kuibyshev and Gorky—all these and similar villainies over a period of twenty years were committed, it transpired, with the participation or under the direction of Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Rykov and their henchmen, at the behest of espionage services of bourgeois states.<br />
<br />
The trials brought to light the fact that the Trotsky-Bukharin fiends, in obedience to the wishes of their masters—the espionage services of foreign states—had set out to destroy the Party and the Soviet state, to undermine the defensive power of the country, to assist foreign military intervention, to prepare the way for the defeat of the Red Army, to bring about the dismemberment of the U.S.S.R., to hand over the Soviet Maritime Region to the Japanese, Soviet Byelorussia to the Poles, and the Soviet Ukraine to the Germans, to destroy the gains of the workers and collective farmers, and to restore capitalist slavery in the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
These Whiteguard pigmies, whose strength was no more than that of a gnat, apparently flattered themselves that they were the masters of the country, and imagined that it was really in their power to sell or give away the Ukraine, Byelorussia and the Maritime Region.<br />
<br />
These Whiteguard insects forgot that the real masters of the Soviet country were the Soviet people, and that the Rykovs, Bukharins, Zino-vievs and Kamenevs were only temporary employees of the state, which could at any moment sweep them out from its offices as so much useless rubbish.<br />
<br />
These contemptible lackeys of the fascists forgot that the Soviet people had only to move a finger, and not a trace of them would be left.<br />
<br />
The Soviet court sentenced the Bukharin-Trotsky fiends to be shot. The People"s Commissariat of Internal Affairs carried out the sentence.<br />
<br />
The Soviet people approved the annihilation of the Bukharin-Trotsky gang and passed on to next business.<br />
<br />
And the next business was to prepare for the election of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. and to carry it out in an organized way.<br />
<br />
The Party threw all its strength into the preparations for the elections. It held that the putting into effect of the new Constitution of the U.S.S.R. signified a turn in the political life of the country. This turn meant the complete democratization of the electoral system, the substitution of universal suffrage for restricted suffrage, equal suffrage for not entirely equal suffrage, direct elections for indirect elections, and secret ballot for open ballot.<br />
<br />
Before the introduction of the new Constitution there were restrictions of the franchise in the case of priests, former Whiteguards, former kulaks, and persons not engaged in useful labour. The new Constitution abolished all franchise restrictions for these categories of citizens by making the election of deputies universal.<br />
<br />
Formerly, the election of deputies had been unequal, inasmuch as the bases of representation for the urban and rural populations differed. Now, however, all necessity for restrictions of equality of the suffrage had disappeared and all citizens were given the right to take part in the elections on an equal footing.<br />
<br />
Formerly, the elections of the intermediate and higher organs of Soviet power were indirect. Now, however, under the new Constitution, all Soviets, from rural and urban up to and including the Supreme Soviet, were to be elected by the citizens directly.<br />
<br />
Formerly, deputies to the Soviets were elected by open ballot and the voting was for lists of candidates. Now, however, the voting for deputies was to be by secret ballot, and not by lists, but for individual candidates nominated in each electoral area.<br />
<br />
This was a definite turning point in the political life of the country.<br />
<br />
The new electoral system was bound to result, and actually did result, in an enhancement of the political activity of the people, in greater control by the masses over the organs of Soviet power, and in the increased responsibility of the organs of Soviet power to the people.<br />
<br />
In order to be fully prepared for this turn, the Party had to be its moving spirit, and the leading role of the Party in the forthcoming elections had to be fully ensured. But this could be done only if the Party organizations themselves became thoroughly democratic in their everyday work, only if they fully observed the principles of democratic centralism in their inner-Party life, as the Party Rules demanded, only if all organs of the Party were elected, only if criticism and self-criticism in the Party were developed to the full, only if the responsibility of the Party bodies to the members of the Party were complete, and if the members of the Party themselves became thoroughly active.<br />
<br />
A report made by Comrade Zhdanov at the plenum of the Central Committee at the end of February 1937 on the subject of preparing the Party organizations for the elections to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. revealed the fact that a number of Party organizations were systematically violating the Party Rules and the principles of democratic centralism in their everyday work, substituting co-option for election, voting by lists for the voting for individual candidates, open ballot for secret ballot, etc. It was obvious that organizations in which such practices prevailed could not properly fulfil their tasks in the elections to the Supreme Soviet. It was therefore first of all necessary to put a stop to such anti-democratic practices in the Party organizations and to reorganize Party work on broad democratic lines.<br />
<br />
Accordingly, after hearing the report of Comrade Zhdanov, the Plenum of the Central Committee resolved:<blockquote>"a) To reorganize Party work on the basis of complete and unqualified observance of the principles of inner-Party democracy as prescribed by the Party Rules.<br />
<br />
"b) To put an end to the practice of co-opting members of Party Committees and to restore the principle of election of directing bodies of Party organizations as prescribed by the Party Rules.<br />
<br />
"c) To forbid voting by lists in the election of Party bodies; voting should be for individual candidates, all members of the Party being guaranteed the unlimited right to challenge candidates and to criticize them.<br />
<br />
"d) To introduce the secret ballot in the election of Party bodies.<br />
<br />
"e) To hold elections of Party bodies in all Party organizations, from the Party Committees of primary Party organizations to the territorial and regional committees and the Central Committees of the national Communist Parties, the elections to be completed not later than May 20.<br />
<br />
"f) To charge all Party organizations strictly to observe the provisions of the Party Rules with respect to the terms of office of Party bodies, namely: to hold elections in primary Party organizations once a year; in district and city organizations—once a year; in regional, territorial and republican organizations—every eighteen months.<br />
<br />
"g) To ensure that Party organizations strictly adhere to the system of electing Party Committees at general factory meetings, and not to allow the latter to be replaced by delegate conferences.<br />
<br />
"h) To put a stop to the practice prevalent in a number of primary Party organizations whereby general meetings are virtually abolished and replaced by shop meetings and delegate conferences."</blockquote>In this way the Party began its preparations for the forthcoming elections.<br />
<br />
This decision of the Central Committee was of tremendous political importance. Its significance lay not only in the fact that it inaugurated the Party's campaign in the election of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., but also, and primarily, in the fact that it helped the Party organizations to reorganize their work, to apply the principles of inner-Party democracy, and to meet the elections to the Supreme Soviet fully prepared.<br />
<br />
The Party decided to make the idea of an election bloc of Communists and the non-Party masses the keynote of its policy in developing the election campaign. The Party entered the elections in a bloc, an alliance with the non-Party masses, by deciding to put up in the electoral areas joint candidates with the non-Party masses. This was something unprecedented and absolutely impossible in elections in bourgeois countries. But a bloc of Communists and the non-Party masses was something quite natural in our country, where hostile classes no longer exist and where the moral and political unity of all sections of the population is an incontestable fact.<br />
<br />
On December 7, 1937, the Central Committee of the Party issued an Address to the electors, which stated:<blockquote>"On December 12, 1937, the working people of the Soviet Union will, on the basis of our Socialist Constitution, elect their deputies to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. The Bolshevik Party enters the elections in a ''bloc,'' an ''alliance'' with the non-Party workers, peasants, office employees and intellectuals...The Bolshevik Party does not fence itself off from non-Party people, but, on the contrary, enters the elections in a bloc, an alliance, with the non-Party masses, in a bloc with the trade unions of the workers and office employees, with the Young Communist League and other non-Party organizations and societies. Consequently, the candidates will be the joint candidates of the Communists and the non-Party masse every non-Party deputy will also be the deputy of the Communists, just as every Communist deputy will be the deputy of the non-Party masses."</blockquote>The Address of the Central Committee concluded with the following appeal to the electors:<blockquote>"The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) calls upon all Communists and sympathizers to vote for the non-Party candidates with the same unanimity as they should vote for the Communist candidates.<br />
<br />
"The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) calls upon all non-Party electors to vote for the Communist candidates with the same unanimity as they will vote for the non-Party candidates.<br />
<br />
"The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) calls upon all electors to appear at the polling stations on December 12, 1937, as one man, to elect the deputies to the Soviet of the Union and the Soviet of Nationalities.<br />
<br />
"There must not be a single elector who does not exercise his honourable right of electing deputies to the Supreme organ of the Soviet state.<br />
<br />
"There must not be a single active citizen who does not consider it his civic duty to assist in ensuring that all electors without exception take part in the elections of the Supreme Soviet.<br />
<br />
"December 12, 1937, should be a great holiday celebrating the union of the working people of all the nations of the U.S.S.R. around the victorious banner of Lenin and Stalin."</blockquote>On December 1, 1937, the eve of the elections, Comrade Stalin addressed the voters of the area in which he was nominated and described what type of public figures those whom the people choose, the deputies to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., should be. Comrade Stalin said:<blockquote>"The electors, the people, must demand that their deputies should remain equal to their tasks; that in their work they should not sink to the level of political philistines; that in their posts they should remain political figures of the Lenin type; that as public figures they should be as clear and definite as Lenin was; that they should be as fearless in battle and as merciless towards the enemies of the people as Lenin was; that they should be free from all panic, from any semblance of panic, when things begin to get complicated and some danger or other looms on the horizon, that they should be as free from all semblance of panic as Lenin was; that they should be as wise and deliberate in deciding complex problems requiring a comprehensive orientation and a comprehensive weighing of all pros and cons as Lenin was; that they should be as upright and honest as Lenin was; that they should love their people as Lenin did."</blockquote>The elections to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. took place on December 12 amidst great enthusiasm. They were something more than elections; they were a great holiday celebrating the triumph of the Soviet people, a demonstration of the great friendship of the peoples of the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
Of a total of 94,000,000 electors, over 91,000,000, or 96.8 per cent, voted. Of this number 89,844,000, or 98.6 per cent, voted for the candidates of the bloc of the Communists and the non-Party masses. Only 632,000 persons, or less than one per cent, voted against the candidates of the bloc of the Communists and the non-Party masses. All the candidates of the bloc were elected without exception.<br />
<br />
Thus, 90,000,000 persons, by their unanimous vote, confirmed the victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.<br />
<br />
This was a remarkable victory for the bloc of the Communists and the non-Party masses.<br />
<br />
It was a triumph for the Bolshevik Party.<br />
<br />
It was a brilliant confirmation of the moral and political unity of the Soviet people, to which Comrade Molotov had referred in a historic speech he delivered on the occasion of the Twentieth Anniversary of the October Revolution.<br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
What are the chief conclusions to be drawn from the historical path traversed by the Bolshevik Party?<br />
<br />
What does the history of the C.P.S.U.(B.) teach us?<br />
<br />
1) The history of the Party teaches us, first of all, that the victory of the proletarian revolution, the victory of the dictatorship of the proletariat, is impossible without a revolutionary party of the proletariat, a party free from opportunism, irreconcilable towards compromisers and capitulators, and revolutionary in its attitude towards the bourgeoisie and its state power.<br />
<br />
The history of the Party teaches us that to leave the proletariat without such a party means to leave it without revolutionary leadership; and to leave it without revolutionary leadership means to ruin the cause of the proletarian revolution.<br />
<br />
The history of the Party teaches us that the ordinary Social-Democratic Party of the West-European type, brought up under conditions of civil peace, trailing in the wake of the opportunists, dreaming of "social reforms," and dreading social revolution, cannot be such a party.<br />
<br />
The history of the Party teaches us that only a party of the new type, a Marxist-Leninist party, a party of social revolution, a party capable of preparing the proletariat for decisive battles against the bourgeoisie and of organizing the victory of the proletarian revolution, can be such a party.<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik Party in the U.S.S.R. is such a party.<br />
<br />
"In the pre-revolutionary period," Comrade Stalin says, "in the period of more or less peaceful development, when the parties of the Second International were the predominant force in the working-class movement and parliamentary forms of struggle were regarded as the principal forms, the party neither had nor could have had that great and decisive importance which it acquired afterwards, under conditions of open revolutionary battle. Defending the Second International against attacks made upon it, Kautsky says that the parties of the Second International are instruments of peace and not of war, and that for this very reason they were powerless to take any important steps during the war, during the period of revolutionary action by the proletariat. That is quite true. But what does it mean? It means that the parties of the Second International are unfit for the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, that they are not militant parties of the proletariat, leading the workers to power, but election machines adapted for parliamentary elections and parliamentary struggle. This, in fact, explains why, in the days when the opportunists of the Second International were in the ascendancy, it was not the party but its parliamentary group that was the chief political organization of the proletariat. It is well known that the party at that time was really an appendage and subsidiary of the parliamentary group. It goes without saying that under such circumstances and with such a party at the helm there could be no question of preparing the proletariat for revolution.<br />
<br />
"But matters have changed radically with the dawn of the new period. The new period is one of open class collisions, of revolutionary action by the proletariat, of proletarian revolution, a period when forces are being directly mustered for the overthrow of imperialism and the seizure of power by the proletariat. In this period the proletariat is confronted with new tasks, the tasks of reorganizing all party work on new, revolutionary lines; of educating the workers in the spirit of revolutionary struggle for power; of preparing and moving up reserves; of establishing an alliance with the proletarians of neighbouring countries; of establishing firm ties with the liberation movement in the colonies and dependent countries, etc., etc. To think that these new tasks can be performed by the old Social-Democratic parties, brought up as they were in the peaceful conditions of parliamentarism, is to doom oneself to hopeless despair and inevitable defeat. If, with such tasks to shoulder, the proletariat remained under the leadership of the old parties it would be completely unarmed and defenceless. It goes without saying that the proletariat could not consent to such a state of affairs.<br />
<br />
"Hence the necessity for a new party, a militant party, a revolutionary party, one bold enough to lead the proletarians in the struggle for power, sufficiently experienced to find its bearings amidst the complex conditions of a revolutionary situation, and sufficiently flexible to steer clear of all submerged rocks in the path to its goal.<br />
<br />
"Without such a party it is useless even to think of overthrowing imperialism and achieving the dictatorship of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
"This new party is the party of Leninism." (Joseph Stalin, ''Leninism'', Vol. I, pp. 87-8.)<br />
<br />
2) The history of the Party further teaches us that a party of the working class cannot perform the role of leader of its class, cannot perform the role of organizer and leader of the proletarian revolution, unless it has mastered the advanced theory of the working-class movement, the Marxist-Leninist theory.<br />
<br />
The power of the Marxist-Leninist theory lies in the fact that it enables the Party to find the right orientation in any situation, to understand the inner connection of current events, to foresee their course and to perceive not only how and in what direction they are developing in the present, but how and in what direction they are bound to develop in the future.<br />
<br />
Only a party which has mastered the Marxist-Leninist theory can confidently advance and lead the working class forward.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, a party which has not mastered the Marxist-Leninist theory is compelled to grope its way, loses confidence in its actions and is unable to lead the working class forward.<br />
<br />
It may seem that all that is required for mastering the Marxist-Leninist theory is diligently to learn by heart isolated conclusions and propositions from the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, learn to quote them at opportune times and rest at that, in the hope that the conclusions and propositions thus memorized will suit each and every situation and occasion. But such an approach to the Marxist-Leninist theory is altogether wrong. The Marxist-Leninist theory must not be regarded as a collection of dogmas, as a catechism, as a symbol of faith, and the Marxists themselves as pedants and dogmatists. The Marxist-Leninist theory is the science of the development of society, the science of the working-class movement, the science of the proletarian revolution, the science of the building of the Communist society. And as a science it does not and cannot stand still, but develops and perfects itself. Clearly, in its development it is bound to become enriched by new experience and new knowledge, and some of its propositions and conclusions are bound to change in the course of time, are bound to be replaced by new conclusions and propositions corresponding to the new historical conditions.<br />
<br />
Mastering the Marxist-Leninist theory does not at all mean learning all its formulas and conclusions by heart and clinging to their every letter. To master the Marxist-Leninist theory we must first of all learn to distinguish between its letter and substance.<br />
<br />
Mastering the Marxist-Leninist theory means assimilating the substance of this theory and learning to use it in the solution of the practical problems of the revolutionary movement under the varying conditions of the class struggle of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
Mastering the Marxist-Leninist theory means being able to enrich this theory with the new experience of the revolutionary movement, with new propositions and conclusions, it means being able to ''develop it and advance it'' without hesitating to replace—in accordance with the substance of the theory—such of its propositions and conclusions as have become antiquated by new ones corresponding to the new historical situation.<br />
<br />
The Marxist-Leninist theory is not a dogma but a guide to action.<br />
<br />
Before the Second Russian Revolution (February 1917), the Marxists of all countries assumed that the parliamentary democratic republic was the most suitable form of political organization of society in the period of transition from capitalism to Socialism. It is true that in the seventies Marx stated that the most suitable form for the dictatorship of the proletariat was a political organization of the type of the Paris Commune, and not the parliamentary republic. But, unfortunately, Marx did not develop this proposition any further in his writings and it was committed to oblivion. Moreover, Engels' authoritative statement in his criticism of the draft of the Erfurt Program in 1891, namely, that "the democratic republic . . . is . . . the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat" left no doubt that the Marxists continued to regard the democratic republic as the political form for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Engels' proposition later became a guiding principle for all Marxists, including Lenin. However, the Russian Revolution of 1905, and especially the Revolution of February 1917, advanced a new form of political organization of society—the Soviets of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies. As a result of a study of the experience of the two Russian revolutions, Lenin, on the basis of the theory of Marxism, arrived at the conclusion that the best political form for the dictatorship of the proletariat was not a parliamentary democratic republic, but a republic of Soviets. Proceeding from this, Lenin, in April 1917, during the period of transition from the bourgeois to the Socialist revolution, issued the slogan of a republic of Soviets as the best political form for the dictatorship of the proletariat. The opportunists of all countries clung to the parliamentary republic and accused Lenin of departing from Marxism and destroying democracy. But it was Lenin, of course, who was the real Marxist who had mastered the theory of Marxism, and not the opportunists, for Lenin was advancing the Marxist theory by enriching it with new experience, whereas the opportunists were dragging it back and transforming one of its propositions into a dogma.<br />
<br />
What would have happened to the Party, to our revolution, to Marxism, if Lenin had been overawed by the letter of Marxism and had not had the courage to replace one of the old propositions of Marxism, formulated by Engels, by the new proposition regarding the republic of Soviets, a proposition that corresponded to the new historical conditions? The Party would have groped in the dark, the Soviets would have been disorganized, we should not have had a Soviet power, and the Marxist theory would have suffered a severe setback. The proletariat would have lost, and the enemies of the proletariat would have won.<br />
<br />
As a result of a study of pre-imperialist capitalism Engels and Marx arrived at the conclusion that the Socialist revolution could not be victorious in one country, taken singly, that it could be victorious only by a simultaneous stroke in all, or the majority of the civilized countries. That was in the middle of the nineteenth century. This conclusion later became a guiding principle for all Marxists. However, by the beginning of the twentieth century, pre-imperialist capitalism had grown into imperialist capitalism, ascendant capitalism had turned into moribund capitalism. As a result of a study of imperialist capitalism, Lenin, on the basis of the Marxist theory, arrived at the conclusion that the old formula of Engels and Marx no longer corresponded to the new historical conditions, and that the victory of the Socialist revolution was quite possible in one country, taken singly. The opportunists of all countries clung to the old formula of Engels and Marx and accused Lenin of departing from Marxism. But it was Lenin, of course, who was the real Marxist who had mastered the theory of Marxism, and not the opportunists, for Lenin was advancing the Marxist theory by enriching it with new experience, whereas the opportunists were dragging it back, mummifying it.<br />
<br />
What would have happened to the Party, to our revolution, to Marxism, if Lenin had been overawed by the letter of Marxism and had not had the courage of theoretical conviction to discard one of the old conclusions of Marxism and to replace it by a new conclusion affirming that the victory of Socialism in one country, taken singly, was possible, a conclusion which corresponded to the new historical conditions? The Party would have groped in the dark, the proletarian revolution would have been deprived of leadership, and the Marxist theory would have begun to decay. The proletariat would have lost, and the enemies of the proletariat would have won.<br />
<br />
Opportunism does not always mean a direct denial of the Marxist theory or of any of its propositions and conclusions. Opportunism is sometimes expressed in the attempt to cling to certain of the propositions of Marxism that have already become antiquated and to convert them into a dogma, so as to retard the further development of Marxism, and, consequently, to retard the development of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
It may be said without fear of exaggeration that since the death of Engels the master theoretician Lenin, and after Lenin, Stalin and the other disciples of Lenin, have been the only Marxists who have advanced the Marxist theory and who have enriched it with new experience in the new conditions of the class struggle of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
And just because Lenin and the Leninists have advanced the Marxist theory, Leninism is a further development of Marxism; it is Marxism in the new conditions of the class struggle of the proletariat, Marxism of the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, Marxism of the epoch of the victory of Socialism on one-sixth of the earth's surface.<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik Party could not have won in October 1917 if its foremost men had not mastered the theory of Marxism, if they had not learned to regard this theory as a guide to action, if they had not learned to advance the Marxist theory by enriching it with the new experience of the class struggle of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
Criticizing the German Marxists in America who had undertaken to lead the American working-class movement, Engels wrote:<blockquote>"The Germans have not understood how to use their theory as a lever which could set the American masses in motion; they do not understand the theory themselves for the most part and treat it in a doctrinaire and dogmatic way, as something which has got to be learned off by heart and which will then supply all needs without more ado. To them it is a dogma and not a guide to action." (Marx and Engels, ''Selected Correspondence'', pp. 449-450.)</blockquote>Criticizing Kamenev and some of the old Bolsheviks who in April 1917 clung to the old formula of a revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry at a time when the revolutionary movement had gone on ahead and was demanding a transition to the Socialist revolution, Lenin wrote:<blockquote>"Our teaching is not a dogma, but a guide to action, Marx and Engels always used to say, rightly ridiculing the learning and repetition by rote of 'formulas' which at best are only capable of outlining ''general'' tasks that are necessarily liable to be modified by the ''concrete'' economic and political conditions of each separate ''phase'' of the historical process...It is essential to realize the incontestable truth that a Marxist must take cognizance of real life, of the concrete ''realities'', and must not continue to cling to a theory of yesterday..." (Lenin, ''Collected Works,'' Russ. ed., Vol. XX, pp. 100-101.)</blockquote>3) The history of the Party further teaches us that unless the petty- bourgeois parties which are active within the ranks of the working class and which push the backward sections of the working class into the arms of the bourgeoisie, thus splitting the unity of the working class, are smashed, the victory of the proletarian revolution is impossible.<br />
<br />
The history of our Party is the history of the struggle against the petty-bourgeois parties—the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, Anarchists and nationalists—and of the utter defeat of these parties. If these parties had not been vanquished and driven out of the ranks of the working class, the unity of the working class could not have been achieved; and if the working class had not been united, it would have been impossible to achieve the victory of the proletarian revolution.<br />
<br />
If these parties, which at first stood for the preservation of capitalism, and later, after the October Revolution, for the restoration of capitalism, had not been utterly defeated, it would have been impossible to preserve the dictatorship of the proletariat, to defeat the foreign armed intervention, and to build up Socialism.<br />
<br />
It cannot be regarded as an accident that all the petty-bourgeois parties, which styled themselves "revolutionary" and "socialist" parties in order to deceive the people—the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Menshe-viks, Anarchists and nationalists—became counter-revolutionary parties even before the October Socialist Revolution, and later turned into agents of foreign bourgeois espionage services, into a gang of spies, wreckers, diversionists, assassins and traitors to the country.<blockquote>"The unity of the proletariat in the epoch of social revolution," Lenin says, "can be achieved only by the extreme revolutionary party of Marxism, and only by a relentless struggle against all other parties." (Lenin, ''Collected Works,'' Russ. ed., Vol. XXVI, p. 50.)</blockquote>4) The history of the Party further teaches us that unless the Party of the working class wages an uncompromising struggle against the opportunists within its own ranks, unless it smashes the capitulators in its own midst, it cannot preserve unity and discipline within its ranks, it cannot perform its role of organizer and leader of the proletarian revo- lution, nor its role as the builder of the new, Socialist society.<br />
<br />
The history of the development of the internal life of our Party is the history of the struggle against the opportunist groups within the Party—the "Economists," Mensheviks, Trotskyites, Bukharinites and nationalist deviators—and of the utter defeat of these groups.<br />
<br />
The history of our Party teaches us that all these groups of capitu-lators were in point of fact agents of Menshevism within our Party, the lees and dregs of Menshevism, the continuers of Menshevism. Like the Mensheviks, they acted as vehicles of bourgeois influence among the working class and in the Party. The struggle for the liquidation of these groups within the Party was therefore a continuation of the struggle for the liquidation of Menshevism.<br />
<br />
If we had not defeated the "Economists" and the Mensheviks, we could not have built the Party and led the working class to the proletarian revolution.<br />
<br />
If we had not defeated the Trotskyites and Bukharinites, we could not have brought about the conditions that are essential for the building of Socialism.<br />
<br />
If we had not defeated the nationalist deviators of all shades and colours, we could not have educated the people in the spirit of internationalism, we could not have safeguarded the banner of the great amity of the nations of the U.S.S.R., and we could not have built up the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.<br />
<br />
It may seem to some that the Bolsheviks devoted far too much time to this struggle against the opportunist elements within the Party, that they overrated their importance. But that is altogether wrong. Opportunism in our midst is like an ulcer in a healthy organism, and must not be tolerated. The Party is the leading detachment of the working class, its advanced fortress, its general staff. Sceptics, opportunists, capit-ulators and traitors cannot be tolerated on the directing staff of the working class. If, while it is carrying on a life and death fight against the bourgeoisie, there are capitulators and traitors on its own staff, within its own fortress, the working class will be caught between two fires, from the front and the rear. Clearly, such a struggle can only end in defeat. The easiest way to capture a fortress is from within. To attain victory, the Party of the working class, its directing staff, its advanced fortress, must first be purged of capitulators, deserters, scabs and traitors.<br />
<br />
It cannot be regarded as an accident that the Trotskyites, Bukharin-ites and nationalist deviators who fought Lenin and the Party ended just as the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary parties did, namely, by becoming agents of fascist espionage services, by turning spies, wreckers, assassins, diversionists and traitors to the country.<blockquote>"With reformists, Mensheviks, in our ranks," Lenin said, "it is ''impossible'' to achieve victory in the proletarian revolution, it is impossible to retain it. That is obvious in principle, and it has been strikingly confirmed by the experience both of Russia and Hungary . . . In Russia, difficult situations have arisen ''many times,'' when the Soviet regime would ''most certainly'' have been overthrown had Mensheviks, reformists and petty-bourgeois democrats remained in our Party..." (Lenin, ''Collected Works,'' Russ. ed., Vol. XXV, pp. 462-63.)<br />
<br />
"Our Party," Comrade Stalin says, "succeeded in creating internal unity and unexampled cohesion of its ranks primarily because it was able in good time to purge itself of the opportunist pollution, because it was able to rid its ranks of the Liquidators, the Men-sheviks. Proletarian parties develop and become strong by purging themselves of opportunists and reformists, social-imperialists and social-chauvinists, social-patriots and social-pacifists. The Party becomes strong by purging itself of opportunist elements." (Joseph Stalin, ''Leninism''.)</blockquote>5) The history of the Party further teaches us that a party cannot perform its role as leader of the working class if, carried away by success, it begins to grow conceited, ceases to observe the defects in its work, and fears to acknowledge its mistakes and frankly and honestly to correct them in good time.<br />
<br />
A party is invincible if it does not fear criticism and self-criticism, if it does not gloss over the mistakes and defects in its work, if it teaches and educates its cadres by drawing the lessons from the mistakes in Party work, and if it knows how to correct its mistakes in time.<br />
<br />
A party perishes if it conceals its mistakes, if it glosses over sore problems, if it covers up its shortcomings by pretending that all is well, if it is intolerant of criticism and self-criticism, if it gives way to self-complacency and vainglory and if it rests on its laurels.<blockquote>"The attitude of a political party towards its own mistakes," Lenin says, "is one of the most important and surest ways of judging how earnest the party is and how it ''in practice'' fulfils its obligations towards its ''class'' and the toiling ''masses''. Frankly admitting a mistake, ascertaining the reasons for it, analysing the conditions which led to it, and thoroughly discussing the means of correcting it—that is the earmark of a serious party; that is the way it should perform its duties, that is the way it should educate and train the class, and then the ''masses.''" (Lenin, ''Collected Works,'' Russ. ed., Vol. XXV, p. 200.)</blockquote>And further:<blockquote>"All revolutionary parties, which have hitherto perished, did so because they grew conceited, failed to see where their strength lay, ''and feared to speak of their weaknesses''. But we shall not perish, for we do not fear to speak of our weaknesses and will learn to overcome them." (Lenin, ''Collected Works,'' Russ. ed., Vol. XXVII, pp. 260-61.)</blockquote>6) Lastly, the history of the Party teaches us that unless it has wide connections with the masses, unless it constantly strengthens these connections, unless it knows how to hearken to the voice of the masses and understand their urgent needs, unless it is prepared not only to teach the masses, but to learn from the masses, a party of the working class cannot be a real mass party capable of leading the working class millions and all the labouring people.<br />
<br />
A party is invincible if it is able, as Lenin says, "to link itself with, to keep in close touch with, and, to a certain extent if you like, to merge with the broadest masses of the toilers—primarily with the proletariat, but also with the non-proletarian toiling masses." (Lenin, ''Collected Works,'' Russ. ed., Vol. XXV, p. 174.)<br />
<br />
A party perishes if it shuts itself up in its narrow party shell, if it severs itself from the masses, if it allows itself to be covered with bureaucratic rust.<blockquote>"We may take it as the rule," Comrade Stalin says, "that as long as the Bolsheviks maintain connection with the broad masses of the people they will be invincible. And, on the contrary, as soon as the Bolsheviks sever themselves from the masses and lose their connection with them, as soon as they become covered with bureaucratic rust, they will lose all their strength and become a mere cipher.<br />
<br />
"In the mythology of the ancient Greeks there was a celebrated hero, Antaeus, who, so the legend goes, was the son of Poseidon, god of the seas, and Gaea, goddess of the earth. Antaeus was very much attached to the mother who had given birth to him, suckled him and reared him. There was not a hero whom this Antaus did not vanquish. He was regarded as an invincible hero. Wherein lay his strength? It lay in the fact that every time he was hard pressed in a fight with an adversary he would touch the earth, the mother who had given birth to him and suckled him, and that gave him new strength. Yet he had a vulnerable spot—the danger of being detached from the earth in some way or other. His enemies were aware of this weakness and watched for him. One day an enemy appeared who took advantage of this vulnerable spot and vanquished Antaus. This was Hercules. How did Hercules vanquish Antaus? He lifted him from the earth, kept him suspended in the air, prevented him from touching the earth, and throttled him.<br />
<br />
"I think that the Bolsheviks remind us of the hero of Greek mythology, Antasus. They, like Antasus, are strong because they maintain connection with their mother, the masses, who gave birth to them, suckled them and reared them. And as long as they maintain connection with their mother, with the people, they have every chance of remaining invincible.</blockquote>"That is the key to the invincibility of Bolshevik leadership." (J. Stalin, ''Mastering Bolshevism,'' pp. 58-60.)<br />
<br />
Such are the chief lessons to be drawn from the historical path traversed by the Bolshevik Party.<br />
[[Category:Library works by Joseph Stalin]]<br />
[[Category:Library works about the Soviet Union]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union&diff=63702Communist Party of the Soviet Union2024-03-05T03:04:42Z<p>RedCustodian: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Infobox political party<br />
| colorcode = red<br />
| name = Communist Party of the Soviet Union<br />
| native_name = Коммунисти́ческая па́ртия Сове́тского Сою́за<br />
| native_name_lang = Russian<br />
| logo = [[File:CPSU.svg|frameless|175px]]<br />
| abbreviation = CPSU<br />
| founded = May, 1917<br />
|banned=6 November 1917| dissolved = 6 November, 1991<br />
| newspaper = ''Pravda''<br />
| think_tank = Central Policy Research Office<br />
| youth_wing = Young Communist League </br> Vladimir Lenin All-Union Pioneer Organization<br />
| political_orientation = [[Marxism–Leninism]]<br />
}}<br />
{{Communist parties}}<br />
[[File:CPSU organizational diagram.png|thumb|351x351px|Diagram of the structure of the CPSU]]<br />
The '''Communist Party of the Soviet Union''' ('''CPSU'''),<ref name=":0" group="lower-alpha" /> was a [[communist party]] tracing back to the [[Russian Social Democratic Labor Party]] (RSDLP), which was established in its second congress in 1903.<ref>{{Citation|author=Central Committee of the CPSU|year=1938|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=Formation of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. Appearance of the Bolshevik and the Menshevik groups within the party|quote=Notwithstanding the fact that the First Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Party had been held in 1898, and that it had announced the formation of the Party, no real party was as yet created. There was no party program or party rules. The Central Committee of the Party elected at the First Congress was arrested and never replaced, for there was nobody to replace it. Worse still, the ideological confusion and lack of organizational cohesion of the Party became even more marked after the First Congress.<br><br>[...]<br><br>Iskra linked up the scattered Social-Democratic circles and groups and prepared the way for the convocation of the Second Party Congress. At the Second Congress, held in 1903, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party was formed, a Party Program and Rules were adopted, and the central leading organs of the Party were set up.|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/index.htm}}</ref> The party brought together the [[Vanguard party|vanguard]] of the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet]] peoples in the construction of [[Socialism|socialist]] society.<br />
<br />
Its predecessor, the RSDLP, had split into [[Bolsheviks|Bolshevik]] and [[Mensheviks|Menshevik]] factions in 1903. The CPSU emerged in continuity with the Bolshevik political line.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party of Russia (Bolsheviks) in 1918, the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in 1925, and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) in 1952.<br />
<br />
== Names== <br />
<br />
*1917–1918: Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks); RSDLP(b)<ref group="lower-alpha">Russian: Российская социал-демократическая рабочая партия (большевиков); РСДРП(б)</ref><br />
*1918–1925: Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks); RCP(b)<ref group="lower-alpha">Russian: Российская коммунистическая партия (большевиков); РКП(б)</ref><br />
*1925–1952: All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks); AUCP(b)<ref group="lower-alpha">Russian: Всесоюзная коммунистическая партия (большевиков); ВКП(б)</ref><br />
*1952–1991: Communist Party of the Soviet Union; CPSU<ref group="lower-alpha" name=":0">Russian: Коммунистическая партия Советского Союза; КПСС</ref><br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
<br />
=== Russian Social Democratic Labour Party ===<br />
In 1898 the [[Russian Social Democratic Labor Party]] was created, uniting the several communist study groups scattered around Russia. Among its founders were people like [[Vladimir Lenin]] and [[Julius Martov]]. It established itself as a Marxist party that had the task of overthrowing the monarchy and bring about socialism. However during the course of the struggle there was a lot of disagreement about when this goal was to be implemented and how. In 1903 emerged a ''de facto'' split in the party, and two factions were formed: the [[Mensheviks]] led by Martov and the [[Bolsheviks]] led by Lenin.<br />
<br />
Although Lenin and many others first anticipated the two groups could merge again, the split ended up worsening and the two factions became separate parties: the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (Mensheviks) and the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks).<br />
<br />
The main differences between the groups were the following:<blockquote>1. The Bolsheviks wanted an organisationally united party of serious revolutionaries while the Mensheviks wanted a more loose [[Reformism|reformist]] party.<br />
<br />
2. Both parties agreed that the next course of action was to overthrow the monarchy and carry out the so-called “[[Bourgeois revolution|bourgeois-democratic revolution]].” This would make Russia a capitalist [[Bourgeois democracy|parliamentary democracy]]. However the Mensheviks argued that the class to lead the revolution was the [[bourgeoisie]], the capitalist class, as the bourgeois class served this function in the [[French Revolution]]. The Bolsheviks disagreed, they thought the [[Bourgeoisie|capitalists]] couldn’t be trusted to carry out the democratic revolution: they were weaker than the bourgeoisie in [[French Republic (1792–1804)|France]] at the time, they allied with the monarchy, and they feared the workers and peasants. In fact, Lenin argued that the Russian [[proletariat]] was much stronger and more developed than the French proletariat of the late 1700s and therefore should lead the democratic revolution, and not merely support it.<br />
<br />
3. Lastly, the Mensheviks didn’t think Russia was ready for socialism, in their opinion the workers could never take power in Russia until after a long time of capitalist and parliamentary development. Even though the debate about workers revolution and socialism would only come about fully later, this attitude relates to the Menshevik position that the workers shouldn’t lead the democratic revolution, but only support the capitalist class against the monarchy.</blockquote>In the 1907 London Congress (the Fifth Congress of the RSDLP) for example, the Mensheviks advocated for a liquidationist program that would see the RSDLP dissolved in favor of a Bourgeois democratic 'Labor Congress', branding the RSDLP a 'petty bourgeois intellectual' organization. This was in stark contrast to the member compositions of the pro-Party group (Bolsheviks) and anti-Party group (Mensheviks), where the Bolsheviks in percentage and in total numbers possessed a higher degree of Proletarian elements as opposed to the Mensheviks' petty bourgeois composition. The blatant fabrication and liqudationist line advocated by the Mensheviks was opposed by even their own Proletarian elements and denounced as Opportunist by Rosa Luxembourg, a visiting delegate of the SPD. <ref>{{Web citation|author=Joseph Stalin|newspaper=Bakinsky Proletary|title=The London Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party|date=1907-06-20 / 1907-07-10|url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:The_London_Congress_of_the_Russian_Social-Democratic_Labour_Party|retrieved=2024-03-03|quote=Expressing her complete agreement with the Bolsheviks on the questions of the role of the proletariat as the leader of the revolution, the role of the liberal bourgeoisie as an anti-revolutionary force, etc., etc., Rosa Luxemburg criticised the Menshevik leaders Plekhanov and Axelrod, called them opportunists}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== Split with Mensheviks ===<br />
<br />
=== October Revolution ===<br />
The party grew from 10,000 members in April 1917 to 500,000 by the time of the [[Russian revolution of 1917|October Revolution]].<ref>{{Citation|author=[[Vijay Prashad]]|year=2017|title=Red Star over the Third World|chapter=Red October|page=28|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacecu7gb2ei65us6ip3r2ugcgkblneqcftbm456mb6bzvprkbqk55qm?filename=Vijay%20Prashad%20-%20Red%20Star%20Over%20the%20Third%20World-LeftWord%20Books%20%282018%29.pdf|city=New Delhi|publisher=LeftWord Books}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== Civil War ===<br />
The party reached 600,000 members in 1921. Lenin conducted the first purge of the party in 1921 and expelled 25% of its members including 45% in the countryside. This purge was the largest in the party's history. Party members could be expelled for the following reasons:<br />
<br />
* Being former [[Kulak|kulaks]], [[White Army|Whites]], or [[Counterrevolution|counterrevolutionaries]]<br />
* Being [[Corruption|corrupt]], [[Bureaucracy|bureaucratic]], or overly ambitious<br />
* Rejecting [[Democratic centralism|party discipline]] or disobeying the Central Committee<br />
* Committing crimes or sexual misconduct or being drunk publicly<ref name=":02">{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=The struggle against bureaucracy|isbn=9782872620814|publisher=Editions EPO|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|page=102–105}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== Internal struggles ===<br />
[[Leon Trotsky|Trotsky]] and [[Grigory Zinoviev|Zinoviev]] formed an anti-Party bloc in 1926, leading the Central Committee to organize a general party discussion. 724,000 party members voted for the Central Committee and only 4,000 voted for the [[Trotskyism|Trotskyists]].<ref>{{Citation|author=[[Joseph Stalin]]|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Struggle for the Socialist Industrialization of the Country|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch10.htm}}</ref><br />
<br />
The Central Committee purged Trotsky and his followers from the party in December 1927. In June 1928, several Trotskyists, including Zinoviev, [[Lev Kamenev|Kamenev]], [[Yevgeni Preobrazhensky|Preobrazhensky]], and [[Alexei Rykov|Rykov]], returned to the party after recanting their views. [[Nikolai Bukharin|Bukharin]] and the Right Opposition soon formed an alliance with the Trotskyists against [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]].<ref name=":022">{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=The Great Purge|isbn=9782872620814|publisher=Editions EPO|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|page=116–117}}</ref><br />
<br />
Between 1928 and 1931, the CPSU accepted 1.4 million new members, including many who lacked [[Theory|theoretical]] knowledge. 11% of the party was purged in 1929. Another purge began in 1933 and lasted two years. It was difficult to tell who was a party member because 250,000 party cards were lost or stolen.<ref name=":02" /> Zinoviev and Kamenev were purged a second time in the early 1930s.<ref name=":022" /><br />
<br />
=== 17th Congress ===<br />
The 17th Party Congress was held in 1934 following the success of the First Five-Year Plan. Opposition leaders were invited to make speeches.<ref name=":022" /><br />
<br />
=== 1937–38 purges ===<br />
278,818 people were expelled from the party during the [[Soviet purges of 1937–1938|purges of 1937 and 1938]]. The number of expulsions was lower than in previous years, but a much higher proportion of those purged were active cadres. Many wrongfully purged members appealed to rejoin the party, and 54% them were readmitted. Out of 182,000 Old Bolsheviks (party members before 1921) in 1934, 125,000 remained in the party by 1939.<ref name=":022332">{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=The Great Purge|isbn=9782872620814|publisher=Editions EPO|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|page=167–170}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== 19th Congress ===<br />
At the 19th Party Congress in 1952, the last congress before the death of Stalin, [[Georgy Malenkov|Malenkov]] upheld Marxism–Leninism, [[self-criticism]], and party discipline. Stalin criticized [[Anastas Mikoyan|Mikoyan]] and [[Lavrentiy Beria|Beria]] and worried that the party would not be able to recognize enemies without him.<ref name=":02233232">{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=From Stalin to Khrushchev|isbn=9782872620814|publisher=Editions EPO|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|page=253–260}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== Perestroika ===<br />
The CPSU held its 19th Conference in June 1988, and [[Mikhail Gorbachev|Gorbachev]] and [[Alexander Yakovlev|Yakovlev]] implemented parliamentary policies. Gorbachev purged non-revisionists, including [[Andrei Gromyko]], from the Politburo, and changed [[Yegor Ligachyov|Ligachyov]] from head of ideology to head of agriculture. Party membership began dropping, and the party lost more than 250,000 members in 1990.<br />
<br />
The 28th Party Congress in July 1990 weakened the Central Committee and made the entire Congress instead of just the CC elect the General Secretary. It allowed the formation of factions within the party.<ref name=":032">{{Citation|author=Roger Keeran, Thomas Kenny|year=2010|title=Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union|chapter=Crisis and Collapse, 1989-91|page=180–187|pdf=https://ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceaj5ucph44bjwyhlhsbycckr3ts76zbucn2hbrea32tltcd4s5ekg?filename=Roger%20Keeran_%20Thomas%20Kenny%20-%20Socialism%20Betrayed_%20Behind%20the%20Collapse%20of%20the%20Soviet%20Union-iUniverse.com%20%282010%29.pdf|publisher=iUniverse.com|isbn=9781450241717}}</ref><br />
<br />
== Demographics ==<br />
In 1922, [[Judaism|Jews]] made up 5.2% of party membership, roughly five times their total proportion of the population. From the late 1920s through the 1940s, the percentage of Jews in the party was about 4.3%.'''<ref name=":023">{{Citation|author=Albert Szymanski|year=1984|title=Human Rights in the Soviet Union|chapter=The European Nationalities in the USSR|page=88|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceazdmtb2y3qq27fve5ib3gk7uv2unt6ae2xss74xmfpur7k5uhl5m?filename=Albert%20Szymanski%20-%20Human%20Rights%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union_%20Including%20Comparisons%20with%20the%20U.S.A.-Zed%20Books%20Ltd.%20%281984%29.pdf|city=London|publisher=Zed Books Ltd|isbn=0862320186|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=C597B1232D9EA6B0F3DCB438D7E15A81}}</ref>'''<br />
<br />
In 1972, the majority of CPSU members were [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1991)|Russians]], but [[Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic (1921–1991)|Georgians]] made up the highest ratio of party members per capita, followed by Russians and then [[Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic (1936–1991)|Armenians]]. [[Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic (1940–1991)|Moldovans]] were the most underrepresented nationality in the party.<ref>{{Citation|author=Albert Szymanski|year=1984|title=Human Rights in the Soviet Union|title-url=https://archive.org/details/HumanRightsInTheSovietUnion/page/n37/mode/1up|chapter=The Asian Nationalities in the USSR|page=59|city=London}}</ref> The percentage of women in the party rose from 7.4% in 1920 to 26.5% in 1981.<ref>{{Citation|author=Albert Szymanski|year=1984|title=Human Rights in the Soviet Union|title-url=https://archive.org/details/HumanRightsInTheSovietUnion/page/n37/mode/1up|chapter=Women in the USSR|page=118|city=London}}</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
===Notes===<br />
<references group="lower-alpha"/><br />
[[Category:Communist parties]]<br />
[[Category:History of the Soviet Union]]<br />
[[Category:Politics of the Soviet Union]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:The_London_Congress_of_the_Russian_Social-Democratic_Labour_Party&diff=63701Library:The London Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party2024-03-05T03:03:02Z<p>RedCustodian: /* THE AGENDA. REPORT OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE. REPORT OF THE GROUP IN THE DUMA */</p>
<hr />
<div>http://www.marx2mao.com/PDFs/StWorks2.pdf <br />
<br />
(Notes of a Delegate) <br />
<br />
The London Congress is over. In spite of the expectations of liberal hacks, such as the Vergezhskys 33 and Kuskovas, 34 the congress did not result in a split, but in the further consolidation of the Party, in the further unification of the advanced workers of all Russia in one indivisible party. It was a real all-Russian unity congress, for at this congress our Polish comrades, our comrades of the Bund, and our Lettish comrades were for the first time most widely and fully represented, for the first time they took an active part in the work of the Party congress and, consequently, for the first time most directly linked the fate of their respective organisations with the fate of the entire Party. In this respect the London Congress greatly contributed to the consolidation and strengthening of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party.<br />
<br />
Such is the first and an important result of the London Congress. But the importance of the London Congress is not confined to this. The point is that, in spite of the wishes of the liberal hacks we have referred to, the congress ended in the victory of “Bolshevism,” in the victory of revolutionary Social-Democracy over the opportunist wing of our Party, over “Menshevism.” Everybody, of course, is aware of the disagreements among us on the role of the different classes and parties in our revolution and of our attitude towards them. Everybody knows, too, that in a number of pronouncements the official centre of the Party, which is Menshevik in composition, took a stand in opposition to the Party as a whole. <br />
<br />
Recall, for example, the case of the Central Committee’s slogan of a responsible Cadet ministry, which the Party rejected in the period of the First Duma; the case of the same Central Committee’s slogan of “resumption of the session of the Duma” after the First Duma was dispersed, which was also rejected by the Party; and the case of the Central Committee’s well-known call for a general strike in connection with the dispersion of the First Duma, which was also rejected by the Party. . . . It was necessary to put an end to that abnormal situation. And to do this it was necessary to sum up the actual victories the Party had achieved over the opportunist Central Committee, the victories which fill the history of our Party’s internal development during the whole of the past year. And so the London Congress summed up all these victories of revolutionary Social-Democracy and sealed the victory by adopting the tactics of that section of Social-Democracy.<br />
<br />
Consequently, the Party will henceforth pursue the strictly class policy of the socialist proletariat. The red flag of the proletariat will no longer be hauled down before the spell-binders of liberalism. A mortal blow has been struck at the vacillation characteristic of intellectuals, which is unbecoming to the proletariat.<br />
<br />
Such is the second and no less important result of the London Congress of our Party. The actual unification of the advanced workers of all Russia into a single all-Russian party under the banner of revolutionary Social-Democracy—that is the significance of the London Congress, that is its general character. We shall now pass to a more detailed characterisation of the congress.<br />
<br />
=== THE COMPOSITION OF THE CONGRESS ===<br />
In all about 330 delegates were present at the congress. Of these, 302 had the right to vote; they represented over 150,000 Party members. The rest were consultative delegates. The distribution of the delegates according to groups was approximately as follows (counting only those with right to vote): Bolsheviks 92, Mensheviks 85, Bundists 54, Poles 45 and Letts 26.<br />
<br />
As regards the social status of the delegates (workers or non-workers) the congress presented the following picture: manual workers 116 in all, office and distributive workers 24, the rest were non-workers. The manual workers were distributed among the different groups as follows: Bolshevik group 38 (36 per cent), Menshevik group 30 (31 per cent), Poles 27 (61 per cent), Letts 12 (40 percent) and Bundists 9 (15 per cent). Professional revolutionaries were distributed among the groups as follows: Bolshevik group 18 (17 per cent), Menshevik group 22 (22 per cent), Poles 5 (11 per cent), Letts 2 (6 per cent), Bundists 9 (15 per cent).<br />
<br />
We were all “amazed” by these statistics. How is this? The Mensheviks had shouted so much about our Party consisting of intellectuals; day and night they had been denouncing the Bolsheviks as intellectuals; they had threatened to drive all the intellectuals out of the Party and had all the time been reviling the professional revolutionaries—and suddenly it turned out that they had far fewer workers in their group than the Bolshevik “intellectuals” had! It turned out that they had far more professional revolutionaries than the Bolsheviks! But we explained the Menshevik shouts by the proverb: “The tongue ever turns to the aching tooth.”<br />
<br />
Still more interesting are the figures of the composition of the congress showing the “territorial distribution” of the delegates. It turned out that the large groups of Menshevik delegates came mainly from the peasant and handicraft districts: Guria (9 delegates), Tiflis (10 delegates), Little-Russian peasant organisation “Spilka” (I think 12 delegates), the Bund (the overwhelming majority were Mensheviks) and, by way of exception, the Donets Basin (7 delegates). On the other hand, the large groups of Bolshevik delegates came exclusively from the large-scale industry districts: St. Petersburg (12 delegates), Moscow (13 or 14 delegates), the Urals (21 delegates), Ivanovo-Voznesensk (11 delegates), Poland (45 delegates).<br />
<br />
Obviously, the tactics of the Bolsheviks are the tactics of the proletarians in big industry, the tactics of those areas where class contradictions are especially clear and the class struggle especially acute. Bolshevism is the tactics of the real proletarians.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, it is no less obvious that the tactics of the Mensheviks are primarily the tactics of the handicraft workers and the peasant semi-proletarians, the tactics of those areas where class contradictions are not quite clear and the class struggle is masked. Menshevism is the tactics of the semi-bourgeois elements among the proletariat.<br />
<br />
So say the figures.<br />
<br />
And this is not difficult to understand: it is impossible to talk seriously among the workers of Lodz, Moscow or Ivanovo Voznesensk about blocs with the very same liberal bourgeoisie whose members are waging a fierce struggle against them and who, every now and again, “punish” them with partial dismissals and mass lockouts. There Menshevism will find no sympathy; there Bolshevism, the tactics of uncompromising proletarian class struggle, is needed. On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to inculcate the idea of the class struggle among the peasants of Guria or say, the handicraftsmen of Shklov, who do not feel the sharp and systematic blows of the class struggle and, therefore, readily agree to all sorts of agreements against the “common enemy.” There Bolshevism is not yet needed; there Menshevism is needed, for there an atmosphere of agreements and compromises pervades everything.<br />
<br />
No less interesting is the national composition of the congress. The figures showed that the majority of the Menshevik group were Jews (not counting the Bundists, of course), then came Georgians and then Russians. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of the Bolshevik group were Russians, then came Jews (not counting Poles and Letts, of course), then Georgians, etc. In this connection one of the Bolsheviks (I think it was Comrade Alexinsky 35 ) observed in jest that the Mensheviks constituted a Jewish group while the Bolsheviks constituted a true-Russian group and, therefore, it wouldn’t be a bad idea for us Bolsheviks to organise a pogrom in the Party.<br />
<br />
It is not difficult to explain this composition of the different groups: the main centres of Bolshevism are the areas of large-scale industry, purely Russian districts with the exception of Poland, whereas the Menshevik districts are districts with small production and, at the same time, Jewish, Georgian, etc., districts.<br />
<br />
As regards the different trends revealed at the congress, it must be noted that the formal division of the congress into five groups (Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Poles, etc.) retained a certain validity, inconsider- able it is true, only up to the discussion on questions of principle (the question of the non-proletarian parties, the labour congress, etc.). When these questions of principle came up for discussion the formal grouping was in fact cast aside, and when a vote was taken the congress, as a rule, divided into two parts: Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. There was no so-called centre, or marsh, at the congress. Trotsky proved to be “pretty but useless.” All the Poles definitely sided with the Bolsheviks. The overwhelming majority of the Letts also definitely supported the Bolsheviks. The Bund, the overwhelming majority of whose delegates in fact always supported the Mensheviks, formally pursued an extremely ambiguous policy, which, on the one hand, raised a smile, and on the other, caused irritation. Comrade Rosa Luxemburg aptly characterised the policy of the Bund when she said that the Bund’s policy was not the policy of a mature political organisation that influenced the masses, but the policy of shopkeepers who are eternally looking forward to, and hopefully expecting, a drop in the price of sugar tomorrow. Of the Bundists, only 8 to 10 delegates supported the Bolsheviks, and then not always.<br />
<br />
In general, predominance, and rather considerable predominance, was on the side of the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
Thus, the congress was a Bolshevik congress, although not sharply Bolshevik. Of the Menshevik resolutions only the one on guerilla actions was carried, and that by sheer accident: on that point the Bolsheviks did not accept battle, or rather, they did not wish to fight the issue to a conclusion, purely out of the desire to “give the Menshevik comrades at least one opportunity to rejoice.” . . .<br />
<br />
=== THE AGENDA. REPORT OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE. REPORT OF THE GROUP IN THE DUMA ===<br />
As regards political trends at the congress, its proceedings can be divided up into two parts.<br />
<br />
First part: debates on formal questions, such as the agenda of the congress, the reports of the Central Committee and report of the group in the Duma, i.e., questions of profound political significance, but linked, or being linked, with the “honour” of this or that group, with the idea “not to offend” this or that group, “not to cause a split” — and for that reason called formal questions. This part of the congress was the most stormy, and absorbed the largest amount of time. This was due to the fact that considerations of principle were forced into the background by “moral” considerations (“not to offend”) and, consequently, no strictly defined groups were formed; it was impossible to tell at once “who would win,” and in the hope of winning over the “neutral and polite,” the groups plunged into a furious struggle for predominance.<br />
<br />
Second part: discussion on questions of principle, such as the question of the non-proletarian parties, the labour congress, etc. Here “moral” considerations were absent, definite groups were formed in conformity with strictly defined trends of principle; the relation of forces between the groups was revealed at once, and for that reason this part of the congress was the calmest and most fruitful - clear proof that keeping to principle in discussion gives the best guarantee that the proceedings of a congress will be calm and fruitful.<br />
<br />
We shall now pass to a brief characterisation of the first part of the congress proceedings. <br />
<br />
After a speech by Comrade Plekhanov, who opened the congress and in his speech urged the necessity of agreements “as occasion arises” with “the progressive elements” of bourgeois society, the congress elected a presidium of five (one from each group), elected a credentials committee and then proceeded to draw up the agenda. It is characteristic that at this congress, just as they did at last year’s Unity Congress, the Mensheviks furiously opposed the Bolsheviks’ proposal to include in the agenda the questions of the present situation and of the class tasks of the proletariat in our revolution. Is the revolutionary tide rising or subsiding and, accordingly, should we “liquidate” the revolution or carry it through to the end? What are the proletariat’s class tasks in our revolution which sharply distinguish it from the other classes in Russian society? Such are the questions which the Menshevik comrades are afraid of. They flee from them like shadows from the sun; they do not wish to bring to light the roots of our disagreements. Why? Because the Menshevik group itself is split by profound disagreements on these questions, because Menshevism is not an integral trend; Menshevism is a medley of trends, which are imperceptible during the factional struggle against Bolshevism but which spring to the surface as soon as current questions and our tactics are discussed from the point of view of principle. The Mensheviks do not wish to expose this inherent weakness of their group. The Bolsheviks were aware of this, and in order to keep the discussions closer to principles, insisted on the inclusion of the above-mentioned questions in the agenda. Realising that keeping to principles would kill them, the Mensheviks became stubborn; they hinted to the “polite comrades” that they would be “offended,” and so the congress did not include the question of the present situation, etc., in the agenda. In the end, the following agenda was adopted: report of the Central Committee, report of the group in the Duma, attitude towards the non-proletarian parties, the Duma, the labour congress, the trade unions, guerilla actions, crises, lockouts and unemployment, the International Congress at Stuttgart, and organisational questions.<br />
<br />
The chief speakers on the report of the Central Committee were Comrade Martov (for the Mensheviks) and Comrade Ryadovoi (for the Bolsheviks). Strictly speaking, Martov’s report was not a serious elucidation of facts, but a sentimental story about how the innocent Central Committee set to work to guide the Party and then the group in the Duma, and how the “awful” Bolsheviks hindered it in its work by pestering it with their principles. Martov justified the Central Committee’s slogans of a responsible Cadet ministry, “resumption of the session of the Duma,” etc., etc., which the Party subsequently rejected, on the plea that the situation was indefinite and that it was impossible to advance different slogans in a period of lull. And he justified the Central Committee’s misguided call for a general strike, and later for partial actions immediately after the dispersion of the First Duma, also on the plea that the situation was indefinite and that it was impossible to define precisely the mood of the masses. He spoke very little about the part the Central Committee played in the split in the St. Petersburg organisation. But he spoke too much about the conference of military and combat organisations that was convened on the initiative of a certain group of Bolsheviks, and which, in Martov’s opinion, caused disruption and anarchy in the Party organisations. At the end of his report Martov called upon the congress to bear in mind the difficulties connected with the work of guiding the Party in view of the exceptionally complicated and confused situation, and asked it not to be severe in its criticism of the Central Committee. Evidently, Martov himself realised that the Central Commitee had grave sins to answer for.<br />
<br />
Comrade Ryadovoi’s report was of an entirely different character. He expressed the opinion that it was the duty of the Central Committee of the Party: 1) to defend and carry out the Party programme, 2) to carry out the tactical directives given it by the Party Congress, 3) to safeguard the integrity of the Party, and 4) to co-ordinate the positive activities of the Party. The Central Committee had not carried out any one of these duties. In- stead of defending and carrying out the Party programme, the Central Committee, in connection with the well- known agrarian appeal of the First Duma, instructed the Social-Democratic group in the Duma, with a view to ensuring the unity of the opposition and winning over the Cadets, not to try to secure the inclusion in the Duma’s appeal of the well-known point of our agrarian programme on the confiscation of all (landlords’) land, but to confine itself to a simple statement about alienating the land without saying whether compensation should be paid or not.<br />
<br />
Just think of it! The Central Committee issued instructions to throw out the extremely important point in the Party programme on the confiscation of the land! The Central Committee violated the Party programme! The Central Committee as the violator of the programme—can you imagine anything more disgraceful?<br />
<br />
To proceed. Instead of carrying out at least the directives of the Unity Congress, instead of systematically intensifying the struggle between the parties in the Duma with the object of introducing greater political consciousness in the class struggle outside the Duma, instead of pursuing the strictly class, independent policy of the proletariat—the Central Committee issued the slogans of a responsible Cadet ministry, “resumption of the session of the Duma,” “for the Duma against the camarilla,” etc., etc., slogans which obscured the struggle of the Party in the Duma, glossed over the class antagonisms outside the Duma, obliterated all distinction between the militant policy of the proletariat and the compromising policy of the liberal bourgeoisie, and adapted the former to the latter. And when Comrade Plekhanov, a member of the editorial board of the Central Organ and, consequently, of the Central Committee, went even further on the road of compromise with the Cadets and proposed that the Party should enter into a bloc with the liberal bourgeoisie, abandoning the slogan of a Constituent Assembly and issuing the slogan acceptable to the liberal bourgeoisie of a “sovereign Duma,” the Central Committee, far from protesting against Comrade Plekhanov’s sally which disgraced the Party, even agreed with it, although it did not dare to express its agreement officially.<br />
<br />
That is how the Central Committee of the Party violated the elementary requirements of the independent class policy of the proletariat and the decisions of the Unity Congress! A Central Committee which obscures the class con- sciousness of the proletariat; a Central Committee which subordinates the policy of the proletariat to the policy of the liberal bourgeoisie; a Central Committee which hauls down the flag of the proletariat before the charla- tans of Cadet liberalism—this is what the Menshevik opportunists have brought us to!<br />
<br />
We shall not dilate on the fact that far from safeguarding the unity and discipline of the Party the Central Committee systematically violated them by taking the initiative in splitting the St. Petersburg organisation.<br />
<br />
Nor do we wish to dilate on the fact that the Central Committee has not co-ordinated the Party’s activities— this is clear enough as it is. <br />
<br />
How is all this, all these mistakes of the Central Committee, to be explained? Not, of course, by the fact that there were “awful” people in the Central Committee, but by the fact that Menshevism, which then predominated in the Central Committee, is incapable of guiding the Party, is utterly bankrupt as a political trend. From this point of view, the entire history of the Central Committee is the history of the failure of Menshevism. And when the Menshevik comrades reproach us and say that we “hindered” the Central Committee, that we “pestered” it, etc., etc., we cannot refrain from answering these moralising Comrades: yes Comrades, we “hindered” the Central Committee in its violation of our programme, we “hindered” it in its adaptation of the tactics of the proletariat to the tastes of the liberal bourgeoisie, and we will continue to hinder it, for this is our sacred duty. . . .<br />
<br />
That is approximately what Comrade Ryadovoi said.<br />
<br />
The discussion showed that the majority of the comrades, even some Bundists, supported Comrade Ryadovoi’s point of view. And if, after all, the Bolshevik resolution, which noted the mistakes of the Central Committee, was not carried, it was because the consideration “not to cause a split” strongly influenced the comrades. Nor, of course, was the Menshevik vote of confidence in the Central Committee carried. What was carried was simply a motion to pass to the order of the day without appraising the activities of the Central Committee. . . .<br />
<br />
The discussion on the report of the group in the Duma was, in general, a repetition of the discussion on the preceding question. That is understandable; the group in the Duma acted under the direct guidance of the Central Committee and, naturally, criticism or defence of the Central Committee was at the same time criticism or defence of the group in the Duma.<br />
<br />
Of interest were the remarks of Comrade Alexinsky, the second reporter (the first reporter being Comrade Tsereteli), to the effect that the slogan of the group in the Duma, the majority of which was Menshevik, the slogan of unity of the opposition in the Duma, of not splitting the opposition and of the need to march with the Cadets—this Menshevik slogan went completely bankrupt in the Duma, as Comrade Alexinsky put it, because on the most important questions, such as the budget, the army, etc., the Cadets sided with Stolypin, and the Menshevik Social-Democrats were obliged to fight hand in hand with the peasant deputies against the government and the Cadets. The Mensheviks were, in fact, obliged to admit the failure of their position and carry out in the Duma the Bolshevik slogan that the peasant deputies must be won for the struggle against the Rights and the Cadets.<br />
<br />
No less interesting were the remarks of the Polish comrades to the effect that it was impermissible for the group in the Duma to agree to joint meetings with the Narodovtsy, those Black Hundreds of Poland, who have more than once in the past organised the massacre of Socialists in Poland and are continuing to do so now. To this, two leaders of the Caucasian Mensheviks, one after another, replied that the important thing for the group in the Duma was not what the various parties did at home, but how they were behaving in the Duma, and that in the Duma the Narodovtsy were behaving more or less like liberals. It follows, therefore, that parties must be judged not by what they do outside the Duma, but by what they say in the Duma. Opportunism cannot go further than that. . . . <br />
<br />
Most of the speakers agreed with the point of view expressed by Comrade Alexinsky, but, for all that, no resolution was adopted on this question either; once again from the consideration “not to offend.” The congress set aside the question of the resolution and passed straight on to the next question.<br />
<br />
=== THE NON-PROLETARIAN PARTIES ===<br />
From formal questions we pass to questions of principle, to the questions of our disagreements.<br />
<br />
Our disagreements on tactics centre around the questions of the probable fate of our revolution, and of the role of the different classes and parties in Russian society in this revolution. That our revolution is a bourgeois revolution, that it must end in the rout of the feudal and not of the capitalist system, and that it can culminate only in a democratic republic—on this, everybody seems to be agreed in our Party. Further, that, on the whole, the tide of our revolution is rising and not subsiding, and that our task is not to “liquidate” the revolution but to carry it through to the end—on this too, formally at least, everybody is agreed, for the Mensheviks, as a group, have so far not said anything to the contrary. But how is our revolution to be carried through to the end? What is the role of the proletariat, of the peasantry and of the liberal bourgeoisie in this revolution? With what combination of fighting forces would it be possible to carry through this revolution to the end? Whom shall we march with, whom shall we fight? etc., etc. This is where our disagreements begin.<br />
<br />
The opinion of the Mensheviks. Since ours is a bour- geois revolution, only the bourgeoisie can be the leader of the revolution. The bourgeoisie was the leader of the great revolution in France, it was the leader of revolu- tions in other European countries—it must be the leader of our Russian revolution too. The proletariat is the principal fighter in the revolution, but it must march behind the bourgeoisie and push it forward. The peas- antry is also a revolutionary force, but it contains too much that is reactionary and, for that reason, the proletariat will have much less occasion to act jointly with it than with the liberal-democratic bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie is a more reliable ally of the proletariat than the peasantry. It is around the liberal-democratic bour- geoisie, as the leader, that all the fighting forces must rally. Hence, our attitude towards the bourgeois parties must be determined not by the revolutionary thesis: together with the peasantry against the government and the liberal bourgeoisie, with the proletariat at the head— but by the opportunist thesis: together with the entire opposition against the government, with the liberal bourgeoisie at the head. Hence the tactics of compromising with the liberals.<br />
<br />
Such is the opinion of the Mensheviks.<br />
<br />
The opinion of the Bolsheviks. Ours is, indeed, a bourgeois revolution, but this does not mean that our liberal bourgeoisie will be its leader. In the eighteenth century the French bourgeoisie was the leader of the French revolution, but why? Because the French proletariat was weak, it did not come out independently, it did not put forward its own class demands, it had neither class consciousness nor organisation, it then dragged at the tail of the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie used it as a tool for its bourgeois aims. As you see, the bourgeoisie was then not in need of an ally in the shape of the tsarist regime against the proletariat—the proletariat itself was the ally and servant of the bourgeoisie—and that is why the latter could then be revolutionary, even march at the head of the revolution. Something entirely different is observed here in Russia. The Russian proletariat can by no means be called weak: for several years already it has been acting quite independently, putting forward its own class demands; it is sufficiently armed with class consciousness to understand its own interests; it is united in its own party; its party is the strongest party in Russia, with its own programme and principles of tactics and organisation; led by this party, it has already won a number of brilliant victories over the bourgeoisie. . . . <br />
<br />
Under these circumstances, can our proletariat be satisfied with the role of tail of the liberal bourgeoisie, the role of a miserable tool in the hands of this bourgeoisie? Can it, must it march behind this bourgeoisie and make it its leader? Can it be anything else than the leader of the revolution? And see what is going on in the camp of our liberal bourgeoisie: our bourgeoisie is terrified by the revolutionary spirit of the proletariat; instead of marching at the head of the revolution it rushes into the embrace of the counter-revolution and enters into an alliance with it against the proletariat. Its party, the Cadet Party, openly, before the eyes of the whole world, enters into an agreement with Stolypin, votes for the budget and the army for the benefit of tsarism and against the people’s revolution. Is it not clear that the Russian liberal bour- geoisie is an anti-revolutionary force against which the most relentless war must be waged? And was not Comrade Kautsky right when he said that where the proletariat comes out independently the bourgeoisie ceases to be revolutionary? . . .<br />
<br />
Thus, the Russian liberal bourgeoisie is anti-revolutionary; it cannot be the driving force of the revolution, and still less can it be its leader; it is the sworn enemy of the revolution and a persistent struggle must be waged against it.<br />
<br />
The only leader of our revolution, interested in and capable of leading the revolutionary forces in Russia in the assault upon the tsarist autocracy, is the proletariat. The proletariat alone will rally around itself the revolu- tionary elements of the country, it alone will carry through our revolution to the end. The task of Social-Democracy is to do everything possible to prepare the proletariat for the role of leader of the revolution. <br />
<br />
This is the pivot of the Bolshevik point of view. <br />
<br />
To the question: who, then, can be the reliable ally of the proletariat in the task of carrying through our revolution to the end, the Bolsheviks answer—the only ally of the proletariat, to any extent reliable and powerful, is the revolutionary peasantry. Not the treacherous liberal bourgeoisie, but the revolutionary peasantry will fight side by side with the proletariat against all the props of the feudal system.<br />
<br />
Accordingly, our attitude towards the bourgeois parties must be determined by the proposition: together with the revolutionary peasantry against tsarism and the liberal bourgeoisie, with the proletariat at the head. Hence the necessity of combating the hegemony (leadership) of the Cadet bourgeoisie and, consequently, the impermissibility of compromising with the Cadets.<br />
<br />
Such is the opinion of the Bolsheviks. <br />
<br />
It was within the framework of these two positions that the speeches of the reporters—Lenin and Martynov— and of all the other speakers revolved.<br />
<br />
Comrade Martynov touched the final depths of “profundity” of the Menshevik point of view by categorically denying that the proletariat should assume hegemony, and also by categorically defending the idea of a bloc with the Cadets.<br />
<br />
The other speakers, the vast majority of them, expressed themselves in the spirit of the Bolshevik position.<br />
<br />
Of exceptional interest were the speeches of Comrade Rosa Luxemburg, who conveyed greetings to the congress on behalf of the German Social-Democrats and expounded the views of our German comrades on our disagreements. (Here we link together the two speeches R. L. delivered at different times.) Expressing her complete agreement with the Bolsheviks on the questions of the role of the proletariat as the leader of the revolution, the role of the liberal bourgeoisie as an anti-revolutionary force, etc., etc., Rosa Luxemburg criticised the Menshevik leaders Plekhanov and Axelrod, called them opportunists, and put their position on a par with that of the Jaurèsists in France. I know, said Luxemburg, that the Bolsheviks, too, have certain faults and fads, that they are somewhat too rigid, but I fully understand and excuse them: one cannot help being rigid in face of the diffuse and jellylike mass of Menshevik opportunism. The same excessive rigidity was observed among the Guesdists in France, whose leader, Comrade Guesde, stated in a well-known election poster: “Don’t let a single bourgeois dare to vote for me, for in Parliament I will defend only the interests of the proletarians against all the bourgeois.” In spite of this, in spite of this sharpness, we German Social-Democrats always took the side of the Guesdists in their struggle against the traitors to Marxism, against the Jaurèsists. The same must be said about the Bolsheviks, whom we German Social-Democrats will support in their struggle against the Menshevik opportunists. . . .<br />
<br />
That approximately is what Comrade R. Luxemburg said.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Library works by Joseph Stalin]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:Black_Bolshevik&diff=63693Library:Black Bolshevik2024-03-04T20:27:29Z<p>RedCustodian: /* South Africa */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Library work|title=Black Bolshevik: Autobiography Of An Afro-American Communist|image=https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1328767045i/704092.jpg|author=Harry Haywood|publisher=Liberator Press|published_date=January 1, 1978|published_location=Chicago Illinois|type=Book|isbn=9780930720537|source=[https://archive.org/details/black-bolshevik-autobiography-of-an-afro-american-communist/mode/2up archive.org]}}<br />
<br />
''Black Bolshevik'' is the autobiography of [[Harry Haywood]], published January 1, 1978. The son of former slaves who became a leading member of the [[Communist Party of the United States of America|Communist Part USA]] and a pioneering theoretician on the Afro-American struggle.<br />
<br />
The author's first-hand accounts of the Chicago race riot of 1919, the Scottsboro Boys' defense, communist work in the South, the [[Spanish Civil War]], the battle against the revisionist betrayal of the Party, and other history-shaping events are must reading for all who are interested in Black history and the working class struggle.<br />
<br />
It was dedicated to his family; his third wife, son and daughter. <br />
<br />
"To My Family,<br />
<br />
Gwen, Haywood, Jr., and Becky" <br />
<br />
== Acknowledgement ==<br />
There have been many friends and comrades who have, directly or indirectly, helped me with the writing of this book. Unfortunately, they are too numerous to all be named here.<br />
<br />
There are a number of young people who have helped with the editorial, research and typing tasks and helped the project along through political discussions. Special thanks to Ernie Allen, who gave yeoman help with the early chapters. Others whose assistance was indispensable include Jody and Susan Chandler, Paula Cohen, Stu Dowty and Janet Goldwasser, Paul Elitzik, Pat Fry, Gary Goff, Sherman Miller, John Schwartz, Lyn Wells and Carl Davidson. Others who gave me assistance are Renee Blakkan and Nathalie Garcia.<br />
<br />
Over the past years, I have had discussions with several veteran comrades and friends who have helped immeasurably in jogging my memory and filling in the gaps where my own experience was lacking, I extend my warmest appreciation to Jesse Gray, Josh Lawrence, Arthur and Maude (White) Katz, John Killens, Ruth Hamlin, Frances Loman, Al Murphy, Joan Sandler, Delia Page and Jack and Ruth Shulman.<br />
<br />
A political autobiography is necessarily shaped by experiences over the years and by comrades who helped and influenced me in the long battle for self-determination and against revisionism. My earliest political debts are to the first core of Black cadres in the CPUSA: Cyril Briggs, Edward Doty, Richard B. Moore and to my brother Otto Hall, all former members of the African Blood Brotherhood.<br />
<br />
To Harrison George, outstanding son of the working class, charter member of the CPUSA, former editor of the Daily Worker and the Peoples' World, who gave his all to the Communist movement and died alone, victimized for his “premature" anti- revisionism.<br />
<br />
A special tribute to my comrades in the battles against revisionism within the CPUSA and after: Al Lannon, veteran director of the Waterfront Section and member of the Central Committee of the CPUSA; Charles Loman, executive secretary of the Brooklyn Party Organization; Isidore Beagun, executive secretary of the Bronx Party Organization; Allen and Pearl Lawes, Al and Ruth Hamlin, Olga and Victor Agosto. And to my wife, Gwendolyn Midlo Hall, my closest collaborator from 1953 through 1964 in the writing of manuscripts as well as in the Apolitical battles, who has since established her own reputation as historian and essayist.<br />
<br />
A tribute to Ed Strong, former communist youth leader and director of the Southern Negro Youth Congress, whose premature death in the mid-fifties cut short his uncompromising stand within the Central Committee for the right of self-determination for the Black nation.<br />
<br />
To the editors of Soulbook Magazine, who published my writings in 1965-66 and invited me to Oakland, California, in the spring of 1966 during the formative stages of the Black Panther movement.<br />
<br />
To Vincent Harding, who provided me with funds to return to the U.S. from Mexico in 1970 and gave me technical and material assistance to begin this autobiography.<br />
<br />
Thanks to John Henrik Clarke and Francisco and Elizabeth Cattlett de Mora for their enthusiasm and moral support.<br />
<br />
To Robert Warner, Director of the Michigan Historical Collections, for his help and his sensitivity to the need to collect and preserve historically relevant materials from the Black movement in the United States.<br />
<br />
== Prologue ==<br />
On July 28, 1919,1 literally stepped into a battle that was to last the rest of my life. Exactly three months after mustering out of the Army, I found myself in the midst of one of the bloodiest race riots in U.S. history. It was certainly a most dramatic return to the realities of American democracy. <br />
<br />
It came to me then that I had been fighting the wrong war. The Germans weren’t the enemy -the enemy was right here at home. These ideas had been developing ever since I landed home in April, and a lot of other Black veterans were having the same thoughts. <br />
<br />
I had a job as a waiter on the Michigan Central Railroad at the time. In July, I was working the Wolverine, the crack Michigan Central train between Chicago and New York. We would serve lunch and dinner on the run out of Chicago to St. Thomas, Canada, where the dining car was cut off the train. The next morning our cars would be attached to the Chicago-bound train and we would serve breakfast and lunch into Chicago.<br />
<br />
On July 27, the Wolverine left on a regular run to St. Thomas. Passing through Detroit, we heard news that a race riot had broken out in Chicago. The situation had been tense for some time. Several members of the crew, all of them Black, had bought revolvers and ammunition the previous week when on a special to Battle Creek, Michigan. Thus, when we returned to Chicago at about 2:00 P.M. the next day (July 28). we were apprehensive about what awaited us.<br />
<br />
The whole dining car crew, six waiters and four cooks, got off at the Twelfth Street Station in Chicago. Usually we would stay on the car while it backed out to the yards, but the station seemed a better route now. We were all tense as we passed through the station on the way to the elevated which would take us to the Southside and home. Suddenly a white trainman accosted us. “Hey, you guys going out to the Southside?”<br />
<br />
“Yeah, so what?” I said, immediately on the alert, thinking he might start something.<br />
<br />
“If I were you I wouldn’t go by the avenue” He meant Michigan Avenue which was right in front of the station.<br />
<br />
“Why?”<br />
<br />
“There’s a big race riot going on out there, and already this morning a couple of colored soldiers were killed coming in unsuspectingly. If I were you I’d keep off the street, and go right out those tracks by the lake.”<br />
<br />
We took the trainman’s advice, thanked him, and turned toward the tracks. It would be much slower walking home, but if he were right, it would be safer. As we turned down the tracks toward the Southside of the city, towards the Black ghetto, I thought of what I had just been through in Europe and what now lay before me in America.<br />
<br />
On one side of us lay the summer warmness of Lake Michigan. On the other was Chicago, a huge and still growing industrial center of the nation, bursting at its seams; brawling, sprawling Chicago, “hog butcher for the nation” as Carl Sandburg had called it<br />
<br />
As we walked, I remembered the war. On returning from Europe, I had felt good to be alive. I was glad to be back with my family—Mom, Pop and my sister. At twenty-one, my life lay before me. What should I do? The only trade I had learned was waiting tables. I hadn’t even finished the eighth grade. Perhaps I should go back to France, live there and become a French citizen? After all, I hadn’t seen any Jim Crow there.<br />
<br />
Had race prejudice in the U.S. lessened? I knew better. Conditions in the States had not changed, but we Blacks had. We were determined not to take it anymore. But what was I walking into?<br />
<br />
Southside Chicago, the Black ghetto, was like a besieged city. Whole sections of it were in ruins. Buildings burned and the air was heavy with smoke, reminiscent of the holocaust from which I had recently returned.<br />
<br />
Our small band, huddled like a bunch of raw recruits under machine gun fire, turned up Twenty-sixth Street and then into the heart of the ghetto. At Thirty-fifth and Indiana, we split up to go our various ways; I headed for home at Forty-second Place and Bowen. None of us returned to work until the riot was over, more than a week later.<br />
<br />
The battle at home was just as real as the battle in France had been. As I recall, there was full-scale street fighting between Black and white. Blacks were snatched from streetcars and beaten or killed; pitched battles were fought in ghetto streets; hoodlums roamed the neighborhood, shooting at random. Blacks fought hack.<br />
<br />
As I saw it at the time, Chicago was two cities. The one was the Chamber of Commerce’s city of the “American Miracle,” the Chicago of the 1893 World Columbian Exposition. It was the new industrial city which had grown in fifty years from a frontier town to become the second largest city in the country. <br />
<br />
The other, the Black community, had been part of Chicago almost from the time the city was founded. Jean Baptiste Pointe DuSable, a Black trapper from French Canada, was the first settler. Later came fugitive slaves, and after the Civil War- more Blacks, fleeing from post-Reconstruction terror, taking jobs as domestics and personal servants. <br />
<br />
The large increase was in the late 1880s through World War 1, as industry in the city expanded and as Blacks streamed north following the promise of jobs, housing and an end to Jim Crow lynching. The Illinois Central tracks ran straight through the deep South from Chicago to New Orleans, and the Panama Limited made the run every day. <br />
<br />
Those that took the train north didn’t find a promised land. They found jobs and housing, all right, but they had to compete with the thousands of recent immigrants from Europe who were also drawn to the jobs in the packing houses, stockyards and steel mills. <br />
<br />
The promise of an end to Jim Crow was nowhere fulfilled. In those days, the beaches on Lake Michigan were segregated. Most were reserved for whites only. The Twenty-sixth Street Beach, close to the Black community, was open to Blacks—but only as long as they stayed on their own side.<br />
<br />
The riot had started at this beach, which was then jammed with a late July crowd. Eugene Williams, a seventeen-year-old Black youth, was killed while swimming off the white side of the beach. The Black community was immediately alive with accounts of what had happened—that he had been murdered while swimming., that a group of whites had thrown rocks at him and killed him, and that the policeman on duty at the beach had refused to make any arrests.<br />
<br />
This incident was the spark that ignited the flames of racial animosity which had been smoldering for months. Fighting between Blacks and whites broke out on the Twenty-sixth Street beach after Williams’s death. It soon spread beyond the beach and lasted over six days. Before it was over, thirty-eight people—Black and white—were dead, 537 injured and over 1,000 homeless.<br />
<br />
The memory of this mass rebellion is still very sharp in my mind. It was the great turning point in my life, and I have dedicated myself to the struggle against capitalism ever since. In the following pages of my autobiography, I have attempted to trace the development of that struggle in the hopes that today’s youth can learn from both our successes and failures. lt is for the youth and the bright future of a socialist USA that this book has been written.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 ==<br />
<br />
=== A Child of Slaves ===<br />
I was born in South Omaha, Nebraska, on February 4, 1898— the youngest of the three children of Harriet and Haywood Hall. Otto, my older brother, was born in May 1891; and Eppa, my sister, in December 1896. <br />
<br />
The 1890s had been a decade of far-reaching structural change in the economic and political life of the United States. These were fateful years in which the pattern of twentieth century subjugation of Blacks was set. A young U.S. imperialism was ready in 1898 to shoulder its share of the “white man’s burden” and take its "manifest destiny” beyond the Pacific Coast and the Gulf of Mexico. In the war against Spain, it embarked on its first "civilizing” mission against the colored peoples of the Philippines and the “mixed breeds” of Cuba and Puerto Rico. In the course of the decade and a half following the Spanish-American War, the two-faced banner of racism and imperialist “benevolence” was carried to the majority of the Caribbean countries and the whole of Latin America.<br />
<br />
“The echo of this industrial imperialism in America,” said W. E. B. DuBois, “was the expulsion of Black men from American democracy, their subjection to caste control and wage slavery.” In 1877, the Hayes-Tilden agreement had successfully aborted the ongoing democratic revolution of Reconstruction in the South. Blacks were sold down the river, as northern capitalists, with the assistance of some former slaveholders, gained full economic and political control in the South. Henceforward, it was assured that the future development of the region would be carried out in complete harmony with the interests of Wall Street. The following years saw the defeat of the Southern based agrarian populist movement, with its promise of Black and white unity against the power of monopoly capital. The counter-revolution against Reconstruction was in full swing.<br />
<br />
Beginning in 1890, the Southern state legislatures enacted a series of disenfranchisement laws. Within the next sixteen years, these laws were destined to completely abrogate the right of Blacks to vote. This same period saw the revival of the notorious Black Codes, the resurgence of the hooded terror of the Ku Klux Klan and the defeat for reelection in 1905 of the last Black congressman surviving the Reconstruction period. Jim Crow laws enforcing segregation in public facilities were enacted by Southern states and municipal governments. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Jim Crow in the Plessy vs. Ferguson decision in 1896, declaring that legislation is powerless to eradicate “racial instinets” and establishing the principle of “separate but equal.” This decision was only reversed in 1954, when the U.S. Supreme Court held that separate facilities were inherently unequal.<br />
<br />
At the time when I was born, the Black experience was mainly a Southern one. The overwhelming majority of Black people still resided in the South. Most of the Black inhabitants of South Omaha were refugees from the twenty-year terror of the post-Re construction period. Omaha itself, despite its midwestern location, did not escape the terror completely, as indicated by the lynching of a Black man, Joe Coe, by a mob in 1891. Many people had relatives and families in the South. Some had trekked up to Kansas in 1879 under the leadership of Henry Adams of Louisiana and Moses “Pap” Singleton of Tennessee, and many had then continued further north to Omaha and Chicago.<br />
<br />
My parents were born slaves in 1860. They were three years old at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation. My Father was born on a plantation in Martin County, Tennessee, north of Memphis. The plantation was owned by Colonel Haywood Hall, whom my Father remembered as a kind and benevolent man. When the slaves were emancipated in 1863, my Grandfather, with the consent of Mr. Hall, took both the given name and surname of his former master.<br />
<br />
I never knew Grandfather Hall, as he died before I was born. According to my Father and uncles, he was—as they said in those days—“much of a man” He was active in local Reconstruction polities and probably belonged to the Black militia. Although Tennessee did not have a Reconstruction government, there were many whites who supported the democratic aims that were pursued during the Reconstruction period.<br />
<br />
But Tennessee was also the home of the Ku Klux Klan, where it was first organized after the Civil War. In the terror that followed the Hayes-Tilden agreement, these “night riders” had marked my Grandfather out as a “bad nigger” for lynching. At first they were deterred because of the paternalism of Colonel Hall. Many of Hall’s former slaves still lived on his plantation after the war ended, and the colonel had let it be known that he would kill the first “son-of-a-bitch” that trespassed on his property and tried to terrorize his “nigrahs.”<br />
<br />
But the anger of the night riders, strengthened by corn liquor, finally overcame their fear of Colonel Hall. My Father, who was about fifteen at the time, described what happened. One night the Klansmen rode onto the plantation and headed straight for Grandfather’s cabin. They broke open the door and one poked his head into the darkened cabin. “Hey, Hall’s nigger-where are you?"<br />
<br />
My Grandfather was standing inside and fired his shotgun point blank at the hooded head. The Klansman, half his head blown off, toppled onto the floor of the cabin, and his companions mounted their horses and fled. Grandmother, then pregnant, fell against the iron bed.<br />
<br />
Grandfather got the family out of the cabin and they ran to the “big house” for protection. It was obvious they couldn’t stay in Tennessee, so the Colonel hitched up a wagon and personally drove them to safety, outside of Martin County. Some of Grandfather’s family were already living in Des Moines, Iowa, so the Hall family left by train for Des Moines the following morning. The shock of this experience was so great that Grandmother gave birth prematurely to their third child—my Uncle George who lived to be ninety-five. Grandmother, however, became a chronic invalid and died a few years after the flight from Tennessee.<br />
<br />
Father was only in his teens when the family left for Des Moines, so he spent most of his youth there. In the late 1880s, he left and moved to South Omaha where there was more of a chance to get work. He got a job at Cudahy’s Packing Company, where he worked for more than twenty years—first as a beef-lugger (loading sides of beef on refrigerated freight cars), and then as a janitor in the main office building. Not long after his arrival, he met and married Mother—Harriet Thorpe—who had come up from Kansas City, Missouri, at about the same time.<br />
<br />
Father was powerfully built—of medium height, but with tremendous breadth (he had a forty-six-inch chest and weighed over 200 pounds). He was an extremely intelligent man. With little or no formal schooling, he had taught himself to read and write and was a prodigious reader. Unfortunately, despite his great strength, he was not much of a fighter, or so it seemed to me. In later years, some of the old slave psychology and fear remained. He was an ardent admirer of Booker T. Washington who, in his Atlanta compromise speech of 1895, had called on Blacks to submit to the racist status quo,<br />
<br />
Uncle George was the opposite. He would brook no insult and had been known to clean out a whole barroom when offended. The middle brother, Watt, was also a fighter and was especially dangerous if he had a knife or had been drinking. I remember both of them complaining of my Father’s timidity.<br />
<br />
My Mother’s family also had great fighting spirit. Her father, Jerry Thorpe, was born on a plantation near Bowling Green, Kentucky. He was illiterate, but very smart and very strong. Even as an old man, his appearance made us believe the stories that were told of his strength as a young man. When he was feeling fine and happy, his exuberance would get the best of him and he’d grab the largest man around, hoist him on his shoulders, and run around the yard with him.<br />
<br />
Grandfather Thorpe was half Creek Indian and had an Indian profile with a humped nose and high cheekbones. His hair was short and curly and he had a light brown complexion. He had a straggly white beard that he tried to cultivate into a Van Dyke. He said his father was a Creek Indian and his mother a Black plantation slave. No one knew his exact age, but we made a guess based on a story he often told us.<br />
<br />
He was about six or seven years old when, he said, “The stars fell”<br />
<br />
“When was that, Grandpa?”<br />
<br />
“Oh, one night the stars fell, I remember it very clearly. The skies were all lit up by falling stars. People were scared almost out of I heir wits. The old master and mistress and all the slaves were running out on the road, falling down on their knees to pray and ask forgiveness. We thought the Judgement Day had surely come. Glory Hallelujah! It was the last fire! The next day, the ground was all covered with ashes!”<br />
<br />
At first we thought all of that was just his imagination, something he had fantasized as a child and then remembered as a real event. But when my older brother Otto was in high school, he got interested in astronomy and came across a reference to a meteor shower of 1833. We figured out that was what Grandfather Thorpe had been talking about, so we concluded that he was born around 1825 or 1826.<br />
<br />
Grandfather Thorpe was filled with stories, many about slavery.<br />
<br />
“Chillen, I’ve got scars I’ll carry to my grave.” He would show us the welts on his back from slave beatings (my Grandmother also had them). Most of his beatings came from his first master in Kentucky. But he was later sold to a man in Missouri, whom he said treated him much better. This may have been due in part to his value as a slave—he was skilled both as a carpenter and cabinetmaker.<br />
<br />
Grandfather had many stories to tell about the Civil War. He was in Missouri at the time, living in an area that was first taken by a group known as Quantrell's raiders (a guerrilla-like band of irregulars who fought for the South) and then by the Union forces.<br />
<br />
When the Union soldiers first came into the plantations, they would call in slaves from the fields and make them sit down in the great drawing room of the house. They would then force the master and mistress and their family to cook and serve for the slaves. Grandfather told us that the soldiers would never eat any of the food that was served, because they were afraid of getting poisoned.<br />
<br />
The master on the plantation was generally decent when it became clear that the Union forces were going to control the area for awhile. At that time, Grandfather and my Grandmother Ann lived on adjacent plantations somewhere near Moberly, Missouri. Grandfather was allowed to visit Ann on weekends. Often on Sundays when he went to make a visit, he was challenged by Union guards. They would roughly demand to know his mission. My Grandfather and Grandmother got married, with the agreement of their two masters, and eventually had a family of five daughters and two sons. Grandfather Thorpe was given a plot of land in return for his services as a carpenter, but the family soon moved into Moberly. As the children reached working age, the family began to break up, but the girls always remained very close. They came back to visit frequently and never broke family ties as the boys had.<br />
<br />
My Mother, Harriet, was born when Grandmother was a slave on the plantation of Squire Sweeney in Howard County, Missouri. After the family moved into Moberly, Mother worked for a white family in town. She later went to St. Joseph, Missouri, to work for another white family. One day, while she was at work in St. Joseph, she heard a shot and then screams from down the street. She ran out to see what had happened. There was a great commotion and a crowd of people was gathering in front of the house next door.<br />
<br />
The family living there went by the name of Howard—a man, wife and two children. Both the man and his wife were church members; they appeared to be a most respectable couple. Mrs. Howard had been very active in church affairs and socials. Her husband was frequently absent because, she said, he was a traveling salesman and his work took him out of town for long periods of time.<br />
<br />
What the neighbors were not aware of was that “Mr. Howard” was none other than the legendary Jesse James. He was shot in the hack while hanging a picture in his house. The man who killed him was Robert Ford—a member of Jesse's own gang who had turned 11 a it or for a bribe offered by the Burns Detective Agency.<br />
<br />
When my Mother did the laundry, I remember she would often ring the “Ballad of Jesse James"—a song which became popular niter his death.<br />
<br />
'''Jesse James was a man—he killed many a man,'''<br />
<br />
'''The man that robbed that Denver train.'''<br />
<br />
'''It was a dirty little coward Who shot Mr. Howard,'''<br />
<br />
'''And they laid Jesse James in his grave.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh the people held their breath When they heard of Jesse's death,'''<br />
<br />
'''And they wondered how he came to die.'''<br />
<br />
'''He was shot on the sly By little Robert Ford,'''<br />
<br />
'''And they laid poor Jesse in his grave.'''<br />
<br />
In 1893, my Mother went to Chicago to visit her sister and see the Exposition. She said she saw Frank James, Jesse's brother, lie was out of prison then, a very dignified old man with a long white beard. He had been hired to ride around as an attraction at one of the exhibitions.<br />
<br />
Mother kept moving up to the north by stages. After the job in St. Joseph, she found work in St. Louis. She arrived to Find the city in a tense situation- the whole town was on the verge of a race riot. The immediate cause was the murder of an Irish cop named Brady. The Black community was elated, for Brady was a “nigger-hating cop" who carved notches on his pistol to show the number of Blacks he had killed. Brady finally met his end at the hands of a "bad" Black man who ran a gambling house in Brady's district.<br />
<br />
The gambling, of course, was illegal. But as was often the case, The cops were paid off with a “cut" from the takings of the house. As the story was told to me, Brady and the gambler met on the street one day and got into an argument. Brady accused the gambler of not giving him his proper “cut." This was denied vehemently. Brady then threatened to close the place down. The Black man told him, “Don’t you come into my place when the game’s going on!” He then turned and walked off. The scene was witnessed by several Blacks, and the news of how the gambler had defied Brady spread immediately throughout the Black district.<br />
<br />
This was bad stuff for Brady. It might lead to “niggers gettin’ notions,” as the cops put it. A few days passed, and Brady made his move. He went to the gambling house when the game was on and was shot dead.<br />
<br />
Some anonymous Black bard wrote a song about it all:<br />
<br />
'''Brady, why didn’t you run,'''<br />
<br />
'''You know you done wrong.'''<br />
<br />
'''You came in the room when the game was going on!''' <br />
<br />
'''Brady went below looking mighty curious.'''<br />
<br />
'''Devil said, " Where you from?”'''<br />
<br />
'''"I'm from East St. Louis .”'''<br />
<br />
'''"East St. Louie, come this way I’ve been expecting you every day!”'''<br />
<br />
The song was immediately popular in the Black community and became a symbol of rebellious feelings. Mother said that when she arrived in St. Louis, Blacks were singing this song all over town. The police realized the danger in such “notions” and began to arrest anyone they caught singing it. Forty years later. I was pleasantly surprised to hear Carl Sandburg sing the same song as part of his repertoire of folk ballads of the midwest. I had not heard it since Mother had sung it to us.<br />
<br />
Mother later moved to Kansas City, Missouri, and then to South Omaha. Her marriage there to my Father was her second. As a very young girl in Moberly, she had married John Harvey, but he was, to use her words, “a no-good yellah nigger, who expected me to support him.” They had one child, Gertrude, before he deserted her.<br />
<br />
Gertie came to Omaha some time after my Mother, and married my Father’s youngest brother, George. I have a feeling that Mother promoted this match; the two hard-working, sober Hall brothers must have been quite a catch!<br />
<br />
As I remember Mother in my childhood years, she was a small, brown-skinned woman, rather on the plumpish side, with large and beautiful soft brown eyes. She had the humped, Indian nose of the Thorpe family.<br />
<br />
My first memory of her is hearing her sing as she did housework. She had a melodious contralto voice and what seemed to me to be an endless and varied repertoire. Much of what I know about this period, I learned from her songs. These included lullabies (“Go to Sleep You Little Pickaninny, Mamma’s Gonna Swat You if You Don’t”) and many spirituals and jubilee songs. There were also innumerable folk ballads, and the popular songs of her day like "Down at the Ball” and “Where Did You Get That Hat?” Then there was the old song the slaves sang about their masters fleeing the Union Army—“The Year of Jubilo.”<br />
<br />
'''Oh darkies, have you seen the Massah with the mustache on his face?'''<br />
<br />
'''He was gwine down de road dis mornin’ like''' <br />
<br />
'''he's gwine to leave dis place.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, de Massah run, ha ha!'''<br />
<br />
'''And the darkies sing, ho ho!'''<br />
<br />
'''It must be now the Kingdom cornin' and de year of Jubilo!'''<br />
<br />
Mother never went to school a day in her life, but she had a phenomenal memory and was a virtual repository of Black folklore. My brother Otto taught her to read and write when she when forty years old. She told stories of life on the plantations, of the “hollers” they used. When a slave wanted to talk to a friend on n neighboring plantation, she would throw back her head and half sing, half yell: “Oh, Bes-sie, I wa-ant to see you.” Often you could hear one of the “hollers” a mile away.<br />
<br />
When Mother was a girl, camp meetings were a big part of her life. She had songs she remembered from the meetings, like “I Don’t Feel Weary, No Ways Tired,” and she would imitate the preachers with all of their promises of fire and brimstone. Later, when we lived in South Omaha, she was very active in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. As a means of raising funds, she used to organize church theatricals. Otto would help her read the plays; she would then direct them and usually play the leading role herself. She was a natural mimic. I heard her go through entire plays from beginning to end, imitating the voices (even the male ones) and the actions of the performers.<br />
<br />
In addition to caring for Otto, Eppa and myself, Mother got jobs catering parties for rich white families in North Omaha. She would bring us back all sorts of goodies and leftovers from these parties. Sometimes she would get together with her friends among the other domestics, and they would have a great time panning their employers and exchanging news of the white folks’ scandalous doings.<br />
<br />
Mother had the great fighting spirit of her family. She was a strong-minded woman with great ambition for her children, especially for us boys. Eppa, who was a plain Black girl, was sensitive but physically tough, courageous, and a regular tomboy.<br />
<br />
Worried about her future, Mother insisted that she learn the piano and arranged for her to take lessons at twenty-five cents each. Though she learned to play minor classics such as “Poet and Peasant,” arias from such operas as Aida and II Trovatore, accompanied the choir and so on, Eppa never liked music very much and was not consoled by it the way Mother was.<br />
<br />
As a wife, Mother had a way of making Father feel the part of the man in the house. She flattered his ego and always addressed him as “Mr. Half’ in front of guests and us children.<br />
<br />
=== LIFE IN SOUTH OMAHA ===<br />
'''You ask what town I love the best.''' <br />
<br />
'''South Omaha, South Omaha!'''<br />
<br />
'''The fairest town of all the rest,'''<br />
<br />
'''South Omaha, South Omaha!'''<br />
<br />
'''Where yonder's Papillion’s limp stream'''<br />
<br />
'''To where Missouri’s waters gleam.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, fairest town, oh town of mine,''' <br />
<br />
'''South Omaha, South Omaha!'''<br />
<br />
In the early part of the century, the days of my youth, South Omaha was an independent city. In 1915, it was annexed to become part of the larger city of Omaha. Like many midwestem towns, the city took its name from the original inhabitants of the area. In this case, it was the Omaha Indians of the Sioux tribal family. The area was a camping ground of the Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1804. It grew in importance when it became a licensed trading post and an important outfitting point during the Colorado Gold Rush. But the main growth of South Omaha came in the 1880s as the meat packing industry developed.<br />
<br />
In 1877, the first refrigerated railroad cars were perfected. This made it possible to slaughter livestock in the midwest and ship the meat to the large markets in eastern cities. As a result, the meat packing industry grew tremendously in the midwest.<br />
<br />
The city leaders saw the opportunity and encouraged the expanding packing industry to settle there—offering them special tux concessions and so forth. The town, situated on a plateau back from the “big muddy” (the Missouri River), began to grow. Soon it was almost an industrial suburb of Omaha and was one of the three largest packing centers in the country. All of the big packers of the time—Armour, Swift, Wilson and Cudahy—had big branches there. Cudahy’s main plant was in South Omaha.<br />
<br />
The industry brought with it growing railroad traffic. As a boy, I watched the dozens of lines of cars as they carried livestock in from the west and butchered meat to ship out to the east. The Burlington; the Chicago and Northwestern; the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific; the Illinois Central; the Rock Island; the Union Pacific—all of these lines had terminals there. By 1910, Omaha was the fourth largest railway center in the country.<br />
<br />
When I was born in 1898, South Omaha was a bustling town of about 20,000. Most of these 20,000 people were foreign-born and first generation immigrants. The two largest groups were the Irish and the Bohemians (or Czechs). There was a sprinkling of other Slavic groups—Poles, Russians, Serbs—as well as Germans, Greeks and Italians.<br />
<br />
The Bohemians were the largest ethnic group in town. They lived mainly in the southern part of town, towards the river, in the Brown Park and Albright sections. One thing that impressed me was their concern with education. They were a cultured group of people. I can’t remember any of them being illiterate and they had their own newspaper. They were involved in the political wheelings and dealings of the town and were successful at it. At one time, both the mayor and chief of police were Bohemians.<br />
<br />
The Irish were the second largest group, scattered throughout the town. The newly arrived poor "shanty” Irish would first settle on Indian Hill, near the stockyards. There were two classes of Irish the "shanty” Irish on the one hand, and the "old settlers” or "lace curtain” Irish on the other. This second group, who had settled only one generation before, was mostly made up of middle class, white collar, civil service and professional workers who lived near North Omaha. There were also a few Irish who were very rich; managers and executives who lived in Omaha proper. They had become well assimilated into the community. The tendency was for the poorer Irish to live in South Omaha, and those who had "made it” to one degree or another would move up to North Omaha or Omaha proper.<br />
<br />
There were only a few dozen Black families in South Omaha, scattered throughout the community. There was no Black ghetto and, as I saw it, no "Negro problem.” This was due undoubtedly to our small numbers, although there was a relatively large number of Blacks living in North Omaha. The Black community there had grown after Blacks were brought in as strikebreakers during the 1894 strike in the packing industry, but no real ghetto developed until after World War I.<br />
<br />
Our family lived in the heart of the Bohemian neighborhood in South Omaha. Nearly all our neighbors were Bohemians. They came from many backgrounds; there were workers and peasants, professionals, artists, musicians and other skilled artisans, all fleeing from the oppressive rule of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.<br />
<br />
They were friendly people, and kept up their language and traditions. On Saturdays, families would gather at one of the beer gardens to sing and dance. I remember watching them dance scottisches and polkas, listening to the beautiful music of their bands and orchestras, or running after their great marching bands when they were in a parade. On special occasions, they would bring out their colorful costumes. Much of their community life centered around the gymnastic clubs—Sokols or Turners’ Halls— which they had established.<br />
<br />
There were differences in how the ethnic groups related to each other and to the Blacks in town. In those days, Indian Hill was the stomping ground of teenage Irish toughs. One day, a mob of predominantly Irish youths ran the small Greek colony out of town when one of their members allegedly killed an Irish cop. I remember seeing the Greek community leaving town one Sunday afternoon. There were men, women and children (about 100 in all) walking down the railroad tracks, carrying everything they could hold. Some of their houses had been burned and a few of them had been beaten up in town.<br />
<br />
We should have seen the danger for us in this, but one Black man even boasted to my Father about how he had helped run the Greeks out. My Father called him a fool. “What business did you have helping that bunch of whites? Next time it might be you they run out!’’ The incident was an ominous sign of tensions that were lo come many years later.<br />
<br />
At the time, however, our family got along well with all the immigrant families in our immediate neighborhood. I loved the sweet haunting melodies of the Irish folk ballads; “Rose of Tralce,” "Mother Machree” and many of the popular songs, like “My Irish Molly-O” and “Augraghawan, I Want to Go Back to Oregon.”<br />
<br />
There was a Bohemian couple living next door. On occasion, Mr. Rehau would get a bit too much under his belt. He’d come home and really raise hell. When this happened, Mrs. Rehau scurried to Officer Bingham, the Black cop, to get some help. I remember one afternoon when Bingham came to lend a hand in laming him. The Bohemian was a little guy compared to him. Officer Bingham threw him down out in the yard and plunked himself down on Rehau’s back.<br />
<br />
Dust flew as he kicked and thrashed and tried to get out from under the Black man. Bingham just “rode the storm” and when Rehau raised his head, he’d smack him around until the rebellion subsided.<br />
<br />
“Had enough?" he’d yell at his victim. “You gonna behave now and mind what Mrs. Rehau says?" All the while, she was running around them, waving her apron.<br />
<br />
“Beat him some more, Mr, Bingham, please! Make him be good.”<br />
<br />
Finally, either Bingham got tired or Mr. Rehau just gave out and peace returned to the neighborhood.<br />
<br />
“Police and community relations" were less tense then. The cops knew how to control a situation without using guns. Often this meant they'd get into actual fist fights. In those days, there was a big Black guy in town named Sam, a beef lugger like my Father. Sam was a nice quiet guy, but on occasion he'd go on a drunk and fight anyone within arm’s length (which was a big area). The cops generally handled it by fighting it out with him.<br />
<br />
But I remember one time Sam really caused a row. He was outside a bar on J Street, up in Omaha proper. During the course of his drunk, he’d beaten up five or six of the regular cops. This called for extreme measures. Briggs, the chief of police, came to the scene to restore law and order. He marched up to Sam and threw out his chest, “Now Sam, it's time for you to behave, you hear?" He even pulled out his thirty-eight to show he meant business.<br />
<br />
But Sam wasn’t ready to behave. He came at Briggs, intending to lay him out like he’d done with the other officers, Briggs backed up, one step at a time. “Sam, you stop. You hear me Sam? Time to stop, now." Sam forced Briggs all the way back to his carriage. Once Briggs was in, he delivered his final threat: “Sam, you come down to City Hall on Monday and see me. This just can’t happen this way."<br />
<br />
Briggs drove off. Monday morning came and Sam went down to City Hall. He was fined for being drunk and disorderly. He didn’t fight the court and willingly paid the fine. It seemed like an unwritten agreement. The cops wouldn’t shoot when Sam went on a spree. When it was over, Sam would go and pay his fine and that would end the whole business.<br />
<br />
Our family was the only Black family in our neighborhood, and we were pretty well insulated from the racist pressures of the outside world. As children we were only very dimly aware of what DuBois called the “veil of color between the races.”<br />
<br />
I First became aware of the veil, not from anything that happened in the town, but from what my parents and grandparents told me of how Southern whites had persecuted Blacks and of how they had suffered under slavery. I remember Grandfather and Grandmother Thorpe showing me the scars they had on their backs from the overseer’s lash. I remember Pa reading newspaper accounts of the endless reign of lynch terror in the South, and about the 1908 riots in Springfield, Illinois.<br />
<br />
In 1908, Jack Johnson, the first Black heavyweight champion, defeated the “great white hope.” Jim Jeffries. Pa said that it was the occasion for a new round of lynchings in the South. There were other great Black fighters—Sam Langford, Joe Jeanett and Sam McVey for instance—but Johnson was the first Black heavyweight to be able to fight for the championship and the first to win it.<br />
<br />
He was conscious that he was a Black man in a racist world. “I’m Black, they never let me forget it. Pm Black, Til never forget it.” Jeffries had been pushed as the hope of the white race to reclaim the heavyweight crown from Johnson. When Johnson knocked out Jeffries, it was a symbol of Black defiance and self-assertion. To Blacks, the victory meant pride and hope. It was a challenge to the authority of bigoted whites and to them it called for extra measures to “keep the niggers in their place.”<br />
<br />
To us children, Black repression seemed restricted to the South, outside the orbit of our immediate experience. As I saw it then, there was no deliberate plot of white against Black. I thought there were two kinds of white folk: good and bad, and the latter were mainly in the South. Most of those I knew in South Omaha were good people. Disillusionment came later in my life.<br />
<br />
The friendly interracial atmosphere of South Omaha was illustrated by the presence of Officer Bingham and Officer Ballou, two Black cops in the town’s small police force. Bingham was a big, Black and jolly fellow. His beat was our neighborhood. Ballou was a tall, slim, ramrod straight and light brown-skinned Black. He was a veteran of the Black Tenth Cavalry. He had fought in the Indian wars against Geronimo and had participated in the chase for Billy the Kid. Ballou was also a veteran of the Spanish- American War. All the kids, Black and white, regarded him with a special awe and respect. Both Black officers were treated as respectable members of the community, liked by the people because they had their confidence. While they wore guns, they never seemed to use them. These cops fought tough characters with fists and clubs, pulling a gun only rarely, and then only in self- defense. It seemed that a large part of their duty was to keep the kids out of mischief.<br />
<br />
“Officer Bingham,” the Bohemian woman across the alley would call, “would you please keep an eye on my boy Frontal. See he don’t make trouble.”<br />
<br />
“Don’t worry, Mrs. Brazda. He’s a good boy.”<br />
“<br />
<br />
Has Haywood been a good boy?”<br />
<br />
“Oh yes, Mrs. Hall. He’s all right.’’And he would stop for a chat.<br />
My sister Eppa, a lad called Willy Starens and I were the only Black kids in the Brown Park Elementary School. My brother Otto had already graduated and was in South Omaha High. Our schoolmates were predominantly Bohemians, with a sprinkling of Irish, German and a few Anglo-Americans. My close childhood chums included two Bohemian lads, Frank Brazda and Jimmy Rehau; an Anglo-Irish kid, Earl Power; and Willy Ziegler, who was of German parentage. We were an inseparable fivesome, in and out of each other’s homes all the time.<br />
<br />
During my first years in school, I was plagued by asthma, and was absent from school many months at a time. The result was that I was a year behind. I finally outgrew this infirmity and became a strong, healthy boy. By the time I reached the eighth grade, I had become one of the best students in my class, sharing this honor with a Bohemian girl, Bertha Himmel. Both of us could solve any problem in arithmetic, both were good at spelling, and at interschool spelling bees our school usually won the first prize. My self-confidence was encouraged by my teachers, all of whom were white and yet uniformly kind and sympathetic.<br />
<br />
Of course, like all kids, I had plenty of fights. But race was seldom involved. Occasionally, I would hear the word “nigger.” While it evoked anger in me, it seemed no more disparaging than the terms “bohunk,” “sheeny,” “dago,” “shanty Irish” or “poor white trash.” All were terms of common usage, interchangeable as slurring epithets on one’s ethnic background, and usually employed outside the hearing of the person in question.<br />
<br />
In contrast to the daily life of the neighborhood, however, the virus of racism was subtly injected into the classroom at the Brown Park School I attended. The five races of mankind illustrated in our geography books portrayed the Negro with the receding forehead and prognathous jaws of a gorilla. There was a complete absence of Black heroes in the history books, supporting the inference that the Black man had contributed nothing to civilization. We were taught that Blacks were brought out of the savagery of the jungles of Africa and introduced to civilization through slavery under the benevolent auspices of the white man.<br />
<br />
In spite of my Father’s submissive attitude, it is to him that I must give credit for scotching this big lie about the Negro’s past. His attitude grew out of his concern for our survival in a hostile environment. He felt most strongly that the Negro was not innately inferior, He perceived that his children must have some sense of self-respect and confidence to sustain them until that distant day when, through “obvious merit and just dessert,” Blacks would receive their award of equality and recognition.<br />
<br />
Father possessed an amazing store of knowledge which he had culled from his readings. He would tell us about the Black civilizations of ancient Egypt, Ethiopia and Cush. He would quote from the Song of Solomon: “I am Black and comely, oh ye daughters of Jerusalem.” He would tell us about Black soldiers in the Civil War; about the massacre of Blacks at Fort Pillow and the battle cry they used thereafter, “Remember Fort Pillow! Remember Fort Pillow!”2 He knew about the Haitian Revolution, the defeat of Napoleon’s Army by Toussaint L’Ouverture, Dessalines and Jean Christophe. He told us about the famous Zulu chief Shaka in South Africa; about Alexandre Dumas, the great French romanticist, and Pushkin, the great Russian poet, who were both Black.<br />
<br />
Father said that he had taught himself to read and write. He had an extensive library, which took up half of one of the walls in our subject. They included such titles as The Decisive Battles of the World The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, and many histories of England, France, Germany and Russia. He had Stanley in Africa, and a number of biographies of famous men, including Napoleon, Caesar and Hannibal (who Father said was a Negro). He had Scott’s Ivanhoe and his Waverly novels; Bulwer Lytton; Alexandre Dumas’ novels and the Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, and Up From Slavery by Booker T. Washington.<br />
<br />
On another wall there was a huge picture of the charge of the Twenty-fifth Black Infantry and the Tenth Cavalry at San Juan Hill, rescuing Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders. There were pictures of Frederick Douglass and, of course, his hero, Booker T. Washington. He would lecture to us on history, displaying his .extensive knowledge. He was a great admirer of Napoleon. He would get into one of his lecturing moods and pace up and down with his hands behind his back before the rapt audience of my sister Eppa and myself. Talking about the Battle of Waterloo, he would say:<br />
<br />
“Wellington was in a tough spot that day. Napoleon was about to whip him; the trouble was Blucher hadn’t shown up.”<br />
<br />
“Who was he, Pa?”<br />
<br />
“He was the German general who was supposed to reinforce Wellington with 13,000 Prussian troops. Wellington was getting awful nervous, walking up and down behind the lines and saying, 4Oh! If Blucher fails to come! Where is Blucher?”<br />
<br />
“Did he Finally get there, Pa?”<br />
<br />
“Yes, son, he finally got there and turned the tide of battle. And if he hadn’t shown up and Napoleon had won, the whole course of history would have been changed.”<br />
<br />
It was through Father that I entered the world of books. I developed an unquenchable thirst to learn about people and their history. I remember going to the town library when I was nine or ten and asking, “Do you have a history of the world for children?” My first love became the historical novel. I loved George Henty’s books; they always dealt with the exploits of a sixteen-year-old during an important historical period. Through Henty’s heroes, I too was with Bonnie Prince Charlie, with Wellington in rite Spanish Peninsula, with Gustavus Adolphus at Lutsen in the Thirty Years War, with Clive in India and Under Drake's Flag around the world. I was also fascinated by romances of the feudal period such as When Knighthood Was in Flower and Ivanhoe. I read Twain’s Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer, and the works of H. Rider Haggard.<br />
<br />
I went through a definite Anglophile stage, in part due to the influence of a Jamaican named Mr. Williams who worked as assistant janitor with my Father. Mr. Williams was a huge Black man with scars all over his face. He was a former stoker in the British Navy. I was attracted by his strange accent and haughty demeanor. Evidently he saw in me an appreciative audience. I would listen with open mouth and wonder at the stories of the strange places he had seen, of his adventures in faraway lands. He was a real British patriot, a Black imperialist, if such was possible.<br />
<br />
He would declare, “The sun never sets on the British Empire,” and then sing “Rule Brittania, Brittania Rule the Waves.” He quoted Napoleon as allegedly saying, “Britain is a small garden, but she grows some bitter weeds,” and “Give me French soldiers and British officers, and I will conquer the world.” I pictured myself as a British sailor, and read Two Years Before the Mast and Battle of Trafalgar.<br />
<br />
“Do you think they would let me join the British Navy?” I asked Mr. Williams.<br />
<br />
“No, my lad,” he answered, “You have to be a British citizen or subject to do that.” I was quite disappointed.<br />
But it was not only British romance that fascinated me. At about the age of twelve I became a Francophile. I read all of Dumas’ novels and quite a number of other novels about France. I had begun to read French history, which to me turned out to be as interesting as the novels and equally romantic. I read about Joan of Arc, the Hundred Years’ War, Francis I, about Catherine de Medici, the Huguenots and Admiral Coligny, the Due de Guise, the massacre of St. Bartholomew Eve or the night of the long knives; then the French Revolution, A Tale of Two Cities, the guillotining of Charlotte Corday and the assassination of Marat.<br />
<br />
Occasionally, the ugly reality of race would intrude upon the dream world of my childhood. I distinctly remember two such occasions. One was when a white family from Arkansas moved across the alley from us. Mr. Faught, the patriarch of the clan, was a typical red-necked peckerwood. He would sit around the store front, chawing tobacco, telling how they treated “niggers” down his way.<br />
<br />
“They were made to stay in their place- -down in the cotton patch—not in factories taking white men’s jobs.”<br />
<br />
As I remember, his racist harangues did not make much of an impression on the local white audience. Apparently at that time there was no feeling of competition in South Omaha because there were so few Blacks. I would also imagine that his slovenly appearance did not jibe with his white supremacist pretensions.<br />
<br />
One day a substitute teacher took over our class. I was about ten years old. The substitute was a Southerner from Arkansas. During history class she started talking about the Civil War. The slaves, she said, did not really want freedom because they were happy as they were. They would have been freed by their masters in a few years anyway. Her villain was General Grant, whom she contrasted unfavorably with General Robert E. Lee.<br />
<br />
“Lee was a gentleman,” she put forth, “But Grant was a cigar-smoking liquor-drinking roughneck.”<br />
<br />
She didn’t like Sherman either, and talked about his “murdering rampage” through Georgia. I wasn't about to take all of this and challenged her.<br />
<br />
“I don’t know about General Grant’s habits, but he did beat Lee. Besides, Lee couldn’t have been much of a gentleman; he owned slaves!”<br />
<br />
Livid with rage, she shouted, “That’s enough —what I could say about you!”<br />
<br />
“Well, what could you say?” I challenged.<br />
She apparently saw that wild racist statements wouldn’t work in this situation, and that I was trying to provoke her to do something like that. She cut short the argument, shouting, “That’s enough”<br />
<br />
“Yes, that’s enough,” I sassed.<br />
During the heated exchange, I felt that I had the sympathy of most of my classmates. After school, some gathered around me and said, “You certainly told her off?”<br />
<br />
When I told Mother she supported me. “You done right, son,” she said.<br />
<br />
But Father was not so sure. “You might have gotten into trouble.”<br />
<br />
I feel now that one of the reasons for my self-confidence during my childhood years, and why the racist notions of innate Black inferiority left me cold, was my older brother Otto. His example belied such claims. He was the most brilliant one in our family, and probably in all of South Omaha. He had skipped a grade both in grade school and in high school, and was a real prodigy. He was a natural poet, and won many prizes in composition. His poem on the charge of the Twenty-fifth Black Infantry and Tenth Cavalry at San Juan Hill was published in one of the Omaha dailies. Otto was praised by all of his teachers. “An unusual boy,” they said, “clearly destined to become a leader of his race.”<br />
<br />
One day, one of his teachers and a Catholic priest called on Mother and Father to talk about Otto’s future. Otto was about fourteen at the time. They suggested that he might be good material for the priesthood, and that there was a possibility of his getting a scholarship for Creighton University, Omaha’s famous Jesuit school. The teacher suggested that if this were agreed to, he should take up Latin. My parents were extremely flattered, despite the fact that they were good Methodists (AME). Even Father, who did not seem ambitious for his children, was impressed.<br />
<br />
But when the proposition was placed before Otto, he vehemently disagreed. He did not want to become a priest nor did he want to study Latin. He wanted, he said, to be an architect! Doctors, dentists, teachers and preachers -these were the professions for an ambitious Black in those days.<br />
<br />
“An architect!” they exclaimed in amazement. “Who ever heard of a Black architect?”<br />
<br />
“Who ever heard of a Black priest?” Otto retorted. (At that time there were only two or three Black priests in the entire U.S.)<br />
<br />
“But Otto,” Mother argued,“you’ll have the support of a lot of prominent white folks. They’ll help you through college.”<br />
<br />
But Otto would have none of it. Undoubtedly, my parents thought that they could finally wear down his opposition and that he would become more amenable in time. They did force him to take Latin, a subject he hated.<br />
<br />
Otto stayed in school, but no longer seemed interested in his studies. He dropped out of school suddenly in his senior year. He was sixteen. He left home and got a job as a bellhop in a hotel in North Omaha’s Black community. This move cut completely the few remaining tics he had with his white age group in South Omaha.<br />
<br />
Otto’s drop-out from high school evidently signified that he had given up the struggle to be somebody in the white world. He had become disillusioned with the white world and therefore sought identity with his own people. During my childhood years, our relationship had never been close. There was, of course, the age gap—he was seven years older. But even in later years, when we were closer and had more in common, we never talked about our childhood. I don’t know why. As a child I had been proud of his academic feats and boasted about them to my friends.<br />
<br />
At the time he left high school Otto was the only Black in South Omaha High and was about to become its first Black graduate. Highly praised by his teachers and popular among his fellow students, he was a real showpiece in the school.<br />
<br />
What caused him to drop out of school in his senior year? Thinking back on it, I don’t believe that it had anything to do with the attempt to make him a priest. I think that he had won that battle a couple of years before. At least, I never heard the matter mentioned again.<br />
<br />
Otto undoubtedly had had high aspirations at one time, as evidenced by his desire to become an architect. Somewhere along the line they disappeared. Perhaps a contributing factor was the accumulating effect of Otto’s malady. On occasion, Mother would remind us that Otto had water on the brain, and that he was different from Eppa and myself. At the time, he seemed smarter than us, more independent and in rebellion against Pa’s lack of encouragement, moral support and his parental authority. Certainly in adult life Otto used to sleep about ten hours a day and very often fell asleep in meetings. He seemed to lack the ability of prolonged concentration, although whatever brain damage he may have suffered never affected the quickness of his mind and ability to grasp the nub of any question or the capacity for leadership which he showed on a number of occasions.<br />
<br />
But more debilitating, probably, than any physical disease was the generation gap of that era—between parents of slave backgrounds and children born free, particularly in the north. Otto’s dropping out of school and his later radical political development were undoubtedly related to a conflict more intense than the ones of today.<br />
<br />
Father was an ardent follower of Booker T. Washington. His ambitions for his sons were very modest, to put it mildly. He undoubtedly would have been satisfied if we could become good law-abiding citizens with stable jobs. He thought of jobs a notch or two above his own station, like a postal employee, a skilled tradesman, or a clerk in the civil service. The offer of a scholarship for the priesthood was, therefore, simply beyond his expectations, and I guess that the old man was deeply disappointed at Otto’s rejection of it.<br />
<br />
Otto was quite independent and would not conform to Father’s idea of discipline. For example, he was completely turned off on the question of religion, and Father could not force him to go to church I don’t remember Otto ever going to church with the family. Father claimed that Otto was irresponsible and wild. As a result, there was mutual hostility between them. The results were numerous thrashings when Otto was young and violent quarrels between them as he grew older. Mother would usually defend Otto. Grandpa Thorpe, himself a strict disciplinarian, would warn Mother: “Hattie, you mark my words, that boy is going to lan’ in the pen.”<br />
<br />
At some point, Otto came to the conclusion that there was no use in continuing his education. He must have felt that it was irrelevant. Opportunities for educated Blacks were few, even in North Omaha’s Black community where there were only a few professionals. In that community there were a few preachers, one doctor, one dentist and one or two teachers. Black businesses consisted of owners of several undertaking establishments, a couple of barber shops and a few pool rooms. The only other Blacks in any sort of middle class positions were a few postal employees, civil service workers, pullman porters and waiters.<br />
<br />
Then too, Otto had passed through the age of puberty and was becoming more and more conscious of his race. Along with the natural detachment and withdrawal from childhood socializing with girls—in his case white girls who were former childhood sweethearts—Otto experienced a withdrawal and non-socialization because of his race. He ended up quite alone because there were not many Black kids his age in South Omaha. There wasn’t much contact with the Black kids from North Omaha either. As a very sensitive person on the verge of manhood, I imagine he began to feel these changes keenly.<br />
<br />
After he dropped out of school in 1908, Otto was soon attracted to the “sportin’ life”...the pool halls and sporting houses of North<br />
Omaha. He wanted to be among Black people; he was anxious to get away from Father. Thus, he left home and got jobs as a bellhop, shoeshine boy, and busboy. He began to absorb a new way of life, stepping fully into the social life of the Black community in North Omaha. He’d evidently heeded the “call of the blood” and gone back to the race. It was not until a few years later, when I had similar experiences, that I understood that Otto had arrived at the first stage in his identity crisis and had gone to where he felt he belonged.<br />
<br />
He would come home quite often, though, flaunting his new clothes, a “box-backed” suit—“fitting nowhere but the shoulders,” high-heeled Stacey Adams button shoes, and a stetson hat. He’d give a few dollars to Mother and some dimes to me and my sister. Sometimes he would bring a pretty girl friend with him. But most of the time, he would bring a young man, Henry Starens, who was a piano player. He played a style popular in those days, later to be known as boogie-woogie, in which the piano was the whole orchestra. He played Ma Rainey’s famous blues, “Make Me a Pallet on Your Floor, Make It Where Your Man Will Never Know,” and the old favorite, “Alabama Bound.”<br />
<br />
'''Alabama Bound'''<br />
<br />
'''I'm Alabama Bound.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, babe, don't leave me here,'''<br />
<br />
'''Just leave a dime for beer.'''<br />
<br />
A boy of ten at the time, I was tremendously impressed. There is no doubt that Otto’s experience served to weaken some of my childish notions about making it in the white world.<br />
<br />
=== HALLEY’S COMET AND MY RELIGION ===<br />
On May 4, 1910, Halley’s Comet appeared flaring down out of the heavens, its luminous tail switching to earth. It was an ominous sight.<br />
<br />
A rash of religious revival swept Omaha. Prophets and messiahs appeared on street comers and in churches preaching the end of the world. Hardened sinners “got religion.” Backsliders renewed their faith. The comet, with its tail moving ever closer to the earth, seemed to lend credence to forecasts of imminent cosmic disaster.<br />
<br />
Both my Mother and Father were deeply religious. Theirs was that “old time religion,” the fire-and-brimstone kind which leaned heavily on the Old Testament. It was the kind that accepted the Bible and all its legends as the literal gospel truth. We children had the “fear of the Lord” drilled into us from early age. My image of God was that of a vengeful old man who demanded unquestioned faith, strict obedience and repentant love as the price of salvation;<br />
<br />
'''I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.'''<br />
<br />
Every Sunday, rain or shine, the family would attend services at the little frame church near the railroad tracks. For me, this was a tortuous ordeal. I looked forward to Sundays with dread. We would spend all of eight hours in church. We would sit through the morning service, then the Sunday school, after which followed a break for dinner. We returned at five for the Young People’s Christian Endeavor and finally the evening service. It was not just boredom. Fear was the dominant emotion, especially when our preacher, Reverend Jamieson, a big Black man with a beautiful voice, would launch into one of his fire-and-brimstone sermons. He would start out slowly and in a low voice, gradually raising it higher he would swing to a kind of sing-song rhythm, holding his congregation rapt with vivid word pictures. They would respond with “Hallelujah! ” “Ain’t it the truth! ” “Preach it, brother!”<br />
<br />
He would go on in this manner for what seemed an interminable time, and would reach his peroration on a high note, winding up with a rafter-shaking burst of oratory. He would then pause dramatically amidst moans, shouts and even screams of some of the women, one or two of whom would fall out in a dead faint. Waiting for them to subside he would then, in a lowered, scarcely audible voice, reassure his flock that it was not yet too late to repent and achieve salvation. All that was necessary was to: “Repent sinners, and love and obey the Lord. Amen.” Someone would then rise and lead off with an appropriate spiritual such as:<br />
<br />
'''Oh, my sins are forgiven and my soul set free-ah,'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, glory Halelua-a-a-a'''<br />
<br />
'''Just let me in the kingdom when the world is all a'fi-ah.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh Glory Halelu!'''<br />
<br />
'''I don't feel worried, no ways tiahd,'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, glory Halelu!'''<br />
<br />
I remember the family Bible, a huge book which lay on the center table in the front room. The first several pages were blank, set aside for recording the vital family statistics: births, deaths, marriages. The book was filled with graphic illustrations of biblical happenings. Leafing through Genesis (which we used to call “the begats”), one came to Exodus and from there on a pageant of bloodshed and violence unfolded. Portrayed in striking colors were the interminable tribal wars in which the Israelites slew the Mennonites and Pharoah’s soldiers killed little children in march of Moses. There was the great God, Jehovah himself, whitebearded and eyes flashing, looking very much like our old cracker neighbor, Mr. Faught.<br />
<br />
Just a couple of weeks before Halley’s comet appeared, Mother had taken us to see the silent film, Dante’s Inferno, through which I sat with open mouth horror. Needless to say, this experience did not lessen my apprehension.<br />
<br />
The comet continued its descent, its tail like the flaming sword of vengeance. Collision seemed not just possible, but almost certain. What had we poor mortals done to incur such wrath of the Lord?<br />
<br />
My deportment underwent a change. I did all my chores without complaint and helped Mama around the house. This was so unlike me that she didn’t know what to make of it. I overheard her telling Pa about my good behavior and how helpful I had become lately. But I hadn’t really changed. I was just scared. I was simply trying to carry out another one of God’s commandments, “Honor thy lather and thy mother that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.'’<br />
<br />
Then one night, when the whole neighborhood had gathered as usual on the hill to watch the comet, it appeared to have ceased its movement towards the earth. We were not sure, but the next night we were certain. It had not only ceased its descent, but was definitely withdrawing. In a couple more nights, it had disappeared. A wave of relief swept over the town.<br />
<br />
“It’s not true!” I thought to myself. “The fire and brimstone, the leering devils, the angry vengeful God. None of it is true.”<br />
<br />
It was as if a great weight had been lifted from my mind. It was the end of my religion, although I still thought that there was most likely a supreme being. But if God existed, he was nothing like the God portrayed in our family Bible. I was no longer terrified of him. Later, at the age of fourteen or fifteen, I read some of the lectures of Robert G. Ingersoll and became an agnostic, doubting the existence of a god. From there, I later moved to positive atheism.<br />
<br />
Two years later, the great event was the sinking of the Titanic.This was significant in Omaha because one of the Brandeis brothers, owners of the biggest department store in North Omaha, went down with her. In keeping with the custom of Blacks to gloat over the misfortunes of whites, especially rich ones, some Black bard composed the "Titanic Blues":<br />
<br />
'''When old John Jacob As tor left his home,'''<br />
<br />
'''He never thought he was going to die.'''<br />
<br />
'''Titanic fare thee well'''<br />
<br />
'''I say fare thee well.'''<br />
<br />
But disaster was more frequently reserved for the Black community. On Easter Sunday 1913, a tornado struck North Omaha. It ripped a two-block swath through the Black neighborhood, leaving death and destruction in its wake. Among the victims were a dozen or so Black youths trapped in a basement below a pool hall where they had evidently been shooting craps. Mother did not fail to point out the incident as another example of God's wrath. While I was sorry for the youths and their families (some of them were friends of Otto), the implied warning left me cold. My God-fearing days had ended with Halley's Comet.<br />
<br />
Misfortune, however, was soon to strike our immediate family. It happened that summer, in 1913. My Father fled town after being attacked and beaten by a gang of whites on Q Street, right outside the gate of the packing plant. They told him to get out of town or they would kill him.<br />
<br />
I remember vividly the scene that night when Father staggered through the door. Consternation gripped us at the sight. His face was swollen and bleeding, his clothes torn and in disarray. He had a frightened, hunted look in his eyes. My sister Eppa and I were alone. Mother had gone for the summer to work for her employers, rich white folks, at Lake Okoboji, Iowa. <br />
<br />
"What happened?" we asked.<br />
<br />
He gasped out the story of how he had been attacked and beaten.<br />
<br />
"They said they were going to kill me if I didn't get out of town."<br />
<br />
We asked him who "they" were. He said that he recognized some of them as belonging to the Irish gang on Indian Hill, but there were also some grown men.<br />
<br />
"But why, Pa? Why should they pick on you?"<br />
<br />
"Why don't we call the police?"<br />
<br />
"That ain't goin' to do no good. We just have to leave town."<br />
<br />
"But Pa," I said, "how can we? We own this house. We've got friends here. If you tell them, they wouldn't let anybody harm us."<br />
<br />
Again the frightened look crossed his face.<br />
<br />
"No, we got to go."<br />
<br />
"Where, where will we go?"<br />
<br />
"We'll move up to Minneapolis, your uncles Watt and George are there. I'll get work there. I'm going to telegraph your Mother to come home now."<br />
<br />
He washed his face and then went into the bedroom and began packing his bags. The next morning he gave Eppa some money and said, "This will tide you over till your Mother comes. She'll be here in a day or two. I'm going to telegraph her as soon as I get to the depot. I'll send for you all soon."<br />
<br />
He kissed us goodbye and left.<br />
<br />
Only when he closed the door behind him did we feel the full impact of the shock. It had happened so suddenly. Our whole world had collapsed. Home and security were gone. The feeling of safety in our little haven of interracial goodwill had proved elusive. Now we were just homeless "niggers" on the run.<br />
<br />
The crudest blow, perhaps, was the shattering of my image of lather. True enough, I had not regarded him as a hero. Still, however, I had retained a great deal of respect for him. He was undoubtedly a very complex man, very sensitive and imaginative. Probably he had never gotten over the horror of that scene in the cabin near Martin, Tennessee, where as a boy of fifteen he had seen his father kill the Klansman. He distrusted and feared poor whites, especially the native born and, in Omaha, the shanty Irish.<br />
<br />
Mother arrived the next day. For her it was a real tragedy. Our home was gone and our family broken up. She had lived in Omaha for nearly a quarter of a century. She had raised her family there and had built up a circle of close friends. With her regular summer job at Lake Okoboji and catering parties the rest of the year, she had helped pay for our home. Now it was gone. We would be lucky if we even got a fraction of the money we had put into it, not to speak of the labor. Now she was to leave all this. Friends and neighbors would ask why Father had run away.<br />
<br />
Why had he let some poor white trash run him out of town? He had friends there. Ours was an old respected family. He also had influential white patrons. There was Ed Cudahy of the family that owned the packing plant where he worked. The Cudahys had become one of the nation's big three in the slaughtering and meat packing industry. Father had known him from boyhood. There was Mr. Wilkins, general manager at Cudahy's, whom Father had known as an office boy, and who now gave Father all his old clothes.<br />
<br />
A few days later, Mr. Cannon, a railroad man in charge of a buffet car on the Omaha and Minneapolis run and an old friend of the family, called with a message from Father. He said that Father was all right, that he had gotten a job for himself and Mother at the Minneapolis Women's Club. Father was to become caretaker and janitor, Mother was to cater the smaller parties at the club and to assist at the larger affairs. They were to live on the place in a basement apartment.<br />
<br />
The salary was ridiculously small (I think about $60 per month for both of them) and the employers insisted that only one of us children would be allowed to live at the place. That, of course, would be Eppa. He said that Father had arranged for me to live with another family. This, he said, would be a temporary arrangement. He was sure he could find another job, and rent a house where we could all be together again. As for me, Father suggested that since I was fifteen, I could find a part-time job to help out while continuing school. Mr. Cannon said that he was to take me back to Minneapolis with him, and that Mother and Eppa were to follow in a few days.<br />
<br />
With regards to our house, Mr. Cannon said that he knew a lawyer, an honest fellow, who for a small commission would handle its sale. Mother later claimed that after deducting the lawyer's commission and paying off a small mortgage, they only got the paltry sum of $300! This was for a five-room house with electricity and running water.<br />
<br />
The next day, Mr. Cannon took me out to his buffet car in the railroad yards. He put me in the pantry and told me to stay there, and if the conductor looked in: "Don't be afraid, he's a friend of mine." Our car was then attached to a train which backed down to the station to load passengers. I looked out the window as we left Omaha. I was not to see Omaha again until after World War I, when I was a waiter on the Burlington Railroad.<br />
<br />
My childhood and part of my adolescence was now behind me. I felt that I was practically on my own. What did the world hold for me—a Black youth?<br />
<br />
Arriving in Minneapolis, I went to my new school. As I entered the room, the all-white class was singing old darkie plantation songs. Upon seeing me, their voices seemed to take on a mocking, derisive tone. Loudly emphasizing the Negro dialect and staring directly at me, they sang:<br />
<br />
'''"Down in De Caunfiel—HEAH DEM darkies moan'''<br />
<br />
'''All De darkies AM a weeping'''<br />
<br />
'''MASSAHS in DE Cold Cold Ground"'''<br />
<br />
They were really having a ball.<br />
<br />
In my state of increased racial awareness, this was just too much for me. I was already in a mood of deep depression. With the breakup of our family, the separation from my childhood friends, and the interminable quarrels between my Mother and Father (in which I sided with Mother), I was in no mood to be kidded or scoffed at.<br />
<br />
That was my last day in school. I never returned. I made up my mind to drop out and get a full-time job.<br />
<br />
I was fifteen and in the second semester of the eighth grade.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 ==<br />
<br />
=== A Black Regiment in World War I ===<br />
'''On the Negroes this double experience of deliberate and devilish persecution from their own countrymen, coupled with a taste of real democracy and world-old culture, was revolutionizing. They began to hate prejudice and discrimination as they had never hated it before. They began to realize its eternal meaning and complications., .they were filled with a bitter, dogged determination never to give up the fight for Negro equality in America....A new, radical Negro spirit has been born in France, which leaves us older radicals far behind. Thousands of young Black men have offered their lives for the Lilies of France and they return ready to offer them again for the Sunflowers of Afro-America. W.E.B. DuBois, June 1919'''<br />
<br />
Despite my bitter encounter with racism in school, I liked Minneapolis. I was impressed by the beauty of this city with its many lakes and surrounding pine forests. The racial climate in 1913 was not as bad as my early experience in school would indicate, either. Blacks seemed to get along well, especially with the Scandinavian nationalities, who constituted the most numerous ethnic grouping in the city. <br />
<br />
Upon quitting school, I became a part of the small Black community and completely identified with it. I found friends among Black boys and girls of my age group, attended parties, dances, picnics at Lake Minnetonka, and ice skated in the winter time. Here, as in Omaha, a ghetto had not yet fully formed, though I here were the beginnings of one in the Black community on the north side.<br />
<br />
Included in the Black community and among my new friends were a relatively large number of mulattos, the progeny of mixed marriages between Scandinavian women and Black men. This phenomenon dated back to the turn of the century. At that time it was the fashion among wealthy white families to import Scandinavian maids. Many of these families had Black male servants— butlers, chauffeurs, etc.—and the small Black population was preponderantly male. The result was a rash of inter-marriages between the Scandinavian maids and the Black male house servants. The interracial couples formed a society called Manasseh which held well-known yearly balls. As a whole the children of this group were a hot-headed lot and seemed even more racially conscious than the rest of us.<br />
<br />
It was in Minneapolis that I too reached a heightened stage of racial awareness. This was hastened, no doubt, by the tragic events in South Omaha and the fact that I was now an adolescent and there was the problem of girls. I had noticed that it was in the period of pubescence that a Black boy, raised even in communities of relative racial tolerance, was first confronted with the problem of race. It had been so with my brother Otto in Omaha, and now it was so with me.<br />
<br />
During the first year after dropping out of school I worked as a bootblack, barber shop porter, bell hop and busboy, continuing in the last long enough to acquire the rudiments of the waiter's trade. At the age of sixteen, I got a j ob as dining car waiter on the Chicago Northwestern Railway. The first run was also my first trip to the big city, where I had four aunts (my Mother's sisters). All through my childhood my Mother had told stories about her first visit there at the time of the Chicago Exposition. Upon arrival, one of the older waiters on the car, Lon Holliday, took me to see the town. I'm sure he looked forward to showing a young "innocent" the ropes. After a visit to my aunts, he took me to a notorious dive on the Southside. It was the back room of a saloon at Thirty-second and State Street.<br />
<br />
The piano man was playing "boogie woogie" style, popular in those days. The few couples on the floor were "walking the dog," "balling the jack," and so on. Then one of the dancers, a woman, called to the pianist, "Oh, Mr. Johnson, please play 'Those Dirty Motherfuckers.'" He enthusiastically complied and sang a number of verses of the bawdy tune. I almost sank through the floor in embarrassment and even amazement. Lon, who was watching, burst out laughing and he said, "Boy, you ain't seen nothing yet!"<br />
<br />
He then took me to the famous "Mecca Flats" on Federal Street, where a rent party was in process. There he introduced me to a young woman, whom he evidently knew, and slipped her some money, saying, "Take care of my young friend here; be sure you get him back on the car in the morning. We leave for Minneapolis at 10:00 A.M."<br />
<br />
The railroads were a way to see the country and in the months that followed I took advantage of that, working for different lines, on different runs as far west as Seattle. On one run in Montana called the Loop, the dining car shuttled between Great Falls and Butte by way of Helena, stopping at each town overnight. It was known as the "outlaw run" and I soon found out why. It attracted a number of characters wanted by police in other cities, searching for an escape or a temporary hideout.<br />
<br />
While laying over in Butte one night, our chef murdered the parlor car porter—cut his throat while he was sleeping in the parlor car. They had been feuding for days. I went through the parlor car that morning and was the first to see the ghastly sight. The police came, but the chef had disappeared. My enthusiasm for the job was gone. It might have been me, I thought, for I had had a number of arguments with the chef about my orders.<br />
<br />
I quit and headed back to Minneapolis, arriving there shortly after war broke out in Europe in 1914.1 was sixteen and had been avidly following the news, reading of the invasions of Belgium, France, the Battle of the Marne, etc. <br />
<br />
One day, walking along Hennepin Avenue I saw a Canadian recruiting sergeant. He was wearing the uniform of the Princess Pat Regiment, bright red jacket and black kilt. A handsome fellow, I thought, looking like Bonnie Prince Charlie himself. He noticed me looking at him and asked, "You want to join up with the Princess Pat, my lad? We've got a number of Black boys like you in the regiment. You'll find you're treated like anyone else up there. We make no difference between Black and white in Canada."<br />
<br />
Imagining myself in the red jacket and black kilt, I said, "Sure,I'll join."<br />
<br />
Then looking at me closely, he asked, "How old are you?"<br />
<br />
"Eighteen," I lied.<br />
<br />
"Your parents living?"<br />
<br />
"Yes."<br />
<br />
"Well, you've got to get their consent."<br />
<br />
"Oh, they'll agree," I said.<br />
<br />
"They live in the city?"<br />
<br />
"Yes."<br />
<br />
"Well, you come back here tomorrow and bring one of them with you and I'll sign you up."<br />
<br />
"Okay," I said, but I knew that my parents would never agree. And well it was, too, for I later learned that this regiment was among the first victims of the German mustard gas attack at Ypres, and what was left of them was practically wiped out at bloody Paschendale on the Sommes front.<br />
<br />
Life in Minneapolis was beginning to bore me. I was anxious to get back to Chicago, "the big city," so I moved there and stayed with my Aunt Lucy at Forty-third and State. In 1915 my parents, at the urging of my Mother, also moved to Chicago, and I then stayed with them.<br />
<br />
In Chicago I got a job as a busboy at the Tip Top Inn, then considered the finest restaurant in town. It was owned by old man Hieronymous, a famous chef, and was noted for its French cuisine and service. In the trade it was taken for granted that if you had been a waiter at the Tip Top Inn you could work anywhere in the country. After a few months I was promoted to waiter and felt that I had perfected my skills. During the next three years I worked at a number of places: the Twentieth Century Limited, the New York Central's crack train; the Wolverine (Michigan Central); the Sherman House; the old Palmer House; and the Auditorium.<br />
<br />
During this time in Chicago I saw Casey Jones, a Black man and a legendary character known to at least four generations of Black Chicagoans. As I remember, he was partially paralyzed, probably from cerebral palsy. He would go through the streets with trained chickens, which he put through various capers, shouting, "Crabs, crabs, I got them!" He had a defect in his speech which he exploited. The audience would literally fall out at his rendering of the popular sentimental ballad, "The Curse of an Aching Heart":<br />
<br />
'''You made me what I am today,'''<br />
<br />
'''I hope you're satisfied.'''<br />
<br />
'''You dragged and dragged me down until'''<br />
<br />
'''a The heart within me died.'''<br />
<br />
'''Although you're not true,'''<br />
<br />
'''May God bless you,'''<br />
<br />
'''That's the curse of an aching heart!'''<br />
<br />
Then there was the beloved comedian, String Beans, who often appeared at the old Peking Theater at Thirty-first and State Street. The Dolly Sisters also appeared there; they were very famous at the time. Teenan Jones'slush night spot was at Thirty-fifth and State Street. Then at the Panama, another night club, I would listen to Mamie Smith sing "Shimmy-sha-Wobble, That's All," a very popular song and dance at the time.<br />
<br />
Once, when I wanted to go back to Minneapolis to visit, I caught the Pioneer Limited—riding the rods—out of the station on the west side. This was my first experience in hoboing. I rode the rods as far as Beloit, Wisconsin.<br />
<br />
At Beloit I got off, but was afraid to get back on because a yard dick was going around the cars. I stayed there overnight—a fairly cold night as I remember. I met a white man, a "professional" hobo, who took me in tow and told me about the trains leaving in the morning. He said we could catch a train that would pull us right into Minneapolis. It was a passenger train, and we could "ride the blinds in," that is, the space between the two Pullman cars.<br />
<br />
We rode the blinds, reaching La Crosse, Wisconsin. On the way he warned, "You know, there's a bad dick up there in La Crosse. We gotta watch out for him." When the train pulled to a stop in La Crosse both of us hopped off. Other guys were flying out of the train from all sides—from the rods, the blinds, and there were some on top, too. But this notorious yard dick caught us. He was a rough character, and let us know it as he lined us up.<br />
<br />
"Hey, up there!"<br />
<br />
I was at the end of the line of about a dozen guys and was the only Black there. I had my hands in my pocket.<br />
<br />
"Take yer hands outta yer pockets!"<br />
<br />
I took my hands out of my pockets.<br />
<br />
The engine's fireman was looking out, watching all of this. He called to the yard dick, "Say, Jim, let me have that young colored boy over there to slide down coal for me into Minneapolis."<br />
<br />
The dick looked at me and scowled, "All right, you, get up there!"<br />
<br />
He shouted to the fireman, "But see that he works!"<br />
<br />
"I'll see to that; he'll work."<br />
<br />
I scrambled on the engine tender and slid coal all the way to Minneapolis, where I got off at the station.<br />
<br />
Among my new friends in Chicago were several members of the Eighth Illinois, Black National Guard Regiment. They would regale me with tall stories of their exploits on the Mexican border in the summer of 1916 when the regiment took part in a "show of force" against the Mexican Revolution. None of us, of course, knew the real issues involved.<br />
<br />
I remember reading of the exploits of the famous Black Tenth Cavalry Regiment, which was a part of the force sent by General Funston across the border in pursuit of Pancho Villa. They had been ambushed by Villa and a number of them killed. The papers, on that occasion, had been full of accounts of the heroic Black cavalrymen and their valiant white officers. The Eighth, however, had been in the rear near San Antonio, Texas, and saw no action during the abortive campaign.<br />
<br />
Intrigued by their experiences, I joined the Eighth Regiment in the winter of 1917. I was nineteen. The regiment, officered by Blacks from the colonel on down (many of them veterans of the four Black Regular Army regiments), gave me a feeling of pride. They had a high esprit de corps which emphasized racial solidarity. I didn't regard it just as a part of a U.S. Army unit, but as some sort of a big social club of fellow race-men. Still, I knew that we would eventually get into the war. That did not bother me; on the contrary, romance, adventure, travel beckoned. I saw possible escape from the inequities and oppression which was the lot of Blacks in the U.S. I was already a Francophile. I had read and heard about the fairness of the French with respect to the race issue. It seems now, as I look back upon it, that patriotism was the least of my motives. I was avidly following all the news of the war and it seemed certain that the U.S. was going to get involved, despite protestations of President Wilson to the contrary.<br />
<br />
Already the press was whipping up war sentiment. Tin PanAlley joined in with a rash of jingoistic songs: "Don't Bite the Hand That's Feeding You," "Let's All Be American Now," ad nauseum. All this left us cold. However, the song that brought tears to my eyes was "Joan of Arc":<br />
<br />
'''Joan of Arc, Joan of Arc,'''<br />
<br />
'''Do your eyes from the skies see the foe?'''<br />
<br />
'''Can't you see the drooping Fleur de Lys,'''<br />
<br />
'''Can't you hear the tears of Normandy?'''<br />
<br />
'''Joan of Arc, Joan of Arc,'''<br />
<br />
'''Let your spirit guide us through.'''<br />
<br />
'''Awake old France to victory!'''<br />
<br />
'''Joan of Arc, we're calling you.'''<br />
<br />
Truly, nothing was sacred to Tin Pan Alley!<br />
<br />
The Lusitania was sunk; the U.S. declared war in April 1917. Our regiment was federalized on July 25, 1917, and in the late summer we were on our way to basic training at Camp Logan, near Houston, Texas.<br />
<br />
A demagogic promise was widely circulated that things would be better if Blacks fought loyally. For example, there was the statement of President Wilson: "Out of this conflict you must expect nothing less than the enjoyment of full citizenship rights." This propaganda was immediately belied by the mounting wave of new lynchings in the South, which claimed thirty-eight victims in 1917 and fifty-eight in 1918. Worst of all was the East St. Louis riot in September 1917; at least forty Blacks were massacred in a bloody pogrom that lasted several days.<br />
<br />
Then there was the mutiny-riot of the Twenty-fourth Infantry in Houston, Texas, where our regiment was to receive its basic training. Company G of our outfit was already in Houston at the time, having been sent on as an advance detachment to prepare the camp for our occupation. It was through them that I learned exactly what had happened.<br />
<br />
Black soldiers of the Twenty-fourth Infantry, an old Regular Army regiment, had for months been subjected to insults and abuse by Houston police and civilians. The outfit had stationed its military police in Houston, who were, in theory, supposed to cooperate with local police in maintaining law and order among soldiers on leave. Instead, the Black military police found themselves the object of abuse, insults and beatings by local police. This treatment of Black MPs by racist cops was evidently encouraged by the fact that they (the Blacks) were unarmed.<br />
<br />
A report of the special on-the-spot investigator for the NAACP published in the Crisis, its organ, reads:<br />
<br />
'''In deference to the southern feeling against the arming of Negroes and because of the expected cooperation of the City Police Department, members of the provost guard were not armed, thus creating a situation without precedent in the history of this guard. A few carried clubs, but none of them had guns, and most of them were without weapons of any kind. They were supposed to call on white police officers to make arrests. The feeling is strong among the colored people of Houston that this was the real cause of the riot.'''<br />
<br />
'''On the afternoon of August 23, two policemen, Lee Sparks and Rufe Daniels—the former known to the colored people as a brutal bully—entered the house of a respectable colored woman in an alleged search for a colored fugitive accused of crap-shooting. Failing to find him, they arrested the woman, striking and cursing her and forcing her out into the street only partly clad. While they were waiting for the patrol wagon a crowd gathered about the weeping woman who had become hysterical and was begging to know why she was being arrested.'''<br />
<br />
'''In this crowd was a colored soldier, Private Edwards. Edwards seems to have questioned the police officers or remonstrated with them. Accounts differ on this point, but they all agree that the officers immediately set upon him and beat him to the ground with the butts of their six-shooters, continuing to beat and kick him while he was on the ground, and arrested him. In the words of Sparks himself: "I beat that nigger until his heart got right. He was a good nigger when I got through with him."'''<br />
<br />
'''Later Corporal Baltimore, a member of the military police, approached the officers and inquired for Edwards, as it was his duty to do. Sparks immediately opened fire and Baltimore, being unarmed, fled....They followed...beat him up, and arrested him. It was this outrage which infuriated the men of the Twenty-fourth Infantry to the point of revolt.'''<br />
<br />
When word of this outrage reached the camp, feeling ran high. It was by no means the first incident of the kind that had occurred.<br />
<br />
The white officers, feeling that the men would seek revenge, ordered them disarmed. The arms were stacked in a tent guarded by a sergeant. A group of men killed the sergeant, seized their rifles, and under the leadership of Sergeant Vida Henry, an eighteen-year veteran, marched on Houston in company strength.<br />
<br />
When the soldiers left camp their slogan was "On to the Police Station!" They entered town by way of San Felipe Street which ran through the heart of the Black community. The fact that they took this route and avoided the more direct one which lead through a white neighborhood disproved the charge by local newspapers and the police that they were out to shoot up the town and kill all whites. Their target was clearly the Houston cops. On the way to the station they shot every person who looked like a cop.<br />
<br />
Finally meeting resistance, a battle ensued which ended with seventeen whites, thirteen of them policemen, killed. The alarm went out and a whole division of white troops, which was stationed in the camp, was sent in to round up the mutineers. Finally cornered, the men threw down their arms and surrendered, with the exception of Sergeant Vida Henry, who committed suicide rather than be taken. <br />
<br />
The whole battalion of the Twenty-fourth Infantry, including the mutineers, was hurriedly placed aboard a guarded troop train and sent to Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Immediately upon arrival there, those involved were given a drum-head court martial. Thirteen were executed and forty-one others were sentenced to life imprisonment.<br />
<br />
The bodies of all the executed men were sent home to their families for burial. I remember reading of the funeral of Corporal Baltimore in some little town in Illinois.<br />
<br />
Our regiment entrained for Camp Logan with our ardor considerably dampened by these events. Indeed, we left Chicago in an angry and apprehensive mood which lasted all the way to Texas. We passed through East St. Louis in the middle of the night. Those of us who were awake were brooding about the massacre of our kinsmen which had recently taken place there. The regiment traveled in three sections, a battalion each, in old style tourist cars (sort of second-class Pullmans).<br />
<br />
The next morning we arrived in Jonesboro, Arkansas, our first stop on the other side of the Mason-Dixon line. We were in enemy territory. For many of us it was our first time in the South. Jonesboro was a division point—all three sections of the train pulled up on sidings while the engines were being changed and the cars serviced.<br />
<br />
It was a bright, warm and sunny Sunday morning. It seemed like the whole town had turned out at the station platform to see the strange sight of armed Black soldiers. Whites were on one side of the station platform and Blacks on the other. We pulled into the station with the windows open and our 1903 Springfield rifles on the tables in plain view of the crowd.<br />
<br />
We were at our provocative best. We threw kisses at the white girls on the station platform, calling out to them: "Come over here, baby, give me a kiss!" "Look at that pretty redhead over there, ain't she a beaut!" And so forth.<br />
<br />
A passenger train pulled up beside us on the next track. There, peering out the open window, was a real stereotype of an Arkansas red-neck. The sight of him was provocation enough for Willie Morgan, a huge Black in our company who was originally from Mississippi. Morgan was sitting directly across from the white man. He undoubtedly retained bitter memories of insults and persecutions from the past and quickly took advantage of what was perhaps his first opportunity to bait a cracker in his own habitat.<br />
<br />
He reached a big ham-like hand through the window, grabbed the fellow's face and shouted, "What the hell you staring at, you peckerwood motherfucker?" The man pulled back, his hat flew off. Bending down, he recovered it and then moved quickly to the other side of his car, a frightened and puzzled look on his face. Our whole car let out a big roar.<br />
<br />
Then a yard man, walking along the side of the car, asked, "Where are you boys going?"<br />
<br />
"Goin' to see your momma, you cracker son-of-a-bitch!" came the reply.<br />
<br />
The startled man looked up in amazement.<br />
<br />
All of us were hungry. We had been given only a couple of apples for breakfast and now noticed that there were a number of shops and stores in the streets behind the station. I believe our first thought was to buy some food. The vestibule guards would not allow us to take our rifles off the cars, so we left them on our seats and proceeded to the stores in groups. As the stores became crowded, and as the storekeepers were busy serving some of our group, others started to snatch up any article in sight.<br />
<br />
Cases of Coca-Cola, ginger ale and near-beer went back to the cars. The path to the train was strewn with loot dropped by some of the fellows. In the stores, some bought as others stole—this spontaneously evolved pattern was employed in raids on all stores in Jonesboro and at other train stops along the road to Houston.<br />
<br />
The only serious confrontation that took place that day<br />
<br />
involved the group I was with. We crowded into a little store and a fellow named Jeffries, one of my squad buddies, approached the storekeeper who was standing behind the counter. Putting his money down, he demanded a coke. Whereupon the guy said, 'Til serve you one, but y'all can't drink it in heah."<br />
<br />
"Why?" Jeffries asked, innocently.<br />
<br />
"Cause we don't serve niggahs heah."<br />
<br />
Just as we were about to jump him and wreck the place, Jeffries, a comedian, decided to play it straight. He turned to us and said, "Now wait, fellahs, let me handle this. What the man is saying is that you don't know your place."<br />
<br />
Turning to the storekeeper he put his money down and with feigned meekness said, "All right, mister, give me a coke. I know my place, I'll drink it outside."<br />
<br />
"Thank goodness this nigger's got some sense," the storekeeper must have thought as he placed a coke on the counter. Jeffries snatched up the bottle and immediately hit him on the head, knocking him out cold.<br />
<br />
We then proceeded to wreck the place. We took everything in sight. Rushing back to the train, I heard a loud crash—a plate glass window someone had smashed as a parting gift to the niggerhating storekeeper.<br />
<br />
Up to this time we had not seen any of our officers. They had been up front in the first-class Pullmans. Many of them, we suspected, were sleeping off the after effects of the parties held on the eve of our departure. Major Hunt and Captain Hill now appeared and gave orders to the non-coms and the vestibule guards to allow no one else to leave the train.<br />
<br />
We waved goodbye to the Blacks on the station platform. They looked frightened, sad and cowed. We were leaving, but they had to stay and face the wrath of the local crackers. <br />
<br />
The train headed to Texarkana, where the scene was repeated though on a smaller scale. In Texarkana the train stopped only a few minutes and we raided one store near the railroad station. I was the last one out, running to the train with a box of pilfered Havana cigars in my hand. Nearing the train, I passed a couple of local whites talking about the raid. One said to the other, "You see all those niggers taking that man's stuff?"<br />
<br />
"Yeah, I see it."<br />
<br />
"Well, what are we going to do about it?"<br />
<br />
I reached the train just as it was pulling out, relieved not to have been left behind to find out the answer. The next stop was Tyler, deep in the heart of Texas, scene of our most serious confrontation. Here we confronted the law in the person of the county sheriff. Tyler seemed to be a larger town than the others. It was a division point and all three sections pulled up on the sidings. As in Jonesboro, a large crowd had gathered at the station; Blacks on one side, whites on the other. Again, with our guns in view, we started flirting with the white women, throwing kisses at them and so on.<br />
<br />
We were very hungry. There had been some foul-up in logistics so there wasn't any food on the train. All we had that day was a couple of sandwiches and some coffee. We piled off the train and headed for the stores, elbowing whites out of the way. We didn't carry our guns but many of us wore sheathed bayonets.<br />
<br />
Major Hunt finally appeared but he was only able to stop a few of us. By that time most of us were already ransacking the stores in the immediate vicinity of the station. The path back to the station was strewn with bottles of soft drinks, hams, fruits, wrappers from the candy and cigarettes, etc. The major was frantically blowing his whistle and calling the fellows to come back to the cars. Finally we all got back and were eating our pilfered food, drinking our near-beer and soda.<br />
<br />
Suddenly a large white man stepped forward out of the crowd. He wore a khaki uniform, a Sam Brown belt and a Colt forty-five in his holster. He approached Major Hunt and identified himself as the sheriff. (Or he might have been chief of police.) He said he intended to search the train and recover the stolen goods.<br />
<br />
The major, a short, heavy-set Black man, said: "No, you don't. This is a military train. Any searching to be done will be done by our officers."<br />
<br />
"I know," he said, "I want to accompany you."<br />
<br />
"No you don't. You won't set foot on this train."<br />
<br />
The sheriff hesitated and looked around at the crowd of white and Black. It was clearly a bitter pill for him to swallow, having for the first time in his life to take low to a Black man in front of his white constituents, as well as setting a bad example for the Blacks. He pushed the unarmed major aside and walked forward.<br />
<br />
"Come on you peckerwood son-of-a-bitch!" we hollered from the car.<br />
<br />
He approached the vestibule of our car where Jimmy Bland, a mean, grey-eyed and light-skinned Black was on guard.<br />
<br />
"Back! Get back or I'll blow you apart!" Jimmy pushed the sheriff in the belly with the barrel of his rifle. To further impress upon him that the gun was loaded, he threw the bolt and ejected a bullet. The sheriff, who had doubled over from the blow, straightened up. his face ghastly white. He gasped out something to the effect that he was going to report this affair to the government and walked away. We all let out a tremendous roar.<br />
<br />
We arrived in Houston the next day, five days after the mutiny of the Twenty-fourth. We were informed that five dollars would be docked from each man's pay to cover the damage incurred on the trip down. I believe we all felt that it was a small price to pay for the lift in morale that resulted from our forays on the trip.<br />
<br />
We were greeted by our comrades from Company G of our battalion on arriving at Camp Logan. They had been there at the time of the mutiny-riot and gave us a detailed account of what had happened. We expected to be confronted by the hostile white population, but to our surprise, the confrontation with the Twenty-fourth seemed to have bettered the racial climate of this typical Southern town. Houston in those days was a small city of perhaps 100,000 people, not the metropolis it has now become. The whites, especially the police, had learned that they couldn't treat all Black people as they had been used to treating the local Blacks.<br />
<br />
I can't remember a single clash between soldiers and police during our six-month stay in the area. On the contrary, if there were any incidents involving our men, the local cops would immediately call in the military police. There was also a notable improvement in the morale of the local Black population, who were quick to notice the change in attitude of the Houston cops. The cops had obviously learned to fear retaliation by Black soldiers if they committed any acts of brutality and intimidation in the Black community.<br />
<br />
Houston Blacks were no longer the cowed, intimidated people they had been before the mutiny. They were proud of us and it was clear that our presence made them feel better. A warm and friendly relationship developed between our men and the Black community. The girls were especially proud of us. Local Blacks would point out places where some notorious, nigger-hating cop had been killed.<br />
<br />
"See those bullet holes in the telephone pole over there," they'd say. "That's where that bad cop, old Pat Grayson, got his."<br />
<br />
"Those Twenty-fourths certainly were sharpshooters!"<br />
<br />
I occasionally took my laundry to an elderly woman who had known Corporal Baltimore. She told me what a nice young man he was.<br />
<br />
"I hear he was hanged," she said.<br />
<br />
"That's right," I replied.<br />
<br />
Tears came to her eyes and she cluck-clucked. "He left some of his laundry here; you're about his size, you want it?"<br />
<br />
"Yes, I'll take it."<br />
<br />
She handed me several pairs of khaki trousers and some underwear and shirts all washed and starched and insisted that I pay only the cost of the laundry.<br />
<br />
In Camp Logan, our Black Regiment, a part of the Thirty-third Illinois National Guard Division, went into intensive training. We had high esprit de corps. Our officers lost no opportunity to lecture us on the importance of race loyalty and race pride. They went out to disprove the ideas spread by the white brass to the effect that Black soldiers could be good, but only when officered by whites.<br />
<br />
Our solidarity was strengthened when the Army attempted to remove Colonel Charles R. Young from the regiment. Young was the first Black West Point graduate and the highest ranking Black officer in the Regular Army. He wanted to go overseas very badly, but it was quite clear that they did not want a Black officer of his rank over there. He was examined by an Army medical board and found unfit for overseas service. We all knew it was a fraud. It was in all the Black papers and was known by Blacks throughout the country.<br />
<br />
We men didn't let our officers down. We were out to show the whites that not only were we as good in everything as they, but better. In Camp Logan, our regiment held division championships in most of the sports: track, boxing, baseball, etc. We had the highest number of marksmen, sharpshooters and expert riflemen. Of course, there was no socializing between Blacks and whites, but it was clear that we had the respect, if not the friendship, of many of the white soldiers in the division.<br />
<br />
In fact, despite all the efforts of the command, there was a certain degree of solidarity between Black and white soldiers in our division. In Spartanburg, North Carolina, white soldiers from New York came to the defense of their Black fellows of the Fifteenth New York when the latter were attacked by Southern whites. Many of us felt that in the case of a showdown in town with the local crackerdom, we could get support from some of the white members of our division who happened to be around. At least, we felt they would not side with the crackers against us.<br />
<br />
The high morale of the regiment, the new tolerance (at least on the part of the local white establishment), the new spirit of Houston Blacks were all displayed during the parade of our division in downtown Houston. About two months before our departure, we received notice from headquarters that the regiment was to participate in a parade. We were to pass in review before Governor Howden of Illinois, our host governor of Texas, high brass from the War Department and other notables.<br />
<br />
We spent a couple of days getting our clothes and equipment into shape. We washed and starched our khaki uniforms, bleached our canvas leggings snow white, cleaned and polished our rifles and side arms, shined our shoes to a mirror gloss. On the day of the parade, we marched the five miles into town, halting just before we reached the center of the city. We wiped the dust from our rifles and shoes and continued the march.<br />
<br />
Executing perfectly the change from squad formation to platoon front, we entered the main square. With our excellent band playing the Illinois March, we passed the reviewing stand with our special rhythmic swagger which only Black troops could affect. We were greeted by a thunderous ovation from the crowds, especially the Blacks.<br />
<br />
I believe all of Black Houston turned out that day. The next morning, the Houston Post, a white daily, headlined a story about the parade and declared that "the best looking outfit in the parade was the Negro Eighth Illinois."<br />
<br />
Given final leave, we bid good-bye to our girls and friends in Houston. After that, security was clamped down and no one was allowed to leave the camp. A few days later, we boarded the train and were on our way to a port of embarkation. We didn't know where we were headed but suspected it was New York. Instead, five days later, we wound up in Camp Stewart near Newport News, Virginia.<br />
<br />
In Newport News, we barely escaped a serious confrontation with some local crackers and the police. The first batches of our fellows given passes to the town were subjected to the taunts and slurs of the local cops.<br />
<br />
"Why don't you darkies stay in camp? We don't want you downtown making trouble."<br />
<br />
Several fights ensued. Some of the men from our regiment were arrested and others literally driven out of town. They returned to the barracks, some of them badly beaten, and told us what had happened. A repetition of the riot of the Twenty-fourth Infantry at Houston was narrowly averted, as a number of us grabbed our guns and were about to head downtown. We were turned back, however, by our officers, who intervened and pleaded with us to return to our barracks. Among them was Lt. Benote Lee, whom we all loved and respected.<br />
<br />
"Don't play into the hands of these crackers," he said. "We'll be leaving any day now. All they want is to get us in trouble on the eve of our departure."<br />
<br />
"How about our guys who were arrested?" we asked.<br />
<br />
"Don't worry. We'll get them out."<br />
<br />
We returned to the barracks and, sure enough, our comrades were returned the next day, escorted by white MPs. We spent the next days on standby orders, apparently waiting for our ship to arrive. After that, all leaves were cancelled.<br />
<br />
It was on the same day, I believe, that we first learned that we had been separated from our Thirty-third Illinois Division. Henceforth, we were to be known as the 370th Infantry.<br />
<br />
One morning shortly after this, we looked down into the harbor and saw three big ships. We knew then that we would soon be on our way. The following morning the regiment marched down to the dockside to board ship. Yet another incident occurred at the dock. We lined up in company front facing the harbor and halted a few yards from the fence which ran the entire length of the dock.<br />
<br />
Facing us in front of the fence were several groups of loitering white native males, probably dockworkers. They stared at us as if we were some strange species. Our captain apparently wanted to move the company closer to the fence and gave the command, "Forward march." But he "forgot" to call "halt." That was all we needed.<br />
<br />
We were still angry about the beating of our comrades in downtown Newport News a few days before. We marched directly into the whites, closing in on them, cursing and cuffing them with fists and rifle butts, kicking and kneeing them; in short, applying the skills of close order combat we had learned during our basic training. Of course, we didn't want to kill anybody, we just wanted to rough them up a bit.<br />
<br />
We were finally stopped by the excited cries of our officers, "Halt! Halt!" We withdrew, opening up a path through which our victims ran or limped away. Then at the command of "Attention! Right face!" we marched along the dock in columns of two's and finally boarded the ship.<br />
<br />
=== ON TO FRANCE ===<br />
We sailed for France in early April 1918, on the old USS Washington, a passenger liner converted into a troop ship. I have crossed the Atlantic many times since, but I can truthfully say that I have never experienced rougher seas. Our three ships sailed out of Newport News without escort. Of course, we were worried; there were rumors of German submarines. Our anxiety was relieved when in mid-ocean we picked up two escort vessels, one of which was the battle cruiser Covington. When we reached the war zone, about three days out of Brest, a dozen destroyers took over, circling our ships all the way into port.<br />
<br />
It took us sixteen days in all to reach Brest, France, where we arrived on April 22. We were so weak on landing that one-half of the regiment fell out while climbing the hill to the old Napoleon Barracks where we were quartered. Immediately upon our arrival, we were put to work cleaning up ourselves and our equipment, notwithstanding our weakened condition.<br />
<br />
The next morning we passed in review before some U.S. and French big brass. The following day we boarded a train. We crossed the whole of France from east to west and detrained at Granvillars, a village in French Alsace, close to the Swiss frontier. There we found out that we had been brigaded with and were to be an integral part of the French Army. <br />
<br />
The reason we were separated from the white Americans was, as the white brass put it, "to avoid friction." But the American command of General Pershing was not satisfied just to separate us; they tried to extend the long arm of Jim Crow to the French. The American Staff Headquarters, through its French mission, tried to make sure that the French understood the status of Blacks in the United States. Their Secret Information Bulletin Concerning Black American Troops is now notorious, though I did not learn of it until after I had returned from France. The Army of Democracy spoke to its French allies:<br />
<br />
It is important for French officers who have been called upon to exercise command over black American troops, or to live in close contact with them, to have an exact idea of the position occupied by Negroes in the United States. The increasing number of Negroes in the United States (about 15,000,000) would create for the white race in the Republic a menace of degeneracy were it not that an impassable gulf has been made between them....<br />
<br />
Although a citizen of the United States, the black man is regarded by the white American as an inferior being with whom relations of business or service only are possible. The black is constantly being censured for his want of intelligence and discretion, his lack of civic and professional conscience, and for his tendency toward undue familiarity.<br />
<br />
The vices of the Negro are a constant menace to the American who has to repress them sternly. For instance, the black American troops in France have, by themselves, given rise to as many complaints for attempted rape as the rest of the army....<br />
<br />
Conclusion:<br />
<br />
1. We must prevent the rise of any pronounced degree of intimacy between French officers and black officers. We may be courteous and amiable with these last, but we cannot deal with them on the same plane as with the white American officers without deeply wounding the latter. We must not eat with them, must not shake hands or seek to talk or meet with them outside the requirements of military service.<br />
<br />
2. We must not commend too highly the black American troops, particularly in the presence of [white] Americans....<br />
<br />
3. Make a point of keeping the native cantonment population from "spoiling" the Negroes. [White] Americans become greatly incensed at any public expression of intimacy between white women with black men....Familiarity on the part of white women with black men is furthermore a source of profound regret to our experienced colonials, who see in it an overweening menace to the prestige of the white race.<br />
<br />
Apparently this classic statement of U.S. racism was ineffectual with the French troops and people, even though it was supplemented by wild stories circulated by the white U.S. troops. These included the claim that Blacks had tails like monkeys, which was especially told to women, including those in the brothels.<br />
<br />
Our regiment was not sorry to be incorporated into the French military. In fact, most of us thought it was the best thing that could have happened. The French treated Blacks well—that is, as human beings. There was no Jim Crow. At the time, I thought the French seemed to be free of the virulent U.S. brand of racism.<br />
<br />
The American Command not only wanted its front line to be all white, it also wanted all regiment commanders (even those under the French) to be white. Consequently, our Black colonel, Franklin A. Dennison; our lieutenant colonel, James H. Johnson; and two of our majors (battalion commanders) were replaced by white officers. Colonel Dennison was sent back to the States, kicked upstairs, given the rank of brigadier general, and placed in command of the Officer Training Camp for Colored Men at Fort Des Moines, Iowa. Although our first reaction was anger, we became reconciled to the shift.<br />
<br />
Our new white colonel, T. A. Roberts, seemed to be warm, paternalistic and deeply concerned about the welfare of his men. He would often make the rounds of the field kitchens, tasting the food and admonishing the cooks about ill-prepared food. He even gave instructions on how the various dishes should be cooked. Naturally, this made a great hit with the men. Our confidence in him was high because we felt that he was a professional soldier who knew his business.<br />
<br />
I remember the day the new colonel took over. The regiment formed in the village square. Colonel Roberts introduced himself. He seemed quite modest. He said that he was honored to be our new commander and that he knew the record of our regiment dating back to 1892 and its exploits during the Spanish-American War.<br />
<br />
"Since West Point," he said, "I have always served with colored troops—the Ninth and Tenth Cavalry." He then turned to Captain Patton, our Black regiment adjutant. "Captain Patton knows me, he was one of my staff sergeants in the old Tenth Cavalry." Patton nodded.<br />
<br />
The colonel smiled and pointed to our top sergeant. "Over there is Mark Thompson. I remember him when he was company clerk in Troop C of the Tenth Cavalry." He went on to point out a dozen or so officers and non-coms with whom he had served in the Ninth or Tenth Cavalry. "These men will tell you where I stand with respect to the race issue and everything else. We are going into the lines soon and I am sure that the men of this regiment will pile up a record of which your people and the whole of America will be proud."<br />
<br />
The process of integration into the French Army was thorough. The American equipment with which we had trained at home was taken away and we were issued French weapons—rifles, carbines, machine guns, automatic rifles, pistols, helmets, gas masks and knapsacks. We were even issued French rations—with the exception of the wine, which our officers apparently felt we could not handle. We got all the wine we wanted anyway from the French troops. They were issued a liter (about a quart) a day and for a few centimes could buy more at the canteen.<br />
<br />
The regiment was completely reorganized along French lines, with a machine gun company to every battalion. My Company E of the Second Battalion was converted into Machine Gun Company No. 2. We entered a six-week period of intensive training under French instructors to master our new weapons. Our main weapon was the old air-cooled Hotchkiss. And we had to master the enemy's gun, the water-cooled Maxim.<br />
<br />
The period of French training was not an easy one. It was a miserable spring—dark and dreary, and it rained incessantly the whole time we were there. There was a lot of illness—grippe, pneumonia and bronchitis. We lost a number of men, several from our company. The men were in a sullen mood as the time approached for the regiment to move up to the front.<br />
<br />
Disgruntlement was often voiced in the now familiar form of "What are we doing over here? Germans ain't done nothing to us. It's those crackers we should be fighting." While we were lined up in the square one day, our captain took the occasion to comment on these sentiments.<br />
<br />
"Well," he said, "I've been hearing all this stuff about guys saying that they weren't going to fight the Germans. Well, we certainly can't make you fight if you don't want to. But I'll tell you one thing we can and will do is take you up to the front where the Germans are, and you can use your own judgment as to whether you fight them or not."<br />
<br />
In early June 1918, we entered the trenches at the St. Mihiel Salient near the Swiss frontier as a part of the Tenth Division of the French Army under General Mittelhauser. We were intermingled with the French troops in the Tenth Division so that our officers and men might observe and profit by close association with veteran soldiers. At that time St. Mihiel was a quiet sector. Except for occasional shelling, desultory machine gun and rifle fire, nothing much occurred. We lost no men.<br />
<br />
It was here, however, that we made our first acquaintance with two pests—the rat and the louse—whom thereafter were our inseparable companions for our entire stay at the front. Undoubtedly there were more rats than men; there were hordes of them. Regiments and battalions of rats. They were the largest rats I had ever seen. We soon became tired of killing them; it seemed a wasted effort. Some of the rats became quite bold, even impudent. They seemed to say, "I've got as much right here as you have." They would walk along, pick up food scraps and eat them right there in front of you! The dark dug-outs were their real havens. When we slept we would keep our heads covered with blankets as protection against rat bites. This may seem flimsy protection, but we were so conditioned that we would awake at any attempt on the part of a rat to bite through the blanket. I have often wondered why there were so few rat bites. Probably the rats felt that it was not worthwhile fooling with live humans when there were so many dead ones around. We soon got used to the rats and learned to live with them.<br />
<br />
It was the same with the lice. I woke up lousy after my first sleep in a dug-out. My reaction to the pests took the following progression: first, I was besieged by interminable itching, followed by depression. Then I began to lose appetite and weight, finally becoming quite ill. All this was within a period of a few days. Most of the fellows exhibited the same symptoms. <br />
<br />
One might say that our illness was mainly psychological, but it was nonetheless real. Since this was a quiet front, I had no difficulty in getting permission to go back to the rear for a few hours. Foolishly, I thought if I could get cleaned up just once, I would feel a lot better. I got some delousing soap, took a bath and washed my clothes. I then returned to the front, stood machine gun watch and then went into the dug-out for a nap. Needless to say, I woke up lousy again.<br />
<br />
I told my troubles to an old French veteran who had been assigned to my machine gun squad. "Oh, it's nothing! You must forget all about it,' he said. "You'll get used to it. I've been at the front for nearly four years and I've been lousy all the time, except when I was in the hospital or at home on leave."<br />
<br />
I took his advice which was all to the good, because I was not to be rid of these pests until six months later during my sojourn in hospitals at Mantes-sur-Seine and Paris after the Armistice. Even then, it was only a temporary respite, for I was reinfected upon rejoining my regiment at the embarkation port of Brest. After a brief stay with the regiment, I was returned to the hospital, again deloused, only to be reinfected again on the hospital ship returning to the States. I parted company with my last louse at the debarkation hospital at Grand Central Palace in New York City.<br />
<br />
We remained in the St. Mihiel sector about two weeks. We were then withdrawn and moved into a sector in the Argonne Forest near Verdun, site of the great battles of 1916; we arrived there in late July 1918. We were still brigaded with the Tenth French Division. The area around Verdun was a vast cemetery with a half million crosses of those who had perished in that great holocaust, each bearing the legend, Mort Pour La France. <br />
<br />
The Argonne at that time was also a quiet sector. But it was here that we suffered our first casualty, Private Robert M. Lee of Chicago. The incident occurred during machine gun target practice. The first and second line trenches ran along parallel hills about a hundred yards apart. The French had set up a make-shift range in the valley in between the trenches. Behind the gun there was a two or three foot rise in the earth, on which a number of us French and Blacks were sitting, chewing the rag, awaiting our turn at the machine gun. <br />
<br />
Suddenly, there was a short burst of machine gun fire. It was not from our guns. Bullets whizzed over our heads—they seemed to be coming from behind the target. All of us scrambled to get into the communication trench which opened on the valley. Second Lieutenant Binga DesMond, our platoon commander (and the University of Chicago's great sprinting star), fell from the embankment on top of me. Fortunately, he was not hit. But even with his 180 pounds on my back, I am sure I made that ten or fifteen yards to the communication trench, crawling on my hands and knees, as fast as he could have sprinted the distance!<br />
<br />
The fire was coming from behind the target. What obviously had happened was that the Germans had cased the position of our guns and had somehow got around behind the target and waited for a pause in our target practice to open fire on us. We never found out how they did it, for none of us knew the exact topography of the place. The French of course knew it, but they had assured us that the place was safe and that they had been using the range for months.<br />
<br />
We were crouched down, panting, in the communication trench for about five minutes after the German guns ceased fire. The French lieutenant (bless his soul) then sent a French gun crew out to get the gun. To our great surprise they also brought back Robert M. Lee. He was quite dead, with bullets right through the heart. He had evidently been hit by the first burst and had fallen forward in front of the embankment. All of us were deeply saddened by the incident.<br />
<br />
No one spoke as we bore his body back to the rear. He was only nineteen, a very sweet fellow, and he was our first casualty. We buried him down in the valley, beside the graves of those fallen at Verdun. The funeral was quite impressive. He was given a hero's burial, with representatives both from our regiment and our French counterparts. We were especially impressed by the appearance of General Mittelhauser who came down from Division Headquarters to express condolences and appreciation to the Black troops now under his command.<br />
<br />
=== THE SOISSONS SECTOR ===<br />
Despite the fact that we had been in aa quiet sector, it was still the front lines with its daily tensions of anticipated attack. In the middle of August, we were pulled out of the Argonne sector and sent to rest behind the lines near Bar-le-Duc. We were deeply pleased by the hospitality and kindness extended to us by the townspeople there. They invited us into their homes and plied us with food and wine. Half-jokingly they told us to come back after the war and we could have our pick of the girls. As we did throughout our stay in France, we deported ourselves well. For pleasures of the flesh, there were a number of legal houses of prostitution, or “houses of pleasure” as they were called by the French, It was with regret that we left that area.<br />
<br />
By this time, we had become an integral part of the French Army. Along with our French equipment, training and so forth, we had affected the style of the French poilu (doughboy). The flaps of our overcoats were buttoned back in order to give us more leg room while on the march, as was their style. Like the French infantry, we used walking sticks, which helped to ease the burden of our seventy pounds of equipment. French peasants along the road, hearing our strange language and noticing our color, would often mistake us for French colonials. Not Senegalese, who were practically all black but Algerians, Moroccans or Sudanese, We would swing along the road to the tune of our favorite marching song:<br />
<br />
'''My old mistress promised me, Raise a ruckus tonight,'''<br />
<br />
'''When she died she'd set me free, Raise a ruckus tonight.'''<br />
<br />
'''She lived so long her head got bald, Raise a ruckus tonight.'''<br />
<br />
'''She didn’t get to set me free at all, Raise a ruckus tonight!'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, come along, little children come along, While the moon is shining bright;'''<br />
<br />
'''Get on board on down the river flow, Gonna’ raise a ruckus tonight.'''<br />
<br />
But we had not escaped the long arm of American racism. We were rudely confronted with this reality upon our arrival in a small town on the Compiégne front in the department of Meuse. We entrained here for our next front. The regiment was confronted dramatically with the effects of the racist campaign launched by the American high brass,<br />
<br />
Upon entering the town, the regiment was drawn up in battalion formation in the square, Before being assigned to billets, we were informed by the battalion commander that a Black soldier from a labor battalion had been court martialed and hanged in the very square where we were standing, It had happened just a few weeks before our arrival. His crime was the raping of a village girl. His body had been left hanging there for twenty-four hours, as a demonstration of American justice,<br />
<br />
“As a result,” he told us, “you may find the town population hostile, In case this is so,” the major warned, “you are not to be provoked or to take umbrage at any discourtesies, but are to deport yourselves as gentlemen at all times,” In any case, we were to be there only for a few days, during which time we were to remain close to our barracks, Then, in a lowered voice, he muttered, “This is what i have been told to tell you.”<br />
<br />
We kept close to our billets the first day or so, but then gradually ventured further into town. At first, the townsfolk seemed to be aloof, but the coolness was gradually broken down, probably as a result of our correct deportment, especially our attitude towards the children (with whom we always immediately struck up friendships). Friendly relations were finally established with the villagers. When we asked about the hanging, they shrugged the matter off,<br />
<br />
“So what? That was only one soldier. The others were nice enough,” When asked why they had been so aloof when we first arrived, they said it was the result of the warnings of the white officers. “They didn’t want us to fraternize with the Blacks.”<br />
<br />
Continuing the conversation, they seemed puzzled about why the sentence had been so severe and the body barbarously left exposed in the square. “Trés brutale, trés horrible!” they exclaimed. With regard to the girl, “Ah, she had been raped many times before,” one of them jeered.<br />
<br />
After two weeks of rest, the regiment began to move by stages toward the front lines again. A few days later, we boarded a train consisting of a long line of box-cars. Each car was marked: “Quarante hommes ou huit chevaux.” (Forty men or eight horses.)<br />
<br />
The last couple of months had been quiet and relatively pleasant, with the exception of the Lec incident and the events just related. But now, we felt, we were going into the thick of it. The premonition was confirmed the very next morning when we woke (that is, those of us who had been able to sleep in such crowded conditions),<br />
<br />
We were passing through Chateau-Thierry. There could be no doubt about it, eventhough part of the sign had been blown away and only the word “Thierry” remained. The woods around the station and Belleau Woods, a few miles further on, looked like they had been hit by a cyclone: broken and uprooted trees, gaping shell holes, men from the Graves Registration walking around with crosses, Black Pioneers removing ammunition, All were grim reminders of the great battles that had been fought there by American troops only several weeks before.<br />
<br />
We were on the Soissons front, where we became part of the famous Armée Mangin, General Mangin (le boucher or the butcher as he was called by the French) was commander of the Tenth Army of France, among whom were a number of shock troops; Chausseurs Alpines, Chausseurs d’Afrique (Algerians and Moroccans), Senegalese riflemen and the Foreign Legion. His army was pivotal in breaking the Hindenburg Lineabout Soissons. On this front, we were brigaded with the Fifty-ninth French Division, under the command of General Vincendon.<br />
<br />
We bypassed Thierry and Belleau Woods and detrained at the village of Villers-Cotteréts, the birthplace of Alexandre Dumas. ‘The atmosphere was charged with expectancy, Observation balloons hung like giant sausages on the horizon. Big guns rumbled ominously in the distance, A steady stream of ambulances carrying wounded jammed the roads leading from the front. Obviously a big battle was in progress not too far away. But it turned out that we were not going into that sector. We left the village and marched west to Crépy-en-Valois. Turning north through the Compiégne Forest, we reached the Aisne River at a point near Vie-sur-Aisne and continued on to Resson-le-Long where we established our depot company. The march from the railhead to Resson took about three days. It was a forced march and covered about twenty-five kilometers (fifteen miles) a day.<br />
<br />
This was pretty rough after the restless night we had spent on the crowded train. As one of the company wags observed, “One thing bout these kilomeeters, they sho’ will kill you if you keep on meetin’ “em.”<br />
<br />
Our regiment spent six months in the lines in all. We took part in the fifty-nine day drive of Mangin’s Tenth Army which ended on the day of the Armistice. During that period, one or another of our units was always under fire or fighting. Our toughest battles were at the Death Valley Jump Off near the Aisne Canal, the taking of Mont Singes (Monkey Mountain which was later renamed Hill 370 in honor of our regiment), fighting at a railroad embankment northwest of Guilleminet Farm, and the advance into the Hindenburg Line at the Oise-Aisne Triangle.<br />
<br />
It was in the battles on the Hindenburg Line that we met the strongest enemy resistance and sustained most of our losses. The enemy resistance was broken in these battles and they began a general withdrawal, at first orderly and accompanied by brief rearguard actions. Finally, there was the flight to the Belgian frontier, destroying roads and railroads on orders to impede our advance. After Laon, their flight was so precipitous that we had difficulty maintaining contact. We entered many villages which they had left the day before.<br />
<br />
Our outfit was the first allied troops to enter the fortified city of Laon, wresting it from the Germans after four years of war. We were greeted with tremendous elation by the population, who had lived under German occupation the whole of that period.<br />
<br />
The regiment was highly praised by the French. It won twenty-one Distinguished Service Crosses, sixty-eight Croix de Guerre and one Distinguished Service Medal. In the whole two months’ drive, casualties were 500 killed and wounded-—a total of about one-fifth of the regiment. These casualties were light when compared with those of Black regiments on other fronts. For example, the 37] st Infantry of drafted men lost 1,065 out of 2,384 men in three days’ fighting during the great September defensive on the Compiégne Front. I believe that the German resistance on these other fronts, east and west of Soissons, was more stubborn than on our front.<br />
<br />
All of our Black regiments were fortunate to have been brigaded with the French. In this respect, the American High Command did us a big favor, unintentionally, lam sure. For as far as we were able to observe, the French made no discrimination in the treatment of Black officers and men, with whom they fraternized freely. They regarded us as brothers-in-arms.<br />
<br />
Similarly, the French people in the villages in which we stopped or were stationed were uniformly courteous and friendly, and we made many friends, I must say that we were also on our best behavior. I don’t remember a single incident of misbehavior on the part of our men toward French villagers. The latter were quick to notice this and to contrast our gentlemanly deportment with the rudeness of the white Americans. Many of the white soldiers made no effort to hide their disdain for the French(whom they regarded as inferiors) and commonly referred to them as “frogs.”<br />
<br />
But even as we fought, we were being stabbed in the back by the American High Command. We were not to learn, however, until our return to the States of the slanderous, racist document issued by the American General Staff Headquarters through its brainwashed French Mission (the Secret Information Concerning Black American Troops referred to earlier).<br />
<br />
We learned also that the hanging of the Black soldier on the Compiégne Front was not an isolated incident, but part of a deliberate campaign conducted by higher and lower echelons in the American Command to influence French civilians against Blacks. The campaign focused on the effort to build up the Black rapist scare among them.<br />
<br />
Such was a memorandum issued by headquarters of the Ninety-second Division (a Black division officered largely by whites) on August 21, 1918. Its purpose was to “prevent the presence of colored troops from being a menace to women,” The memorandum read in part:<br />
<br />
On account of increasing frequency of the crime of rape, or attempted rape, in this Division, drastic preventive measures have become necessary... Until further notice, there will be a check of all troops of the 92nd Division every hour daily between reveille and 11 P.M,, with a written record showing how each check was made, by whom, and the result...the one mile limit regulation will be strictly enforced at all times, and no passes will be issued except to men of known reliability.<br />
<br />
This was followed the next day by another memorandum saying that the commander-in-chief of the American Expeditionary Forces “would send the 92nd Division back to the States or break it up into labor battalions as unfit to bear arms in France, if efforts to prevent rape were not taken more seriously.”<br />
<br />
As a result, Dr. Robert R. Moton of Tuskegee was sent by President Wilson and the secretary of war to investigate the charges. He found only one case of rape in the whole division of 15,000 men. Two other men who were from labor battalions in the Ninety-second area were convicted. One of these was hanged, and I’m sure that this was the unfortunate soldier whom we saw on the Compiégne Front. General headquarters was forced to admit that the crime of rape, as later stated by Moton, “was no more prevalent among coloured soliders than among white, or any other soldiers.”<br />
<br />
This whole racist smear of Black troops, I was to conclude later, represented but an extension to France of the anti-Black racist campaign then current in the States, It was designed to maintain Black subjugation and prevent its erosion by liberal racial attitudes of the French. Back in the States, the campaign was marked by an upturn of lynchings during the war years, with thirty-eight Black victims in 1917 and half again that number in the following year. Even then, things were working up to the bloody riots of 1919.<br />
<br />
In contrast to all of this, the appreciation of the French for Black soldiers from the U.S. was shown by the accolade given by the French division commander, General Vincendon, to our regiment. On December 19, 1918, we were transferred from the French Army back to the American Army. On that day, General Order 4785, directed to the Fifty-ninth Division of the Army of France, was read to the officers and men of the 370th. It commended us for our contributions to France. remember being struck by the poetry of the language, it was all beautifully French to me:<br />
<br />
We at first, in September at Mareuil-sur-Ourcg, admitted your fine appearance under arms, the precision of your review, the suppleness of your evolutions that presented to the eye the appearance of silk unrolling its waves...<br />
<br />
Further on in remembering our dead, the communique read:<br />
<br />
The blood of your comrades who fell on the soil of France, mixed with the blood of our soldiers, renders indissoluble the bonds of affection that unite us.<br />
<br />
=== THE ROAD HOME ===<br />
The road back from Soissons lay through the old battlefields where we had fought a couple of months before. Near Anizy-le Chateau there were crosses marking the graves of some of our comrades who had died in the fighting there. We paused before the graves, seeking out those of the comrades we knew. We all had the same thoughts: “What rotten luck that they should die almost in sight of victory.”<br />
<br />
Among the crosses, there was one marked “Sergeant Theodore Gamelin.” Gamelin hadn’t died in combat. 1 remember the incident clearly, We were all lined up in some hastily dug trenches that morning, waiting for the “over the top” signal. The cooks had just distributed reserved rations. These consisted of a half-loaf of French bread (not the crispy white kind, but a coarse grayish loaf baked especially for the troops, which we called “war bread”) and a big bar of chocolate. Somehow, Gamelin had missed out on these rations. Jump-off time was drawing near. He looked around and his eyes fixed upon a private named Brown, who was sitting on the firing step, putting his rations in a knapsack. Now, Private Brown was one of those quiet, meek little fellows. He always took low, was never known to fight. But Brown was the type of man, I have observed, who can become dangerous. This is particularly true in a combat situation where one doesn’t know whether one will live five minutes longer. Gamelin, a big bullying type, an amateur boxer and very unpopular with his men, called to Brown:<br />
<br />
“Give me some of that bread, Brown. I didn’t get my rations.”<br />
<br />
“Now, that’s just too bad, sergeant,” Brown responded, “I’m not going to give you any of this bread. It’s not my fault you missed your rations.”<br />
<br />
Gamelin, with one hand on his pistol, moved as though he were going to seize the bread. Brown had his rifle lying across his lap. He simply raised it and coolly pulled the trigger. The sergeant fell dead!<br />
<br />
The platoon commander heard the commotion and ran to the spot, inquiring about what had happened. The men told him that Gamelin was trying to take Brown’s reserve rations and had made a move toward his pistol. Brown, they said, had shot in self-defense,<br />
<br />
Obviously nothing could be done about Brown in those circumstances. So the lieutenant said, “Consider yourself under arrest, Brown. We will take this matter up after this action.”<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, Brown was killed a few days later, The memory of this incident was on our minds as we viewed Gamelin’s grave, His helmet hung on a cross, which ironically bore the inscription “Sergeant Theodore Gamelin—Mort Pour La France (Died for France), September 1918.”<br />
<br />
Thad gone through six months at the front without a scratch or a day of illness. But as we neared Soissons, I began to feel faint and light-headed, By the time we reached the city, I had developed quite a high fever, It was the period of the first great flu epidemic which wreaked havoc among U.S. troops in France. I reported to the infirmary and lined up with a group of about fifty men. The medical sergeant took our temperatures and then tied tags to our coats. I looked at mine and it read “influenza.” We were evacuated to a field hospital near Soissons, where I remained for about five days. After that, we boarded a hospital train and were told that we were going to the big base hospital in Paris, Now, I liked that.<br />
<br />
I had never seen Paris and was most anxious to visit the famed city before going home. There were two of us in the compartment, another soldier from the regiment and myself, I felt a little drowsy, sol told my compartment mate that I was going to take a little nap and to wake me up when the chow came around, I “awoke” five days later in a French hospital at Mantes-sur-Seine, near Paris.<br />
<br />
They had put me off the train as an emergency case just before Paris. I came out of a coma to find a number of strange people around my bed—nurses who were Catholic nuns, doctors and a number of patients, They were all smiling. “Thank God, young man,” said the doctor, “we thought we were going to lose you. You've been in a coma for five days, but you’re going to be all right now.”<br />
<br />
“Where am I? Is this Paris?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“No, this is Mantes-sur-Seine, close to Paris. They had to put you off here as an emergency case.”<br />
<br />
“What’s wrong with me?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“Qh, you've had a little kidney infection and it has affected your heart.”<br />
<br />
“That sounds bad,” I said.<br />
<br />
“Well, you’re young and have a remarkable constitution. You'll pull through all right—you’re out of danger now,” he assured me.<br />
<br />
I remained in the hospital for about a month, receiving the kindest and most solicitous attention from nurses, doctors and patients. All seemed to regard me as their special charge, No one spoke English, but I got along all right. It was like a crash course in French, They told me I had a beautiful accent. They brought in an old lady to talk English with me, but she bored me to death, Really, my French was better than her English. She came once and didn’t return,<br />
<br />
I was feeling much better when the head sister came to me one evening to tell me I was to leave the next morning for Paris and the American hospital at Neuilly.<br />
<br />
“You've never been to Paris, have you?” she asked.<br />
<br />
“No,” I said. ,<br />
<br />
“Well, you’ve got a treat coming’<br />
<br />
I was filled with great expectations, The next morning, after embracing all my fellow patients and exchanging warm goodbyes with the doctor and sisters, the head nurse (or sister) took me out in front of the hospital where an American ambulance was waiting.<br />
<br />
“Hop in, buddy,” said the driver.<br />
<br />
“Haywood, be sure to write us when you get back to Chicago,” said the sister. “Remember we are your friends and want to know how you are getting along.”<br />
<br />
I promised that I would. As we pulled out, she stood on the road waving a white handkerchief and continued to wave it as long as we were in sight. I never wrote them, hut often thought of them.<br />
<br />
Paris, you wondrous city! I was feeling good that morning as we pulled into the hospital at Neuilly. The hospital was situated on the Avenue Neuilly near the Boulevard de la Grande Armée, only a few blocks from the Arc de Triomphe. It was a veritable palace. I was assigned to a ward in which there were only four guys, three Australians and one white American from Wisconsin. They greeted me and gave mea run-down on the situation. They were having a hall seeing Paris, taking in all the events, theaters, race tracks, boxing and girls, I don’t believe that I saw a real sick man in that hospital. There were some of course, but they must have been secluded in some out of sight wards. We were all convalescents in our ward. A couple were recuperating from wounds received at the front,<br />
<br />
“What do you do for money?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“Oh, we don’t worry about that—-just stick around a while and we'll show you the ropes,”<br />
<br />
Under their tutelage, it didn’t take me long to catch on. At that time there were dozens of rich American women, including a number from the social register in Paris. They were under the auspices of the Red Cross and had taken over the hospital and its patients as their special “war duty.” They would organize excursions, get tickets for shows, sports events, etc. Coming to the hospital in relays, they would leave huge boxes of chocolates and other goodies.<br />
<br />
We were showered with gifts—Gillette razors, Waterman fountain pens, and even some serviceable wrist watches if you asked for them. They would come in waves. Scarcely had one group left when another would come, leaving the same gifts. The guys had it down perfect. They always left one man on watch in the ward. He was there in case the gals would come in while the others were out and receive all the presents and gifts for them. He would point to the three un oceupied beds (there were only five of us in an eight bed ward) and pretend that their occupants were out in the streets. He would suggest that the presents be left for them, also. Old Wisconsin Slim was the real genius in all this, He even hung a couple of crosses over the unoccupied beds to give more substance to the fiction that they were occupied,<br />
<br />
Every morning we would gather all our presents, take them to the gate, and sell them fora good price to the French who gathered there to buy them. We would then return to the ward and divide the “swag.” Razors and fountain pens seemed to be rare in France at that time. The going rate for razors was about ten francs ($2) and for Waterman fountain pens even more. All this was carried out under the benign gaze of the hospital authorities.<br />
<br />
Discipline was lax, almost nonexistent. We could stay out for two days at a time. The attitude seemed to be: let the boys have a good time, they deserve it. Besides, it’s essential for their convalescence, When we would get a little money together (about once a week), we would run out to Montmartre and the famous Rue Pigalle, “Pig Alley,” to see the girls.<br />
<br />
As an old Francophile, I was also interested in French history and culture. I got a guidebook and spent days walking all over Paris, visiting all the historical places about which I had read, mentally reconstructing the events.<br />
<br />
Time was passing rapidly. I had been in the hospital about two months when an administrator called me into his office.<br />
<br />
“Well, Corporal Hall,” he said. “I hope you've been having a good time in Paris.”<br />
<br />
“Oh yes,” I replied.<br />
<br />
“That’s good,” he said, “We're sending you back to your regiment tomorrow.”<br />
<br />
“Where are they?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“They’re in Brest, waiting to embark for the voyage home.”<br />
<br />
The next morning I got on the train at the Gare Ouest and arrived in Brest that evening. In Brest, I strolled around a bit on the waterfront and finally sat down at a sidewalk cafe. I was in no hurry to get back into the old regimental harness, I was about to order a drink when suddenly a big white MP appeared. Glowering at me, he said, “Where’s your pass, soldier?”<br />
<br />
“Here it is. I’ve just got back from the hospital in Paris and I'm going to my outfit up on the hill,” I explained.<br />
<br />
He grabbed it, glanced at it and shouted, “Well, get going up that hill right now. You're not supposed to hang around here.”<br />
<br />
I left without my drink and started climbing the hill to the old Napoleon barracks where we had been eleven months before. It seemed like that had been years ago, so much had been crowded into the brief intervening period.<br />
<br />
T rejoined my outfit. They were living in tents in what seemed to me like a swamp. The weather was miserable, a steady cold rain. The mud was ankle deep. I was greeted warmly by my comrades. I don’t think that more than half the old boys of my company were left. The rest were dead, wounded, or ill in hospitals all over France.<br />
<br />
A couple of bottles of cognac were produced. The guys started reminiscing about what they were going to do when they got home. The news from home was bad. Discrimination and Jim Crow were rampant, worse than before. Blacks were being lynched everywhere. “Now, they want us to go to war with Japan,” observed one of the fellows. (The Hearst newspapers at the time were again raising the specter of the “yellow peril.”)<br />
<br />
“Well,” someone said, “they won’t get me to fight their yellow peril. If it comes to that, I'll join the Japs. They are colored.” There was unanimous agreement on that point.<br />
<br />
I bunked down that night and awoke the next morning with a high fever. I went to the infirmary and again was evacuated to a hospital. I immediately began to worry whether I would be able to return with my outfit. As I was waiting on the side of the road to hitch a ride to the hospital, I heard footsteps behind me. I turned and there was Colonel Roberts, our white commander whom I had not seen for months.<br />
<br />
I started to spring to my feet and salute, but he motioned me to remain seated. “Corporal, you're from our regiment, aren’t you?”<br />
<br />
“Yes, sir,” I said, “I'm sick and going to the hospital.”<br />
<br />
“What’s the matter?”<br />
<br />
“I guess I got the flu.”<br />
<br />
“Well,” he said, “you’re in no condition to walk that distance.” He hailed a passing truck and instructed the driver to take me to the hospital. “Take care, son; we’re going home soon. Try to come hack with us.” That’s the last time I saw Colonel Roberts.<br />
<br />
A month later, while in the hospital, I picked up the Paris edition of the Herald Tribune. The headline read: “The 370th Infantry (the old Eighth Illinois) returns and is given hero’s welcome in victory parade down State Street.” I felt pretty bad, because I could imagine my old Mother standing there waiting for me to pass by, Since I hadn’t written in months, she would probably assume the worst.<br />
<br />
I had been away from the States for quite a while, in free France so to speak, and I had become less used to the American nigger-hating way of life. But I was thrown abruptly back into reality as soon as I crossed the threshold of the American Army hospital in Brest.<br />
<br />
It seemed to be manned by an all Southern staff: doctors, nurses, etc. All of them spoke with broad Southern accents. I was assigned a bed at one end of the ward. When I looked around, I could see only Blacks were in that end. Whites were at the other end. There were no screens, no Jim Crow signs. The Jim Crow was de facto, but nonetheless real. I also noticed that there was a large space between the Black and white sections.<br />
<br />
After a cursory entrance examination, the doctor seemed to think that I didn’t have the flu, and upon hearing my recent medical history, he decided that it was a relapse of the old illness.<br />
<br />
Thad no sooner gotten settled when J heard a nurse bawling out a Black soldier for being so dirty. The poor fellow had just come in from some mud hole like the one in which my regiment was situated, where there was no opportunity to bathe.<br />
<br />
“You don’t see any of our white boys that dirty!” she shouted, her eyes flashing indignantly at what she, a white lady, was forced to put up with, For the first time, it occurred to me that our Black regiment had been put in a worse location than the whites. Now, that’s pretty hard stuff for a front-line veteran to take. If I had been ill when I came in, I was really sick now. I could feel my blood pressure and-fever mount.<br />
<br />
There was a Black sergeant from my outfit in the same ward, He was a tall, dignified and proud looking man, convalescing from a previous illness. He wasn’t a bed patient and was therefore supposed to make his own bed. This he did, but he never seemed to do it to the satisfaction of the nurse, who kept berating him.<br />
<br />
“Make it over, that’s not good enough.”<br />
<br />
“I've already made it, and I’m not going to do it again.”<br />
<br />
“Don’t talk back to me,” she shouted. “Make that bed!”<br />
<br />
“I’m not going to,” he said.<br />
<br />
“You dare disobey my order?” she yelled.<br />
<br />
“I'm a front-line soldier and you don’t have to yell at me.”<br />
<br />
She turned and walked to the office and returned with the ward doctor, a little pip-squeak of a man. Ina stentorian voice he said:<br />
<br />
“Make that bed, soldier.” The sergeant didn’t move. The doctor looked at his watch and said, “I’m giving you two minutes to start making that bed. If you don’t, I’m going to prefer charges against you for disobeying your superior officers.”<br />
<br />
You could see that the proud sergeant was thinking it over and coming to a decision. I could almost read his mind; it seemed that he was thinking that this wasn’t the time to die. He only had a couple more months to go.<br />
<br />
He finally burst into tears, but he got up and made the bed. I’ve seen this sort of situation before, and I feel almost certain that had there been a loaded gun around, the sergeant might have started shooting. It would have been reported in the news as “Another nigger runs amuck.” All of us, including some of the whites, breathed a sigh of relief at this peaceful culmination of what could have been a dangerous incident. At least the nurse never bothered the sergeant after that. Undoubtedly, she sensed the inherent danger of any further provocation.<br />
<br />
After my stay in Paris, I was seized periodically by moods of depression. These deepened and became chronic during my stay at the Brest hospital, especially after witnessing such humiliating incidents. I felt that I could never again adjust myself to the conditions of Blacks in the States after the spell of freedom from racism in France, I did not want to go back and my feeling was shared by many Black soldiers.<br />
<br />
I thought of remaining in France, getting my discharge there and possibly becoming a French citizen. But I did not know how to go about this. Besides, I was ill, and there was my Mother whom! wanted to see again. Probably, some day, if I got well, I would come back—or so I thought as I lay in the hospital at Brest.<br />
<br />
Finally, the day came. We were discharged from the hospital, given casual’s pay (one month’s pay), which in my case amounted to $33, and boarded the ship for home. There was no change in the Jim Crow pattern. We were merely transferred from a Jim Crow hospital to a Jim Crow hospital ship. We Blacks found ourselves quartered in a separate section of the ship. The segregation, however, did not extend to the mess hall or the lavatories (heads). I guess that would have been too much trouble. But the ship’s military command passed up no opportunity to let us know our place.<br />
<br />
For example, on the first day out we were given tickets for mess—~-breakfast, lunch and supper. We were supposed to present them to a checker who stood at the foot of the stairway leading up to the mess hall. A Black soldier who had evidently misplaced his ticket tried to slip by the checker unnoticed, but he was not quick enough. A cracker officer who was standing by the checker hollered: “Hey, Nigger, come back here!”<br />
<br />
The guy kept going and tried to merge into a group of us Blacks who had already passed through. Again the officer shouted, “Nigger, come back here. You, I mean. I mean the tall one over there. That nigger knows who I’m calling.” The soldier finally turned and walked back. Purple with rage, protected by his bars and white skin, the officer said, “Listen, you Black son of a bitch, where is your ticket?” Clearly, the officer had already gauged his man and concluded that there was no fight in him,<br />
<br />
“I couldn’t find it,” said the soldier.<br />
<br />
“Well, why didn’t you say that in the first place instead of tryin’ toslip through heah? Well, you go on back and try to find it. If you can’t, see the sergeant in charge. Don’t evah try that trick again,” said the officer. His anger seemed to ebb and a glow of self-satisfaction spread across his face. He had done his chore for the day. He had put a nigger in his place.<br />
<br />
The seas were rough again. It was a small ship, leased from the Japanese. Most of us were seasick. The sailors were having a ball at our expense, When one of us would rush to the rail to vomit, one of them would holler, “A dollar he comes.”<br />
<br />
One night, the ship tilted sharply and a number of us were thrown out of our bunks, The bunks were in tiers and I was in a top one, I got a pretty hard bump. The next morning on deck the sailors were talking loudly among themselves (for our benefit of course),<br />
<br />
“Gee,” said one, “this is the roughest sea I’ve ever seen. This old pile is about to come apart, The Japs leased us the worst ship they had.”<br />
<br />
“It just might be sabotage,” another one suggested,<br />
<br />
“I hope we make it, but I’m not so sure,” said another,<br />
<br />
Not being seamen, most of us were taking this seriously, A Black soldier turned to me and said, “You know man, after all I’ve been through, if this ship were to sink now almost in sight of home, I would get off and walk the water like the good Lord,”<br />
<br />
Another voice, that of a white sergeant from Florida who had been rather friendly to us: “You know,” he drawled, “this reminds me of old Sam down home.”<br />
<br />
Here it comes, we thought, one of those nigger jokes.<br />
<br />
“He was up theah on the gallows with a rope around his neck and the sheriff said, ‘Well Sam, is there anything you want to say before you die?<br />
<br />
“All T got to say sheriff, said Sam, ‘this sho’ would be a lesson to me,’ ”<br />
<br />
The voyage proceeded uneventfully, with one exception, The gamblers among us were out to get the soldiers’ casual pay. The law of concentration of money into fewer and fewer hands was in process, This was taking place in one of the endless crap games which started in the Bay of Biscay and wound up at Sandy Hook,<br />
<br />
IT never really gambled, even in the Army with room and board guaranteed, If you were broke, you could always borrow some money. The lender knew you couldn’t run out on him. His only risk was that you might become a casualty. But motivated by nothing more than sheer boredom, I got into the game this time.<br />
<br />
After all, what good was $33 going to do me? To my surprise, I hit a streak of luck and over a period of a week in and out of the game, I ran my paltry grub stake up to the tremendous sum of $1200, That was the high point, after which time my luck began to peter out. Nevertheless, I left the ship with $500. It was my last gambling venture,<br />
<br />
That morning, we lined up at the rail as our ship passed Sandy Hook and pulled into New York Harbor, It was my first view of the New York skyline, Overcome with emotion, tears welled up in my eyes, Embarrassed, I looked around and found that I was not alone. The guy next to me was obviously crying,<br />
<br />
Our landing was a memorable one, Ship stacks were blasting, foghorns blowing, bells were ringing and fire boats were sending up great sprays of water, Passengers in ferryboats were waving and shouting greetings.<br />
<br />
Upon docking, we were met by two reception committees of young women. A white one to receive the white soldiers and a Black one to greet us, This time segregation didn’t bother us at all, we were so pleased to see the pretty Black girls, They drew us aside as we came down the gang plank, ushered us into waiting ambulances, and drove us to Grand Central Palace which had been converted into a deharkation hospital, Leaving us in the lobby, they said goodbye and promised to come back soon and show us around.<br />
<br />
A woman from the Red Cross took our home addresses to notify our families of our arrival. We were then escorted into a large room and told to strip off our clothes. Leaving them in the room, we then went through the delousing process. We were sprayed with some sort of chemical and washed off under showers. We were then given pajamas and a bathrobe and shown to our Jim Crow ward.<br />
<br />
The next day, after a physical examination, we were paid off, receiving all of our back pay, In my case, it was for twelve months, amounting to about $450, This, plus the $500 I had won on the ship, seemed to me a small fortune, the largest amount of money I had ever had in my life. J was, so to speak, chafing at the bit, raring to get out and up to famed Harlem.<br />
<br />
On the ship, I had met a Black sergeant named Patterson, who was from the 369th, the old Fifteenth New York. He had also won a considerable sum in the crap game. He suggested that we team up and go to Harlem together. He said he knew his way around there since that was where he lived before he joined the Army.<br />
<br />
After the pay off, we were still without clothes. But a clothing salesman came around to take orders for new uniforms. Patterson and I ordered suits, for which we were measured. In a couple of hours the man was back with two brand new whip cord uniforms with chevrons and service stripes sewed on. We had also ordered shoes, which were promptly delivered, We then sneaked out of the hospital.<br />
<br />
After we banked most of our money downtown, we took the subway up to 125th Street and visited several “Buffet Flats” (a current euphemism for a high-class whorehouse), drinking and looking over the girls. Patterson seemed to be an old friend of all the madams. They greeted him like a long lost brother. We finally wound up in one real classy joint where we stayed for four days, playing sultan-in-a-harem with the girls.<br />
<br />
We returned to the hospital, expecting to be sharply reprimanded and restricted to quarters, but the doctor on his rounds merely asked, “Where have you boys been?” Before we could answer, he simply said, “I suggest that you stick around a day or two, we have some tests to make.”<br />
<br />
From New York, we left for Camp Grant near Rockford, Illinois, where we were demobilized out of the service, I was discharged on April 29, 1919. After a cursory examination, I was pronounced physically fit. “What about my chronic endocarditis and chronic nephritis?” I protested,<br />
<br />
“Oh, you're all right, you’ve overcome it all. You’re young and fit as a fiddle,” the doctor answered me. From Camp Grant I returned home to Chicago to see my parents.<br />
<br />
=== REUNION WITH OTTO ===<br />
Not too long after my discharge, I came home one evening to find Otto. He had just arrived after mustering out of the service at Camp Grant. We were all happy to see him, especially Mother. He showed us his honorable discharge.<br />
<br />
“You know,” he said, “I’m lucky to get this.”<br />
<br />
He then told stories about his harrowing experiences in a stevedore battalion in the South and then in France. The main mass of Black draftees had been relegated to these labor units, euphemistically called “service battalions,” “engineers,” “pioneer infantry,” ete.<br />
<br />
Regardless of education or ability, young Blacks were herded indiscriminately into these stevedore outfits and faced the drudgery and hard’ work with no possibility of promotion beyond the rank of corporal. With few exceptions, the officers were KKK whites, as also were the sergeants. Many of them were plantation riding boss types, especially recruited for these jobs. Southern newspapers openly carried want ads calling for white men who had “experience in handling Negroes,” Black draftees were not only subjected to the drudgery of hard labor, but insults, abuse, and in many cases blows from white officers and sergeants.<br />
<br />
Otto told us his worst experience was in Camp Stewart in Newport News, Virginia, where he was stationed during the terribly cold winter of 1917-18, For a considerable period after their arrival, they were forced to live in tents without floors or stoves. In most cases, they had only a blanket, some not even that.<br />
<br />
New arrivals to the camp were forced to stand around fires outside all night or sleep under trees for partial protection from the weather, For months there were no bathing facilities nor clothing for the men, These conditions were subsequently changed as a result of protests by the men and reports by investigators.<br />
<br />
His outfit landed in the port of St. Lazare, France, and during the great advance participated in the all-out effort to keep the front-lines supplied in the “race to Berlin.” They worked from dawn to nightfall unloading supplies, including all kinds of railroad equipment, engines, tractors and bulldozers. They built and repaired roads, warehouses and barracks. Discipline was strict; guys were thrown in the guardhouse on the most flimsy pretexts. A Black soldier seen on the street with a French woman was likely to be arrested by the MPs. <br />
<br />
“The spirit of St. Lazare,” said one officer, “is the spirit of the South.”<br />
<br />
Needless to say, Otto often found himself in the guard house as a result of fights, AWOLs, etc. How he escaped general court martial or imprisonment I don’t know.<br />
<br />
His outfit was finally moved to the American military base at Le Mans, about a hundred miles from Paris. Things were somewhat better there. There were even a few “reliable” Black corporals who were allowed weekend passes to visit Paris, Otto was assigned to mess duty as a cook,<br />
<br />
When he applied for leave, he was refused, however, “Well, I didn’t intend to come this close to Paris without seeing it,” he said, “so I went AWOL.”<br />
<br />
He did not see much of it, however, before he was arrested by MPs. I was surprised to learn that he had been in Paris during the period that I was in the hospital in Neuilly. Most of his time in the great city was spent in the Hotel St. Anne, the notorious American military jail run by the sadistic Marine captain, “hard-boiled Smith.”<br />
<br />
Here now, bitter and disillusioned, Otto continued his rebellion, It led him first to the Garvey movement where he served for a brief period as an officer in Garvey’s Black Legion, Then in succession, Wobblies, or Industrial Workers of the World ([WW), the African Blood Brotherhood and finally the Communist Party—joining soon after its unity convention in 1921. After returning from the service, Otto stayed at home only a short time and then moved in with some of his new friends.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 ==<br />
<br />
=== Searching for Answers ===<br />
Back home in Chicago, I was soon working again as a waiter on the Michigan Central Railroad. As I have already mentioned, the first day of the bloody Chicago race riot (July 28, 1919) came while I was working on the Wolverine run up through Michigan, When arrived home from work that afternoon, the whole family greeted me emotionally. We were all there except for Otto. The disagreements I had had with my Father in the past were forgotten, Both my Mother and sister were weeping. Everyone was keyed up and had been worrying about my safety in getting from the station to the house.<br />
<br />
Following our brief reunion, I tore loose from the family to find out what was happening outside. I went to the Regimental Armory at Thirty-fifth and Giles Avenue because I wanted to find some of my buddies from the regiment. The street, old Forrest Avenue, had recently been renamed in honor of Lt. Giles, a member of our outfit killed in France. I knew they would be planning an armed defense and I wanted to get in on the action. I found them and they told me of their plans. It was rumored that Irishmen from west of the Wentworth Avenue dividing line were planning to invade the ghetto that night, coming in across the tracks by way of Fifty-first Street. We planned a defensive action to meet them.<br />
<br />
it was not surprising that defensive preparations were under way. There had been clashes before, often when white youths in “athletic clubs” invaded the Black community. These “clubs” were really racist gangs, organized by city ward heelers and precinct captains,<br />
<br />
Once of the guys from the regiment took us to the apartment of a friend, It had a good position overlooking Fifty-first Street near State. Someone had brought a Browning submachine gun; he’d gotten it sometime before, most likely from the Regimental Armory. We didn’t ask where it had come from, or the origin of the 1903 Springfield rifles (Army issue) that appeared. We set to work mounting the submachine gun and set up watch for the invaders, Fortunately for them, they never arrived and we all returned home in the morning, The following day it rained and the National Guard moved into the Black community, so overt raids by whites did not materialize.<br />
<br />
Ours was not the only group which used its recent Army training for self-defense of the Black community. We heard rumors about another group of veterans who set up a similar ambush, On several occasions groups of whites had driven a truck at breakneck speed up south State Street, in the heart of the Black ghetto, with six or seven men in the back firing indiscriminately at the people on the sidewalks,<br />
<br />
The Black veterans set up their ambush at Thirty-fifth and State, waiting in a car with the engine running, When the whites on the truck came through, they pulled in behind and opened up with a machine gun, The truck crashed into a telephone pole at Thirty-ninth Street, most of the men in the truck had been shot down and the others fled, Among them were several Chicago police officers—“off duty,” of course!<br />
<br />
I remember standing before the Angeles Flats on Thirty-fifth and Wabash where the day before four Blacks had been shot by police. It appeared that enraged Blacks had set fire to the building and were attacking some white police officers when the latter fired on them.<br />
<br />
Along with other Blacks, I gloated over the mysterious killing of two Black cops with a history of viciousness in the Black community, They had been found dead in an alley between State and Wabash, Undoubtedly they had been killed by Blacks who had taken advantage of the confusion to settle old scores with these Black enforcers of the white man’s law.<br />
<br />
Bewilderment and shock struck the Black community as well. I had seen Blacks standing before the burned-out buildings of their former homes, trying to salvage whatever possible, Apparent on their faces was bewilderment and anger.<br />
<br />
The Chicago rebellion of 1919 was a pivotal point in my life, Always I had been hot-tempered and never took any insults lying down. This was even more true after the war. I had walked out of a number of jobs because of my refusal to take any crap from anyone, My experiences abroad in the Army and at home with the police left me totally disillusioned about being able to find any solution to the racial problem through the help of the government; for I had seen that official agencies of the country were among the most racist and most dangerous to me and my people.<br />
<br />
I began to see that I had to fight; I had to commit myself to struggle against whatever it was that made racism possible. Racism, which erupted in the Chicago riot—and the bombings and terrorist attacks which preceded it---must be eliminated. My spirit was not unique--it was shared by many young Blacks at that time, The returned veterans and other young militants were all fighting back. And there was a lot to fight against, Racism reached a high tide in the summer of 1919, This was the “Red Summer” which involved twenty-six race riots across the country—“red” for the blood that ran in the streets, Chicago was the bloodiest.<br />
<br />
The holocaust in Chicago was the worst race riot in the nation’s post-war history. But riots took place in such widely separate places as Long View, Texas, Charleston, South Carolina; Elaine, Arkansas, Knoxville, Tennessee, and Omaha, Nebraska. The flareup of racial violence in Omaha, my old home town, followed the Chicago riots by less than two months, It resulted in the lynching of Will Brown, a packing house worker, for an alleged assault on a white woman, When Omaha’s mayor, Edward P. Smith, sought to intervene, he was seized by the mob. They were close to hanging the mayor from a trolley pole when police cut the rope and rushed him to a hospital, badly injured.<br />
<br />
The common underlying cause of riots in most of the northern cities was the racial tension caused by the migration of tens of thousands of Blacks into these centers and the competition for jobs, housing and the facilities of the city. Rather than being at a temporary peak, this outbreak of racism was more like the rising of a plateau—-it never got any higher, but it never really went down, either. Writing in the middle of a riot in Washington, D.C., that summer, the Black poet Claude McKay caught the bitter and belligerent mood of many Blacks:<br />
<br />
'''If we must die, let it not be like hogs'''<br />
<br />
'''Hunted and penned in an inglorious spot,''' <br />
<br />
'''While round us bark the mad and hungry dogs,''' <br />
<br />
'''Making their mock at our accursed lot.'''<br />
<br />
'''if we must die, O let us nobly die'''<br />
<br />
'''So that our precious blood may not be shed'''<br />
<br />
'''Jn vain; then even the monsters we defy'''<br />
<br />
'''Shall be constrained to honor us though dead!'''<br />
<br />
'''* Okinsmen! We must meet the common foe!''' <br />
<br />
'''Though far outnumbered let us show us brave,''' <br />
<br />
'''And for their thousand blows deal one death blow!''' <br />
<br />
'''What though before us lies the open grave?'''<br />
<br />
'''Like men we'll face the murderous, cowardly pack,''' <br />
<br />
'''Pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back!''' <br />
<br />
‘The war and the riots of the “Red Summer” of 1919 left me bitter and frustrated. I felt that I could never again adjust to the situation of Black inequality. But how had it come about? Who was responsible?<br />
<br />
Chicago in the early twenties was an ideal place and time for the education of a Black radical. As a result of the migration of Blacks during World War I, the Chicago area came to have the largest concentration of Black proletarians in the country. It was a major point of contact for these masses with the white labor movement and its advanced, radical sector. In the thirties it was to become a main testing ground for Black and white labor unity.<br />
<br />
The city itself was the core of a vast urban industrial complex. Sprawling along the southeast shore of Lake Michigan, the area includes five Illinois counties and two in Indiana. The latter contains such industrial towns as East Chicago, Gary and Hammond. This metropolitan area contains the greatest concentration of heavy industry in the country.<br />
<br />
By the second half of the twentieth century, it had forged into the lead of the steel-making industry, surpassing the great Monongahela Valley of Pittsburgh in the production of primary metals; including steel mill, refining and non-ferrous metals operations. There was the gigantic U.S. Steel Corporation in Gary, the Inland Steel Company plant in East Chicago and the U.S. Steel South Works, These are now the three largest steel works in the United States. The steel mills of the Chicago area supply more than 14,000 manufacturing plants,<br />
<br />
Chicago was at that time, and remains today, the world’s largest railway center. It ranks first in the manufacture of railroad equipment, including freight and passenger cars, Pullmans, locomotives and specialized rolling stock.<br />
<br />
The core city itself was most famous for its wholesale slaughter and meat packing industry. Chicago was known as the meat capital of the world, or in Carl Sandburg’s more homely terms, “hog butcher for the nation.”<br />
<br />
The city’s colossal wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few men, who comprised the industrial, commercial and financial oligarchy. Among these were such giants as Judge Gary of the mighty U.S. Steel; Cyrus McCormick of International Harvester, the meat packers Philip D, Armour, Gustavus Swift and the Wilson brothers; George Pullman. of the Pullman Works; Rosenwald of Montgomery Ward; General Wood of Sears and Roebuck; the “merchant prince” Marshall Field; and Samuel Insull of utilities. These were the real rulers, Ostensible political power rested in the notoriously corrupt, gangster ridden, county political machine headed by Mayor William Hale (Big Bill) Thompson, who carried on the tradition exposed as early as 1903 by Lincoln Steffens in his book, The Shame of the Cities.<br />
<br />
The glitter and wealth of Chicago’s Gold Coast was based on the most inhuman exploitation of the city’s largely foreign-born working force. A scathing indictment of the horrible conditions in Chicago's meat packing industry was contained in Upton Sinclair’s novel, The Jungle, published in 1910. It was inevitable that the wage slave would rebel, that Chicago should become the scene of some of the nation’s bloodiest battles in the struggle between labor and capital, The first of these clashes was the railroad strike of 1877 which erupted in pitched battles between strikers and federal troops,<br />
<br />
Then in 1886 came the famous Haymarket riot which grew out of a strike for the eight-hour day at the McCormick reaper plant. During a protest rally, a bomb was thrown which killed one policeman and injured six others. ‘This led to the arrest of eight anarchist leaders; four were hanged, one committed suicide or was murdered in his cell, and the others were sentenced to life imprisonment. Obviously being tried and executed simply because they were labor leaders, these innocent men became a cause célebre of international labor, Thousands of visitors made yearly pilgrimages to the city where monuments to the executed men were raised, Haymarket became a rallying word for the eight-hour day. The martyrs were memorialized by the designation of the first of May as International Labor Day. <br />
<br />
Several years later the city was the scene of the great Pullman strike led by Eugene V. Debs and his radical but lily-white American Railway Union, which precipitated a nationwide shutdown of railroads in 1894. Again the federal troops were called in and armed clashes between workers and troops ensued. ‘These battles were merely high points in the city’s long history of labor radicalism. It was the national center of the early anarcho-socialist movements. In 1905, the Industrial Workers of the World (the IWW or Wobblies) was founded there. The IWW maintained its headquarters and edited its paper, Solidarity, there. In 1921, Chicago was to become the site of the founding convention of the Workers (Communist) Party, USA, which maintained its headquarters and the editorial offices of the Daily Worker there from 1923 to 1927.<br />
<br />
Blacks, however, played little or no role in the turbulent early history of the Chicago labor movement. This was so simply because they were not a part of the industrial labor force. Prior to World War I, Blacks were employed mainly in the domestic or personal service occupations, untouched by labor organizations. They were not needed in industry where the seemingly endless tide of cheap European immigrant labor—Irish, Scots, English, Swedes, Germans, Poles, East Europeans and Italians—sufficed to fill the city’s manpower needs.<br />
<br />
The only opportunity Blacks had of entering basic industry was as strikebreakers. Thus, in the early part of the century, Blacks were brought in as strikebreakers on two important occasions, the stockyards strike of 1904 and the city-wide teamsters’ strike in 1905. In the first instance, Blacks were discharged as soon as the strike was broken. After the teamsters’ strike, a relatively large number of Blacks remained. As a result of the defeat of the 1904 strike, the packing houses remained virtually unorganized for thirteen more years, and the animosities which developed toward the Black strikebreakers became a part of the racial tension of the city.<br />
<br />
At the outbreak of World War I, the situation with respect to Chicago’s Black labor underwent a basic change, Now Blacks were needed to fill the labor vacuum caused by the war boom and the quotas on foreign immigration. Chicago's employers turned to the South, to the vast and untapped reservoir of Black labor eager to escape the conditions of plantation serfdom--exacerbated by the cotton crisis, the boll weevil plague and the wave of lynchings. The “great migrations” began and continued in successive waves through the sixties. <br />
<br />
During the war, the occupational status of Blacks thus shifted from largely personal service to basic industry. In the tens of thousands, Blacks flocked to the stockyards and steel mills. During the war, the Black population went from 50,000 to 100,000. Successive waves of Black migration were to bring the Black population to over a million within the next fifty years. Black labor, getting its first foothold in basic industry during the war, had now become an integral part of Chicago’s industrial labor force.4<br />
<br />
With the tapping of this vast reservoir of cheap and unskilled labor, there was no longer any need for the peasantry of eastern and southern Europe. There was, however, a difference between the position of Blacks and that of the European immigrants. The latter, after a generation or two, could rise to higher skilled and better paying jobs, to administrative and even managerial positions. They were able to leave the ethnic enclaves and disperse throughout the city—to become assimilated into the national melting pot, The Blacks, to the contrary, found themselves permanently relegated to a second-class status in the labor force, with a large group outside as a permanent surplus labor pool to be replenished when necessary from the inexhaustible reservoir of Black, poverty-ridden and land-starved peasantry of the South.<br />
<br />
‘The employers now had in hand a new source of cheap labor, the victims of racist proscription, to use as a weapon against the workers’ movement. Indeed, this went hand in hand with the Jim Crow policies of the trade union leaders, who had been largely responsible for keeping Blacks out of basic industry in the first place. <br />
<br />
These labor bureaucrats premised their racism on the doctrine of a natural Black inferiority, The theory of an instinctive animosity between the races was a powerful instrument for an anti-union, anti-working class, divide and rule policy. The use of racial differences was found to be a much more effective dividing instrument than the use of cultural and language differences between various white ethnic groups and the native born. As we know, ethnic conflicts proved transient as the various European nationalities became assimilated into the general population. Blacks, on the other hand, remain to this day permanently unassimilable under the present system.<br />
<br />
Such were conditions in the days when I undertook my search for answers to the question of Black oppression and the road to liberation. Living conditions were pretty rough then, and I had gone back to my old trade of waiting tables in order to make some sort of living.<br />
<br />
But I was restless, moody, short-tempered-—-qualities ill-suited to the trade, Naturally, I had trouble holding a job. My trouble was not with the guests so much as with my immediate superiors; captains, head waiters and dining car stewards, most of whom were white. In less than a month after the Chicago riot, I lost my job on the Michigan Central as a result of a run-in with an inspector.<br />
<br />
The dining car inspectors were a particularly vicious breed. Their job was to see that discipline was maintained and service kept up to par. These inspectors, whom we called company spies, would board the train unexpectedly anywhere along the route, hoping to catch a member of the crew violating some regulation or not giving what they considered proper service. They would then reprimand the guilty party personally, or if the offense was sufficiently serious, would turn him in to the main office to be laid off or fired. Usually the inspector’s word was law from which there was no appeal. The dining car crew had no unions in those days.<br />
<br />
This particular inspector (his name was McCormick) had taken a dislike to me. He had made that clear on other occasions. The feeling was mutual. Perhaps he sensed my independent attitude. He probably felt I was not sufficiently impressed by him and did not care about my job. He was right on both counts. <br />
<br />
He boarded the Chicago-bound train one morning in Detroit, We were serving breakfast. It was just one of those days when everything went wrong. People were lined up at each end of the diner, waiting to be served. Service was slow. The guests were squawking and I was in a mean mood myself. I was cutting bread in the pantry when McCormick peered in and shouted, “Say, Hall, that silver is in terrible condition.”<br />
<br />
The silver! What the hell is this man talking about dirty silver when I’ve got all these people out there clamoring for their breakfast. 2<br />
<br />
“I’ve been noticing you lately,” he continued. “It looks as though you don’t want to work. If you don't like your job why in hell don't you quit?”<br />
<br />
I took that as downright provocation. “Damn you and your job!” I exploded, advancing on him.<br />
<br />
He turned pale and ran out of the pantry. A friend of mine in the crew grabbed me by the wrist.<br />
<br />
“What the hell’s the matter with you, Hall? Are you crazy?” It was only then that I realized that I had been waving the bread knife at the inspector.<br />
<br />
In a few minutes, the brakeman and the conductor came into the pantry. MeCormick brought up the rear,<br />
<br />
“That’s the one,” he said pointing at me.<br />
<br />
Addressing me, the conductor said, “The inspector here says you threatened him with a knife. Is that true?”<br />
<br />
I denied it, stating that I had been cutting bread when the argument started and had a knife in my hand. I wasn’t threatening him with it. My friend (who had grabbed my wrist) substantiated my story.<br />
<br />
“Well,” said the conductor, “you’d better get your things and ride to Chicago in the coach. We don’t want any more trouble here, and the inspector has said he doesn’t want you in the dining car.”<br />
<br />
I went up forward in the coach. I got off the train in Chicago at Sixty-third and Stony Island. I didn’t go to the downtown station, thinking that the cops might be waiting there.<br />
<br />
So much for my job with the Michigan Central.<br />
<br />
I went back to working sporadically in restaurants, hotels and on trains. I didn’t stay anywhere very long. The first job that I regarded as steady was the Illinois Athletic Club, where I remained for several months, 1 was beginning to settle down a little and participate in the social life of the community, attending dances, parties and visiting cabarets. The Royal Gardens, a night club on Thirty-first Street, was one of my favorite hangouts. King Oliver and Louis Armstrong were often featured there. At the Panama, on Thirty-fifth Street between State and Wabash, we went to see our favorite comedians-—Butter Beans and Susie.<br />
<br />
It was on one of these occasions that I met my first wife, Hazel. She belonged to Chicago’s Black social elite, such as it was. Her father had died and her family was on the downgrade. Her mother was left with four children, three girls and a boy, of whom Hazel was the oldest. The other children were still teenagers, and Hazel and her mother had supported them by doing domestic work and catering for wealthy whites. I was twenty-one and she was twenty five.<br />
<br />
Hazel was attractive, a high school graduate. She spoke good English and, as Mother said, “had good manners.” She worked for Montgomery Ward, then owned by the philanthropic Rosenwald family, the first big company to hire Blacks as office clerks. She had a nice singing voice and used to sing around at parties. Her friends were among the Black upper strata and the family belonged to the Episcopal Church on Thirty-eighth and Wabash which at that time was the church of the colored elite. We were married in 1920. I was all decked out in a rented swallowtail coat, striped pants, spats and a derby. The ceremony was impressive. Photos appeared in the Chicago Defender.<br />
<br />
In a short time, the romance wore off. Hazel’s ambition to get ahead in the world, “to be somebody,” clashed with my love of freedom. I soon had visions of myself, a quarter century hence-making mortgage payments on a fancy house, installments on furniture, and trapped in a drab, lower middle-class existence, surrounded by a large and quarrelsome family.<br />
<br />
The worst of it was having to put up with being kicked around on the job and taking all that crap from headwaiters and captains. I had been working at the Athletic Club for several months before I got married. Then nobody had bothered me. When I asked for time off to get married, the white headwaiter and the captain seemed delighted. “Sure Hall, that’s fine. Congratulations, Take a couple of weeks off.”<br />
<br />
Upon my return, I immediately felt a change in their attitude, Now that I was married, they felt they had me where they wanted me. They became more and more demanding. One day at lunch I had some difficulty getting my orders out of the kitchen, and the guests were complaining—not an unusual occurrence in any restaurant. Instead of helping me out and calming down the guests, or seeing what the hang-up was in the kitchen, the captain started shouting at me in front of the guests. “What’s the matter with you, Hall? Why don’t you bring these people’s orders?”<br />
<br />
“Can’t you see that I’m tied up in the kitchen?” I said. “Why don’t you go out and see the chef instead of hollering at me!”<br />
<br />
All puffed up, he yelled out, “Don’t give me any of your lip or I'll snatch that badge off you!”<br />
<br />
I jerked my badge off, threw both badge and side towel into his face, and shouted, “Take your badge and shove it!”<br />
<br />
I was moving on him when a friend of mine, Johnson, a waiter at the next station, jumped between us, I turned away, walked down the steps, through the kitchen and into the dressing room. Johnson followed me into the dressing room a few minutes later. “Hurry up and get out of here. They’re calling the cops.” I changed and left.<br />
<br />
My marriage went down the drain along with the job. That was a period of post-war crisis. Jobs were hard to find, and especially so for me since I had been blacklisted from several places because of my temper. 1 was no longer the same man that Hazel married, and the truth of the matter was that I wanted it that way. Her hangups were typical of Black aspirants for social status—strivers, we called them-—-who never really doubted the validity of the prejudice from which they suffered. Hazel slavishly accepted white middle class values. I, on the other hand, was looking around trying to figure out how best to maladjust<br />
<br />
=== MY REBELLION ===<br />
For me, the break-up of our marriage in the spring of 1920 destroyed my last ties with the old conventional way of life. I was completely disenchanted with the middle class crowd into which Hazel was trying to draw me. But more important, I not only rejected the status quo, I was determined to do something about it--to make my rebellion count.<br />
<br />
I sought answers to a number of questions: What was the nature of the forces behind Black subjugation? Who were its main beneficiaries? Why was racism being entrenched in the north in this period? How did it differ from the South? Could the situation be altered and, if so, what were the forces for change and the program?<br />
<br />
l renewed my search for a way to go, pressed by a driving need for a world view which would provide a rational explanation of society and a clue to securing Black freedom and dignity. My search was to continue during what must have been the most virulent and widespread racist campaign in U.S. history, The forces of racist bigotry unleashed during the riots of the “Red Summer” of 1919 were still on the march through the twenties. Indeed, they had intensified and extended their campaign. <br />
<br />
The whole country seemed gripped in a frenzy of racist hate. Anti-Black propaganda was carried in the press, in magazine articles, literature and in theater. D.W. Griffith’s obscene movie, The Birth of a Nation, which glorified the Ku Klux Klan and pictured Blacks as depraved animals, was shown to millions.5 Thomas Dickson’s two novels, The Klansman (upon which Griffith’s picture was based) and The Leopard's Spots (an earlier book on the theme of the white man’s burden) were best sellers. Racist demagogues of the stripe of “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman of South Carolina, Vardeman of Mississippi, and “Cotton” Ed Smith of South Carolina, were in demand on northern lecture platforms.<br />
<br />
Closely behind the trumpeters of race-hate rode their cavalry, A revived Ku Klux Klan now extended to the north and made its appearance in twenty-seven states.6 This organization, embracing millions, headed the list of a whole rash of super-patriotic groups who were anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, anti-foreign-born and anti-Black. The apostles of white, Anglo-Saxon and Nordic supremacy included in their galaxy of ethnic outcasts Asians (the “yellow peril”), Latin Americans and other foreign-born from southern and eastern Europe. Their hate propaganda pitted Protestants against Catholics, Christians against Jews, native against foreign-born, and all against the Blacks, upon whom was fixed the stigma of inherent and eternal inferiority.<br />
<br />
It seemed as though the prophets of the “lost cause” were out to reverse their military defeat at Appomattox by the cultural subversion of the north. That they were receiving encouragement by powerful northern interests was self-evident. Tin Pan Alley added its contribution to the attack with a spate of Mammy songs, and along the same vein, “That’s Why Darkies Were Born”:<blockquote>'''Someone had to pick the cotton,''' <br />
<br />
'''Someone had to plant the corn,'''<br />
<br />
'''Someone had to slave and be able to sing,''' <br />
<br />
'''That's why darkies were born.'''<br />
<br />
'''Though the balance is wrong,'''<br />
<br />
'''Sull your faith must be strong,'''<br />
<br />
'''Accept your destiny brothers, listen to me.'''</blockquote>A main objective of the racist assault was the academic establishment. The old crude forms of racist propaganda proved inadequate in an age of advancing science. The hucksters of race hate conducted raids upon the sciences, especially upon the new disciplines-—anthropology, ethnology and psychology--in an attempt to establish a scientific foundation for the race myth.<br />
<br />
The new “science of race” evolved and flourished during the period, Spadework for this grotesque growth had been done in the middle of the last century by the Frenchman, Count Arthur D. Gobineau, in his work, The Inequality of the Human Races (1851-1853), It was carried on by his disciple, the Englishman turned German, Houston Chamberlain, who asserted that racial mixture was a natural crime. In the U.S, early efforts in this field were the works of Knott and Glidden. Also, there was Ripley's Races of Mankind.<br />
<br />
Carrying on in this pseudo-scientific tradition during the war and postwar years were the popular theorists Lathrop Stoddard, The Rising Tide of Color: Against White World Supremacy (1923) and Madison Grant, The Passing of a Great Race: The Racial Basis of European History (1916). The cornerstone of this pseudo-scientific structure was Social Darwinism which was an attempt to subvert Darwin’s theory of evolution and arbitrarily apply natural selection in plant and animal society to human society. According to the Social Darwinists, led by Herbert Spencer, the British sociologist, history was a continuous struggle for existence between races. In this struggle, the Nordic, Anglo-Saxon, or Aryan civilizations naturally survived as the fittest.<br />
<br />
The racists had a field day in history, long the area in which the heroes of the “lost cause” had their greatest, most effective concentration. They had held chairs in some of the nation’s most prestigious universities—Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Harvard, etc, Among such historians was William Archibald Dunning, who during his long tenure at Columbia miseducated generations of students by his distortions of the Reconstruction, Civil War and slave periods.7<br />
<br />
In the academic world this pseudoscience of racism held sway with only a few open challengers. The latter seemed to be isolated voices in the wilderness, as the counter-offensive was slow in getting underway. In anthropology there was Franz Boaz’s antiracist thrust, Mind of Primitive Man. This was written in 1911, and not widely known at the time. The works of his students and colleagues-—-most notably Melville Hershovitz, The Myth of the Negro Past, Jane Weltfish, Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead and Otto Klineburg-—-were not to appear until the next decade.<br />
<br />
In history, the movement for revision was then decades away. It only became a trend with the Black Revolt of the sixties, Black scholars had pioneered the reexamination: W.E.B. DuBois, his tour de force, Black Reconstruction, and the epilogue, “Propaganda of History,” which contained a bitter indictment of the white historical establishment, was not to appear until the mid-thirties. J.A. Rogers, popular Black historian, had not yet appeared on the scene, Young Carter Woodson, who had founded his Association for the Study of Negro History in 1915, only began to publish the Journal of Negro History in 1916. His own important historical works were yet to come. <br />
<br />
‘Thus, from its tap-roots in the Southern plantation system, the anti-Black virus had spread throughout the country, shaping the pattern of Black-white relationships in the industrial urban north as well. The dogma of the inherent inferiority of Blacks had permeated the national consciousness to become an integral part of the American way of life. Racist dogma, first a rationale for chattel slavery and then plantation peonage, was now carried over to the north as justification for a new system of de facto segregation.<br />
<br />
Black subjugation, city-style Jim Crow, became fixed by the twenties, and continues up to the present day. Its components were the residential segregation of the ghetto with its inferior education, slums and the second class status of Black workers in the labor force where they were relegated to the bottom rung of the occupational ladder and prevented by discrimination from moving into better skills and higher paid jobs.<br />
<br />
Although its purpose was not clear to me then, I later realized that the virulent racism of the period served to justify and bulwark the structure of Black powerlessness which was developing in every northern city where we had become a sizable portion of the work force,<br />
<br />
At the time the racist deluge simply revealed great gaps in my own education and knowledge. I knew that the propaganda was a tissue of lies, but I felt the need for disproving them on the basis of scientific fact. I rejected racism—the lie of the existence in nature of superior and inferior races--and its concomitant fiction of intuitive hostility between races. For one thing, it ran counter to my own background of experience in Omaha.<br />
<br />
Religion as an explanation for the riddles of the universe I had rejected long before. I knew that our predicament was not the result of some divine disposition and therefore that racial oppression was neither a spiritual or natural phenomenon. It was created by man, and therefore must be changed by man, How? Well, that was the question to be explored. I had only a smattering of knowledge of natural and social sciences, much of which I had gathered through reading the lectures of Robert G. Ingersoll. It was through him that I discovered Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution through natural selection.<br />
<br />
Armed with a dictionary and a priori knowledge gleaned from Ingersoll’s popularizations, I was able to make my way through Origin of the Species. Darwin showed the origin of the species to be a result of the process of evolution and not the mysterious act of a divine creation. Here at last was a scientific refutation of religious dogma. I had at last found a basis for my atheism which had before been based mainly upon practical knowledge.<br />
<br />
Continuing my search, I found myself attracted to other social iconoclasts or image-destroyers, and to their attacks upon established beliefs. I remember staying up all night reading Max Nordau’s Conventional Lies of Our Civilization, being thrilled by his castigation of middle class hypocrisy, prejudices and philistinism. Moving on to the contemporary scene, I discovered H.L. Mencken, “The Sage of Baltimore,” and his “smart set” crowd.<br />
<br />
For a short while, I was an avid reader of the Mercury which he helped to establish in 1920 as a forum for his views, I was particularly delighted by his critical potshots at some of the most sacred cultural cows of what he called “the American Babbitry,” “boobocracy,” “anthropoid majority’--Menckenian sobriquets for middle class commoners. Mencken enjoyed a brief popularity among young Black radicals of the day who saw in his searing diatribes against WASP cultural idols ammunition with which to blast the claims of white supremacists. The novelty soon wore off as it became clear that Mencken’s type of iconoclasm posed no real challenge to the prevailing social structure, In fact, it was reactionary. He sought to replace destroyed idols with even more reactionary oncs, as I soon found out. <br />
<br />
Mencken’s philosophical mentor was none other than the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, prophet of the superman, of the aristocratic minority destined to rile over the unenlightened hoardes of Untermenschen—-the “perenially and inherently unequal majority of mankind.” Most Blacks then, including myself, who flirted with Mencken never accepted him fully. The one exception was George Schuyler of the Pittsburgh Courier, who took Mencken's snobbery and reactionary politics and made a career of them which has lasted for forty years.<br />
<br />
What confused me most were the contentions of the Social Darwinists, who claimed to be the authentic continuators of Darwin’s theories. Darwin had not dealt with the question of race per se, But it had seemed to me that his theory of evolution precluded the myth of race. How could Darwin's theory which had helped me finally and irrevocably throw aside the veil of mysticism and put the understanding of the descent of man within my grasp—how could this be used as an endorsement of racism? Perhaps I had been wrong? Was I reading into Darwin more than, what he implied?<br />
<br />
It was my brother Otto who finally cleared me up on this point. He and I were running in different circles, but we would meet from time to time and exchange notes. Otto pointed out that Social Darwinists had distorted Darwin by mechanically transferring the laws of existence among plants and animals to the field of social and human relations. Human society had its own laws, he asserted. Ah, what were those laws? That was the subject that I wanted to explore.<br />
<br />
“You ought to quit reading those bourgeois authors and start reading Marx and Engels,” Otto told me, suggesting also that I read Henry Lewis Morgan’s Ancient Society and the works of Redpath. ’<br />
<br />
About this time I got a job as a clerk at the Chicago Post Office. I heard that jobs were available and that veterans were given preference. Following the advice of friends, I approached S.L. Jackson of the Wabash Avenue YMCA, who at that time was a Black Republican stalwart with connections in the Madden political machine. Jackson gave me a note to some Post Office official in charge of employment. I passed the civil service examination, in which veterans were given a ten percent advantage, and was employed as a substitute clerk.<br />
<br />
The Post Office job in those days carried considerable prestige. It was almost the only clerical job open to Blacks. Postal workers, along with waiters, Pullman porters and tradesmen, were traditionally considered a part of the Black middle class. A number of prominent community leaders came from this group. Many officers of the old Eighth Illinois were postal employees, a good percentage of them mail-carriers.<br />
<br />
The Post Office became a refuge for poor Black students and unemployed university graduates, For some of the latter it was a sort of way-station on the road to their professional careers. Others remained, settling for regular Post Office careers. But even here opportunities were limited. Blacks held only a few supervisory positions, as advancement depended solely on the discretion of the white postmaster.<br />
<br />
On the job I found the work extremely boring. It consisted of standing before a case eight hours a night, sorting mail. All substitutes were relegated to the night shift. It took years to get on the day shift which was preempted by the veteran employees: On the other hand, I found the company of my new young fellow workers very stimulating.<br />
<br />
In those days the organization of Black postal employees was the Phalanx Forum. Before the war, the organization had played an important political and social role in the community. It was dominated by the conservative crowd of social climbers and political aspirants, who were the most active group among postal employees and had close ties with the local Republican machine.<br />
<br />
Their leadership was completely incffective with respect to the job issues of Black rank-and-file employees, and it had little or no influence over the younger group of new employees, which included many veterans and students. The gap between the old, conservative crowd and the new, youthful element was sharp. Among the latter a radical sentiment was growing.<br />
<br />
I was immediately attracted to this group among whom I was to find friends who seemed to be impelled by the same motivations as myself-—to find new answers to the problems afflicting our people. Most of those with whom I fraternized considered the postal job as temporary, a step to other careers. Our interest at the time, therefore, was not so much with the immediate economic or onthe-job needs of Black postal workers, but with the “race problem” generally. The drive for unionization of postal employees was to come later.<br />
<br />
The issue to which we addressed ourselves was the current campaign of white racist propaganda: how to counter it on the basis of scientific truth. We saw the network of racist lies as clearly aimed at justifying Black subjugation and destroying our dignity as a people. On this question we had long, endless discussions on the job while sorting mail, at rest, during lunch breaks and on Sundays when some of us would meet. I soon identified with what I considered the more vocal segment. Among our group of aspirant intellectuals there was a medical student, a couple of law students, a dentist (whom we all called “Doc”), students of education and some intellectually oriented workers like myself. On one Sunday when we had gathered, it was suggested, I think by Joc Mabley, that we organize ourselves as an informal discussion group, and that our purpose would be to answer the racist lies on the basis of scientific truth. The idea was instantly agreed upon.<br />
<br />
The discussion circle was loosely organized, not more than a dozen participants in all, and bent on finding answers. The moving spirits of the group were John Heath, Joe Mabley and “Doc.”<br />
<br />
Heath was a tall, light-complexioned man with high cheekbones. He was a graduate student in the field of education, anda man whose sterling character and keen intellect we all respected. Then there was Joc Mabley, a brilliant, small Black man. He had large velvety eyes and was a college dropout. He was married and had a family-—two or three children—and had settled down to a regular Post Office job, He and Doe were the only regular postal workers in our group—the rest of us being suhstitutes. Doc had set up an office on the Southside and was trying hard to build upa clientele while working night shifts.<br />
<br />
Originally we had planned to meet every Sunday at noon as the most convenient time for the fellows on our shift. The meeting places were to alternate between the homes or apartments of the members. When we got to procedure, the group would choose a topic of discussion and ask for volunteers or assign a member to make introductory reports, He would then have a week to prepare the report, Our original plans included the eventual organization of a forum in which the issues of the day could be debated, and the holding of social affairs. All of this proved to be too ambitious, We found it impractical to have weekly meetings and finally agreed that twice a month was more feasible. The forum idea never got off the ground.<br />
<br />
Among us I think we had most of the answers on the question of race, that is, to all but the big lie, the onc that was most convincing to the white masses and is the cornerstone on which the whole structure stood or fell: the assertion that Blacks have no history.<br />
<br />
A leading formulator of the lie at that time was John Burgess, professor of political science and history at Columbia University:<blockquote>T'''he claim that there is nothing in the color of the skin from the point of view of political ethics is a great sophism. A black skin means membership in a race of men which has never of itself’ succeeded in subjecting passion to reason, has never, therefore, created any civilization of any kind.'''</blockquote>We wanted to refute the slanders on the basis of scientific truth. For this, we needed more ammunition and better weapons, particularly in the field of history. It was ahout this time that I met George Wells Parker, a brilliant young Black graduate student from Omaha’s Creighton University. I was introduced to him by my brother Otto, who had known him in Omaha. He was in Chicago to visit relatives and to conduct research for his dissertation. His major was history, I believe. We found him a virtual storehouse of knowledge on the race question, especially Black history. His major objective in life was apparently to refute the prevalent racist lies and to huild Black dignity and pride, He possessed wide knowledge and seemed to have read everything.<br />
<br />
Parker called our attention to the writings of the great anthropologist Franz Boas; the Egyptologist Virchow; to Max Mueller (philologist who formulated the Aryan myth and then rejected it); to the Frenchman Jean Finot; to Sir Harry Johnstone (British authority on African history); and to the Italian Giuseppe Serg and his theory of the Mediterranean races, arefutation of the Aryan mythology. Proponents of this myth claimed all civilizations—Indian, Near East, Egyptians—as Aryan, One wonders why the Chinese were left out, but then that would have been too palpable a fraud! It was Parker who called our attention to Herodotus (ancient Greek historian) who had described the Egyptians of his time (around 400 B.C.) as “Black and with woolly hair.”<br />
<br />
Otto and I introduced Parker to friends and acquaintances, and I, of course, to our discussion circle. He spoke before numerous groups. Everywhere there was hunger for his knowledge. Weeven brought him before the Bugs Club Forum in Washington Park, where he led a discussion on the race question. <br />
<br />
This brilliant young man returned to Omaha to resume his studies. The next winter he was dead. We heard it was the result of a mental breakdown. Thus was a brilliant career cut short and a potentially great scholar lost. Surviving, I believe, was only one brief paper and some notes.<br />
<br />
=== GARVEY’S BACK TO AFRICA MOVEMENT ===<br />
But time and tide did not stand still to wait for our answers to the social problems of the day, or for the results of our intellectual researches. While we sought arguments with which to counter the racist thrust, the masses were forging their own weapons. Their growing resistance was finally to erupt on the political scene in the grcatest mass movement of Blacks since Reconstruction,<br />
<br />
Great masses of Blacks found the answer in the Back to Africa program of the West Indian Marcus Garvey. Under his aegis this movement was eventually diverted from the encmy at home into utopian Zionistic channels of peaceful return to Africa and the establishment of a Black state in the ancestral land.<br />
<br />
The organizational course of the movement was Garvey’s Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA). He first launched this organization in Jamaica, British West Indies, in 1914. Coming to the USA, he founded its first section in New York City in 1917. The organization grew rapidly during the war and the immediate post-war period, At its height in the early twenties, it claimed a membership of half a million. While estimates of the organization's membership vary-—from half a million to a million—it was the largest organization in the history of U.S. Blacks. There can be no doubt that its influence extended to millions who identified wholly or partially with its programs.<br />
<br />
What in Garvey’s program attracted these masses?<br />
<br />
Garvey was a charismatic leader and in that tradition best articulated the sentiments and yearnings of the masses of Black people. In his UNIA he also created the vehicle for their organization, Equally important, he was a master at understanding how to use pageantry, ritual and ceremony to provide the Black peasantry with psychological relief from the daily burdens of their oppression. His apparatus included such high sounding titles as potentate, supreme deputy potentate, knights of the Nile, knights of distinguished service, the order of Ethiopia, the dukes of Nigeria and Uganda. There were Black gods and Black angels and a flag of black, red and green: “Black for the race, Red for their blood and Green for their hopes.”<br />
<br />
The movement’s program was fully outlined in the historic Declaration of Rights of the Negro Peoples of the World, adopted at the first convention of the organization in New York City August 13, 1920. In the manner of the Nation of Islam and its publication Muhammad Speaks (Bilalian News), the program of Garvey combined a realistic assessment of the conditions facing Blacks with a fantasy and mystification about the solution. Along with the Back to Africa slogan, the document contained a devastating indictment of the plight of the Black peoples in the United States. Expressing the militancy of its delegates, it called for opposition to the incquality of wages betwecn Blacks and whites, it protested their cxclusion from unions, their deprivation of land, taxation without representation, unjust military service, and Jim Crow laws.<br />
<br />
Anticipating the Black Power Revolt of the sixties, the document called for “complete control of our social institutions without the interference of any other race or races.” Reflecting the rising worldwide anti-colonial movement of the period, it called for self-determination of peoples and repudiated the loosely formed League of Nations, declaring its decisions “null and void as far as the Blacks were concerned because it seeks to deprive them of their independence.” This latter point was in reference to the assignment of mandates to European powers over African territories wrested from the Germans.<br />
<br />
Through this atmosphere of militancy, expressing the desire of the masses to defend their rights at home, ran the incongruent theme of Back to Africa. Declared Garvey:<blockquote>'''Being satisfied to drink of the dregs from the cup of human progress will not demonstrate our fitness as a people to exist alongside others, but when of our own initiative we strike out to build industries, governments, and ultimately empires (sic), then and only then, will we as a race prove to our Creator and to man in general that we are fit to survive and capable of shaping our own destiny.'''<br />
<br />
'''Wake up, Africa! Let us work toward the one glorious end of a free, redeemed, and mighty nation. Let Africa be a bright star among the constellation of nations.'''</blockquote>Who were Garvey’s followers?<br />
<br />
Garvey's Zionistic message was beamed mainly to the submerged Black peasantry, especially its uprooted vanguard, the new migrants in such industrial centers as New York City, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago and St. Louis. These masses made up the rank and file of the movement. They were embittered and disillusioned by racist terror and unemployment, and saw in Garvey’s program of Back to Africa the fulfillment of their yearnings for land and freedom to be guaranteed by a government of their own.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, Garveyism was the trend of a section of the ghetto lower middle classes, small businessmen, shopkeepers, property holders who were pushed to the wall, ruined or threatened with ruin by the ravages of the post-war crisis, Also attracted to Garveyism were the frustrated and unemployed Black intelligentsia: professionals, doctors, lawyers with impoverished clientele, storefront preachers who had followed their flocks to the promised land of the north, and poverty stricken students.<br />
<br />
Garveyism reflected the desperation of these strata before the ruthless encroachments of predatory white corporate interests upon their already meager markets. It reflected an attempt by them to escape from the sharpening racist oppression, the terror of race riots, the lynchings, economic and social frustrations. It was from these strata that the movement drew its leadership cadres.<br />
<br />
The immediate pecuniary interests of this element were expressed in the form of ghetto enterprises, the organization of a whole network of cooperative enterprises, including grocery stores, laundries, restaurants, hotels and printing plants. The most ambitious was the Black Star Steamship Line. Several ships were purchased and trade relations were established with groups in the West Indies and Africa, including the Republic of Liberia.<br />
<br />
The New York City division comprised a large segment of the intensely nationalistic West Indian immigrants. West Indians were prominent in the leadership, in Garvey's close coterie, and in the organization’s inner councils. There can be no doubt of the considerable influence of this element on the organization. But the attempt on the part of some writers to brand the movement as a foreign import with no indigenous roots is superficial and without foundation in fact. It is clear that Garveyism had both a social and economic base in Black society of the twenties. Nor was Garvey’s nationalism a new trend among Blacks—nationalist currents had repeatedly emerged, going back even before the Civil War.<br />
<br />
A key role in the movement was also played by deeply disillusioned Black veterans who had fought an illusory battle to “make the world safe for democracy” only to return to continued and even harsher slavery. Veterans were involved in the setting up of the skeleton army for the future African state, and in such paramilitary organizations as the Universal African Legion, the Universal Black Cross Nurses, the African Motor Corps and the Black Eagle Flying Corps. Many Black radicals—even some socialistically inclined—were swept into thé Garvey movement, attracted by its militancy.<br />
<br />
Despite his hostility toward local communists, Garvey seemed to regard the Soviet experience with some favor-at least in the early years of his movement. This probably reflected the sentiments of many of his followers. As late as 1924, in an editorial in the Negro World, he publicly mourned the passing of Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union, calling him “probably the world’s greatest man between 1917 and ...1924.” On that occasion, he sent a cable to Moscow “expressing the sorrow and condolence of the 400,000,000 Negroes of the world.”<br />
<br />
‘The Garvey movement revealed the wide rift between the policies of the traditional upper class of the NAACP and associates, and the life needs of the sorely oppressed people. It represented a mass rejection of the policies and programs of this leadership, which during the war had built up false hopes and now offered no tangible proposals for meeting the rampant anti-Black violence and joblessness of the post-war period. This mood was expressed by Garvey, who denounced the whole upper class leadership, claiming that they were motivated solely by the drive for assimilation and banked their hopes for equality on the support of whites—all classes of whom, he contended, were the Black man’s enemy. The policy of this leadership, he maintained, was a policy of compromise.<br />
<br />
It was in these conditions that Garvey, as thespokesman for the new ghetto petty bourgeoisie, seized leadership of the incipient Black revolt and diverted it into the blind alley of utopian escapism.<br />
<br />
My contact with the movement was limited. [ had never seen Garvey. I had missed his appearance in 1919 at the Eighth Regiment Armory. I never visited the organization’s Liberty Hall headquarters. In Chicago, the movement seemed to spring up overnight, I first took serious notice of it in 1920. I listened to its orators on street corners, watched its spectacular parades through the Southside streets, The black, red and green flag of the movement was carried at the head of the parade. The parades were lively and snappy; marching were the African Legion and the Universal Black Cross Nurses in their spotless white uniforms and white veils, All marched in step with a band. It was quite impressive, but to me it was unreal and had little or no relevance to the actual problems that confronted Blacks.<br />
<br />
From the first, the Garvey movement met heavy opposition in Chicago, The powerful Chicago Defender, edited by Robert S. Abbott, took the lead. If not the world’s greatest weekly as its masthead proclaimed, it had great influence among Chicago and Sofithern Blacks, due to its role in promoting the migration to the north. It was widely read in the South where a daily newspaper of Athens, Georgia, called it “the greatest disturbing element that has yet entered Georgia.” The Defender was relentless in its attack, throwing scorn and contempt on the movement and Garvey himself.<br />
<br />
In addition to The Defender’s attacks, the so-called Abyssinia Affair in the summer of 1920 served to discredit the movement. The Star Order of Ethiopia and Ethiopian Missionaries to Abyssinia was an extremist split off from Chicago’s UNIA branch. The leaders of the group held a parade and rally on Thirty-fifth and Indiana. Speakers clad in loud African costume called upon the crowd to return to their African ancestral land.<br />
<br />
To show their scorn for the U.S., they burned an American flag, and when white policemen sought to intervene, the Abyssinians shot and killed two white men and wounded a third. This incident was blown up in the white press as an armed rebellion of Blacks. It was condemned on ali sides in the Black community and by its leaders, including the editors of The Defender, who helped authorities in capturing the Abyssinian dissidents.<br />
<br />
Despite its repudiation by the official Garvey organization, the Abyssinian affair served to muddy the Garvey image in Chicago. I was working on the New York Central at the time and heard a graphic account of the affair from my aunts when I arrived intown the next day. They lived right around the corner on Indiana Avenue.<br />
<br />
Despite the hostile Black press and the Abyssinian affair, the UNIA grew. At its height, it claimed a Chicago membership of 9,000 devoted followers. This is probably exaggerated, but there is no doubt that the sympathizers numbered in the tens of thousands.<br />
<br />
Our Sunday discussion group underestimated the significance of the Garvey movement and the strength it was later to reveal. We regarded it as a transient phenomenon. We applauded some of the cultural aspects of the movement—Garvey’s emphasis on race pride, dignity, self-reliance, his exultation of things Black. This was all to the good, we felt. However, we rejected in its entirety the Back to Africa program as fantastic, unreal and a dangerous diversion which could only lead to desertion of the struggle for our rights in the USA. This was our country, we strongly felt, and Blacks should not waive their just claims to equality and justice in the land to whose wealth and greatness we and our forefathers had made such great contributions.<br />
<br />
Finally, we could not go along with Garvey’s idea about inherent racial antagonisms between Black and white. This to us seemed equivalent to ceding the racist enemy one of his main points. While it is true that I personally often wavered in the direction of race against race, I was not prepared to accept the idea as a philosophy. It did not jibe with my experience with whites.<br />
<br />
While rejecting Garvey’s program, our ideas for a viable alternative were still vague and unformed. The most important effect the Garvey movement had on us was that it put into clear focus the questions to which we sought answers.<br />
<br />
Who were the enemies of the Black freedom struggle? While Garvey claimed the cntire white race was the enemy, it did not escape us that he was inconsistent, being soft on white capitalists. His main target was clearly white labor and the trade union movement. According to Garvey:<blockquote>'''It seems strange and a paradox, but the only convenient friend the Negro worker or laborer has, in America, at the present time, is the white capitalist. The capitalist being selfish---seeking only the largest profit out of labor-—is willing and glad to use Negro labor wherever possible on a scale “reasonably” below the standard white union wage....but, if the Negro unionizes himself to the level of the white worker... the choice and preference of employment is given to the white worker...'''<br />
<br />
'''If the Negro takes my advice he will organize by himself and always keep his scale of wage a little lower than the whites until he is able to become, through proper leadership, his own employer; by doing so he will keep the good will of the white employer and live a little longer under the present scheme of things.'''</blockquote>There was no doubt that Garvey was voicing the sentiments of the vast mass of new migrant workers. And it was not that we had any compunction about strikebreaking in industries from which Blacks were barred. In fact, that had been one of the ways Blacks broke into industries such as stockyards and steel. We were also keenly aware of the Jim Crow policies of the existing trade union leadership and of the anti-Black prejudices rampant among white workers. But in casting Blacks permanently into the role of strikebreakers, Garvey was helping to further divide an already polarized situation and playing into the hands of businessmen, bankers, factory owners and the reactionary leadership of the trade unions,<br />
<br />
My own experience with unions in the waiters’ trade was bad. Old waiters would tell us how in the first part of the century they had listened to the siren call of white union leaders. They had gone out on strike, ostensibly to better their conditions, only to find their jobs immediately taken by whites. This had been quite a serious blow because at that time, Black waiters had had jobs in most of the best hotels and in a number of fine restaurants. It is therefore understandable that in 1920, we Black waiters felt not the slightest pang of conscience in taking over the jobs of white waiters on strike at the Marygold Gardens (the old Bismark Gardens) on the Northside, one of the swankiest night spots in Chicago, It was also probably the best waiter’s job in town; in fact, so good that some of the German captains who remained on the job used to drive to and from work in Cadillacs. The strike was broken after several months, and Blacks were turned out.<br />
<br />
Strikebreaking to me was not a philosophy or principle as Garvey contended, but an expedient forced upon Blacks by the Jim Crow policies of the bosses and the unions.<br />
<br />
Even as Garvey was putting forward such views, times were beginning to change. Large numbers of Blacks had been brought into industry during the war and had joined unions, especially in steel and the packing houses. A new industrial unionism was developing and raising the slogan of Black and white labor unity.<br />
<br />
My sister Eppa’s experiences in 1919 at Swift Packing Company were a case in point, She was one of the first Black women to join the union during the organizing drive of the Stockyards Labor Council, which was headed by two communists-—-William Z. Foster and Jack Johnstone. The drive was supported by John Fitzpatrick, chairman of the Chicago Federation of Labor and a bitter foe of the Jim Crow machine of Samuel Gompers’ AFL. Despite inevitable racial tensions fostered by the employers, Eppa had seen the basic unity of interest between all workers and felt strongly that the union was the best place to fight for the interests of Black workers.<br />
<br />
In looking back at our study of the Garvey movement, it must be evaluated in light of the fact that it was our first confrontation with nationalism as a mass movement. Our mistake, which I was to find out later through my own experience and study of nationalist movements, resulted from the failure to understand the contradictory nature of the nationalism of oppressed peoples. This contradiction or dualism was inherent in the inter-class character of these movements once they assume a popular mass form.<br />
<br />
‘They comprise various classes and social groupings with conflicting interests, tendencies and motives, all gathered under the unifying banner of national liberation, each with its own concept of that goal and how it should be attained. These conflicts, at first submerged, surface as the movement develops.<br />
<br />
‘They are expressed in two main currents (tendencies) within the movement. First of all, there is the nationalism which reflects the interests of the basic masses~-workers and peasants—-determined to fight for liberation against the oppressor of the nation. Then there is the nationalism of the Black bourgeoisie who, while at time in conflict with the white oppressors, tend toward compromise and accommodation to protect their own weak position.<br />
<br />
From the very beginning this dualism was reflected in the Garvey movement. A highly vocal and aggressively dominant current within the movement was the drive of the small business, professional and intellectual elements for a Black controlled economy. They sought fulfillment of this goal through withdrawal to Africa where they envisioned establishment of their own State, their right to exploit their own masses free from the overwhelming competition of dominant white capital. (A historical example of this can be seen in Liberia.) They thought they could accomplish this, presumably with the acquiescence of the American white rulers, and even the active support of some.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, there was a grass-roots nationalism of the masses, the uprooted, dispossessed soil-tillers of the South; their poverty-ridden counterparts in the slum ghettos of the cities. ‘These masses saw in the Black nationalist state fulfillment of their age-old yearnings for land, equality and freedom through power in their own hands to guarantee and protect these freedoms. It was this indigenous, potentially revolutionary nationalism that Garvey diverted with his Back to Africa slogan.<br />
<br />
We failed to recognize the objective conflict of interests between these class components of the movement, equating the social and political aims of the ghetto nationalists, the bourgeoisie, to that of the masses~-condemning the whole as reactionary, escapist and utopian.<br />
<br />
These were the internal contradictions upon which the movement was to flounder and finally collapse. They were brought to a head by the subsiding of the post-war economic depression, the ushering in of the “boom,” and subsequent easing of the plight of Blacks, the partial adjustment of migrants to their new environment and their partial absorption into industry.<br />
<br />
The main contradiction inherent in the Garvey movement from its very beginning had been the conflict between the needs of the masses to defend and advance their rights in the USA and the fantastic Back to Africa schemes of the Garvey leadership. Garvey’s emphasis on these fantastic schemes reflected his resolution of the conflict in favor of business interests and against the interests of the masses. The resources and energy of the organization were increasingly diverted to support racial business enterprises such as the Black Star Line and the Negro Factories Corporation. The concentration on selling stock for the Black Star Steamship Line by the UNIA leadership from 1921 on neglected the immediate needs of the masses and began to erode the base of support.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, Garvey’s response to the crisis in the movement exposed the dangerously reactionary logic of a program based upon complete separation of the races and its acceptance of the white racist doctrine of natural racial incompatibility. Pursuing the logic of this idea against the backdrop of the organization's decline inevitably drove Garvey into an alliance of expediency with the most rabid segregationists and race bigots of the period.<br />
<br />
Thus, in 1922, Garvey sought the support of Edward Young Clark, the imperial giant of the Ku Klux Klan. This “meeting of the minds” between Garvey and the Klan was not fortuitous. It was an open secret that it took place on the basis of Garvey’s agreement to soft-pedal the struggle for equality in the U.S. in return for help in the settlement of Blacks in Africa. This ideological kinship arose from the mutual acceptance of the racist dogma of natural incompatibility of races, race purity and so forth.<br />
<br />
In 1924 Garvey went so far seeking support for his Back to Africa program as to invite John Powell, organizer of the AngloSaxon Clubs, and other prominent racists to speak at UNIA headquarters. Garvey also publicly praised the KKK. According to W.E.B. DuBois, the Kian issued circulars defending Garvey and declared that the opposition to him was from the Catholic Church. In the late thirties, Senator Bilbo of Mississippi introduced a bill to deport thirteen million Blacks to Africa and received the support of the remnants of the Garvey organization.<br />
<br />
The final curtain was to drop on the Garvey episode with the failure of the Black Star Linc. The movement was torn by factionalism and splits, with some of the leadership and remaining rank and file demanding that the domestic fight for equal rights be emphasized over the Back to Africa scheme of Garvey. The internal struggle drove many out of the organization and others into a multitude of splinter groups, each a variation of Garveyism itself. Taking advantage of this disarray, the government moved in.<br />
<br />
In 1925, Garvey was framed on charges of using the mail to defraud in connection with the sale of stocks for the Black Star Line and was sent to the Atlanta federal prison for two years. He was deported to the West Indies upon release from prison. This debacle marked the end of Garveyism as an important mass movement, although the offshoots continued to exist in numbers of smaller groups advocating Garvey’s theory.<br />
<br />
At the time, I had taken Garvey’s peculiar brand as representing nationalism in general and had simply rejected the whole ideology as a foreign import with no roots in the conditions of U.S. Blacks, Seeing only the negative features of nationalism in the UNIA, I was blind to the progressive and potentially revolutionary aspects which were to prove so important in my own later development.<br />
<br />
Thus, the great movement that Garvey built passed into history. But nationalism, as a mass trend, persisted in the Black freedom struggle. Existing side by side with the assimilationist trend, it was eclipsed by the latter in so-called normal times while flaring up in times of stress and crisis.<br />
<br />
The Garvey movement was the U.S. counterpart of the vast upsurge of national and colonial liberation struggles which swept the world during the war and post-war period. In this period, masses of Blacks had come to consider themselves as an oppressed nation. Garvey’s ability to capture leadership of this nationalist upsurge by default was the result of the immaturity of the revolutionary forces, Black and white. The collapse of the Garvey movement proved conclusively that the petty bourgeois ghetto nationalist current, left to itself, led only to a hopeless blind alley. Unfortunately the forces which could give Black nationalism revolutionary content and direction were only in the process of formation.<br />
<br />
The Black working class and its spokesmen had not yet arrived on the scene as an independent force in the Black community and, therefore, was not capable of challenging either the assimilationist leadership of the NAACP or the ghetto nationalism of Garvey. Its counterparts among radical, class-conscious white labor were waging an uphill fight against the Jim Crow-minded AFL bureaucracy led by the Gompers machine. ‘These radical sections of white labor were not yet clear as to the significance of the Black freedom struggle as a revolutionary force in its own right and regarded it simply as a part of the general labor question. Coalescence of these two forces was then a decade away, destined not to take place until the crisis of the thirties.<br />
<br />
The preceding analysis is hindsight. I didn't realize the significance of Garvey’s movement until a few years later, when, as a student in Moscow, I was assigned to a commission to prepare a resolution on the Negro question in the USA for the Sixth Congress of the Communist International in 1928. It was in the course of these discussions that I came to the recognition of nationalism as an authentic and potentially revolutionary trend in the movement.<br />
<br />
The assimilationist programs of the NAACP had been easy to reject. Garvey was somewhat more difficult. But while the Garvey movement was forcing me to a consideration of nationalism (which at the time I also rejected) I could not help but notice the other political developments of the period.<br />
<br />
Most conspicuous was the concerted and vicious attack being carried out against white radicals and the trade union movement. The same forces appeared to be behind the Palmer raids of 1919 and 1920, behind the wave of racism and behind the violent union and strike busting which took place. The foreigners who were being deported, the radicals who were imprisoned and the workers throughout the country who were attacked by Pinkerton “private armies,” were white as well as Black. In Chicago, the strikes at the stockyards and the steel mills in the area particularly attracted my attention.<br />
<br />
For me, the Garvey movement, the racists’ assault and the attacks on labor and the radical movement sharpened my political perceptions. The racial fog lifted and the face and location of the enemy was clearly outlined. I began to see that the main beneficiaries of Black subjugation also profited from the social oppression of poor whites, native and foreign-born.<br />
<br />
The enemy was those who controlled and manipulated the levers of power; they were the super-rich, white moneyed interests who owned the nation’s factories and banks, and thus controlled its wealth, They were known by many names: the corporate elite; the industrial, financial (and robber) barons; ete. Chicago was the home base of a significant segment of this ruling class. <br />
<br />
Here the chain of command was clear: on the political side, it extended from city hall down to the lowliest wardheeler and precinct captain and was tied in at all levels with organized crime, On the economic side, it was represented by such employer organizations as the Chicago Chamber of Commerce, by trade associations and by top management in the giant industrial plants, railroads, big commercial establishments, banks, utilities and insurance firms, Their chain of command extended down to the foremen and department heads, and on-the-job supervisors. <br />
<br />
These levers of power also controlled education, the media, the arts and all law enforcement agencies, both military and police, At the bottom of this pyramid and hearing its weight were the working people who toiled in the steel mills, the packing plants, the railway yards, and the thousands of other sweatshops. Lowliest among these were the Blacks, pushed to the very bottom by the “divide and rule” policy of the corporate giants and their henchmen, and the complimentary Jim Crow policies and practices of the AFL trade union bureaucracy.<br />
<br />
=== PASSAGES ===<br />
Our postal discussion circle, which had held together scarcely three months, was breaking up. Heath, our chairman and recognized leader, was leaving. He had played the greatest role in keeping the group together. Now he had taken a job at some college in Virginia, his native state.<br />
<br />
Differences had already developed in the group, and with Heath gone, the possibilities for reconciling them seemed slim. These differences, as I recall, were not of a political or ideological nature. ‘They were seldom expressed in the open, but were reflected in the opposition of some members to proposals for enlarging the group and moving it into the outside political arena. This opposition evidently reflected the desire of some members to retain the group as a narrow discussion circle with membership restricted by tacit understanding to those whom they, considered their intellectual peers. It seemed to me they sought to reduce it to a sort of elitist mutual admiration society. As a result of this sectarian attitude, the group hardly grew beyond its original membership of a dozen or so.<br />
<br />
There was no doubt, though, that our association had been mutually beneficial. All of us had grown in political understanding and awareness. But up to the time of Heath’s departure, we had advanced no program for putting our newly acquired political understanding into practice. Our original plans for the organization of a forum to debate the issues of the day never got off the ground. We had not developed a program for involvement in the struggles of the community, nor, for that matter, in the immediate on-the-job problems of Black postal employees. We never even got around to deciding on a name for the group. One suggestion, that we call ourselves the “New Negro Forum,” was never acted upon.<br />
<br />
Heath, Mabley, Doe and myself were beginning to feel the pull from the outside, the need for a broader political arena of activity, to play a more active role in the community. We were the ones who most often attended radical forums and lectures and kept abreast of what was going on in the Southside community. We often went to the Bugs Club in Washington Park (Chicago’s equivalent of London's Hyde Park), and the Dill Pickle Club on the Northside which was run by the anarchist Jack Jones.<br />
<br />
Heath had gone. Mabley refused the chairmanship, pleading that he was tied down by his family and could not take on additional responsibilities. Doe refused to accept the honor; he was similarly tied down by his job and dental practice. But the real reason for their refusal, which they were to confide to me later, was that they had lost confidence in the group. Without Heath, they saw no future role for it. Like myself, they were attracted to the broader movement, I also declined, giving as my excuse that I was quitting the Post Office in a few days and was going back to my old job on the railroad. A chairman pro-tem was chosen; I don’t remember who.<br />
<br />
I continued my reading along the lines which Otto had suggested. Among the books I read were Henry Morgan’s Ancient Society (which Engels had used as the basis for Origins of the Family), Gustavus Meycr’s History of the Great American Fortunes, John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook the World and Jack London’s The Iron Heel.<br />
<br />
I also kept abreast of world events, reading about Lenin and Trotsky in revolutionary Russia. I followed the post-war colonial rebellions of Sun Yat-sen’s China, Gandhi in India, Ataturk in Turkey, the rebellion of the Riff tribes in Morocco led by Abdul Krim. There were rumblings in black Africa—strikes and demonstrations against colonial oppression. One heard such names as Kadelli and Gumede of the South African National Congress, and of Sandino in Nicaragua who fought the U.S. Marines for many years,<br />
<br />
My fect were getting itchy. I was fed up with the Post Office and the excruciatingly monotonous nature of the work. At the same time, the night shift cramped my social life as well as my growing need for broader political activity. I quit the job without regret.<br />
<br />
Soon after, I started work as a waiter on the Santa Fe’s Chief, the company’s crack train running to Los Angeles. It was an eightday run: three days to the coast, with a two-day layover in Los Angeles and three days back. Our crew would make three trips a month, and a layover one trip (eight days) in Chicago. This schedule gave me approximately twelve free days a month in Chicago---time enough for both political and social life. It was a hard job, but good money for those days and exciting after the drab routine of the Post Office.<br />
<br />
Los Angeles, “Sweet Los,” as we used to call it. The Santa Fe boys, all “big spenders,” were very popular with the girls. A bevy would show up to meet us at the station every trip.<br />
<br />
I was to remain on that run three years, which up to that time was the longest I had ever remained on one job. Upon my return from the first trip, I called Mabley and he informed me that he thought the discussion circle had dissolved. Only one or two guys showed up at the next scheduled meeting, and the pro-tem chairman himself was absent. It was dead.<br />
<br />
My political development continued nevertheless, The runs on the Santa Fe gave ample time for discussion with my fellow crew members. Most of them, though somewhat older, were as aware as those at the Post Office with whom I had worked. I also continued to read, now studying The Communist Manifesto, Engels’ Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, and Marx’s Value, Price and Profit.<br />
<br />
The first stage of my political search was near an end. In the years since I had mustered out of the Army, I had come from being a disgruntled Black ex-soldier to being a self-conscious revolutionary looking for an organization with which to make revolution.<br />
<br />
For three years I had listened in lecture halls, at rallies and in Washington Park to a spate of orators each claiming to meet the challenge of the times. They included the great “people’s lawyer” Clarence Darrow; Judge Fisher of the reform movement; the socialist leader Victor Berger and sundry other members of his party; the anarchist Ben Reichman, Ben Fletcher, the Black IWW orator and organizer, and assorted Garveyites. Although some had their points—for example, the fighting spirit and sincerity of the IWW impressed me-—I rejected them all.<br />
<br />
In the spring of 1922, I approached my brother Otto, whom I knew had joined the Workers (Communist) Party shortly after its inception in 1921. I told him that I wanted to join the Party.<br />
<br />
The fact that Otto was in the Party and had advised me from time to time on my reading had undoubtedly influenced my decision, I had a generally favorable impression of the Black communists I knew; men like Otto, the Owens brothers and Edward Doty. I was also impressed by whites like Jim Early, Sam Hammersmark, Robert Minor and his wife, Lydia Gibson. What added great weight to my favorable impression of the communists, however, was their political identity with the successful Bolshevik Revolution.<br />
<br />
At the time it happened, I had been taken totally unaware of its significance, I first heard of it during an incident that occurred in France in August 1918. My regiment, while marching into positions on the Soissons sector, had paused fora rest. On one side of the road there was a high barbed wire fence and behind it loitered groups of soldiers in strange uniforms. Upon closer observation, it became clear that they were prisoners. They spoke in a strange tongue, but we understood from their gestures that they were asking for cigarettes, A number of us immediately responded, offering them some from our packs.<br />
<br />
When we asked who they were, one of them replied in halting English that they were Russian Cossacks. He explained that their division, which had been fighting on the western front, had been withdrawn from the lines, disarmed and placed in quarantine, They were considered unreliable, he said, because of the revolution in Russia. At the time, I was not even sure of the meaning of the word revolution—some kind of civil disorder I conjectured. Giving the matter no further thought, we resumed our march. It was not until I had returned from France that I began reading about the Russian Revolution. From then on, I followed its course, and despite the distorted view in the U.S. press, its significance slowly dawned on me.<br />
<br />
Here, I felt, was a tangible accomplishment and real power. Along with other Black radicals, I was impressed-—just as a later generation came to look at China, Cuba and Vietnam as models of successful struggle against tyranny, colonialism and oppression.<br />
<br />
Thus, I was particularly attracted to the communists. True, the Party was largely white in its racial composition, with only a handful of Black members. I felt, nevertheless, that it comprised the best and most sincerely revolutionary and internationally minded elements among white radicals,and therefore formed the basis for the revolutionary unity of Blacks and whites. This was so, I believed, because it was a part of a world revolutionary movement uniting Chinese, Africans and Latin Americans with Europeans and North Americans through the Third Communist International.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks had destroyed the czarist rule, established the first workers’ state, and breached the world system of capitalism over a territory comprising more than one-sixth of the earth’s surface. Most impressive as far as Blacks were concerned was that the revolution had laid the basis for solving the national and racial questions on the basis of complete freedom for the numerous nations, colonial peoples and minorities formerly oppressed by the czarist empire. Moscow had now become the focus of the colonial revolution. In the turbulence of those days, there seerned every reason to think that the energy unleashed in Russia would carry the revolution throughout the world.<br />
<br />
In the U.S., the deluge of lies and distortions by the media, the red baiting, the Palmer raids, had not been able to hide this monumental achievement of the Russian Bolsheviks. The uninformed Black man in the street could reason that a phenomenon that evoked such fear and hatred on the part of the white supremacist rulers “couldn't be all bad.” As for me, the socialist victory confirmed my belief in the Bolshevik variety of socialism as a way out for U.S. Blacks.<br />
<br />
I found the theory behind this achievement all there in Lenin’s State and Revolution. He developed and applied the theories of Marx and Engels on the role of the state and the dictatorship of the proletariat. This work was the single most important book I had read in the entire three years of my political search and was decisive in leading me to the Communist Party. In this work, Lenin clarified the nature of the state and the means by which to overthrow it. His approach seemed practical and realistic; it was no longer just abstract theory.<br />
<br />
Using Origins of the Family as a departure point, Lenin demystified and desanctified the myth of the state in capitalist society as an impartial monitor of human affairs. Rather, he exposed the state in capitalist society--and its apparatus of military, police, courts and prisons—as an instrument of ruling class domination, a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
It thus followed that the job of forcibly replacing the state power of the dominant class with that of the proletariat was the paramount and indispensable task of socialist revolution. As far as I could seé, the Soviet example appeared to offer a completely clear solution to the problems facing American workers, both Black and white. I saw the elimination of racism and the achievement of complete equality for Blacks as an inevitable by product of a socialist revolution in the United States, It was at this point that I became fully resolved to make my own personal commitment to the fight for a socialist United States.<br />
<br />
The first part of my odyssey was over.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
=== An Organization of Revolutionaries ===<br />
Otto was pleased when I first told him of my desire to join the Party in the summer of 1922. He said that he had known that that i had been ready to join for some time, but he suggested that i should wait a while before joining. When I asked why, he told me about an unpleasant situation that had arisen in the Party’s Southside branch.<br />
<br />
Most of the few Black members were concentrated in this English-speaking branch, but it seemed that a number of recent Black recruits had dropped out. They resented the paternalistic attitude displayed toward them by some of the white comrades who, Otto said, treated Blacks like children and seemed to think that the whites had all the answers, It was only a temporary situation, he assured me. The matter had been taken up before the Party District Committee; if it was not resolved there, they would take it to the Central Committee.<br />
<br />
“And if you don’t get satisfaction there?” I queried.<br />
<br />
“Well, then there’s the Communist International!” he teplied emphatically. “It’s as much our Party as it is theirs.”<br />
<br />
I was properly impressed by his sincerity and by the idea that we could appeal our case to the “supreme court” of international communism, which included such luminaries as the great Lenin.<br />
<br />
‘The Blacks who had remained in the Party had decided not to bring any new members into the branch until the matter was satisfactorily settled. I was rather surprised to hear all of this.<br />
<br />
Clearly, membership in the Party did not automatically free whites from white supremacist ideas. Nor, for that matter, did it free Blacks from their distrust of whites. Throughout my lifetime, I found that interracial solidarity--even in the Communist Party— required a continuous ideological struggle.<br />
<br />
Otto suggested that until the matter was cleared up I should join the African Blood Brotherhood. The ABB was a secret, all-Black, revolutionary organization to which some of the Black Party members belonged---including Otto. I later learned that the matter of white paternalism was eventually resolved to the satisfaction of the Black comrades. I don’t recall the details; I think that Arne Swabeck (the district organizer) or Robert Minor from the Central Committee finally came down and lectured the branch on the evils of race prejudice and threatened disciplinary action to the point of expulsion of comrades guilty of bringing bourgeois social attitudes into the Party.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, I took Otto’s advice and joined the African Blood Brotherhood. He took me to see Edward Doty, then commander of the Brotherhood’s Chicago Post. Vouched for by Otto and Doty, I was taken to a meeting of the membership committee and went through the induction ceremonies. This consisted of an African fraternization ritual requiring the mixing of blood between the applicant and one of the regular members. The organization took its name from this ritual. Doty performed the ceremony; he pricked our index fingers with a needlc (I hoped it was sterilized!) and when drops of blood appeared, he rubbed them together.<br />
<br />
Now a Blood Brother, I proceeded to take the Oath of Loyalty which contained a clause warning that divulging of any of the secrets of the organization was punishable by death. I was deeply impressed by all this; the atmosphere of great secrecy appealed to my romantic sense. There were two degrees of membership; one was automatically conferred upon joining and the second, which I took a few days later, involved the performance of some service for the organization. In my case, as I recall, it was a trivial task—-the selling of a dozen or so copies of its magazine, The Crusader.<br />
<br />
At the time that I joined the African Blood Brotherhood, I knew little about the organization other than the fact that it wasin some way associated with the Communist Party. I do remember having read a copy or two of The Crusader before I joined the group.<br />
<br />
Some of the history of the ABB I got from Otto and other post members, but most of it I found out much later when I met and worked with Cyril P. Briggs, the original founder of the group. The African Blood Brotherhood was founded in New York City in 1919 by a group of Black radicals under the leadership of Briggs. A West Indian (as were most of the founders), he was a former editor of the Amsterdam News, a Black New York newspaper. He quit in disagrcement over policy with the owner, who attempted to censor his anti-war editorials. Briggs’s own magazine. The Crusader, was established in 1919. The Brotherhood was organized around the magazine with Briggs as its executive head presiding over a supreme council.<br />
<br />
The group was originally conceived as the African Blood Brotherhood “for African liberation and redemption” and was later broadened to “for immediate protection and ultimate liberation of Negroes everywhere.” As it was a secret organization, it never sought broad membership. National headquarters were in New York. Its size never exceeded 3,000. But its influence was many times greater than this; the Crusader at one time claimed a circulation of 33,000.' There was also The Crusader News Service which was distributed to two hundred Black newspapers.<br />
<br />
Briggs, his associates--Richard B. Moore, Grace Campbell and others—-and The Crusader were among the vanguard forces for the New Negro movement, an ideological current which reflected the new mood of militancy and social awareness of young Blacks of the post-war period. In New York, the New Negro movement also included the radical magazine, The Messenger, edited by Chandler Owen and A. Philip Randolph, and The Emancipator, edited by W.A. Domingo. Many of the groups were members of the Socialist Party or close to it politically. They espoused “economic radicalism,” an over-simplificd interpretation of Marxism which, nevertheless, enabled them to see the economic and social roots of racial subjugation. Historically, theirs was the first serious attempt by Blacks to adopt the Marxist world view and the theory of class struggle to the problems of Black Americans.<br />
<br />
Within this broad grouping, however, there were differences which emerged later. Briggs was definitely a revolutionary nationalist; that is, he saw the solution of the “race problem” in the establishment of independent Black nation-states in Africa, the Caribbean and the United States, In America, he felt this could be achieved only through revolutionizing the whole country. This meant he saw revolutionary white workers as allies. These were elements of a program which he perceived as an alternative to Garvey’s plan of mass exodus.<br />
<br />
A self-governing Black state on U.S. soil was a novel idea for which Briggs sent up trial balloons in the form of editorials in the Amsterdam News in 1917, of which he was then editor. Shortly after the entrance of the United States into World War I, he wrote an editorial entitled “Security of Life for Poles and Serbs—Why Not for Colored Americans?”<br />
<br />
Briggs, however, had no definite idea for the location of the future “colored autonomous state,” suggesting at various times Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California or Nevada: Later, after President Wilson had put forth his fourteen points in January 1918, Briggs equated the plight of Blacks in the United States to nations occupied by Germany and demanded:<br />
<br />
'''With what moral authority or justice can President Wilson demand that eight million Belgians be freed when for his entire first term and to the present moment of his second term he has not lifted a finger for justice and liberty for over TEN MILLION colored people, a nation within a nation, a nationality oppressed and jim-crowed, yet worthy as any other people of a square deal or failing that, a separate political existence?'''<br />
<br />
He continued this theme in The Crusader. One year after the founding of the Brotherhood, Briggs shifted from the idea of a Black state on U.S. soil to the advocacy of a Black state in Africa, South America or the Caribbean, where those Blacks who wanted to could migrate. In this, he was undoubtedly on the defensive, giving ground to the overwhelming Garvey deluge then sweeping the national Black community. In 1921, Briggs was to link the struggle for equal rights of U.S. Blacks with the establishment of a Black state in Africa and elsewhere:<br />
<br />
Just as the Negro in the United States can never hope to win equal rights with his white neighbors until Africa is liberated and a strong Negro state (or states) erected on that continent, so, too, we can never liberate Africa unless, and until, the American Section of the Negro Race is made strong enough to play the part for a free Africa that the Irish in America now play for a free Ireland.<br />
<br />
The Brotherhood rejected Garvey’s racial separatism. They knew that Blacks needed allies and tied the struggle for equal rights to that of the progressive section of white labor. In the 1918-1919 elections, the Brotherhood supported the Socialist Party candidates, The Crusader and the ABB were ardent supporters of the Russian Revolution; they saw it as an opportunity for Blacks to identify with a powerful international revolutionary movement. It enabled them to overcome the isolation inherent in their position as a minority people in the midst of a powerful and hostile white oppressor nation. Thus, The Crusader called for an alliance with the Bolsheviks against race prejudice. In 1921, the magazine made its clearest formulation, linking the struggles of Blacks and other oppressed nations with socialism:<blockquote>'''The surest and quickest way, then, in our opinion, to achieve the salvation of the Negro is to combine the two most likely and feasihle propositions, viz.: salvation for all Negroes through the establishment of a strong, stable, independent Negro State (along the lines of our own race genius) in Africa and elsewhere: and salvation for all Negroes (as well as other oppressed people) through the establishment of a Universal Socialist Co-operative commonwealth.'''</blockquote>The split in the world socialist movement as a result of the First World War led to the formation of the Third (Communist) International in 1919. This split was reflected in the New Negro movement as well. Randolph and Owens, the whole Messenger crowd, remained with the social democrats of the Second International who were in opposition to the Bolshevik revolution. Members of The Crusader group--Briggs, Moore and others gravitated toward the Third International and eventually joined its American affiliate, the Communist Party. They were followed in the next year or two by Otto Hall, Lovett Fort-Whiteman and others.<br />
<br />
The decline of the African Blood Brotherhood in the early twenties and its eventual demise coincided with the growing participation of its leadership in the activities of the Communist Party. By 1923-24, the Brotherhood had ceased to exist as an autonomous, organized cxpression of the national revolutionary trend. Its leading members became communists or close sympathizers and its posts served as one of the Party’s recruiting grounds for Blacks.<br />
<br />
I first met Briggs upon my return from Russia in 1930. We were to strike up a lasting friendship--one that went beyond the comradeship of the Party and which extended over more than three decades, until his death in 1967. Throughout those years, we were associated on numerous projects and found ourselves on the same side of many political issues.<br />
<br />
When I first met Briggs, he conformed to the impression that I had been given of him: a tall, impressive-looking man—so light in complexion that he was often mistaken for white. He had a large head and bushy black eyebrows. He was a man possessed of great physical and moral courage, which I was to observe on many occasions. Briggs also had a fiery temper, which was usually controlled in the case of comrades or friends.<br />
<br />
He had one outstanding physical defect--he was a heavy stutterer. He stuttered so much that it often took him several scconds to get out the first word of a sentence, When he took the floor at meetings we would all listen attentively; no one would interrupt him because we knew he always had something important and pertinent to say. While he spoke we would cast our eyes down and look away from him to avoid making him feel self-conscious, though he never seemed to be.<br />
<br />
We noticed that he stuttered less when he was angry, One such occasion was when Garvey rejected Briggs’s offer of cooperation. The wily Garvey saw through the maneuver for what it was-—an attempt by Briggs to gain a position from which he could better attack him. Garvey lashed out at Briggs, calling him a “white man trying to pass himself off as a Negro.”<br />
<br />
Friends told me that this attack sent Briggs into such a rage that he mounted a soapbox at Harlem's 135th Strect and Lenox Avenue and assailed Garvey for two hours without a stutter, branding him a charlatan and a fraud. Not content with this verbal lashing of his enemy, Briggs hauled Garvey into court on the charge of defamation of character. He won the case, forcing Garvey to make a public apology and pay a fine of one dollar.<br />
<br />
Briggs’s real forte, however, was as a kecn polemicist, a veritable master of invective. His speech handicap was a pity, because aside from the stutter he had all the qualities of a good orator. Closely associated with Briggs was Richard B. Moore, a fine orator who did much public speaking for the ABB.<br />
<br />
What were the reasons for the decline of the ABB and its eventual absorption by the Communist Party? Why did Briggs fail to develop the program for Black self-determination in the USA? In the fifties, I had a series of talks with Briggs and asked his opinion on these questions.<br />
<br />
His overall appraisal of the role of the Brotherhood was that it was a forerunner of the contemporary national revolutionary trend and a very positive thing. “Of course, we didn’t stop Garvey,” he said, but “we were beginning to develop a revolutionary alternative. We did put a crimp in his sails,” Briggs added.<br />
<br />
For a while, the ABB had been a rallying center for left opposition to Garvey. Its membership included class-conscious Black workers and revolutionary intcllectuals and drew membership from both disillusioned Garveyites and radicals who never took to Garvey’s program in the first place. The main reason for de-emphasizing the idea of Black nationhood in the United States, Briggs stated, was the unfavorable relationship of forces then existing.<br />
<br />
Garvey, with his Back to Africa program, had preempted the leadership of the mass movement and corralled most of the militants. His hold over the masses was strengthened by the anti-Black violence of the Red Summer of 1919. This gave further credence to Garvey’s contention that the U.S. was a white man’s country where Blacks could never achieve equality. Indeed, for these masses, his program for a Black state in Africa to which American Blacks could migrate seemed far less utopian than the idea of a Black state on U.S. soil.<br />
<br />
As for the South, Briggs did not feel that such a region of entrenched racism could be projected realistically as a territorial focus of a Black nationalist state. It would not have been so accepted by the masses who were in flight from the area. For himself, he reasoned, the very idea of self-determination in the United States presupposed the support of white revolutionaries. That meant a revolutionary crisis in the country as a whole, and in that day no such prospect was in sight. In fact, white revolutionary forces were then small and weak, the target of the vicious anti-red drives of the government and employers.<br />
<br />
In other words, he felt that Black self-determination in the United States was an idea whose time had not yet come. The communists didn’t have all the answers, and neither did we, Briggs indicated. Whites, as well as a number of Black radicals, undoubtedly underestimated the national element; socialism alone was seen as the solution. Briggs was impressed, however, by the sincerity and revolutionary ardor of the communists and by the fact that they were a detachment of Lenin’s Third Communist International. He felt that the future of the revolution in the United States and of Black liberation lay in multinational communist leadership.<br />
<br />
Though the ABB ceased to exist as an organized, independent expression of the national revolutionary current, the tendency itself remained, awaiting the further maturing of its main driving force, the Black proletariat. By the end of the decade, the national revolutionary sentiment was to find expression in the program of the Communist Party.<br />
<br />
By the time I joined the Brotherhood’s Chicago post in the summer of 1922, The Crusader had dropped much of its original national revolutionary orientation. Although I was then unaware of it, Briggs and the supreme council were presiding over the absorption of the organization into the Communist Party.<br />
<br />
In Chicago, the decline of the organization was slower than elsewhere, Perhaps this was because it had a strong base among Black building-tradesmen, plumbers, electricians and bricklayers. Edward Doty, a plumber by trade, was simultaneously the ABB post commander and a leader and founder of the American Consolidated Trades Council (ACTC). The council was a federation of independent Black unions and groups in the building trades industry who had formed their own unions forthe double purpose of protecting Black workers on the job and counteracting the discriminatory policies of the white AFL craft unions dominant in the field.<br />
<br />
Doty, a tall, muscular man, was born in Mobile, Alabama, and had come north in 1912 at the age of seventeen, According to him, most of the Black steamfitters and plumbers had learned their trades in the stockyards during the industrial boom and labor shortage that accompanied World War I. Some, however, had gotten their training at Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. Active in the Brotherhood along with Doty were such outstanding leaders of the Black workers’ struggle as Herman Dorsey (an electrician) and Alexander Dunlap (a plumber).<br />
<br />
Besides the tradesmen, other members of the ABB post included a number of older radicals such as Alonzo Isabel, Norval Allen, Gordon Owens, H.V. Phillips, Otto Hall and several others. Together with Doty, they made up the communist core of the Brotherhood. <br />
<br />
My experiences in the ABB marked my first association with Black communists. I had met some of them before, at forums and lectures; I had heard Owens speak at the Bugs Club and Dill Pickle forums, but I had never worked together with any of them before.” ‘They were mostly workers from the stockyards and other industries. One or two, like myself, were from the service trades. Like Otto, several of them had previously been in the Garvey movement. There was no doubt that they represented a politically advanced section of the Black working class. They were the types who today would be called “political activists,” the people who kept abreast of the issues in the Southside community and participated in local struggles.<br />
<br />
I was interested to learn their backgrounds and how they had come to the revolutionary movement. I found that some of them had been among Chicago's first Marxist-oriented Black radicals and had been associated with the Free Thought Society. This society was formed immediately after the war and held regular forums. I believe its leader and founder was a young man named Tibbs. He was one of the earliest of Chicago’s Black radicals. A victim of police harassment and persecution, Tibbs was arrested during the Palmer raids in 1919 and spent several years in jailona fake charge of stealing automobile tires. This continual perseeution reduced his political effectiveness, which was as the authorities intended.<br />
<br />
In 1920, members of the Free Thought Society took an active part in the campaign of the Independent Non-Partisan League, sponsored by The Whip and its editors. This coalition ran a full slate of candidates in the Republican primary of that year, in which they challenged the old guard Republicans of the second ward Republican organization as well as the so-called New People’s Movement of Oscar DePriest.’<br />
<br />
The election platform called for abolition of all discrimination, for public ownership of utilities, civil service reform, women’s suffrage, children’s welfare service and “organization of labor into one union.” While they were not successful in turning back the Republican old guard, the campaign resulted in appreciable gains for some of the league’s candidates,<br />
<br />
At that time, the main efforts of the ABB were directed at mobilizing community support for the Black ACTC tradesmen. While retaining a secret character, its members participated as individuals in campaigns on local issues. They collaborated with the Trade Union Education League (TUEL) of which Doty was a member, in its drive to organize the stockyards. The TUEL supported the demands of the ACTC. At that time, it was led by William Z. Foster and Jack Johnstone. Later to become the Trade Union Unity League, it was a gathering of the revolutionary and progressive forces within trade unions to fight against the reactionary labor bureaucracy and their collaborationist policies and Jim Crowism.<br />
<br />
Other members of the Brotherhood participated in the cainpaign against high rents that was waged in the Southside community. This was a fight in which a white Party member, Bob Minor, and his wife, Lydia Gibson, played leading roles.<br />
<br />
I found my experience in the Brotherhood both stimulating and rewarding. In addition to learning a lot from the communists with whom I was associated, it was here I forged my first active association with Black industrial workers. I found them literate, articulate and class conscious, a proud and defiant group which had been radicalized by. the struggles against discriminatory practices of the unions and employers. They understood the meaning of solidarity and the need for militant organization to obtain their objectives. In this, they were quite different from the people with whom I had been associated at the post office, as well as writers whom I so commonly found to be stamped with a hustler mentality. Doty and his followers in the Trades Council were pioneers in the struggle for the rights of Black workers, a struggle which has continued over half a century and remains unfinished to this day.<br />
<br />
‘The older tradesmen finally fought their way into the unions, the electricians in 1938 and the plumbers in 1947. In the early fifties, Doty became the first Black officer in the plumbers’ union. But these gains were only token! The bars are still up against Blacks and other minority workers seeking jobs in the ninety billion dollar-a-year industry.<br />
<br />
=== THE YOUNG COMMUNIST LEAGUE ===<br />
My sojourn in the African Blood Brotherhood was brief about six months. I felt the need to move on. My original goal was the Communist Party. While I was in the ABB, the problem of white chauvinism in the Southside branch had been cleared up. Joining the Party was no longer a problem, after all, the Brotherhood had been but a stopover.<br />
<br />
I was about to apply for admission when H.V. Phillips asked me to join the Young Workers (Communist) League, the youth division of the Communist Party. Phillips, I learned, was a member of the district and national committees of the League. When I told him I was just about to join the Party, he said: “That’s all right, but youre a young fellow and should be among the youth. Besides, more of us Blacks are needed in the League.”<br />
<br />
I thought the matter over. “Why not? It’s all the same, they’re all communists.”<br />
<br />
The next day Phillips took me to meet John Harvey, a white youth who was district organizer of the League. Harvey told me that I had been highly recommended to them by Phillips and others. He expressed delight at my decision to join and said that it fit right in with their plans since they were anxious to move forward with work among Black youth, but were handicapped by the faet that they had only a few Black members.<br />
<br />
I expressed doubt that I could be considered a youth at the age of twenty-five.<br />
<br />
They replied that there were a number of members my age and older in the organization. All that was needed, they assured me, was for one to have the “youth angle.”<br />
<br />
“What is that?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“Oh, that simply means the ability to understand youth and their problems and to be able to communicate with them.”<br />
<br />
I was not sure I had all of these qualities, but the proposition appealed to me, So I joined the YCL in the winter of 1923. The League at that time was a close-knit fraternity of idealistic and dedicated young people determined to build a new world for future generations. When we sang the Youth International at meetings, we actually felt ourselves to be as the song proclaimed, “the youthful guardsmen of the proletariat.”<br />
<br />
The organization was small, with only several hundred members. As I recall, Phillips and myself were the only Blacks. I was still working on the Santa Fe and on layovers I spent most of the time getting acquainted with my new comrades, attending classes, meetings and social gatherings. I was impressed by what seemed to me to be a high level of political development and by their use of Marxist terminology. It made me keenly aware of my own sketchy knowledge of Marxism and the revolutionary movement and spurred me to close the gap. A partial explanation for their political sophistication, I felt, was the fact that a large number of them, perhaps a majority, were “red diaper” babies—their parents being old revolutionaries, either members of the Party or its supporters. On the whole, they were a spirited, intelligent group, and as far as I could discern exhibited not a trace of race prejudice. Many went on to become leaders of the Party.<br />
<br />
There was our district organizer, John Harvey, a lanky youth and one of the few WASPs; Max Shachtman, a brilliant young orator and editor of the League’s theoretical organ, the Young Worker, who was later to become first a Trotskyist and then a rabid, professional anti-communist. There was Valeria Meltz, an able young leader, and her brother; their ethnie background was Russian-American, as was that of Jim Sklar (Keller). His brothers Gus and Boris were old stalwarts in the Russian Federation and were well known. There was also Nat Kaplan (Ganley) and Gil Green. Gil was about sixteen at the time; we used to call him “the kid.” He went on to become national chairman of the YCL and later a national leader in the Party. I met a number of the League's national leaders: Johnny Williamson, a Scottish-American and national secretary, Herbert Zam, Sam Darcy, Marty Abern, Phil Herbert and others, many of whom were to become national leaders of the Party.<br />
<br />
There was no searcity of places for meetings or for social affairs. We were on friendly terms with Jane Addams and her people at Hull House, where we sometimes met. Other times we used the halls of various language groups. We participated in and supported the activities of the Anti-Imperialist League, headed by Manny Gomez, the Party’s Latin American specialist. The main eampaign at the time: was against the invasion of Nicaragua by the U.S. Marines.<br />
<br />
I was particularly impressed by Bob Mazut, a young Russian representative of the Young Communist International (YCI) to the League, A small, dark-complected and soft-spoken young man, Mazut hailed from Soviet Georgia, His mild manner belied his impressive background, Only twenty-five when I met him, he had fought in the Revolution and Civil War, first as a Red Partisan and then in the Red Army, in which he advanced to the rank of colonel. He spoke what we called “political English,” and we were always amused by some of his expressions. For example, | remember how we used to kid Mazut about his being sweet on a certain girl comrade, “She likes you very much,” someone would say, “but she’s a little overawed by you.”<br />
<br />
He replied very seriously, “How can I liquidate her suspicions of me?”<br />
<br />
He took particular interest in me. I believe Phillips and I were the first Blacks he had ever really known and for us he was the first real Soviet communist we had met. I asked questions about Russia and told him I wanted to go there and see it for myself. “You undoubtedly will,” he said in a matter-of-fact tone, as if the matter were settled,<br />
<br />
On one occasion he told me of a discussion he had had on the eve of his departure from Russia, Zinoviey, then president of the Communist International, had asked him to look closely into the Afro-American question in the United States, and to see if he could find any confirmation for his belief and that of other Russian leaders that the right of self-determination was the appropriate slogan for Black rebellion. Zinoviev added that he had long believed that the question would become the “Achilles heel of American imperialism,” I told Mazut that I liked the part about the “Achilles heel,” but I didn’t feel that the slogan of self-determination was applicable for U.S. Blacks, It was my understanding that the principle had to do with nations, and Blacks were not a national but a racial minority. To me, it smacked of Garvey’s separatism,<br />
<br />
Mazut nevertheless raised the question of self-determination for discussion in a meeting of the Chicago District Committe of the YCL. Desirous of getting the committee’s reaction to the question, he was literally shouted down by the white comrades, “Blacks are Americans,” they said. “They want equality, not separation.” Phillips and I, the only Black members of the committee, were non-committal, And that was the end of that, They did not pursue the matter further.<br />
<br />
In order to move forward in work with Black youth, we struck upon the idea of organizing an interracial youth forum on the Southside. The organizing committee consisted of Chi (Dum Ping), a Chinese student at the University of Chicago; a young woman official of the colored YMCA; Phillips, a white League member; and myself, During this period, J was still working on the Santa Fe, but on my layovers | devoted all my time to the forum. We had rented a small hall, decorated it and got out our publicity—leaflets, posters and an‘ad in the Chicago Defender, Our first speaker was to be John Harden, a Black radical orator, It was our first effort at mass work among young Blacks and with our youthful enthusiasm, we were certain of success. But the venture proved to be abortive.<br />
<br />
I can still remember our shock when we came to our mecting place to find it wrecked. Furniture was smashed, posters ripped from the walls. There was no doubt in our minds that this was the work of the police who had unleashed their stool pigeons against us. Some of our non-communist friends dropped out, and the project collapsed. The idea of a forum was abandoned---temporarily, we hoped. A less ambitious plan was then agrced to.<br />
<br />
If we could enlarge our cadres by a few more Blacks, we thought, we would have a better base from which to approach mass work. It was therefore suggested that Phillips and I approach some of our acquaintances and try to recruit them directly into the League. I eliminated my waiter friends, all of whom were too old, and approached one of my former colleagues, a postal worker, who had been in our study circle and whom I considered a likely prospect. I remember that he sat very quictly while I delivered a long lecture on the League’s program and activities and the need to get support among Black youth.<br />
<br />
Finally interrupting me, he blurted out, “I’m sorry, Hall, but I find being Black trouble enough, but to be Black and red at the same time, well that’s just double trouble, and when you mix in the whites, why that’s triple trouble.”<br />
<br />
At first I was rather shocked by his off-hand rebuff, considering it to be an expression of cynical opportunism. I felt that he had backslid, even from his position at the post office, but he continued in a more serious tone. Apparently he felt a deep distrust for whites and their motives. He regarded the YCL as just another organization of white “do-gooders” and saw me as their captive Negro. When I interrupted to say something about socialism, he cut me short. He said that he too was for socialism as a final solution, but that was a long way off and he would not put it beyond the whites in the United States to distort socialism in a manner in which they could remain top dogs. In any case, he believed Blacks would have to be on guard. In the meantime, he believed Blacks should retain their own organizations under their own leadership. Alliances, yes—but we ourselves must decide the terms and conditions, he said.<br />
<br />
Our exchange had gotten off on the wrong foot. I was deeply chagrined by his charge that I was a captive of the whites and that the League was a white organization. For me, that meant that he felt that I was a “white folks’ nigger.” As I recall, I retorted by calling him a Black racialist who saw everything in terms of Black and white.<br />
<br />
“Why not?” he replied. “Being a Negro, how else should I see things?”<br />
<br />
After this flare-up, our tempers cooled off and we continued our discussion in calmer tones. But I was definitely on the defensive, trying to explain why I was in the League and that it was not an organization of white “do-gooders” as he had charged. It was a revolutionary, interracial vanguard organization, I asserted. Sure, we only had a few Blacks now, but our numbers would grow, I argued.<br />
<br />
He was still skeptical and repeated that he was for socialism, but a special road toward this goal he felt was necessary for Black Americans, under their own leadership and organization.<br />
<br />
“Do you mean a Black party?” I queried.<br />
<br />
“Why not?” he rejoined. “It might be necessary as a safeguard for our interests.”<br />
<br />
I had no answers to his position. There was a logic to it which I hadn't thought about.<br />
<br />
We finally parted on friendly terms, promising to keep in touch. I left, realizing that I’d come out the worst in our exchange. I felt that I had failed in my first effort to recruit a good Black man to the League and that we still had some study to do with regards to Black nationalism.<br />
<br />
My friend had been, as I recalled, a bitter critic of Garvey, and therefore assumed that he was hostile to Black nationalism. But now it seemed that he expressed some of Garvey’s racial separatism. Thinking the matter over, I finally camc to the conclusion that the main reason for my inability to counter his arguments was that I sensed that they contained a good measure of truth. What was most disturbing was the sense that his position was less isolated from the masses of Blacks than was my own.<br />
<br />
Up to that point, I had failed to understand the contradictory nature of Black nationalism. I had rejected it totally as a reactionary bourgeois philosophy which, in the conditions of the U.S., had found its logical expression in Garvey’s Back to Africa program. It was therefore a diversion from the struggle for economic, social and political equality-—-the true goal of Blacks in the United States. The fight for equality, I felt, was revolutionary in that it was unattainable within the framework of U.S. capitalist society. Nationalism, moreover, was divisive and played into the hands of the reactionary racists. This, of course, did not exclude the acceptance of some of its features, such as race pride and selfreliance, which were not inconsistent with, but an essential element in, the fight for equality.<br />
<br />
While rejecting nationalism, I also rejected the bourgeois assimilationist position of the NAACP and its associates, and their blind acceptance of white middle class values and culture. What confused me were attempts to amalgamate what I felt were two mutually contradictory elements-—--socialism and the class struggle on the one hand, and nationalism on the other. Or was the contradiction more apparent than real, I wondered. My friend’s nationalism did not go to the point of advocacy of a separate Black nation, He demanded only autonomy in leadership and organization of the Black freedom movement. Was this inconsistent with the concept of equality and class unity? Had not Blacks the right to formulate their conditions for unity? For me, this was the first time I had encountered these questions.<br />
<br />
I attempted to reflect on my short experience in the YCL. Was there not a basis for Black distrust of even white revolutionaries? ‘The situation in the League was not as idyllic as I had first thought. There was a certain underestimation of the importance of the Black struggle against discrimination and for equal rights among both the youth and the adults of the communist movement. Behind that, I sensed there was a feeling that the Black struggle was not itself really revolutionary, but was sort of a drag on the “pure” class struggle.<br />
<br />
This was no doubt a legacy of the old Socialist Party, Evensuch a revolutionary as Debs had said: <blockquote>'''“We have nothing special to offer the Negro, and we cannot make separate appeals to all the races, The Socialist Party is the party of the working-class, regardless of color.” And regarding the Afro-American question: “Social equality, forsooth ... is pure fraud and serves to mask the real issue, which is not social equality, but economic freedom.” “The Socialist platform has not a word in reference to ‘social equality.’ ”'''</blockquote>Evidently, there were a number of theoretical matters still to be cleared up on the question of the struggle for Black equality and freedom.<br />
<br />
I joined the Party itself in the spring of 1925, recruited by Robert Minor, with the consent of the League. I had quit the Santa Fe the summer before, and, totally committed to the communist cause, I then decided to devote more time to the work and to eventually becoming a professional revolutionary. I took extra jobs on weekends and worked banquets and an occasional extra trip on the road. I was living at home with my Mother, Father and sister, who had an infant child, David. All were employed, with my Mother accepting occasional catering jobs.<br />
<br />
Minor, whom I had known for some time, was a reconstructed white Southerner from Texas, a direct descendant of Sam Houston (first Governor of the Lone Star State), He was a former anarchist and one of the great political cartoonists of his day. His powerful cartoons were carried in the Sz. Louis Post-Dispatch, and later on in the old Masses (a cultural magazine of the left) and in the Daily Worker. Among his many talents, he was a journalist of no small ability. Having travelled widely in Europe as a news correspondent during the First World War, Minor had visited Russia during the revolutionary period and had met and spoken with Lenin.<br />
<br />
With these impressive credentials, he was now a member of the Party’s Central Committee and responsible for its Negro work. This was understood as an interim assignment, eventually to be taken over by a Black comrade as soon as one could be developed to fill the position. The person then being groomed for the job was Lovett Fort-Whiteman, who was then in Russia taking a crash course in communist leadership. He had been an associate of Briggs on The Crusader and also worked with Randolph and Owens on The Messenger. Later, as I recall, his selection was the cause for some disgruntlement among the Black comrades.<br />
<br />
Why was Fort-Whiteman chosen in preference to such wellknown and capable Blacks as Richard B. Moore, Otto Huiswood or Cyril P. Briggs, all of whom had revolutionary records superior to Fort-Whiteman’s? At that time, there were no Blacks on the Central Committee, and even when Fort-Whiteman returned from Russia in 1925 to take charge of Afro-American work, Minor remained responsible to the Central Committee. While not as flamboyant as Fort-Whiteman, these Black leaders had records comparable to, or better than, those of many whites on the Central Committee.<br />
<br />
Be that as it may, of all the white comrades, Minor was best fitted for the assignment because of his wide knowledge of and close interest in the question. His intense hatred of his Southern racist background came through in some of the most powerful cartoons of the day. He had wide acquaintances among Black middle class intellectuals. Bob and his wife Lydia had turned their Southside apartment into a virtual salon where Black and white friends would gather to discuss the issues of the day. There I met various Black notables, including Dean Pickens, national field secretary of the NAACP, and Abraham Harris, then secretary of the Minneapolis Urban League. Harris would later become Chairman of the Economies Department of Howard University, and then a full professor of the same subject at the University of Chicago.<br />
<br />
=== THE FOURTH CONVENTION OF THE CPUSA ===<br />
It was the period immediately before the Fourth National Convention of the Communist Party. The factional fight was at its height, with the Party split between two warring camps: the Ruthenberg-Pepper group vs. the Foster-Bittelman group. The atmosphere was rife with charges and counter-charges of “right opportunism” and “left sectarianism.” This factionalism had spilled over into the League, which reflected the alignments then current within the Party.<br />
<br />
I had stood aloof from these factions, as I did not clearly understand the issues. The question of Blacks did not seem to be directly involved. I assumed it was a clash mainly between personalities and narrow group interests, and did not reflect political principles. Each side accused the other of responsibility for the “Farmer-Labor fiasco” which left the Party isolated in its first major attempt to form a united front. I could sce no differences among the factions on the question of bolshevization of the Party.<br />
<br />
The Comintern had recently called upon the Party to bolshevize its ranks. Among other things, this called for the reorganization of the Party on the basis of shop and street units, and the elimination of the foreign language clubs as federated organizations within the Party. These clubs remained close to the Party, however, and followed its leadership.<br />
<br />
I was inclined to favor the Ruthenberg-Pepper group because most of the Party’s Black members--Doty, Elizabeth Griffin, Alonzo Isabel, Otto and my sister Eppa—were in that group. This, I suspected, was partly due to the influence of Bob Minor and Lydia Gibson—their work on the Southside in the tenants’ struggle of 1924, their support of Doty’s Consolidated Trades Council, and their consistent advocacy in the Party of the importance of work among Blacks. (Most of this occurred after I had Ieft the ABB and joined the YCL.)<br />
<br />
Upon joining the Party, I immediately became part of the Ruthenberg group. Under Minor’s tutelage, I was to undergo intensive indoctrination. According to the Ruthenberg faction, Foster, Bittelman, Jack Johnstone and their allies(Cannon, Dunne and Shachtman) were opportunist, narrow-minded trade unionists lacking in Marxist theory and hence in the ability to lead a Marxist party. They said that Foster’s group, which possessed a majority of the delegates, was out to steamroll the convention and toss Ruthenberg, Pepper and Lovestone out of the leadership.<br />
<br />
For most of us, the clincher was that the Foster group lacked the confidence of the Communist International. This latter charge, it seemed to me, was confirmed by the decisions of the Fourth Party Convention the following summer, I was a delegate to this convention from the YCL. I was to witness the intervention of the Cl in the person of its on-the-spot representative, Comrade Green (Gusev), an old Bolshevik friend and co-worker of Lenin and Stalin. For obvious security reasons, only the leaders of both factions had direct contact with him. His job was to suppress factionalism and to unite the Party on the basis of the Comintern line. I must say that he tackled this task with an expertise that was remarkable to behold.<br />
<br />
First, he set up what was called a Parity Committee, composed of an equal number of top leaders of both factions, with himself as a neutral chairman. Since the two factions were evenly represented on the committee, his was the deciding vote. I remember that there was widespread speculation among the delegates as to which faction he would support. We didn’t have long to wait.<br />
<br />
The convention had been in session about a week. The atmosphere was charged, passions inflamed, a split seemed imminent. Indeed, our caucus leaders had difficulty in preventing a walkout by some of the more hot-headed members. A message finally arrived in the form of a cable from the CI (which undoubtedly was sent at Gusev’s urging). The cable was presented to the Parity Committee by Gusev. It demanded that “under no circumstances” should the Foster majority “be allowed to suppress the Ruthenberg group... because,” it went on to say, “the Ruthenberg group is more loyal to the decisions of the Communist International and stands closer to its views. It has the majority or strong minority in most districts and the Foster group uses excessively mechanical and ultra-factional methods,” It further demanded that the Ruthenberg group “get not less than forty percent of the Central Executive Committee” and insisted as “an ultimatum” to the majority “that Ruthenberg retains post of Secretary...categorically insist upon Lovestone’s Central Executive Committee membership...demand retention by Ruthenberg group of co-editorship on central organ,”<br />
<br />
The results were greeted with great jubilation by our group. Foster refused to accept the majority of the incoming Central Committee under these circumstances (in which his loyalty was questioned) and ceded leadership to the Ruthenberg group. The result was that the Ruthenberg-Pepper group retained key positions on the new Central Committee--Ruthenberg as general secretary, Lovestone as organizational secretary, Bedacht as agitprop head.<br />
<br />
Despite factionalism, the convention marked a step forward in the work among Blacks, Although its decisions threw no new light on the question, the platform adopted did contain the most elaborate statement the Party had thus far made.<br />
<br />
It subscribed to full equality in the relationship between Black and white workers, It advocated the right to vote, abolition of Jim Crowism in law and custom, including segregation and intermarriage laws. The main thrust of the program, however, was directed towards building Black and white labor unity on the job and in the union, Toward this end the platform asserted that:<blockquote>'''Our Party must work among the unorganized Negro workers destroying whatever prejudice may exist against trade unions, which has been cultivated by white capitalists..(and) the Negro petty-bourgeoisie... Our Party must make itself the foremost spokesman for the real abolition of all discrimination of the as yet largely unorganized Negro workers in the same union with the white workers on the same basis of equality of membership, equality of right to employment in all branches of work and equality of pay.'''</blockquote>The Party called for the inclusion of Black workers in the existing unions. It came out against racial separatism and dual unionism, but it declared its intention to organize Blacks into separate unions wherever they were barred from existing organizations and to use the separation as a battering ram against Black exclusion. Emphasizing the relationship between these partial demands and ultimate goals, the platform declared that the accomplishment of the above aims was not an end in itself and that on the contrary, it was the struggle for their accomplishment that was even more important: <blockquote>'''In the course of the struggle with such demands we will demonstrate...that these aspirations can be realized only as a result of the successful class struggle against capitalism and with the establishment of the rule of the working class in the Soviet form.'''</blockquote>It must be remembered that by this time the attempts to infiltrate the Garvey movement had proven unsuccessful and that the African Blood Brotherhood, the sole revolutionary Black organization in the field, had been dissolved. To meet the necd for an organizational vehicle to put our program into effect, the Party and the Trade Union Educational League sponsored the American Negro Labor Congress (ANLC). <br />
<br />
In the meantime, Lovett Fort-Whiteman, our man in Moscow, returned to head up the Negro work and to prepare the launching of the ANLC. H.V. Phillips, Edwards, Doty and I were assigned to the organizing committce for the congress, drafting and circulating the call, and approaching organizations for delegates. As I remember, most of the Blacks in the Party were assigned to work on the congress. Otto was not involved in these activities, as immediately after the Fourth Party Convention, he had left for Moscow with the first batch of Black students. <br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman was truly a fantastic figure. A brown-skinned man of medium height, Fort-Whiteman’s high cheekbones gave him somewhat of an Oriental look. He had affected a Russian style of dress, sporting a robochka (a man’s long belted shirt) which came almost to his knees, ornamental belt, high boots and a fur hat. Here was a veritable Black Cossack who could be seen sauntering along the streets of Southside Chicago. Fort-Whiteman was a graduate of Tuskegec and, as I understood, had had some training as an actor, He had been a drama critic for The Messenger and for The Crusader. There was no doubt that he was a showman; he always seemed to be acting out a part he had chosen for himself.<br />
<br />
Upon his return from the Soviet Union, he held a number of press conferences in which he delineated plans for the American Negro Labor Congress, and as a Black communist fresh from Russia, he made good news copy.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman had taken responsibility for lining up enter tainment for the opening night of the congress. Characteristically, with his Russian affectations, he arranged for a program of Russian ballet and theater. The rest of us didn’t question what he was doing, and the incongruity of the program didn’t occur to us until the opening night.<br />
<br />
The mecting took place in a hall on Indiana Avenue near Thirty~ first Street, in the midst of the Black ghetto, When I arrived it was packed—-perhaps 500 people or so. Inside, I was suddenly attracted by a commotion at the door. Asa member of the steering committee, I walked over to see what was the matter. Something was amiss with the “Russian ballet” which was about to enter the hall. A young blonde woman in the “ballet” had been shocked by the complexion of most of the audience, which she had apparently expected to be of another hue. Loudly, in a broad Texas accent, she exclaimed, “Ah’m not goin’ ta dance for these niggahs!”<br />
<br />
Somebody shouted, “Throw the cracker bitches out!” and the “Russian” dance group hurriedly left the hall.<br />
<br />
The Russian actors remained to perform a one-act Pushkin play. They, at least, were genuine Russians from the Russian Federation, But alas, it was in Russian. Of itself, the play was undoubtedly interesting, but its relevance to a Black workers’ congress was, to say the least, unclear. Although Pushkin was a Black man, he wrote as a Russian, and the characters portrayed were Russian. More significant, however, and perhaps an indication of our sectarian approach, was the fact that no Black artist appeared on the program.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman made the keynote speech outlining the purposes and tasks of the congress. He was a passable orator and received a good response. Otto Huiswood, an associate of Briggs and one of the first Blacks to join the Party, also spoke. Richard B. Moore brought the house down with an impassioned speech which reached its peroration in Claude McKay's poem, “If We Must Die.” I was spellbound by Moore; I had never heard such oratory.<br />
<br />
That night, Phillips and I left the hall in high spirits. In fact, I was literally walking on air. At last, I felt, we were about to get somewhere in our work among Blacks. Phillips, a bit more sober than I, remarked, “Let’s wait and sec the report of the credentials committee.”<br />
<br />
His caution was justified, for the big letdown came the following morning. The first working session of the congress convened with about forty Black and white delegates, mainly communists and close sympathizers, The crowd of 500 at the opening night rally had been mainly community people. I think it was Phillips who remarked that there was hardly a face in the working session that he didn’t recognize; most participants, sadly, were from the Chicago arca.<br />
<br />
The organizing committee had prepared draft resolutions for the congress to consider. As we had anticipated a much larger turnout, we had made plans for a credentials committee, resolutions committee, etc. But in light of the small attendance, these resolutions and preparations took on an Alice-in-Wonderland quality. For example, according to the constitution, the group’s purpose was to “unify the efforts...of all organizations of Negro workers and farmers as well as organizations composed of both Negro and white workers and farmers."<br />
<br />
Despite our efforts and work, the ANLC never got off the ground. Few local units were formed, resolutions and plans were never carried into action. Only its official paper, the Negro Champion, subsidized by the Party, continued for several years. Among the post-mortems undertaken on the organization was the one made by James Ford in his book, The Negro and the Democratic Front, He commented that “for the period of its existence, it (the ANLC) was almost completely isolated from the basic masses of the Negro people." Disappointment and disillusionment followed and personal differences surfaced among our group. The fact was that the congress had failed, and with it, the first efforts to build a left-led united front among Blacks.<br />
<br />
There was a natural tendency to find seapegoats for the failure. Moore and Huiswood, the able delegates from New York, seemed to have come to Chicago witha chip on their shoulders. They made no attempt to hide their contempt for Fort-Whiteman, whom they had known in New York. They openly alluded to him as “Minor’s man Friday.” At the time, I was a bit shocked at what I felt was an attempt to malign these comrades. This was especially true of Bob Minor, whom I regarded with respect and affection. He was sort of a father figure to me.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman, on the other hand, was still an unknown quantity. My feelings about him were rather mixed. I was both repelled and fascinated by the excessive flamboyance of the man. But much later, I recalled overhearing a conversation between him and Minor during the preparations for the congress. Minor informed Fort-Whiteman that Ben Fletcher, the well-known Black IWW Leader, had expressed a desire to participate in the congress, It was evident that Bob was pleased by the response of such an important Black labor leader. Fletcher, as an IWW organizer, had played a leading role in the successful organization of Philadelphia longshoremen, His attendance would undoubtedly have attracted other Blacks in the labor movement.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman, however, vehemently opposed the idea and exclaimed, “I don’t want to work with him; I know him. He’s the kind of fellow who'll try to take over the whole show.” That ended the discussion; Fletcher was not invited. .<br />
<br />
I didn’t know Fletcher at the time, but as I reflected back onthe incident some time later, it was clear to me that had he been allowed to participate, Fort-Whiteman would have been overshadowed. I was too new to pass judgment on Fort-Whiteman’s qualifications, but I did wonder why he was chosen over such stalwarts as Moore and Huiswood. Huiswood, as a delegate to the Fourth Congress of the Comintern in 1922, was the first Black American to attend a congress of that body. (Claude McKay was also a special fraternal delegate to that congress.) Together with other delegates, Huiswood visited Lenin and became the first Black man to meet the great Bolshevik. He later became the first Black to serve as a candidate member of the Executive Committee of the Communist International.<br />
<br />
On the whole, I was very optimistic during my early years in the Party—confident we were building the kind of party that would eventually triumph over capitalism.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 5 ==<br />
<br />
=== A Student in Moscow ===<br />
Otto’s delegation of Black students to the Soviet Union caused quite a stir in the States. The FBI kept an eye on their activities and, in late summer 1925, their departure was sensationalized in the New York Times.! The article attributed a statement to Lovett Fort-Whiteman to the effect that he had sent ten Blacks to the Soviet Union to study bolshevism and prepare for careers in the communist “diplomatic service.” The article concluded with a statement calling for action against such “subversive activity.”<br />
<br />
At the time, we all felt that any Black applying for a passport would be subjected to close scrutiny. Therefore, when I learned that I too would soon be studying in Moscow, I applied for a first names of my Mother (Harriet) and Father (Haywood). This name was to stick with me the rest of my life.<br />
<br />
Several weeks after I received my passport, I heard the FBI had been making inquiries about me. By that time, I had become known as one of the founders of the ANLC. Therefore, as the time for my departure drew near, I hid out at the home of comrades on Chicago's Westside until arrangements were made. I went to the national office of the Communist Party, then in Chicago, and was informed by Ruthenberg or Lovestone that I should get ready to leave, Political credentials, typed on silk, were sewn into the lining of my coat sleeve. In order to avoid going through the port of New York, I left by way of Canada.<br />
<br />
In the manner of the old Underground Railroad, I was passed on from one set of comrades to the next: from Detroit, Rudy Baker, the district organizer, forwarded me on to the Canadian Party headquarters in Toronto where Jim MacDonald and Tim Buck were in charge. They sent me on to Montreal where comrades housed me and booked passage for me to Hamburg, Germany. Boarding ship in Quebec in the late spring of 1926, I sailed on the Canadian Pacific liner, the old Empress of Scotland. From Hamburg, I took a train to Berlin, arriving on a Saturday afternoon,<br />
<br />
Thad the address of Hazel Harrison the wife of a Chicago friend of mine who was a concert pianist studying in Berlin, where she had had her professional debut. (Years later, she was to head the Music Department at Howard University.) At that time, she was living at a boarding house near the Kurfurstendamm and I stopped there for the remainder of the weekend.<br />
<br />
This was the first time I had been in Berlin, Germany was then emerging from post-war crisis, during which currency inflation had reached astronomical heights, resulting in the virtual expropriation of a large section of the middle class. It was common to see shabbily dressed men still trying to keep up appearances by wearing starched white collars under their patched clothing,<br />
<br />
The owners of the boarding house, two middle-aged widows who were friends of Hazel’s, showed me a trunk filled with paper notes—-old German marks which were now worthless. This had probably represented a life’s savings.<br />
<br />
Hazel and her two friends took me out to the Tiergarten—the famous Berlin Zoo. I was attracted by the sight of three lion cubs that had been mothered by a German police dog. The cubs were getting big, and it was clear that the “mother” was no longer able to control them. We watched for some time, fascinated. I turned around and realized that there was a crowd around us. At first I thought they were looking at the cubs, but then it became clear that Hazel and I were the center of attention. Blacks were rare in Berlin in those days-—there were only half a dozen or so, mostly from the former German colonies of the Cameroons.<br />
<br />
Monday morning I took a cab to the headquarters of the German Party, at Karl Marx House on Rosenthallerstrasse. It was a dour, fortress-like structure, with high walls surrounding the main building which was set in the middle. I entered into the anteroom just inside the walls, in which there were a number of sturdy looking young men lounging around. When I came in, they jumped up and stood eyeing me suspicously.<br />
<br />
They were unarmed, but I knew their weapons were within arms’ reach, This was a symbol of the times for it was not long after the Beer Hall Putsch of Hitler’s brownshirts in Munich, and the battle for the streets of Berlin had already begun. I presented my credentials to a man named Walters, who was undoubtedly the head of security.<br />
<br />
It was on this occasion that I first met Ernst Thaelmann, a former Hamburg longshoreman and then leader of the German Communist Party. He was passing through the gate and Walters stopped him and introduced us. Thaelmann spoke fairly good English (probably acquired in his work as a seaman) and we chatted. a while. He asked after Foster, Ruthenberg and others. Wishing me good luck, he passed on his way.<br />
<br />
Walters gave me some spending money and arranged for me to stay with some German comrades, a young couple who had an elaborate apartment. The husband ran a haberdashery store on Friedrichstrasse and was a commander in the Rote Front (the red front)---the para-military organization which the communists had organized for defense of workers against the fascists.<br />
<br />
One day while walking down the Kurfurstendamm, I saw a cabaret billboard advertising the Black jazz band of Leland and Drayton and their Charleston dancers. It was a well-known band back. in the States. I had little money, but I couldn’t resist the temptation to stop in and hear them. I sat down at a table and ordered a beer. ‘To my dismay, the waiter said they didn’t sell beer, just wine. So | took the wine card and chose the cheapest bottle I could find.<br />
<br />
A number of band members and dancers came over to my table and asked where I was going. When I told them I was a student going to Moscow, they said they had just returned from a six-month tour in Russia, They were the first Black jazz group that had gone to the Soviet Union. I asked if they had met Otto and the other Black students there. Yes, they had met them all and they had had good times together. So we all sat down to exchange news.<br />
<br />
As we talked, I began to worry about the bill, and said I was low on money. “Oh, don’t worry about that,” someone said and ordered more wine. But when it came time to pay for the drinks, I got stuck with the whole tab and had to walk several miles across town to get home.<br />
<br />
After a month in Berlin, my visa came through. I was on my way to Stettin, a city on the Baltic Sea which bordered Poland and where I boarded a small Soviet ship. After three days of some of the roughest seas I have ever experienced, we landed in Leningrad. It was April 1926, and we were already in the season of the “white nights,” when daylight lasted until late into the evening.<br />
<br />
As we entered the Gulf of Finland the following morning, we passed the naval fortress of Kronstadt about twenty miles out from Leningrad (the site of the anti-Soviet mutiny of 1920). The ship finally docked in Leningrad. Upon landing, I presented my visa and passport to the authorities, Addressing me in English, a man in civilian dress said, “Oh, you’re going to the Comintern school in Moscow?”<br />
<br />
“Yes,” I replied.<br />
<br />
He immediately took me in charge and got my baggage through customs. I assumed he was a member of the security police. We left the customs building and got into an old beat-up Packard. As we drove away from the docks, he informed me that the Moscow train would not leave until eight that evening. He put me up at a hotel where I could rest and go out to see the city.<br />
<br />
Leningrad (old St. Petersburg) was built by Czar Peter the Great in the sixteenth century and now renamed for the architect of the new socialist society. As I walked down the now famous Nevsky Prospekt, I thought of John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook the World, trying to recapture some of the dramatic scenes in that classic. I passed the Peter and Paul Fortress and then the Winter Palace---once the home of the czars and now a museum of the people. The storming of the Winter Palace in 1917 had been the crucial event in the taking of St. Petersburg by the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
The people I saw passing me on the street were plainly dressed. Many of the men wore the traditional robochka and high boots; others were in European dress. Most people were dressed neatly, though shabhily, and all appeared to be well-fed. They were bright and cheerful, It seemed they went ahout with a purpose—a sharp contrast to the atmosphere of hopelessness that had pervaded Berlin, People in Leningrad looked at me---and I looked at them. By this time, I had become used to being stared at and took it as friendly curiosity. After all, a Black man was seldom seen in those parts.<br />
<br />
After several hours, I returned to my hotel. My friend from the security police showed up promptly at seven with my train ticket and took me to the station to put me on the train to Moscow. Filled with excitement and anticipation, I got little sleep on the train and awoke early to see the Russian landscape flowing by my window— pine forests, groves of birch trees and swamps. I was in the midst of the great Russian steppes.<br />
<br />
When we arrived in Moscow at Yaroslavsky Station, some of my traveling companions hailed a droshky and told the driver to take me to the Comintern.<br />
<br />
Moscow at last! We drove from the station into the vast sprawling city--once the capital of old Russia and now of the new. It was a bright, sunny morning and the sun glistened off the golden church domes in the “city of a thousand churches.” It seemed a maze of narrow, cobblestone streets, intersected by broad boulevards. While Leningrad had been a distinctly European city, Moscow seemed a mixture of the Asiatic and the European—a bizarre and strange combination to me, but a cheerful one. Moscow was more Russian than the cosmopolitan Leningrad. Crowds swarmed in the streets in many different styles of dress.<br />
<br />
We arrived at the Comintern, which was housed in an old eighteenth century structure on Ulitsa Komintern near the Kremlin, across the square from Staraya Konyushnya (the old stables of the czar). I paid the driver and entered the building. The guard at the door checked my credentials and directed me upstairs to a small office on the third floor. After producing my bonafides, I was told to take a seat, to wait for my comrades who would soon becoming for me.<br />
<br />
About half an hour later, Otto and another Black man entered the room. I was overjoyed at the sight of him and his friend, who turned out to be a fellow student, Harold Williams. We embraced Russian style, and I began to feel more at home in this strange jand.<br />
<br />
Otto asked about the family. An expression of sadness crossed his face, however, when I asked him about the rest of the Black students, He then informed me of Jane Golden’s serious illness. She was at that moment in a uremic coma from a kidney ailment and was not expected to live. Her husband was at her side at the hospital. (Though both were from Chicago, I had not met them before.)<br />
<br />
The situation had saddened the whole Black student body, and for that matter, the whole school. In the course of her brief sojourn, Jane had become very popular. Otto described her in glowing terms—a real morale booster, whose spirit had helped all of them through the period of initial adjustment.<br />
<br />
I was impressed. Here was a Black woman, not a member of the Communist Party, who had so easily become accustomed to the new Soviet socialist society. It seemed to me that there must be thousands of Black women like her in the U.S.<br />
<br />
After we had greeted each other, we caught a droshky over to the school in order that I might register officially. In the course of the ride, the driver lashed his horse and cursed at him. I asked Otto what he was saying, and he gave a running translation: “Get up there, you son-of-a-bitch. I feed you oats while I myself eat black bread! Your sire was no good, you bastard, your momma was no good too!” This verbal and physical abuse, Otto told me, was typical of most Russian droshky drivers.<br />
<br />
We finally arrived at the school administration which was housed in another old seventeenth century structure, built before the Revolution. It had been a finishing school for daughters of the aristocracy. Before that, it had been a boys’ school where, rumor has it, the great Pushkin had studied.<br />
<br />
Otto introduced me to the university rector with what sounded to my untrained ear like fluent Russian. We then went to the office of the chancellor, where I was duly registered. I was now a student at the Universitet Trydyashchiysya Vostoka Imeni Stalina (the University of the Toilers of the East Named for Stalin)---Russian acronym KUTVA, Otto and I then walked to the dormitory a few blocks away where I met the other two Black students, Bankole and Farmer,<br />
<br />
We all immediately took a streetcar to the hospital which was located on the other side of the Moscow River. There we were met by Golden and some other students who informed us that Jane Golden had just passed away that morning, Golden seemed to be in a state of shock and the doctors had given him some sedatives. We went into the hospital morgue to view her body. Bankole broke down in uncontrollable tears, I learned afterwards that Jane had been a close friend—a kind of mother to him during the period of his adjustment to this new land.<br />
<br />
We took Golden home to the dormitory. The school collective and its leaders immediately took over the funeral arrangements. The body lay in state in the school auditorium for twenty-four hours, during which time the students thronged past.<br />
<br />
The funeral was held the following day and the whole school turned out. The cortege seemed a mile long as it flowed past Tverskaya towards the cemetery. The students would not allow the casket to be placed upon the cart, but organizing themselves in relays every fifty yards, insisted on carrying it the distance of several miles on their shoulders,<br />
<br />
A good portion of the American colony in Moscow was assembled at the cemetery. The chairman of the school collective, a young Georgian, delivered a stirring eulogy at the graveside. One of the students who was standing next to me made a running translation sotto voce which went something like this:<br />
<br />
The first among her race to come to the land of socialism...in search of freedom for her oppressed peoples, former slaves... to find out how the Soviets had done it. We were happy to receive her and her comrades...condolences to her bereaved husband, our Comrade Golden, and to the rest of the Negro Students,..the whole university has suffered a great loss. Rest in peace, Jane Golden. You were with us only a short time, but all of us have benefitted from your presence and comradeship,<br />
<br />
Turning to Golden, he said:<br />
<br />
We Soviet people and comrades of oppressed colonial and dependent countries must carry on. We pledge our undying support to the cause of your people’s freedom. Long live the freedom fight of our Negro brothers in America! Long live the Soviet Union and its Communist Party, beacon light of the struggle for freedom of all oppressed peoples.<br />
<br />
Golden had borne himself well at the graveside, but we didn't want him to return to his room in the students’ dormitory, which would only remind him of his grievous loss. So we went to the apartment of MacCloud, an old Wobbly friend of ours from Philadelphia, who had attended the funeral and who lived in the Zarechnaya District, across the river. He was a close friend of Big Bill Haywood and had followed the great working class leader to the Soviet Union, There we tried to drown our sorrows in good old Russian vodka, which was in plentiful supply.<br />
<br />
Jane Golden’s funeral and the school collective’s response to her death made a profound impression on me, Through these events, crammed into the first three days of my stay in the Soviet Union, I came to know something about my fellow students and the new socialist society into which I had entered<br />
<br />
=== THE BOLSHEVIKS FIGHT FOR EQUALITY OF NATIONS ===<br />
KUTVA was a unique university. At the time I entered, its student body represented more than seventy nationalities and ethnic groups. It was founded by the Bolsheviks for the special purpose of training cadre from the many national and ethnic groups within the Soviet Union—the former colonial dependencies of the czarist empire—and also to train cadres from colonies and subject nations outside the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
The school was divided into two sections-—inner and outer. At the inner section there were Turkmenians, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Bashkirs, Yakuts, Chuvashes, Kazaks, Kalmucks, Buryat-Mongols and Inner and Outer Mongolians from Soviet Asia. From the Caucasus there were Azerbaidzhanis, Armenians, Georgians,<br />
<br />
Abkhazians and many other national and ethnic groups I had never heard of before, There were Tartars from the Crimea and the Volga region,<br />
<br />
The national and ethnic diversity found within the Soviet Union is hard to imagine. The Revolution had opened up many areas, for example through the Trans-Caucasus Road, and as late as 1928, the existence of new groups was still being “discovered.” These nationalities were all former colonial dependencies of the czars and were referred to as the “Soviet East,” “peoples of the East,” and “borderland countries,” The inner section comprised the main and largest part of the student body in the university.<br />
<br />
We Blacks were of course part of the outer section at the school. It included Indians, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, Persians, Egyptians, Arabs and Palestinian Jews from the Middle East, Arabs from North Africa, Algerians, Moroccans, Chinese and several Japanese (hardly a colonial people, but as revolutionaries, identified with the East).<br />
<br />
The Chinese, several hundred strong, comprised the largest group of the outer section, This was obviously because China, bordering on the USSR, was in the first stage of its own antiimperialist revolution, a revolution receiving direct material and political support from the Soviet Union. While KUTVA trained the communist cadres from China, there was also the Sun Yat-sen University, just outside of Moscow, which trained cadres for the Kuomintang.<br />
<br />
Among its students was the daughter of the famous Christian general, Chang Tso-lin, Several Chinese, including Chiang Kaishek’s son, studied in Soviet military schools during this period. A number of the Chinese students from KUTVA were massacred by Chiang’s troops at the Manchurian border when they returned to China shortly after Chiang’s bloody betrayal of the revoiution in 1927, Otto told me that a former girlfriend of his was among this group. As I remember, there were no Latin Americans at KUTVA during the time I was there, and the sole black African was Bankole, The student body was continually expanding, however, and later included many students from these and other areas.<br />
<br />
We students studied the classic works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. But unlike the past schooling we had known, this whole body of theory was related to practice. Theory was not regarded as dogma, but as a guide to action.<br />
<br />
In May 1925, Stalin had delivered an historic speech at the school, outlining KUTV A’s purpose and its main task. His lecture was the subject of continuous discussion and study. It was our introduction to the Marxist theory on the national question and its development by Lenin and Stalin.<br />
<br />
How did the Bolsheviks transform a territory embracing onesixth of the earth’s surface—known as the “prison-house of nations” under the Czar-—into a family of nations, a free union of peoples? What was the policy pursued by the Soviets which enabled them to forge together more than a hundred different stages of social development into such extraordinary unity of effort for the building of a multinational socialist state—the kind of unity that enabled them to win the civil war within and to defeat the intervention of seventeen nations, including the United States, from without.<br />
<br />
The starting point for us was to understand that the formation of peoples into nations is an objective law of social development around which the Bolsheviks, particularly Lenin and Stalin, had developed a whole body of theory. According to this theory, a nation is an historically constituted stable community of people, based on four main characteristics; a common territory, a common economic life, a common language and a common psychological makeup (national character) manifested in common features in a national culture, Since the development of imperial ism, the liberation of the oppressed nations has become a question whose final resolution would only come through proletarian revolution.<br />
<br />
The guiding principle of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on the national question was to bring about the unity of the laboring masses of the various nationalities for the purpose of waging a joint struggle—first to overthrow czarism and imperialism, and then to build the new society under a working class dictatorship. The accomplishment of the latter required the establishment of equality before the law for all nationalities —with no special privileges for any one people-—and the right of the colonies and subject nations to separate.<br />
<br />
This principle was incorporated into the law of the land in the Declaration of Rights of the People of Russia, passed a few days after the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks. Of course, the declaration of itself did not eliminate national inequality, which as Stalin had observed, “rested on economic inequality, historically formed.” To eliminate this historically based economic and cultural inequality imposed by the czarist regimes upon the former oppressed nations, it was required that the more developed nations assist these formerly oppressed nations and peoples to catch up with the Great Russians in economic and cultural development,<br />
<br />
In pursuance of this aim, the new government was organized on a bicameral basis. One body was chosen on the basis of population alone, the other, the Council of Nationalities, consisted of representatives from each of the national territorial units.the autonomous Soviet republics, autonomous regions and national areas, Any policy in regard to the affairs of these formerly oppressed nations could be carried through only with the approval of the Council of Nationalities. The Communist Party, through its members, was involved in both bodies and worked to see that its policy of full equality and the right of self-determination was implemented,<br />
<br />
As this theory was put into practice, we learned that national cultures could be expressed with a proletarian (socialist) content and that there was no antagonistic contradiction, under socialism, between national cultures and proletarian internationalism. Under the Soviets, the languages and other national characteristics of the many nationalities were developed and strengthened with the aim of drawing the formerly oppressed nationalities into full participation in the new society. Thus, the Bolsheviks upheld the principle of “proletarian in content, national in form.” Through this policy, they hoped to draw all nationalities together, acquainting each with the achievements of the others, leading to a truly universal culture, a joint product of all humanity.<br />
<br />
This is in sharp contrast to imperialism’s policy of forcibly arresting and distorting the free development of nations in order to maintain their economic and cultural backwardness as an essential condition for the extraction of superprofits. Thus, the oppressed nations can achieve liberation only through the path of revolutionary struggle to overthrow imperialism and in alliance with the working class of the oppressor nations. Stalin, proceeding from the experience and practice of the Soviet Union, emphasized the need for the formation and consolidation of a united revolutionary front between the working class of the West and the rising revolutionary movements of the colonies.--a united front based on a struggle against a common enemy. The precondition for forming such unity is that the proletariat of the oppressor nations gives:<blockquote>'''direct and determined support to the liberation movement of the oppressed peoples against the imperialism of its “own country,” for “no nation can be free if it oppresses other nations.” (Engels)... This support implies the advocacy, defense and implementation of the slogan of the right of nations to secession, to independent existence as states'''.</blockquote>Without this cooperation of peoples based on mutual confidence and fraternal interrelations, it will be impossible to establish the material basis for the victory of socialism.<br />
<br />
The test of all this theory was being proven in practice in the Soviet Union. The experience of the Bolsheviks demonstrably proved to us that socialism offered the most favorable conditions for the full development of oppressed nations and peoples.<br />
<br />
At the time of the Revolution, there were many nationalities within the borders of the Soviet Union in which the characteristics of nationhood had not yet fully matured, and in fact had been suppressed by the czars. It was the Soviet system itself which became a powerful factor in the consolidation of these nationalities into nations, as socialist industry and collective farming created the economic basis for this consolidation.<br />
<br />
I observed this firsthand in the Crimea and the Caucasus during my visits there in the summers of 1927 and 1928. The language and culture which had been stifled under the czarist regime were now being developed. The language of the Crimean people was a Turko-Tartar language, but before the Revolution, almost all education, such as there was, was in the Russian language. Now there were schools established which used the native language. Otto and other students made similar observations when they traveled to different areas of the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, | was having my own problems with the Russian language. On first hearing it, the language had sounded most strange to me. I could hardly understand a word and wondered if I would ever be able to master it. As the youngest Black American, I applied myself seriously to its study. The first hurdle was the Cyrillic alphabet—-its uniquely different characters intimidated me. But the crash course at KUTVA, lasting about an hour and a half per day, soon broke down this initial barrier.<br />
<br />
In addition, I studied on my own for a couple of hours each day. I would set out to memorize twenty new words a day, Then at night, | would write them out on a sheet of paper and pin them above the mirror in my room. I would then go over them again in the morning while shaving, and during the day I would make sure to use them in conversation with the Russians.<br />
<br />
English grammar had always seemed irrelevant to me, but I soon came to appreciate the logic of Russian grammar. In fact, I learned most of my English grammar through the study of Russian. Its rules were consistent and understandable. ‘The language soon ceased to be mysterious and revealed itself as being beautifully and simply constructed. In six months | was able to read Pravda with the help of a dictionary.<br />
<br />
=== KUTVA: STRUCTURE AND STUDIES ===<br />
The school structure was fairly complicated, but, as I saw it, thoroughly democratic. There was the collective, the general body which ineluded everybody in the school—from the rector, faculty, students, clerical and maintenance workers to the scrubwoman. The leading body of the collective was the bureau—-composed of representatives clected by the various groups in the university. There was also a Communist Party organization which played the leadership role at all levels.<br />
<br />
Originally established by the Council of Nationalities, KUTVA was now a Party school, administered by the Educational Department (AGITPROP) of the Central Committee of the CPSU. There was a direct representative of the Party, called a “Party strengthener,” in the school administration, Together with the rector and a representative of the students, he was part of the “troika” which constituted the top leadership of the school.<br />
<br />
Students had the rights of citizens, voting and participating in local elections, The school discussed and dealt with all the issues which Soviet workers and peasants discussed at their work places. As with all students who pursued courses in higher education in the Soviet Union, we at KUTVA received full room and board, clothes and a small stipend for spending money. There was, of course, no tuition, We used to attend workers’ cultural clubs and do volunteer work, like working Saturdays to help build the Moscow subways. Education for us was not an ivory tower, but a true integration into the Soviet society, where we received firsthand knowledge from our experiences.<br />
<br />
The curriculum (which was a three-year course) was based on Marxism-Leninism; that is, the teachings of Marx and Engels as developed by Lenin. It included dialectical and historical materialism, the Marxist world concept; the Marxist theory of class struggle as the motive force of human events, the economic doctrines of Marx: value and surplus value, as a key to understanding history by revealing the economic law of motion of modern capitalist societies, Lenin’s analysis of imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism; theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat and its Soviet state form; the problems of socialist construction; Lenin’s theory on the peasant question-—the alliance of workers and peasants as the base for Soviet power; the national and colonial questions; and the role of the party as vanguard of the proletariat. We also studied the specifie history of the CPSU.<br />
<br />
Our favorite teacher was Endré Sik, who taught courses on Leninism and the history of the Soviet Party. Sik was a striking young man. His distinguishing feature was a large shock of white hair, unusual for a manso young---he was probably in his thirties. He was soft-spoken and modest. We all loved Sik; he was an outgoing person who radiated warmth.<br />
<br />
Sik was a Hungarian, a politieal refugee living in Russia, He had been a soldier in the Austro-Hungarian Army during the First World War. Captured by the Russians, he was converted to Bolshevism while in a Russian prison camp. On his release, he had gone baek to Hungary and participated in the short-lived (133 days) Hungarian Soviet government of 1919 of Béla Kun, Withthe defeat of the Béla Kun government, Sik—along with hundreds of other revolutionaries—fled to the Soviet Union. Hungarian exiles made up one of Moscow’s largest foreign colonies. In Moscow, Sik pursued an academic career. He was a graduate of the Institute of Red Professors and like many Hungarian intellectuals, he was multilingual.<br />
<br />
For all his good nature, Sik seemed tired and harassed. He was teaching in many schools, in addition to activity in the Hungarian community. Seven years after the defeat of the Hungarian Soviet, the exiled revolutionaries were bitterly divided and factionalized, laying blame on each other for the failure of the revolution,<br />
<br />
Sik beeame deeply interested in the question of Blacks in the United States and undertook a serious study of the question. He read all the books available and also asked the Black students at KUTVA to join with him. Unfortunately for our personal relationship, Sik and I were to find ourselves on opposite sides of the fenee in the discussion of Black Americans which took place at the Sixth Congress of the Communist International in June 1928.<br />
<br />
Our teacher of Marxist economics was a young man by the name of Rubenstein, a Russian economist in the Gosplan (Governmental Planning Commission). The star pupil in that class turned out to be our modest friend Golden. Golden, who had known nothing about Marxism before eoming to the Soviet Union, was able to grasp the intricacies of Marx’s Capital and Value, Price and Profit seemingly without effort.<br />
<br />
A class that stands out in my memory was one on how tomakea revolution, to seize power onee the situation was ripe. This course eonsisted of a series of Jeetures by a young Red Army officer. He had been a heroie figure in the Moscow uprising of 1917 and the subsequent seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in that city. A tall, handsome young man of bourgeois background, he had been a lieutenant in the army of the Kerensky government. Like many other soldiers, he had been won over by the Bolsheviks on the basis of their demands, which reflected the needs of the people. peace, bread and land. To him, the Moscow uprising against Kerensky, led by the Bolsheviks, was a model for the coming seizure of power in the big cities of the capitalist world.<br />
<br />
He had a large map of Moscow on the wall and would use it to illustrate how it had been done. The eall for the uprising, he said, had come to the Moseow Communist Party by telephone from Leningrad, where the revolutionary workers, sailors and army under the leadership of Lenin had overthrown the Kerensky government and seized power in that eity.<br />
<br />
In Moscow, the Party organization, already prepared, issued a call to the people for an uprising. His regiment, stationed on the outskirts of the eity, together with red guards (workers’ militia), responded and began to march towards the center of the city. The White Guardists were concentrated in the Arbot and in the Kremlin, Here he pointed out, in Russian and other European cities, the working class districts were centered around factories on the outskirts of the city and Moseow was cireled by workers suburbs. Together with defected units of other regiments and with red guards, they marehed towards Moscow’s central area, whence fighting spread throughout the city--even into the trans-Moscow district. The reds finally wiped out the White Guardist strongholds, and the Kremlin, which had changed hands two times before in the fighting, finally surrendered,<br />
<br />
Moscow was ours!<br />
<br />
=== CLASSMATES AT KUTVA ===<br />
Beeausc of the language problem, we students from outside the Soviet Union were subdivided into three main language groups: English, French and Chinese. English and French were the dominant languages of the many colonial areas represented at the university. Spanish was later added when Latin American students began to arrive. In addition to ourselves, the English-speaking group included East Indians, Koreans, Japanese and Indonesians. I had many close friends in this latter group.<br />
<br />
One of the most interesting and brilliant was an Indian student by the name of Sakorov. (They all took Russian names because of the severe repression which they faced back home.) A former machinist in a Detroit auto plant, Sakorov had been sent to the school by the American Party.<br />
<br />
Originally from Bombay, Sakorov had gone to sea on a British ship at the age of twelve and had been subjected to very oppressive conditions his whole career at sea. He eventually jumped ship in Baltimore and wound up working in an auto plant in Detroit. Of all the group of students, he was the closest to us Blacks, He knew first hand the plight of Blacks in the United States, and as a dark skinned Indian, he had experienced much of the same type of racial abuse while there, After he left the school, he returned to India, where he became one of the founders of the Indian Communist Party.<br />
<br />
Later, more Indian students were to come, including one sixteen year old—a tall, lanky boy who took the name of Volkoy. He had been born in California; his parents were Sikhs who had migrated to the U.S. and worked as agricultural workers in the Imperial Valley of California. They were part of a foreign contingent of the Ghadr Party, a revolutionary nationalist party of Sikhs which had been organized in 1916. The Party would pick out young men to be future leaders; Volkov was chosen and sent to Japan for education and stayed there a year. Then he was sent to study in the Soviet Union, perhaps by the Japanese Party. He spoke Japanese and English.<br />
<br />
Among the Indian students was a group of about half a dozen Sikhs, former professional soldiers, survivors of the Hong Kong massacre of 1926. On the pretext of quelling an “imminent mutiny,” the British colonel of the regiment stationed in Hong Kong had called the unarmed Sikh soldiers into the regimental square and turned machine guns on them. (All regiments in the Indian Army included a British machine gun company as a safeguard against mutiny.) Several hundred were killed or wounded. As I understood it, the massacre was engineered to quell the protests over conditions which were being raised by members of the Ghadr Party and its supporters.<br />
<br />
The group who arrived in Moscow were among the few who escaped over the walls; they had fled to Shanghai where they were taken in charge by M.N. Roy, an Indian and then Comintern representative to China. Roy sent them to Moscow. These students, some of them older grey-bearded men, had spent their whole lives in the British Indian Army, They represented a special problem for the school, because most of them had had very little education of any kind. They were not brought into our class, but were put into a special group under the tutelage of Volkov, Sakorov and other of the regular Indian students,<br />
<br />
It was my good fortune to meet many of these Indian students again in 1942, when I was in Bombay as a merchant seaman, Most of them were leading figures in the Indian revolutionary movement. Sakorov had been a defendant in one of the Merut trials, having been charged with “conspiracy against the king,” Since his return to India, he had spent eleven years in prison. Nada, another former schoolmate, was president of the Indian Friends of the Soviet Union and very active among the students and youth,<br />
<br />
There were several Koreans and Japanese at the school, and two Indonesians. I remember Dirja particularly well. A Dutcheducated Indonesian intellectual, he was an old revolutionary who had spent many years in prison. There was another Indonesian, a young man (whose name I cannot recall), who later emerged as a communist leader and was killed in the Indonesian revolt of 1946.<br />
<br />
Kemal Pasha (a party name conferred on him by Sakorov) was a grey-eyed Moroccan from the Riffian tribe of Abdul Krim, I met Kemal Pasha again in Paris during the Spanish Civil War. There were also two whites in the group-June Kroll, then the wife of an American communist leader, Carl Reeves; and Max Halff, a young English lad of Russian-Jewish parentage.<br />
<br />
=== BLACKS IN MOSCOW ===<br />
We students were a fairly congenial lot and in particular I got to know the other Black students quite well. Golden was a handsome, jet-Black man; a former Tuskegee student and a dining car waiter, He was not a member of the Communist Party, but was a good friend of Lovett Fort-Whiteman, head of the Party's Afro-American work.<br />
<br />
Golden told me that his coming to the Soviet Union had been accidental. He had run into Fort-Whiteman, a fellow student at Tuskegee, on the streets of Chicago, Fort-Whiteman had just returned from Russia and was dressed in a Russian blouse and hoots.<br />
<br />
As Golden related it: “I asked Fort-Whiteman what the hell he was wearing, Had he come off the stage and forgotten to change clothes? He informed me that these were Russian clothes and that he had just returned from that country.”<br />
<br />
Golden at first thought it was a put-on, but became interested as Fort-Whiteman talked about his experiences. “Then out of the blue, he asks me if I want to go to Russia as a student. At first, I thought he was kidding, but man, I would have done anything to get off those dining cars! I was finally convinced that he was serious. ‘But I’m married,’ I told him. ‘What about my wife? ‘Why, bring her along too!’ he replied. He took me to his office at the American Negro Labor Congress, an impressive set-up with a secretary, and I was convinced, Fort-Whiteman gave me money to get passports, and the next thing I knew, a couple of weeks later we were on the boat with Otto and the others on the way to Russia. And here I am now.”<br />
<br />
He had a keen sense of humor and kidded the rest of us a lot, particularly Otto, His Southern accent carried over into Russian, and we teased him about being the only person who spoke Russian with a Mississippi accent,<br />
<br />
Then there was Bankole, an African who spent most of his time with the Black Americans. He was an Ashanti, from the Gold Coast (now Ghana) and his family was part of the African elite.<br />
<br />
The son of a wealthy barrister, his family had sent him to London University to study journalism, From there, he had gone to Carnegie Tech in Pittsburgh.<br />
<br />
He had been on the road to becoming a perennial student and had planned to continue at McGill University in Montreal, but was recruited to the Young Communist League in Pittsburgh. In the States, he was confronted with a racism more blatant than any he had met before. I gathered that this had struck him sharply and had been largely responsible for his move to the left,<br />
<br />
My brother Otto had become sort of a character in the school, He was popular among the students, who immediately translated his pseudonym “John Jones” into the Russian “Ivan Ivanovich,” Otto had ahsolutely no tolerance for red tape, and he had hecome a mortal enemy of the apparatchiki (petty bureaucrats) in the school. He had built a reputation for making their lives miserable, and when they saw him coming, they would huddle in a corner; “Here comes Ivan Ivanovich. Ostorozhno (watch out)! Bolshoi skandal budyet (this guy will make a big scandal)!”<br />
<br />
Harold Williams of Chicago was a West Indian and former seaman in the British merchant marine, He had adopted the name of Dessalines, one of the three leaders of the Haitian revolution of the 1790s. Williams had little formal education and some difficulty in grasping theory, but was instinctively a class-conscious guy.<br />
<br />
Finally, there was Mahoney, whose name in the USSR was Jim Farmer. Farmer was a steelworker from East Liverpool, Ohio, a Communist Party member and had played a leading role in local struggles in the steel mills.<br />
<br />
There were only eight of us Blacks in a city of 4,500,000 people. In addition to the six students, there were also two Black American women who had long residence (since before the Revolution) in Moscow.<br />
<br />
I only knew one of the women, Emma Harris. We first met on the occasion of the death of Jane Golden. Emma was a warm, outgoing and earthy middle-aged woman, originally from Georgia. It was evident that she had once been quite handsome—of the type that in the old days we called a “teasin’ brown.” Emma had first come to Moscow as a member of a Black song and dance group, a lowly hoofer in the world of cheap vaudeville. Having been deserted by its manager, the group was left stranded in Moscow.<br />
<br />
While the others had evidently made their way back to the States, Emma had decided to stay. She had liked the country. Here, being Black wasn’t a liability, but on the contrary, a definite asset, With her drive and ambition to be “somebody,” Emma parlayed this asset into a profitable position. She married a Russian who installed her, it seems, as a madam of a house of prostitution. It was no ordinary house, she once explained to me. “Our clients were the wealthy and nobility.” To the former hoofer, this was status.<br />
<br />
Such was Emma’s situation in November 1917, when the Russian Bolsheviks and Red Guards moved in from the proletarjan suburbs of Moscow to capture the bourgeois inner city and the Kremlin. During some mopping-up operations, Emma’s house was raided by the Cheka (the security police). A bunch of White Guardists had holed up there and the whole group was arrested, including Emma. They were taken to the Lubyanka Prison and some of the more notorious White Guardists were summarily executed.<br />
<br />
Emma remained in a cell for a few days. Finally she was called up before a Cheka official. He told her that they were looking into her case. Many of the people who had been arrested at her place were counter-revolutionaries and conspirators against the new Soviet state, and some had been shot. Emma disclaimed knowledge of any conspiracy and stated that she was engaged in “legitimate” business and had nothing to do with the politics of her clients.<br />
<br />
“You know the only reason we didn’t shoot you was because you are a Negro woman,” the official said. To her surprise, he added, “You are free to go now. I advise you to try to find some useful work. Keep out of trouble.”<br />
<br />
When we met Emma, she had become a textile worker. She lived with a young Russian woman--also a textile worker, whom I suspected was a reformed prostitute—in a two-room apartment in an old working class district near Krasnaya Vorota (Red Gate). Soon after the first Black students arrived, she sought them out and grected them like long lost kinfolk.<br />
<br />
At least once a month, we students would pool part of the small stipends we reccived and give Emma money to shop for and prepare some old home cooking for us. On these occasions, she would regale us with stories from her past life. At times one could detect a fleeting expression of sadness, of nostalgia, for her old days of affluence. One could see that she had never become fully adjusted to the new life under the Soviets. While not openly hostile, it was clear that she was not an ardent partisan of the new regime. Knowing our sentiments, she avoided political discussion and kept her views to herself. Our feelings toward her were warmest when we first arrived, but as we developed more ties with the Russians, we went by to see her less often. But we did continue to visit her periodically; she was a sort of mother figure for us, and we all felt sorry for her. She was getting old and often expressed a desire to return to the States. She was finally able to return home after World War II.<br />
<br />
Needless to say, Blacks attracted the curiosity of the Muscovites. Children followed us in the streets. If we paused to grect a (riend, we found ourselves instantly surrounded by curious crowds-—unabashedly staring at us. Once, while strolling down Tverskaya, Otto and I stopped to greet a white American friend and immediately found ourselves surrounded by curious Russians. It was a friendly curiosity which we took in stride. A young Russian woman stepped forward and began to upbraid and lecture the crowd.<br />
<br />
“Why are you staring at these people? They're human beings the same as us. Do you want them to think that we’re savages? Era ne kulturnya! (That is uncultured!)” The last was an epithet and in those days a high insult.<br />
<br />
“Eta ne po-Sovietski! (It’s not the Soviet way!)” she scolded them,<br />
<br />
At that point, someone in the crowd calmly responded: “Well, citizeness, it’s a free country, isn’t it?”<br />
<br />
We were not offended, but amused. We understood all this for what it was.<br />
<br />
There was one occasion when Otto, Farmer, Bankole and I were walking down Tverskaya. Bankole, of course, stood out—attracting more attention than the rest of us with his English cut Savile Row suit, monocle and cane—a black edition of a British aristocrat. We found ourselves being followed by a group of Russian children, who shouted: “Jass Band....Jass Band!”<br />
<br />
Otto, Farmer and I were amused at the incident and took it in stride. Bankole, however, shaking with rage at the implication, jerked around to confront them. His monocle fell off as he shouted: “Net Jass Band! Net Jass Band!” As he spoke, he hit his cane on the ground for emphasis.<br />
<br />
Evidently, to these kids, a jazz band was not just a group of musicians, but a race or tribe of people to which we must belong. They obviously thought we were with Leland and Drayton, the musicians I had met in Berlin, They had been a big hit with the Muscovites. We pulled Bankole away, “C'mon man, cut it out, ‘They don’t mean anything.”<br />
<br />
In the Soviet Union, remnants of national and racial prejudices from the old society were attacked by education and law. It was a crime to give or receive direct or indirect privileges, or to exercise discrimination because of race or nationality. Any manifestation of racial or national superiority was punishable by law and was regarded as a serious political offense, a social crime.<br />
<br />
During my entire stay in the Soviet Union, I encountered only one incident of racial hostility, It was on a Moscow streetear. Several of us Black students had boarded the car on our way to spend an evening with our friend MacCloud. It was after rush hour and the car was only about half filled with Russian passengers. As usual, we were the objects of friendly curiosity. At one stop, a drunken Russian staggered aboard. Seeing us, he muttered (but loud enough for the whole car to hear) something about “Black devils in our country.”<br />
<br />
A group of outraged Russian passengers thereupon seized him and ordered the motorman to stop the ear. It was a citizen's arrest, the first I had ever witnessed. “How dare you, you scum, insult people who are the guests of our country!”<br />
<br />
What then occurred was an impromptu, on-the-spot meeting, where they debated what to do with the man. I was to see many of this kind of “meeting” during my stay in Russia.<br />
<br />
It was decided to take the culprit to the police station which, the conductor informed them, was a few blocks ahead, Upon arrival there, they hustled the drunk out of the car and insisted that we Blacks, as the injured parties, come along to make the charges.<br />
<br />
At first we demurred, saying that the man was obviously drunk and not responsible for his remarks. “No, citizens,” said a young man (who had done most of the talking), “drunk or not, we don’t allow this sort of thing in our country. You must come with us to the militia (police) station and prefer charges against this man.”<br />
<br />
‘The car stopped in front of the station. The poor drunk was hustled off and all the passengers came along. The defendant had sobered up somewhat by this time and began apologizing before we had even entered the building. We got to the commandant of the station.<br />
<br />
The drunk swore that he didn’t mean what he'd said. “I was drunk and angry about something else. I swear to you citizens that I have no race prejudice against those Black gospoda (gentlemen).”<br />
<br />
We actually felt sorry for the poor fellow and we accepted his apology. We didn’t want to press the matter.<br />
<br />
“No,” said the commandant, “we'll keep him overnight. Perhaps this will be a lesson to him<br />
<br />
=== BIG BILL HAYWOOD ===<br />
In addition to the students at KUTVA and the two Black women, there was a sizeable American colony in Moscow during my stay there. There were political representatives of the Communist Party USA to the Comintern, the Profintern, the Crestintern and to the departments, bureaus and secretaries of these organizations—holding jobs as translators, stenographers and researchers <br />
<br />
Soviet cultural and publishing organizations also employed U.S, citizens, and in addition to the political groups, there were a number of technical and skilled workers who came as specialists to work for the new Soviet state. I got to know a number of the Americans during my stay, both official reps and others in the colony.<br />
<br />
Big Bill Haywood was perhaps the most famous of these. He was organizer and founder of the IWW, and a great friend of all Blacks in Moscow. At the time I met him he was in his late fifties and quite ill, suffering from diabetes. Physically, he was only the shell of the man he had once been. He called himself a political refugee from American capitalism, As a sick man, he had fled the U.S. to avoid a ten-year frame-up prison sentence which he knew he would never have survived, Bill was blind in one eye, over which he wore a black patch. I had imagined the loss of his eye had happened in a fight with company or police thugs and was rather disappointed to learn that it was the result of a childhood accident.<br />
<br />
In the Soviet Union he had participated in the organization of the Kuzbas Colony. This project was to reopen and operate industry in the Kuznetsk Basin in the Urals, closed during the Civil War period. The colony was located about a thousand miles from Moscow in an area of enormous coal deposits, vital to socialist industrialization. The district, with its mines and deserted chemical plants, had been established by the Soviet government as an autonomous colony. Big Bill had brought a number of American skilled workers, many of whom were old Wobblies, to reopen the plants and mines,<br />
<br />
Big Bill became a member of the CPUSA at its founding convention in 1921, and while in the Soviet Union he was a member of the CPSU. Bill and his devoted wife, a Russian office worker, lived in the Lux Hotel---a Comintern hostelry.<br />
<br />
His room had become a center for the gathering of American radicals, especially old Wobblies passing through or working in the Soviet Union. Here they would gather on a Saturday night and reminisce about old times and discuss current problems. Often a bunch of us Black students were present, Sometimes these sessions would carry on all night until Sunday morning. There were only a few chairs in the room, and Bill would sit in a huge armchair surrounded by people sitting on the floor. For us Blacks, listening to Big Bill was like a course on the American labor movement. He was a bitter enemy of racism, which he saw as the mainstay of capitalist domination over the U.S. working class, a continuous brake on labor unity, This attitude was reflected in the preamble of the IWW constitution, he told us, It read: “No working man or woman shall be excluded from membership in unions because of creed or color.” This was borne out in practice,<br />
<br />
The IWW was the first labor organization in modern times to invade the South and break down racial barriers in that benighted region. He recounted his experiences in the organizing drives among Southern lumber workers in Louisiana and Texas. This resulted in the organization of the Brotherhood of Timber Workers in 1910, an independent union in the lumber camps of Louisiana, Texas and Arkansas, At its height this union had 25,000 members, half of them Black.<br />
<br />
Big Bill described how the IWW broke down discrimination at the first convention of this union, He had come from the national IWW office to speak to the convention. They were all white, he said, and he inquired why no colored men were present. He was told that the Louisiana state law prohibited meetings of Black and white—the Negro brothers were meeting in another hall nearby. Bill recalled that he then told them: “Damn the law! It’s the law of the lumber bosses. Its objective is to defeat you and to keep you divided and you're not going to get anywhere by obeying the dictates of the bosses. You've got to meet together.” And the latter is exactly what they did, he told us.<br />
<br />
I remember that a few days after one of these gatherings we telephoned to tell him that we were coming over, only to learn from his wife that he had had a stroke and was in the Kremlin hospital. She said that he was getting along OK, but couldn’t see visitors. After several weeks he returned home. Still weak, he received many of his friends, and many of the delegates to the Fourth Congress of the Profintern which was in Moscow at the time. Big Bill had been a leading participant in this organization since its inception.<br />
<br />
Then suddenly, he was back in the hospital, where he died May 18, 1928. The whole American colony turned out for the funeral. There were delegations from the Russian Communist Party, of which he was a member, and from the various international organizations in which he had played a role. The Fourth Congress of the RILU adjourned its sessions, and representatives of trade unions from all over the world attended the funeral.<br />
<br />
I'm sure for all us Black students, our meeting and friendship with this great man were among the most memorable experiences of our stay in Moscow, A stalwart son of the American working class, Bill’s life and battles represented its best traditions. To Blacks, he was a man who would not only stand up with you, but if need be, go down with you. This was the iron test in the fight against the common enemy, U.S, capitalism. Big Bill obviously understood from his own experience the truth of the Marxian maxim that in the U.S., “labor in the white skin can never be free as long as in the Black it is branded.”<br />
<br />
=== Ina ===<br />
I first met my second wife, Ekaterina—-Ina—in December 1926, We were both at a party at the home of Rose Bennett, a British woman who had married M. Petrovsky (Bennett), the chairman of the Anglo-American Commission of the Comintern and formerly Cl representative to Great Britain,<br />
<br />
Ina was one of a group of ballet students whom Rose had invited to meet some of us KUTVA students, She was a small young woman of nineteen or twenty, shy and retiring, and sat off removed from the party. After that party, we met several times, and she told me about herself,<br />
<br />
She was born in Vladikavkaz (in northern Caucasus), the daughter of the mayor of the town, It was one of those towns that was taken and re-taken during the Civil War, one time by the whites, then by the reds. On one occasion when the town fell to the reds, her father was accused of collaborating with the whites, The reds came and arrested him and she never saw him again, Ina was about eleven at the time; she later learned that her father had been executed,<br />
<br />
Her uncle was a famous artist in Moscow and after her father’s execution they went there to live. Ina told me of her trip to Moscow at the height of famine and a typhus epidemic; they rode in freight cars several days through the Ukraine, and saw people dying along the road. Her uncle took charge of them and got them an apartment on Malaya Bronaya. He investigated the case of her father and discovered that a mistake had been made, and her father was posthumously exonerated. As a sort of compensation, she and her mother were regarded as “social activists,” and Ina entered school to study ballet. She later transferred from the ballet school to study English in preparation for work as a translator. We lived together in the spring of 1927 and got married the following fall, after my return from the Crimea.<br />
<br />
In January 1927, I was stunned by the news of the death of my Mother. One morning, when I was at Ina’s house, Otto burst in. Overcome by emotion, he could hardly talk, but managed to blurt out, “Mom’s dead!” He had a letter from our sister Eppa, with a clipping of Mother’s obituary from the Chicago Defender.<br />
<br />
Under the headline “Funeral of Mrs. Harriet Hall,” was her picture and an article which described her, a domestic worker, asa “noted club woman.” She had been a member of the Black Eastern Star and several other lodges and burial societies. The article mentioned that she was survived by her husband, daughter and two sons, the latter in Moscow.<br />
<br />
I was overcome with grief and guilt at not being home. Deeply shocked, I had always assumed that I would return to see Mother again, Born a slave, her world had been confined to the midwest and upper South, She had once told me, “Son, I sure would like to see the ocean,” and I had glibly promised, “Oh, I'll take you there someday, Momma.” I felt that I had been her favorite; | was the responsible one, and yet I hadn’t been able to do what I had promised, Worse yet, I wasn’t even there when she died. It took me some time to get over the shock.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
=== Trotsky’s Day in Court ===<br />
Apart from our academic courses, we received our first tutelage in Leninism and the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the heat of the inner-party struggle then raging between Trotsky and the majority of the Central Committee led by Stalin. We KUTVA students were not simply bystanders, but were active participants in the struggle. Most of the students—and all of our group from the U.S,—-were ardent supporters of Stalin and the Central Committee majority.<br />
<br />
It had not always been thus. Otto told me that in 1924, a year before he arrived, a majority of the students in the school had been supporters of Trotsky. Trotsky was making a play for the Party youth, in opposition to the older Bolshevik stalwarts, With his usual demagogy, he claimed that the old leadership was betraying the revolution and had embarked on a course of “Thermidorian reaction," In this situation, he said, the students and youth were “the Party’s truest barometer,”<br />
<br />
But by the time the Black American students arrived, the temporary attraction to Trotsky had been reversed. The issues involved in the struggle with Trotsky were discussed in the school, They involved the destiny of socialism in the Soviet Union. Which way were the Soviet people to go? What was to be the direction of their economic development? Was it possible to build a socialist economic system? These questions were not only theoretical ones, but were issues of life and death. The economic life of the country would not stand still and wait while they were being debated.<br />
<br />
The Soviet working class, under the leadership of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, had vanquished capitalism over one-sixth of the globe; shattered its economic power; expropriated the capitalists and landlords; converted the factories, railroads and banks into public property; and was beginning to build a state-owned socialist industry. The Soviet government had begun to apply Lenin’s cooperative plans in agriculture and begun to fully develop a socialist economic system. This colossal task had to be undertaken by the workers in alliance with the masses of working peasantry.<br />
<br />
From the October Revolution through 1921, the economic system was characterized by War Communism. Basic industry was nationalized, and all questions were subordinated to the one of meeting the military needs engendered by the civil war and the intervention of the capitalist countries.<br />
<br />
But by 1921, the foreign powers who had attempted to overthrow the Soviets had largely been driven from Russia’s borders, It was then necessary to orient the economy toward a peace-time situation. The NEP (New Economic Policy) formulated at the Tenth Party Congress in 1921 was the policy designed to guide the transition from War Communism to the building of socialism. It replaced a system of surplus appropriation with a tax in kind which would be less of a burden on the peasantry, The NEP was a temporary retreat from socialist forms: smaller industries were leased to private capital to run; peasants were allowed to sell their agricultural surplus on free markets, central control over much of the economy was lessened. All of this was necessary to have the economy function on a peace-time basis, It was a measure designed to restore the exchange of commodities between city and country which had been so greatly disrupted by the civil war and intervention. It was a temporary retreat from the attack on all remnants of capitalism, a time for the socialist state to stabilize its base area, to gather strength for another advance. A year later at the Eleventh Party Congress, Lenin declared that the retreat was ended and called on the Party to “prepare for an offensive on private capital.” <br />
<br />
Lenin was incapacitated by a series of strokes in 1923 and couldno longer participate in the active leadership of the Party. It was precisely at this time, taking advantage of Lenin's absence, that Trotsky made his bid for leadership in the Party. Trotsky had consistently opposed the NEP and its main engineer, Lenin— attacking the measures designed to appease the peasantry and maintain the coalition between the peasants and the workers,<br />
<br />
From late 1922 on, Trotsky made a direct attack on the whole Leninist theory of revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. He denied the possibility (and necessity) of building socialism in one country, and instead characterized that theory as an abandonment of Marxist principles and a betrayal of the revolutionary movement. He postulated his own theory of “permanent revolution,” and contended that a genuine advance of socialism in the USSR would become possible only as a result of a socialist victory in the other industrially developed states.<br />
<br />
While throwing around a good deal of left-sounding rhetoric, Trotsky’s theories were thoroughly defeatist and class-collaborationist. For instance, in the postscript to Program for Peace, written in 1922, he contended that “as long as the hourgeoisie remains in power in the other European countries, we shall be compelled, in our struggle against economic isolation, to strive for agreement with the capitalist world; at the same time it may be said with certainty that these agreements may at best help us to mitigate some of our economic ills, to take one or another step forward, but real progress of a socialist economy in Russia will become possible only after the victory of the proletariat in the major European countries.”<br />
<br />
At the base of this defeatism was Trotsky’s view that the peasantry would be hostile to socialism, since the proletariat would “have to make extremely deep inroads not only into feudal but also into bourgeois property relations.” Thus Trotksy contended that the working class would:<blockquote>'''come into hostile collision not only with all the bourgeois groupings which supported the proletariat during the first Stages of its revolutionary struggle, but also with the broad masses of the peasaniry with whose assistance it came into power. The contradictions in the position of a workers’ government in a backward country with an overwhelmingly peasant population could be solved only ...in the arena of the world proletarian revolution.'''</blockquote>Therefore, it would not be possible to build socialism in a backward, peasant country like Russia. The mass of peasants would exhaust their revolutionary potential even before the revolution had completed its bourgeois democratic tasks—the breakup of the feudal landed estates and the redistribution of the land among the peasantry. This line, which underestimated the role of the peasantry, had been put forward by Trotsky as early as 1915 in his article “The Struggle for Power.” There he claimed that imperialism was causing the revolutionary role of the peasantry to decline and downgraded the importance of the slogan “Confiscate the Landed Estates.”<br />
<br />
As it was pointed out in our classes, Trotsky portrayed the peasantry as an undifferentiated mass. He made no distinction between the masses of peasants who worked their own land (the muczhiks) and the exploiting strata who hired labor (the kulaks). His conclusions openly contradicted the strategy of the Bolsheviks, developed by Lenin, of building the worker-peasant alliance as the basis for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Further, they were at complete variance with any realistic economic or social analysis.<br />
<br />
Trotsky’s entire position reflected a lack of faith in the strength and resources of the Soviet people, the vast majority of whom were peasants. Since it denied the revolutionary potential of the peasantry, the success of the revolution could not come from internal forces, but had to depend on the success of proletarian revolutions in the advanced nations of Western Europe. In the absence of such revolutions, the revolutionary process within the Soviet Union itself would have to be held in abeyance, and the proletariat, which had seized power with the help of the peasantry, would have to hold state power in conflict,with all other classes.<br />
<br />
Behind Trotsky’s revolutionary rhetoric was a simplistic socialdemocratic view which regarded the class struggle for socialism as solely labor against capital. This concept of class struggle did no regard the struggle of peasant against landlord, or peasant against the Czar, as a constituent part of the struggle for socialism. This was reflected as early as 1905, in Trotsky’s slogan, “No Czar, but a Workers’ Government,” which, as Stalin had said, was “the slogan of revolution without the peasantry.”<br />
<br />
Given the state of the revolutionary forces at the time, the position was dangerously defeatist. For instance, 1923 marked a period of recession for the revolutionary wave in Europe; it was a year of defeat for communist movements in Germany, Italy, Poland and Bulgaria. What then, Stalin asked, is left for our revolution? Shall it “vegetate in its own contradictions and rot away while waiting for the world revolution”? To that question, Trotsky had no answer. Stalin’s reply was to build socialism in the Soviet Union. The Soviet working class, allied with the peasantry, had vanquished its own bourgeoisie politically and was fully capable of doing the job economically and building up a socialist society.<br />
<br />
Stalin’s position did not mean the isolation of the Soviet Union. The danger of capitalist restoration still existed and would exist until the advent of classless society. The Soviet people understood that they could not destroy this external danger by their own efforts, that it could only be finally destroyed as a result of a victorious revolution in at Icast several of the countries of the West. The triumph of socialism in the Soviet Union could not be final as long as the external danger existed. Therefore, the success of the revolutionary forces in the capitalist West was a vital concern of the Soviet people.<br />
<br />
Trotsky’s scheme of permanent revolution downgraded not only the peasantry as a revolutionary force, but also the national liberation movements of oppressed peoples within the old Czarist Empire. Thus, in “The Struggle for Power,” he wrote that “imperialism does not contrapose the bourgeois nation to the old regime, but the proletariat to the bourgeois nation.”<br />
<br />
While Trotsky de-emphasized the national colonial question in the epoch of imperialism, Lenin, on the other hand, stressed its new importance. “Imperialism,” said Lenin, means the progressively mounting oppression of the nations of the world by a handful of Great Powers; it means a period of wars between the latter to extend and consolidate the oppression of nations.”<br />
<br />
It was not until sometime later that I was able to fully grasp the implications of Trotsky’s concept of permanent revolution on the international scene. The most dramatic example was in Spain during the Spanish Civil War, 1936-39. The Trotskyist organivation had infiltrated the anarchist movement in Catalonia and incited revolt against the Loyalist government under the slogans of “Socialist Republic” and “Workers’ Government.” The Loyalist government, headed by Juan Negrin, a liberal Republican, was a coalition of all democratic parties. It included socialists, communists, liberal Republicans and anarchists—all in alliance against fascist counter-revolution led by Franco and backed by Hitler and Mussolini. The attempted coup against the Loyalist Government was typical of the Trotskyist attempts to short-circuit the bourgeois-democratic stage of the revolutionary process. The result was a “civil war within a civil war” and, had their strategy succeeded, it would have split the democratic coalition—effec~ tively giving aid to the fascists.<br />
<br />
In the United States I was to witness how Trotsky’s purist concept of class struggle led logically to a denial of the struggle for Black liberation as a special feature of the class struggle, revolutionary in its own right. As a result, American Trotskyists found themselves isolated from that movement during the great upsurge of the thirties. But all this was to come later.<br />
<br />
At the time I was at KUTVA, Trotskyism had not yet emerged as an important tendency on the international scene. | did not foresee its future role as a disruptive force on the fringes of the international revolutionary movement. At that point, I wasn’t clear myself on a number of these theoretical questions. It was somewhat later when my understanding of the national and colonial question-—-particularly the Afro-American question— deepened, that the implications of Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution became fully obvious to me.<br />
<br />
We students felt that Trotsky’s position denigrated the achievement of the Soviet Revolution. We didn’t like his continual harping about Russia’s backwardness and its inability to build socialism, or his theory of permanent revolution. The Soviet Union was an inspiration for all of us, a view confirmed by our experience in the country. Everything we could see defied Trotsky’s logic,<br />
<br />
His writings were readily available throughout the school, and the issues of the struggle were constantly on the agenda in our collective. These were discussed in our classes, as they were in factories, schools and peasant organizations throughout the country,<br />
<br />
About once a month the collective would meet and a report would be given by Party representatives-.-sometimes local, some+ times from the rayon (region of the city) and Moscow district, and sometimes from the Central Committee itself, They would report on the latest developments in the inner-party struggles—Trotsky’s and Lenin's views on the question of the peasantry; the NEP, how it had proved its usefulness and how it was now being phased out; Trotsky’s position on War Communism and Party rules; the dictatorship of the proletariat, and whether it could be a dictatorship in alliance with the peasantry or one over the peasantry. An open discussion would be held after the report. By that time the Trotskyists at KUTVA had dwindled to a small group of bitter-enders.<br />
<br />
The struggle raged over a period of five years (1922-27) during which time the Trotsky bloc had access to the press and Trotsky’s works were widely circulated for everyone to read. Trotsky was not defeated by bureaucratic decisions or Stalin’s control of the Party apparatus—as his partisans and Trotskyite historians claim. He had his day in court and finally lost because his whole position flew in the face of Soviet and world realities, He was doomed to defeat because his views were incorrect and failed to conform to objective conditions, as well as the needs and interests of the Soviet people.<br />
<br />
It was my great misfortune to be out of the dormitory when the Black students were invited to attend a session of the Seventh Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, then meeting in the Kremlin in the late fall of 1926, I was out in the street at the time and couldn’t be found, so they went without me. I missed a historic occasion, my only chance to have seen Trotsky in action. I was bitterly disappointed. When I arrived back at the dormitory, Sakorov, my Indian friend, told me where they had gone. Returning in the early hours of the morning, they found me waiting for them. They described the session and the stellar performance of Trotsky.<br />
<br />
Stalin made the report for the Russian delegation. Trotsky then asked for two hours to defend his position; he was given one. He spoke in Russian, and then personally translated and delivered his speech in German and then in French. In all, he held the floor for about three hours.<br />
<br />
Otto said it was the greatest display of oratory he had ever heard. But despite this, Trotsky and his allies (Zinoviev and Kamenev) suffered a resounding defeat, obtaining only two votes out of the whole body. The delegates from outside the Soviet Union didn’t accept Trotsky’s view that socialism in one country was a betrayal of the revolution. On the contrary, the success of the Soviet Union in building socialism was an inspiration to the international revolution,<br />
<br />
Otto told me that this point was made again and again in the course of the discussion. Ercoli (Togliatti), the young leader of the Italian Party, summed it up well a few days later when he defended the achievements of the Russian Party and revolution as “the strongest impetus for the revolutionary forces of the world.”<br />
<br />
The American Party united across factional lines in support of Stalin, The Trotsky opposition, already defeated within the Soviet Union, was now shattered internationally. From there on out, it was downhill for Trotsky. I witnessed Trotsky’s opposition bloc degenerate from an unprincipled faction within the Party to a counter-revolutionary conspiracy against the Party and the Soviet state. We learned of secret, illegal meetings held in the Silver Woods outside Moscow, the establishment of factional printing presses~all in violation of Party discipline. Their activities reached a high point during the November 7, 1927 anniversary of the Revolution.<br />
<br />
At that Tenth Anniversary, Trotsky’s followers attempted to stage a counter-demonstration in opposition to the traditional celebration. I remember vividly the scene of our school contingent marching on its way to Red Square. As we passed the Hotel Moscow, Trotskyist leaflets were showered down on us, and orators appeared at the windows of the hotel shouting slogans of “Down with Stalin.”<br />
<br />
They were answered with catcalls and booing from the crowds in the streets below. We seized the leaflets and tore them up. This attempt to rally the people against the Party was a total failure and struck no responsive chord among the masses. It was equivalent to rebellion and this demonstration was the last overt act of the Trotskyist opposition.<br />
<br />
During the next month Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev were expelled---along with seventy-five of their chief supporters. They, along with the lesser fry, were sent in exile to Siberia in Central Asia. Trotsky was sent to Alma Alta in Turkestan from where, in 1929, he was allowed to go abroad, first to Turkey and eventually to Mexico.<br />
<br />
Later, many of Trotsky’s followers criticized themselves and were accepted back into the Party, But among them was a hard core of bitter-enders, who “criticized” themselves publicly only in order to continue the struggle against Stalin’s leadership from within the Party, Their bitterness fed on itself and they emerged later in the thirties as part of a conspiracy which wound up onthe side of Nazi Germany.<br />
<br />
Throughout this whole struggle, we Black students at the school had been ardent supporters of the position of Stalin and the Central Committee. Most certainly we were Stalinists--whose policies we saw as the continuation of Lenin’s. Those today who use the term “Stalinist” as an epithet evade the real question: that is, were Stalin and the Central Committee correct? I believe history has proven that they were correct.<br />
<br />
=== RUTHENBERG’S DEATH ===<br />
In March 1927, the American community in Moscow was shocked by the news of the death of Ruthenberg, general secretary of the CPUSA. His death came suddenly, from a ruptured appendix. His last request had been that he be buried in the Kremlin walls in Moscow—a request acceded to by the Russian Communist Party, His ashes were carried to Moscow by J. Louis Engdahl, a member of the Central Committee of the U.S. Party.<br />
<br />
The Moscow funeral was impressive. The procession entered Red Square led by a detachment of Red Cavalry. The square was crowded with thousands of Soviet workers, including the entire work force of the Ruthenberg Factory, which had been named in his honor.<br />
<br />
We half dozen Black students, together with other members of the American colony, marched into the square immediately behind the urn, We followed it until we stood directly in front of the Lenin Mausoleum. On top of the mausoleum was the speakers’ platform, There stood Bukharin, who had recently succeeded Zinoviev as head of the Communist International: Béla Kun, leader of the abortive Hungarian Soviet of 1919; Sen Katayama, the veteran Japanese Communist; and others.<br />
<br />
Bukharin delivered the main eulogy, followed by several speakers. Suddenly I noticed Bukharin whispering to Robert Minor, who was standing beside him. Bukharin pointed down towards our group of Blacks who were gathered below the mausoleum.<br />
<br />
As Minor came down the steps toward us, I was a bit apprehensive, anticipating his mission. Sure enough, addressing my brother Otto, he said, “Comrade Bukharin wants one of the Negro comrades to say a few words.”<br />
<br />
Otto pointed at me and said, “Let Harry speak.”<br />
<br />
I felt trapped, not wanting to start an argument on such a solemn occasion, I reluctantly agreed to speak. and followed Minor back up the steps of the mausoleum, Béla Kun, a polished orator, was speaking, I was to follow. I tried to gather my thoughts, but I was not much of a speaker and certainly not prepared,<br />
<br />
Generalities did not come easy to me, and besides, I hadn’t really known Ruthenberg, I had only met him formally on the occasion of my departure for Moscow when he had shaken my hand and wished me luck. But what could I say about him, specifically in relation to the Blacks?<br />
<br />
I stood there amidst this array of internationally famous revolutionary leaders, and as I looked down on the thousands of faces in Red Square, panic suddenly seized me. Here was my turn to speak, but I found myself unable to utter a coherent sentence.<br />
<br />
I remember saying something about “our great lost leader.” This being my first experience in front of a mike, the words seemed to come back and hit me in the face. Finally, after a minute or two of floundering around | said, “That's all!” and turned away from the mike in disgust and humiliation. The words “that’s all” resounded through the square loud and clear, to my further discomfiture.<br />
<br />
And then came the moment for the translation. The translator was a young Georgian named Tival, one of Stalin’s secretaries. He was one of those people who speak half a dozen languages fluently, Tival got right into the job of translation, assuming an orator’s stance. He had a strong roaring voice, surprising for one of such diminutive stature.<br />
<br />
Swinging his arms, apparently emphasizing points that I was supposed to have made, I must admit that he made a pretty good speech for me. Speaking two or three times longer than my two minutes of rambling, he ‘preceded each point by emphasizing, “Tovarishch Haywood skazal” (Comrade Haywood said).<br />
<br />
The next morning, I went to the school cafeteria for breakfast, And there sat our little group of Black students. Golden had them laughing at something. He saw me and waved the day’s copy of Pravda. The headline was “Pokhorony Tovarishcha Ruthenberga” (Funeral of Comrade Ruthenberg).<br />
<br />
Golden began reading with a straight face, but using that peculiar language of his--Russian with a Mississippi accent. The article quoted from the main speeches and went on to say, Tovarishch Harry Haywood, Americanski Negr, tozhe bystupal (Negro American comrade Harry Haywood also stepped forward with a speech).”<br />
<br />
And Golden read one paragraph after another of the speech Tival gave for me, each paragraph starting with “Tovarishch Haywood skazal...Tovarishch Haywood skazal...Tovarisheh Haywood skazal.”<br />
<br />
Finally Golden looked up from that paper at me, and he said, “Man, you know you ain’t skazaled a goddamned thing!”<br />
<br />
Back home in the U.S., the death of Ruthenberg had signalled another flareup in the factional struggle within the Party. Following the intervention of the Cl at the Fourth Party Convention, there was a period of uneasy peace between the factions. But now a struggle for succession to Ruthenberg’s position as general secretary was raging hot and heavy.<br />
<br />
Lovestone, who had been organizational secretary, was supported by the Ruthenberg stalwarts—-Max Bedacht, Ben Gitlow and John Pepper. Since Ruthenberg’s death, Lovestone (as heir apparent) had pre-empted the interim job of acting secretary. In opposition, William W. Weinstone was the candidate supported by the Foster-Cannon bloc which included Alexander Bittelman and Jack Johnstone.<br />
<br />
Weinstone had formerly been a member of the Ruthenberg faction, but following Ruthenberg’s death, he sought the position of general secretary himself. His move offered an opportunity for the Foster-Cannon group to oppose Lovestone, whom they bitterly detested, with a candidate they believed had more of a chance of winning than did one of their old stalwarts.<br />
<br />
We Blacks in Moscow were isolated from much of this struggle. We were sort of observers from the sidelines, and with the exception of Otto (who had entered the Party immediately after its founding convention), we didn’t have any of the old factional loyalties or political axes to grind. We generally favored the Ruthenberg leadership, although we could hardly be called ardent supporters.<br />
<br />
Ruthenberg’s leadership had been endorsed by the CI, which gave his followers credence in our view. But Lovestone was something else again. On this, even Otto agreed. Lovestone had a reputation for being a factionalist par excellence, involved in the dirty infighting that took place. He was regarded as a hatchet man for the Ruthenberg group.<br />
<br />
None of us in Moscow could discern any principled political differences between the two groups on the question uppermost in our minds-—the question of Black liberation. Though we had not yet fully succeeded in relating our newly acquired Marxist-Leninist perspective to the question of Blacks in the U.S., we were sure— and our studies had confirmed---that Blacks were a potentially powerful revolutionary force in the struggle against U.S. capital, Clearly the common enemy could not be defeated without a revolutionary alliance of Blacks and the class-conscious elements of the working class, It was crucial to us that Party policy be directed towards consummating that alliance. We felt, however, that both factions underestimated the revolutionary potential of Blacks and we were determined not to allow ourselves to become a political football between the two.<br />
<br />
There had been no progress in this area since the folding of the American Negro Labor Congress in 1925, The collapse of the ANLC for us confirmed the Party’s isolation from the Black thasses, According to James Ford, a young Black Party leader, there were only about fifty Blacks in the Party at this time.<br />
<br />
Something was definitely wrong, At the time, we were inclined to attribute the Party’s shortcomings simply to an underestimation of the importance of Afro-American work. We were not, at that point, able to discern any theoretical tendencies within the Party which served to rationalize this underestimation, We felt it was due simply to hangovers of racial prejudices of white Party members and leaders.<br />
<br />
In Moscow, we had been in constant communication with Black comrades in the U.S. We had, in fact, set ourselves up as a sort of unofficial lobby to keep the situation with respect to Blacks continuously before the attention of the Russians and other Comintern leaders. They, for the most part, were sympathetic to our grievances.<br />
<br />
In May 1927, Jay Lovestone (while still acting secretary of the Party) showed up in Moscow at the CI’s Eighth Plenum. During his stay, he invited us Black students to his room at the Lux Hotel to give us an informal report on the Party’s work among Blacks. He had heard, of course, of our discontent and wanted to mollify us. He also knew that the question was coming up for serious discussion at the Sixth Congress of the Communist International, which was to take place the following year. There was no doubt he was out to mend his political fences.<br />
<br />
I had my first close look at the man when we gathered in his room. He tried to give us the impression of being very frank and self-critical, He said the Party leadership, involved in factional struggles, had neglected Black struggles, had neglected AfroAmerican work, an “important phase” of the Party’s activities. But this factional phase had now at long last come to a close and the Party (under his leadership) had now hegun seriously to tackle the job of overcoming this tremendous lag in the work.<br />
<br />
He told us that Otto Huiswood had been placed on the Central Committee and assigned as organizer for the Buffalo (western New York) district, We thought it was about time! Richard B. Moore had been placed as New England organizer for the International Labor Defense, “I cite this,” Lovestone said, “only as an earnest example of the determination of the Central Committee to remedy our default on this most important question.”<br />
<br />
Assuming a modest air, he turned to me and said, “Last but not least, we have decided that you, Harry, as one of our bright young Negroes, are to be transferred to the Lenin School. We've had our eye on you, Harry, for some time.”<br />
<br />
I was delighted at this news. The Lenin School had been established only the year before (1926) as a select training school for the development of leading cadres of the parties in the Communist International. But though I was delighted, I was also suspicious of the man, his cold eyes belied the warmth and modesty he tried to express. It seemed like a bid to buy me out. Otto, however, seemed to have been impressed.<br />
<br />
Though Lovestone was a teetotaler, he had a big bottle of vodka in his room for us students. He had brought us presents-—-which was true of most visitors from the States. It was understood that a visitor would not return to the U.S. with extra things that the students in Moscow could use. Most people, and Lovestone was no exception, came prepared with things to give away. During the course of the evening, Otto had seized a few pair of socks, and Lovestone had given him a tin of pipe tobacco (and cigarettes for us all). As we were leaving, Otto looked over Lovestone’s shoes.<br />
<br />
“Say, Jay,” he said, “you and me wear the same size shoes, don’t we? You got another pair with you?”<br />
<br />
“Sure, Otto, sure,” said Lovestone, and produced an extra pair.<br />
<br />
On our way home, walking down Tverskaya Boulevard towards the dormitory, we exchanged our impressions of the evening. Golden started off: “Oh, he’s full of crap. There’s no sincerity in the man.”<br />
<br />
Otto responded, “I think you’re wrong, Golden, I think you're wrong.”<br />
<br />
Golden said, “I saw his eyes. That’s something you didn’t see, Otto. You had too much vodka. You know I’ve always told you to go light on it—-you know you can’t handle the stuff, You remember what Vesey’s lieutenant said when the slaves rebelled in Virginia: “Beware of those wearing the old clothes of the master, for they will betray you!’ ”<br />
<br />
I never saw Otto so furious! He turned on Golden with his fists clenched, but thought better of it. Golden was too big, I laughed, and he turned towards me, but I was his brother, At that moment a drunk Russian staggered into view and suddenly bumped into him.<br />
<br />
Otto let his fist go and knocked the poor man down. There was a great commotion and a crowd of Russians gathered around. Some Chinese students from our school were across the street, and thinking we were being attacked by “hooligans,” rushed to our defense. We helped the man to his feet and, in the confusion, attempted to explain to the crowd what had happened. Otto said he had thought the drunk was attacking him, and it was thus that we managed to pass the thing off and return to our dorm.<br />
<br />
Lovestone was a consummate factionalist, utterly uninhibited by scruples or principles. He finally won out in the struggle to succeed Ruthenberg, but the mantle of Ruthenberg fit him poorly; the cloven hoof was always visible. His victory was aided by the ineptitude of the Foster-Cannon-Weinstone bloc, which made several tactical blunders (of which Lovestone took full advantage). Lovestone’s friendship with Bukharin was perhaps a factor in his victory, Nikolai Bukharin had succeeded Zinoviev as the president of the Comintern. He was an erstwhile ally of Stalin in the struggle against the Trotskyist “Left” and was later to emerge as a leader of the right deviation within the Soviet Party and the Communist International. As head of the Comintern, he already had begun to line up forces for his next battle which was to break out following the Sixth Congress of the CI in 1928. His man in the U.S. was none other than Jay Lovestone.<br />
<br />
As I have indicated, we KUTVA students in Mosccow were removed from much of the bitterness of the post-Ruthenberg struggle, and at the time, were not fully aware of its intensity. I was to be filled in with a blow-by-blow account of what went on at home by some of my classmates at the Lenin School, which | entered the following autumn.<br />
<br />
=== VACATION IN THE CRIMEA ===<br />
The month of August, vacation time, drew near. Our group of Black students split up and all of us (with the exception of Bankole) left Moscow, Bankole was reluctant to leave his Russian girl friend and remained in the city. Golden’s girl friend, a pretty Kazakhstanian girl, took him home to meet her people in Kazakhstan, an autonomous republic in southwest Asia, inhabited by a Turko-Mongolian people.<br />
<br />
As for myself, I asked for and received permission to spend my vacation in the Crimea. At the Chancellor’s office, I was given money, a railroad ticket and a document entitling me to stay one month at a rest home in Yalta. I was on my own and for the first time since my arrival fourteen months before, I was separated from my fellow Black students, But I had no misgivings. By this time, I had acquired a considerable knowledge of the country and had overcome the main hurdles in the language and could speak and read Russian with some fluency. In fact, I looked forward to my journey with pleasurable expectations, I was not to be disappointed.<br />
<br />
The Autonomous Republic of Crimea is a square-shaped peninsula jutting out into the Black Sea. At that time, it was one of the two Tartar autonomous republics; the other was Tartaria, on the Volga. I immediately fell in love with the country——its lush subtropical climate and its people. The Tartars were a darkskinned Mongolic people, descendants of the Golden Horde of Genghis Khan. When I arrived in Sevastopol, the largest city and seaport, I was struck by the dazzling brilliance of the sun against the pastel-colored buildings, the deep blue of the sea and the verdant Crimean mountains rising behind the city. Tall and stately cypress trees lined the streets. It was a busy seaport; all types of shipping could be found in the harbor from small fishing boats to Black Sea passenger liners and ocean-going freighters of the Soviet trading fleet,<br />
<br />
As a history buff, I stopped over for a couple of days to take in the historic sites of the city and its environs, There was the Panarama, a life-like display graphically depicting the battle of Sevastopol during the Crimean War, 1854-66. (The war was fought mainly on the Crimean peninsula between Russian forces on the one hand; British, French and Turkish allies on the other.). In this battle, the allies sought to knock out the strong Russian naval base in Sevastopol through an invasion by land and bombardment by sea. The Russians lost the war, but Sevastopol remained Russian.<br />
<br />
I drove out to Balaklava, a small village nestling on the sea a few miles southeast of Sevastopol, the scene of the disastrous charge of the British “Light Brigade,” led by Lord Cardigan and immortalized by Tennyson in his poem. Looking at the scene brought back memories of childhood school days when our class recited Tennyson’s poem aloud. I stood on Voronsov Heights overlooking the Valley of Death into which rode the six hundred. I walked over the grounds and viewed the graves of the victims of this blunder of the British officer caste. Fourteen years later, Sevastopol was to be the site of one of the most destructive and bloody battles of World War II.<br />
<br />
My automobile ride to Yalta, about sixty kilometers further along the coast, was not only exciting, but in some parts, a frightening experience. It was mostly along a narrow road, cut out of the side of mountains, on which two cars could barely pass. In some places, one could look down to what appeared to me to be a sheer drop of two or three thousand feet into the sea below, The chauffeurs driving powerful Packards, Cadillacs and Espano-Swiss sped along the road with its many curves at breakneck speed. The obvious fact that they were expert drivers was not enough to allay my fears nor those of the other passengers.<br />
<br />
Nearing Yalta, we passed Lavadaya, a beautiful palace built by an Italian architect during the reign of Alexander the Third. It was situated on a high cliff overlooking the sea. Later, it became the summer home of Czar Nicholas II. Now, under the Soviets, it had been converted into a rest home for local peasant leaders. The palace later housed President Roosevelt and Premier Churchill during the Yalta conference in 1945,<br />
<br />
At last I arrived in Yalta, center of the great Crimean resort area which extended along the coast and behind which rose the Crimean Mountains. Yalta was a town of rest homes and sanitaria, mostly owned by Soviet trade unions, I was put up at a rest home which mainly housed employees of the Moscow city administration.<br />
<br />
Immediately after registering, I put on my bathing trunks and donned the gorgeous Ashanti robe which Bankole had lent meand stepped out for a dip in the sea. I stepped out into the main street which ran alongside the seashore and headed for the beach. Although many of the Tartars of the area were dark-skinned, Blacks were rarely seen, even in these southern climes.<br />
<br />
As I passed along I could hear remarks like, “Kak khorosho zagorelsya (How beautifully sunburnt he is)!” It was a remark I was to hear often. It was good natured, and I sensed in it a trace of envy.<br />
<br />
The crowds were mainly vacationers from the north, who after the long, weary and cold sub-arctic winters of central Russia had fled to this semi-tropical paradise to soak up a little sunshine. Here they formed a cult of sun-worshippers bent on acquiring a suntan to display upon their return home.<br />
<br />
A crowd of small boys followed me out to the public beach a few blocks away. Perhaps they associated me with some of the South Sea Island characters they had seen in movies and waited expectantly for an exhibition of my aquatic skills. I doffed my gorgeous robe and stepped into the water, walked out a few feet and sat down. I tumed to see expressions of amazement, disappointment, and even pity, Their bewilderment was quite natural, for I myself had never met a Russian who didn't know how to swim, These children regarded swimming to be a natural human attribute; to them, an adult who couldn't swim was regarded as sort of a cripple.<br />
<br />
One day, while walking to the beach in Yalta, | was approached by a uniformed officer of the OGPU (federal police), “Bonjour, camarade, vous étes Sénégalais?” he asked in French.<br />
<br />
He seemed a bit surprised when I responded in Russian, telling him that I was an American Black and a student at KUTVA in Moscow.<br />
<br />
He said that he had noticed me several times on the streets and wondered if I were Senegalese, He had fought beside Senegalese riflemen during the world war. His Cossack regiment, he explained, was a part of a small Russian expeditionary force sent to fight with the French Army on the Western Front.<br />
<br />
I told him that I had also fought in the war with an American Black regiment and how | had seen Russian troops in a prison camp on my way to the Soissons front in the late summer of 1918. I asked him if he had been in that camp.<br />
<br />
He shrugged and said that it was quite possible. “They scattered us around in a number of camps; they didn’t want too many of us together in one place,” he said.<br />
<br />
“Our Russian force,” he went on, “was small and had no real military significance.” It had been sent by the Czar as a demonstration of solidarity and friendship between Russia and Francesort of a morale booster for the French people.<br />
<br />
“Be that as it may,” he said, “it didn’t boost our morale any to be there. In France, we fought in some of the toughest battles in the war, on the Champagne front and the Marne salient, and we suffered heavy casualties. Our fellows were homesick and confused, and didn’t know what they were fighting for so far away from Mother Russia.<br />
<br />
“There was much grumbling and always an undercurrent of discontent, All of this was heightened towards the latter part of the war by the bad news of Russian defeats on the Eastern Front. This all came to a head with the news of the fall of the Czar. Shortly after that we were withdrawn from the front by the French, as an unreliable element. Behind the lines, we were surrounded and disarmed by Senegalese troops, and quite a number who resisted were killed or wounded. To say that we were ‘unreliable’ was an understatement; by that time, we were downright mutinous!”<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik Party had active nuclei in the regiments. “I myself was a member of the Party,” said my new-found friend. “We followed the course of the Revolution through French newspapers and were able to glean the truth behind their distortions. We also had contact with some of the French left-socialists and with Bolshevik exiles before they returned home after the outbreak of the February Revolution. After the Armistice was signed, we were sent to Morocco and eventually Soviet ships came to take us to Odessa and home.<br />
<br />
“The French used the Senegalese against us,” he said. “We learned later of a mutiny among the Senegalese troops in which they were shot up and disarmed by the French Blue Devils.” I had just been reading André Barbusse and was surprised to learn how widespread mutiny had been in the French Army.<br />
<br />
“Well, c’est la guerre,” he said, “especially so an imperialist war. After all, what interest had the Senegalese in defending French imperialism? What interest did we Russian workers and muzhiks (peasants) have in fighting the Czar’s wars?”<br />
<br />
We parted, with both of us wanting to meet again, but he had to leave town that evening and I never saw him again.<br />
<br />
Often, we visited the local vineyards and wine cellars and tasted the local wines. It was wine country and Crimean wines were of the first quality, from the sweet ports, tokays and muscatels, to the dry red and white wines. On these outings there was always someone who had a guitar or accordion, and we sat late into the nights singing Russian folk songs and gypsy romans (love songs).<br />
<br />
The Crimea was not just a vacationers’ haven, although tourism occupied a large place in its economy. At that time, the economy was mainly agricultural. Vineyards were constantly expanding in the mountain valleys along the southern coast. Tobacco of fine quality was grown, and there was also an important fishing industry. On the east coast of the peninsula near Kerch, there was an area of rich iron ore deposits and mines. This was to serve as the basis for the construction of the gigantic Kerch metallurgical, chemical and engineering works, contemplated in the first five year plan. It was a plan which sought to quadruple the basic capital of the republic.<br />
<br />
With the renaissance of national cultures which accompanied the Soviet policy on the national question, the Turkic language spoken by the Tartars—which I understood was closely related to; modern Turkish—was being revived and taught in schools, A Latinized alphahet was introduced, replacing the old Arabic script. Tartar literature and culture flourished through this encouragement.<br />
<br />
I met the Party secretary for the county, a young Tartar who took me to visit a kolkhoz (collective farm), a vineyard in this case. A hundred or more peasant families were in the collective, all winegrowers. As in all collective farms, its members were required to sell a definite amount to the government at fixed prices and were allowed to sell the surplus on the free markets.<br />
<br />
Each family had a special plot of land which they cultivated for their own food supply. The chairman of the collective was a huge Ukrainian fellow, who showed us around and explained the wine growing process. The cultivation of grapes and making of the wine required special knowledge, which the government supplied.<br />
<br />
The members of the collective used up-to-date wineries owned by the state and managed by expert vintners. There I was to view the intricate process of wine-making, the pressing of the grapes, the fermenting process and the bottling itself. As I remember, this particular collective specialized in dry wines—both red and white. The Crimeans insisted that their wines were as good as the French. Not being a connoisseur, I wouldn’t know, but all I can say is that they tasted good to me.<br />
<br />
When I returned to Moscow in the fall, Otto told me of the discovery he had made on one of his trips to the southern region of the Caucasus. He had originally gone there on the invitation of one of our fellow students, a young woman from the Abkhazian Republic, a part of Georgia. After meeting some of us, she commented that they too had some Black folk down near her area in a village not very far from Sukhum, the capital of the republic on the Black Sea.<br />
<br />
She invited Otto down to visit the region over his summer vacation, and there he met the people. He described them as being of definite black ancestry—notwithstanding a history of intertarriage with the local people. But the starsata (old man) of the tribe was Black beyond a doubt. His story went some generations back, when he and the others joined the Turkish army as Numidian mercenaries from the Sudan. After several forays into this region they deserted the Army and had settled there. The starsata himself had been in the Czar’s Cavalry with the Dikhi (wild) Division of the Caucasus Cossacks.<br />
<br />
‘The people in the village wanted to know what was happening to “our brothers over the mountains.” Otto related to them the troubles we had gone through, described the travels “over the mountains and across the hig sea.” As the evening wore on and the local hrandy was consumed, toast after toast was drunk to “our little brother from over the hills.” Otto descrihed to them the conditions of Blacks in the U.S.—the lynchings, racism and brutality. Incensed, a few jumped up and pulled out their daggers. “You should make a revolution.”<br />
<br />
“Why don’t you revolt?”<br />
<br />
“Why do you put up with it?”<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
We were not the only ones surprised to learn about this group; it was news to the Russians in Moscow too! Several of these tribesmen later visited Moscow as a result of Otto’s visit. <br />
<br />
== Chapter 7 ==<br />
<br />
=== The Lenin School ===<br />
Following my summer in the Crimea, I returned to Moscow in the fall of 1927 to attend the Lenin School. The school was located off the Arbot on what is now called Ambassadors’ Row, a few blocks down the inner ring of boulevards from the KUTVA dormitories.<br />
<br />
The Lenin School, which was set up by the Comintern, opened in Moscow in May 1926, The plans for the school, formally called the International Lenin Course, had been reported on the previous year by Béla Kun, then head of the Educational (Agitprop) Department of the Comintern, Accordingly, the school was to train sixty to seventy qualified students both in theoretical and practical subjects, which included observations of Soviet trade unions and collective farm work, It offered a full three‘year course and a short course of one year.<br />
<br />
It was a school of great prestige and influence within the international communist movement, Its students, mainly party functionaries of district and section level and some secondary national Icaders who could be spared for the period of study, were generally at a higher level of political development than the students at KUTVA.<br />
<br />
I was the first Black to be assigned to the school, Others followed later; including H.V. Phillips in 1928, Leonard Patterson in the thirties, and Nzula—a Zulu intellectual and national secretary of the South African Communist Party.<br />
<br />
The American students who entered the Lenin School in the fall of 1927 were an impressive lot, They included prominent Party leaders from the national and district level. Outstanding in the group was Charles Krumbcin, a member of the Central Commitice of the Party and formerly in charge of trade union work in Chicago and district organizer for Chicago. A steamfitter by trade and a charter member of the Party, he was one ofa group of young trade unionists who made up the Chicago Party leadership in the twenties. They were the best representatives of the radical tradition of that city’s labor movement. <br />
<br />
Modesty and honesty were hallmarks of Charlie’s character, and he was a man of exceptional organizational and administrative ability. He was a founder of the Trade Union Education League (TUEL) and played a key role in the Chicago Federation of Labor. We developed a close and lasting friendship, and I learned a lot from him about Party history and the background of the revolutionary movement in the United States.<br />
<br />
Margaret Cowl, Charlie's wife, was a capable Party leader and organizer. She had worked in the TUEL and was recognized particularly for her leadership in the struggle for unity of Pennsylvania’s anthracite coal miners in 1927. Later she was to head up the Party’s Women’s Commission and play an active role in the movement for a Woman’s Charter, a broad united front movement launched in 1936 which asserted the rights of women to full equality in all spheres of activity. Margaret also energetically mobilized support for the struggles of women wage workers in the needle trades, textile, electrical and other industries.<br />
<br />
Joseph Zack had emigrated to the U.S. from Eastern Europe shortly after the First World War. Active in the first communist organization in New York, he had been section organizer of Yorktown and served on the Party’s Trade Union Commission. Zack was one of Foster’s leading trade union cadres in New York and had also been one of the first New York Party members assigned to work among Blacks, He was a bitter enemy of Lovestone, but was also critical of Foster. In 1932, he was expelled from the Party for refusing to abide by democratic centralism and by the forties had become an informant for the Dies Committee on Un-American Propaganda Activities.<br />
<br />
Morris Childs, a Chicagoan, was a leader in trade union and Party work. He became Illinois D.O. in the thirties at the same time that I was chairman of the Cook County Committee and secretary of the Southside region. While at the Lenin School, he served as the representative of the American students to the School Bureau.<br />
<br />
Rudy Baker, a Yugoslav comrade who later became D.O. in Pittsburgh and in Detroit, and Lena Davis (Sherer), a good friend of mine who was organizational secretary for New York in the thirties, were also at the school. All of these students were members of the Foster group. As far as I can recall, the sole Lovestone supporter in our class was Gus Sklar of Chicago, a leader in the Russian Federation.<br />
<br />
Poor Gus was alone in the midst of Fosterites, and it must have been an unhappy experience for him. When Lovestone was expelled from the Party in 1929, Gus remained in the Soviet Union and never returned to the U.S. He served as an officer in the Red Army and was killed in the defense of Moscow during the Second World War.<br />
<br />
The American students at the Lenin School were all experienced leaders of the U.S. Party, One might ask why so many were spared from U.S. work at a time when the Party’s position among the masses was so weak.<br />
<br />
Actually, these students were victims of Lovestone’s purge of the Party apparatus following his victory at the Fifth Party Convention in 1927. Part of Lovestone’s strategy was to weaken his opposition on the home front by “exiling” some of its leaders to the Lenin School. His plan backfired however. In Moscow, these “exiles,” as they jokingly called themselves, were to become an effective lobby against Lovestone both in the Comintern and in the CPSU. The political winds were changing.<br />
<br />
From the ashes of the defeated Trotskyist “left ” rose an equally dangerous, organized and secret rightist opposition headed by none other than Lovestone’s patron in the Comintern, Nikolai Bukharin. On the home front, this rightist opposition had its social base among the capitalists, the landlords and the kulaks (upper peasantry) and pushed a line that would have lopsidedly developed industry along consumer lines, to the detriment of the vast masses of Soviet people. Internationally, Bukharin greatly underestimated the war danger and the potentially revolutionary situation then developing on a world scale. At the same time, he greatly overestimated the strength and resiliency of imperialism.<br />
<br />
The Lenin School students helped to legitimize the antiLovestone struggle in the U.S. Party by linking it up with the fight against the right deviation, then only in its incipient stage, The Lenin School was to become a strong point in the fight against this danger.<br />
<br />
There were several other American students who had entered the Lenin School the year before. This group included Clarence Hathaway, Tom Bell, Max Salzman and Car! Reeves (the son of Mother Bloor). Of this group, Hathaway had the most imposing credentials. A machinist from Minneapolis and one of the leading people in the Trade Union Education League, Hathaway proved to be a valuable asset in the Party’s trade union work.<br />
<br />
He was a fine organizer and speaker, particularly effective in debates, and combined these talents with a good grasp of Marxist-Leninist theory. Clearly destined for top leadership in the Party, he later served as D.O. of the New York District, became an editor of the Daily Worker and a member of the Political Bureau. Tom Bell, Hathaway’s close friend, remained in the Soviet Union, married a Russian woman and died sometime before World War Il.<br />
<br />
William Kruse of Chicago was the principal Lovestonite in the school. For a brief period he filled in as acting rep from the Party to the Comintern in the absence of a permanent Party rep. Later, he was D,O. in Chicago under Lovestone’s leadership and was expelled from the Party with Lovestone in 1929.<br />
<br />
The students were organized at the school by language groups, as we had been at KUTVA. In this case, the languages were English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Russian and, later, Chinese. The whole school was a collective, comprising students, teachers, administrators and employees, The leading body was the Party Bureau, which included delegates from the various groups, including the employees. All students transferred membership from their home party to the CPSU, and were directly subject to its discipline. Party meetings were held about once a month.<br />
<br />
Our rector was a handsome, energetic woman named Kursanova. She was a leading communist educator and was married to the old Bolshevik propagandist and CC member, E. Yaroslavsky. She was about forty at the time and had an impressive background, including civil war experiences as a machine-gunner in a detachment of Siberian partisans. Kursanova had also been a delegate to the Bolshevik Conference in April 1917 which adopted Lenin’s famous April Theses.<br />
<br />
In addition to the Americans, others in the English-speaking section included British, Irish, Australians, a New Zealander, two Chinese, two Japanese and two Canadians—Leslie Morris and Stewart Smith, The British group included Springhall, Tanner, Black (a Welshman), Margaret Pollitt and George Brown. My special friend among the British was Springhall, known to all as “Springy,” with whom I roomed at the Lenin School.<br />
<br />
Springy was a British naval veteran of the First World War. He had come from a poor family and his parents had chosen him fora naval career. This latter act, it seemed, was a common practice among British lower class families with several sons. At the age of twelve, therefore, he had been “given” to His Majesty's Navy to be trained as a sailor, He served through the First World War and after the Armistice was involved in a mutiny or near-mutiny among members of the fleet who protested being sent to Leningrad to intervene against the Bolshevik Revolution. At the time, Springy was about twenty-one years old. As a result of the mutiny, he was cashiered from the Navy. Apparently, the admiralty was deterred from taking any harsher measures against the mutineers because of the widespread sympathy their action had evoked among British workers.<br />
<br />
Springy was popular with everybody, particularly among the women on the technical staff. After leaving the Lenin School, he returned to England where he rose rapidly in Party leadership. He also fought in Spain as a member of the Fifteenth International Brigade and was wounded at Jarama.<br />
<br />
At the beginning of World War II, he served as organizational secretary of the British Party. During the early stages of the war, Springy was charged by the Churchill government with subversive activity among the armed forces. This was during the period prior to the German invasion of the Soviet Union, when the war was still an imperialist war and we communists opposed it.<br />
<br />
There was no defense against the charge of subversion in wartime England, and Springy was sentenced to seven years in prison, After his release, he went to China, where he did editorial work on English language publications until his death from cancer in 1953. Springy died in a Moscow hospital, where he had been sent by his Chinese comrades to make sure that everything possible could be done to save him. His ashes were returned to China and interred with a memorial stone in the Revolutionary Martyrs’ Cemetery outside Peking.<br />
<br />
Springy introduced me to the gifted English writer, historian and Marxist scholar, Ralph Fox. A promising young theoretician, Fox was then researching material for one of his books at the Marx-Engels Institute. He died at the age of thirty-seven, fighting the fascists on the Cordova Front during the Spanish Civil War. By the end of his brief life span, he had already published a tremendous body of work.<br />
<br />
I got a lot out of my friendship with Fox. Profiting greatly from his wide-ranging knowledge, I often consulted him on theoretical and political questions which arose during my stay at the school.<br />
<br />
Springy and I were frequent visitors at the apartment of Fox and his wife Midge. It was there that I first met Karl Radek. A Polish expatriate, he had been an active leader in the Polish Social Democratic Party and a member of the Zimmerwald Left (those internationalists who broke off from the Second International in 1915 and were instrumental in founding the Third International). In 1915-16, Radek—along with Rosa Luxemburg—publicly disagreed with Lenin on the question of self-determination of subject nations. Radek later changed his position and fully united with the Bolshevik point of view in 1917.<br />
<br />
Radek was part of the group that returned with Lenin to Russia via Germany in the famous “sealed coach.” He was a member of the Bolshevik Central Committee and Politburo. At the time that I met him in 1928, Radek was still under a shadow politically. He had been a leading member of the Trotsky-Zinoviev opposition and was expelled from the CPSU along with the other leaders of the bloc at the Sixteenth Congress of the CPSU in December 1927. Exiled to the Urals, he publicly repudiated his earlier position and was readmitted to the Party a few months later in 1928. He was assigned as editor of Izvestia and later became the chief foreign affairs commentator in the leading Soviet papers, He was also a member of the Soviet delegation to the Comintern.<br />
<br />
Radek, as I remember him, was a little man, appearing to be somewhat of a dandy in his English tweed jacket, plus-fours and cane, But to me, the most striking thing about him was his beard. It stretched from ear to ear, under his chin and cheeks, giving him a simian look.<br />
<br />
His English, though accented, was fluent, When we first met, he immediately engaged me in a conversation about conditions of Blacks in the United States, which branched off into questions of Black literature, writers and the Harlem Renaissance. To my amazement, it was clear that he knew more about the latter subject than I did. I was embarrassed when he asked my opinion about certain Black writers with whom he was familiar but whom I had never even read. I found out later that Claude MeKay had been a sort of a protégé of Radek’s during the poet’s stay in the Soviet Union,<br />
<br />
In 1937, along with several others in the Trotskyite “Left Opposition,” Radek was convicted of treason, of acting as an “agency” of German and Italian fascism and giving assistance to those who might invade the Soviet Union. He was sent to prison where he died in the forties.<br />
<br />
Springy introduced me to many other young Britons in Moscow: such men as William Rust, who later became editor of the British Worker, Walter Tapsell, editor of the Young Worker; and George Brown. Both Brown and Tapsell were in my brigade in the Spanish Civil War and were killed in battle. Brown was killed at Brunete while I was there.<br />
<br />
Our English-speaking section at the Lenin School included five young Irishmen, all members of the Irish Workers League, a communist-oriented group organized by Big Jim Larkin in 1923. It seems that the Irish Communist Party, founded in 1921 by Young Roderick Connolly (son of James Connolly), had collapsed. I was told that its failure was due to a lack of Marxist-Leninist theory and the inability of its members to relate their views on socialism to the specific conditions in Ireland. But there was certainly no lack of revolutionary enthusiasm and motivation among the young people I met at the Lenin School, some of whom had been members of the Irish Communist Party. The group had been sent to the Lenin School as a step towards rebuilding the Irish Party.<br />
<br />
All five were protégés of the famous Irish revolutionary, Big Jim Larkin—most definitely a man of action and organization, not of theory. A tall, bulky man with a huge, hawk-like nose and bushy eyebrows, Larkin was one of the most colorful figures of the Irish labor movement. From his base among Dublin dockworkers, his activities as a labor leader had ranged over three continents~-from the British Isles, to Argentina, to the U.S.—and at the time that I met him, spanned more than three decades. He had been a founding member of the U.S. Party and was a member of both the Executive Committees of the Communist International and the Red International of Labor Unions (RILU or the Profintern). He was often in Moscow, where I saw him frequently.<br />
<br />
The Irish students came from the background of the 1916 Easter Rebellion and the revolutionary movement reflected in the lives of men like Larkin and James Connolly. Among them were Sean Murray and James Larkin, Jr. (Big Jim's son). All of them had been active in the post-war independence and labor struggles. I was closest to Murray, the oldest of the group, who was a roommate of mine.<br />
<br />
This was my first encounter with Irish revolutionaries and their experiences excited me. As members of oppressed nations, we had a lot in common. I was impressed by their idealism and revolutionary ardor and their implacable hatred of Britain’s imperialist rulers, as well as for their own traitors. But what impressed me most about them was their sense of national pride—not of the chauvinistic variety, but that of revolutionaries aware of the international importance of their independence struggle and the role of Irish workers.<br />
<br />
Then too, they were a much older nation. Their fight against Britain had at that time been going on for 750 years. They were fond of quoting the observations of Marx and Engels on the Irish movement, such as Marx’s letter to Engels in which he said: “English reaction in England had its roots in the subjugation of Ireland.” Another favorite was: “No nation can be free if it oppresses other nations.”!<br />
<br />
But most of all, they liked to point out Lenin’s defense of the Easter Uprising in his reply to Karl Radek, who had called the rebellion a putsch and discounted the significance of the struggle of small nations in the epoch of imperialism. Lenin admonished Radek, stating that “a struggle capable of going to the lengths of insurrection and street fighting, of breaking down the iron discipline of the army and martial law,” on the doorstep of the imperialist metropolis itself, would be a blow against imperialism more significant than that in a remote colony.<br />
<br />
I was shortly to find these observations applicable to the liberation movement of U.S. Blacks. As a result of my association with the Irish, I became deeply intcrested in the Irish question, seeing in it a number of parallels to U.S. Blacks. In retrospect, I am certain that this interest heightened my receptivity to the idea of a Black nation in the United States. <br />
<br />
=== TEACHERS AND CLASSES ===<br />
The teaching method at the school was a combination of lectures and discussions. About once a week the instructor would give a lecture to the entire English-speaking group, all twenty-five or thirty of us. Readings would be assigned, and when material was not available in English, it would be translated especially for us. I had one advantage in this regard because by this time I could read Russian fluently. Following the iccture, the instructor would delineate a number of sub-topics. Several days later, we would all get together again and one person from each group would report on its work. The instructors were often available for consultation during the time the groups were discussing and researching their topics.<br />
<br />
There were no grades given, nor were there any examinations. At the end of the term we would have evaluation sessions, where everyone met and discussed each other’s work, including that of the teachers. It was a process of comradely criticism and self-criticism.<br />
<br />
I found the classes exciting and challenging and the students on the whole sharp and on a high political level. I was under pressure to keep up. The English in general seemed to be a notch above most of us in political economy. This, I believe, was due to the existence of a large number of Labour Party schools which were spread throughout Britain.<br />
<br />
Our instructor for Marxist political economy was Alexandrov, an economist for the Gosplan, the state planning agency. In our class, he was often challenged on some aspect of Marxian economics, He would often have sharp exchanges with one of the British students, I believe it was Black, over differences in interpretations of Marxian economics,<br />
<br />
Black was a perfect foil for Alexandrov, who scemed to enjoy these tilts and invited the whole class to participate. Summing up the discussion, Alexandroy would brand Black’s position as “undialectical, mechanistic, and rooted in vulgar economism and Fabianism.” Black was stubborn, however, and prodded by Alexandrov, kept up his critical attitude for the whole first term, It was only during the evaluations at the end of the term that Black conceded that some of his positions had been in error,<br />
<br />
Perhaps the most prominent among my teachers was Ladislaus Rudas, a noted Hungarian Marxist philosopher and scholar. Like many Hungarian intellectuals, he spoke several languages fluently. He had been a leader of the short-lived Hungarian Soviet and had come to Moscow along with Béla Kun and the other Hungarian refugees. He taught historical and dialectical materialism and his class was one of the most interesting, It prescnted history, my favorite subject, but with a different content: a Marxist-Leninist interpretation, portraying not just the role of individuals but of classes.<br />
<br />
We had lengthy discussions on the French Revolution; the petty bourgeois dictatorship under Robespierre and the Jacobins; Saint Just and the extreme left, the Thermidor and Napoleon— “the man on the white horse.” The English Revolution and Cromwell, the Levellers, the Long Parliament. The Dutch revolution and Prince Egmont. We had extended discussions on the American revolutions---the War of Independence, the Civil War and Reconstruction.<br />
<br />
These discussions brought out our lack of knowledge of our own U.S, history; there was a complete absence of materials which presented U.S. history from a Marxist standpoint. All I can remember is the so-called Marxist analysis in the works of James Oneal (The Workers in American History) and A.M. Simons’s Social Forces in American History.<br />
<br />
The former I never read, but the work by Simons stands out in my memory for its gratuitous slur on U.S. Blacks, Simons claimed that the Black man did not revolt against slavery during the Civil War: “His inaction in time of crisis, his failure to play any part in the struggle that broke his shackles, told the world that he was not of those who to free themselves would strike a blow.”<br />
<br />
I had read about the slave revolts of Gabriel, Nat Turner, and John Brown’s heroic raid on Harper’s Ferry with his band of whites, free Blacks and escaped slaves. I knew of the role of Black soldiers in the Civil War who had to overcome the opposition of the Union Army in order to fight. Simons’s book skipped over all of this,<br />
<br />
I had come across Charles and Mary Beard’s The Rise of American Civilization, The Beards were economic determinists who had characterized the Civil War as the Second American Revolution. The idea seemed novel at the time, all of which points up how widespread had been the distortion of the period by U.S. bourgeois historians.<br />
<br />
My sub-group, which included Springy and the Irishman Sean Murray, had chosen the Civil War and the Reconstruction period as our subject, with myself as the reporter. Our group had long discussions, after which we consulted Rudas, who by that time had evidently done some homework of his own on the matter. He called our attention to the writings of Marx and Engels, their correspondence on the Civil War, and Mary’s series of articles in the New York Herald Tribune. After the discussions, I submitted a paper to the class, which evoked considerable discussion. On the whole it was well-received by my fellow classmates and commended by Rudas.<br />
<br />
Perhaps our most interesting and stimulating course was on Leninism and the history of the CPSU, taught by the historian I. Mintz. A former Red Army officer, he was at the time assigned to work on a history of the CPSU. Mintz was a young Ukrainian Jew, a soft-spoken and mild-mannered little man. He had a way of illustrating his subject through his own personal experiences during the Revolution and the Civil War in the Ukraine. His appearance contrasted sharply with his role and bloody experiences in the battle for the Ukraine. His was a thrilling story, involving a meteoric rise from leader of partisans to commander of a Red Army brigade. They had fought against a whole array of anti-Soviet and interventionist forces: the White Guardist Deniken; the Cossack Hepmans, Kornilov and Kaledin; Makhno’s anarchists (who were sometimes with and sometimes against the Red Army); General Petlura and sundry gangs of marauders and pogromists; and the remnants of the German garrisons in the Ukraine.<br />
<br />
In connection with our studies of the Bolshevik agrarian policy during the Civil War, Mintz told us of his involvement in the settling of the question of land redistribution in a Ukrainian district. This district had been reconquered by his Red Army unit from Denikin in the early winter of 1920. He gave us a general rundown of the agrarian situation at the time, the class forces in the countryside, their shifting alignment during the course of the Revolution, and the evolution of Bolshevik agrarian policy.<br />
<br />
Kerensky’s provisional government had done nothing to solve the agrarian problem, to relieve the land hunger of the masses of peasantry. Though Kerensky’s program had promised confiscation of the big estates, once in power, the government reneged on even that level of reform.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks exhorted the peasants to await the decision of the Constituent Assembly. Thus, at the time of the outbreak of the Revolution, the vast majority of the cultivatable land was still concentrated in the estates of the big landlords. The peasantry, constituting four-fifths of the population of the old Czarist Empire, was composed of three different strata. The well-to-do peasant not only owned enough land to support himself in good fashion, but also often hired labor to work his land. This group comprised only about four to five percent of the total. The poor peasant was without sufficient land to support himself and his family and often hired himself out as a laborer to the landlord or to a well-to-do peasant. The landless peasant subsisted entirely from the sale of his labor to the landlord or well-to-do peasant.<br />
<br />
Under the slogan “Land, Bread and Peace,” the Bolsheviks cgmbined the seizure of power in the cities with the land revolution underway in the countryside. Allied with the Social Revolutionaries (SRs), the traditional party of the peasantry, the land was taken over in two phases, The first phase, nationalization and confiscation, was incorporated in the Land Decree of the All Russian Congress of Soviets, November 8, 1917. This stamped the seal of governmental endorsement on the land seizures and called for their extension.<br />
<br />
In September 1917, Lenin declared Bolshevik support for the land program of the SRs, while pointing out that only a proletarian revolution could put even this program into practice. The SR program called for equal distribution of land among the peasants while the Bolsheviks favored collective, and eventually state-owned farms. But since the SR program represented the understanding of the majority of peasants, Lenin’s policy was to resolve this difference by “teaching the masses, and in turn learning from the masses, the practical expedient measures for bringing about such a transition.”<br />
<br />
The day after seizing power, the Bolsheviks put this policy into practice with their November 8, 1917, Decree on Land which made the SR program into law. Within three weeks, the SRs' left wing—representing the poorer peasants—had split from the rest of the party and entered a coalition government with the Bolsheviks. In the following years, Lenin held to the basie position he stated when presenting the November 8 decree:<blockquote>'''As a democratic government, we cannot ignore the decision of the masses of the people, even though we may disagree with it. In the fire of experience, applying the decree in practice, and carrying it out locally, the peasants will themselves realize where the truth lies... We must be guided by experience, we must allow complete freedom to the creative faculties of the masses.'''</blockquote>It was against this background that Mintz related some of his experiences in the Ukraine. He told us that the Party in the Ukraine had not fully grasped the lessons of the agrarian revolution in Great Russia. He spoke of one occasion when his outfit had attempted to arbitrarily carry out the collectivization of all the big estates in territory occupied by their division of the Red Army; their efforts met with the stiff resistance of the local peasants, even though the peasants supported Soviet power.<br />
<br />
The peasants insisted on the redistribution of all the estates, breaking them up among the individual peasant families, rather than taking over the large estates collectively, This occurred during the fall months of 1919, on the eve of Denikin’s final defeat, when Soviet power in the form of an “independent Ukrainian Republic” was about to be established.<br />
<br />
It was a time when Lenin, in order to allay anti-Russian distrust and suspicion among the Ukrainian peasantry, had insisted that certain concessions be made. Both Russian and Ukrainian were to be used on an equal footing, and attempts to push back the Ukrainian language to a secondary status were to be denounced. Lenin demanded that all officials in the new republic be able to speak Ukrainian and called for the distribution of large farms among the peasants. State farms were to be created “in strictly limited numbers and of limited size and in each casein conformity with the instruments of the surrounding peasantry.”<br />
<br />
Despite this, Mintz said, many of us Ukrainian Bolsheviks tended to downplay the nationality element in our own country. “In my own case, I had long since ceased to consider myself a Jew.” Most of them were what was called at that time “abstract internationalists”; super-internationalists who, in the name of internationalism, renounced the national element in the struggle of the Ukrainian masses.<br />
<br />
“But we were not alone in this deviation,” Mintz told us. “Although Lenin’s policy was eventually adopted by the Central Executive Committee, it was sharply opposed by leading Ukrainian Bolsheviks such as Rakovsky and Manuilsky. What it finally came down to, in the case of our army division, was that as a result of the opposition of the peasants in the area, we were foreed to give up our plan for collectivization; we thus had to settle for having only one of the estates being set aside as a Soviet farm.”<br />
<br />
The first part of each summer at the Lenin School was spent in practical work that related to our studies. In the course of my practical work program in the early summer of 1928, I had my first close-up ohservation of the peasant question in the USSR. I visited a peasant village in an agricultural district to talk with the people and make observations. Though hardly more than 100 versts (about 66 miles) from Moscow, it was truly in “darkest Russia,” a provincial place, isolated from the city. Few inhabitants had been as far away as Moscow.<br />
<br />
After taking a train to the nearest station, I then had to take a droshky another twenty versts to the county seat. Arriving in the morning, I was let down in the middle of the village square. I looked around to get my bearings, and in no time at all, a crowd had gathered to stare at me.<br />
<br />
‘The crowd grew larger by the minute; it seemed as if the whole village had turned out in the square, I could overhear remarks: “Who is he?”<br />
<br />
“Why is he so Black?”<br />
<br />
“What nice teeth!”<br />
<br />
“Look, his palms are white!”<br />
<br />
“He seems sympatichno,” remarked some.<br />
<br />
Someone else who perhaps had done a little reading said, “Oh, he’s probably from Africa. There the sun is so hot that people who have lived there for thousands of years become black.” The crowd seemed to accept this explanation.<br />
<br />
I stuck out my hand to a young man standing nearby. “Zdravstvuyte,” I said. “Could you direct me to the town committee?” He seemed to be surprised that I could speak Russian, but getting himself together, he directed me toa building across the square.<br />
<br />
“Who are you? Where did you come from?” the young man asked.<br />
<br />
“I'm an American Negro from the United States,” I replied.<br />
<br />
Someone in the crowd remarked, “I told you he was of the Negro tribe.” <br />
<br />
Someone else spoke up, “I thought all people in the United States were white.” <br />
<br />
That gave me the chance to get off on my international propaganda spiel, and I jumped right in. “Oh no,” I replied. “There are twelve million Blacks in the U.S.—ahout one-tenth of the population.” I went on to tell them about Blacks inthe South, and the modern-day remnants of the plantation system: sharecropping, Jim Crow and lynch terror.<br />
<br />
Someone remarked, “Oh, Like it was with us under the old regime.” Many of the villagers nodded their heads in agreement with this.<br />
<br />
Just then I noticed an old woman with a cane, slowly making her way through the crowd toward where I was. The young people gave way before her, in deference to her age. When she reached the center, I watched the changes in expression on her old wrinkled face as she gazed at me. First it registered amazement at such a sight; then comprehension when she had “cased” the whole situation,<br />
<br />
Then she spit on the ground and slammed her cane down, “Idite domoi! Go home!” she told me. “Wash your face! You should be ashamed of yourself, trying to fool the people around here!” Waving her cane at me, she then turned scornfully away. In all her ninety-odd years, she had never before seen a Black man!<br />
<br />
=== TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION ===<br />
The first time I met Stalin was at a social gathering in the Kremlin during the World Congress of the Friends of the Soviet Union. The congress coincided with the Tenth Anniversary celebrations in the fall of 1927. The congress sessions were held at the Dom Soyusov (House of the Trade Unions), It was the greatest international gathering I had ever witnessed. There were probably more than one thousand delegates, representing countries from six continents, The most impressive delegation was the huge one (about one hundred people) from China which was headed by the young and beautiful widow of Sun Yat-sen. (Today she is vice-chairman of the National People’s Republic of China.) <br />
<br />
I was surprised and delighted to meet my old friend Chi (Dum Ping), a former Chinese student at the University of Chicago with whom I had worked in the organization of the ill-fated Interracial Youth Forum on the Southside in 1924. He had since gone back to China and was now one of the translators for the Chinese delegation. It was Chi who introduced me to Madame Sun Yatsen. She spoke English with an American accent, which was not surprising since she had been educated in the United States.<br />
<br />
Among the other notables we were to meet were the young Cuban revolutionary, Antonio Mella, later murdered in Mexico City by Machado’s assassins. He was a tall, wiry youth, who always had a guitar slung over his back. There was Henri Barbusse, a pale, wan man, a victim of tuberculosis, He was a great literary figure in France and wrote a biography of Stalin. There was the american novelist Theodore Dreiser, father of American realism who was there with his secretary, Ruth Epperson Kennel, a young American woman. <br />
<br />
A special friend of us Black students was Josiah Gumede, the elderly president of the African National Congress and a descendant of Zulu chiefs. We took him in charge. Every morning we would call for him at his room at the National Hotel on Tverskaya (now Gorky Street) and escort him to the congress sessions. We also accompanied him on the rounds of parties held by the various delegations. He must have been about sixty at the time, but was big, strong and healthy and never seemed to tire.<br />
<br />
The gala occasion for the whole congress was the Evening of National Culture, It consisted of an elaborate pageant of folk dances from the various Soviet republics and autonomous regions. The dancers were all in their traditional costumes, a striking array of color and diversity. On this occasion, our Soviet hosts went all out for their foreign guests.<br />
<br />
The hall in the Dom Soyusov had been converted into a huge banquet room. We were seated before tables loaded with various kinds of liquor, including of course, the best vodka and zakuskas; appetizers of all kinds—cheeses, herrings, caviar, cold sturgeon and cold meats. Then came dinner, from soup to dessert.<br />
<br />
The banquet finally ended. Most of us were in somewhat of a stupor from food and drink, Our group, which included our teacher Sik, was leaving the hall amidst the din of a thousand people talking and laughing. On our way out we stopped and chatted with numerous delegates.<br />
<br />
Gumede was the chief attraction; he had given a stirring speech at a session of the congress a few days before. As I recall, we were nearing the door when we were stopped and greeted by the old Cossack cavalryman, Marshall Budenny. He was a short, powerful, bow-legged man, with a large ferocious black mustache. He was also in a merry mood.<br />
<br />
“Tell the chief,” he said, grasping Gumede’s hand, “that we stand ready to come to his support anytime he needs us!”<br />
<br />
“Thank you, thank you,” beamed Gumede.<br />
<br />
At that moment, someone approached us, I believe it was Tival, Stalin’s seeretary, and informed us that we were invited to a party in the Kremlin.<br />
<br />
We walked the short distance across the square to the Kremlin. Once within the Kremlin walls, we were guided into one of the old palaces and then taken upstairs to a small hall. It was a longroom with an arched ceiling reaching almost to the floors on the sides. It looked to me as though it could have been a throne room of one of the old czars.<br />
<br />
There were perhaps fifty people in the room. In the center there was a large table loaded with the traditional zakuskas, fruits and drinks. It was sort of a buffet; chairs were not directly at the table but rather were along the walls on each side.<br />
<br />
There in the center on one side was Stalin, with a number of people seated beside him, He rose, shook our hands, and after we were introduced, welcomed us, “Be our guests.” He was a short, thick-set man, as T remember, dressed in a neat tan suit with a military collar and boots shined to glisten.<br />
<br />
He motioned us to the vacant chairs on the other side of the room. On that side were a number of folk dancers and musicians, presumably participants in the earlier festivities, Somebody introduced Gumede as an African Zulu chief from the congress, and the dancers probably thought we were all from the same tribe. Gumede, however, was the center of attention, surrounded by the daricers, who insisted on being photographed with him.<br />
<br />
They gathered around him—a couple sitting on his lap and others behind him with their arms around him, Stalin, observing all this from the other side of the room, seemed amused. Later on, Stalin got up, bid us all good-night and walked out. As I remember, it was quite a relaxed evening with no political discussion. We left shortly after Stalin departed and were driven home by a chauffeur from the Kremlin car pool.<br />
<br />
Another version of this occasion was given, I believe by Sik, who insisted that Otto had danced with Stalin that evening. I don’t doubt Sik’s word, but I certainly don’t remember seeing it. Otto didn’t remember the incident either, But I do know that in Russia it was not uncommon for one man to dance with another on festive occasions, As I recall, the hall became more crowded, and I was attracted by a group of folk dancers who offered to help us students with our Russian,<br />
<br />
Afterwards Sik kept reminding Otto, “Don’t you remember, Otto, you asked Stalin to dance, and you danced around the hall with him several times, That was a memorable occasion; how could you forget it?”<br />
<br />
As for Gumede, he returned home a firm supporter of the Soviet Union. Everywhere he went, he gave glowing reports of his visit there. In January 1928, he told an ANC rally that “I have seen the new world to come, where it has already begun. I have been to the new Jerusalem."<br />
<br />
One day in December, Otto called me and said he had inst gotten a call to pick up a young Black woman, Maude White, who was to be a student at KUTVA. She was waiting at the station. He asked me if I'd like to go along and I readily agreed, looking forward with pleasure to meeting this woman—the first Black woman since Jane Golden to study in the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
We rented a droshky and proceeded to the station. It was a cold winter night, the temperature was somewhere around thirty-five below zero. When we got there, we saw the young Black woman, She was about nineteen, standing in the unheated station, she was a strikingly pretty, brown-skinned woman with huge dark eyes.<br />
<br />
She had on a seal skin coat, silk stockings and pumps, and by time we got there she was practically hysterical with the cold. "Get me out of here,” she shouted. Otto and I looke at each other, both thinking the same thing—we're going to have a rough time with this one. <br />
<br />
We couldn't have been more wrong. Maude got right into the swing of things at school. She was a very popular suger ae stayed in Moscow for three years. We later learned that she ha been a school teacher before coming to Moscow, On returning to the States, she became an outstanding Party cadre and a life-long friend of mine.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 8 ==<br />
<br />
=== Self-Determination: The Fight for a Correct Line ===<br />
Towards the end of 1927, Nasanov returned to the Soviet Union after a sojourn in the United States as the representative of the Young Communist International. I had known him briefly in the States before my departure for Russia. Nasanov was one of a group of YCI workers who had been sent on missions to several countries. He had considerable experience with respect to the national and colonial question and was considered an expert on these matters.<br />
<br />
Nasanov's observations had convinced him that U.S. Blacks were essentially an oppressed nation whose struggle for equality would ultimately take an autonomous direction and that the content of the Black liberation movement was the completion of the agrarian and democratic revolution in the South—a struggle which was left unresolved by the Civil War and betrayal of Reconstruction. Therefore, it was the duty of the Party to channel the movement in a revolutionary direction by raising and supporting the slogan of the right of self-determination for Afro-Americans in the Black Belt, the area of their greatest concentration.<br />
<br />
Upon his return, Nasanov sought me out and it was he, I believe, who first informed me that I had been elected to the National Committee of the YCL back in the States. In the months ahead, we were to become close friends. Through him, I met a number of YCI people, mostly Soviet comrades who held the same position as Nasanov did on the national question. They seemed to be pushing to have the matter reviewed at the forthcoming Sixth Congress of the Comintern. And as it later became clear to me, they were anxious to recruit at least one Black to support their position.<br />
<br />
As I have indicated before, the position was not entirely new to me. I was present at the meeting of the YCL District Committee in Chicago in 1924 when Bob Mazut (then YCI rep to the U.S.), at the behest of Zinoviev, had raised the question of self-determination At that time, he had been shouted down by the white comrades. (See Chapter Four.)<br />
<br />
Sen Katayama had told us Black KUTVA students that Lenin had regarded U.S. Blacks as an oppressed nation and referred us to his draft resolution on the national and colonial question which was adopted by the Second Congress of the Comintern in 1920. Otto and other Black students had also told me that they got a similar impression from their meeting with Stalin at the Kremlin shortly after their arrival in the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
All of this seemed tentative to me. No one had elaborated the position fully and Nasanov was the first person I met who attempted to argue it definitively. But all of these arguments, and especially Nasanov’s prodding, set me to thinking and confronted me with the need to apply concretely my newly-acquired Marxist-Leninist knowledge on the national-colonial question to the condition of Blacks in the United States,<br />
<br />
To me, the idea of a Black nation within U.S. boundaries seemed far-fetched and not consonant with American reality. I saw the solution through the incorporation of Blacks into U.S. society on the basis of complete equality, and only socialism could bring this to pass. There was no doubt in my mind that the path to freedom for us Blacks led directly to socialism, uncluttered by any interim stage of self-determination or Black political power. The unity of Black and white workers against the common enemy, U.S. capitalism, was the motor leading toward the dual goal of Black. freedom and socialism.<br />
<br />
I felt that it was difficult enough to build this unity, without adding to it the gratuitous assumption of a non-existent Black nation, with its implication of a separate state on U.S. soil. To do so, I felt, was to create new and unnecessary roadblocks to the already difficult path to Black and white unity.<br />
<br />
Socialism, I reasoned, was not in contradiction to the movement for Black cultural identity, expressed in the cultural renaissance of the twenties and in Garvey’s emphasis on race pride and history (which I regarded as one of the positive aspects of that movement), Socialism for U.S. Blacks did not imply loss of cultural identity any more than it did for the Jews of the Soviet Union, among whom I had witnessed the proliferation of the positive features of Jewish culture—theater, literature and language.<br />
<br />
The Jews were not considered a nation because they were not concentrated in any definite territory; they were regarded as a national minority and Birobidzhan was set aside as a Jewish autonomous province. Such a bolstering of self-respect, dignity and self-assertion on the part of a formerly oppressed minority people was a necessary stage in the development of a universal culture which would amalgamate the best features of all national groups. This was definitely the policy of the Soviet Union with regard to formerly oppressed nationalities and ethnic groups.<br />
<br />
Like the Jews, I reasoned, the position of U.S. Blacks was that of an oppressed race, though at the time I am sure I would have been hard-pressed to define precisely what was meant by that phrase. The main factor in the oppression of Jews under the Czar had been the religious factor; the main factor with U.S, Blacks was race. Blacks lacked some of the essential attributes of a nation which had been defined by Stalin in his classic work, Marxism and the National Question.<br />
<br />
Most assuredly, one could argue that among Blacks there existed elements of a special culture and also a common language (English). But this did not add up to a nation, I reasoned. Missing was the all-important aspect of a national territory. Even if one agreed that the Black Belt, where Blacks were largely concentrated, rightfully belonged to them, they were in no geographic position to assert their right of self-determination.<br />
<br />
I could see many analogies between the national problem in the old Czarist Empire and the problem of U.S. Blacks, but the analogy floundered on this question of territory. For the subject nations of the old Czarist Empire were situated either on the border of the oppressing Great Russian nation or were completely outside it. But American Blacks were set down in the very midst of the oppressing white nation, the strongest capitalist power on earth. Faced with this, it was no wonder that most nationalist movements up until then had taken the road of a separate state outside the United States. How then could one convince U.S. Blacks that the right of self-determination was a realistic program?<br />
<br />
Nasanov and his young friends answered my arguments over the course of a series of discussions and were quick to pick out the flaws in my position, They contended that I was guilty of an ahistoric approach with respect to the elements of nationhood. Certainly, some of the attributes of a nation were weakly developed in the case of U.S. Blacks. But that was the case with most oppressed peoples precisely because the imperialist policy of national oppression is directed towards artificially and forcibly retaining the economic and cultural backwardness of the colonial peoples as a condition for their super-exploitation. My mistake had been to ignore Lenin’s dictum that in the epoch of imperialism it was essential to differentiate between the oppressor and the oppressed nations,<br />
<br />
They further contended that I had presented the matter as though self-determination were solely a question for Blacks. | had therefore separated the Black rebellion from the struggle for socialism in the United States. In fact, it was a constituent part of the latter struggle or, more precisely, a special phase of the struggle of the American working class for socialism.<br />
<br />
My argument added up to a defense of the current position of the U.S. Party, albeit I had embellished the position somewhat against Nasanov's criticisms. Up to this point, the Black students had not challenged the Party’s line on Afro-American work, We reasoned that the Party’s default in the work among Blacks was not the result of an incorrect line, but came from a failure to carry out in practice its declared line. We believed that this failure was due to an underestimation of the importance of work among Blacks, which came from an underestimation of the revolutionary potential of the struggle of the Black masses for equality. All this resulted from the persistence of remnants of white racist ideology vathin the ranks of the Party, including some of its leadership.<br />
<br />
Nasanov and some of his friends agreed with us that the American CP did underestimate the revolutionary potential of the Black struggle for equality. But, they maintained, this underestimation came from a fundamentally incorrect social-democratic line, rather than from white chauvinism, They said that I had stood the whole matter on its head: I had presented the incorrect policies as the result of subjective white chauvinist attitudes; whereas, they pointed out that the white chauvinist attitudes persisted precisely because the Party’s line was fundamentally incorrect in that it denied the national character of the question.<br />
<br />
“Our American comrades seem to think that only the direct struggle for socialism is revolutionary,” they told me, “and that the national movement detracts from that struggle and is therefore reactionary.” This, they pointed out, was an American version of the “pure proletarian revolution” concept; they referred me to Lenin’s polemic against Radek on the question of self-determination.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks also criticized my formulation of the matter as primarily a race question. To call the matter a race question, they said, was to fall into the bourgeois liberal trap of regarding the fight for equality as primarily a fight against racial prejudices of whites. This slurred over the economic and social roots of the question and obscured the question of the agrarian democratic revolution in the South, which was pivotal to the struggle for Black equality throughout the country. They pointed out that it was wrong to counterpose the struggle for equality to the struggle for self-determination. For in fact, in the South, self-determination for Blacks (political power in their own hands) was the guarantee of equality.<br />
<br />
=== HISTORY OF THE QUESTION IN THE COMINTERN ===<br />
In these discussions with my young friends, which extended over the course of several months, I became keenly aware of the gaps in my understanding of Marxist-Leninist theory on the national-colonial question. I was to find, as Nasanov and others had indicated, that the idea of Blacks as an oppressed nation was not new in the Comintern. Though Stalin was undoubtedly the person pushing the position at the time, it had not originated with him, but with Lenin himself.<br />
<br />
It first appeared in Lenin’s “Draft Theses on the National Colonial Question” which he submitted to the Second Congress of the Comintern in 1920. The draft, which was later adopted, called upon the communist parties to “render direct aid to the revolutionary movements among the dependent and underprivileged nations (for example, Ireland, the American Negroes, etc.) and in the colonies.<br />
<br />
Some have argued that Lenin’s reference to U.S. Blacks as a subject nation was merely a tentative deduction. When he submitted his draft, he asked the delegates for opinions and suggestions on fifteen points, one of which was “Negroes in America."<br />
<br />
It was recorded, however, that the Colonial Commission of the congress, which Lenin himself headed and in which Sen Katayama was a leading member, held lengthy discussions on the question of U.S, Blacks. <br />
<br />
John Reed, the American author, was a delegate and participated in the discussion, apparently in opposition to Lenin’s formulations. In fact, he made two speeches, one in the commission and one to the congress, contending that the problem of U.S. Blacks was that of “both a strong race movement and a strong proletarian workers’ movement which is rapidly developing in class consciousness.” Equating all national movements among Blacks to Garvey’s Back to Africa separatism, he contended that “a movement which struggles for a separate national existence has no success among the Negroes, like the ‘Back to Africa’ movement, for example.....” and that Blacks “consider themselves above all Americans, they feel at home in the United States. This makes the tasks of communists very much easier."<br />
<br />
But despite Reed’s objections, the reference to American Blacks as an oppressed nation remained in the resolution as finally adopted. For Lenin’s thesis was not something spun out of thin air, but was the result of a serious study of the question. This is clear from his work “New Data on the Laws Governing the Development of Capitalism in Agriculture,” which spoke about the United States,<br />
<br />
In this work, published in 1915 (and based on the U.S. Census of 1910), Lenin viewed the question of Blacks in the South as one of an uncompleted agrarian and bourgeois democratic revolution, He drew attention to the remarkable similarity between the economic positions of the South’s Black tenants and the emancipated serfs in theagrarian centers of Russia, pointing out that both groups were not tenants in the European civilized sense, but “...semi-slaves, share-croppers...”<br />
<br />
Emphasizing the absence of elementary democratic rights among Blacks, he alluded to the South as “the most stagnant area, where the masses are subjected to the greatest degradation and oppression...a kind of prison where (these ‘emancipated’ Negroes) are hemmed in, isolated, and deprived of fresh air.” These kinds of conditions, the lot of the vast majority of U.S. Blacks, undoubtedly led Lenin to conclude that their movement for “emancipation” would take a national revolutionary direction.<br />
<br />
Conclusive proof of Lenin’s thinking at the time with respect to U.S. Blacks can be found in an uncompleted work written in 1917 though not available until 1935. The work, “Statistics and Sociology,” was begun in the early part of 1917, but was interrupted by the February Revolution and never resumed. <br />
<br />
In the section of the manuscript referring to U.S. Blacks, he drew a clear distinction between their positions and that of the foreign-born immigrants, that is between the white foreign-born assimilables and the Black unassimilables.<blockquote>'''In the United States, the Negroes (and also the Mulattos and Indians) account for only 11.1 per cent. They should be classed as an oppressed nation, for the equality won in the Civil War of 1861-1865 and guaranteed by the Constitution of the republic was in many respects increasingly curtailed in the chief Negro areas (the South) in connection with the transition from the progressive, pre-monopoly capitalism of 1860-1870 to the reactionary, monopoly capitalism (imperialism) of the new era."'''</blockquote>Whereas with the white foreign-born immigrants, Lenin observed that the speed of development of capitalism in America has “produced a situation in which vast national differences are speedily and fundamentally, as nowhere else in the world, smoothed out to form a single ‘American nation.’ <br />
<br />
All of this shows that the idea that U.S. Blacks comprise an oppressed nation was neither a temporary nor tentative formulation on Lenin’s part. <br />
<br />
Despite the thesis of the Second Congress, Reed’s views reflecting as they did the position of the young American Party-— were to persist in the U.S. without serious challenge through the Fifth Congress of the Comintern. The Third Congress of 1921 recorded no discussion with respect to the character of the problem. <br />
<br />
The Fourth Congress in 1922 also did not seriously discuss the point. This mecting, however, marked the first appearance of Black delegates to the Comintern. They were Otto Huiswood as regular Party delegate, and the poet Claude McKay as a special fraternal delegate. It was also the first congress to set up a Negro Commission, and extended discussions took place on the thesis brought in by the commission which characterized the position of U.S. Blacks as an aspect of the colonial question. It stressed the special role of American Blacks in support of the liberation struggles of Africa, Central and South America and the Caribbean. <br />
<br />
The thesis of the Fourth Congress did add a new, international dimension to the question, but it did not challenge the Party's basic anti-self-determination position. This position was stressed in a speech by Huiswood (Billings) which called the Afro-American question “another phase of the racial and colonial question,’ an essentially economic problem which was “intensified by the friction which exists between the white and black races,"<br />
<br />
The discussion of the character of the question came up in the Fifth Congress in 1924, this time in connection with the Draft Program of the Communist International. For the first time since the Second Congress, the discussion centered directly on the character of the question as an oppressed nation and the appropriateness of the slogan of the right of self-determination.<br />
<br />
August Thalheimer (the German head of the Commission on the Draft Program) reported that “the slogan of the right of self-determination cannot solve all national questions,” Such is the case in the United States, “where there is an extraordinarily mixed population” and where the “race question” is also involved. Therefore, he pointed out, “the Program Commission was of the opinion that the slogan of right of self-determination must be supplemented by another slogan: ‘Equal Rights for all Nationalities and Races."<br />
<br />
Representing the U.S. at the Fifth Congress, John Pepper supported this anti-self-determination position. According to him, the United States was a country in which the different nationalities could not be separated. Self-determination was not appropriate; Blacks in the U.S, did not want it. “They do not want to set up a separate state inside the U.S.A.,” and they wish to remain inside the U.S,, not leave it for Africa. To the demand of “social equality,” he held that “we should change these words to the following: full equality in every respect.”<br />
<br />
Lovett Fort-Whiteman, the sole Black delegate, apparently supported Pepper’s position and gave his standard speech (which I was to hear a number of times in the States), He stressed the racial aspect of the problem and called for a special communist approach to Blacks.<br />
<br />
There appeared to be no opposition to the draft program, but, after all, it was only the first version. The program in its final form was to be discussed and adopted at the Sixth Congress. Apparently Zinoviev and others in the CI leadership were not satisfied with the formulation that had rejected self-determination for U.S. Blacks. Zinoviev had instructed Bob Mazut to investigate the question while on his assignment to the U.S., immediately following the congress.<br />
<br />
Such was the situation following the Fifth Congress. The question can be raised as to why the U.S. Party’s position was not seriously challenged during this whole period and why the proponents in the Comintern of the self-determination thesis failed to press for their position.<br />
<br />
Their reluctance in this regard, I presume, was because they did not want to push their position against the unanimous opposition of the American Party, including its Black members. After all, the Comintern was a voluntary union of communist parties which operated under democratic-centralism. It was not the policy of the Comintern leadership to arbitrarily force positions on member parties. <br />
<br />
=== 1928; A REEXAMINATION OF THE QUESTION ===<br />
How are we to account then for the renewed interest in the Afro-American question among certain influential leaders of the Comintern on the eve of the Sixth Congress? Why the drive to re open the question? The answer lies in the changed world situation: the sharpened crisis of the world capitalist system, consequent on the breakdown of partial capitalist stabilization, the beginning of a deepening economic depression in Europe; and the continued upsurge of the colonial revolutions in China, India and Indonesia,<br />
<br />
These harbingers of the new period were pointed out by Stalin at the Fifteenth Congress of the CPSU in early December 1927, in which he referred to the “collapsing stabilization” of capitalism. <br />
<br />
It was to be a period of revolutionary struggle. In order to lead these struggles, an attack on right opportunism was required in the practice and work of the communist parties. It was a period in which the national and colonial question was to acquire a new urgency. The CI paid special attention to the fight against those views which liquidated or downplayed the importance of the question. In this context, the Comintern felt that the establishment of a revolutionary line on the Afro-American question was key if the CPUSA was to lead the joint struggle of the Black and white working masses in the coming period.<br />
<br />
The low status of the CP’s Negro work itself was another factor pressing for a radical policy review. There had been no progress in this work, despite the prodding of the Comintern. As already mentioned, the highly touted American Negro Labor Congress had failed to even get off the ground.<br />
<br />
In a speech at the Sixth Congress, James Ford counted nineteen communications from the Comintern to the U.S, Party on Negro work, none of which had been put into effect or brought before the Party. He further observed that “we have no more than 50 Negroes in our Party, out of the 12 million Negroes in America." <br />
<br />
All of these factors strengthened the determination of the Comintern to make the Sixth Congress the arena for a drastic reevaluation of work and policy in this area.<br />
<br />
In the winter of 1928, preparations were already afoot for the Sixth Congress which was to convene the following summer. The Anglo-American Secretariat of the CI set up a special subcommitteee on the Negro question which would prepare a draft resolution for the official Negro Commission of the Congress.<br />
<br />
As I recall, the subcommittce consisted of Nasanov and five students: four Blacks (including my brother Otto and myself) and one white student, Clarence Hathaway, from the Lenin School, In addition, there were some ex-officio members: Profintern rep Bill Dunne and Comintern rep Bob Minor, They seldom attended our sessions. James Ford, who was then assigned to the Profintern, also attended some sessions.<br />
<br />
Our subcommittee met and broke the subject down into topics; each of us accepted one as his assignment to research and report on to the committee as a whole. The high point in the discussion was the report of my brother Otto on Garvey’s Back to Africa movement. In his report, he concluded that the nationalism expressed in that movement had no objective base in the economic, social and political conditions of U.S. Blacks. It was, he asserted, a foreign importation artificially grafted onto the freedom movement of U.S, Blacks by the West Indian nationalist, Garvey.<br />
<br />
U.S. Blacks, Otto concluded, were not an oppressed nation but an oppressed racial minority. The long-range goal of the movement was not the right of self-determination but complete economic, social and political equality to be won through a revolutionary alliance of Blacks and class-conscious white labor in a joint struggle for socialism against the common enemy, U.S. capitalism.<br />
<br />
Up to that point, I was still not certain as regarded tbe applicability of the right of self-determination to the problems of Blacks in the U.S., but my misgivings about the slogan had been shaken somewhat by the series of discussions I had had with my Russian friends. Otto, in his report, had merely restated the CP’s current position. But somehow, against the background of our discussion of the Garvey movement, the inadequacy of that position stood out like a sore thumb. Otto, however, had done more than simply restate the position; he brought out into the open what had been implicit in the Party’s position all along. That is, that any type of nationalism among Blacks was reactionary.<br />
<br />
This view, it occurred to me, was the logical outcome of any position which saw only the “pure proletarian” class struggle as the sole revolutionary struggle against capitalism. The Party had traditionally considered the Afro-American question as that of a persecuted racial minority. They centered their activity almost exclusively on Blacks as workers and treated the question as basically a simple trade union matter, underrating other aspects of the struggle. The struggle for equal rights was seen as a diversion that would obscure or overshadow the struggle for socialism.<br />
<br />
But how could one wage a fight against white chauvinism from that position? I thought at the time that viewing everything in light of the trade union question would lead to a denial of the revolutionary potential of the struggle of the whole people for equality. Otto’s rejection of nationalism as an indigenous trend brought these points out sharply in my mind.<br />
<br />
In the discussion, I pointed out that Otto's position was not merely a rejection of Garveyism but also a denial of nationalism as a legitimate trend in the Black freedom movement, I felt that it amounted to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. With my insight sharpened by previous discussions, I argued further that the nationalism reflected in the Garvey movement was not a foreign transplant, nor did it spring full-blown from the brow of Jove. On the contrary, it was an indigenous product, arising from the soil of Black super-exploitation and oppression in the United States, It expressed the yearnings of millions of Blacks for a nation of their own.<br />
<br />
As I pursued this logic, a totally new thought occurred to me, and for me it was the clincher. The Garvey movement is dead, I reasoned, but not Black nationalism. Nationalism, which Garvey diverted under the slogan of Back to Africa, was an authentic trend, likely to flare up again in periods of crisis and stress. Sucha movement might again fall under the leadership of utopian visionaries who would seek to divert it from the struggle against the main enemy, U.S. imperialism, and on to a reactionary separatist path. The only way such a diversion of the struggle could be forestalled was by presenting a revolutionary alternative to Blacks.<br />
<br />
To the slogan of “Back to Africa,” I argued, we must counterpose the slogan of “right of self-determination here in the Deep South.” Our slogan for the U.S, Black rebellion therefore must be the “right of self-determination in the South, with full equality throughout the country,” to be won through revolutionary alliance with politically conscious white workers against the common enemy-—-U.S. imperialism,<br />
<br />
Nasanov was seated across the table from me during this discussion and, elated at my presentation, he demonstratively rose to shake my hand. I was the first American communist (with perhaps the exception of Briggs) to support the thesis that U.S. Blacks constituted an oppressed nation.<br />
<br />
The next day, Nasanov and I submitted a resolution to the subcommittee incorporating our views. We couldn't get a majority but we had Hathaway’s support, as I remember. It was agreed that the resolution be submitted to the Anglo-American Secretariat as the views of those who subscribed to it, and those who disagreed with it would present their own views.<br />
<br />
The only really persistent opposition in the subcommittee, as I remember, came from Otto; the other students were somewhat ambivalent on the question. I attributed much of this to Sik’s influence, since he had already begun to develop his position which held that the question of U.S. Blacks was a “race” question and that Blacks should not demand seif-determination, but simply full social and political equality. His theories were later used by the Lovestoncites and others who opposed the self-determination position.<br />
<br />
Once my hesitations were overcome, the whole theory fell logicatly into place. Here is the full analysis as I came to understand it. The thesis that called for the right of selfdetermination is supported by a serious economic-historical analysis of U.S. Blacks.<br />
<br />
The evolution of American Blacks as an oppressed nation was begun in slavery. In the final analysis, however, it was the result of the unfinished bourgeois democratic revolution of the Civil War and the betrayal of Reconstruction through the Hayes-Tilden (Gentiemen’s) Agreement of 1877.<br />
<br />
This betrayal was followed by withdrawal of federal troops and the unleashing of counter-revolutionary terror, including the massacre of thousands of Blacks and the overthrow of the Reconstruction governments which had been based on an alliance of Blacks, poor whites and carpetbaggers. The result was that the Black freedmen, deserted by their former Republican allies, were left without land. Their newly-won rights were destroyed with the abrogation of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and they were thrust back upon the plantations of their former masters in a position but little removed from chattel bondage.<br />
<br />
The revolution had stopped short of a solution to the crucial land question, there was neither confiscation of the big plantations of the former slaveholding class, nor distribution of the land among the Negro freedmen and poor whites. It was around this issue of land for the freedmen that the revolutionary democratic wave of Radical Reconstruction beat in vain and finally broke.<br />
<br />
The advent of imperialism, the epoch of trusts and monopolies at the turn of the century, froze the Blacks in their post-Reconstruction position; landless, semi-slaves in the South. It blocked the road to fusion of Blacks and whites into one nation on the basis of equality and put the final seal on the special oppression of Blacks. The path towards equality and freedom via assimilation was foreclosed by these events, and the struggle for Black equality thenceforth was ultimately bound to take a national revolutionary direction.<br />
<br />
Under conditions of imperialist and racist oppression, Blacks in the South were to acquire all the attributes of a subject nation. They are a people set apart by a common ethnic origin, economically interrelated in various classes, united by a common historical experience, reflected in a special culture and psychological makeup. The territory of this subject nation is the Black Belt, an area encompassing the Deep South, which, despite massive outmigrations, still contained (and does to this day) the country’s largest concentration of Blacks.<br />
<br />
Thus, imperialist oppression created the conditions for the eventual rise ofa national liberation movement with its base in the South. The content of this movement would be the completion of the agrarian democratic revolution in the South; that is, the right of self-determination as the guarantee of complete equality throughout the country.<br />
<br />
This new analysis defined the status of Blacks in the north as an unassimilable national minority who cannot escape oppression by fleeing the South. The shadow of the plantation falls upon them throughout the country, as the semi-slave relations in the Black Belt continually reproduce Black inequality and servitude in all walks of life.<br />
<br />
There are certain singular features of the submerged Afro-American nation which differentiate it from other oppressed nations and which have made the road towards national eonsciousness and identity difficult and arduous. Afro-Americans are not only “a nation within a nation,” but a captive nation, suffering a colonial-type oppression while trapped within the geographic bounds of one of the world’s most powerful imperialist countries.<br />
<br />
Blacks were forced into the stream of U.S. history in a peculiar manner, as chattel slaves, and are victims of an excruciatingly destructive system of oppression and persecution, due not only to the economic and social survivals of slavery, but also to its ideological heritage, racism.<br />
<br />
The Afro-American nation is also unique in that it is a new nation evolved from a people forcibly transplanted from their original African homeland. A people comprised of various tribal and linguistic groups, they are a product not of their native African soil, but of the conditions of their transplantation.<br />
<br />
The overwhelming, stifling factor of race, the doctrine of inherent Black inferiority perpetuated by ruling class ideologues, has sunk deep into the thinking of Americans. It has become endemic, permeating the entire structure of U.S. life. Given this, Blacks could only remain permanently unabsorbed in the new world’s “melting pot.”<br />
<br />
The race factor has also left its stigma on the consciousness of the Black nation, creating a powerful mystification about Black Americans which has served to obscure their objective status as an oppressed nation. It has twisted the direction of the Afro-American liberation movement and scarred it while still in its embryonic state.<br />
<br />
Although the objective base for equality and freedom via direct integration was foreclosed by the defeat of Reconstruction andthe advent of the U.S. as an imperialist power, bourgeois assimilationist illusions were continued into the new era. They were nurtured and kept alive by the nascent Black middle class and the liberal detachment of the white bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Conditions, however, were maturing for the rise of a mass nationalist movement. This movement was to burst with explosive force upon the political scene in the period following World War I, with the rise of the Garvey movement. The potentially revolutionary movement of Black toilers was diverted into utopian reactionary channels of a peaceful return to Africa.<br />
<br />
The period of bourgeois democratic revolutions in the United States ended with the defeat of democratic Reconstruction. The issue of Black freedom was carried over into the epoch of imperialism. Its full solution postponed to the next stage of human progress, socialism. The question has remained and become the most vulnerable area on the domestic front of U.S. capitalism, its “Achilles heel”—a major focus of the contradictions in U.S. society.<br />
<br />
Blacks, therefore, in the struggle for national liberation and the entire working class in its struggle for socialism are natural allies. The forging of this alliance is enhanced by the presence of a growing Black industria} working class. with direct and historical connections with white labor.<br />
<br />
This new line established that the Black freedom struggle is a revolutionary movement in its own right, directed against the very foundations of U.S. imperialism, with its own dynamic pace and momentum, resulting from the unfinished democratic and land revolutions in the South. It places the Black liberation movement and the class struggle of U.S. workers in their proper relationship as two aspects of the fight against the common enemy—U.S. capitalism, It elevates the Black movement to a position of equality in that battle.<br />
<br />
The new theory destroys forever the white racist theory traditional among class-conscious white workers which had relegated the struggle of Blacks to a subsidiary position in the revolutionary movement. Race is defined as a device of national oppression, a smokescreen thrown up by the class enemy, to hide the underlying economic and social conditions involved in Black oppression and to maintain the division of the working class.<br />
<br />
The new theory was to sensitize the Party to the revolutionary significance of the Black liberation struggle. During the crisis of the thirties, a significant segment of radicalized white workers would come to see the Blacks as revolutionary allies.<br />
<br />
The struggle for this position had now begun; there remained its adoption by the Comintern and its final acceptance by the U.S. Party. Our draft resolution, which summed up these points, was turned over to Petrovsky (Bennett), Chairman of the AngloAmerican Secretariat. He seemed quite pleased with it, expressed his agreement and suggested some minor changes. He agreed to submit it to the Negro Commission at the forthcoming Sixth Congress.<br />
<br />
I continued to work with Nasanov on preparations for the congress. By that time, we had become quite a team. Our next project was the South African question, a question which also fell under the jurisdiction of the Anglo-American Secretariat.<br />
<br />
We were assigned to work with James La Guma, a South African Colored comrade who had come to Moscow to attend the Tenth Anniversary celebrations and stayed on to discuss with the ECCI and the Anglo-American Secretariat the problems of the South African Party. Specifically, we were to draft a new resolution on the question, restating and elaborating the Comintern line of an independent Native South African Republic, (The word “Native” was in common usage at the time of the Sixth Congress, though today it is considered derogatory and has been replaced with Black republic or Azania.) <br />
<br />
=== SOUTH AFRICA ===<br />
This line, formulated the year before with the cooperation of La Guma during his first visit to the Soviet Union in the spring of 1927, had been rejected by the leadership of the South African Party.<br />
<br />
La Guma, as I recall, was a young brown-skinned man of Malagasy and French parentage. In South Africa, this placed him in the Colored category, a rung above the Natives on the racial ladder established by the white supremacist rulers. Colored persons were defined as those of mixed blood, including descendants of Javanese slaves, mixed in varying degrees with European whites.<br />
<br />
La Guma, however, identified completely with the Natives and their movement. He had been general secretary of the ICU (Industrial and Commercial Union, the federation of Native trade unions) and also secretary of the Capetown branch of the ANC. Later, after his expulsion from the ICU by the red-baiting clique of Clements Kadalie (a Native social democrat), La Guma became secretary of the non-European trade union federation in Cape town.<br />
<br />
La Guma was the first South African communist I had ever met. I was delighted and impressed with him and was to find, in the course of our brief collaboration, striking parallels between the struggles of U.S. Blacks for equality and those of the Native South Africans. In both countries, the white leadership of their respective parties underestimated the revolutionary potential of the Black movement,<br />
<br />
La Guma had made his first trip to Moscow the year before. He and Josiah Gumede, president of the ANC, had come as delegates to the inaugural conference of the League Against Imperialism which had convened in Brussels, Belgium, in February 1927. Gumede attended as a delegate from the ANC, while La Guma was a delegate from the South African Communist Party. It was La Guma’s first international gathering, and he had the opportunity to meet with leaders from colonial and semi-colonial countries and discuss the South African question with them. Madame Sun Yat-sen and Pandit Nehru were among those present, The conference adopted the resolutions of the South African delegates on the right of self-determination through the complete overthrow of imperialism. The general resolutions of the congress proclaimed: “Africa for the Africans, and their full freedom and equality with other races and the right to govern Afriea.”<br />
<br />
After Brussels, La Guma went on a speaking tour to Germany, after which he came to Moscow. Although the Brussels conference had called for the right of self-determination, it left unanswered many specific questions that are raised by that slogan. Were the Natives in South Africa a nation? What was to be done with the whites?<br />
<br />
La Guma was to find the answer to these questions in Moscow, where he consulted with ECCI leaders, including Bukharin, who was then president of the Comintern. He participated with ECCI leaders in the formulation of a resolution on the South Afriean question, calling for the return of the land to the natives and for “an independent native South African republic as a stage towards a workers’ and peasants’ republic with full, equal rights for all races.”<br />
<br />
La Guma returned to South Africa with the resolution in June 1927, Gumede also arrived home in the same month. But the resolution was received hostilely by Bunting and was rejected by the South African Party leadership at its annual conference in December 1927.<br />
<br />
Bunting was a British lawyer who had come to South Africa some years before. An early South African socialist and a founder of the Communist Party, he was the son of a British peer. As Bunting later commented, he nearly used up the small fortune he had inherited in the support of Party work and publications.<br />
<br />
Bunting and his followers insisted that the South African revolution, unlike those in the colonies, was a direct struggle for socialism without any intermediary stages. To the Comintern slogan of a “Native South African Republic,” Bunting counterposed the slogan of a “Workers’ and Peasants’ Republic.” This concept of “pure proletarian revolution” was an echo of what we had found in the U.S. Party with respect to Blacks. But here, the error stood out grotesquely given the reality of the South African situation with its overwhelming Native majority.<br />
<br />
it was against this background that La Guma and Gumede left to go to Moscow to attend the Tenth Anniversary celebrations, and the Congress of the Friends of the Soviet Union. La Guma apparently was not in Moscow on that oceasion; he was probably out on a tour of the provinces. Both he and Gumede travelled widely during their visit to the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
Our purpose at this time was to develop and clarify the line laid down in the resolution formulated the previous year. Our draft, with few changes, was adopted by the Sixth Congress of the Comintern and the ECCI.<br />
<br />
As already noted, Bunting had put forward the slogan of a South African “Workers’ and Peasants’ Government.” Bunting’s formulation denied the colonial character of South Africa, He failed, therefore, to see the inherent revolutionary nature of the Natives’ struggle for emancipation.<br />
<br />
As opposed to this, our resolution began with a definition of South Africa as “a British dominion of the colonial type” whose colonial features included:<br />
<br />
1, The country was exploited by British imperialism, with the participation of the South African white bourgeoisie (British and Boer), with British capital occupying the principal economic position.<br />
<br />
2. The overwhelming majority of the population were Natives and Colored (five million Natives and Colored, with one and a half million whites, according to the 1921 Census).<br />
<br />
3. Natives, who held only one-eighth of the land, were almost completely landless, the great bulk of their land having been expropriated by the white minority.<br />
<br />
4, The “great difference in wages and material conditions of the white and black proletariat,” and the widespread corruption of the white workers by the racist propaganda and ideology of the imperialists.<br />
<br />
These features, we held, determined the character of the South African revolution which, in its first stage, would be a struggle of Natives and non-European peoples for independence and land. As the previous resolution had done, our draft (in the form adopted by the Sixth Congress and the ECCI) held that as a result of these canditions, in order to lead and influence that movement, communists—black and white—must put forth and fight for the general political slogan of “an independent Native South African Republic as a stage towards a workers’ and peasants’ republic, with full, equal rights for all races, black, coloured and white.”<br />
<br />
“South Afriea is a black country,” the resolution went onto say, with a mainly black peasant population, whose land had been expropriated by the white colonizers. Therefore, the agrarian question lies at the foundation of the revolution. The black peasantry, in alliance with and under the leadership of the working class, is the main driving foree. Thus, along with the slogan of a “Native Republic,” the Party must place the slogan “return of the land to the Natives.”<br />
<br />
This latter formulation does not appear in the resolution as finally adopted. Instead, it includes the following two formulations:<br />
<br />
1. Whites must accept the “correct principle that South Africa belongs to the native population.”<br />
<br />
2. “The basic question in the agrarian situation in South Africa is the land hunger of the blacks and . . . their interest is of prior importance in the solution of the agrarian question.”<br />
<br />
With the new resolution completed, La Guma returned to South Africa. In the year since the first resolution, the opposition to the line had intensified and had already come to a head at the December Party Congress—-even before La Guma’s return.<br />
<br />
Bunting put forward his position in a fourteen page document in the early part of 1928. He equated the nationalism of the Boer minority to the nationalism of the Natives and justified his opposition to nationalism on the basis that all national movements were subject to capitalist corruption, and, in the case of South Afriea, a national movement among Natives “would probably only accelerate the fusion, in opposition to it, of the Dutch and British imperialists." Since it would thus only consolidate the forees against it, it was not to be supported.<br />
<br />
Bunting not only underrated nationalism, he played on the whites’ fear of it and raised the specter of blacks being given free reign, with a resulting campaign to drive the whites into thesea. He was echoing the specter that was haunting whites who remembered the song of the Xhosas:<blockquote>'''To chase the white men from the earth''' <br />
<br />
'''And drive them to the sea.'''<br />
<br />
'''The sea that cast them up at first'''<br />
<br />
'''For Ama Xhosa’s curse and bane''' <br />
<br />
'''Howls for the progeny she nursed'''<br />
<br />
'''To swallow them again.'''</blockquote>According to Bunting, the elimination of whites seemed to be implied in the slogan of a “Native Republic.” He regarded the phrase “safeguards for minorities ” as having little meaning, since whites would assume that the existing injustices would be reversed; that, in effect, blacks would do to them what they had been handing out for so long.<br />
<br />
While Bunting had held that all nationalism was reactionary, La Guma distinguished between the revolutionary nationalism of the Natives and the “nationalism” of the Boers (which in reality was simply a quarrel between sections of the ruling class), He argued that the communists must not hold back on the revolutionary demands of the Natives in order to pacify the white workers who are still “saturated with an imperialist ideology” and conscious of the privileges they enjoy at the Natives’ expense. <br />
<br />
Bunting held that the road to socialism would be traveled under white leadership; to La Guma, the securing of black rights was the first step to be taken, As the Simonses described it, “First establish African majority rule, he argued, and unity, leading to socialism, would follow.” La Guma called on communists to “build up a mass party based upon the non-European masses,” put forward the slogan of a Native Republic and thus destroy the traditional subservience to whites among Africans. This argument continued up through the Sixth Congress.<br />
<br />
=== MY STAY IN THE CAUCASUS ===<br />
In the middle of April 1928, I left Moscow for a stay in the Caucasus. The winter had been one of those long, cold, dark Moscow winters, Snow was still on the ground in April, Over the whole season, I had been plagued by recurrent seizures of grippe. Between the demands of school and the preparations for the Sixth Congress, it had been a winter of intense activity, Undoubtedly, this had contributed to my inability to shake off the illness. By the spring, I was pretty run down. <br />
<br />
The school doctor detected a slight anemia and recommended a month in a rest home. So, I was shipped off to Kislovodsk, a famous health resort in the northern Caucasus. I traveled south and east, across the Ukrainian steppe, where spring had already come to Rostov-on-Don, the administrative center for the northerm Caucasus region, Then on to Mincralny Vody (Mineral Water), the gateway to the Caucasus and a major railroad junction. I changed there for Kislovodsk, a short distance further towards the mountains.<br />
<br />
Stepping off the train in Kislovodsk in early morning, I felt better at my first breath of fresh mountain air. The city was located in the foothills on the northern range of the Caucasus. Its mineral springs were famed for their medicinal properties, especially for coronary patients. Formerly a famous watcring-place for the wealthy, it was now enjoyed by all the Soviet people. Kislovodsk was the source of the famous Narzan water which cost forty or fifty kopeks a bottle in Moscow. Here it bubbled from the ground in numerous springs, and you could drink all you wanted.<br />
<br />
Checking in at the sanitarium, I was assigned to a room shared by three others-—two workers and a Party functionary from Tbilisi named Kolya Tsereteli. Kolya was a tall, handsome, swarthy young man. He cut quite a figure in his long Georgian robochka, soft leather boots, high astrakhan cap and ornamental belt, complete with kinjal (dagger). He immediately took me in charge and became my constant companion during my stay there. <br />
<br />
After I had been examined by a doctor who prescribed daily baths, Kolya took me around on a sightseeing tour. The sun was coming up over the parks, cypress trees and places for open air concerts.<br />
<br />
After several weeks, I felt much better and was soon chafing at the bit, bored with the regimen and eager to return to Moscow, At this point Kolya suggested that we might try to arrange my accompanying him to his home in Tbilisi (hot springs) and stay for a week before returning to Moscow. I was delighted and had no difficulty in getting both my release from the sanitarium and permission from the school to make the trip.<br />
<br />
Tbilisi--the Florence of the Caucasus—was a beautiful modern city, stretching for miles along both sides of the Kura River. Ithad spacious avenues lined by stately cypress trees; handsome buildings and apartments, a magnificent cathedral, its great central dome flanked by four cupolas, framed against a background of the mountains of the mighty Caucasus chain, with Mount David rising 2,500 fect above the city.<br />
<br />
It was a mixed population of mainly Georgians, Armenians, Jews and some Turko-Tartars. Kolya explained that there actually were more Armenians than Georgians living there in the capital of Georgia! He went on to tell me that in the Caucasus, ethnic groups often overlapped their national boundaries as finally constituted. This was particularly so in the case of the Armenians, who were the victims of genocidal persecution and dispersal by Turkey. As a result, there were more Armenians in Azerbaidzhan and Georgia than in the Armenian Republic itself.<br />
<br />
In the old days, Georgian nationalism was directed more against the Armenians than against the Russians. The Armenians had a larger merchant class. They dominated commerce and were an obstacle to the growth of the weak Georgian bourgeoisie who retaliated by whipping up national animosity against the Armenians. Hence, national hatred was often directed against rival national groups rather than against the dominant Czarist power, and the Czarist government exploited these animosities fully.<br />
<br />
The area was known for bloody battles between the various ethnic groups, But all that ended with the revolution, Kolya said, and with the establishment of the Trans-Caucasian Federation. based on national equality and voluntary consent. <br />
<br />
Within the federation, which was composed of three republics (Georgia, Azerbaidzhan and Armenia), the Georgian republic had three minority distriets; Abkhazia and Azaria as autonomous republics, and Yugo-Osetia as an autonomous region, National languages and cultures were flourishing under the new regime.<br />
<br />
“As you will see, here in Tbilisi we have Georgian, Armenian and Russian theaters,” Kolya told me.<br />
<br />
Kolya hailed an izvozchik and we rode to his apartment, located on one of the broad tree-lined avenues of the city. Arriving there, we were happily greeted by his family, His wife, an attractive young schoolteacher, received me warmly and told me that Kolya had written her about me. They had two beautiful children, a boy of about three and a girl about five. They seemed fascinated with my appearance and couldn't take their eyes off me. I was undoubtedly the first Black man they had ever seen. <br />
<br />
On being told by Kolya to “shake hands with the black uncle,” the boy hesitantly extended his little hand. ,<br />
<br />
I took it and gently shook it. When he withdrew it, he looked at his hand to see whether some of the black had come off and seemed rather surprised that it hadn’t.<br />
<br />
“No, it won’t come off,” I said, and we all laughed. I had experienced this reaction from Russian children in Moscow, and it never failed to amuse me.<br />
<br />
The Tseretelis lived in a clean and neatly-furnished three-room apartment on the second floor of the building, with a balcony over the sidewalk. As if reading my thoughts, Kolya said, “Don’t worry, we all usually sleep in one room; the other is for my brother who stays here with us. He is out of town, so you can stay in his room.”<br />
<br />
Kolya was anxious to cheek in at the Party office where he worked, so we left our baggage and walked to his office a short distance away. I was interested in the people we passed. They looked better dressed than the Russians back in Moscow, their costumes were gayer. Perhaps it was due to the milder climate,<br />
<br />
Kolya served as the deputy secretary of the Agitprop Department of the Tbilisi Committee of the Communist Party. He introduced me to his fellow workers in the department; they all seemed glad to see him and remarked how well he looked after his rest. They were speaking Georgian; Kolya asked them to speak in Russian in deference to me, They all seemed to be multilingual. Kolya, I knew, besides his native Georgian, spoke Russian, Armenian and some French. The comrades insisted on calling a conference. Like most Party officials, they were well-informed on both domestic and international questions and were an educated audience.<br />
<br />
They asked me my impressions of their country, and they also had questions about the situation in the United States, about the conditions of Blacks. Kolya told them that I was a student at the Lenin School in Moscow and that formerly I had been at KUTVA. They knew about KUTVA as they too had sent students there. They were interested in the work I had done in preparation for the forthcoming Sixth Congress, and they were familiar with Stalin's report to the Fifteenth Party Congress from that December, where he described the international situation. They asked me questions about the international situation and the war danger and we exchanged opinions.<br />
<br />
Kolya explained that I was only going to bein town for acouple of days. It was Friday then, and I was scheduled to leave on Sunday. As I remember, we took a car from the pool and two or three people from the office accompanied us on a sightseeing tour along the banks of the river.<br />
<br />
We returned to Kolya’s home where his wife had a delicious big meal waiting for us: shashlik, fruits and pastries. We sat up until late that night telling stories.<br />
<br />
The next day we saw a number of places of interest, bathed in the famous hot sulfur springs, went up to the summit of Mount David and saw the old church on the mountain, which dated back centuries, and the mausoleum of famous Georgian poets and patriots. All in all we spent a very enjoyable weekend together.<br />
<br />
On Sunday, Kolya and his wife took me to the station and put me on the train for Moscow. Three days later I was back home. I saw Kolya once again when he was on a visit to Moscow and I took him out to dinner.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 9 ==<br />
<br />
=== Sixth Congress of the Comintern: A Blow Against the Right ===<br />
The Sixth World Congress of the Comintern, held in Moscow in July and August of 1928, was a historic turning point in the world communist movement. Early in July the first U.S. delegates arrived, anxious to get the “lay of the land” and to scout the political situation in the capital of world revolution. As I recall, Lovestone’s group staked out headquarters at the Lux Hotel, while the Foster-Cannon opposition gathered at the Bristol, a short distance further up the street.<br />
<br />
A number of us from the Lenin School were on hand when our comrades in the Foster group arrived. We got together to talk with a number of them, though Foster, Cannon and Bittelman were not present. They were anxious to get a report on the situation in the Soviet Party: Which leaders were involved in the right opposition? What was Bukharin doing? Where did he stand?<br />
<br />
We gave them a rundown on the situation as we saw it. The issues in the discussion included industrialization, the five-year plan, collectivization, the drive against the Kulaks and the war danger.<br />
<br />
We told them about disagreements in the CPSU. There was talk of a hidden right faction involving such leaders as Rykov, Tomsky and possibly Bukharin. Thus far, however, there were only rumors and speculations. The fight was not yet out in the open, but was confined to the Politburo and the Central Committee. A plenum of the Central Committee had been called on the eve of the Sixth Congress and was at that moment in session. We told them that we could undoubtedly find out at the congress if there were any new developments,<br />
<br />
On their part, our fellow oppositionists ran down the latest developments in the inner-Party struggle at home. We already knew of the findings of a special American Commission which had been set up at the Eighth Plenum of the CI in May 1927. The commission’s final resolution had called for the unconditional abolition of all factionalism. Both sides ignored the resolution. however, as the most vicious factionalism continued in the Party. At the Fifth Convention of the CPUSA in the fall of 1927, the Lovestone-Pepper bunch were able to out-maneuver the Foster-Cannon opposition and win control of the organizational apparatus.<br />
<br />
Firmly in the saddle of power and riding high, their support came from the belief on the part of the membership that the Lovestone group had the endorsement of the Comintern—a myth assiduously cultivated by the Lovestone cohorts. They were playing a deceitful game of double-bookkeeping, both with respect to the Comintern as well as to the membership at home. Their method was to give lip service to the fight against the right danger. while in practice undermining its application and attempting to pin the label of “right” on the opposition. Typical of this duplicity was their sabotage of the line of the Red International of Labor Unions’ (RILU) Fourth Congress, which had called for the formation of the new unions in industries and areas where the workers were unorganized.<br />
<br />
In the U.S., the new upsurge in class struggle, combined wit refusal of the AFL craft-type union caters to ieee ie majority of industrial workers, demanded that the communists take the lead and organize the unions themselves. ;<br />
<br />
At this point in the discussion it was pointed out that Foster himself was still not clear on the question of the formation of the new unions. Other members of the grouping admitted that they had also vacillated on the question when it was first raised—after the decisions of the Fourth RILU Congress-—but it appeared that they now had a better grasp of the matter.<br />
<br />
On the question of the estimate of the international situation, they pointed out that their record was clear, whereas the leadership definitely underestimated the economic crisis and radicalization of the workers. They admitted that they were late in pressing the question of independent unions, but now they had finally decided to launch textile, mining and needle trades industrial unions. Lovestone had jumped on the bandwagon at the last minute as a loud trumpeter of the “new unions” line in an attempt to clear his record before the World Congress.<br />
<br />
On the whole, our comrades were full of fight and optimistic at the outcome of placing their case before the World Congress. They seemed sure that they would get a favorable hearing. The strategy was to expose the Lovestone-Pepper leadership as the embodiment of the right danger in the U.S. Party and to explode the myth of their Comintern support, thus laying the basis for the victory of the opposition at the next Party convention. This strategy was pressed at the numerous caucus meetings of the opposition bloc which I attended before and during the congress.<br />
<br />
But all was not well within the ranks of the opposition; that much was evident at the first meeting of our caucus. Foster, the leader of the minority, came under sharp attack for his vacillation on the question of the new unions from his immediate co-workers, Bittelman, Cannon, Browder and Johnstone. Foster had not been alone in his resistance to the new policy. Most of the members of the minority had vacillated on, if not openly resisted, the decisions of the Ninth Plenum and of the Fourth Congress of the RILU on this question.<br />
<br />
But Foster had been the most stubborn, clinging to the old policy based on the organized workers, rather than the unorganized, which placed main emphasis on work within the old reactionary-dominated AFL unions. This policy, which Lozovsky had caricatured as “dancing a quadrille,..around the AFL and its various unions,” regarded the organization of unions independent of the AFL as “dual unionism”--a heresy left over from the days of the IWW.<br />
<br />
Just a month before, in the May Plenum of the CC of the CPUSA, Foster had written a trade union resolution which was supported by Lovestone, While it called for the building of independent textile and miners’ unions, it still reflected many illusions as to the gains communists could make within the AFL. Foster could not bring himself to fully criticize his earlier mistakes, which left Lovestone free to use Foster as a cover for his rightist position.<br />
<br />
All of this was bad for the minority; it blurred the image that it sought to present to the congress—that of consistent fighters against the right danger. There was a heated exchange at the first meeting of the minority caucus. As I recall, Foster contended that he had not in principle been against the new turn, but against those who interpreted it as a signal for desertion of the work in the old unions, It was clear that at this point Foster had lost leadership (at least temporarily) of his own group. Bittelman was chosen to make the report for the minority in the American Commission of the congress,<br />
<br />
With tempers still frayed, we passed on to a brief exchange on the Afro-American question and the proposed new line on self-determination, which they all knew was coming up for fulldress discussion at the congress. I gave a brief outline of the position and how I had been led to it by the study of the Garvey movement.<br />
<br />
Then someone raised the inevitable question, Wouldn't this be construed as an endorsement of Black separation? Does it not conflict with the struggle against segregation?<br />
<br />
Foster objected to that implication, maintaining that selfdetermination didn’t necessarily mean separation. He drew an analogy to our trade union policy with respect to Blacks, He pointed out the necessity to fight for the organization of Blacks and whites in one union and against all segregation, But in unions where Jim Crow bars exclude Blacks, Foster said, we support their right to organize their own separate unions, In such situations, the organization of Black unions should be regarded as a step toward eventual unity and not an advocacy of separation.<br />
<br />
It was evident that Foster had studied the question and was attempting to relate it to his own practical experience. While his analogy was oversimplified, he was clearly taking a correct stand.<br />
<br />
Bittelman, as I recall, seemed the clearest of all. Perhaps this was as a result of his Russian revolutionary background and some acquaintance with the Bolshevik policy on the national question. He pointed out the necessity of making a distinction between the right of separation and separation itself. Separation or independence is only one of the options; there were various forms of federation as Soviet experience had shown. The central question was one of building unity of Black and white workers against U.S. capitalism and this could be achieved only by recognition of the right of self-determination.<br />
<br />
I was happy about the support given to the position by Foster and Bittelman, As the main theoretician of the minority, Bittelman had a great deal of influence. Certainly there was unclarity among the caucus members, but by and large I was favorably impressed by this first airing of the question. After all, I reasoned, the proposed new line did represent a radical shift from past policy. There seemed to be a modesty among these people and a sincere desire to give the matter a full hearing.<br />
<br />
I felt that on the whole my comrades were an honest lot, Despite factional considerations, they were motivated by the overriding desire to achieve clarity on a question which up to that point had frustrated the Party’s best efforts.<br />
<br />
In the caucus meetings, I had my first close-up view of some of the leaders with whom I was to work in the future. Mostly from the midwest, with genuine roots in the American labor tradition, they were a pretty impressive bunch. Most had broad mass experience—especially in the trade union field. The roots of the Lovestone group were much more grounded among former functionaries and propagandists of the Socialist Party.<br />
<br />
William Z. Foster, leader of the minority bloc, was also the leader in the Party’s trade union work. A self-educated man, he had worked at a number of trades, including longshoreman, seaman, lumberjack, street-car conductor and railroad worker Born in Massachusetts, he spent his early childhood in Philadelphia and came into prominence as a trade union leader in Chicago.<br />
<br />
He had been a left socialist, then, for a brief period, joined with the Wobblies. He soon clashed with them on the issue of dual unionism. Foster himself opted for the French syndicalist policy of boring from within the established unions. He joined the Communist Party in the summer of 1921 and brought an entire group of trade unionists with him.<br />
<br />
In Chicago, Foster was deeply involved in trade union work. He had served as business agent for the Brotherhood of Railroad Car Men of America; was a founder of the TUEL; initiated the nationwide drive to organize the stockyard workers in 1917; and was leader of the 1919 steel strike, the attempt to organize 365,000 steelworkers. It was in this strike that he became a nationally known left trade union figure.<br />
<br />
The first time I saw Foster in action was at the Fourth Party Convention in Chicago in the summer of 1925. I remember him angrily pacing with clenched fists back and forth across the platform behind Ruthenberg as the latter berated him from the rostrum. Here in the caucus, he was again an angry man, but under the lashing of his friends and co-factionalists.<br />
<br />
Jack Johnstone, a Scotsman, still had the Scot’s burr in his Speech. An ex-Wobbly and close co-worker of Foster, he had been one of the young radical Chicago trade unionists. A member of the Chicago Federation of Labor from the Painters Union, Johnstone was a leader in the TUEL. I had met him at the Fourth RILU Congress. His name was familiar to me because of his role as a leader in the organization of the Chicago stockyard workers in which my sister had been involved. Johnstone was the organizer of the drive for the Chicago Federation of Labor and later became secretary of the Chicago Stockyards Council with 55,000 white and Black members.<br />
<br />
On the eve of the 1919 riots, he had helped to organize a parade of white stockyard unionists through the Southside in solidarity with the Black workers. I had the pleasure of working with Johnstone later in Pittsburgh and in Chicago, where he was industrial organizer for the district. He was a quiet, unassuming guy with a wry sense of humor.<br />
<br />
Earl Browder of Wichita, Kansas, served his ideological apprenticeship as a radical trade unionist in the socialist and cooperative movements. Arrested in 1917 on charges of defying the draft law, he spent three years in the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas.<br />
<br />
I had known Browdcr briefly in Moscow while he was rep to the Profintern, before he went on a two year mission to the Far East for that organization. We KUTVA students would often visit him at his room in the Lux Hotel where he would play checkers with Golden, who usually won. He told us that when he was at Leavenworth, he had met a number of former members of the Black Twenty-fourth Infantry who had been involved in the mutiny-riot in Houston, Texas, in the summer of 1917. He told us that they often played baseball together in prison. <br />
<br />
At the time, Browder seemed to me to be a quiet, modest, unassuming man. But at this caucus mecting, something had happened which seemed to have transformed him into a “new’ Browder. Though long associated with Foster, he now seemed bent on not only asserting his independence, but on establishing his own claim to leadership.<br />
<br />
At one point in the heated discussion on trade union policy, he exclaimed sarcastically: “You expect to get the support of the Comintern, but you're all divided among yourselves! There’s a Cannon group, a Bittelman Group, a Foster Group—well, I'm for the Browder Group!”<br />
<br />
No one seemed to take his remark seriously, but less than a year later Browder was to emerge as secretary of the Party.<br />
<br />
James P. Cannon was also from Kansas—a tall, raw-boned midwesterner of Irish descent. He came from the same trade union background as the other caucus leaders; he had been a traveling organizer for the Wobblies and an editor of a number of labor papers. Hc was a supporter of Trotsky, although he didn’t admit it at the congress. Later he split from the Party and helped form the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party. <br />
<br />
Bil} Dunne was a man of impressive credentials. Raised in Minnesota, Dunne entered the trade union movement as an electrician. Then in Butte, Montana, during World War I, he edited the Butte Daily Bulletin (official organ of the Montana Federation of Labor and the Butte Central Labor Council).<br />
<br />
Dunne had been secretary of a local of electricians, vice-president of the Montana Federation of Labor and a member of the state legislature (on the Democratic ticket, which in Butte was labor controlled). He helped organize the Socialist Party Branch of Butte and brought it into the Communist Labor Party in 1919.<br />
<br />
I got to know Bill quite well; he was in the Soviet Union for some months before the Sixth Congress as a Profintern rep. I first met him through Clarence Hathaway, and both were associated with the Cannon sub-group. Bill was familiar with the emerging line on self-determination and supported it. He had written a number of articles on Black workers in the mid-twenties.<br />
<br />
To me, he was the most colorful figure in our caucus anda man of unusual brilliance. Keen-witted, sharp in debate, he had an extraordinary sense of humor. Of Irish and French-Canadian parentage, Bill was short and heavy-set, with black bushy eyebrows. He cut a romantic figure onthe streets of Moscow in his Georgian rabochka and sheathed dagger at his waist. I had aclose friendship with Bill which lasted over a number of years.<br />
<br />
Alexander Bittelman was a Russian Jew who had emigrated to the United States when in his early twenties. A little fellow. Bittelman was both ascetic and scholarly. He had been in the socialist movement in Russia and continued on in his political work in the U.S. A serious Marxist student, Bittelman was the main theoretician for the Foster group.<br />
<br />
=== THE LOVESTONE CAUCUS ===<br />
The Lovestone-Pepper caucus was meeting at the same time. They too were mapping out plans for the battle on the floor of the congress. Lovestone also had his troubles—most involved the shedding of his opportunist reputation for that of “crusader against the right danger.”<br />
<br />
Most of the “big guns” were on the scene: Lovestone, Pepper, Weinstone and Wolfe. Gitlow, Bedacht and others were left at home as caretakers; Gitlow ostensibly to carry on the Party’s election campaign (in which he was vice-presidential candidate).<br />
<br />
While I was the only Black in the minority caucus, the Lovestone-Pepper caucus claimed the allegiance, if not the ardent support, of a number of leading Black comrades. In the nine months since the convention, the Lovestone-Pepper leadership had attempted to patch its fences in the work among Blacks. Otto Huiswood, now a member of the Central Committee and district organizer in Buffalo, was the first Black district organizer. Richard B. Moore was assigned to the International Labor Defense, and Cyril P. Briggs was editor of The Crusader News Service, which was subsidized by the Party.<br />
<br />
But none of these could be called ardent supporters of Lovestone. They were all dissatisfied with the status of Afro-American work, which was reflected in the small number of Black cadre in the Party. In general, it was still difficult to draw a hard and fast distinction between the factions on questions concerning Afro-American work.<br />
<br />
Blacks in the Lovestone delegation included H.V. Phillips and Fort-Whiteman (both directly from the United States) and students from the graduating group at KUTVA—Otto, Farmer and Williams (Golden had already left for home). The group also included William L. Patterson, the young attorney who had worked with the Party on the Sacco-Vanzetti case and who had been sent to KUTVA just before the congress.<br />
<br />
James Ford, who worked in the Profintern and was to become an outstanding Party leader in the thirties, stood aloof from both groups as I remember. His sympathies seemed to be with the Foster-Cannon opposition, however.<br />
<br />
Among the Blacks attending the congress, I was the only one supporting the new line on self-determination. The others insisted that “it was a race question, not a national question,” implying that the solution lay through assimilation under socialism. Probing deeper, I found that most were hung up on a purist and non-Marxist concept of the class struggle which ruled out all strivings towards nationality and Black identity as divisive, running counter to internationalism and Black and white unity.<br />
<br />
It was an American version of the “pure proletarian revolution” concept; a domestic manifestation of the old deviation in the socialist and communist movements against which Lenin, Stalin and others had fought in the development of the Bolshevik policy on the national and colonial question.<br />
<br />
Recalling that I myself had held the same view just a few months back, I felt that the resistance of Blacks in the Party to self-determination would be overcome through exposure in the discussions at the congress of the proposed new line. I had no doubt that they would come to see, as I had, the grand irony of a situation in which we Blacks, who so vociferously complained about our white comrades underestimating the revolutionary significance of the Afro-American question, were guilty of the same sin. For the revolutionary significance of the struggle for Black rights lay precisely in the recognition of its character as essentially that of the struggle of an oppressed nation against U.S. imperialism,<br />
<br />
At this point, the opposition to the idea of Black self-determination was to receive theoretical support from an unexpected source, This opposition came from Professor Sik, my old teacher at KUTVA, who was still teaching the Black students there, Sik contended that bourgeois race ideology, which fostered racial prejudices, was the prime factor in the oppression of U.S. Blacks. Therefore, their fight for equal rights should be regarded not as that of an oppressed nation striving for equality via self-determination but, on the contrary, as the fight of an oppressed racial minority (similar to the Jews under cezarism) for assimilation as equals into U.S. society. <br />
<br />
Sik undoubtedly thought that he was presenting original views, but stripped of their pseudo-Marxist phraseology, they were the old bourgeois-liberal reformist views. He slurred over the socioeconomic factors that lay at the base of the question, factors which call for the completion of the agrarian-democratic revolution in the South, His perspective divested the Black movement of its independent revolutionary thrust, reducing it to a bourgeois liberal opposition to race prejudice.<br />
<br />
However, Sik’s thesis continued to be used as a crutch for the right opposition over the next year or so; it appeared in the Communist International (organ of the Comintern) in the midst of the Sixth World Congress. But the pressure for a turn to the left in this work was to flush it out into the open along with other right-wing views on the question. <br />
<br />
Foremost among these were the views of Jay Lovestone. His view of Southern Blacks as a “reserve of capitalist reaction’ provided a theoretical rationale for the Party’s chronic underestimation of the question. This was clear in his report to the Fifth Party Convention in which he contended that: <blockquote>'''The migration of Negroes from the South to the North is another means of proletarianization, consequently the existence of this group asa reserve of capitalist reaction is likewise being undermined.'''</blockquote>Lovestone held that the masses of Blacks in the South become potentially revolutionary only through migration to the industrial centers in the north and participation in class struggle along with white workers. This viewpoint, which was later to become a cornerstone for his theory of “American exceptionalism,” was first outlined in his report for the Fifth Convention of the Party and again in his report in the Daily Worker in February 1928. But these articles passed unnoticed at the time. It was only on the eve of the Sixth World Congress and under the pressure of the new line that we became alerted to Lovestone’s views.<br />
<br />
The general meeting of the American delegation took place the day before the opening of the congress. All factions were represented but, as I recall, there were no fireworks. By that time, lines were clearly drawn and neither faction was trying to convince the other. On our part, we were saving our ammunition for the battle on the floor of the congress and its commissions.<br />
<br />
Apparently there had been some objections in the Lovestone group to the proposed new line on self-determination. To mollify these people, Lovestone stated that he stood for the right of self-determination of oppressed peoples everywhere, surely he said, no communist could oppose this right. I assumed that he regarded the slogan as some sort of showcase principle; something to be declared but which did not commit its advocates to any special line of action. Lovestone knew which way the wind was blowing and was clearly trying to straddle the fence on the issue.<br />
<br />
The delegates at this meeting were assigned to the various commissions; there was no struggle over the assignments as it was understood that all commissions had to include members of both factions. These commissions included the American Negro/ South African Commission, Colonial Commission, Trade Union Commission, and Program Commission.<br />
<br />
=== THE SIXTH WORLD CONGRESS ===<br />
On July 17, 1928, 532 delegates representing fifty-seven parties and nine organizations assembled in the Hall of Trade Unions. The delegation from the United States was a large one— twenty-nine delegates, including twenty voting and nine advisor delegates. The Sixth Congress convened under the slogan of "War Against the Right Danger and the Rightist Conciliators.”<br />
<br />
The period since the February plenum of the Comintern had been marked by the emergence of a clearly defined right opportunist deviation in most of the parties, They advanced the perspective of continuous capitalist recovery and the easing of the class struggle. In the realm of tactics this meant a continuation of the old “united front from above” and a reliance on social reformist trade union leaders. In the U.S., the right was to find its ease exponents in the Lovestone-Pepper leadership, which emphesized the strength of U.S. capitalism and its ability to postpone the crisis.<br />
<br />
A right opposition had also begun to develop in the CPSU, headed by Bukharin; Rykov, chairman of the Council of People's Commissions; and Tomsky, heading the Soviet Trade Unions. This group opposed the programs of the Stalinist majority of the Central Committee with respect to the goals of the new Five Year Plan, which called for intensified industrialization, collectivization, and the drive against the kulaks. The right deviation inthe CPSU and in the other parties of the Comintern had a common source—overestimation of the strength of world capitalism. The congress was faced with the need to answer these critics by deepening its analysis of the period and by spelling out more clearly the policy flowing from it.<br />
<br />
In the Soviet Party, the disagreement had come to a head prior to its plenum of July 1928, which adjourned just before the Sixth Congress. The differences, however, were hushed up by a resolution unanimously adopted by both groups which stated that there were no differences in the leadership of the CPSU. The agreement undoubtedly expressed the desire of the Soviet leadership to keep the congress from becoming an arena for discussion of Soviet problems before they had been finally thrashed out within their own Party.<br />
<br />
The delegates, however, were not unaware of the struggle in the Soviet Party. They gathered in an atmosphere charged with rumor and speculation about differences within the CPSU. The questions in our minds were: Who represented the right danger in the CPSU, the leading Party of the CI? What was the role of Bukharin? What had been the outcome of the discussions in the plenum of the CPSU? How would the congress be affected? We did not have long to wait for answers to these questions. Differences developed over sections of Bukharin’s ''Report on the International Situation and Tasks of the Comintern''.<br />
<br />
In his report which was distributed on July 18, at the second session of the congress, Bukharin analyzed the post-World War I international situation, dividing it into three periods. He defined the first (1917-1923) as one of revolutionary upsurge; the second (1924-1927) as a period of partial stabilization of capitalism; and the third (1928 on) as one of capitalist reconstruction. Bukharin made no clear distinction between the second and third periods; the latter was simply a continuation of the second. According to his characterization, there was nothing new at the present time to shake capitalist stabilization. On the contrary, capitalism was continuing to “reconstruct itself.”<br />
<br />
On this question Bukharin was challenged by his own Soviet delegation which submitted a series of twenty amendments to the thesis. These characterized the third period as one in which partial stabilization was coming to an end. Later, in his criticism of Bukharin’s position, Stalin pointed out the decisive importance of a correct estimate of the third period. The question involved here was: “Are we passing through a period of decline of the revolutionary movement...or are we passing through a period when the conditions are maturing for a new revolutionary upsurge, a period of preparation of the working class for future class battles? It is on this that the tactical line of the Communist Parties depends"<br />
<br />
At first, all of this was somewhat confusing to us. In his opening report Bukharin had himself declared the right deviation the greatest danger” to the Comintern. But in his characterization of the third period as one of virtual capitalist recovery he had adopted the main thesis of the right. He had also put himself in the awkward position of being rejected by his own delegation. But as Stalin was later to point out, it was his own fault for failing to discuss his report in advance with the Soviet delegation, as was customary. Instead he distributed his report to all delagations simulataniously. <br />
<br />
In accordance with our battle plan to expose to Lovestone leadership as the embodiment of the right deviation in the American Party, our caucus took the offensive. Even before the discussion on Bukharin’s report began, our minority had submitted a document entitled “The Right Danger and the American Party.” It was signed by J.W. Johnstone, M. Gomez, W.F Dunne, J.P. Cannon, W.Z. Foster, A. Bittelman and G Siskind. <br />
<br />
The document contained a bill of particulars in which we sought to point out that the rightist tendencies and mistakes of the Lovestone-Pepper leadership added up to a right line.<br />
<br />
Our attack, however, was hobbled by blemishes in the stateside record of our own caucus. At that point it would have been hard to discern any principled political differences between the majority or minority, Nevertheless, differences were developing on the estimation of the third period and U.S. imperialism.<br />
<br />
Pepper and Lovestone exaggerated the might of U.S. impetialism and spoke only of the weakness of the U.S. labor movement and the class struggle in this country. But the minority had also wavered on the question of building independent trade unions, the logical follow-through of the correct estimate of the objective situation in terms of practical policy.<br />
<br />
On the Negro question, the minority record up to that point had been no better than that of the majority. This fact was quickly pointed out by Otto and others. Both groups had shared the same mistakes. As Foster later observed, both factions had “traditionally considered the Negro question as that of a persecuted racial minority of workers and as basically a simple trade union matter.” It was this orientation which explains the Party's shortcomings in this field of work. But now, the tentative endorsement by our caucus of the proposed new line on the Afro-American question strengthened its position vis-a-vis the majority leadership.<br />
<br />
The prospects for our minority were brightened by the difficulties of Lovestone’s friend and mentor, Bukharin. Corridor rumors concerning his right-wing proclivities were now being confirmed by his differences with his own Soviet delegation on the character of the third period.<br />
<br />
The congress was now settling down to work. A number of commissions were formed to discuss and formulate resolutions on the main subjects confronting the eongress. Among them were: 1) A Commission on Program, to complete the drafting of a program for the Comintern; 2) one on the Trade Union question, to apply the struggle against right opportunism to the trade union field; and 3) a commission on the Colonial Question which discussed strategy and tactics of the liberation movements in the colonies and semi-colonies and the tasks of the Comintern. There were also several commissions on the special problems of individual parties.<br />
<br />
My major concern, however, was the Negro Commission, which was to take up the problem of the U.S. Blacks and the South African question. Although set up as an independent commission, in reality it was a subcommittee of the Colonial Commission. The resolutions formulated by it were included in the final draft of the congress’s thesis on the Revolutionary Movement in the Colonies. The Negro Commission was set up on August 6, at the twenty-third session of the congress. It was a memorable day, particularly for us Black communists—a day to which we all had looked forward. At last there was to be a full-dress discussion on the question.<br />
<br />
We listened attentively as the German comrade Remmele, chairman of the session, read off on behalf of the presidium the list of members and officers who would comprise the commission, It was an impressive list and indicated the high priority given the question by the congress. Thirty-two delegates, representing eighteen countries, including the United States, South Africa. Great Britain, the Soviet Union, France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Turkey, India, Palestine and Syria were members of the commission. Impressive also were its officers: the chairman, Ottomar Kuusinen, was a member of the Cl Secretariat and chairman of the Colonial Commission; the vice-chairman Petrovsky (Bennett) was also chairman of the Anglo-American Secretariat; and the recording secretary, Mikhailov (Williams), was a former Cl representative to the American Party. <br />
<br />
The delegates from the U.S, included five Blacks: myself, Jones (Otto Hall), Farmer (Roy Mahoney), James Ford and I believe, Harold Williams; plus two white comrades, Bittelman and Lovestone. Others included Sidney Bunting of South Africa; Fokin and Nasanov, representing the Young Communist International; the Swiss, Humbert-Droz, a top Cl official; Heller, from the Communist fraction of the Profintern; and several members of the Soviet delegation to the congress.<br />
<br />
Participation in commission meetings was not limited to its members, however. Among the important figures who spoke inthe discussions were Manuilsky, a CI official, and the Ukrainian, Skrypnik, both members of the Soviet delegation. The hall was always crowded with interested observers,<br />
<br />
The first order of business before the Commission was the Negro question, It was introduced by Petrovsky, who, as I recall stressed the need for a radical turn in the policy of the American Party with respect to its work among Blacks. He referred to the Negro Subcommittee, set up earlier in the year by the Anglo-American Seerctariat, which was given the task of preparing materials on the question for the Sixth Congress.<br />
<br />
Petrovsky described the two positions which emerged from this subcommittee.<br />
<br />
One held that the weaknesses of the Party’s Negro work was a result of an incorrect line. The partisans of this position regarded Blacks in the South as an oppressed nation and recommended that the right of self-determination be raised as an orientation slogan in their struggle for equality.<br />
<br />
The other position, he said, held that the question was one of a “racial minority” whose immediate and ultimate demands were embraced by the slogan of complete economic, social and political equality, The supporters of this position attributed the weaknesses in the Party’s Afro-American work to the underestimation of the importance of work among Blacks, This resulted, in turn, from the survivals of racial prejudices within the ranks of the Party and its leadership. This position did not challenge the Party’s line, but called for its more energetic application.<br />
<br />
As I recall, Petrovsky stated that he himself favored the position on self-determination. He did not see it as a negation of the slogan of social equality which, he said, would remain the main slogan for the Black masses. But in the Black Belt, where Blacks are in the majority, in addition to the slogan of cquality the Party must raise another slogan—the right of self-determination. For here, equality without the right of Blacks to enforce it is but an empty phrase.<br />
<br />
At the same time he expressed agreement with the comrades who contended that the hangovers of racial prejudice in the Party were a main obstacle to the Party’s effective work among Blacks. He stressed the need to fight against the ideology of white chauvinism, a principle block to the unity of Black and white workers.<br />
<br />
Petrovsky then referred the comrades to the material before them. It included the document by Nasanov and myself, summarizing our position in support of the — self-determination thesis. The document contained a criticism of current Party activities and policies and condemned Pepper’s May 30th resolution, which had made no reference to the Party’s tasks in the South. It also criticized the completely northern orientation of the American Negro Labor Congress, as contained in the policy statements of its leaders, Lovett Fort-Whiteman and H.V. Phillips. Finally, it criticized Lovestone’s characterization of Southern Blacks as “reserves of capitalist reaction.”<br />
<br />
Other documents presented to the commission were a statement by Dunne and Hathaway supporting the self-determination viewpoint and a document by Sik opposing the proposed new line. Sik argued that Blacks were a racial minority whose immediate and ultimate demands were embraced by the slogan of full social equality. <br />
<br />
Later in the discussion, Pepper submitted a document containing his proposals for a “Negro Soviet Republic” in the South, arguing that Southern Blacks were not just a nation but virtually a colony within the body of the United States of America.<br />
<br />
Among the American delegates who spoke in favor of the proposed new line were Bittelman, Foster and Dunne. As I remember, all were self-critical. Bittelman, however, emphasized the dual role of the Black working class envisioned by the new line: first, its role as a basic and constituent element of the American working class and, second, its leadership of the national liberation movement of Black people.<br />
<br />
I do not remember Lovestone speaking. If he did, he did not openly attack the proposed new line, for that would not have been his style. It was clear to all, however, that he had strong reservations. Sam Darey of the Young Communist League was, as I remember, the only white comrade who openly opposed the proposed new line.<br />
<br />
But the strongest opposition to the self-determination thesis both in the commission and on the floor of the congress was from the Black comrades James Ford and Otto Hall. In their arguments it was evident that they relied heavily on Professor Sik and his “new” theory on “race problems.” Up to that point, neither Nasanov nor I had paid much attention to Sik. But now after listening to Otto and Ford we suddenly realized the danger his theories posed to clarity on this vital question.<br />
<br />
Sik had evidently been working hard on his thesis which he was now proselytizing with almost evangelie zeal. He had, if not a captive audience, at least a willing one among the Black students at KUTVA where he taught (of all subjects!) Leninism. Now suddenly it seemed that Sik had become cast in the role of chief theoretician of the opposition to the proposed new policy; in their speeches Otto and Ford repeated verbatim many of his arguments.<br />
<br />
For example, both Otto and Ford insisted that U.S. Negroes were a racial minority rather than an oppressed nation or an oppressed national minority. (They used these two latter terms interchangeably at the time.) They ruled out all national movements among U.S. Blacks as reactionary. According to Ford, such movements were led by the “chauvinistic” Black bourgeoisie who wanted a freer hand to exploit the Black masses. These movements, he argued, “play into the hands of the bourgeoisie by arresting the revolutionary class movement of the Negro masses and further widening the gulf between the white and similar oppressed groups.” He also averred that Blacks lack the characteristics of a nation. There was not the question of one nation oppressing and exploiting another nation, “In the United States,” Ford continued, “we find no economic system separating the two races. The interests of the Negro and white workers are the same. The Negro peasant and the white peasant interests are the same.” The only problem, he contended, was one of racial differences of the color of the skin, barriers set up by the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Otto sharpened the argument and contended that Blacks were “not developing any characteristies of a national minority...there exists no national entity as such among...Negroes.” Continuing along the same line, Otto saw no community of interest between the Black bourgeoisie and the Black toilers, whom, he argued, “are completely separated (from each other) as far as class interests are concerned.” In sum, he contended that “historical development has tended to create in him (the Negro) the desire to be considered a part of the American nation.”<br />
<br />
What then were the objectives of Black liberation? They were, according to Sik, the striving of Blacks for intermingling and amalgamation. I was astounded and dismayed. This seemed to me to be a bourgeois liberal-assimilationist position cloaked in pseudo-Marxist rhetoric.<br />
<br />
A few days before on the floor of the congress, Ford and Otto complained bitterly about the rampant white chauvinism in the Party and the widespread underestimation of the significance of Afro-American work. Could they not see that they were playing into the hands of the white chauvinist downgraders of the Black movement? They had conceded them their main premise: that the movement for Black equality in itself had no revolutionary potential.<br />
<br />
Sik’s theory had stripped the struggle for equality of all revolutionary content; it involved no radical social change, that is, completion of the land and democratic revolution and securing of political power in the South. It was just a struggle against racial ideology.<br />
<br />
How was it possible for Otto and Ford and other Black comrades to fall into this trap? They had separated racism, the most salient external manifestation of Black oppression, from its socio-economic roots, reducing the struggle for equality to a movement against prejudice. It was a theory which even liberal reformists could support.<br />
<br />
And why did they downgrade the revolutionary nature of the Black struggle for equality? I could only assume that it was an attempt on their part to fit the Afro-American question into the simplistic frame of “pure proletarian class struggle.” This theory ruled out all nationalist movements as divisive and distracting from the struggle for socialism. Lovestone’s idea of the Black peasantry in the South being a “reserve of capitalist reaction” was the logical outcome of this kind of thinking.<br />
<br />
What was clear to me was that our thesis of self-determination had correctly elevated the fight for Black rights to a revolutionary position, whereas the proponents of Sik’s theories attempted to downgrade the movement, seeing it as a minor aspect of the class struggle. Our thesis put the question in the proper perspective: that is, as a struggle attacking the very foundation of American imperialism, an integral part of the struggle of the American working class as a whole,<br />
<br />
The sad fact was that Otto, Ford and other partisans of Sik’s theory seemed completely unaware that they had come to a practical agreement with those white chauvinists who denied the revolutionary character of the Black liberation struggle in the false name of socialism.<br />
<br />
Nasanov, sitting beside me, undoubtedly had similar thoughts. He muttered something in Russian that sounded like, “Lord forgive them, for they know not what they do.”<br />
<br />
During an interval in the Negro Commission sessions, I cornered Otto in the corridor and accused him and Ford of downgrading the liberation struggle and playing into the hands of the white chauvinist element in the Party, How, I asked him, did he expect to fight those responsible for the neglect of work among Blacks when he accepted their main premise-—that the struggle of Blacks was not of itself revolutionary and that it only becomes so when they (the Blacks) fight directly for socialism?<br />
<br />
Otto indignantly denied this and accused me of allowing the question to be used as a factional football by the Foster group. I conceded that they were not all clear, But, I added heatedly, at least they had begun to recognize that their position had been wrong and they were trying to change it.<br />
<br />
We broke off the discussion; it was obviously useless to pursue the matter further, We were both getting emotional. No doubt our relationship had become rather strained as a result of our political differences, I was terribly saddened by this growing rift between my brother and me, True, I no longer thought of him as my political mentor, but nevertheless I felt he was a serious and dedicated revolutionary.<br />
<br />
What, I wondered, were the pressures that pushed Black proletarian comrades like Otto and Ford into this position? Foremost was their misguided but honest desire to amalgamate Black labor into the general labor movement. Nationalism, they felt, was a block to labor unity. They failed to recognize the revolutionary element in Black nationalism. I myself had held the same position only a few months earlier, but then I hadn’t studied Leninism under Sik.<br />
<br />
I remember running into Nasanov. We walked down the hall arm in arm and he asked me if I was going to speak. I said, “I don’t know, should I?”<br />
<br />
Knowing my shyness, he laughed and said, “We've got them on the run. We’ve submitted our resolution and supporting documents.”<br />
<br />
We were then accosted by Manuilsky whom I had met before. He wanted to know if I was the only Black supporting the self-determination position. I told him that thus far I was.<br />
<br />
“How did that happen?” he asked. That was a question I was still trying to answer myself. But before I could reply he said, “Oh, I know, They are all good class-conscious comrades, But I understand them. We Bolsheviks had the same type of deviation within the party.” He turned away to greet somebody else.<br />
<br />
And well he should understand, I reflected, for Manuilsky had been one of the leading Ukrainian Communists referred to in our class on Leninism, who, during the Revolution in the Ukraine, had been, guilty of the same deviation.<br />
<br />
He had been one of those whom the Bolsheviks had called “abstract Marxists,” those unable to relate Marxism to the concrete experience of their own people. On that occasion he resisted the resolution of the CC drafted by Lenin which made necessary concessions to Ukrainian nationalism; these included a softer line on the ku/aks and the establishment of Ukrainian as the national language.<br />
<br />
What about Comrade Pepper’s new slogan for a “Negro Soviet Republic?” Had he undergone a sudden conversion to the cause of Black nationhood? Was this the same Pepper who had completely ignored the South in his May thesis and who had, during the Program Commission at the Fifth Congress of the CI (1924), asserted that Blacks in the US wanted nothing to do with the slogan of self-determination?<br />
<br />
Sudden shifts in position were not new to Pepper who, as we have seen, was a man unrestrained by principles. Lominadze had branded Pepper on the floor of the congress as a man of “inadequate firmness of principle and backbone. He always agrees with those who are his seniors even if a minute ago he defended an utterly different viewpoint.”<br />
<br />
The Commission rejected Pepper’s slogan on the grounds that, first, it actually negated the principle of the right of self-determination by making the Party’s support of it contingent upon the acceptance by Blacks of the Soviet governmental form. Secondly, it was an opportunist attempt to skip over the intermediate stage of preparation and mobilization of the Black masses around their immediate demands.<br />
<br />
Pepper's position was actually an attempt to outflank the new position from the “left.” Clearly he sought to grab the spotlight, to upstage the move towards a new policy. Perhaps he thought that the left-sounding term “Soviet” would make the new stress on the national character of the question more palatable to his factional cohorts of the pure revolutionary persuasion.<br />
<br />
Otto seemed to have nibbled on the bait; at least he felt it did not contradict his position. In his previously quoted speech he stated, “There is no objection on our part on (sic) the principle ofa Soviet Republic for Negroes in America. The point we are concerned with here is how to organize these Negroes at present on the basis of their everyday needs for the revolution.”<br />
<br />
In this ease, however, Pepper had overreached himself, having jumped over the bandwagon instead of on it.<br />
<br />
Despite Pepper’s defeat in the commission, he still had a card or two up his sleeve. This we were to find to our surprise and anger when we received the October 1928 issue of The Communist, official organ of the CPUSA. Prominent among the articles was Pepper’s on “American Negro Problems,” which presented his call for a “Negro Soviet Republic.” But that was not all; the article was also published simultaneously in pamphlet form by the American Party. Neither the article nor the pamphlet was labeled as a discussion paper, which gave them the appearance of being official statements of the new policy.<br />
<br />
Pepper's article had originally appeared in the Communist International, organ of the Comintern, as one of a series of discussion articles. The other articles were one by Ford and Patterson (Wilson), “The Comintern Programme and the Racial Problem” by Sik, and “The Negro Problem and the Tasks of the CPUSA,” by me.<br />
<br />
Of these, Sik’s was the only one to appear in the English edition of the magazine. This was because the English edition had suspended publication for technical reasons from September to December.<br />
<br />
But Pepper also sent his article to The Communist, organ of the American Party, where it appeared in October 1928. Because the official resolutions of the congress were not published until January of the following year, Pepper’s distorted version of the new line was the first document available to American Party members, The result was considerable confusion and misunderstanding.<br />
<br />
Particularly aggravating was that Pepper filched the basic facts of our analysis-—-national character, Black Belt territory, etc, — distorting them into a vulgar caricature of our thesis. This latest piece of chicanery did nothing to enhance Pepper’s image in Moscow where it was already on the wane. It was, however, wellreceived in the U.S. where he still had considerable influence.<br />
<br />
=== ESSENCE OF THE NEW LINE ===<br />
The Cl’s new line on the Afro-American question was released by the ECCI in two documents. The first was the full resolution of the commission, which addressed itself to the concrete issues raised in the discussion, The second was a summary of the full resolution, worked out in the commission under the direction of Kuusinen, for incorporation in the congress thesis on the “Revolutionary Movement in the Colonies and Semi-Colonies.”<br />
<br />
The resolution rejected the assimilationist race theories upon which the line of the Party had been based. It defined the Black movement as “national revolutionary” in character on the grounds that “the various forms of oppression of Negroes....concentrated mainly in the so-called ‘Black Belt’ provide the necessary conditions for a national revolutionary movement.”<br />
<br />
Stressing the agrarian roots of the problem it declared that Southern Blacks “are....not reserves of capitalist reaction,” as Lovestone had contended, but they were on the contrary, “reserves of the revolutionary proletariat” whose “objective position facilitates their transformation into a revolutionary force under the leadership of the proletariat.”<br />
<br />
The new line committed the Party to champion the Black struggle for “complete and real equality.....for the abolition of all kinds of racial, social, and political inequalities.” It called for an “energetic struggle against any exhibition of white chauvinism” and for “active resistance to lynching.”<br />
<br />
At the same time, the resolution stressed the need for Black revolutionary workers to resist “petty bourgeois nationalist tendencies” such as Garveyism. It declared that the industrialization of the South and the growth of the Black proletariat was the “most important phenomenon of recent years.” The enlargement of this class, it asserted, offers the possiblity of consistent revolutionary leadership of the movement.<br />
<br />
It called upon the Party to “strengthen its work among Negro proletarians,” drawing into its ranks the most conscious elements, It was also to fight for the acceptance of Black workers into unions from which they are barred, but this fight did not exclude the organization of separate trade unions when necessary. It called for the concentration of work in the South to organize the masses of soil-tillers, And finally, the new line committed the Party to put forth the slogan of the right of self-determination.<blockquote>'''In those regions of the South in which compact Negro masses are living, it is essential to put forward the slogan of the Right of Self-determination.,.a radical transformation of the Agrarian structure of the Southern States is one of the basic tasks of the revolution. Negro Communists must explain to the Negro workers and peasants that only their close union with the white proletariat and joint struggle with them against the American bourgeoisie can lead to their liberation from barbarous exploitation, and that only the victorious proletarian revolution will completely and permanently solve the agrarian and national question of the Southern United States in the interests of the overwhelming majority of the Negro population of the country.'''</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== South Africa ===<br />
There was keen interest as the Commission moved to the next point on the agenda—South Africa. Here again it was a fight against the denial of the national liberation movement in the name of socialism, the same right deviation on new turf. In the South African setting, where four-fifths of the population were black colonial slaves, the deviation was particularly glaring.<br />
<br />
It was true that in the past year or so the South African Party had intensified its work among the natives, a “turn to the masses,” As the Simons noted, by 1928 there were 1,600 African members out of a total of 1,750 in the Party, The year before there were only 200 African members.<br />
<br />
‘The Party had pursued a vigorous policy in the building of Black trade unions, in conducting strikes, and in fighting the most vicious forms of national oppression—pass laws and the like, The Party’s official organ, The South African Worker, had been revived on a new basis. More than half the articles were now written in three Bantu languages: Xhosa, Zulu and Tsotho.<br />
<br />
Sidney Bunting, leader of the South African Party, had emerged as a stalwart fighter for Native rights in the defense of Thibedi, a framed-up Native communist leader. As a result about a hundred Natives had been recruited into the Party, and two were now on the Central Committee. On the whole, the Party was making a turn toward the Native masses, But it still lacked the theory which would enable it to tap their tremendous revolutionary potential.<br />
<br />
As did most of the white leading cadre, Bunting exhibited a paternalism with respeet to the Natives. This paternalism was rooted in an abiding laek of faith in the revolutionary potential of the Native movement. They saw the South Afriean revolution in terms of the direct struggle for socialism. This white leadership, brought up in the old socialist traditions and comprised mainly of European immigrants, had not yet absorbed Lenin’s teachings on the national and colonial questions,<br />
<br />
These shortcomings had been brought sharply to the attention of the Comintern by La Guma. The result was the resolution on the South Afriean question which La Guma, Nasanov and I had worked on the previous winter. It reeommended that the Party put forward and work for an independent Native South African Republic with full and equal rights for all races as a stage towarda Workers and Peasants Republic. This was to be accompanied by the slogan “Return the land to the Natives.”<br />
<br />
The resolution was not only rejected by the Party leadership, but they had now sent a lily-white delegation to the congress to fight for its repeal, The delegation consisted of Sidney Bunting, Party chairman, his wife Rebecca, and Edward Roux, a young South Afriean communist leader who was then studying at Oxford. Whatever their hopes were on arrival in Moscow, they now seemed dejected and subdued. Having sat through the discussion on the Afro-American question, they undoubtedly saw the handwriting on the wall.<br />
<br />
From the start, the South African delegation was on the defensive, having been confronted by other delegates with the inevitable question: Where are the Natives?<br />
<br />
What answer could they give? It was evident to all that theirs was a mission on which Natives could not be trusted, even those “brought up in the old tradition,” to use the phrase of Roux.<br />
<br />
We Blacks asked about La Guma and they replied, “Oh, he was here just a short while ago and had his say, We felt that the other viewpoint should be represented.”<br />
<br />
After copies of the ECCI resolution on South Africa had been distributed, the South African delegates took the floor before the entire congress to challenge the line of the resolution, The South Afriean revolution, they argued, was a socialist revolution with no intermediate stage, an argument which posed a sort of South African exceptionalism.<br />
<br />
‘The argument ran that South Afriea was not a colonial country. Bunting then contended that “South Africa is, owing to its climate, what is called a ‘white man’s country’ where whites can and do live not merely as planters and officials, but as a whole nation of all classes, established there for centuries, of Dutch and English composition,”<br />
<br />
Bunting’s statement came under attack on the floor of the congress, notably by Bill Dunne. Bunting defended himself, holding that his description was solely factual and was not an “advocacy of ‘White South Africa, .. . the very view we have combatted for the last thirteen years.”<br />
<br />
In essence, Bunting’s views liquidated the struggle of the black peasantry in South Africa. He deelared that they were “being rapidly proletarianized,” and further that “the native agrarian masses as such have not yet shown serious signs of revolt.” Hence the slogan of “Return the land to the Natives ” would antagonize white workers with its implication of a “black race dictatorship.”<br />
<br />
Rebecca Bunting spoke in the commission sessions. Addressing herself to the land question, she denied that the land belonged to the Bantu in the first place. Both the Bantu from central Africa and the Afrikaaners coming up from Capetown had forced the aboriginal Hottentots and Bushmen off their land. Thus, there was no special Native land question.<br />
<br />
The real question on Rebecca Bunting’s mind, however, was not of land, but of the position of the white minority in a Native South African Republic, She came right to the point. Who will guarantee equality for the whites in an independent Native Republic? Their slogan, as you know, is “Drive the whites into the sea.” We listened to her in amazement and a laugh went through the audience.<br />
<br />
The cat was finally let out of the bag, and a mangy, chauvinistic creature it was. Manuilsky stepped forward, his eyes twinkling, “Comrade Bunting has raised a serious question, one not to be sneezed at. What is to become of the whites? My answer to that would be that if the white Party members do not raise and energetically fight for an independent Native Republic, then kto znaet? (Who knows?) They may well be driven into the sea!” That brought the house down.”<br />
<br />
The commission finally affirmed the resolution for a Native South African Republic, It was then passed onto the floor of the congress where the fight continued and our position was eventually accepted.<br />
<br />
=== THE REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT IN THE COLONIES ===<br />
Upon the adjournment of the Negro Commission, many of us moved into the sessions of the Colonial Commission. We found there no peaceful, harmonious gathering, but acrimonious debate. Kuusinen’s report and draft thesis on the Revolutionary Movement in the Colonies was under sharp attack. The point of controversy was the nature and objective of imperialist colonial policy.<br />
<br />
The draft thesis held that the colonial policy of imperialism was directed toward “repressing and retarding” by all possible means the free economic and cultural development of the colonies and retaining them as backward, agrarian appendages of the imperialist metropolitan countries. This policy, the draft thesis maintained, is an essential condition for the super-exploitation of the colonial masses. Thus, it pointed out:<blockquote>'''The objective contradiction between the colonial policy of world imperialism and the independent development of the colonial peoples is by no means done away with, neither in China, nor in India, nor in any other of the colonial and semicolonial countries; on the contrary, the contradiction only becomes more acute and can be overcome only by the victorious, revolutionary struggle of the toiling masses in the colonies.'''</blockquote>Accordingly, the primary question for the colonies was their liberation.<br />
<br />
The opponents of the draft thesis, on the other hand, took the view that imperialism had shifted its policy from one of hindering the economic development of the colonies to one of promoting industrialization under the joint auspices of the imperialists and native bourgeoisie. This was shown particularly in the more advanced colonies such as India and Indonesia, they argued.<br />
<br />
It was the old social democratic theory of decolonization. It implied that the main contradiction between imperialism and the colonies was being eased, the colonial revolution was thereby heing defused. The main components of that revolution, the national liberation struggle and the agrarian revolution, were being eliminated through industrialization. Thus, the perspective before the peoples of those colonies was not national liberation, but rather a long-range struggle for socialism.<br />
<br />
I was amazed to find that leading the attack on the draft thesis was none other than our Comrade Petrovsky. He who had seemed to be such a stalwart warrior against the right on the Afro-American and South African question had now become the chief advocate of the blatantly rightist “decolonization theory.” But that wasn’t all. He had rallied behind him most of the British delegation in his attack upon the draft thesis. It was quite a scandal!<br />
<br />
Here was the British Party, in the homeland of the world’s greatest imperialist power, championing the idea that Britain was taking the lead in decolonizing her empire, The tragedy was that the British delegation seemed totally unaware of the chauvinist implication of their stance.<br />
<br />
It became clear to us in the discussion that the British Party’s position with regard to the colonies pre-dated the congress. This was merely the first occasion for its full airing. Petrovsky had been CI representative to Britain and had played no small role in the development of the “decolonization” theory.<br />
<br />
The partisans of decolonization were utterly routed both in the commission and on the floor of the congress. Lozovsky, Remmele, Murphy, Manuilsky, Katayama and Kuusinen all took the floor in rebuttal. In an early session of the congress, Katayama pointed to the “criminal neglect” of the British Party with regard to Ireland and India in the past, and of the Dutch and American Parties with regard to the Philippines and Indonesia, “The mother countries must correct this inactivity on their part, and give every assistance to the revolutionary movement in these colonial countries,” he said.<br />
<br />
I was impressed by the speeches of Kuusinen and Murphy, the sole Britisher who really spoke out against the position taken by his delegation. Murphy accused his comrades of “presenting a Menshevik picture of the colonial problem and drawing ultra-leftist conclusions.”<br />
<br />
He assailed the contention that the British were out to decolonize India jointly with the native bourgeoisie. “The need of the hour in every colonial country,” he continued, “is a strong independent Communist Party which understands how to expose the bourgeoisie and destroy their influence over the masses through the correct exploitation of the differences between them and win the masses in the numberless crises which precede the revolutionary overthrow of all counter-revolutionary forces.”<br />
<br />
Kuusinen, a mild-mannered little man with a dry, rasping voice, took the floor for the concluding blast. His summary, as I remember it, was a two-hour long devastating attack on the “decolonizers.” He compared their position with that of the notorious Austrian social-imperialist, Otto Renner, who had put forth the perspective of world industrialization under capitalism, postponing the world socialist revolution “till the proletariat will become the great majority even inthe colonies.” Kuusinen pointed out that such views “embellished the ‘progressive’ role of imperia!ism....as if the colonial world were to be decolonized and industrialized in a peaceful manner by imperialism itself.”<br />
<br />
Kuusinen further contended that “the development of native capital is not being denied in the thesis.” But rather than there being an equal partnership in exploitation between the colonial bourgeoisie and imperialism, “imperialism does in fact restrict the industrialization of the colonies, prevent the full development of the productive forces.” It is under such conditions that the class interests of the national bourgeoisie “demand the industrialization of the country,” and in as much as the national bourgeoisie stands up for its class interests, “for the economic independence of the country, for its liberation from the imperialist yoke, then it plays a certain progressive role, while imperialism plays a substantially reactionary role,”<br />
<br />
It was a brilliant and definitive presentation, I thought. Slowly gathering up his papers, Kuusinen looked out over the audience, “Yes, comrades,” he said, “industrial development is taking place in the colonies, but very slowly, comrades, very slowly. Infact, just as slowly as the bolshevization of the British Party Politburo under the leadership of Comrade Petrovsky.”<br />
<br />
He then picked up his papers and stepped down from the rostrum. A momentary silence followed, then an outburst of laughter and prolonged applause.<br />
<br />
=== PEPPER GETS HIS LUMPS ===<br />
The struggle against the Lovestone-Pepper leadership faction sharpened as the congress progressed. Their position of overestimating the strength and stability of U.S. capitalism and of underestimating the radicalization of the workers came under sharp attack. Our opposition group (Bittelman, Foster, Dunne, Cannon and Johnstone) came down hard on Pepper, taking advantage of his growing unpopularity at the congress. The attack on the Lovestone-Pepper faction was supported by leading and influential members of other delegations: notably Lozovsky, president of the Red International of Labor Unions, Lominadze from the Russian Delegation and Hans Neumann from the German Communist Party.<br />
<br />
It was a pleasure to see how they zeroed in on Pepper. At last, he was getting his well-deserved lumps.<br />
<br />
Lozovsky began by criticizing the CC of the CPUSA for having “instigated opposition to the decision of the Fourth RILU Congress on the question of new unions.” But the thrust of his attack was not on the position itself, but on the dishonesty of the U.S. Central Committee which, on its arrival in Moscow, claimed support for the RILU Congress decisions.<br />
<br />
“Of course, every Central Committee has the right to declare its disagreement with decisions adopted by the RILU, but there must be the courage to declare this....You cannot change a negative attitude...into a positive one on the way from New York to Moscow.”<br />
<br />
Lozovsky reiterated earlier criticism of the Party leadership; its passivity in organizing the unorganized, its incorrect attitude toward Black workers and toward the AFL. Then he focused in on Pepper, blasting his articles in The Communist (“America and the Tactics of the Cl: Certain Basic Questions of our Perspective,” May 1928.)<br />
<br />
“Comrade Pepper sees nothing but the power of American capitalism,” he charged, “and discovering America anew although this discovery was made long ago, completely passed over those vital points in my articles on the eve of the Fourth RILU Congress.”<br />
<br />
Then, in a concluding salvo, Lozovsky accused Pepper of having “frequently lost his bearings in European affairs... Today, as you have been able to convince yourselves from his speech here, he is all at sea in American affairs. He could truly be named: themuddler of the two hemispheres.”<br />
<br />
Lominadze also kept Pepper under constant attack during the congress, scoring some devastating blows. He called Pepper's speech “an advertisement for the power of American imperialism,” and stated that if it were printed in the paper, it could be mistaken for a “speech of any of the candidates of the Republican and Democratic parties.” He then blasted Pepper’s articles in The Communist which listed the obstacles to the growth of the Party. According to Pepper, Lomindaze said, “everything is hindering us, capitalists are hindering us by exploiting the workers, the existence of capitalism itself hinders us, and of perspectives there are none at all.”<br />
<br />
As the historic congress was drawing to a close, Jack Johnstone read into the minutes for our opposition caucus a statement expressing our disagreement with the section concerning the United States in Bukharin’s draft thesis.<br />
<br />
Among many points made in this statement, the most important were that Bukharin failed to emphasize the instability of American imperialism and recognize the contradictions confronting it; he failed to condemn the opportunist errors in Afro-American work and did not “state clearly that the main danger in our Party is from the Right.”<br />
<br />
This statement was signed by Dunne, Gomez, Johnstone, Siskind, Epstein and Bittelman; significant was the fact that Browder, Cannon and Foster did not sign.<br />
<br />
Although he basically agreed with the statement and opposed Lovestone and Pepper, Browder continued to hold his position of not identifying himself fully with the opposition caucus, Cannon's reasons for not supporting the statement were unclear at the time, but within a few months, he had become the organizer and leader of the Trotskyist movement in the U.S. I feel Foster was, at the time, still assessing the political lines in the struggle against the right deviation—and for this reason did not sign the document.<br />
<br />
=== CONCLUSION ===<br />
The Sixth Congress called for a sharpened fight of the working class and the colonial masses against imperialism. It set the stage for an all-out war against the main obstacle to the left turn. The right accommodationists and their conciliators in all the parties of the CI--all provided ideological ammunition for this struggle. The correctness of these documents were verified by the events of the following decade—world economic crisis, the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World War II.<br />
<br />
The war against the right got into full swing immediately following the congress. In the next few months the Lovestone-Pepper cohorts were to expand further their right opportunistic thesis of American exceptionalism, elements of which they were developing before and during the congress.<br />
<br />
In substance, the theory held that while the third period of growing capitalist crisis and intensification of class struggles was valid for the rest of the world, it did not apply to the United States. In the U.S. capitalism was on the upgrade and the prospects were for an easing of the class struggle. An era of industrial expansion lay ahead.<br />
<br />
The next few months were also to reveal Lovestone’s ties with the international right conspiracy led by Bukharin. This conspiracy, which we had only suspected during the congress, was finally exposed at the November 1929 joint meeting of the Political Bureau and Presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. From this point on, the conspiracy of the “Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites” went underground to plot the overthrow of socialism in the Soviet Union. In 1937, Bukharin was convicted as one of the main leaders of this treasonous conspiracy and was executed.<br />
<br />
One of the most positive and enduring contributions of the Sixth Congress was the program on the question of U.S, Blacks. It pointed out that all the objective conditions exist in the Black Belt South for a national revolutionary movement of Black people against American imperialism. It established the essentially agrarian-democratic character of the Black liberation movement there. Under conditions of modern imperialist oppression, it could fulfill itself only by the achievement of democratic land redivision and the right of self-determination for the Afro-American people in the Black Belt. Thus, the new line brought the issue of Black equality out of the realm of bourgeois humanitarianism. It was no longer the special property of philanthropists and professional uplifters who sought to strip the Black struggle of its revolutionary implications.<br />
<br />
The new position grounded the issue of Black liberation firmly in the fight of the American people for full democratic rights and in the struggle of the working class for socialism. The struggle for equality is in and of itself a revolutionary question, because the special oppression of Black people is a main prop of imperialist domination over the entire working class and the masses of exploited American people. Therefore, Blacks and the working class as a whole are mutual allies.<br />
<br />
The fight of Blacks for national liberation, quite apart from humanitarian considerations, must be supported as it is a special feature of the struggle for the emancipation of the whole American working class. It is the historic task of American labor, as it advances on the road toward socialism, to solve the problems of land and freedom which the bourgeois democratic revolution of the Civil War and Reconstruction left unfinished.<br />
<br />
The slogan of self-determination is a slogan of unity. Its overriding purpose was and still is to unite the white and Black exploited masses, working and oppressed people of all nationalities, in all three stages of the revolutionary movement; from the day-to-day fight against capital, through the revolutionary battle for state power, to the task of building and consolidating socialist society. The new line clearly stated that this unity could be built only on the basis of the struggle for complete equality, by removing all grounds for suspicion and distrust and building mutual confidence and voluntary inter-relations between the white masses of the oppressor nation and the Black masses of the oppressed nation.<br />
<br />
This line committed the Communist Party to an uncompromising fight among its members and in the ranks of labor generally to burn out the root of the ruling class theories of white chauvinism which depicts Blacks as innately inferior. The mobilization of the white workers in the struggle for Black rights is a precondition for freeing the Black workers from the stifling influences of petty bourgeois nationalism with its ideology of self-isolation. Only thus, the program pointed out, can the historic rift in the ranks of American labor be breached and a solid front of white and Black workers be presented to the common enemy, American imperialism.<br />
<br />
Of course, weaknesses were inevitable in this first resolution, The document was open to the interpretation that the emerging Black nation was limited only to the territory of absolute majority and that the slogan of right of self-determination was primarily dependent on the continued existence of an area of absolute Black majority.<br />
<br />
The document should have made clear that one cannot hold absolutely to the national territorial principle in the application of the right of self-determination. The very nature of imperialism attacks and deforms the characteristics of nationhood. Imperialism has, to a large extent, driven Afro-American people from the rural areas to the cities of the north and South,<br />
<br />
Another weakness was the underestimation of the nationality factor in the struggle for equality and democratic rights in the north, Thus, the program failed to advance any slogans for local autonomy which would guarantee and protect the rights of Blacks in the north, The need for such a program has been most clearly demonstrated in recent years by the growth and development of the movement for community control of the schools and police in northern cities.<br />
<br />
But on the whole, the resolution was a strong one. Its significance was that it drew a clear line between the revolutionary and the reformist positions—between the line of effective struggle and futile accommodation.<br />
<br />
The document was not a complete and definite statement, but a new departure, a revolutionary turning point in the treatment of the Afro-American question.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 10 ==<br />
<br />
=== Lovestone Unmasked ===<br />
[[Category:Library]]<br />
[[Category:Library works by Harry Haywood]]<br />
[[Category:Library works about the United States of America]]<br />
[[Category:Library works about the Soviet Union]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:Black_Bolshevik&diff=63687Library:Black Bolshevik2024-03-04T18:32:11Z<p>RedCustodian: /* THE SIXTH WORLD CONGRESS */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Library work|title=Black Bolshevik: Autobiography Of An Afro-American Communist|image=https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1328767045i/704092.jpg|author=Harry Haywood|publisher=Liberator Press|published_date=January 1, 1978|published_location=Chicago Illinois|type=Book|isbn=9780930720537|source=[https://archive.org/details/black-bolshevik-autobiography-of-an-afro-american-communist/mode/2up archive.org]}}<br />
<br />
''Black Bolshevik'' is the autobiography of [[Harry Haywood]], published January 1, 1978. The son of former slaves who became a leading member of the [[Communist Party of the United States of America|Communist Part USA]] and a pioneering theoretician on the Afro-American struggle.<br />
<br />
The author's first-hand accounts of the Chicago race riot of 1919, the Scottsboro Boys' defense, communist work in the South, the [[Spanish Civil War]], the battle against the revisionist betrayal of the Party, and other history-shaping events are must reading for all who are interested in Black history and the working class struggle.<br />
<br />
It was dedicated to his family; his third wife, son and daughter. <br />
<br />
"To My Family,<br />
<br />
Gwen, Haywood, Jr., and Becky" <br />
<br />
== Acknowledgement ==<br />
There have been many friends and comrades who have, directly or indirectly, helped me with the writing of this book. Unfortunately, they are too numerous to all be named here.<br />
<br />
There are a number of young people who have helped with the editorial, research and typing tasks and helped the project along through political discussions. Special thanks to Ernie Allen, who gave yeoman help with the early chapters. Others whose assistance was indispensable include Jody and Susan Chandler, Paula Cohen, Stu Dowty and Janet Goldwasser, Paul Elitzik, Pat Fry, Gary Goff, Sherman Miller, John Schwartz, Lyn Wells and Carl Davidson. Others who gave me assistance are Renee Blakkan and Nathalie Garcia.<br />
<br />
Over the past years, I have had discussions with several veteran comrades and friends who have helped immeasurably in jogging my memory and filling in the gaps where my own experience was lacking, I extend my warmest appreciation to Jesse Gray, Josh Lawrence, Arthur and Maude (White) Katz, John Killens, Ruth Hamlin, Frances Loman, Al Murphy, Joan Sandler, Delia Page and Jack and Ruth Shulman.<br />
<br />
A political autobiography is necessarily shaped by experiences over the years and by comrades who helped and influenced me in the long battle for self-determination and against revisionism. My earliest political debts are to the first core of Black cadres in the CPUSA: Cyril Briggs, Edward Doty, Richard B. Moore and to my brother Otto Hall, all former members of the African Blood Brotherhood.<br />
<br />
To Harrison George, outstanding son of the working class, charter member of the CPUSA, former editor of the Daily Worker and the Peoples' World, who gave his all to the Communist movement and died alone, victimized for his “premature" anti- revisionism.<br />
<br />
A special tribute to my comrades in the battles against revisionism within the CPUSA and after: Al Lannon, veteran director of the Waterfront Section and member of the Central Committee of the CPUSA; Charles Loman, executive secretary of the Brooklyn Party Organization; Isidore Beagun, executive secretary of the Bronx Party Organization; Allen and Pearl Lawes, Al and Ruth Hamlin, Olga and Victor Agosto. And to my wife, Gwendolyn Midlo Hall, my closest collaborator from 1953 through 1964 in the writing of manuscripts as well as in the Apolitical battles, who has since established her own reputation as historian and essayist.<br />
<br />
A tribute to Ed Strong, former communist youth leader and director of the Southern Negro Youth Congress, whose premature death in the mid-fifties cut short his uncompromising stand within the Central Committee for the right of self-determination for the Black nation.<br />
<br />
To the editors of Soulbook Magazine, who published my writings in 1965-66 and invited me to Oakland, California, in the spring of 1966 during the formative stages of the Black Panther movement.<br />
<br />
To Vincent Harding, who provided me with funds to return to the U.S. from Mexico in 1970 and gave me technical and material assistance to begin this autobiography.<br />
<br />
Thanks to John Henrik Clarke and Francisco and Elizabeth Cattlett de Mora for their enthusiasm and moral support.<br />
<br />
To Robert Warner, Director of the Michigan Historical Collections, for his help and his sensitivity to the need to collect and preserve historically relevant materials from the Black movement in the United States.<br />
<br />
== Prologue ==<br />
On July 28, 1919,1 literally stepped into a battle that was to last the rest of my life. Exactly three months after mustering out of the Army, I found myself in the midst of one of the bloodiest race riots in U.S. history. It was certainly a most dramatic return to the realities of American democracy. <br />
<br />
It came to me then that I had been fighting the wrong war. The Germans weren’t the enemy -the enemy was right here at home. These ideas had been developing ever since I landed home in April, and a lot of other Black veterans were having the same thoughts. <br />
<br />
I had a job as a waiter on the Michigan Central Railroad at the time. In July, I was working the Wolverine, the crack Michigan Central train between Chicago and New York. We would serve lunch and dinner on the run out of Chicago to St. Thomas, Canada, where the dining car was cut off the train. The next morning our cars would be attached to the Chicago-bound train and we would serve breakfast and lunch into Chicago.<br />
<br />
On July 27, the Wolverine left on a regular run to St. Thomas. Passing through Detroit, we heard news that a race riot had broken out in Chicago. The situation had been tense for some time. Several members of the crew, all of them Black, had bought revolvers and ammunition the previous week when on a special to Battle Creek, Michigan. Thus, when we returned to Chicago at about 2:00 P.M. the next day (July 28). we were apprehensive about what awaited us.<br />
<br />
The whole dining car crew, six waiters and four cooks, got off at the Twelfth Street Station in Chicago. Usually we would stay on the car while it backed out to the yards, but the station seemed a better route now. We were all tense as we passed through the station on the way to the elevated which would take us to the Southside and home. Suddenly a white trainman accosted us. “Hey, you guys going out to the Southside?”<br />
<br />
“Yeah, so what?” I said, immediately on the alert, thinking he might start something.<br />
<br />
“If I were you I wouldn’t go by the avenue” He meant Michigan Avenue which was right in front of the station.<br />
<br />
“Why?”<br />
<br />
“There’s a big race riot going on out there, and already this morning a couple of colored soldiers were killed coming in unsuspectingly. If I were you I’d keep off the street, and go right out those tracks by the lake.”<br />
<br />
We took the trainman’s advice, thanked him, and turned toward the tracks. It would be much slower walking home, but if he were right, it would be safer. As we turned down the tracks toward the Southside of the city, towards the Black ghetto, I thought of what I had just been through in Europe and what now lay before me in America.<br />
<br />
On one side of us lay the summer warmness of Lake Michigan. On the other was Chicago, a huge and still growing industrial center of the nation, bursting at its seams; brawling, sprawling Chicago, “hog butcher for the nation” as Carl Sandburg had called it<br />
<br />
As we walked, I remembered the war. On returning from Europe, I had felt good to be alive. I was glad to be back with my family—Mom, Pop and my sister. At twenty-one, my life lay before me. What should I do? The only trade I had learned was waiting tables. I hadn’t even finished the eighth grade. Perhaps I should go back to France, live there and become a French citizen? After all, I hadn’t seen any Jim Crow there.<br />
<br />
Had race prejudice in the U.S. lessened? I knew better. Conditions in the States had not changed, but we Blacks had. We were determined not to take it anymore. But what was I walking into?<br />
<br />
Southside Chicago, the Black ghetto, was like a besieged city. Whole sections of it were in ruins. Buildings burned and the air was heavy with smoke, reminiscent of the holocaust from which I had recently returned.<br />
<br />
Our small band, huddled like a bunch of raw recruits under machine gun fire, turned up Twenty-sixth Street and then into the heart of the ghetto. At Thirty-fifth and Indiana, we split up to go our various ways; I headed for home at Forty-second Place and Bowen. None of us returned to work until the riot was over, more than a week later.<br />
<br />
The battle at home was just as real as the battle in France had been. As I recall, there was full-scale street fighting between Black and white. Blacks were snatched from streetcars and beaten or killed; pitched battles were fought in ghetto streets; hoodlums roamed the neighborhood, shooting at random. Blacks fought hack.<br />
<br />
As I saw it at the time, Chicago was two cities. The one was the Chamber of Commerce’s city of the “American Miracle,” the Chicago of the 1893 World Columbian Exposition. It was the new industrial city which had grown in fifty years from a frontier town to become the second largest city in the country. <br />
<br />
The other, the Black community, had been part of Chicago almost from the time the city was founded. Jean Baptiste Pointe DuSable, a Black trapper from French Canada, was the first settler. Later came fugitive slaves, and after the Civil War- more Blacks, fleeing from post-Reconstruction terror, taking jobs as domestics and personal servants. <br />
<br />
The large increase was in the late 1880s through World War 1, as industry in the city expanded and as Blacks streamed north following the promise of jobs, housing and an end to Jim Crow lynching. The Illinois Central tracks ran straight through the deep South from Chicago to New Orleans, and the Panama Limited made the run every day. <br />
<br />
Those that took the train north didn’t find a promised land. They found jobs and housing, all right, but they had to compete with the thousands of recent immigrants from Europe who were also drawn to the jobs in the packing houses, stockyards and steel mills. <br />
<br />
The promise of an end to Jim Crow was nowhere fulfilled. In those days, the beaches on Lake Michigan were segregated. Most were reserved for whites only. The Twenty-sixth Street Beach, close to the Black community, was open to Blacks—but only as long as they stayed on their own side.<br />
<br />
The riot had started at this beach, which was then jammed with a late July crowd. Eugene Williams, a seventeen-year-old Black youth, was killed while swimming off the white side of the beach. The Black community was immediately alive with accounts of what had happened—that he had been murdered while swimming., that a group of whites had thrown rocks at him and killed him, and that the policeman on duty at the beach had refused to make any arrests.<br />
<br />
This incident was the spark that ignited the flames of racial animosity which had been smoldering for months. Fighting between Blacks and whites broke out on the Twenty-sixth Street beach after Williams’s death. It soon spread beyond the beach and lasted over six days. Before it was over, thirty-eight people—Black and white—were dead, 537 injured and over 1,000 homeless.<br />
<br />
The memory of this mass rebellion is still very sharp in my mind. It was the great turning point in my life, and I have dedicated myself to the struggle against capitalism ever since. In the following pages of my autobiography, I have attempted to trace the development of that struggle in the hopes that today’s youth can learn from both our successes and failures. lt is for the youth and the bright future of a socialist USA that this book has been written.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 ==<br />
<br />
=== A Child of Slaves ===<br />
I was born in South Omaha, Nebraska, on February 4, 1898— the youngest of the three children of Harriet and Haywood Hall. Otto, my older brother, was born in May 1891; and Eppa, my sister, in December 1896. <br />
<br />
The 1890s had been a decade of far-reaching structural change in the economic and political life of the United States. These were fateful years in which the pattern of twentieth century subjugation of Blacks was set. A young U.S. imperialism was ready in 1898 to shoulder its share of the “white man’s burden” and take its "manifest destiny” beyond the Pacific Coast and the Gulf of Mexico. In the war against Spain, it embarked on its first "civilizing” mission against the colored peoples of the Philippines and the “mixed breeds” of Cuba and Puerto Rico. In the course of the decade and a half following the Spanish-American War, the two-faced banner of racism and imperialist “benevolence” was carried to the majority of the Caribbean countries and the whole of Latin America.<br />
<br />
“The echo of this industrial imperialism in America,” said W. E. B. DuBois, “was the expulsion of Black men from American democracy, their subjection to caste control and wage slavery.” In 1877, the Hayes-Tilden agreement had successfully aborted the ongoing democratic revolution of Reconstruction in the South. Blacks were sold down the river, as northern capitalists, with the assistance of some former slaveholders, gained full economic and political control in the South. Henceforward, it was assured that the future development of the region would be carried out in complete harmony with the interests of Wall Street. The following years saw the defeat of the Southern based agrarian populist movement, with its promise of Black and white unity against the power of monopoly capital. The counter-revolution against Reconstruction was in full swing.<br />
<br />
Beginning in 1890, the Southern state legislatures enacted a series of disenfranchisement laws. Within the next sixteen years, these laws were destined to completely abrogate the right of Blacks to vote. This same period saw the revival of the notorious Black Codes, the resurgence of the hooded terror of the Ku Klux Klan and the defeat for reelection in 1905 of the last Black congressman surviving the Reconstruction period. Jim Crow laws enforcing segregation in public facilities were enacted by Southern states and municipal governments. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Jim Crow in the Plessy vs. Ferguson decision in 1896, declaring that legislation is powerless to eradicate “racial instinets” and establishing the principle of “separate but equal.” This decision was only reversed in 1954, when the U.S. Supreme Court held that separate facilities were inherently unequal.<br />
<br />
At the time when I was born, the Black experience was mainly a Southern one. The overwhelming majority of Black people still resided in the South. Most of the Black inhabitants of South Omaha were refugees from the twenty-year terror of the post-Re construction period. Omaha itself, despite its midwestern location, did not escape the terror completely, as indicated by the lynching of a Black man, Joe Coe, by a mob in 1891. Many people had relatives and families in the South. Some had trekked up to Kansas in 1879 under the leadership of Henry Adams of Louisiana and Moses “Pap” Singleton of Tennessee, and many had then continued further north to Omaha and Chicago.<br />
<br />
My parents were born slaves in 1860. They were three years old at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation. My Father was born on a plantation in Martin County, Tennessee, north of Memphis. The plantation was owned by Colonel Haywood Hall, whom my Father remembered as a kind and benevolent man. When the slaves were emancipated in 1863, my Grandfather, with the consent of Mr. Hall, took both the given name and surname of his former master.<br />
<br />
I never knew Grandfather Hall, as he died before I was born. According to my Father and uncles, he was—as they said in those days—“much of a man” He was active in local Reconstruction polities and probably belonged to the Black militia. Although Tennessee did not have a Reconstruction government, there were many whites who supported the democratic aims that were pursued during the Reconstruction period.<br />
<br />
But Tennessee was also the home of the Ku Klux Klan, where it was first organized after the Civil War. In the terror that followed the Hayes-Tilden agreement, these “night riders” had marked my Grandfather out as a “bad nigger” for lynching. At first they were deterred because of the paternalism of Colonel Hall. Many of Hall’s former slaves still lived on his plantation after the war ended, and the colonel had let it be known that he would kill the first “son-of-a-bitch” that trespassed on his property and tried to terrorize his “nigrahs.”<br />
<br />
But the anger of the night riders, strengthened by corn liquor, finally overcame their fear of Colonel Hall. My Father, who was about fifteen at the time, described what happened. One night the Klansmen rode onto the plantation and headed straight for Grandfather’s cabin. They broke open the door and one poked his head into the darkened cabin. “Hey, Hall’s nigger-where are you?"<br />
<br />
My Grandfather was standing inside and fired his shotgun point blank at the hooded head. The Klansman, half his head blown off, toppled onto the floor of the cabin, and his companions mounted their horses and fled. Grandmother, then pregnant, fell against the iron bed.<br />
<br />
Grandfather got the family out of the cabin and they ran to the “big house” for protection. It was obvious they couldn’t stay in Tennessee, so the Colonel hitched up a wagon and personally drove them to safety, outside of Martin County. Some of Grandfather’s family were already living in Des Moines, Iowa, so the Hall family left by train for Des Moines the following morning. The shock of this experience was so great that Grandmother gave birth prematurely to their third child—my Uncle George who lived to be ninety-five. Grandmother, however, became a chronic invalid and died a few years after the flight from Tennessee.<br />
<br />
Father was only in his teens when the family left for Des Moines, so he spent most of his youth there. In the late 1880s, he left and moved to South Omaha where there was more of a chance to get work. He got a job at Cudahy’s Packing Company, where he worked for more than twenty years—first as a beef-lugger (loading sides of beef on refrigerated freight cars), and then as a janitor in the main office building. Not long after his arrival, he met and married Mother—Harriet Thorpe—who had come up from Kansas City, Missouri, at about the same time.<br />
<br />
Father was powerfully built—of medium height, but with tremendous breadth (he had a forty-six-inch chest and weighed over 200 pounds). He was an extremely intelligent man. With little or no formal schooling, he had taught himself to read and write and was a prodigious reader. Unfortunately, despite his great strength, he was not much of a fighter, or so it seemed to me. In later years, some of the old slave psychology and fear remained. He was an ardent admirer of Booker T. Washington who, in his Atlanta compromise speech of 1895, had called on Blacks to submit to the racist status quo,<br />
<br />
Uncle George was the opposite. He would brook no insult and had been known to clean out a whole barroom when offended. The middle brother, Watt, was also a fighter and was especially dangerous if he had a knife or had been drinking. I remember both of them complaining of my Father’s timidity.<br />
<br />
My Mother’s family also had great fighting spirit. Her father, Jerry Thorpe, was born on a plantation near Bowling Green, Kentucky. He was illiterate, but very smart and very strong. Even as an old man, his appearance made us believe the stories that were told of his strength as a young man. When he was feeling fine and happy, his exuberance would get the best of him and he’d grab the largest man around, hoist him on his shoulders, and run around the yard with him.<br />
<br />
Grandfather Thorpe was half Creek Indian and had an Indian profile with a humped nose and high cheekbones. His hair was short and curly and he had a light brown complexion. He had a straggly white beard that he tried to cultivate into a Van Dyke. He said his father was a Creek Indian and his mother a Black plantation slave. No one knew his exact age, but we made a guess based on a story he often told us.<br />
<br />
He was about six or seven years old when, he said, “The stars fell”<br />
<br />
“When was that, Grandpa?”<br />
<br />
“Oh, one night the stars fell, I remember it very clearly. The skies were all lit up by falling stars. People were scared almost out of I heir wits. The old master and mistress and all the slaves were running out on the road, falling down on their knees to pray and ask forgiveness. We thought the Judgement Day had surely come. Glory Hallelujah! It was the last fire! The next day, the ground was all covered with ashes!”<br />
<br />
At first we thought all of that was just his imagination, something he had fantasized as a child and then remembered as a real event. But when my older brother Otto was in high school, he got interested in astronomy and came across a reference to a meteor shower of 1833. We figured out that was what Grandfather Thorpe had been talking about, so we concluded that he was born around 1825 or 1826.<br />
<br />
Grandfather Thorpe was filled with stories, many about slavery.<br />
<br />
“Chillen, I’ve got scars I’ll carry to my grave.” He would show us the welts on his back from slave beatings (my Grandmother also had them). Most of his beatings came from his first master in Kentucky. But he was later sold to a man in Missouri, whom he said treated him much better. This may have been due in part to his value as a slave—he was skilled both as a carpenter and cabinetmaker.<br />
<br />
Grandfather had many stories to tell about the Civil War. He was in Missouri at the time, living in an area that was first taken by a group known as Quantrell's raiders (a guerrilla-like band of irregulars who fought for the South) and then by the Union forces.<br />
<br />
When the Union soldiers first came into the plantations, they would call in slaves from the fields and make them sit down in the great drawing room of the house. They would then force the master and mistress and their family to cook and serve for the slaves. Grandfather told us that the soldiers would never eat any of the food that was served, because they were afraid of getting poisoned.<br />
<br />
The master on the plantation was generally decent when it became clear that the Union forces were going to control the area for awhile. At that time, Grandfather and my Grandmother Ann lived on adjacent plantations somewhere near Moberly, Missouri. Grandfather was allowed to visit Ann on weekends. Often on Sundays when he went to make a visit, he was challenged by Union guards. They would roughly demand to know his mission. My Grandfather and Grandmother got married, with the agreement of their two masters, and eventually had a family of five daughters and two sons. Grandfather Thorpe was given a plot of land in return for his services as a carpenter, but the family soon moved into Moberly. As the children reached working age, the family began to break up, but the girls always remained very close. They came back to visit frequently and never broke family ties as the boys had.<br />
<br />
My Mother, Harriet, was born when Grandmother was a slave on the plantation of Squire Sweeney in Howard County, Missouri. After the family moved into Moberly, Mother worked for a white family in town. She later went to St. Joseph, Missouri, to work for another white family. One day, while she was at work in St. Joseph, she heard a shot and then screams from down the street. She ran out to see what had happened. There was a great commotion and a crowd of people was gathering in front of the house next door.<br />
<br />
The family living there went by the name of Howard—a man, wife and two children. Both the man and his wife were church members; they appeared to be a most respectable couple. Mrs. Howard had been very active in church affairs and socials. Her husband was frequently absent because, she said, he was a traveling salesman and his work took him out of town for long periods of time.<br />
<br />
What the neighbors were not aware of was that “Mr. Howard” was none other than the legendary Jesse James. He was shot in the hack while hanging a picture in his house. The man who killed him was Robert Ford—a member of Jesse's own gang who had turned 11 a it or for a bribe offered by the Burns Detective Agency.<br />
<br />
When my Mother did the laundry, I remember she would often ring the “Ballad of Jesse James"—a song which became popular niter his death.<br />
<br />
'''Jesse James was a man—he killed many a man,'''<br />
<br />
'''The man that robbed that Denver train.'''<br />
<br />
'''It was a dirty little coward Who shot Mr. Howard,'''<br />
<br />
'''And they laid Jesse James in his grave.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh the people held their breath When they heard of Jesse's death,'''<br />
<br />
'''And they wondered how he came to die.'''<br />
<br />
'''He was shot on the sly By little Robert Ford,'''<br />
<br />
'''And they laid poor Jesse in his grave.'''<br />
<br />
In 1893, my Mother went to Chicago to visit her sister and see the Exposition. She said she saw Frank James, Jesse's brother, lie was out of prison then, a very dignified old man with a long white beard. He had been hired to ride around as an attraction at one of the exhibitions.<br />
<br />
Mother kept moving up to the north by stages. After the job in St. Joseph, she found work in St. Louis. She arrived to Find the city in a tense situation- the whole town was on the verge of a race riot. The immediate cause was the murder of an Irish cop named Brady. The Black community was elated, for Brady was a “nigger-hating cop" who carved notches on his pistol to show the number of Blacks he had killed. Brady finally met his end at the hands of a "bad" Black man who ran a gambling house in Brady's district.<br />
<br />
The gambling, of course, was illegal. But as was often the case, The cops were paid off with a “cut" from the takings of the house. As the story was told to me, Brady and the gambler met on the street one day and got into an argument. Brady accused the gambler of not giving him his proper “cut." This was denied vehemently. Brady then threatened to close the place down. The Black man told him, “Don’t you come into my place when the game’s going on!” He then turned and walked off. The scene was witnessed by several Blacks, and the news of how the gambler had defied Brady spread immediately throughout the Black district.<br />
<br />
This was bad stuff for Brady. It might lead to “niggers gettin’ notions,” as the cops put it. A few days passed, and Brady made his move. He went to the gambling house when the game was on and was shot dead.<br />
<br />
Some anonymous Black bard wrote a song about it all:<br />
<br />
'''Brady, why didn’t you run,'''<br />
<br />
'''You know you done wrong.'''<br />
<br />
'''You came in the room when the game was going on!''' <br />
<br />
'''Brady went below looking mighty curious.'''<br />
<br />
'''Devil said, " Where you from?”'''<br />
<br />
'''"I'm from East St. Louis .”'''<br />
<br />
'''"East St. Louie, come this way I’ve been expecting you every day!”'''<br />
<br />
The song was immediately popular in the Black community and became a symbol of rebellious feelings. Mother said that when she arrived in St. Louis, Blacks were singing this song all over town. The police realized the danger in such “notions” and began to arrest anyone they caught singing it. Forty years later. I was pleasantly surprised to hear Carl Sandburg sing the same song as part of his repertoire of folk ballads of the midwest. I had not heard it since Mother had sung it to us.<br />
<br />
Mother later moved to Kansas City, Missouri, and then to South Omaha. Her marriage there to my Father was her second. As a very young girl in Moberly, she had married John Harvey, but he was, to use her words, “a no-good yellah nigger, who expected me to support him.” They had one child, Gertrude, before he deserted her.<br />
<br />
Gertie came to Omaha some time after my Mother, and married my Father’s youngest brother, George. I have a feeling that Mother promoted this match; the two hard-working, sober Hall brothers must have been quite a catch!<br />
<br />
As I remember Mother in my childhood years, she was a small, brown-skinned woman, rather on the plumpish side, with large and beautiful soft brown eyes. She had the humped, Indian nose of the Thorpe family.<br />
<br />
My first memory of her is hearing her sing as she did housework. She had a melodious contralto voice and what seemed to me to be an endless and varied repertoire. Much of what I know about this period, I learned from her songs. These included lullabies (“Go to Sleep You Little Pickaninny, Mamma’s Gonna Swat You if You Don’t”) and many spirituals and jubilee songs. There were also innumerable folk ballads, and the popular songs of her day like "Down at the Ball” and “Where Did You Get That Hat?” Then there was the old song the slaves sang about their masters fleeing the Union Army—“The Year of Jubilo.”<br />
<br />
'''Oh darkies, have you seen the Massah with the mustache on his face?'''<br />
<br />
'''He was gwine down de road dis mornin’ like''' <br />
<br />
'''he's gwine to leave dis place.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, de Massah run, ha ha!'''<br />
<br />
'''And the darkies sing, ho ho!'''<br />
<br />
'''It must be now the Kingdom cornin' and de year of Jubilo!'''<br />
<br />
Mother never went to school a day in her life, but she had a phenomenal memory and was a virtual repository of Black folklore. My brother Otto taught her to read and write when she when forty years old. She told stories of life on the plantations, of the “hollers” they used. When a slave wanted to talk to a friend on n neighboring plantation, she would throw back her head and half sing, half yell: “Oh, Bes-sie, I wa-ant to see you.” Often you could hear one of the “hollers” a mile away.<br />
<br />
When Mother was a girl, camp meetings were a big part of her life. She had songs she remembered from the meetings, like “I Don’t Feel Weary, No Ways Tired,” and she would imitate the preachers with all of their promises of fire and brimstone. Later, when we lived in South Omaha, she was very active in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. As a means of raising funds, she used to organize church theatricals. Otto would help her read the plays; she would then direct them and usually play the leading role herself. She was a natural mimic. I heard her go through entire plays from beginning to end, imitating the voices (even the male ones) and the actions of the performers.<br />
<br />
In addition to caring for Otto, Eppa and myself, Mother got jobs catering parties for rich white families in North Omaha. She would bring us back all sorts of goodies and leftovers from these parties. Sometimes she would get together with her friends among the other domestics, and they would have a great time panning their employers and exchanging news of the white folks’ scandalous doings.<br />
<br />
Mother had the great fighting spirit of her family. She was a strong-minded woman with great ambition for her children, especially for us boys. Eppa, who was a plain Black girl, was sensitive but physically tough, courageous, and a regular tomboy.<br />
<br />
Worried about her future, Mother insisted that she learn the piano and arranged for her to take lessons at twenty-five cents each. Though she learned to play minor classics such as “Poet and Peasant,” arias from such operas as Aida and II Trovatore, accompanied the choir and so on, Eppa never liked music very much and was not consoled by it the way Mother was.<br />
<br />
As a wife, Mother had a way of making Father feel the part of the man in the house. She flattered his ego and always addressed him as “Mr. Half’ in front of guests and us children.<br />
<br />
=== LIFE IN SOUTH OMAHA ===<br />
'''You ask what town I love the best.''' <br />
<br />
'''South Omaha, South Omaha!'''<br />
<br />
'''The fairest town of all the rest,'''<br />
<br />
'''South Omaha, South Omaha!'''<br />
<br />
'''Where yonder's Papillion’s limp stream'''<br />
<br />
'''To where Missouri’s waters gleam.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, fairest town, oh town of mine,''' <br />
<br />
'''South Omaha, South Omaha!'''<br />
<br />
In the early part of the century, the days of my youth, South Omaha was an independent city. In 1915, it was annexed to become part of the larger city of Omaha. Like many midwestem towns, the city took its name from the original inhabitants of the area. In this case, it was the Omaha Indians of the Sioux tribal family. The area was a camping ground of the Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1804. It grew in importance when it became a licensed trading post and an important outfitting point during the Colorado Gold Rush. But the main growth of South Omaha came in the 1880s as the meat packing industry developed.<br />
<br />
In 1877, the first refrigerated railroad cars were perfected. This made it possible to slaughter livestock in the midwest and ship the meat to the large markets in eastern cities. As a result, the meat packing industry grew tremendously in the midwest.<br />
<br />
The city leaders saw the opportunity and encouraged the expanding packing industry to settle there—offering them special tux concessions and so forth. The town, situated on a plateau back from the “big muddy” (the Missouri River), began to grow. Soon it was almost an industrial suburb of Omaha and was one of the three largest packing centers in the country. All of the big packers of the time—Armour, Swift, Wilson and Cudahy—had big branches there. Cudahy’s main plant was in South Omaha.<br />
<br />
The industry brought with it growing railroad traffic. As a boy, I watched the dozens of lines of cars as they carried livestock in from the west and butchered meat to ship out to the east. The Burlington; the Chicago and Northwestern; the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific; the Illinois Central; the Rock Island; the Union Pacific—all of these lines had terminals there. By 1910, Omaha was the fourth largest railway center in the country.<br />
<br />
When I was born in 1898, South Omaha was a bustling town of about 20,000. Most of these 20,000 people were foreign-born and first generation immigrants. The two largest groups were the Irish and the Bohemians (or Czechs). There was a sprinkling of other Slavic groups—Poles, Russians, Serbs—as well as Germans, Greeks and Italians.<br />
<br />
The Bohemians were the largest ethnic group in town. They lived mainly in the southern part of town, towards the river, in the Brown Park and Albright sections. One thing that impressed me was their concern with education. They were a cultured group of people. I can’t remember any of them being illiterate and they had their own newspaper. They were involved in the political wheelings and dealings of the town and were successful at it. At one time, both the mayor and chief of police were Bohemians.<br />
<br />
The Irish were the second largest group, scattered throughout the town. The newly arrived poor "shanty” Irish would first settle on Indian Hill, near the stockyards. There were two classes of Irish the "shanty” Irish on the one hand, and the "old settlers” or "lace curtain” Irish on the other. This second group, who had settled only one generation before, was mostly made up of middle class, white collar, civil service and professional workers who lived near North Omaha. There were also a few Irish who were very rich; managers and executives who lived in Omaha proper. They had become well assimilated into the community. The tendency was for the poorer Irish to live in South Omaha, and those who had "made it” to one degree or another would move up to North Omaha or Omaha proper.<br />
<br />
There were only a few dozen Black families in South Omaha, scattered throughout the community. There was no Black ghetto and, as I saw it, no "Negro problem.” This was due undoubtedly to our small numbers, although there was a relatively large number of Blacks living in North Omaha. The Black community there had grown after Blacks were brought in as strikebreakers during the 1894 strike in the packing industry, but no real ghetto developed until after World War I.<br />
<br />
Our family lived in the heart of the Bohemian neighborhood in South Omaha. Nearly all our neighbors were Bohemians. They came from many backgrounds; there were workers and peasants, professionals, artists, musicians and other skilled artisans, all fleeing from the oppressive rule of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.<br />
<br />
They were friendly people, and kept up their language and traditions. On Saturdays, families would gather at one of the beer gardens to sing and dance. I remember watching them dance scottisches and polkas, listening to the beautiful music of their bands and orchestras, or running after their great marching bands when they were in a parade. On special occasions, they would bring out their colorful costumes. Much of their community life centered around the gymnastic clubs—Sokols or Turners’ Halls— which they had established.<br />
<br />
There were differences in how the ethnic groups related to each other and to the Blacks in town. In those days, Indian Hill was the stomping ground of teenage Irish toughs. One day, a mob of predominantly Irish youths ran the small Greek colony out of town when one of their members allegedly killed an Irish cop. I remember seeing the Greek community leaving town one Sunday afternoon. There were men, women and children (about 100 in all) walking down the railroad tracks, carrying everything they could hold. Some of their houses had been burned and a few of them had been beaten up in town.<br />
<br />
We should have seen the danger for us in this, but one Black man even boasted to my Father about how he had helped run the Greeks out. My Father called him a fool. “What business did you have helping that bunch of whites? Next time it might be you they run out!’’ The incident was an ominous sign of tensions that were lo come many years later.<br />
<br />
At the time, however, our family got along well with all the immigrant families in our immediate neighborhood. I loved the sweet haunting melodies of the Irish folk ballads; “Rose of Tralce,” "Mother Machree” and many of the popular songs, like “My Irish Molly-O” and “Augraghawan, I Want to Go Back to Oregon.”<br />
<br />
There was a Bohemian couple living next door. On occasion, Mr. Rehau would get a bit too much under his belt. He’d come home and really raise hell. When this happened, Mrs. Rehau scurried to Officer Bingham, the Black cop, to get some help. I remember one afternoon when Bingham came to lend a hand in laming him. The Bohemian was a little guy compared to him. Officer Bingham threw him down out in the yard and plunked himself down on Rehau’s back.<br />
<br />
Dust flew as he kicked and thrashed and tried to get out from under the Black man. Bingham just “rode the storm” and when Rehau raised his head, he’d smack him around until the rebellion subsided.<br />
<br />
“Had enough?" he’d yell at his victim. “You gonna behave now and mind what Mrs. Rehau says?" All the while, she was running around them, waving her apron.<br />
<br />
“Beat him some more, Mr, Bingham, please! Make him be good.”<br />
<br />
Finally, either Bingham got tired or Mr. Rehau just gave out and peace returned to the neighborhood.<br />
<br />
“Police and community relations" were less tense then. The cops knew how to control a situation without using guns. Often this meant they'd get into actual fist fights. In those days, there was a big Black guy in town named Sam, a beef lugger like my Father. Sam was a nice quiet guy, but on occasion he'd go on a drunk and fight anyone within arm’s length (which was a big area). The cops generally handled it by fighting it out with him.<br />
<br />
But I remember one time Sam really caused a row. He was outside a bar on J Street, up in Omaha proper. During the course of his drunk, he’d beaten up five or six of the regular cops. This called for extreme measures. Briggs, the chief of police, came to the scene to restore law and order. He marched up to Sam and threw out his chest, “Now Sam, it's time for you to behave, you hear?" He even pulled out his thirty-eight to show he meant business.<br />
<br />
But Sam wasn’t ready to behave. He came at Briggs, intending to lay him out like he’d done with the other officers, Briggs backed up, one step at a time. “Sam, you stop. You hear me Sam? Time to stop, now." Sam forced Briggs all the way back to his carriage. Once Briggs was in, he delivered his final threat: “Sam, you come down to City Hall on Monday and see me. This just can’t happen this way."<br />
<br />
Briggs drove off. Monday morning came and Sam went down to City Hall. He was fined for being drunk and disorderly. He didn’t fight the court and willingly paid the fine. It seemed like an unwritten agreement. The cops wouldn’t shoot when Sam went on a spree. When it was over, Sam would go and pay his fine and that would end the whole business.<br />
<br />
Our family was the only Black family in our neighborhood, and we were pretty well insulated from the racist pressures of the outside world. As children we were only very dimly aware of what DuBois called the “veil of color between the races.”<br />
<br />
I First became aware of the veil, not from anything that happened in the town, but from what my parents and grandparents told me of how Southern whites had persecuted Blacks and of how they had suffered under slavery. I remember Grandfather and Grandmother Thorpe showing me the scars they had on their backs from the overseer’s lash. I remember Pa reading newspaper accounts of the endless reign of lynch terror in the South, and about the 1908 riots in Springfield, Illinois.<br />
<br />
In 1908, Jack Johnson, the first Black heavyweight champion, defeated the “great white hope.” Jim Jeffries. Pa said that it was the occasion for a new round of lynchings in the South. There were other great Black fighters—Sam Langford, Joe Jeanett and Sam McVey for instance—but Johnson was the first Black heavyweight to be able to fight for the championship and the first to win it.<br />
<br />
He was conscious that he was a Black man in a racist world. “I’m Black, they never let me forget it. Pm Black, Til never forget it.” Jeffries had been pushed as the hope of the white race to reclaim the heavyweight crown from Johnson. When Johnson knocked out Jeffries, it was a symbol of Black defiance and self-assertion. To Blacks, the victory meant pride and hope. It was a challenge to the authority of bigoted whites and to them it called for extra measures to “keep the niggers in their place.”<br />
<br />
To us children, Black repression seemed restricted to the South, outside the orbit of our immediate experience. As I saw it then, there was no deliberate plot of white against Black. I thought there were two kinds of white folk: good and bad, and the latter were mainly in the South. Most of those I knew in South Omaha were good people. Disillusionment came later in my life.<br />
<br />
The friendly interracial atmosphere of South Omaha was illustrated by the presence of Officer Bingham and Officer Ballou, two Black cops in the town’s small police force. Bingham was a big, Black and jolly fellow. His beat was our neighborhood. Ballou was a tall, slim, ramrod straight and light brown-skinned Black. He was a veteran of the Black Tenth Cavalry. He had fought in the Indian wars against Geronimo and had participated in the chase for Billy the Kid. Ballou was also a veteran of the Spanish- American War. All the kids, Black and white, regarded him with a special awe and respect. Both Black officers were treated as respectable members of the community, liked by the people because they had their confidence. While they wore guns, they never seemed to use them. These cops fought tough characters with fists and clubs, pulling a gun only rarely, and then only in self- defense. It seemed that a large part of their duty was to keep the kids out of mischief.<br />
<br />
“Officer Bingham,” the Bohemian woman across the alley would call, “would you please keep an eye on my boy Frontal. See he don’t make trouble.”<br />
<br />
“Don’t worry, Mrs. Brazda. He’s a good boy.”<br />
“<br />
<br />
Has Haywood been a good boy?”<br />
<br />
“Oh yes, Mrs. Hall. He’s all right.’’And he would stop for a chat.<br />
My sister Eppa, a lad called Willy Starens and I were the only Black kids in the Brown Park Elementary School. My brother Otto had already graduated and was in South Omaha High. Our schoolmates were predominantly Bohemians, with a sprinkling of Irish, German and a few Anglo-Americans. My close childhood chums included two Bohemian lads, Frank Brazda and Jimmy Rehau; an Anglo-Irish kid, Earl Power; and Willy Ziegler, who was of German parentage. We were an inseparable fivesome, in and out of each other’s homes all the time.<br />
<br />
During my first years in school, I was plagued by asthma, and was absent from school many months at a time. The result was that I was a year behind. I finally outgrew this infirmity and became a strong, healthy boy. By the time I reached the eighth grade, I had become one of the best students in my class, sharing this honor with a Bohemian girl, Bertha Himmel. Both of us could solve any problem in arithmetic, both were good at spelling, and at interschool spelling bees our school usually won the first prize. My self-confidence was encouraged by my teachers, all of whom were white and yet uniformly kind and sympathetic.<br />
<br />
Of course, like all kids, I had plenty of fights. But race was seldom involved. Occasionally, I would hear the word “nigger.” While it evoked anger in me, it seemed no more disparaging than the terms “bohunk,” “sheeny,” “dago,” “shanty Irish” or “poor white trash.” All were terms of common usage, interchangeable as slurring epithets on one’s ethnic background, and usually employed outside the hearing of the person in question.<br />
<br />
In contrast to the daily life of the neighborhood, however, the virus of racism was subtly injected into the classroom at the Brown Park School I attended. The five races of mankind illustrated in our geography books portrayed the Negro with the receding forehead and prognathous jaws of a gorilla. There was a complete absence of Black heroes in the history books, supporting the inference that the Black man had contributed nothing to civilization. We were taught that Blacks were brought out of the savagery of the jungles of Africa and introduced to civilization through slavery under the benevolent auspices of the white man.<br />
<br />
In spite of my Father’s submissive attitude, it is to him that I must give credit for scotching this big lie about the Negro’s past. His attitude grew out of his concern for our survival in a hostile environment. He felt most strongly that the Negro was not innately inferior, He perceived that his children must have some sense of self-respect and confidence to sustain them until that distant day when, through “obvious merit and just dessert,” Blacks would receive their award of equality and recognition.<br />
<br />
Father possessed an amazing store of knowledge which he had culled from his readings. He would tell us about the Black civilizations of ancient Egypt, Ethiopia and Cush. He would quote from the Song of Solomon: “I am Black and comely, oh ye daughters of Jerusalem.” He would tell us about Black soldiers in the Civil War; about the massacre of Blacks at Fort Pillow and the battle cry they used thereafter, “Remember Fort Pillow! Remember Fort Pillow!”2 He knew about the Haitian Revolution, the defeat of Napoleon’s Army by Toussaint L’Ouverture, Dessalines and Jean Christophe. He told us about the famous Zulu chief Shaka in South Africa; about Alexandre Dumas, the great French romanticist, and Pushkin, the great Russian poet, who were both Black.<br />
<br />
Father said that he had taught himself to read and write. He had an extensive library, which took up half of one of the walls in our subject. They included such titles as The Decisive Battles of the World The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, and many histories of England, France, Germany and Russia. He had Stanley in Africa, and a number of biographies of famous men, including Napoleon, Caesar and Hannibal (who Father said was a Negro). He had Scott’s Ivanhoe and his Waverly novels; Bulwer Lytton; Alexandre Dumas’ novels and the Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, and Up From Slavery by Booker T. Washington.<br />
<br />
On another wall there was a huge picture of the charge of the Twenty-fifth Black Infantry and the Tenth Cavalry at San Juan Hill, rescuing Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders. There were pictures of Frederick Douglass and, of course, his hero, Booker T. Washington. He would lecture to us on history, displaying his .extensive knowledge. He was a great admirer of Napoleon. He would get into one of his lecturing moods and pace up and down with his hands behind his back before the rapt audience of my sister Eppa and myself. Talking about the Battle of Waterloo, he would say:<br />
<br />
“Wellington was in a tough spot that day. Napoleon was about to whip him; the trouble was Blucher hadn’t shown up.”<br />
<br />
“Who was he, Pa?”<br />
<br />
“He was the German general who was supposed to reinforce Wellington with 13,000 Prussian troops. Wellington was getting awful nervous, walking up and down behind the lines and saying, 4Oh! If Blucher fails to come! Where is Blucher?”<br />
<br />
“Did he Finally get there, Pa?”<br />
<br />
“Yes, son, he finally got there and turned the tide of battle. And if he hadn’t shown up and Napoleon had won, the whole course of history would have been changed.”<br />
<br />
It was through Father that I entered the world of books. I developed an unquenchable thirst to learn about people and their history. I remember going to the town library when I was nine or ten and asking, “Do you have a history of the world for children?” My first love became the historical novel. I loved George Henty’s books; they always dealt with the exploits of a sixteen-year-old during an important historical period. Through Henty’s heroes, I too was with Bonnie Prince Charlie, with Wellington in rite Spanish Peninsula, with Gustavus Adolphus at Lutsen in the Thirty Years War, with Clive in India and Under Drake's Flag around the world. I was also fascinated by romances of the feudal period such as When Knighthood Was in Flower and Ivanhoe. I read Twain’s Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer, and the works of H. Rider Haggard.<br />
<br />
I went through a definite Anglophile stage, in part due to the influence of a Jamaican named Mr. Williams who worked as assistant janitor with my Father. Mr. Williams was a huge Black man with scars all over his face. He was a former stoker in the British Navy. I was attracted by his strange accent and haughty demeanor. Evidently he saw in me an appreciative audience. I would listen with open mouth and wonder at the stories of the strange places he had seen, of his adventures in faraway lands. He was a real British patriot, a Black imperialist, if such was possible.<br />
<br />
He would declare, “The sun never sets on the British Empire,” and then sing “Rule Brittania, Brittania Rule the Waves.” He quoted Napoleon as allegedly saying, “Britain is a small garden, but she grows some bitter weeds,” and “Give me French soldiers and British officers, and I will conquer the world.” I pictured myself as a British sailor, and read Two Years Before the Mast and Battle of Trafalgar.<br />
<br />
“Do you think they would let me join the British Navy?” I asked Mr. Williams.<br />
<br />
“No, my lad,” he answered, “You have to be a British citizen or subject to do that.” I was quite disappointed.<br />
But it was not only British romance that fascinated me. At about the age of twelve I became a Francophile. I read all of Dumas’ novels and quite a number of other novels about France. I had begun to read French history, which to me turned out to be as interesting as the novels and equally romantic. I read about Joan of Arc, the Hundred Years’ War, Francis I, about Catherine de Medici, the Huguenots and Admiral Coligny, the Due de Guise, the massacre of St. Bartholomew Eve or the night of the long knives; then the French Revolution, A Tale of Two Cities, the guillotining of Charlotte Corday and the assassination of Marat.<br />
<br />
Occasionally, the ugly reality of race would intrude upon the dream world of my childhood. I distinctly remember two such occasions. One was when a white family from Arkansas moved across the alley from us. Mr. Faught, the patriarch of the clan, was a typical red-necked peckerwood. He would sit around the store front, chawing tobacco, telling how they treated “niggers” down his way.<br />
<br />
“They were made to stay in their place- -down in the cotton patch—not in factories taking white men’s jobs.”<br />
<br />
As I remember, his racist harangues did not make much of an impression on the local white audience. Apparently at that time there was no feeling of competition in South Omaha because there were so few Blacks. I would also imagine that his slovenly appearance did not jibe with his white supremacist pretensions.<br />
<br />
One day a substitute teacher took over our class. I was about ten years old. The substitute was a Southerner from Arkansas. During history class she started talking about the Civil War. The slaves, she said, did not really want freedom because they were happy as they were. They would have been freed by their masters in a few years anyway. Her villain was General Grant, whom she contrasted unfavorably with General Robert E. Lee.<br />
<br />
“Lee was a gentleman,” she put forth, “But Grant was a cigar-smoking liquor-drinking roughneck.”<br />
<br />
She didn’t like Sherman either, and talked about his “murdering rampage” through Georgia. I wasn't about to take all of this and challenged her.<br />
<br />
“I don’t know about General Grant’s habits, but he did beat Lee. Besides, Lee couldn’t have been much of a gentleman; he owned slaves!”<br />
<br />
Livid with rage, she shouted, “That’s enough —what I could say about you!”<br />
<br />
“Well, what could you say?” I challenged.<br />
She apparently saw that wild racist statements wouldn’t work in this situation, and that I was trying to provoke her to do something like that. She cut short the argument, shouting, “That’s enough”<br />
<br />
“Yes, that’s enough,” I sassed.<br />
During the heated exchange, I felt that I had the sympathy of most of my classmates. After school, some gathered around me and said, “You certainly told her off?”<br />
<br />
When I told Mother she supported me. “You done right, son,” she said.<br />
<br />
But Father was not so sure. “You might have gotten into trouble.”<br />
<br />
I feel now that one of the reasons for my self-confidence during my childhood years, and why the racist notions of innate Black inferiority left me cold, was my older brother Otto. His example belied such claims. He was the most brilliant one in our family, and probably in all of South Omaha. He had skipped a grade both in grade school and in high school, and was a real prodigy. He was a natural poet, and won many prizes in composition. His poem on the charge of the Twenty-fifth Black Infantry and Tenth Cavalry at San Juan Hill was published in one of the Omaha dailies. Otto was praised by all of his teachers. “An unusual boy,” they said, “clearly destined to become a leader of his race.”<br />
<br />
One day, one of his teachers and a Catholic priest called on Mother and Father to talk about Otto’s future. Otto was about fourteen at the time. They suggested that he might be good material for the priesthood, and that there was a possibility of his getting a scholarship for Creighton University, Omaha’s famous Jesuit school. The teacher suggested that if this were agreed to, he should take up Latin. My parents were extremely flattered, despite the fact that they were good Methodists (AME). Even Father, who did not seem ambitious for his children, was impressed.<br />
<br />
But when the proposition was placed before Otto, he vehemently disagreed. He did not want to become a priest nor did he want to study Latin. He wanted, he said, to be an architect! Doctors, dentists, teachers and preachers -these were the professions for an ambitious Black in those days.<br />
<br />
“An architect!” they exclaimed in amazement. “Who ever heard of a Black architect?”<br />
<br />
“Who ever heard of a Black priest?” Otto retorted. (At that time there were only two or three Black priests in the entire U.S.)<br />
<br />
“But Otto,” Mother argued,“you’ll have the support of a lot of prominent white folks. They’ll help you through college.”<br />
<br />
But Otto would have none of it. Undoubtedly, my parents thought that they could finally wear down his opposition and that he would become more amenable in time. They did force him to take Latin, a subject he hated.<br />
<br />
Otto stayed in school, but no longer seemed interested in his studies. He dropped out of school suddenly in his senior year. He was sixteen. He left home and got a job as a bellhop in a hotel in North Omaha’s Black community. This move cut completely the few remaining tics he had with his white age group in South Omaha.<br />
<br />
Otto’s drop-out from high school evidently signified that he had given up the struggle to be somebody in the white world. He had become disillusioned with the white world and therefore sought identity with his own people. During my childhood years, our relationship had never been close. There was, of course, the age gap—he was seven years older. But even in later years, when we were closer and had more in common, we never talked about our childhood. I don’t know why. As a child I had been proud of his academic feats and boasted about them to my friends.<br />
<br />
At the time he left high school Otto was the only Black in South Omaha High and was about to become its first Black graduate. Highly praised by his teachers and popular among his fellow students, he was a real showpiece in the school.<br />
<br />
What caused him to drop out of school in his senior year? Thinking back on it, I don’t believe that it had anything to do with the attempt to make him a priest. I think that he had won that battle a couple of years before. At least, I never heard the matter mentioned again.<br />
<br />
Otto undoubtedly had had high aspirations at one time, as evidenced by his desire to become an architect. Somewhere along the line they disappeared. Perhaps a contributing factor was the accumulating effect of Otto’s malady. On occasion, Mother would remind us that Otto had water on the brain, and that he was different from Eppa and myself. At the time, he seemed smarter than us, more independent and in rebellion against Pa’s lack of encouragement, moral support and his parental authority. Certainly in adult life Otto used to sleep about ten hours a day and very often fell asleep in meetings. He seemed to lack the ability of prolonged concentration, although whatever brain damage he may have suffered never affected the quickness of his mind and ability to grasp the nub of any question or the capacity for leadership which he showed on a number of occasions.<br />
<br />
But more debilitating, probably, than any physical disease was the generation gap of that era—between parents of slave backgrounds and children born free, particularly in the north. Otto’s dropping out of school and his later radical political development were undoubtedly related to a conflict more intense than the ones of today.<br />
<br />
Father was an ardent follower of Booker T. Washington. His ambitions for his sons were very modest, to put it mildly. He undoubtedly would have been satisfied if we could become good law-abiding citizens with stable jobs. He thought of jobs a notch or two above his own station, like a postal employee, a skilled tradesman, or a clerk in the civil service. The offer of a scholarship for the priesthood was, therefore, simply beyond his expectations, and I guess that the old man was deeply disappointed at Otto’s rejection of it.<br />
<br />
Otto was quite independent and would not conform to Father’s idea of discipline. For example, he was completely turned off on the question of religion, and Father could not force him to go to church I don’t remember Otto ever going to church with the family. Father claimed that Otto was irresponsible and wild. As a result, there was mutual hostility between them. The results were numerous thrashings when Otto was young and violent quarrels between them as he grew older. Mother would usually defend Otto. Grandpa Thorpe, himself a strict disciplinarian, would warn Mother: “Hattie, you mark my words, that boy is going to lan’ in the pen.”<br />
<br />
At some point, Otto came to the conclusion that there was no use in continuing his education. He must have felt that it was irrelevant. Opportunities for educated Blacks were few, even in North Omaha’s Black community where there were only a few professionals. In that community there were a few preachers, one doctor, one dentist and one or two teachers. Black businesses consisted of owners of several undertaking establishments, a couple of barber shops and a few pool rooms. The only other Blacks in any sort of middle class positions were a few postal employees, civil service workers, pullman porters and waiters.<br />
<br />
Then too, Otto had passed through the age of puberty and was becoming more and more conscious of his race. Along with the natural detachment and withdrawal from childhood socializing with girls—in his case white girls who were former childhood sweethearts—Otto experienced a withdrawal and non-socialization because of his race. He ended up quite alone because there were not many Black kids his age in South Omaha. There wasn’t much contact with the Black kids from North Omaha either. As a very sensitive person on the verge of manhood, I imagine he began to feel these changes keenly.<br />
<br />
After he dropped out of school in 1908, Otto was soon attracted to the “sportin’ life”...the pool halls and sporting houses of North<br />
Omaha. He wanted to be among Black people; he was anxious to get away from Father. Thus, he left home and got jobs as a bellhop, shoeshine boy, and busboy. He began to absorb a new way of life, stepping fully into the social life of the Black community in North Omaha. He’d evidently heeded the “call of the blood” and gone back to the race. It was not until a few years later, when I had similar experiences, that I understood that Otto had arrived at the first stage in his identity crisis and had gone to where he felt he belonged.<br />
<br />
He would come home quite often, though, flaunting his new clothes, a “box-backed” suit—“fitting nowhere but the shoulders,” high-heeled Stacey Adams button shoes, and a stetson hat. He’d give a few dollars to Mother and some dimes to me and my sister. Sometimes he would bring a pretty girl friend with him. But most of the time, he would bring a young man, Henry Starens, who was a piano player. He played a style popular in those days, later to be known as boogie-woogie, in which the piano was the whole orchestra. He played Ma Rainey’s famous blues, “Make Me a Pallet on Your Floor, Make It Where Your Man Will Never Know,” and the old favorite, “Alabama Bound.”<br />
<br />
'''Alabama Bound'''<br />
<br />
'''I'm Alabama Bound.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, babe, don't leave me here,'''<br />
<br />
'''Just leave a dime for beer.'''<br />
<br />
A boy of ten at the time, I was tremendously impressed. There is no doubt that Otto’s experience served to weaken some of my childish notions about making it in the white world.<br />
<br />
=== HALLEY’S COMET AND MY RELIGION ===<br />
On May 4, 1910, Halley’s Comet appeared flaring down out of the heavens, its luminous tail switching to earth. It was an ominous sight.<br />
<br />
A rash of religious revival swept Omaha. Prophets and messiahs appeared on street comers and in churches preaching the end of the world. Hardened sinners “got religion.” Backsliders renewed their faith. The comet, with its tail moving ever closer to the earth, seemed to lend credence to forecasts of imminent cosmic disaster.<br />
<br />
Both my Mother and Father were deeply religious. Theirs was that “old time religion,” the fire-and-brimstone kind which leaned heavily on the Old Testament. It was the kind that accepted the Bible and all its legends as the literal gospel truth. We children had the “fear of the Lord” drilled into us from early age. My image of God was that of a vengeful old man who demanded unquestioned faith, strict obedience and repentant love as the price of salvation;<br />
<br />
'''I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.'''<br />
<br />
Every Sunday, rain or shine, the family would attend services at the little frame church near the railroad tracks. For me, this was a tortuous ordeal. I looked forward to Sundays with dread. We would spend all of eight hours in church. We would sit through the morning service, then the Sunday school, after which followed a break for dinner. We returned at five for the Young People’s Christian Endeavor and finally the evening service. It was not just boredom. Fear was the dominant emotion, especially when our preacher, Reverend Jamieson, a big Black man with a beautiful voice, would launch into one of his fire-and-brimstone sermons. He would start out slowly and in a low voice, gradually raising it higher he would swing to a kind of sing-song rhythm, holding his congregation rapt with vivid word pictures. They would respond with “Hallelujah! ” “Ain’t it the truth! ” “Preach it, brother!”<br />
<br />
He would go on in this manner for what seemed an interminable time, and would reach his peroration on a high note, winding up with a rafter-shaking burst of oratory. He would then pause dramatically amidst moans, shouts and even screams of some of the women, one or two of whom would fall out in a dead faint. Waiting for them to subside he would then, in a lowered, scarcely audible voice, reassure his flock that it was not yet too late to repent and achieve salvation. All that was necessary was to: “Repent sinners, and love and obey the Lord. Amen.” Someone would then rise and lead off with an appropriate spiritual such as:<br />
<br />
'''Oh, my sins are forgiven and my soul set free-ah,'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, glory Halelua-a-a-a'''<br />
<br />
'''Just let me in the kingdom when the world is all a'fi-ah.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh Glory Halelu!'''<br />
<br />
'''I don't feel worried, no ways tiahd,'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, glory Halelu!'''<br />
<br />
I remember the family Bible, a huge book which lay on the center table in the front room. The first several pages were blank, set aside for recording the vital family statistics: births, deaths, marriages. The book was filled with graphic illustrations of biblical happenings. Leafing through Genesis (which we used to call “the begats”), one came to Exodus and from there on a pageant of bloodshed and violence unfolded. Portrayed in striking colors were the interminable tribal wars in which the Israelites slew the Mennonites and Pharoah’s soldiers killed little children in march of Moses. There was the great God, Jehovah himself, whitebearded and eyes flashing, looking very much like our old cracker neighbor, Mr. Faught.<br />
<br />
Just a couple of weeks before Halley’s comet appeared, Mother had taken us to see the silent film, Dante’s Inferno, through which I sat with open mouth horror. Needless to say, this experience did not lessen my apprehension.<br />
<br />
The comet continued its descent, its tail like the flaming sword of vengeance. Collision seemed not just possible, but almost certain. What had we poor mortals done to incur such wrath of the Lord?<br />
<br />
My deportment underwent a change. I did all my chores without complaint and helped Mama around the house. This was so unlike me that she didn’t know what to make of it. I overheard her telling Pa about my good behavior and how helpful I had become lately. But I hadn’t really changed. I was just scared. I was simply trying to carry out another one of God’s commandments, “Honor thy lather and thy mother that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.'’<br />
<br />
Then one night, when the whole neighborhood had gathered as usual on the hill to watch the comet, it appeared to have ceased its movement towards the earth. We were not sure, but the next night we were certain. It had not only ceased its descent, but was definitely withdrawing. In a couple more nights, it had disappeared. A wave of relief swept over the town.<br />
<br />
“It’s not true!” I thought to myself. “The fire and brimstone, the leering devils, the angry vengeful God. None of it is true.”<br />
<br />
It was as if a great weight had been lifted from my mind. It was the end of my religion, although I still thought that there was most likely a supreme being. But if God existed, he was nothing like the God portrayed in our family Bible. I was no longer terrified of him. Later, at the age of fourteen or fifteen, I read some of the lectures of Robert G. Ingersoll and became an agnostic, doubting the existence of a god. From there, I later moved to positive atheism.<br />
<br />
Two years later, the great event was the sinking of the Titanic.This was significant in Omaha because one of the Brandeis brothers, owners of the biggest department store in North Omaha, went down with her. In keeping with the custom of Blacks to gloat over the misfortunes of whites, especially rich ones, some Black bard composed the "Titanic Blues":<br />
<br />
'''When old John Jacob As tor left his home,'''<br />
<br />
'''He never thought he was going to die.'''<br />
<br />
'''Titanic fare thee well'''<br />
<br />
'''I say fare thee well.'''<br />
<br />
But disaster was more frequently reserved for the Black community. On Easter Sunday 1913, a tornado struck North Omaha. It ripped a two-block swath through the Black neighborhood, leaving death and destruction in its wake. Among the victims were a dozen or so Black youths trapped in a basement below a pool hall where they had evidently been shooting craps. Mother did not fail to point out the incident as another example of God's wrath. While I was sorry for the youths and their families (some of them were friends of Otto), the implied warning left me cold. My God-fearing days had ended with Halley's Comet.<br />
<br />
Misfortune, however, was soon to strike our immediate family. It happened that summer, in 1913. My Father fled town after being attacked and beaten by a gang of whites on Q Street, right outside the gate of the packing plant. They told him to get out of town or they would kill him.<br />
<br />
I remember vividly the scene that night when Father staggered through the door. Consternation gripped us at the sight. His face was swollen and bleeding, his clothes torn and in disarray. He had a frightened, hunted look in his eyes. My sister Eppa and I were alone. Mother had gone for the summer to work for her employers, rich white folks, at Lake Okoboji, Iowa. <br />
<br />
"What happened?" we asked.<br />
<br />
He gasped out the story of how he had been attacked and beaten.<br />
<br />
"They said they were going to kill me if I didn't get out of town."<br />
<br />
We asked him who "they" were. He said that he recognized some of them as belonging to the Irish gang on Indian Hill, but there were also some grown men.<br />
<br />
"But why, Pa? Why should they pick on you?"<br />
<br />
"Why don't we call the police?"<br />
<br />
"That ain't goin' to do no good. We just have to leave town."<br />
<br />
"But Pa," I said, "how can we? We own this house. We've got friends here. If you tell them, they wouldn't let anybody harm us."<br />
<br />
Again the frightened look crossed his face.<br />
<br />
"No, we got to go."<br />
<br />
"Where, where will we go?"<br />
<br />
"We'll move up to Minneapolis, your uncles Watt and George are there. I'll get work there. I'm going to telegraph your Mother to come home now."<br />
<br />
He washed his face and then went into the bedroom and began packing his bags. The next morning he gave Eppa some money and said, "This will tide you over till your Mother comes. She'll be here in a day or two. I'm going to telegraph her as soon as I get to the depot. I'll send for you all soon."<br />
<br />
He kissed us goodbye and left.<br />
<br />
Only when he closed the door behind him did we feel the full impact of the shock. It had happened so suddenly. Our whole world had collapsed. Home and security were gone. The feeling of safety in our little haven of interracial goodwill had proved elusive. Now we were just homeless "niggers" on the run.<br />
<br />
The crudest blow, perhaps, was the shattering of my image of lather. True enough, I had not regarded him as a hero. Still, however, I had retained a great deal of respect for him. He was undoubtedly a very complex man, very sensitive and imaginative. Probably he had never gotten over the horror of that scene in the cabin near Martin, Tennessee, where as a boy of fifteen he had seen his father kill the Klansman. He distrusted and feared poor whites, especially the native born and, in Omaha, the shanty Irish.<br />
<br />
Mother arrived the next day. For her it was a real tragedy. Our home was gone and our family broken up. She had lived in Omaha for nearly a quarter of a century. She had raised her family there and had built up a circle of close friends. With her regular summer job at Lake Okoboji and catering parties the rest of the year, she had helped pay for our home. Now it was gone. We would be lucky if we even got a fraction of the money we had put into it, not to speak of the labor. Now she was to leave all this. Friends and neighbors would ask why Father had run away.<br />
<br />
Why had he let some poor white trash run him out of town? He had friends there. Ours was an old respected family. He also had influential white patrons. There was Ed Cudahy of the family that owned the packing plant where he worked. The Cudahys had become one of the nation's big three in the slaughtering and meat packing industry. Father had known him from boyhood. There was Mr. Wilkins, general manager at Cudahy's, whom Father had known as an office boy, and who now gave Father all his old clothes.<br />
<br />
A few days later, Mr. Cannon, a railroad man in charge of a buffet car on the Omaha and Minneapolis run and an old friend of the family, called with a message from Father. He said that Father was all right, that he had gotten a job for himself and Mother at the Minneapolis Women's Club. Father was to become caretaker and janitor, Mother was to cater the smaller parties at the club and to assist at the larger affairs. They were to live on the place in a basement apartment.<br />
<br />
The salary was ridiculously small (I think about $60 per month for both of them) and the employers insisted that only one of us children would be allowed to live at the place. That, of course, would be Eppa. He said that Father had arranged for me to live with another family. This, he said, would be a temporary arrangement. He was sure he could find another job, and rent a house where we could all be together again. As for me, Father suggested that since I was fifteen, I could find a part-time job to help out while continuing school. Mr. Cannon said that he was to take me back to Minneapolis with him, and that Mother and Eppa were to follow in a few days.<br />
<br />
With regards to our house, Mr. Cannon said that he knew a lawyer, an honest fellow, who for a small commission would handle its sale. Mother later claimed that after deducting the lawyer's commission and paying off a small mortgage, they only got the paltry sum of $300! This was for a five-room house with electricity and running water.<br />
<br />
The next day, Mr. Cannon took me out to his buffet car in the railroad yards. He put me in the pantry and told me to stay there, and if the conductor looked in: "Don't be afraid, he's a friend of mine." Our car was then attached to a train which backed down to the station to load passengers. I looked out the window as we left Omaha. I was not to see Omaha again until after World War I, when I was a waiter on the Burlington Railroad.<br />
<br />
My childhood and part of my adolescence was now behind me. I felt that I was practically on my own. What did the world hold for me—a Black youth?<br />
<br />
Arriving in Minneapolis, I went to my new school. As I entered the room, the all-white class was singing old darkie plantation songs. Upon seeing me, their voices seemed to take on a mocking, derisive tone. Loudly emphasizing the Negro dialect and staring directly at me, they sang:<br />
<br />
'''"Down in De Caunfiel—HEAH DEM darkies moan'''<br />
<br />
'''All De darkies AM a weeping'''<br />
<br />
'''MASSAHS in DE Cold Cold Ground"'''<br />
<br />
They were really having a ball.<br />
<br />
In my state of increased racial awareness, this was just too much for me. I was already in a mood of deep depression. With the breakup of our family, the separation from my childhood friends, and the interminable quarrels between my Mother and Father (in which I sided with Mother), I was in no mood to be kidded or scoffed at.<br />
<br />
That was my last day in school. I never returned. I made up my mind to drop out and get a full-time job.<br />
<br />
I was fifteen and in the second semester of the eighth grade.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 ==<br />
<br />
=== A Black Regiment in World War I ===<br />
'''On the Negroes this double experience of deliberate and devilish persecution from their own countrymen, coupled with a taste of real democracy and world-old culture, was revolutionizing. They began to hate prejudice and discrimination as they had never hated it before. They began to realize its eternal meaning and complications., .they were filled with a bitter, dogged determination never to give up the fight for Negro equality in America....A new, radical Negro spirit has been born in France, which leaves us older radicals far behind. Thousands of young Black men have offered their lives for the Lilies of France and they return ready to offer them again for the Sunflowers of Afro-America. W.E.B. DuBois, June 1919'''<br />
<br />
Despite my bitter encounter with racism in school, I liked Minneapolis. I was impressed by the beauty of this city with its many lakes and surrounding pine forests. The racial climate in 1913 was not as bad as my early experience in school would indicate, either. Blacks seemed to get along well, especially with the Scandinavian nationalities, who constituted the most numerous ethnic grouping in the city. <br />
<br />
Upon quitting school, I became a part of the small Black community and completely identified with it. I found friends among Black boys and girls of my age group, attended parties, dances, picnics at Lake Minnetonka, and ice skated in the winter time. Here, as in Omaha, a ghetto had not yet fully formed, though I here were the beginnings of one in the Black community on the north side.<br />
<br />
Included in the Black community and among my new friends were a relatively large number of mulattos, the progeny of mixed marriages between Scandinavian women and Black men. This phenomenon dated back to the turn of the century. At that time it was the fashion among wealthy white families to import Scandinavian maids. Many of these families had Black male servants— butlers, chauffeurs, etc.—and the small Black population was preponderantly male. The result was a rash of inter-marriages between the Scandinavian maids and the Black male house servants. The interracial couples formed a society called Manasseh which held well-known yearly balls. As a whole the children of this group were a hot-headed lot and seemed even more racially conscious than the rest of us.<br />
<br />
It was in Minneapolis that I too reached a heightened stage of racial awareness. This was hastened, no doubt, by the tragic events in South Omaha and the fact that I was now an adolescent and there was the problem of girls. I had noticed that it was in the period of pubescence that a Black boy, raised even in communities of relative racial tolerance, was first confronted with the problem of race. It had been so with my brother Otto in Omaha, and now it was so with me.<br />
<br />
During the first year after dropping out of school I worked as a bootblack, barber shop porter, bell hop and busboy, continuing in the last long enough to acquire the rudiments of the waiter's trade. At the age of sixteen, I got a j ob as dining car waiter on the Chicago Northwestern Railway. The first run was also my first trip to the big city, where I had four aunts (my Mother's sisters). All through my childhood my Mother had told stories about her first visit there at the time of the Chicago Exposition. Upon arrival, one of the older waiters on the car, Lon Holliday, took me to see the town. I'm sure he looked forward to showing a young "innocent" the ropes. After a visit to my aunts, he took me to a notorious dive on the Southside. It was the back room of a saloon at Thirty-second and State Street.<br />
<br />
The piano man was playing "boogie woogie" style, popular in those days. The few couples on the floor were "walking the dog," "balling the jack," and so on. Then one of the dancers, a woman, called to the pianist, "Oh, Mr. Johnson, please play 'Those Dirty Motherfuckers.'" He enthusiastically complied and sang a number of verses of the bawdy tune. I almost sank through the floor in embarrassment and even amazement. Lon, who was watching, burst out laughing and he said, "Boy, you ain't seen nothing yet!"<br />
<br />
He then took me to the famous "Mecca Flats" on Federal Street, where a rent party was in process. There he introduced me to a young woman, whom he evidently knew, and slipped her some money, saying, "Take care of my young friend here; be sure you get him back on the car in the morning. We leave for Minneapolis at 10:00 A.M."<br />
<br />
The railroads were a way to see the country and in the months that followed I took advantage of that, working for different lines, on different runs as far west as Seattle. On one run in Montana called the Loop, the dining car shuttled between Great Falls and Butte by way of Helena, stopping at each town overnight. It was known as the "outlaw run" and I soon found out why. It attracted a number of characters wanted by police in other cities, searching for an escape or a temporary hideout.<br />
<br />
While laying over in Butte one night, our chef murdered the parlor car porter—cut his throat while he was sleeping in the parlor car. They had been feuding for days. I went through the parlor car that morning and was the first to see the ghastly sight. The police came, but the chef had disappeared. My enthusiasm for the job was gone. It might have been me, I thought, for I had had a number of arguments with the chef about my orders.<br />
<br />
I quit and headed back to Minneapolis, arriving there shortly after war broke out in Europe in 1914.1 was sixteen and had been avidly following the news, reading of the invasions of Belgium, France, the Battle of the Marne, etc. <br />
<br />
One day, walking along Hennepin Avenue I saw a Canadian recruiting sergeant. He was wearing the uniform of the Princess Pat Regiment, bright red jacket and black kilt. A handsome fellow, I thought, looking like Bonnie Prince Charlie himself. He noticed me looking at him and asked, "You want to join up with the Princess Pat, my lad? We've got a number of Black boys like you in the regiment. You'll find you're treated like anyone else up there. We make no difference between Black and white in Canada."<br />
<br />
Imagining myself in the red jacket and black kilt, I said, "Sure,I'll join."<br />
<br />
Then looking at me closely, he asked, "How old are you?"<br />
<br />
"Eighteen," I lied.<br />
<br />
"Your parents living?"<br />
<br />
"Yes."<br />
<br />
"Well, you've got to get their consent."<br />
<br />
"Oh, they'll agree," I said.<br />
<br />
"They live in the city?"<br />
<br />
"Yes."<br />
<br />
"Well, you come back here tomorrow and bring one of them with you and I'll sign you up."<br />
<br />
"Okay," I said, but I knew that my parents would never agree. And well it was, too, for I later learned that this regiment was among the first victims of the German mustard gas attack at Ypres, and what was left of them was practically wiped out at bloody Paschendale on the Sommes front.<br />
<br />
Life in Minneapolis was beginning to bore me. I was anxious to get back to Chicago, "the big city," so I moved there and stayed with my Aunt Lucy at Forty-third and State. In 1915 my parents, at the urging of my Mother, also moved to Chicago, and I then stayed with them.<br />
<br />
In Chicago I got a job as a busboy at the Tip Top Inn, then considered the finest restaurant in town. It was owned by old man Hieronymous, a famous chef, and was noted for its French cuisine and service. In the trade it was taken for granted that if you had been a waiter at the Tip Top Inn you could work anywhere in the country. After a few months I was promoted to waiter and felt that I had perfected my skills. During the next three years I worked at a number of places: the Twentieth Century Limited, the New York Central's crack train; the Wolverine (Michigan Central); the Sherman House; the old Palmer House; and the Auditorium.<br />
<br />
During this time in Chicago I saw Casey Jones, a Black man and a legendary character known to at least four generations of Black Chicagoans. As I remember, he was partially paralyzed, probably from cerebral palsy. He would go through the streets with trained chickens, which he put through various capers, shouting, "Crabs, crabs, I got them!" He had a defect in his speech which he exploited. The audience would literally fall out at his rendering of the popular sentimental ballad, "The Curse of an Aching Heart":<br />
<br />
'''You made me what I am today,'''<br />
<br />
'''I hope you're satisfied.'''<br />
<br />
'''You dragged and dragged me down until'''<br />
<br />
'''a The heart within me died.'''<br />
<br />
'''Although you're not true,'''<br />
<br />
'''May God bless you,'''<br />
<br />
'''That's the curse of an aching heart!'''<br />
<br />
Then there was the beloved comedian, String Beans, who often appeared at the old Peking Theater at Thirty-first and State Street. The Dolly Sisters also appeared there; they were very famous at the time. Teenan Jones'slush night spot was at Thirty-fifth and State Street. Then at the Panama, another night club, I would listen to Mamie Smith sing "Shimmy-sha-Wobble, That's All," a very popular song and dance at the time.<br />
<br />
Once, when I wanted to go back to Minneapolis to visit, I caught the Pioneer Limited—riding the rods—out of the station on the west side. This was my first experience in hoboing. I rode the rods as far as Beloit, Wisconsin.<br />
<br />
At Beloit I got off, but was afraid to get back on because a yard dick was going around the cars. I stayed there overnight—a fairly cold night as I remember. I met a white man, a "professional" hobo, who took me in tow and told me about the trains leaving in the morning. He said we could catch a train that would pull us right into Minneapolis. It was a passenger train, and we could "ride the blinds in," that is, the space between the two Pullman cars.<br />
<br />
We rode the blinds, reaching La Crosse, Wisconsin. On the way he warned, "You know, there's a bad dick up there in La Crosse. We gotta watch out for him." When the train pulled to a stop in La Crosse both of us hopped off. Other guys were flying out of the train from all sides—from the rods, the blinds, and there were some on top, too. But this notorious yard dick caught us. He was a rough character, and let us know it as he lined us up.<br />
<br />
"Hey, up there!"<br />
<br />
I was at the end of the line of about a dozen guys and was the only Black there. I had my hands in my pocket.<br />
<br />
"Take yer hands outta yer pockets!"<br />
<br />
I took my hands out of my pockets.<br />
<br />
The engine's fireman was looking out, watching all of this. He called to the yard dick, "Say, Jim, let me have that young colored boy over there to slide down coal for me into Minneapolis."<br />
<br />
The dick looked at me and scowled, "All right, you, get up there!"<br />
<br />
He shouted to the fireman, "But see that he works!"<br />
<br />
"I'll see to that; he'll work."<br />
<br />
I scrambled on the engine tender and slid coal all the way to Minneapolis, where I got off at the station.<br />
<br />
Among my new friends in Chicago were several members of the Eighth Illinois, Black National Guard Regiment. They would regale me with tall stories of their exploits on the Mexican border in the summer of 1916 when the regiment took part in a "show of force" against the Mexican Revolution. None of us, of course, knew the real issues involved.<br />
<br />
I remember reading of the exploits of the famous Black Tenth Cavalry Regiment, which was a part of the force sent by General Funston across the border in pursuit of Pancho Villa. They had been ambushed by Villa and a number of them killed. The papers, on that occasion, had been full of accounts of the heroic Black cavalrymen and their valiant white officers. The Eighth, however, had been in the rear near San Antonio, Texas, and saw no action during the abortive campaign.<br />
<br />
Intrigued by their experiences, I joined the Eighth Regiment in the winter of 1917. I was nineteen. The regiment, officered by Blacks from the colonel on down (many of them veterans of the four Black Regular Army regiments), gave me a feeling of pride. They had a high esprit de corps which emphasized racial solidarity. I didn't regard it just as a part of a U.S. Army unit, but as some sort of a big social club of fellow race-men. Still, I knew that we would eventually get into the war. That did not bother me; on the contrary, romance, adventure, travel beckoned. I saw possible escape from the inequities and oppression which was the lot of Blacks in the U.S. I was already a Francophile. I had read and heard about the fairness of the French with respect to the race issue. It seems now, as I look back upon it, that patriotism was the least of my motives. I was avidly following all the news of the war and it seemed certain that the U.S. was going to get involved, despite protestations of President Wilson to the contrary.<br />
<br />
Already the press was whipping up war sentiment. Tin PanAlley joined in with a rash of jingoistic songs: "Don't Bite the Hand That's Feeding You," "Let's All Be American Now," ad nauseum. All this left us cold. However, the song that brought tears to my eyes was "Joan of Arc":<br />
<br />
'''Joan of Arc, Joan of Arc,'''<br />
<br />
'''Do your eyes from the skies see the foe?'''<br />
<br />
'''Can't you see the drooping Fleur de Lys,'''<br />
<br />
'''Can't you hear the tears of Normandy?'''<br />
<br />
'''Joan of Arc, Joan of Arc,'''<br />
<br />
'''Let your spirit guide us through.'''<br />
<br />
'''Awake old France to victory!'''<br />
<br />
'''Joan of Arc, we're calling you.'''<br />
<br />
Truly, nothing was sacred to Tin Pan Alley!<br />
<br />
The Lusitania was sunk; the U.S. declared war in April 1917. Our regiment was federalized on July 25, 1917, and in the late summer we were on our way to basic training at Camp Logan, near Houston, Texas.<br />
<br />
A demagogic promise was widely circulated that things would be better if Blacks fought loyally. For example, there was the statement of President Wilson: "Out of this conflict you must expect nothing less than the enjoyment of full citizenship rights." This propaganda was immediately belied by the mounting wave of new lynchings in the South, which claimed thirty-eight victims in 1917 and fifty-eight in 1918. Worst of all was the East St. Louis riot in September 1917; at least forty Blacks were massacred in a bloody pogrom that lasted several days.<br />
<br />
Then there was the mutiny-riot of the Twenty-fourth Infantry in Houston, Texas, where our regiment was to receive its basic training. Company G of our outfit was already in Houston at the time, having been sent on as an advance detachment to prepare the camp for our occupation. It was through them that I learned exactly what had happened.<br />
<br />
Black soldiers of the Twenty-fourth Infantry, an old Regular Army regiment, had for months been subjected to insults and abuse by Houston police and civilians. The outfit had stationed its military police in Houston, who were, in theory, supposed to cooperate with local police in maintaining law and order among soldiers on leave. Instead, the Black military police found themselves the object of abuse, insults and beatings by local police. This treatment of Black MPs by racist cops was evidently encouraged by the fact that they (the Blacks) were unarmed.<br />
<br />
A report of the special on-the-spot investigator for the NAACP published in the Crisis, its organ, reads:<br />
<br />
'''In deference to the southern feeling against the arming of Negroes and because of the expected cooperation of the City Police Department, members of the provost guard were not armed, thus creating a situation without precedent in the history of this guard. A few carried clubs, but none of them had guns, and most of them were without weapons of any kind. They were supposed to call on white police officers to make arrests. The feeling is strong among the colored people of Houston that this was the real cause of the riot.'''<br />
<br />
'''On the afternoon of August 23, two policemen, Lee Sparks and Rufe Daniels—the former known to the colored people as a brutal bully—entered the house of a respectable colored woman in an alleged search for a colored fugitive accused of crap-shooting. Failing to find him, they arrested the woman, striking and cursing her and forcing her out into the street only partly clad. While they were waiting for the patrol wagon a crowd gathered about the weeping woman who had become hysterical and was begging to know why she was being arrested.'''<br />
<br />
'''In this crowd was a colored soldier, Private Edwards. Edwards seems to have questioned the police officers or remonstrated with them. Accounts differ on this point, but they all agree that the officers immediately set upon him and beat him to the ground with the butts of their six-shooters, continuing to beat and kick him while he was on the ground, and arrested him. In the words of Sparks himself: "I beat that nigger until his heart got right. He was a good nigger when I got through with him."'''<br />
<br />
'''Later Corporal Baltimore, a member of the military police, approached the officers and inquired for Edwards, as it was his duty to do. Sparks immediately opened fire and Baltimore, being unarmed, fled....They followed...beat him up, and arrested him. It was this outrage which infuriated the men of the Twenty-fourth Infantry to the point of revolt.'''<br />
<br />
When word of this outrage reached the camp, feeling ran high. It was by no means the first incident of the kind that had occurred.<br />
<br />
The white officers, feeling that the men would seek revenge, ordered them disarmed. The arms were stacked in a tent guarded by a sergeant. A group of men killed the sergeant, seized their rifles, and under the leadership of Sergeant Vida Henry, an eighteen-year veteran, marched on Houston in company strength.<br />
<br />
When the soldiers left camp their slogan was "On to the Police Station!" They entered town by way of San Felipe Street which ran through the heart of the Black community. The fact that they took this route and avoided the more direct one which lead through a white neighborhood disproved the charge by local newspapers and the police that they were out to shoot up the town and kill all whites. Their target was clearly the Houston cops. On the way to the station they shot every person who looked like a cop.<br />
<br />
Finally meeting resistance, a battle ensued which ended with seventeen whites, thirteen of them policemen, killed. The alarm went out and a whole division of white troops, which was stationed in the camp, was sent in to round up the mutineers. Finally cornered, the men threw down their arms and surrendered, with the exception of Sergeant Vida Henry, who committed suicide rather than be taken. <br />
<br />
The whole battalion of the Twenty-fourth Infantry, including the mutineers, was hurriedly placed aboard a guarded troop train and sent to Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Immediately upon arrival there, those involved were given a drum-head court martial. Thirteen were executed and forty-one others were sentenced to life imprisonment.<br />
<br />
The bodies of all the executed men were sent home to their families for burial. I remember reading of the funeral of Corporal Baltimore in some little town in Illinois.<br />
<br />
Our regiment entrained for Camp Logan with our ardor considerably dampened by these events. Indeed, we left Chicago in an angry and apprehensive mood which lasted all the way to Texas. We passed through East St. Louis in the middle of the night. Those of us who were awake were brooding about the massacre of our kinsmen which had recently taken place there. The regiment traveled in three sections, a battalion each, in old style tourist cars (sort of second-class Pullmans).<br />
<br />
The next morning we arrived in Jonesboro, Arkansas, our first stop on the other side of the Mason-Dixon line. We were in enemy territory. For many of us it was our first time in the South. Jonesboro was a division point—all three sections of the train pulled up on sidings while the engines were being changed and the cars serviced.<br />
<br />
It was a bright, warm and sunny Sunday morning. It seemed like the whole town had turned out at the station platform to see the strange sight of armed Black soldiers. Whites were on one side of the station platform and Blacks on the other. We pulled into the station with the windows open and our 1903 Springfield rifles on the tables in plain view of the crowd.<br />
<br />
We were at our provocative best. We threw kisses at the white girls on the station platform, calling out to them: "Come over here, baby, give me a kiss!" "Look at that pretty redhead over there, ain't she a beaut!" And so forth.<br />
<br />
A passenger train pulled up beside us on the next track. There, peering out the open window, was a real stereotype of an Arkansas red-neck. The sight of him was provocation enough for Willie Morgan, a huge Black in our company who was originally from Mississippi. Morgan was sitting directly across from the white man. He undoubtedly retained bitter memories of insults and persecutions from the past and quickly took advantage of what was perhaps his first opportunity to bait a cracker in his own habitat.<br />
<br />
He reached a big ham-like hand through the window, grabbed the fellow's face and shouted, "What the hell you staring at, you peckerwood motherfucker?" The man pulled back, his hat flew off. Bending down, he recovered it and then moved quickly to the other side of his car, a frightened and puzzled look on his face. Our whole car let out a big roar.<br />
<br />
Then a yard man, walking along the side of the car, asked, "Where are you boys going?"<br />
<br />
"Goin' to see your momma, you cracker son-of-a-bitch!" came the reply.<br />
<br />
The startled man looked up in amazement.<br />
<br />
All of us were hungry. We had been given only a couple of apples for breakfast and now noticed that there were a number of shops and stores in the streets behind the station. I believe our first thought was to buy some food. The vestibule guards would not allow us to take our rifles off the cars, so we left them on our seats and proceeded to the stores in groups. As the stores became crowded, and as the storekeepers were busy serving some of our group, others started to snatch up any article in sight.<br />
<br />
Cases of Coca-Cola, ginger ale and near-beer went back to the cars. The path to the train was strewn with loot dropped by some of the fellows. In the stores, some bought as others stole—this spontaneously evolved pattern was employed in raids on all stores in Jonesboro and at other train stops along the road to Houston.<br />
<br />
The only serious confrontation that took place that day<br />
<br />
involved the group I was with. We crowded into a little store and a fellow named Jeffries, one of my squad buddies, approached the storekeeper who was standing behind the counter. Putting his money down, he demanded a coke. Whereupon the guy said, 'Til serve you one, but y'all can't drink it in heah."<br />
<br />
"Why?" Jeffries asked, innocently.<br />
<br />
"Cause we don't serve niggahs heah."<br />
<br />
Just as we were about to jump him and wreck the place, Jeffries, a comedian, decided to play it straight. He turned to us and said, "Now wait, fellahs, let me handle this. What the man is saying is that you don't know your place."<br />
<br />
Turning to the storekeeper he put his money down and with feigned meekness said, "All right, mister, give me a coke. I know my place, I'll drink it outside."<br />
<br />
"Thank goodness this nigger's got some sense," the storekeeper must have thought as he placed a coke on the counter. Jeffries snatched up the bottle and immediately hit him on the head, knocking him out cold.<br />
<br />
We then proceeded to wreck the place. We took everything in sight. Rushing back to the train, I heard a loud crash—a plate glass window someone had smashed as a parting gift to the niggerhating storekeeper.<br />
<br />
Up to this time we had not seen any of our officers. They had been up front in the first-class Pullmans. Many of them, we suspected, were sleeping off the after effects of the parties held on the eve of our departure. Major Hunt and Captain Hill now appeared and gave orders to the non-coms and the vestibule guards to allow no one else to leave the train.<br />
<br />
We waved goodbye to the Blacks on the station platform. They looked frightened, sad and cowed. We were leaving, but they had to stay and face the wrath of the local crackers. <br />
<br />
The train headed to Texarkana, where the scene was repeated though on a smaller scale. In Texarkana the train stopped only a few minutes and we raided one store near the railroad station. I was the last one out, running to the train with a box of pilfered Havana cigars in my hand. Nearing the train, I passed a couple of local whites talking about the raid. One said to the other, "You see all those niggers taking that man's stuff?"<br />
<br />
"Yeah, I see it."<br />
<br />
"Well, what are we going to do about it?"<br />
<br />
I reached the train just as it was pulling out, relieved not to have been left behind to find out the answer. The next stop was Tyler, deep in the heart of Texas, scene of our most serious confrontation. Here we confronted the law in the person of the county sheriff. Tyler seemed to be a larger town than the others. It was a division point and all three sections pulled up on the sidings. As in Jonesboro, a large crowd had gathered at the station; Blacks on one side, whites on the other. Again, with our guns in view, we started flirting with the white women, throwing kisses at them and so on.<br />
<br />
We were very hungry. There had been some foul-up in logistics so there wasn't any food on the train. All we had that day was a couple of sandwiches and some coffee. We piled off the train and headed for the stores, elbowing whites out of the way. We didn't carry our guns but many of us wore sheathed bayonets.<br />
<br />
Major Hunt finally appeared but he was only able to stop a few of us. By that time most of us were already ransacking the stores in the immediate vicinity of the station. The path back to the station was strewn with bottles of soft drinks, hams, fruits, wrappers from the candy and cigarettes, etc. The major was frantically blowing his whistle and calling the fellows to come back to the cars. Finally we all got back and were eating our pilfered food, drinking our near-beer and soda.<br />
<br />
Suddenly a large white man stepped forward out of the crowd. He wore a khaki uniform, a Sam Brown belt and a Colt forty-five in his holster. He approached Major Hunt and identified himself as the sheriff. (Or he might have been chief of police.) He said he intended to search the train and recover the stolen goods.<br />
<br />
The major, a short, heavy-set Black man, said: "No, you don't. This is a military train. Any searching to be done will be done by our officers."<br />
<br />
"I know," he said, "I want to accompany you."<br />
<br />
"No you don't. You won't set foot on this train."<br />
<br />
The sheriff hesitated and looked around at the crowd of white and Black. It was clearly a bitter pill for him to swallow, having for the first time in his life to take low to a Black man in front of his white constituents, as well as setting a bad example for the Blacks. He pushed the unarmed major aside and walked forward.<br />
<br />
"Come on you peckerwood son-of-a-bitch!" we hollered from the car.<br />
<br />
He approached the vestibule of our car where Jimmy Bland, a mean, grey-eyed and light-skinned Black was on guard.<br />
<br />
"Back! Get back or I'll blow you apart!" Jimmy pushed the sheriff in the belly with the barrel of his rifle. To further impress upon him that the gun was loaded, he threw the bolt and ejected a bullet. The sheriff, who had doubled over from the blow, straightened up. his face ghastly white. He gasped out something to the effect that he was going to report this affair to the government and walked away. We all let out a tremendous roar.<br />
<br />
We arrived in Houston the next day, five days after the mutiny of the Twenty-fourth. We were informed that five dollars would be docked from each man's pay to cover the damage incurred on the trip down. I believe we all felt that it was a small price to pay for the lift in morale that resulted from our forays on the trip.<br />
<br />
We were greeted by our comrades from Company G of our battalion on arriving at Camp Logan. They had been there at the time of the mutiny-riot and gave us a detailed account of what had happened. We expected to be confronted by the hostile white population, but to our surprise, the confrontation with the Twenty-fourth seemed to have bettered the racial climate of this typical Southern town. Houston in those days was a small city of perhaps 100,000 people, not the metropolis it has now become. The whites, especially the police, had learned that they couldn't treat all Black people as they had been used to treating the local Blacks.<br />
<br />
I can't remember a single clash between soldiers and police during our six-month stay in the area. On the contrary, if there were any incidents involving our men, the local cops would immediately call in the military police. There was also a notable improvement in the morale of the local Black population, who were quick to notice the change in attitude of the Houston cops. The cops had obviously learned to fear retaliation by Black soldiers if they committed any acts of brutality and intimidation in the Black community.<br />
<br />
Houston Blacks were no longer the cowed, intimidated people they had been before the mutiny. They were proud of us and it was clear that our presence made them feel better. A warm and friendly relationship developed between our men and the Black community. The girls were especially proud of us. Local Blacks would point out places where some notorious, nigger-hating cop had been killed.<br />
<br />
"See those bullet holes in the telephone pole over there," they'd say. "That's where that bad cop, old Pat Grayson, got his."<br />
<br />
"Those Twenty-fourths certainly were sharpshooters!"<br />
<br />
I occasionally took my laundry to an elderly woman who had known Corporal Baltimore. She told me what a nice young man he was.<br />
<br />
"I hear he was hanged," she said.<br />
<br />
"That's right," I replied.<br />
<br />
Tears came to her eyes and she cluck-clucked. "He left some of his laundry here; you're about his size, you want it?"<br />
<br />
"Yes, I'll take it."<br />
<br />
She handed me several pairs of khaki trousers and some underwear and shirts all washed and starched and insisted that I pay only the cost of the laundry.<br />
<br />
In Camp Logan, our Black Regiment, a part of the Thirty-third Illinois National Guard Division, went into intensive training. We had high esprit de corps. Our officers lost no opportunity to lecture us on the importance of race loyalty and race pride. They went out to disprove the ideas spread by the white brass to the effect that Black soldiers could be good, but only when officered by whites.<br />
<br />
Our solidarity was strengthened when the Army attempted to remove Colonel Charles R. Young from the regiment. Young was the first Black West Point graduate and the highest ranking Black officer in the Regular Army. He wanted to go overseas very badly, but it was quite clear that they did not want a Black officer of his rank over there. He was examined by an Army medical board and found unfit for overseas service. We all knew it was a fraud. It was in all the Black papers and was known by Blacks throughout the country.<br />
<br />
We men didn't let our officers down. We were out to show the whites that not only were we as good in everything as they, but better. In Camp Logan, our regiment held division championships in most of the sports: track, boxing, baseball, etc. We had the highest number of marksmen, sharpshooters and expert riflemen. Of course, there was no socializing between Blacks and whites, but it was clear that we had the respect, if not the friendship, of many of the white soldiers in the division.<br />
<br />
In fact, despite all the efforts of the command, there was a certain degree of solidarity between Black and white soldiers in our division. In Spartanburg, North Carolina, white soldiers from New York came to the defense of their Black fellows of the Fifteenth New York when the latter were attacked by Southern whites. Many of us felt that in the case of a showdown in town with the local crackerdom, we could get support from some of the white members of our division who happened to be around. At least, we felt they would not side with the crackers against us.<br />
<br />
The high morale of the regiment, the new tolerance (at least on the part of the local white establishment), the new spirit of Houston Blacks were all displayed during the parade of our division in downtown Houston. About two months before our departure, we received notice from headquarters that the regiment was to participate in a parade. We were to pass in review before Governor Howden of Illinois, our host governor of Texas, high brass from the War Department and other notables.<br />
<br />
We spent a couple of days getting our clothes and equipment into shape. We washed and starched our khaki uniforms, bleached our canvas leggings snow white, cleaned and polished our rifles and side arms, shined our shoes to a mirror gloss. On the day of the parade, we marched the five miles into town, halting just before we reached the center of the city. We wiped the dust from our rifles and shoes and continued the march.<br />
<br />
Executing perfectly the change from squad formation to platoon front, we entered the main square. With our excellent band playing the Illinois March, we passed the reviewing stand with our special rhythmic swagger which only Black troops could affect. We were greeted by a thunderous ovation from the crowds, especially the Blacks.<br />
<br />
I believe all of Black Houston turned out that day. The next morning, the Houston Post, a white daily, headlined a story about the parade and declared that "the best looking outfit in the parade was the Negro Eighth Illinois."<br />
<br />
Given final leave, we bid good-bye to our girls and friends in Houston. After that, security was clamped down and no one was allowed to leave the camp. A few days later, we boarded the train and were on our way to a port of embarkation. We didn't know where we were headed but suspected it was New York. Instead, five days later, we wound up in Camp Stewart near Newport News, Virginia.<br />
<br />
In Newport News, we barely escaped a serious confrontation with some local crackers and the police. The first batches of our fellows given passes to the town were subjected to the taunts and slurs of the local cops.<br />
<br />
"Why don't you darkies stay in camp? We don't want you downtown making trouble."<br />
<br />
Several fights ensued. Some of the men from our regiment were arrested and others literally driven out of town. They returned to the barracks, some of them badly beaten, and told us what had happened. A repetition of the riot of the Twenty-fourth Infantry at Houston was narrowly averted, as a number of us grabbed our guns and were about to head downtown. We were turned back, however, by our officers, who intervened and pleaded with us to return to our barracks. Among them was Lt. Benote Lee, whom we all loved and respected.<br />
<br />
"Don't play into the hands of these crackers," he said. "We'll be leaving any day now. All they want is to get us in trouble on the eve of our departure."<br />
<br />
"How about our guys who were arrested?" we asked.<br />
<br />
"Don't worry. We'll get them out."<br />
<br />
We returned to the barracks and, sure enough, our comrades were returned the next day, escorted by white MPs. We spent the next days on standby orders, apparently waiting for our ship to arrive. After that, all leaves were cancelled.<br />
<br />
It was on the same day, I believe, that we first learned that we had been separated from our Thirty-third Illinois Division. Henceforth, we were to be known as the 370th Infantry.<br />
<br />
One morning shortly after this, we looked down into the harbor and saw three big ships. We knew then that we would soon be on our way. The following morning the regiment marched down to the dockside to board ship. Yet another incident occurred at the dock. We lined up in company front facing the harbor and halted a few yards from the fence which ran the entire length of the dock.<br />
<br />
Facing us in front of the fence were several groups of loitering white native males, probably dockworkers. They stared at us as if we were some strange species. Our captain apparently wanted to move the company closer to the fence and gave the command, "Forward march." But he "forgot" to call "halt." That was all we needed.<br />
<br />
We were still angry about the beating of our comrades in downtown Newport News a few days before. We marched directly into the whites, closing in on them, cursing and cuffing them with fists and rifle butts, kicking and kneeing them; in short, applying the skills of close order combat we had learned during our basic training. Of course, we didn't want to kill anybody, we just wanted to rough them up a bit.<br />
<br />
We were finally stopped by the excited cries of our officers, "Halt! Halt!" We withdrew, opening up a path through which our victims ran or limped away. Then at the command of "Attention! Right face!" we marched along the dock in columns of two's and finally boarded the ship.<br />
<br />
=== ON TO FRANCE ===<br />
We sailed for France in early April 1918, on the old USS Washington, a passenger liner converted into a troop ship. I have crossed the Atlantic many times since, but I can truthfully say that I have never experienced rougher seas. Our three ships sailed out of Newport News without escort. Of course, we were worried; there were rumors of German submarines. Our anxiety was relieved when in mid-ocean we picked up two escort vessels, one of which was the battle cruiser Covington. When we reached the war zone, about three days out of Brest, a dozen destroyers took over, circling our ships all the way into port.<br />
<br />
It took us sixteen days in all to reach Brest, France, where we arrived on April 22. We were so weak on landing that one-half of the regiment fell out while climbing the hill to the old Napoleon Barracks where we were quartered. Immediately upon our arrival, we were put to work cleaning up ourselves and our equipment, notwithstanding our weakened condition.<br />
<br />
The next morning we passed in review before some U.S. and French big brass. The following day we boarded a train. We crossed the whole of France from east to west and detrained at Granvillars, a village in French Alsace, close to the Swiss frontier. There we found out that we had been brigaded with and were to be an integral part of the French Army. <br />
<br />
The reason we were separated from the white Americans was, as the white brass put it, "to avoid friction." But the American command of General Pershing was not satisfied just to separate us; they tried to extend the long arm of Jim Crow to the French. The American Staff Headquarters, through its French mission, tried to make sure that the French understood the status of Blacks in the United States. Their Secret Information Bulletin Concerning Black American Troops is now notorious, though I did not learn of it until after I had returned from France. The Army of Democracy spoke to its French allies:<br />
<br />
It is important for French officers who have been called upon to exercise command over black American troops, or to live in close contact with them, to have an exact idea of the position occupied by Negroes in the United States. The increasing number of Negroes in the United States (about 15,000,000) would create for the white race in the Republic a menace of degeneracy were it not that an impassable gulf has been made between them....<br />
<br />
Although a citizen of the United States, the black man is regarded by the white American as an inferior being with whom relations of business or service only are possible. The black is constantly being censured for his want of intelligence and discretion, his lack of civic and professional conscience, and for his tendency toward undue familiarity.<br />
<br />
The vices of the Negro are a constant menace to the American who has to repress them sternly. For instance, the black American troops in France have, by themselves, given rise to as many complaints for attempted rape as the rest of the army....<br />
<br />
Conclusion:<br />
<br />
1. We must prevent the rise of any pronounced degree of intimacy between French officers and black officers. We may be courteous and amiable with these last, but we cannot deal with them on the same plane as with the white American officers without deeply wounding the latter. We must not eat with them, must not shake hands or seek to talk or meet with them outside the requirements of military service.<br />
<br />
2. We must not commend too highly the black American troops, particularly in the presence of [white] Americans....<br />
<br />
3. Make a point of keeping the native cantonment population from "spoiling" the Negroes. [White] Americans become greatly incensed at any public expression of intimacy between white women with black men....Familiarity on the part of white women with black men is furthermore a source of profound regret to our experienced colonials, who see in it an overweening menace to the prestige of the white race.<br />
<br />
Apparently this classic statement of U.S. racism was ineffectual with the French troops and people, even though it was supplemented by wild stories circulated by the white U.S. troops. These included the claim that Blacks had tails like monkeys, which was especially told to women, including those in the brothels.<br />
<br />
Our regiment was not sorry to be incorporated into the French military. In fact, most of us thought it was the best thing that could have happened. The French treated Blacks well—that is, as human beings. There was no Jim Crow. At the time, I thought the French seemed to be free of the virulent U.S. brand of racism.<br />
<br />
The American Command not only wanted its front line to be all white, it also wanted all regiment commanders (even those under the French) to be white. Consequently, our Black colonel, Franklin A. Dennison; our lieutenant colonel, James H. Johnson; and two of our majors (battalion commanders) were replaced by white officers. Colonel Dennison was sent back to the States, kicked upstairs, given the rank of brigadier general, and placed in command of the Officer Training Camp for Colored Men at Fort Des Moines, Iowa. Although our first reaction was anger, we became reconciled to the shift.<br />
<br />
Our new white colonel, T. A. Roberts, seemed to be warm, paternalistic and deeply concerned about the welfare of his men. He would often make the rounds of the field kitchens, tasting the food and admonishing the cooks about ill-prepared food. He even gave instructions on how the various dishes should be cooked. Naturally, this made a great hit with the men. Our confidence in him was high because we felt that he was a professional soldier who knew his business.<br />
<br />
I remember the day the new colonel took over. The regiment formed in the village square. Colonel Roberts introduced himself. He seemed quite modest. He said that he was honored to be our new commander and that he knew the record of our regiment dating back to 1892 and its exploits during the Spanish-American War.<br />
<br />
"Since West Point," he said, "I have always served with colored troops—the Ninth and Tenth Cavalry." He then turned to Captain Patton, our Black regiment adjutant. "Captain Patton knows me, he was one of my staff sergeants in the old Tenth Cavalry." Patton nodded.<br />
<br />
The colonel smiled and pointed to our top sergeant. "Over there is Mark Thompson. I remember him when he was company clerk in Troop C of the Tenth Cavalry." He went on to point out a dozen or so officers and non-coms with whom he had served in the Ninth or Tenth Cavalry. "These men will tell you where I stand with respect to the race issue and everything else. We are going into the lines soon and I am sure that the men of this regiment will pile up a record of which your people and the whole of America will be proud."<br />
<br />
The process of integration into the French Army was thorough. The American equipment with which we had trained at home was taken away and we were issued French weapons—rifles, carbines, machine guns, automatic rifles, pistols, helmets, gas masks and knapsacks. We were even issued French rations—with the exception of the wine, which our officers apparently felt we could not handle. We got all the wine we wanted anyway from the French troops. They were issued a liter (about a quart) a day and for a few centimes could buy more at the canteen.<br />
<br />
The regiment was completely reorganized along French lines, with a machine gun company to every battalion. My Company E of the Second Battalion was converted into Machine Gun Company No. 2. We entered a six-week period of intensive training under French instructors to master our new weapons. Our main weapon was the old air-cooled Hotchkiss. And we had to master the enemy's gun, the water-cooled Maxim.<br />
<br />
The period of French training was not an easy one. It was a miserable spring—dark and dreary, and it rained incessantly the whole time we were there. There was a lot of illness—grippe, pneumonia and bronchitis. We lost a number of men, several from our company. The men were in a sullen mood as the time approached for the regiment to move up to the front.<br />
<br />
Disgruntlement was often voiced in the now familiar form of "What are we doing over here? Germans ain't done nothing to us. It's those crackers we should be fighting." While we were lined up in the square one day, our captain took the occasion to comment on these sentiments.<br />
<br />
"Well," he said, "I've been hearing all this stuff about guys saying that they weren't going to fight the Germans. Well, we certainly can't make you fight if you don't want to. But I'll tell you one thing we can and will do is take you up to the front where the Germans are, and you can use your own judgment as to whether you fight them or not."<br />
<br />
In early June 1918, we entered the trenches at the St. Mihiel Salient near the Swiss frontier as a part of the Tenth Division of the French Army under General Mittelhauser. We were intermingled with the French troops in the Tenth Division so that our officers and men might observe and profit by close association with veteran soldiers. At that time St. Mihiel was a quiet sector. Except for occasional shelling, desultory machine gun and rifle fire, nothing much occurred. We lost no men.<br />
<br />
It was here, however, that we made our first acquaintance with two pests—the rat and the louse—whom thereafter were our inseparable companions for our entire stay at the front. Undoubtedly there were more rats than men; there were hordes of them. Regiments and battalions of rats. They were the largest rats I had ever seen. We soon became tired of killing them; it seemed a wasted effort. Some of the rats became quite bold, even impudent. They seemed to say, "I've got as much right here as you have." They would walk along, pick up food scraps and eat them right there in front of you! The dark dug-outs were their real havens. When we slept we would keep our heads covered with blankets as protection against rat bites. This may seem flimsy protection, but we were so conditioned that we would awake at any attempt on the part of a rat to bite through the blanket. I have often wondered why there were so few rat bites. Probably the rats felt that it was not worthwhile fooling with live humans when there were so many dead ones around. We soon got used to the rats and learned to live with them.<br />
<br />
It was the same with the lice. I woke up lousy after my first sleep in a dug-out. My reaction to the pests took the following progression: first, I was besieged by interminable itching, followed by depression. Then I began to lose appetite and weight, finally becoming quite ill. All this was within a period of a few days. Most of the fellows exhibited the same symptoms. <br />
<br />
One might say that our illness was mainly psychological, but it was nonetheless real. Since this was a quiet front, I had no difficulty in getting permission to go back to the rear for a few hours. Foolishly, I thought if I could get cleaned up just once, I would feel a lot better. I got some delousing soap, took a bath and washed my clothes. I then returned to the front, stood machine gun watch and then went into the dug-out for a nap. Needless to say, I woke up lousy again.<br />
<br />
I told my troubles to an old French veteran who had been assigned to my machine gun squad. "Oh, it's nothing! You must forget all about it,' he said. "You'll get used to it. I've been at the front for nearly four years and I've been lousy all the time, except when I was in the hospital or at home on leave."<br />
<br />
I took his advice which was all to the good, because I was not to be rid of these pests until six months later during my sojourn in hospitals at Mantes-sur-Seine and Paris after the Armistice. Even then, it was only a temporary respite, for I was reinfected upon rejoining my regiment at the embarkation port of Brest. After a brief stay with the regiment, I was returned to the hospital, again deloused, only to be reinfected again on the hospital ship returning to the States. I parted company with my last louse at the debarkation hospital at Grand Central Palace in New York City.<br />
<br />
We remained in the St. Mihiel sector about two weeks. We were then withdrawn and moved into a sector in the Argonne Forest near Verdun, site of the great battles of 1916; we arrived there in late July 1918. We were still brigaded with the Tenth French Division. The area around Verdun was a vast cemetery with a half million crosses of those who had perished in that great holocaust, each bearing the legend, Mort Pour La France. <br />
<br />
The Argonne at that time was also a quiet sector. But it was here that we suffered our first casualty, Private Robert M. Lee of Chicago. The incident occurred during machine gun target practice. The first and second line trenches ran along parallel hills about a hundred yards apart. The French had set up a make-shift range in the valley in between the trenches. Behind the gun there was a two or three foot rise in the earth, on which a number of us French and Blacks were sitting, chewing the rag, awaiting our turn at the machine gun. <br />
<br />
Suddenly, there was a short burst of machine gun fire. It was not from our guns. Bullets whizzed over our heads—they seemed to be coming from behind the target. All of us scrambled to get into the communication trench which opened on the valley. Second Lieutenant Binga DesMond, our platoon commander (and the University of Chicago's great sprinting star), fell from the embankment on top of me. Fortunately, he was not hit. But even with his 180 pounds on my back, I am sure I made that ten or fifteen yards to the communication trench, crawling on my hands and knees, as fast as he could have sprinted the distance!<br />
<br />
The fire was coming from behind the target. What obviously had happened was that the Germans had cased the position of our guns and had somehow got around behind the target and waited for a pause in our target practice to open fire on us. We never found out how they did it, for none of us knew the exact topography of the place. The French of course knew it, but they had assured us that the place was safe and that they had been using the range for months.<br />
<br />
We were crouched down, panting, in the communication trench for about five minutes after the German guns ceased fire. The French lieutenant (bless his soul) then sent a French gun crew out to get the gun. To our great surprise they also brought back Robert M. Lee. He was quite dead, with bullets right through the heart. He had evidently been hit by the first burst and had fallen forward in front of the embankment. All of us were deeply saddened by the incident.<br />
<br />
No one spoke as we bore his body back to the rear. He was only nineteen, a very sweet fellow, and he was our first casualty. We buried him down in the valley, beside the graves of those fallen at Verdun. The funeral was quite impressive. He was given a hero's burial, with representatives both from our regiment and our French counterparts. We were especially impressed by the appearance of General Mittelhauser who came down from Division Headquarters to express condolences and appreciation to the Black troops now under his command.<br />
<br />
=== THE SOISSONS SECTOR ===<br />
Despite the fact that we had been in aa quiet sector, it was still the front lines with its daily tensions of anticipated attack. In the middle of August, we were pulled out of the Argonne sector and sent to rest behind the lines near Bar-le-Duc. We were deeply pleased by the hospitality and kindness extended to us by the townspeople there. They invited us into their homes and plied us with food and wine. Half-jokingly they told us to come back after the war and we could have our pick of the girls. As we did throughout our stay in France, we deported ourselves well. For pleasures of the flesh, there were a number of legal houses of prostitution, or “houses of pleasure” as they were called by the French, It was with regret that we left that area.<br />
<br />
By this time, we had become an integral part of the French Army. Along with our French equipment, training and so forth, we had affected the style of the French poilu (doughboy). The flaps of our overcoats were buttoned back in order to give us more leg room while on the march, as was their style. Like the French infantry, we used walking sticks, which helped to ease the burden of our seventy pounds of equipment. French peasants along the road, hearing our strange language and noticing our color, would often mistake us for French colonials. Not Senegalese, who were practically all black but Algerians, Moroccans or Sudanese, We would swing along the road to the tune of our favorite marching song:<br />
<br />
'''My old mistress promised me, Raise a ruckus tonight,'''<br />
<br />
'''When she died she'd set me free, Raise a ruckus tonight.'''<br />
<br />
'''She lived so long her head got bald, Raise a ruckus tonight.'''<br />
<br />
'''She didn’t get to set me free at all, Raise a ruckus tonight!'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, come along, little children come along, While the moon is shining bright;'''<br />
<br />
'''Get on board on down the river flow, Gonna’ raise a ruckus tonight.'''<br />
<br />
But we had not escaped the long arm of American racism. We were rudely confronted with this reality upon our arrival in a small town on the Compiégne front in the department of Meuse. We entrained here for our next front. The regiment was confronted dramatically with the effects of the racist campaign launched by the American high brass,<br />
<br />
Upon entering the town, the regiment was drawn up in battalion formation in the square, Before being assigned to billets, we were informed by the battalion commander that a Black soldier from a labor battalion had been court martialed and hanged in the very square where we were standing, It had happened just a few weeks before our arrival. His crime was the raping of a village girl. His body had been left hanging there for twenty-four hours, as a demonstration of American justice,<br />
<br />
“As a result,” he told us, “you may find the town population hostile, In case this is so,” the major warned, “you are not to be provoked or to take umbrage at any discourtesies, but are to deport yourselves as gentlemen at all times,” In any case, we were to be there only for a few days, during which time we were to remain close to our barracks, Then, in a lowered voice, he muttered, “This is what i have been told to tell you.”<br />
<br />
We kept close to our billets the first day or so, but then gradually ventured further into town. At first, the townsfolk seemed to be aloof, but the coolness was gradually broken down, probably as a result of our correct deportment, especially our attitude towards the children (with whom we always immediately struck up friendships). Friendly relations were finally established with the villagers. When we asked about the hanging, they shrugged the matter off,<br />
<br />
“So what? That was only one soldier. The others were nice enough,” When asked why they had been so aloof when we first arrived, they said it was the result of the warnings of the white officers. “They didn’t want us to fraternize with the Blacks.”<br />
<br />
Continuing the conversation, they seemed puzzled about why the sentence had been so severe and the body barbarously left exposed in the square. “Trés brutale, trés horrible!” they exclaimed. With regard to the girl, “Ah, she had been raped many times before,” one of them jeered.<br />
<br />
After two weeks of rest, the regiment began to move by stages toward the front lines again. A few days later, we boarded a train consisting of a long line of box-cars. Each car was marked: “Quarante hommes ou huit chevaux.” (Forty men or eight horses.)<br />
<br />
The last couple of months had been quiet and relatively pleasant, with the exception of the Lec incident and the events just related. But now, we felt, we were going into the thick of it. The premonition was confirmed the very next morning when we woke (that is, those of us who had been able to sleep in such crowded conditions),<br />
<br />
We were passing through Chateau-Thierry. There could be no doubt about it, eventhough part of the sign had been blown away and only the word “Thierry” remained. The woods around the station and Belleau Woods, a few miles further on, looked like they had been hit by a cyclone: broken and uprooted trees, gaping shell holes, men from the Graves Registration walking around with crosses, Black Pioneers removing ammunition, All were grim reminders of the great battles that had been fought there by American troops only several weeks before.<br />
<br />
We were on the Soissons front, where we became part of the famous Armée Mangin, General Mangin (le boucher or the butcher as he was called by the French) was commander of the Tenth Army of France, among whom were a number of shock troops; Chausseurs Alpines, Chausseurs d’Afrique (Algerians and Moroccans), Senegalese riflemen and the Foreign Legion. His army was pivotal in breaking the Hindenburg Lineabout Soissons. On this front, we were brigaded with the Fifty-ninth French Division, under the command of General Vincendon.<br />
<br />
We bypassed Thierry and Belleau Woods and detrained at the village of Villers-Cotteréts, the birthplace of Alexandre Dumas. ‘The atmosphere was charged with expectancy, Observation balloons hung like giant sausages on the horizon. Big guns rumbled ominously in the distance, A steady stream of ambulances carrying wounded jammed the roads leading from the front. Obviously a big battle was in progress not too far away. But it turned out that we were not going into that sector. We left the village and marched west to Crépy-en-Valois. Turning north through the Compiégne Forest, we reached the Aisne River at a point near Vie-sur-Aisne and continued on to Resson-le-Long where we established our depot company. The march from the railhead to Resson took about three days. It was a forced march and covered about twenty-five kilometers (fifteen miles) a day.<br />
<br />
This was pretty rough after the restless night we had spent on the crowded train. As one of the company wags observed, “One thing bout these kilomeeters, they sho’ will kill you if you keep on meetin’ “em.”<br />
<br />
Our regiment spent six months in the lines in all. We took part in the fifty-nine day drive of Mangin’s Tenth Army which ended on the day of the Armistice. During that period, one or another of our units was always under fire or fighting. Our toughest battles were at the Death Valley Jump Off near the Aisne Canal, the taking of Mont Singes (Monkey Mountain which was later renamed Hill 370 in honor of our regiment), fighting at a railroad embankment northwest of Guilleminet Farm, and the advance into the Hindenburg Line at the Oise-Aisne Triangle.<br />
<br />
It was in the battles on the Hindenburg Line that we met the strongest enemy resistance and sustained most of our losses. The enemy resistance was broken in these battles and they began a general withdrawal, at first orderly and accompanied by brief rearguard actions. Finally, there was the flight to the Belgian frontier, destroying roads and railroads on orders to impede our advance. After Laon, their flight was so precipitous that we had difficulty maintaining contact. We entered many villages which they had left the day before.<br />
<br />
Our outfit was the first allied troops to enter the fortified city of Laon, wresting it from the Germans after four years of war. We were greeted with tremendous elation by the population, who had lived under German occupation the whole of that period.<br />
<br />
The regiment was highly praised by the French. It won twenty-one Distinguished Service Crosses, sixty-eight Croix de Guerre and one Distinguished Service Medal. In the whole two months’ drive, casualties were 500 killed and wounded-—a total of about one-fifth of the regiment. These casualties were light when compared with those of Black regiments on other fronts. For example, the 37] st Infantry of drafted men lost 1,065 out of 2,384 men in three days’ fighting during the great September defensive on the Compiégne Front. I believe that the German resistance on these other fronts, east and west of Soissons, was more stubborn than on our front.<br />
<br />
All of our Black regiments were fortunate to have been brigaded with the French. In this respect, the American High Command did us a big favor, unintentionally, lam sure. For as far as we were able to observe, the French made no discrimination in the treatment of Black officers and men, with whom they fraternized freely. They regarded us as brothers-in-arms.<br />
<br />
Similarly, the French people in the villages in which we stopped or were stationed were uniformly courteous and friendly, and we made many friends, I must say that we were also on our best behavior. I don’t remember a single incident of misbehavior on the part of our men toward French villagers. The latter were quick to notice this and to contrast our gentlemanly deportment with the rudeness of the white Americans. Many of the white soldiers made no effort to hide their disdain for the French(whom they regarded as inferiors) and commonly referred to them as “frogs.”<br />
<br />
But even as we fought, we were being stabbed in the back by the American High Command. We were not to learn, however, until our return to the States of the slanderous, racist document issued by the American General Staff Headquarters through its brainwashed French Mission (the Secret Information Concerning Black American Troops referred to earlier).<br />
<br />
We learned also that the hanging of the Black soldier on the Compiégne Front was not an isolated incident, but part of a deliberate campaign conducted by higher and lower echelons in the American Command to influence French civilians against Blacks. The campaign focused on the effort to build up the Black rapist scare among them.<br />
<br />
Such was a memorandum issued by headquarters of the Ninety-second Division (a Black division officered largely by whites) on August 21, 1918. Its purpose was to “prevent the presence of colored troops from being a menace to women,” The memorandum read in part:<br />
<br />
On account of increasing frequency of the crime of rape, or attempted rape, in this Division, drastic preventive measures have become necessary... Until further notice, there will be a check of all troops of the 92nd Division every hour daily between reveille and 11 P.M,, with a written record showing how each check was made, by whom, and the result...the one mile limit regulation will be strictly enforced at all times, and no passes will be issued except to men of known reliability.<br />
<br />
This was followed the next day by another memorandum saying that the commander-in-chief of the American Expeditionary Forces “would send the 92nd Division back to the States or break it up into labor battalions as unfit to bear arms in France, if efforts to prevent rape were not taken more seriously.”<br />
<br />
As a result, Dr. Robert R. Moton of Tuskegee was sent by President Wilson and the secretary of war to investigate the charges. He found only one case of rape in the whole division of 15,000 men. Two other men who were from labor battalions in the Ninety-second area were convicted. One of these was hanged, and I’m sure that this was the unfortunate soldier whom we saw on the Compiégne Front. General headquarters was forced to admit that the crime of rape, as later stated by Moton, “was no more prevalent among coloured soliders than among white, or any other soldiers.”<br />
<br />
This whole racist smear of Black troops, I was to conclude later, represented but an extension to France of the anti-Black racist campaign then current in the States, It was designed to maintain Black subjugation and prevent its erosion by liberal racial attitudes of the French. Back in the States, the campaign was marked by an upturn of lynchings during the war years, with thirty-eight Black victims in 1917 and half again that number in the following year. Even then, things were working up to the bloody riots of 1919.<br />
<br />
In contrast to all of this, the appreciation of the French for Black soldiers from the U.S. was shown by the accolade given by the French division commander, General Vincendon, to our regiment. On December 19, 1918, we were transferred from the French Army back to the American Army. On that day, General Order 4785, directed to the Fifty-ninth Division of the Army of France, was read to the officers and men of the 370th. It commended us for our contributions to France. remember being struck by the poetry of the language, it was all beautifully French to me:<br />
<br />
We at first, in September at Mareuil-sur-Ourcg, admitted your fine appearance under arms, the precision of your review, the suppleness of your evolutions that presented to the eye the appearance of silk unrolling its waves...<br />
<br />
Further on in remembering our dead, the communique read:<br />
<br />
The blood of your comrades who fell on the soil of France, mixed with the blood of our soldiers, renders indissoluble the bonds of affection that unite us.<br />
<br />
=== THE ROAD HOME ===<br />
The road back from Soissons lay through the old battlefields where we had fought a couple of months before. Near Anizy-le Chateau there were crosses marking the graves of some of our comrades who had died in the fighting there. We paused before the graves, seeking out those of the comrades we knew. We all had the same thoughts: “What rotten luck that they should die almost in sight of victory.”<br />
<br />
Among the crosses, there was one marked “Sergeant Theodore Gamelin.” Gamelin hadn’t died in combat. 1 remember the incident clearly, We were all lined up in some hastily dug trenches that morning, waiting for the “over the top” signal. The cooks had just distributed reserved rations. These consisted of a half-loaf of French bread (not the crispy white kind, but a coarse grayish loaf baked especially for the troops, which we called “war bread”) and a big bar of chocolate. Somehow, Gamelin had missed out on these rations. Jump-off time was drawing near. He looked around and his eyes fixed upon a private named Brown, who was sitting on the firing step, putting his rations in a knapsack. Now, Private Brown was one of those quiet, meek little fellows. He always took low, was never known to fight. But Brown was the type of man, I have observed, who can become dangerous. This is particularly true in a combat situation where one doesn’t know whether one will live five minutes longer. Gamelin, a big bullying type, an amateur boxer and very unpopular with his men, called to Brown:<br />
<br />
“Give me some of that bread, Brown. I didn’t get my rations.”<br />
<br />
“Now, that’s just too bad, sergeant,” Brown responded, “I’m not going to give you any of this bread. It’s not my fault you missed your rations.”<br />
<br />
Gamelin, with one hand on his pistol, moved as though he were going to seize the bread. Brown had his rifle lying across his lap. He simply raised it and coolly pulled the trigger. The sergeant fell dead!<br />
<br />
The platoon commander heard the commotion and ran to the spot, inquiring about what had happened. The men told him that Gamelin was trying to take Brown’s reserve rations and had made a move toward his pistol. Brown, they said, had shot in self-defense,<br />
<br />
Obviously nothing could be done about Brown in those circumstances. So the lieutenant said, “Consider yourself under arrest, Brown. We will take this matter up after this action.”<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, Brown was killed a few days later, The memory of this incident was on our minds as we viewed Gamelin’s grave, His helmet hung on a cross, which ironically bore the inscription “Sergeant Theodore Gamelin—Mort Pour La France (Died for France), September 1918.”<br />
<br />
Thad gone through six months at the front without a scratch or a day of illness. But as we neared Soissons, I began to feel faint and light-headed, By the time we reached the city, I had developed quite a high fever, It was the period of the first great flu epidemic which wreaked havoc among U.S. troops in France. I reported to the infirmary and lined up with a group of about fifty men. The medical sergeant took our temperatures and then tied tags to our coats. I looked at mine and it read “influenza.” We were evacuated to a field hospital near Soissons, where I remained for about five days. After that, we boarded a hospital train and were told that we were going to the big base hospital in Paris, Now, I liked that.<br />
<br />
I had never seen Paris and was most anxious to visit the famed city before going home. There were two of us in the compartment, another soldier from the regiment and myself, I felt a little drowsy, sol told my compartment mate that I was going to take a little nap and to wake me up when the chow came around, I “awoke” five days later in a French hospital at Mantes-sur-Seine, near Paris.<br />
<br />
They had put me off the train as an emergency case just before Paris. I came out of a coma to find a number of strange people around my bed—nurses who were Catholic nuns, doctors and a number of patients, They were all smiling. “Thank God, young man,” said the doctor, “we thought we were going to lose you. You've been in a coma for five days, but you’re going to be all right now.”<br />
<br />
“Where am I? Is this Paris?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“No, this is Mantes-sur-Seine, close to Paris. They had to put you off here as an emergency case.”<br />
<br />
“What’s wrong with me?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“Qh, you've had a little kidney infection and it has affected your heart.”<br />
<br />
“That sounds bad,” I said.<br />
<br />
“Well, you’re young and have a remarkable constitution. You'll pull through all right—you’re out of danger now,” he assured me.<br />
<br />
I remained in the hospital for about a month, receiving the kindest and most solicitous attention from nurses, doctors and patients. All seemed to regard me as their special charge, No one spoke English, but I got along all right. It was like a crash course in French, They told me I had a beautiful accent. They brought in an old lady to talk English with me, but she bored me to death, Really, my French was better than her English. She came once and didn’t return,<br />
<br />
I was feeling much better when the head sister came to me one evening to tell me I was to leave the next morning for Paris and the American hospital at Neuilly.<br />
<br />
“You've never been to Paris, have you?” she asked.<br />
<br />
“No,” I said. ,<br />
<br />
“Well, you’ve got a treat coming’<br />
<br />
I was filled with great expectations, The next morning, after embracing all my fellow patients and exchanging warm goodbyes with the doctor and sisters, the head nurse (or sister) took me out in front of the hospital where an American ambulance was waiting.<br />
<br />
“Hop in, buddy,” said the driver.<br />
<br />
“Haywood, be sure to write us when you get back to Chicago,” said the sister. “Remember we are your friends and want to know how you are getting along.”<br />
<br />
I promised that I would. As we pulled out, she stood on the road waving a white handkerchief and continued to wave it as long as we were in sight. I never wrote them, hut often thought of them.<br />
<br />
Paris, you wondrous city! I was feeling good that morning as we pulled into the hospital at Neuilly. The hospital was situated on the Avenue Neuilly near the Boulevard de la Grande Armée, only a few blocks from the Arc de Triomphe. It was a veritable palace. I was assigned to a ward in which there were only four guys, three Australians and one white American from Wisconsin. They greeted me and gave mea run-down on the situation. They were having a hall seeing Paris, taking in all the events, theaters, race tracks, boxing and girls, I don’t believe that I saw a real sick man in that hospital. There were some of course, but they must have been secluded in some out of sight wards. We were all convalescents in our ward. A couple were recuperating from wounds received at the front,<br />
<br />
“What do you do for money?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“Oh, we don’t worry about that—-just stick around a while and we'll show you the ropes,”<br />
<br />
Under their tutelage, it didn’t take me long to catch on. At that time there were dozens of rich American women, including a number from the social register in Paris. They were under the auspices of the Red Cross and had taken over the hospital and its patients as their special “war duty.” They would organize excursions, get tickets for shows, sports events, etc. Coming to the hospital in relays, they would leave huge boxes of chocolates and other goodies.<br />
<br />
We were showered with gifts—Gillette razors, Waterman fountain pens, and even some serviceable wrist watches if you asked for them. They would come in waves. Scarcely had one group left when another would come, leaving the same gifts. The guys had it down perfect. They always left one man on watch in the ward. He was there in case the gals would come in while the others were out and receive all the presents and gifts for them. He would point to the three un oceupied beds (there were only five of us in an eight bed ward) and pretend that their occupants were out in the streets. He would suggest that the presents be left for them, also. Old Wisconsin Slim was the real genius in all this, He even hung a couple of crosses over the unoccupied beds to give more substance to the fiction that they were occupied,<br />
<br />
Every morning we would gather all our presents, take them to the gate, and sell them fora good price to the French who gathered there to buy them. We would then return to the ward and divide the “swag.” Razors and fountain pens seemed to be rare in France at that time. The going rate for razors was about ten francs ($2) and for Waterman fountain pens even more. All this was carried out under the benign gaze of the hospital authorities.<br />
<br />
Discipline was lax, almost nonexistent. We could stay out for two days at a time. The attitude seemed to be: let the boys have a good time, they deserve it. Besides, it’s essential for their convalescence, When we would get a little money together (about once a week), we would run out to Montmartre and the famous Rue Pigalle, “Pig Alley,” to see the girls.<br />
<br />
As an old Francophile, I was also interested in French history and culture. I got a guidebook and spent days walking all over Paris, visiting all the historical places about which I had read, mentally reconstructing the events.<br />
<br />
Time was passing rapidly. I had been in the hospital about two months when an administrator called me into his office.<br />
<br />
“Well, Corporal Hall,” he said. “I hope you've been having a good time in Paris.”<br />
<br />
“Oh yes,” I replied.<br />
<br />
“That’s good,” he said, “We're sending you back to your regiment tomorrow.”<br />
<br />
“Where are they?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“They’re in Brest, waiting to embark for the voyage home.”<br />
<br />
The next morning I got on the train at the Gare Ouest and arrived in Brest that evening. In Brest, I strolled around a bit on the waterfront and finally sat down at a sidewalk cafe. I was in no hurry to get back into the old regimental harness, I was about to order a drink when suddenly a big white MP appeared. Glowering at me, he said, “Where’s your pass, soldier?”<br />
<br />
“Here it is. I’ve just got back from the hospital in Paris and I'm going to my outfit up on the hill,” I explained.<br />
<br />
He grabbed it, glanced at it and shouted, “Well, get going up that hill right now. You're not supposed to hang around here.”<br />
<br />
I left without my drink and started climbing the hill to the old Napoleon barracks where we had been eleven months before. It seemed like that had been years ago, so much had been crowded into the brief intervening period.<br />
<br />
T rejoined my outfit. They were living in tents in what seemed to me like a swamp. The weather was miserable, a steady cold rain. The mud was ankle deep. I was greeted warmly by my comrades. I don’t think that more than half the old boys of my company were left. The rest were dead, wounded, or ill in hospitals all over France.<br />
<br />
A couple of bottles of cognac were produced. The guys started reminiscing about what they were going to do when they got home. The news from home was bad. Discrimination and Jim Crow were rampant, worse than before. Blacks were being lynched everywhere. “Now, they want us to go to war with Japan,” observed one of the fellows. (The Hearst newspapers at the time were again raising the specter of the “yellow peril.”)<br />
<br />
“Well,” someone said, “they won’t get me to fight their yellow peril. If it comes to that, I'll join the Japs. They are colored.” There was unanimous agreement on that point.<br />
<br />
I bunked down that night and awoke the next morning with a high fever. I went to the infirmary and again was evacuated to a hospital. I immediately began to worry whether I would be able to return with my outfit. As I was waiting on the side of the road to hitch a ride to the hospital, I heard footsteps behind me. I turned and there was Colonel Roberts, our white commander whom I had not seen for months.<br />
<br />
I started to spring to my feet and salute, but he motioned me to remain seated. “Corporal, you're from our regiment, aren’t you?”<br />
<br />
“Yes, sir,” I said, “I'm sick and going to the hospital.”<br />
<br />
“What’s the matter?”<br />
<br />
“I guess I got the flu.”<br />
<br />
“Well,” he said, “you’re in no condition to walk that distance.” He hailed a passing truck and instructed the driver to take me to the hospital. “Take care, son; we’re going home soon. Try to come hack with us.” That’s the last time I saw Colonel Roberts.<br />
<br />
A month later, while in the hospital, I picked up the Paris edition of the Herald Tribune. The headline read: “The 370th Infantry (the old Eighth Illinois) returns and is given hero’s welcome in victory parade down State Street.” I felt pretty bad, because I could imagine my old Mother standing there waiting for me to pass by, Since I hadn’t written in months, she would probably assume the worst.<br />
<br />
I had been away from the States for quite a while, in free France so to speak, and I had become less used to the American nigger-hating way of life. But I was thrown abruptly back into reality as soon as I crossed the threshold of the American Army hospital in Brest.<br />
<br />
It seemed to be manned by an all Southern staff: doctors, nurses, etc. All of them spoke with broad Southern accents. I was assigned a bed at one end of the ward. When I looked around, I could see only Blacks were in that end. Whites were at the other end. There were no screens, no Jim Crow signs. The Jim Crow was de facto, but nonetheless real. I also noticed that there was a large space between the Black and white sections.<br />
<br />
After a cursory entrance examination, the doctor seemed to think that I didn’t have the flu, and upon hearing my recent medical history, he decided that it was a relapse of the old illness.<br />
<br />
Thad no sooner gotten settled when J heard a nurse bawling out a Black soldier for being so dirty. The poor fellow had just come in from some mud hole like the one in which my regiment was situated, where there was no opportunity to bathe.<br />
<br />
“You don’t see any of our white boys that dirty!” she shouted, her eyes flashing indignantly at what she, a white lady, was forced to put up with, For the first time, it occurred to me that our Black regiment had been put in a worse location than the whites. Now, that’s pretty hard stuff for a front-line veteran to take. If I had been ill when I came in, I was really sick now. I could feel my blood pressure and-fever mount.<br />
<br />
There was a Black sergeant from my outfit in the same ward, He was a tall, dignified and proud looking man, convalescing from a previous illness. He wasn’t a bed patient and was therefore supposed to make his own bed. This he did, but he never seemed to do it to the satisfaction of the nurse, who kept berating him.<br />
<br />
“Make it over, that’s not good enough.”<br />
<br />
“I've already made it, and I’m not going to do it again.”<br />
<br />
“Don’t talk back to me,” she shouted. “Make that bed!”<br />
<br />
“I’m not going to,” he said.<br />
<br />
“You dare disobey my order?” she yelled.<br />
<br />
“I'm a front-line soldier and you don’t have to yell at me.”<br />
<br />
She turned and walked to the office and returned with the ward doctor, a little pip-squeak of a man. Ina stentorian voice he said:<br />
<br />
“Make that bed, soldier.” The sergeant didn’t move. The doctor looked at his watch and said, “I’m giving you two minutes to start making that bed. If you don’t, I’m going to prefer charges against you for disobeying your superior officers.”<br />
<br />
You could see that the proud sergeant was thinking it over and coming to a decision. I could almost read his mind; it seemed that he was thinking that this wasn’t the time to die. He only had a couple more months to go.<br />
<br />
He finally burst into tears, but he got up and made the bed. I’ve seen this sort of situation before, and I feel almost certain that had there been a loaded gun around, the sergeant might have started shooting. It would have been reported in the news as “Another nigger runs amuck.” All of us, including some of the whites, breathed a sigh of relief at this peaceful culmination of what could have been a dangerous incident. At least the nurse never bothered the sergeant after that. Undoubtedly, she sensed the inherent danger of any further provocation.<br />
<br />
After my stay in Paris, I was seized periodically by moods of depression. These deepened and became chronic during my stay at the Brest hospital, especially after witnessing such humiliating incidents. I felt that I could never again adjust myself to the conditions of Blacks in the States after the spell of freedom from racism in France, I did not want to go back and my feeling was shared by many Black soldiers.<br />
<br />
I thought of remaining in France, getting my discharge there and possibly becoming a French citizen. But I did not know how to go about this. Besides, I was ill, and there was my Mother whom! wanted to see again. Probably, some day, if I got well, I would come back—or so I thought as I lay in the hospital at Brest.<br />
<br />
Finally, the day came. We were discharged from the hospital, given casual’s pay (one month’s pay), which in my case amounted to $33, and boarded the ship for home. There was no change in the Jim Crow pattern. We were merely transferred from a Jim Crow hospital to a Jim Crow hospital ship. We Blacks found ourselves quartered in a separate section of the ship. The segregation, however, did not extend to the mess hall or the lavatories (heads). I guess that would have been too much trouble. But the ship’s military command passed up no opportunity to let us know our place.<br />
<br />
For example, on the first day out we were given tickets for mess—~-breakfast, lunch and supper. We were supposed to present them to a checker who stood at the foot of the stairway leading up to the mess hall. A Black soldier who had evidently misplaced his ticket tried to slip by the checker unnoticed, but he was not quick enough. A cracker officer who was standing by the checker hollered: “Hey, Nigger, come back here!”<br />
<br />
The guy kept going and tried to merge into a group of us Blacks who had already passed through. Again the officer shouted, “Nigger, come back here. You, I mean. I mean the tall one over there. That nigger knows who I’m calling.” The soldier finally turned and walked back. Purple with rage, protected by his bars and white skin, the officer said, “Listen, you Black son of a bitch, where is your ticket?” Clearly, the officer had already gauged his man and concluded that there was no fight in him,<br />
<br />
“I couldn’t find it,” said the soldier.<br />
<br />
“Well, why didn’t you say that in the first place instead of tryin’ toslip through heah? Well, you go on back and try to find it. If you can’t, see the sergeant in charge. Don’t evah try that trick again,” said the officer. His anger seemed to ebb and a glow of self-satisfaction spread across his face. He had done his chore for the day. He had put a nigger in his place.<br />
<br />
The seas were rough again. It was a small ship, leased from the Japanese. Most of us were seasick. The sailors were having a ball at our expense, When one of us would rush to the rail to vomit, one of them would holler, “A dollar he comes.”<br />
<br />
One night, the ship tilted sharply and a number of us were thrown out of our bunks, The bunks were in tiers and I was in a top one, I got a pretty hard bump. The next morning on deck the sailors were talking loudly among themselves (for our benefit of course),<br />
<br />
“Gee,” said one, “this is the roughest sea I’ve ever seen. This old pile is about to come apart, The Japs leased us the worst ship they had.”<br />
<br />
“It just might be sabotage,” another one suggested,<br />
<br />
“I hope we make it, but I’m not so sure,” said another,<br />
<br />
Not being seamen, most of us were taking this seriously, A Black soldier turned to me and said, “You know man, after all I’ve been through, if this ship were to sink now almost in sight of home, I would get off and walk the water like the good Lord,”<br />
<br />
Another voice, that of a white sergeant from Florida who had been rather friendly to us: “You know,” he drawled, “this reminds me of old Sam down home.”<br />
<br />
Here it comes, we thought, one of those nigger jokes.<br />
<br />
“He was up theah on the gallows with a rope around his neck and the sheriff said, ‘Well Sam, is there anything you want to say before you die?<br />
<br />
“All T got to say sheriff, said Sam, ‘this sho’ would be a lesson to me,’ ”<br />
<br />
The voyage proceeded uneventfully, with one exception, The gamblers among us were out to get the soldiers’ casual pay. The law of concentration of money into fewer and fewer hands was in process, This was taking place in one of the endless crap games which started in the Bay of Biscay and wound up at Sandy Hook,<br />
<br />
IT never really gambled, even in the Army with room and board guaranteed, If you were broke, you could always borrow some money. The lender knew you couldn’t run out on him. His only risk was that you might become a casualty. But motivated by nothing more than sheer boredom, I got into the game this time.<br />
<br />
After all, what good was $33 going to do me? To my surprise, I hit a streak of luck and over a period of a week in and out of the game, I ran my paltry grub stake up to the tremendous sum of $1200, That was the high point, after which time my luck began to peter out. Nevertheless, I left the ship with $500. It was my last gambling venture,<br />
<br />
That morning, we lined up at the rail as our ship passed Sandy Hook and pulled into New York Harbor, It was my first view of the New York skyline, Overcome with emotion, tears welled up in my eyes, Embarrassed, I looked around and found that I was not alone. The guy next to me was obviously crying,<br />
<br />
Our landing was a memorable one, Ship stacks were blasting, foghorns blowing, bells were ringing and fire boats were sending up great sprays of water, Passengers in ferryboats were waving and shouting greetings.<br />
<br />
Upon docking, we were met by two reception committees of young women. A white one to receive the white soldiers and a Black one to greet us, This time segregation didn’t bother us at all, we were so pleased to see the pretty Black girls, They drew us aside as we came down the gang plank, ushered us into waiting ambulances, and drove us to Grand Central Palace which had been converted into a deharkation hospital, Leaving us in the lobby, they said goodbye and promised to come back soon and show us around.<br />
<br />
A woman from the Red Cross took our home addresses to notify our families of our arrival. We were then escorted into a large room and told to strip off our clothes. Leaving them in the room, we then went through the delousing process. We were sprayed with some sort of chemical and washed off under showers. We were then given pajamas and a bathrobe and shown to our Jim Crow ward.<br />
<br />
The next day, after a physical examination, we were paid off, receiving all of our back pay, In my case, it was for twelve months, amounting to about $450, This, plus the $500 I had won on the ship, seemed to me a small fortune, the largest amount of money I had ever had in my life. J was, so to speak, chafing at the bit, raring to get out and up to famed Harlem.<br />
<br />
On the ship, I had met a Black sergeant named Patterson, who was from the 369th, the old Fifteenth New York. He had also won a considerable sum in the crap game. He suggested that we team up and go to Harlem together. He said he knew his way around there since that was where he lived before he joined the Army.<br />
<br />
After the pay off, we were still without clothes. But a clothing salesman came around to take orders for new uniforms. Patterson and I ordered suits, for which we were measured. In a couple of hours the man was back with two brand new whip cord uniforms with chevrons and service stripes sewed on. We had also ordered shoes, which were promptly delivered, We then sneaked out of the hospital.<br />
<br />
After we banked most of our money downtown, we took the subway up to 125th Street and visited several “Buffet Flats” (a current euphemism for a high-class whorehouse), drinking and looking over the girls. Patterson seemed to be an old friend of all the madams. They greeted him like a long lost brother. We finally wound up in one real classy joint where we stayed for four days, playing sultan-in-a-harem with the girls.<br />
<br />
We returned to the hospital, expecting to be sharply reprimanded and restricted to quarters, but the doctor on his rounds merely asked, “Where have you boys been?” Before we could answer, he simply said, “I suggest that you stick around a day or two, we have some tests to make.”<br />
<br />
From New York, we left for Camp Grant near Rockford, Illinois, where we were demobilized out of the service, I was discharged on April 29, 1919. After a cursory examination, I was pronounced physically fit. “What about my chronic endocarditis and chronic nephritis?” I protested,<br />
<br />
“Oh, you're all right, you’ve overcome it all. You’re young and fit as a fiddle,” the doctor answered me. From Camp Grant I returned home to Chicago to see my parents.<br />
<br />
=== REUNION WITH OTTO ===<br />
Not too long after my discharge, I came home one evening to find Otto. He had just arrived after mustering out of the service at Camp Grant. We were all happy to see him, especially Mother. He showed us his honorable discharge.<br />
<br />
“You know,” he said, “I’m lucky to get this.”<br />
<br />
He then told stories about his harrowing experiences in a stevedore battalion in the South and then in France. The main mass of Black draftees had been relegated to these labor units, euphemistically called “service battalions,” “engineers,” “pioneer infantry,” ete.<br />
<br />
Regardless of education or ability, young Blacks were herded indiscriminately into these stevedore outfits and faced the drudgery and hard’ work with no possibility of promotion beyond the rank of corporal. With few exceptions, the officers were KKK whites, as also were the sergeants. Many of them were plantation riding boss types, especially recruited for these jobs. Southern newspapers openly carried want ads calling for white men who had “experience in handling Negroes,” Black draftees were not only subjected to the drudgery of hard labor, but insults, abuse, and in many cases blows from white officers and sergeants.<br />
<br />
Otto told us his worst experience was in Camp Stewart in Newport News, Virginia, where he was stationed during the terribly cold winter of 1917-18, For a considerable period after their arrival, they were forced to live in tents without floors or stoves. In most cases, they had only a blanket, some not even that.<br />
<br />
New arrivals to the camp were forced to stand around fires outside all night or sleep under trees for partial protection from the weather, For months there were no bathing facilities nor clothing for the men, These conditions were subsequently changed as a result of protests by the men and reports by investigators.<br />
<br />
His outfit landed in the port of St. Lazare, France, and during the great advance participated in the all-out effort to keep the front-lines supplied in the “race to Berlin.” They worked from dawn to nightfall unloading supplies, including all kinds of railroad equipment, engines, tractors and bulldozers. They built and repaired roads, warehouses and barracks. Discipline was strict; guys were thrown in the guardhouse on the most flimsy pretexts. A Black soldier seen on the street with a French woman was likely to be arrested by the MPs. <br />
<br />
“The spirit of St. Lazare,” said one officer, “is the spirit of the South.”<br />
<br />
Needless to say, Otto often found himself in the guard house as a result of fights, AWOLs, etc. How he escaped general court martial or imprisonment I don’t know.<br />
<br />
His outfit was finally moved to the American military base at Le Mans, about a hundred miles from Paris. Things were somewhat better there. There were even a few “reliable” Black corporals who were allowed weekend passes to visit Paris, Otto was assigned to mess duty as a cook,<br />
<br />
When he applied for leave, he was refused, however, “Well, I didn’t intend to come this close to Paris without seeing it,” he said, “so I went AWOL.”<br />
<br />
He did not see much of it, however, before he was arrested by MPs. I was surprised to learn that he had been in Paris during the period that I was in the hospital in Neuilly. Most of his time in the great city was spent in the Hotel St. Anne, the notorious American military jail run by the sadistic Marine captain, “hard-boiled Smith.”<br />
<br />
Here now, bitter and disillusioned, Otto continued his rebellion, It led him first to the Garvey movement where he served for a brief period as an officer in Garvey’s Black Legion, Then in succession, Wobblies, or Industrial Workers of the World ([WW), the African Blood Brotherhood and finally the Communist Party—joining soon after its unity convention in 1921. After returning from the service, Otto stayed at home only a short time and then moved in with some of his new friends.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 ==<br />
<br />
=== Searching for Answers ===<br />
Back home in Chicago, I was soon working again as a waiter on the Michigan Central Railroad. As I have already mentioned, the first day of the bloody Chicago race riot (July 28, 1919) came while I was working on the Wolverine run up through Michigan, When arrived home from work that afternoon, the whole family greeted me emotionally. We were all there except for Otto. The disagreements I had had with my Father in the past were forgotten, Both my Mother and sister were weeping. Everyone was keyed up and had been worrying about my safety in getting from the station to the house.<br />
<br />
Following our brief reunion, I tore loose from the family to find out what was happening outside. I went to the Regimental Armory at Thirty-fifth and Giles Avenue because I wanted to find some of my buddies from the regiment. The street, old Forrest Avenue, had recently been renamed in honor of Lt. Giles, a member of our outfit killed in France. I knew they would be planning an armed defense and I wanted to get in on the action. I found them and they told me of their plans. It was rumored that Irishmen from west of the Wentworth Avenue dividing line were planning to invade the ghetto that night, coming in across the tracks by way of Fifty-first Street. We planned a defensive action to meet them.<br />
<br />
it was not surprising that defensive preparations were under way. There had been clashes before, often when white youths in “athletic clubs” invaded the Black community. These “clubs” were really racist gangs, organized by city ward heelers and precinct captains,<br />
<br />
Once of the guys from the regiment took us to the apartment of a friend, It had a good position overlooking Fifty-first Street near State. Someone had brought a Browning submachine gun; he’d gotten it sometime before, most likely from the Regimental Armory. We didn’t ask where it had come from, or the origin of the 1903 Springfield rifles (Army issue) that appeared. We set to work mounting the submachine gun and set up watch for the invaders, Fortunately for them, they never arrived and we all returned home in the morning, The following day it rained and the National Guard moved into the Black community, so overt raids by whites did not materialize.<br />
<br />
Ours was not the only group which used its recent Army training for self-defense of the Black community. We heard rumors about another group of veterans who set up a similar ambush, On several occasions groups of whites had driven a truck at breakneck speed up south State Street, in the heart of the Black ghetto, with six or seven men in the back firing indiscriminately at the people on the sidewalks,<br />
<br />
The Black veterans set up their ambush at Thirty-fifth and State, waiting in a car with the engine running, When the whites on the truck came through, they pulled in behind and opened up with a machine gun, The truck crashed into a telephone pole at Thirty-ninth Street, most of the men in the truck had been shot down and the others fled, Among them were several Chicago police officers—“off duty,” of course!<br />
<br />
I remember standing before the Angeles Flats on Thirty-fifth and Wabash where the day before four Blacks had been shot by police. It appeared that enraged Blacks had set fire to the building and were attacking some white police officers when the latter fired on them.<br />
<br />
Along with other Blacks, I gloated over the mysterious killing of two Black cops with a history of viciousness in the Black community, They had been found dead in an alley between State and Wabash, Undoubtedly they had been killed by Blacks who had taken advantage of the confusion to settle old scores with these Black enforcers of the white man’s law.<br />
<br />
Bewilderment and shock struck the Black community as well. I had seen Blacks standing before the burned-out buildings of their former homes, trying to salvage whatever possible, Apparent on their faces was bewilderment and anger.<br />
<br />
The Chicago rebellion of 1919 was a pivotal point in my life, Always I had been hot-tempered and never took any insults lying down. This was even more true after the war. I had walked out of a number of jobs because of my refusal to take any crap from anyone, My experiences abroad in the Army and at home with the police left me totally disillusioned about being able to find any solution to the racial problem through the help of the government; for I had seen that official agencies of the country were among the most racist and most dangerous to me and my people.<br />
<br />
I began to see that I had to fight; I had to commit myself to struggle against whatever it was that made racism possible. Racism, which erupted in the Chicago riot—and the bombings and terrorist attacks which preceded it---must be eliminated. My spirit was not unique--it was shared by many young Blacks at that time, The returned veterans and other young militants were all fighting back. And there was a lot to fight against, Racism reached a high tide in the summer of 1919, This was the “Red Summer” which involved twenty-six race riots across the country—“red” for the blood that ran in the streets, Chicago was the bloodiest.<br />
<br />
The holocaust in Chicago was the worst race riot in the nation’s post-war history. But riots took place in such widely separate places as Long View, Texas, Charleston, South Carolina; Elaine, Arkansas, Knoxville, Tennessee, and Omaha, Nebraska. The flareup of racial violence in Omaha, my old home town, followed the Chicago riots by less than two months, It resulted in the lynching of Will Brown, a packing house worker, for an alleged assault on a white woman, When Omaha’s mayor, Edward P. Smith, sought to intervene, he was seized by the mob. They were close to hanging the mayor from a trolley pole when police cut the rope and rushed him to a hospital, badly injured.<br />
<br />
The common underlying cause of riots in most of the northern cities was the racial tension caused by the migration of tens of thousands of Blacks into these centers and the competition for jobs, housing and the facilities of the city. Rather than being at a temporary peak, this outbreak of racism was more like the rising of a plateau—-it never got any higher, but it never really went down, either. Writing in the middle of a riot in Washington, D.C., that summer, the Black poet Claude McKay caught the bitter and belligerent mood of many Blacks:<br />
<br />
'''If we must die, let it not be like hogs'''<br />
<br />
'''Hunted and penned in an inglorious spot,''' <br />
<br />
'''While round us bark the mad and hungry dogs,''' <br />
<br />
'''Making their mock at our accursed lot.'''<br />
<br />
'''if we must die, O let us nobly die'''<br />
<br />
'''So that our precious blood may not be shed'''<br />
<br />
'''Jn vain; then even the monsters we defy'''<br />
<br />
'''Shall be constrained to honor us though dead!'''<br />
<br />
'''* Okinsmen! We must meet the common foe!''' <br />
<br />
'''Though far outnumbered let us show us brave,''' <br />
<br />
'''And for their thousand blows deal one death blow!''' <br />
<br />
'''What though before us lies the open grave?'''<br />
<br />
'''Like men we'll face the murderous, cowardly pack,''' <br />
<br />
'''Pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back!''' <br />
<br />
‘The war and the riots of the “Red Summer” of 1919 left me bitter and frustrated. I felt that I could never again adjust to the situation of Black inequality. But how had it come about? Who was responsible?<br />
<br />
Chicago in the early twenties was an ideal place and time for the education of a Black radical. As a result of the migration of Blacks during World War I, the Chicago area came to have the largest concentration of Black proletarians in the country. It was a major point of contact for these masses with the white labor movement and its advanced, radical sector. In the thirties it was to become a main testing ground for Black and white labor unity.<br />
<br />
The city itself was the core of a vast urban industrial complex. Sprawling along the southeast shore of Lake Michigan, the area includes five Illinois counties and two in Indiana. The latter contains such industrial towns as East Chicago, Gary and Hammond. This metropolitan area contains the greatest concentration of heavy industry in the country.<br />
<br />
By the second half of the twentieth century, it had forged into the lead of the steel-making industry, surpassing the great Monongahela Valley of Pittsburgh in the production of primary metals; including steel mill, refining and non-ferrous metals operations. There was the gigantic U.S. Steel Corporation in Gary, the Inland Steel Company plant in East Chicago and the U.S. Steel South Works, These are now the three largest steel works in the United States. The steel mills of the Chicago area supply more than 14,000 manufacturing plants,<br />
<br />
Chicago was at that time, and remains today, the world’s largest railway center. It ranks first in the manufacture of railroad equipment, including freight and passenger cars, Pullmans, locomotives and specialized rolling stock.<br />
<br />
The core city itself was most famous for its wholesale slaughter and meat packing industry. Chicago was known as the meat capital of the world, or in Carl Sandburg’s more homely terms, “hog butcher for the nation.”<br />
<br />
The city’s colossal wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few men, who comprised the industrial, commercial and financial oligarchy. Among these were such giants as Judge Gary of the mighty U.S. Steel; Cyrus McCormick of International Harvester, the meat packers Philip D, Armour, Gustavus Swift and the Wilson brothers; George Pullman. of the Pullman Works; Rosenwald of Montgomery Ward; General Wood of Sears and Roebuck; the “merchant prince” Marshall Field; and Samuel Insull of utilities. These were the real rulers, Ostensible political power rested in the notoriously corrupt, gangster ridden, county political machine headed by Mayor William Hale (Big Bill) Thompson, who carried on the tradition exposed as early as 1903 by Lincoln Steffens in his book, The Shame of the Cities.<br />
<br />
The glitter and wealth of Chicago’s Gold Coast was based on the most inhuman exploitation of the city’s largely foreign-born working force. A scathing indictment of the horrible conditions in Chicago's meat packing industry was contained in Upton Sinclair’s novel, The Jungle, published in 1910. It was inevitable that the wage slave would rebel, that Chicago should become the scene of some of the nation’s bloodiest battles in the struggle between labor and capital, The first of these clashes was the railroad strike of 1877 which erupted in pitched battles between strikers and federal troops,<br />
<br />
Then in 1886 came the famous Haymarket riot which grew out of a strike for the eight-hour day at the McCormick reaper plant. During a protest rally, a bomb was thrown which killed one policeman and injured six others. ‘This led to the arrest of eight anarchist leaders; four were hanged, one committed suicide or was murdered in his cell, and the others were sentenced to life imprisonment. Obviously being tried and executed simply because they were labor leaders, these innocent men became a cause célebre of international labor, Thousands of visitors made yearly pilgrimages to the city where monuments to the executed men were raised, Haymarket became a rallying word for the eight-hour day. The martyrs were memorialized by the designation of the first of May as International Labor Day. <br />
<br />
Several years later the city was the scene of the great Pullman strike led by Eugene V. Debs and his radical but lily-white American Railway Union, which precipitated a nationwide shutdown of railroads in 1894. Again the federal troops were called in and armed clashes between workers and troops ensued. ‘These battles were merely high points in the city’s long history of labor radicalism. It was the national center of the early anarcho-socialist movements. In 1905, the Industrial Workers of the World (the IWW or Wobblies) was founded there. The IWW maintained its headquarters and edited its paper, Solidarity, there. In 1921, Chicago was to become the site of the founding convention of the Workers (Communist) Party, USA, which maintained its headquarters and the editorial offices of the Daily Worker there from 1923 to 1927.<br />
<br />
Blacks, however, played little or no role in the turbulent early history of the Chicago labor movement. This was so simply because they were not a part of the industrial labor force. Prior to World War I, Blacks were employed mainly in the domestic or personal service occupations, untouched by labor organizations. They were not needed in industry where the seemingly endless tide of cheap European immigrant labor—Irish, Scots, English, Swedes, Germans, Poles, East Europeans and Italians—sufficed to fill the city’s manpower needs.<br />
<br />
The only opportunity Blacks had of entering basic industry was as strikebreakers. Thus, in the early part of the century, Blacks were brought in as strikebreakers on two important occasions, the stockyards strike of 1904 and the city-wide teamsters’ strike in 1905. In the first instance, Blacks were discharged as soon as the strike was broken. After the teamsters’ strike, a relatively large number of Blacks remained. As a result of the defeat of the 1904 strike, the packing houses remained virtually unorganized for thirteen more years, and the animosities which developed toward the Black strikebreakers became a part of the racial tension of the city.<br />
<br />
At the outbreak of World War I, the situation with respect to Chicago’s Black labor underwent a basic change, Now Blacks were needed to fill the labor vacuum caused by the war boom and the quotas on foreign immigration. Chicago's employers turned to the South, to the vast and untapped reservoir of Black labor eager to escape the conditions of plantation serfdom--exacerbated by the cotton crisis, the boll weevil plague and the wave of lynchings. The “great migrations” began and continued in successive waves through the sixties. <br />
<br />
During the war, the occupational status of Blacks thus shifted from largely personal service to basic industry. In the tens of thousands, Blacks flocked to the stockyards and steel mills. During the war, the Black population went from 50,000 to 100,000. Successive waves of Black migration were to bring the Black population to over a million within the next fifty years. Black labor, getting its first foothold in basic industry during the war, had now become an integral part of Chicago’s industrial labor force.4<br />
<br />
With the tapping of this vast reservoir of cheap and unskilled labor, there was no longer any need for the peasantry of eastern and southern Europe. There was, however, a difference between the position of Blacks and that of the European immigrants. The latter, after a generation or two, could rise to higher skilled and better paying jobs, to administrative and even managerial positions. They were able to leave the ethnic enclaves and disperse throughout the city—to become assimilated into the national melting pot, The Blacks, to the contrary, found themselves permanently relegated to a second-class status in the labor force, with a large group outside as a permanent surplus labor pool to be replenished when necessary from the inexhaustible reservoir of Black, poverty-ridden and land-starved peasantry of the South.<br />
<br />
‘The employers now had in hand a new source of cheap labor, the victims of racist proscription, to use as a weapon against the workers’ movement. Indeed, this went hand in hand with the Jim Crow policies of the trade union leaders, who had been largely responsible for keeping Blacks out of basic industry in the first place. <br />
<br />
These labor bureaucrats premised their racism on the doctrine of a natural Black inferiority, The theory of an instinctive animosity between the races was a powerful instrument for an anti-union, anti-working class, divide and rule policy. The use of racial differences was found to be a much more effective dividing instrument than the use of cultural and language differences between various white ethnic groups and the native born. As we know, ethnic conflicts proved transient as the various European nationalities became assimilated into the general population. Blacks, on the other hand, remain to this day permanently unassimilable under the present system.<br />
<br />
Such were conditions in the days when I undertook my search for answers to the question of Black oppression and the road to liberation. Living conditions were pretty rough then, and I had gone back to my old trade of waiting tables in order to make some sort of living.<br />
<br />
But I was restless, moody, short-tempered-—-qualities ill-suited to the trade, Naturally, I had trouble holding a job. My trouble was not with the guests so much as with my immediate superiors; captains, head waiters and dining car stewards, most of whom were white. In less than a month after the Chicago riot, I lost my job on the Michigan Central as a result of a run-in with an inspector.<br />
<br />
The dining car inspectors were a particularly vicious breed. Their job was to see that discipline was maintained and service kept up to par. These inspectors, whom we called company spies, would board the train unexpectedly anywhere along the route, hoping to catch a member of the crew violating some regulation or not giving what they considered proper service. They would then reprimand the guilty party personally, or if the offense was sufficiently serious, would turn him in to the main office to be laid off or fired. Usually the inspector’s word was law from which there was no appeal. The dining car crew had no unions in those days.<br />
<br />
This particular inspector (his name was McCormick) had taken a dislike to me. He had made that clear on other occasions. The feeling was mutual. Perhaps he sensed my independent attitude. He probably felt I was not sufficiently impressed by him and did not care about my job. He was right on both counts. <br />
<br />
He boarded the Chicago-bound train one morning in Detroit, We were serving breakfast. It was just one of those days when everything went wrong. People were lined up at each end of the diner, waiting to be served. Service was slow. The guests were squawking and I was in a mean mood myself. I was cutting bread in the pantry when McCormick peered in and shouted, “Say, Hall, that silver is in terrible condition.”<br />
<br />
The silver! What the hell is this man talking about dirty silver when I’ve got all these people out there clamoring for their breakfast. 2<br />
<br />
“I’ve been noticing you lately,” he continued. “It looks as though you don’t want to work. If you don't like your job why in hell don't you quit?”<br />
<br />
I took that as downright provocation. “Damn you and your job!” I exploded, advancing on him.<br />
<br />
He turned pale and ran out of the pantry. A friend of mine in the crew grabbed me by the wrist.<br />
<br />
“What the hell’s the matter with you, Hall? Are you crazy?” It was only then that I realized that I had been waving the bread knife at the inspector.<br />
<br />
In a few minutes, the brakeman and the conductor came into the pantry. MeCormick brought up the rear,<br />
<br />
“That’s the one,” he said pointing at me.<br />
<br />
Addressing me, the conductor said, “The inspector here says you threatened him with a knife. Is that true?”<br />
<br />
I denied it, stating that I had been cutting bread when the argument started and had a knife in my hand. I wasn’t threatening him with it. My friend (who had grabbed my wrist) substantiated my story.<br />
<br />
“Well,” said the conductor, “you’d better get your things and ride to Chicago in the coach. We don’t want any more trouble here, and the inspector has said he doesn’t want you in the dining car.”<br />
<br />
I went up forward in the coach. I got off the train in Chicago at Sixty-third and Stony Island. I didn’t go to the downtown station, thinking that the cops might be waiting there.<br />
<br />
So much for my job with the Michigan Central.<br />
<br />
I went back to working sporadically in restaurants, hotels and on trains. I didn’t stay anywhere very long. The first job that I regarded as steady was the Illinois Athletic Club, where I remained for several months, 1 was beginning to settle down a little and participate in the social life of the community, attending dances, parties and visiting cabarets. The Royal Gardens, a night club on Thirty-first Street, was one of my favorite hangouts. King Oliver and Louis Armstrong were often featured there. At the Panama, on Thirty-fifth Street between State and Wabash, we went to see our favorite comedians-—Butter Beans and Susie.<br />
<br />
It was on one of these occasions that I met my first wife, Hazel. She belonged to Chicago’s Black social elite, such as it was. Her father had died and her family was on the downgrade. Her mother was left with four children, three girls and a boy, of whom Hazel was the oldest. The other children were still teenagers, and Hazel and her mother had supported them by doing domestic work and catering for wealthy whites. I was twenty-one and she was twenty five.<br />
<br />
Hazel was attractive, a high school graduate. She spoke good English and, as Mother said, “had good manners.” She worked for Montgomery Ward, then owned by the philanthropic Rosenwald family, the first big company to hire Blacks as office clerks. She had a nice singing voice and used to sing around at parties. Her friends were among the Black upper strata and the family belonged to the Episcopal Church on Thirty-eighth and Wabash which at that time was the church of the colored elite. We were married in 1920. I was all decked out in a rented swallowtail coat, striped pants, spats and a derby. The ceremony was impressive. Photos appeared in the Chicago Defender.<br />
<br />
In a short time, the romance wore off. Hazel’s ambition to get ahead in the world, “to be somebody,” clashed with my love of freedom. I soon had visions of myself, a quarter century hence-making mortgage payments on a fancy house, installments on furniture, and trapped in a drab, lower middle-class existence, surrounded by a large and quarrelsome family.<br />
<br />
The worst of it was having to put up with being kicked around on the job and taking all that crap from headwaiters and captains. I had been working at the Athletic Club for several months before I got married. Then nobody had bothered me. When I asked for time off to get married, the white headwaiter and the captain seemed delighted. “Sure Hall, that’s fine. Congratulations, Take a couple of weeks off.”<br />
<br />
Upon my return, I immediately felt a change in their attitude, Now that I was married, they felt they had me where they wanted me. They became more and more demanding. One day at lunch I had some difficulty getting my orders out of the kitchen, and the guests were complaining—not an unusual occurrence in any restaurant. Instead of helping me out and calming down the guests, or seeing what the hang-up was in the kitchen, the captain started shouting at me in front of the guests. “What’s the matter with you, Hall? Why don’t you bring these people’s orders?”<br />
<br />
“Can’t you see that I’m tied up in the kitchen?” I said. “Why don’t you go out and see the chef instead of hollering at me!”<br />
<br />
All puffed up, he yelled out, “Don’t give me any of your lip or I'll snatch that badge off you!”<br />
<br />
I jerked my badge off, threw both badge and side towel into his face, and shouted, “Take your badge and shove it!”<br />
<br />
I was moving on him when a friend of mine, Johnson, a waiter at the next station, jumped between us, I turned away, walked down the steps, through the kitchen and into the dressing room. Johnson followed me into the dressing room a few minutes later. “Hurry up and get out of here. They’re calling the cops.” I changed and left.<br />
<br />
My marriage went down the drain along with the job. That was a period of post-war crisis. Jobs were hard to find, and especially so for me since I had been blacklisted from several places because of my temper. 1 was no longer the same man that Hazel married, and the truth of the matter was that I wanted it that way. Her hangups were typical of Black aspirants for social status—strivers, we called them-—-who never really doubted the validity of the prejudice from which they suffered. Hazel slavishly accepted white middle class values. I, on the other hand, was looking around trying to figure out how best to maladjust<br />
<br />
=== MY REBELLION ===<br />
For me, the break-up of our marriage in the spring of 1920 destroyed my last ties with the old conventional way of life. I was completely disenchanted with the middle class crowd into which Hazel was trying to draw me. But more important, I not only rejected the status quo, I was determined to do something about it--to make my rebellion count.<br />
<br />
I sought answers to a number of questions: What was the nature of the forces behind Black subjugation? Who were its main beneficiaries? Why was racism being entrenched in the north in this period? How did it differ from the South? Could the situation be altered and, if so, what were the forces for change and the program?<br />
<br />
l renewed my search for a way to go, pressed by a driving need for a world view which would provide a rational explanation of society and a clue to securing Black freedom and dignity. My search was to continue during what must have been the most virulent and widespread racist campaign in U.S. history, The forces of racist bigotry unleashed during the riots of the “Red Summer” of 1919 were still on the march through the twenties. Indeed, they had intensified and extended their campaign. <br />
<br />
The whole country seemed gripped in a frenzy of racist hate. Anti-Black propaganda was carried in the press, in magazine articles, literature and in theater. D.W. Griffith’s obscene movie, The Birth of a Nation, which glorified the Ku Klux Klan and pictured Blacks as depraved animals, was shown to millions.5 Thomas Dickson’s two novels, The Klansman (upon which Griffith’s picture was based) and The Leopard's Spots (an earlier book on the theme of the white man’s burden) were best sellers. Racist demagogues of the stripe of “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman of South Carolina, Vardeman of Mississippi, and “Cotton” Ed Smith of South Carolina, were in demand on northern lecture platforms.<br />
<br />
Closely behind the trumpeters of race-hate rode their cavalry, A revived Ku Klux Klan now extended to the north and made its appearance in twenty-seven states.6 This organization, embracing millions, headed the list of a whole rash of super-patriotic groups who were anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, anti-foreign-born and anti-Black. The apostles of white, Anglo-Saxon and Nordic supremacy included in their galaxy of ethnic outcasts Asians (the “yellow peril”), Latin Americans and other foreign-born from southern and eastern Europe. Their hate propaganda pitted Protestants against Catholics, Christians against Jews, native against foreign-born, and all against the Blacks, upon whom was fixed the stigma of inherent and eternal inferiority.<br />
<br />
It seemed as though the prophets of the “lost cause” were out to reverse their military defeat at Appomattox by the cultural subversion of the north. That they were receiving encouragement by powerful northern interests was self-evident. Tin Pan Alley added its contribution to the attack with a spate of Mammy songs, and along the same vein, “That’s Why Darkies Were Born”:<blockquote>'''Someone had to pick the cotton,''' <br />
<br />
'''Someone had to plant the corn,'''<br />
<br />
'''Someone had to slave and be able to sing,''' <br />
<br />
'''That's why darkies were born.'''<br />
<br />
'''Though the balance is wrong,'''<br />
<br />
'''Sull your faith must be strong,'''<br />
<br />
'''Accept your destiny brothers, listen to me.'''</blockquote>A main objective of the racist assault was the academic establishment. The old crude forms of racist propaganda proved inadequate in an age of advancing science. The hucksters of race hate conducted raids upon the sciences, especially upon the new disciplines-—anthropology, ethnology and psychology--in an attempt to establish a scientific foundation for the race myth.<br />
<br />
The new “science of race” evolved and flourished during the period, Spadework for this grotesque growth had been done in the middle of the last century by the Frenchman, Count Arthur D. Gobineau, in his work, The Inequality of the Human Races (1851-1853), It was carried on by his disciple, the Englishman turned German, Houston Chamberlain, who asserted that racial mixture was a natural crime. In the U.S, early efforts in this field were the works of Knott and Glidden. Also, there was Ripley's Races of Mankind.<br />
<br />
Carrying on in this pseudo-scientific tradition during the war and postwar years were the popular theorists Lathrop Stoddard, The Rising Tide of Color: Against White World Supremacy (1923) and Madison Grant, The Passing of a Great Race: The Racial Basis of European History (1916). The cornerstone of this pseudo-scientific structure was Social Darwinism which was an attempt to subvert Darwin’s theory of evolution and arbitrarily apply natural selection in plant and animal society to human society. According to the Social Darwinists, led by Herbert Spencer, the British sociologist, history was a continuous struggle for existence between races. In this struggle, the Nordic, Anglo-Saxon, or Aryan civilizations naturally survived as the fittest.<br />
<br />
The racists had a field day in history, long the area in which the heroes of the “lost cause” had their greatest, most effective concentration. They had held chairs in some of the nation’s most prestigious universities—Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Harvard, etc, Among such historians was William Archibald Dunning, who during his long tenure at Columbia miseducated generations of students by his distortions of the Reconstruction, Civil War and slave periods.7<br />
<br />
In the academic world this pseudoscience of racism held sway with only a few open challengers. The latter seemed to be isolated voices in the wilderness, as the counter-offensive was slow in getting underway. In anthropology there was Franz Boaz’s antiracist thrust, Mind of Primitive Man. This was written in 1911, and not widely known at the time. The works of his students and colleagues-—-most notably Melville Hershovitz, The Myth of the Negro Past, Jane Weltfish, Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead and Otto Klineburg-—-were not to appear until the next decade.<br />
<br />
In history, the movement for revision was then decades away. It only became a trend with the Black Revolt of the sixties, Black scholars had pioneered the reexamination: W.E.B. DuBois, his tour de force, Black Reconstruction, and the epilogue, “Propaganda of History,” which contained a bitter indictment of the white historical establishment, was not to appear until the mid-thirties. J.A. Rogers, popular Black historian, had not yet appeared on the scene, Young Carter Woodson, who had founded his Association for the Study of Negro History in 1915, only began to publish the Journal of Negro History in 1916. His own important historical works were yet to come. <br />
<br />
‘Thus, from its tap-roots in the Southern plantation system, the anti-Black virus had spread throughout the country, shaping the pattern of Black-white relationships in the industrial urban north as well. The dogma of the inherent inferiority of Blacks had permeated the national consciousness to become an integral part of the American way of life. Racist dogma, first a rationale for chattel slavery and then plantation peonage, was now carried over to the north as justification for a new system of de facto segregation.<br />
<br />
Black subjugation, city-style Jim Crow, became fixed by the twenties, and continues up to the present day. Its components were the residential segregation of the ghetto with its inferior education, slums and the second class status of Black workers in the labor force where they were relegated to the bottom rung of the occupational ladder and prevented by discrimination from moving into better skills and higher paid jobs.<br />
<br />
Although its purpose was not clear to me then, I later realized that the virulent racism of the period served to justify and bulwark the structure of Black powerlessness which was developing in every northern city where we had become a sizable portion of the work force,<br />
<br />
At the time the racist deluge simply revealed great gaps in my own education and knowledge. I knew that the propaganda was a tissue of lies, but I felt the need for disproving them on the basis of scientific fact. I rejected racism—the lie of the existence in nature of superior and inferior races--and its concomitant fiction of intuitive hostility between races. For one thing, it ran counter to my own background of experience in Omaha.<br />
<br />
Religion as an explanation for the riddles of the universe I had rejected long before. I knew that our predicament was not the result of some divine disposition and therefore that racial oppression was neither a spiritual or natural phenomenon. It was created by man, and therefore must be changed by man, How? Well, that was the question to be explored. I had only a smattering of knowledge of natural and social sciences, much of which I had gathered through reading the lectures of Robert G. Ingersoll. It was through him that I discovered Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution through natural selection.<br />
<br />
Armed with a dictionary and a priori knowledge gleaned from Ingersoll’s popularizations, I was able to make my way through Origin of the Species. Darwin showed the origin of the species to be a result of the process of evolution and not the mysterious act of a divine creation. Here at last was a scientific refutation of religious dogma. I had at last found a basis for my atheism which had before been based mainly upon practical knowledge.<br />
<br />
Continuing my search, I found myself attracted to other social iconoclasts or image-destroyers, and to their attacks upon established beliefs. I remember staying up all night reading Max Nordau’s Conventional Lies of Our Civilization, being thrilled by his castigation of middle class hypocrisy, prejudices and philistinism. Moving on to the contemporary scene, I discovered H.L. Mencken, “The Sage of Baltimore,” and his “smart set” crowd.<br />
<br />
For a short while, I was an avid reader of the Mercury which he helped to establish in 1920 as a forum for his views, I was particularly delighted by his critical potshots at some of the most sacred cultural cows of what he called “the American Babbitry,” “boobocracy,” “anthropoid majority’--Menckenian sobriquets for middle class commoners. Mencken enjoyed a brief popularity among young Black radicals of the day who saw in his searing diatribes against WASP cultural idols ammunition with which to blast the claims of white supremacists. The novelty soon wore off as it became clear that Mencken’s type of iconoclasm posed no real challenge to the prevailing social structure, In fact, it was reactionary. He sought to replace destroyed idols with even more reactionary oncs, as I soon found out. <br />
<br />
Mencken’s philosophical mentor was none other than the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, prophet of the superman, of the aristocratic minority destined to rile over the unenlightened hoardes of Untermenschen—-the “perenially and inherently unequal majority of mankind.” Most Blacks then, including myself, who flirted with Mencken never accepted him fully. The one exception was George Schuyler of the Pittsburgh Courier, who took Mencken's snobbery and reactionary politics and made a career of them which has lasted for forty years.<br />
<br />
What confused me most were the contentions of the Social Darwinists, who claimed to be the authentic continuators of Darwin’s theories. Darwin had not dealt with the question of race per se, But it had seemed to me that his theory of evolution precluded the myth of race. How could Darwin's theory which had helped me finally and irrevocably throw aside the veil of mysticism and put the understanding of the descent of man within my grasp—how could this be used as an endorsement of racism? Perhaps I had been wrong? Was I reading into Darwin more than, what he implied?<br />
<br />
It was my brother Otto who finally cleared me up on this point. He and I were running in different circles, but we would meet from time to time and exchange notes. Otto pointed out that Social Darwinists had distorted Darwin by mechanically transferring the laws of existence among plants and animals to the field of social and human relations. Human society had its own laws, he asserted. Ah, what were those laws? That was the subject that I wanted to explore.<br />
<br />
“You ought to quit reading those bourgeois authors and start reading Marx and Engels,” Otto told me, suggesting also that I read Henry Lewis Morgan’s Ancient Society and the works of Redpath. ’<br />
<br />
About this time I got a job as a clerk at the Chicago Post Office. I heard that jobs were available and that veterans were given preference. Following the advice of friends, I approached S.L. Jackson of the Wabash Avenue YMCA, who at that time was a Black Republican stalwart with connections in the Madden political machine. Jackson gave me a note to some Post Office official in charge of employment. I passed the civil service examination, in which veterans were given a ten percent advantage, and was employed as a substitute clerk.<br />
<br />
The Post Office job in those days carried considerable prestige. It was almost the only clerical job open to Blacks. Postal workers, along with waiters, Pullman porters and tradesmen, were traditionally considered a part of the Black middle class. A number of prominent community leaders came from this group. Many officers of the old Eighth Illinois were postal employees, a good percentage of them mail-carriers.<br />
<br />
The Post Office became a refuge for poor Black students and unemployed university graduates, For some of the latter it was a sort of way-station on the road to their professional careers. Others remained, settling for regular Post Office careers. But even here opportunities were limited. Blacks held only a few supervisory positions, as advancement depended solely on the discretion of the white postmaster.<br />
<br />
On the job I found the work extremely boring. It consisted of standing before a case eight hours a night, sorting mail. All substitutes were relegated to the night shift. It took years to get on the day shift which was preempted by the veteran employees: On the other hand, I found the company of my new young fellow workers very stimulating.<br />
<br />
In those days the organization of Black postal employees was the Phalanx Forum. Before the war, the organization had played an important political and social role in the community. It was dominated by the conservative crowd of social climbers and political aspirants, who were the most active group among postal employees and had close ties with the local Republican machine.<br />
<br />
Their leadership was completely incffective with respect to the job issues of Black rank-and-file employees, and it had little or no influence over the younger group of new employees, which included many veterans and students. The gap between the old, conservative crowd and the new, youthful element was sharp. Among the latter a radical sentiment was growing.<br />
<br />
I was immediately attracted to this group among whom I was to find friends who seemed to be impelled by the same motivations as myself-—to find new answers to the problems afflicting our people. Most of those with whom I fraternized considered the postal job as temporary, a step to other careers. Our interest at the time, therefore, was not so much with the immediate economic or onthe-job needs of Black postal workers, but with the “race problem” generally. The drive for unionization of postal employees was to come later.<br />
<br />
The issue to which we addressed ourselves was the current campaign of white racist propaganda: how to counter it on the basis of scientific truth. We saw the network of racist lies as clearly aimed at justifying Black subjugation and destroying our dignity as a people. On this question we had long, endless discussions on the job while sorting mail, at rest, during lunch breaks and on Sundays when some of us would meet. I soon identified with what I considered the more vocal segment. Among our group of aspirant intellectuals there was a medical student, a couple of law students, a dentist (whom we all called “Doc”), students of education and some intellectually oriented workers like myself. On one Sunday when we had gathered, it was suggested, I think by Joc Mabley, that we organize ourselves as an informal discussion group, and that our purpose would be to answer the racist lies on the basis of scientific truth. The idea was instantly agreed upon.<br />
<br />
The discussion circle was loosely organized, not more than a dozen participants in all, and bent on finding answers. The moving spirits of the group were John Heath, Joe Mabley and “Doc.”<br />
<br />
Heath was a tall, light-complexioned man with high cheekbones. He was a graduate student in the field of education, anda man whose sterling character and keen intellect we all respected. Then there was Joc Mabley, a brilliant, small Black man. He had large velvety eyes and was a college dropout. He was married and had a family-—two or three children—and had settled down to a regular Post Office job, He and Doe were the only regular postal workers in our group—the rest of us being suhstitutes. Doc had set up an office on the Southside and was trying hard to build upa clientele while working night shifts.<br />
<br />
Originally we had planned to meet every Sunday at noon as the most convenient time for the fellows on our shift. The meeting places were to alternate between the homes or apartments of the members. When we got to procedure, the group would choose a topic of discussion and ask for volunteers or assign a member to make introductory reports, He would then have a week to prepare the report, Our original plans included the eventual organization of a forum in which the issues of the day could be debated, and the holding of social affairs. All of this proved to be too ambitious, We found it impractical to have weekly meetings and finally agreed that twice a month was more feasible. The forum idea never got off the ground.<br />
<br />
Among us I think we had most of the answers on the question of race, that is, to all but the big lie, the onc that was most convincing to the white masses and is the cornerstone on which the whole structure stood or fell: the assertion that Blacks have no history.<br />
<br />
A leading formulator of the lie at that time was John Burgess, professor of political science and history at Columbia University:<blockquote>T'''he claim that there is nothing in the color of the skin from the point of view of political ethics is a great sophism. A black skin means membership in a race of men which has never of itself’ succeeded in subjecting passion to reason, has never, therefore, created any civilization of any kind.'''</blockquote>We wanted to refute the slanders on the basis of scientific truth. For this, we needed more ammunition and better weapons, particularly in the field of history. It was ahout this time that I met George Wells Parker, a brilliant young Black graduate student from Omaha’s Creighton University. I was introduced to him by my brother Otto, who had known him in Omaha. He was in Chicago to visit relatives and to conduct research for his dissertation. His major was history, I believe. We found him a virtual storehouse of knowledge on the race question, especially Black history. His major objective in life was apparently to refute the prevalent racist lies and to huild Black dignity and pride, He possessed wide knowledge and seemed to have read everything.<br />
<br />
Parker called our attention to the writings of the great anthropologist Franz Boas; the Egyptologist Virchow; to Max Mueller (philologist who formulated the Aryan myth and then rejected it); to the Frenchman Jean Finot; to Sir Harry Johnstone (British authority on African history); and to the Italian Giuseppe Serg and his theory of the Mediterranean races, arefutation of the Aryan mythology. Proponents of this myth claimed all civilizations—Indian, Near East, Egyptians—as Aryan, One wonders why the Chinese were left out, but then that would have been too palpable a fraud! It was Parker who called our attention to Herodotus (ancient Greek historian) who had described the Egyptians of his time (around 400 B.C.) as “Black and with woolly hair.”<br />
<br />
Otto and I introduced Parker to friends and acquaintances, and I, of course, to our discussion circle. He spoke before numerous groups. Everywhere there was hunger for his knowledge. Weeven brought him before the Bugs Club Forum in Washington Park, where he led a discussion on the race question. <br />
<br />
This brilliant young man returned to Omaha to resume his studies. The next winter he was dead. We heard it was the result of a mental breakdown. Thus was a brilliant career cut short and a potentially great scholar lost. Surviving, I believe, was only one brief paper and some notes.<br />
<br />
=== GARVEY’S BACK TO AFRICA MOVEMENT ===<br />
But time and tide did not stand still to wait for our answers to the social problems of the day, or for the results of our intellectual researches. While we sought arguments with which to counter the racist thrust, the masses were forging their own weapons. Their growing resistance was finally to erupt on the political scene in the grcatest mass movement of Blacks since Reconstruction,<br />
<br />
Great masses of Blacks found the answer in the Back to Africa program of the West Indian Marcus Garvey. Under his aegis this movement was eventually diverted from the encmy at home into utopian Zionistic channels of peaceful return to Africa and the establishment of a Black state in the ancestral land.<br />
<br />
The organizational course of the movement was Garvey’s Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA). He first launched this organization in Jamaica, British West Indies, in 1914. Coming to the USA, he founded its first section in New York City in 1917. The organization grew rapidly during the war and the immediate post-war period, At its height in the early twenties, it claimed a membership of half a million. While estimates of the organization's membership vary-—from half a million to a million—it was the largest organization in the history of U.S. Blacks. There can be no doubt that its influence extended to millions who identified wholly or partially with its programs.<br />
<br />
What in Garvey’s program attracted these masses?<br />
<br />
Garvey was a charismatic leader and in that tradition best articulated the sentiments and yearnings of the masses of Black people. In his UNIA he also created the vehicle for their organization, Equally important, he was a master at understanding how to use pageantry, ritual and ceremony to provide the Black peasantry with psychological relief from the daily burdens of their oppression. His apparatus included such high sounding titles as potentate, supreme deputy potentate, knights of the Nile, knights of distinguished service, the order of Ethiopia, the dukes of Nigeria and Uganda. There were Black gods and Black angels and a flag of black, red and green: “Black for the race, Red for their blood and Green for their hopes.”<br />
<br />
The movement’s program was fully outlined in the historic Declaration of Rights of the Negro Peoples of the World, adopted at the first convention of the organization in New York City August 13, 1920. In the manner of the Nation of Islam and its publication Muhammad Speaks (Bilalian News), the program of Garvey combined a realistic assessment of the conditions facing Blacks with a fantasy and mystification about the solution. Along with the Back to Africa slogan, the document contained a devastating indictment of the plight of the Black peoples in the United States. Expressing the militancy of its delegates, it called for opposition to the incquality of wages betwecn Blacks and whites, it protested their cxclusion from unions, their deprivation of land, taxation without representation, unjust military service, and Jim Crow laws.<br />
<br />
Anticipating the Black Power Revolt of the sixties, the document called for “complete control of our social institutions without the interference of any other race or races.” Reflecting the rising worldwide anti-colonial movement of the period, it called for self-determination of peoples and repudiated the loosely formed League of Nations, declaring its decisions “null and void as far as the Blacks were concerned because it seeks to deprive them of their independence.” This latter point was in reference to the assignment of mandates to European powers over African territories wrested from the Germans.<br />
<br />
Through this atmosphere of militancy, expressing the desire of the masses to defend their rights at home, ran the incongruent theme of Back to Africa. Declared Garvey:<blockquote>'''Being satisfied to drink of the dregs from the cup of human progress will not demonstrate our fitness as a people to exist alongside others, but when of our own initiative we strike out to build industries, governments, and ultimately empires (sic), then and only then, will we as a race prove to our Creator and to man in general that we are fit to survive and capable of shaping our own destiny.'''<br />
<br />
'''Wake up, Africa! Let us work toward the one glorious end of a free, redeemed, and mighty nation. Let Africa be a bright star among the constellation of nations.'''</blockquote>Who were Garvey’s followers?<br />
<br />
Garvey's Zionistic message was beamed mainly to the submerged Black peasantry, especially its uprooted vanguard, the new migrants in such industrial centers as New York City, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago and St. Louis. These masses made up the rank and file of the movement. They were embittered and disillusioned by racist terror and unemployment, and saw in Garvey’s program of Back to Africa the fulfillment of their yearnings for land and freedom to be guaranteed by a government of their own.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, Garveyism was the trend of a section of the ghetto lower middle classes, small businessmen, shopkeepers, property holders who were pushed to the wall, ruined or threatened with ruin by the ravages of the post-war crisis, Also attracted to Garveyism were the frustrated and unemployed Black intelligentsia: professionals, doctors, lawyers with impoverished clientele, storefront preachers who had followed their flocks to the promised land of the north, and poverty stricken students.<br />
<br />
Garveyism reflected the desperation of these strata before the ruthless encroachments of predatory white corporate interests upon their already meager markets. It reflected an attempt by them to escape from the sharpening racist oppression, the terror of race riots, the lynchings, economic and social frustrations. It was from these strata that the movement drew its leadership cadres.<br />
<br />
The immediate pecuniary interests of this element were expressed in the form of ghetto enterprises, the organization of a whole network of cooperative enterprises, including grocery stores, laundries, restaurants, hotels and printing plants. The most ambitious was the Black Star Steamship Line. Several ships were purchased and trade relations were established with groups in the West Indies and Africa, including the Republic of Liberia.<br />
<br />
The New York City division comprised a large segment of the intensely nationalistic West Indian immigrants. West Indians were prominent in the leadership, in Garvey's close coterie, and in the organization’s inner councils. There can be no doubt of the considerable influence of this element on the organization. But the attempt on the part of some writers to brand the movement as a foreign import with no indigenous roots is superficial and without foundation in fact. It is clear that Garveyism had both a social and economic base in Black society of the twenties. Nor was Garvey’s nationalism a new trend among Blacks—nationalist currents had repeatedly emerged, going back even before the Civil War.<br />
<br />
A key role in the movement was also played by deeply disillusioned Black veterans who had fought an illusory battle to “make the world safe for democracy” only to return to continued and even harsher slavery. Veterans were involved in the setting up of the skeleton army for the future African state, and in such paramilitary organizations as the Universal African Legion, the Universal Black Cross Nurses, the African Motor Corps and the Black Eagle Flying Corps. Many Black radicals—even some socialistically inclined—were swept into thé Garvey movement, attracted by its militancy.<br />
<br />
Despite his hostility toward local communists, Garvey seemed to regard the Soviet experience with some favor-at least in the early years of his movement. This probably reflected the sentiments of many of his followers. As late as 1924, in an editorial in the Negro World, he publicly mourned the passing of Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union, calling him “probably the world’s greatest man between 1917 and ...1924.” On that occasion, he sent a cable to Moscow “expressing the sorrow and condolence of the 400,000,000 Negroes of the world.”<br />
<br />
‘The Garvey movement revealed the wide rift between the policies of the traditional upper class of the NAACP and associates, and the life needs of the sorely oppressed people. It represented a mass rejection of the policies and programs of this leadership, which during the war had built up false hopes and now offered no tangible proposals for meeting the rampant anti-Black violence and joblessness of the post-war period. This mood was expressed by Garvey, who denounced the whole upper class leadership, claiming that they were motivated solely by the drive for assimilation and banked their hopes for equality on the support of whites—all classes of whom, he contended, were the Black man’s enemy. The policy of this leadership, he maintained, was a policy of compromise.<br />
<br />
It was in these conditions that Garvey, as thespokesman for the new ghetto petty bourgeoisie, seized leadership of the incipient Black revolt and diverted it into the blind alley of utopian escapism.<br />
<br />
My contact with the movement was limited. [ had never seen Garvey. I had missed his appearance in 1919 at the Eighth Regiment Armory. I never visited the organization’s Liberty Hall headquarters. In Chicago, the movement seemed to spring up overnight, I first took serious notice of it in 1920. I listened to its orators on street corners, watched its spectacular parades through the Southside streets, The black, red and green flag of the movement was carried at the head of the parade. The parades were lively and snappy; marching were the African Legion and the Universal Black Cross Nurses in their spotless white uniforms and white veils, All marched in step with a band. It was quite impressive, but to me it was unreal and had little or no relevance to the actual problems that confronted Blacks.<br />
<br />
From the first, the Garvey movement met heavy opposition in Chicago, The powerful Chicago Defender, edited by Robert S. Abbott, took the lead. If not the world’s greatest weekly as its masthead proclaimed, it had great influence among Chicago and Sofithern Blacks, due to its role in promoting the migration to the north. It was widely read in the South where a daily newspaper of Athens, Georgia, called it “the greatest disturbing element that has yet entered Georgia.” The Defender was relentless in its attack, throwing scorn and contempt on the movement and Garvey himself.<br />
<br />
In addition to The Defender’s attacks, the so-called Abyssinia Affair in the summer of 1920 served to discredit the movement. The Star Order of Ethiopia and Ethiopian Missionaries to Abyssinia was an extremist split off from Chicago’s UNIA branch. The leaders of the group held a parade and rally on Thirty-fifth and Indiana. Speakers clad in loud African costume called upon the crowd to return to their African ancestral land.<br />
<br />
To show their scorn for the U.S., they burned an American flag, and when white policemen sought to intervene, the Abyssinians shot and killed two white men and wounded a third. This incident was blown up in the white press as an armed rebellion of Blacks. It was condemned on ali sides in the Black community and by its leaders, including the editors of The Defender, who helped authorities in capturing the Abyssinian dissidents.<br />
<br />
Despite its repudiation by the official Garvey organization, the Abyssinian affair served to muddy the Garvey image in Chicago. I was working on the New York Central at the time and heard a graphic account of the affair from my aunts when I arrived intown the next day. They lived right around the corner on Indiana Avenue.<br />
<br />
Despite the hostile Black press and the Abyssinian affair, the UNIA grew. At its height, it claimed a Chicago membership of 9,000 devoted followers. This is probably exaggerated, but there is no doubt that the sympathizers numbered in the tens of thousands.<br />
<br />
Our Sunday discussion group underestimated the significance of the Garvey movement and the strength it was later to reveal. We regarded it as a transient phenomenon. We applauded some of the cultural aspects of the movement—Garvey’s emphasis on race pride, dignity, self-reliance, his exultation of things Black. This was all to the good, we felt. However, we rejected in its entirety the Back to Africa program as fantastic, unreal and a dangerous diversion which could only lead to desertion of the struggle for our rights in the USA. This was our country, we strongly felt, and Blacks should not waive their just claims to equality and justice in the land to whose wealth and greatness we and our forefathers had made such great contributions.<br />
<br />
Finally, we could not go along with Garvey’s idea about inherent racial antagonisms between Black and white. This to us seemed equivalent to ceding the racist enemy one of his main points. While it is true that I personally often wavered in the direction of race against race, I was not prepared to accept the idea as a philosophy. It did not jibe with my experience with whites.<br />
<br />
While rejecting Garvey’s program, our ideas for a viable alternative were still vague and unformed. The most important effect the Garvey movement had on us was that it put into clear focus the questions to which we sought answers.<br />
<br />
Who were the enemies of the Black freedom struggle? While Garvey claimed the cntire white race was the enemy, it did not escape us that he was inconsistent, being soft on white capitalists. His main target was clearly white labor and the trade union movement. According to Garvey:<blockquote>'''It seems strange and a paradox, but the only convenient friend the Negro worker or laborer has, in America, at the present time, is the white capitalist. The capitalist being selfish---seeking only the largest profit out of labor-—is willing and glad to use Negro labor wherever possible on a scale “reasonably” below the standard white union wage....but, if the Negro unionizes himself to the level of the white worker... the choice and preference of employment is given to the white worker...'''<br />
<br />
'''If the Negro takes my advice he will organize by himself and always keep his scale of wage a little lower than the whites until he is able to become, through proper leadership, his own employer; by doing so he will keep the good will of the white employer and live a little longer under the present scheme of things.'''</blockquote>There was no doubt that Garvey was voicing the sentiments of the vast mass of new migrant workers. And it was not that we had any compunction about strikebreaking in industries from which Blacks were barred. In fact, that had been one of the ways Blacks broke into industries such as stockyards and steel. We were also keenly aware of the Jim Crow policies of the existing trade union leadership and of the anti-Black prejudices rampant among white workers. But in casting Blacks permanently into the role of strikebreakers, Garvey was helping to further divide an already polarized situation and playing into the hands of businessmen, bankers, factory owners and the reactionary leadership of the trade unions,<br />
<br />
My own experience with unions in the waiters’ trade was bad. Old waiters would tell us how in the first part of the century they had listened to the siren call of white union leaders. They had gone out on strike, ostensibly to better their conditions, only to find their jobs immediately taken by whites. This had been quite a serious blow because at that time, Black waiters had had jobs in most of the best hotels and in a number of fine restaurants. It is therefore understandable that in 1920, we Black waiters felt not the slightest pang of conscience in taking over the jobs of white waiters on strike at the Marygold Gardens (the old Bismark Gardens) on the Northside, one of the swankiest night spots in Chicago, It was also probably the best waiter’s job in town; in fact, so good that some of the German captains who remained on the job used to drive to and from work in Cadillacs. The strike was broken after several months, and Blacks were turned out.<br />
<br />
Strikebreaking to me was not a philosophy or principle as Garvey contended, but an expedient forced upon Blacks by the Jim Crow policies of the bosses and the unions.<br />
<br />
Even as Garvey was putting forward such views, times were beginning to change. Large numbers of Blacks had been brought into industry during the war and had joined unions, especially in steel and the packing houses. A new industrial unionism was developing and raising the slogan of Black and white labor unity.<br />
<br />
My sister Eppa’s experiences in 1919 at Swift Packing Company were a case in point, She was one of the first Black women to join the union during the organizing drive of the Stockyards Labor Council, which was headed by two communists-—-William Z. Foster and Jack Johnstone. The drive was supported by John Fitzpatrick, chairman of the Chicago Federation of Labor and a bitter foe of the Jim Crow machine of Samuel Gompers’ AFL. Despite inevitable racial tensions fostered by the employers, Eppa had seen the basic unity of interest between all workers and felt strongly that the union was the best place to fight for the interests of Black workers.<br />
<br />
In looking back at our study of the Garvey movement, it must be evaluated in light of the fact that it was our first confrontation with nationalism as a mass movement. Our mistake, which I was to find out later through my own experience and study of nationalist movements, resulted from the failure to understand the contradictory nature of the nationalism of oppressed peoples. This contradiction or dualism was inherent in the inter-class character of these movements once they assume a popular mass form.<br />
<br />
‘They comprise various classes and social groupings with conflicting interests, tendencies and motives, all gathered under the unifying banner of national liberation, each with its own concept of that goal and how it should be attained. These conflicts, at first submerged, surface as the movement develops.<br />
<br />
‘They are expressed in two main currents (tendencies) within the movement. First of all, there is the nationalism which reflects the interests of the basic masses~-workers and peasants—-determined to fight for liberation against the oppressor of the nation. Then there is the nationalism of the Black bourgeoisie who, while at time in conflict with the white oppressors, tend toward compromise and accommodation to protect their own weak position.<br />
<br />
From the very beginning this dualism was reflected in the Garvey movement. A highly vocal and aggressively dominant current within the movement was the drive of the small business, professional and intellectual elements for a Black controlled economy. They sought fulfillment of this goal through withdrawal to Africa where they envisioned establishment of their own State, their right to exploit their own masses free from the overwhelming competition of dominant white capital. (A historical example of this can be seen in Liberia.) They thought they could accomplish this, presumably with the acquiescence of the American white rulers, and even the active support of some.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, there was a grass-roots nationalism of the masses, the uprooted, dispossessed soil-tillers of the South; their poverty-ridden counterparts in the slum ghettos of the cities. ‘These masses saw in the Black nationalist state fulfillment of their age-old yearnings for land, equality and freedom through power in their own hands to guarantee and protect these freedoms. It was this indigenous, potentially revolutionary nationalism that Garvey diverted with his Back to Africa slogan.<br />
<br />
We failed to recognize the objective conflict of interests between these class components of the movement, equating the social and political aims of the ghetto nationalists, the bourgeoisie, to that of the masses~-condemning the whole as reactionary, escapist and utopian.<br />
<br />
These were the internal contradictions upon which the movement was to flounder and finally collapse. They were brought to a head by the subsiding of the post-war economic depression, the ushering in of the “boom,” and subsequent easing of the plight of Blacks, the partial adjustment of migrants to their new environment and their partial absorption into industry.<br />
<br />
The main contradiction inherent in the Garvey movement from its very beginning had been the conflict between the needs of the masses to defend and advance their rights in the USA and the fantastic Back to Africa schemes of the Garvey leadership. Garvey’s emphasis on these fantastic schemes reflected his resolution of the conflict in favor of business interests and against the interests of the masses. The resources and energy of the organization were increasingly diverted to support racial business enterprises such as the Black Star Line and the Negro Factories Corporation. The concentration on selling stock for the Black Star Steamship Line by the UNIA leadership from 1921 on neglected the immediate needs of the masses and began to erode the base of support.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, Garvey’s response to the crisis in the movement exposed the dangerously reactionary logic of a program based upon complete separation of the races and its acceptance of the white racist doctrine of natural racial incompatibility. Pursuing the logic of this idea against the backdrop of the organization's decline inevitably drove Garvey into an alliance of expediency with the most rabid segregationists and race bigots of the period.<br />
<br />
Thus, in 1922, Garvey sought the support of Edward Young Clark, the imperial giant of the Ku Klux Klan. This “meeting of the minds” between Garvey and the Klan was not fortuitous. It was an open secret that it took place on the basis of Garvey’s agreement to soft-pedal the struggle for equality in the U.S. in return for help in the settlement of Blacks in Africa. This ideological kinship arose from the mutual acceptance of the racist dogma of natural incompatibility of races, race purity and so forth.<br />
<br />
In 1924 Garvey went so far seeking support for his Back to Africa program as to invite John Powell, organizer of the AngloSaxon Clubs, and other prominent racists to speak at UNIA headquarters. Garvey also publicly praised the KKK. According to W.E.B. DuBois, the Kian issued circulars defending Garvey and declared that the opposition to him was from the Catholic Church. In the late thirties, Senator Bilbo of Mississippi introduced a bill to deport thirteen million Blacks to Africa and received the support of the remnants of the Garvey organization.<br />
<br />
The final curtain was to drop on the Garvey episode with the failure of the Black Star Linc. The movement was torn by factionalism and splits, with some of the leadership and remaining rank and file demanding that the domestic fight for equal rights be emphasized over the Back to Africa scheme of Garvey. The internal struggle drove many out of the organization and others into a multitude of splinter groups, each a variation of Garveyism itself. Taking advantage of this disarray, the government moved in.<br />
<br />
In 1925, Garvey was framed on charges of using the mail to defraud in connection with the sale of stocks for the Black Star Line and was sent to the Atlanta federal prison for two years. He was deported to the West Indies upon release from prison. This debacle marked the end of Garveyism as an important mass movement, although the offshoots continued to exist in numbers of smaller groups advocating Garvey’s theory.<br />
<br />
At the time, I had taken Garvey’s peculiar brand as representing nationalism in general and had simply rejected the whole ideology as a foreign import with no roots in the conditions of U.S. Blacks, Seeing only the negative features of nationalism in the UNIA, I was blind to the progressive and potentially revolutionary aspects which were to prove so important in my own later development.<br />
<br />
Thus, the great movement that Garvey built passed into history. But nationalism, as a mass trend, persisted in the Black freedom struggle. Existing side by side with the assimilationist trend, it was eclipsed by the latter in so-called normal times while flaring up in times of stress and crisis.<br />
<br />
The Garvey movement was the U.S. counterpart of the vast upsurge of national and colonial liberation struggles which swept the world during the war and post-war period. In this period, masses of Blacks had come to consider themselves as an oppressed nation. Garvey’s ability to capture leadership of this nationalist upsurge by default was the result of the immaturity of the revolutionary forces, Black and white. The collapse of the Garvey movement proved conclusively that the petty bourgeois ghetto nationalist current, left to itself, led only to a hopeless blind alley. Unfortunately the forces which could give Black nationalism revolutionary content and direction were only in the process of formation.<br />
<br />
The Black working class and its spokesmen had not yet arrived on the scene as an independent force in the Black community and, therefore, was not capable of challenging either the assimilationist leadership of the NAACP or the ghetto nationalism of Garvey. Its counterparts among radical, class-conscious white labor were waging an uphill fight against the Jim Crow-minded AFL bureaucracy led by the Gompers machine. ‘These radical sections of white labor were not yet clear as to the significance of the Black freedom struggle as a revolutionary force in its own right and regarded it simply as a part of the general labor question. Coalescence of these two forces was then a decade away, destined not to take place until the crisis of the thirties.<br />
<br />
The preceding analysis is hindsight. I didn't realize the significance of Garvey’s movement until a few years later, when, as a student in Moscow, I was assigned to a commission to prepare a resolution on the Negro question in the USA for the Sixth Congress of the Communist International in 1928. It was in the course of these discussions that I came to the recognition of nationalism as an authentic and potentially revolutionary trend in the movement.<br />
<br />
The assimilationist programs of the NAACP had been easy to reject. Garvey was somewhat more difficult. But while the Garvey movement was forcing me to a consideration of nationalism (which at the time I also rejected) I could not help but notice the other political developments of the period.<br />
<br />
Most conspicuous was the concerted and vicious attack being carried out against white radicals and the trade union movement. The same forces appeared to be behind the Palmer raids of 1919 and 1920, behind the wave of racism and behind the violent union and strike busting which took place. The foreigners who were being deported, the radicals who were imprisoned and the workers throughout the country who were attacked by Pinkerton “private armies,” were white as well as Black. In Chicago, the strikes at the stockyards and the steel mills in the area particularly attracted my attention.<br />
<br />
For me, the Garvey movement, the racists’ assault and the attacks on labor and the radical movement sharpened my political perceptions. The racial fog lifted and the face and location of the enemy was clearly outlined. I began to see that the main beneficiaries of Black subjugation also profited from the social oppression of poor whites, native and foreign-born.<br />
<br />
The enemy was those who controlled and manipulated the levers of power; they were the super-rich, white moneyed interests who owned the nation’s factories and banks, and thus controlled its wealth, They were known by many names: the corporate elite; the industrial, financial (and robber) barons; ete. Chicago was the home base of a significant segment of this ruling class. <br />
<br />
Here the chain of command was clear: on the political side, it extended from city hall down to the lowliest wardheeler and precinct captain and was tied in at all levels with organized crime, On the economic side, it was represented by such employer organizations as the Chicago Chamber of Commerce, by trade associations and by top management in the giant industrial plants, railroads, big commercial establishments, banks, utilities and insurance firms, Their chain of command extended down to the foremen and department heads, and on-the-job supervisors. <br />
<br />
These levers of power also controlled education, the media, the arts and all law enforcement agencies, both military and police, At the bottom of this pyramid and hearing its weight were the working people who toiled in the steel mills, the packing plants, the railway yards, and the thousands of other sweatshops. Lowliest among these were the Blacks, pushed to the very bottom by the “divide and rule” policy of the corporate giants and their henchmen, and the complimentary Jim Crow policies and practices of the AFL trade union bureaucracy.<br />
<br />
=== PASSAGES ===<br />
Our postal discussion circle, which had held together scarcely three months, was breaking up. Heath, our chairman and recognized leader, was leaving. He had played the greatest role in keeping the group together. Now he had taken a job at some college in Virginia, his native state.<br />
<br />
Differences had already developed in the group, and with Heath gone, the possibilities for reconciling them seemed slim. These differences, as I recall, were not of a political or ideological nature. ‘They were seldom expressed in the open, but were reflected in the opposition of some members to proposals for enlarging the group and moving it into the outside political arena. This opposition evidently reflected the desire of some members to retain the group as a narrow discussion circle with membership restricted by tacit understanding to those whom they, considered their intellectual peers. It seemed to me they sought to reduce it to a sort of elitist mutual admiration society. As a result of this sectarian attitude, the group hardly grew beyond its original membership of a dozen or so.<br />
<br />
There was no doubt, though, that our association had been mutually beneficial. All of us had grown in political understanding and awareness. But up to the time of Heath’s departure, we had advanced no program for putting our newly acquired political understanding into practice. Our original plans for the organization of a forum to debate the issues of the day never got off the ground. We had not developed a program for involvement in the struggles of the community, nor, for that matter, in the immediate on-the-job problems of Black postal employees. We never even got around to deciding on a name for the group. One suggestion, that we call ourselves the “New Negro Forum,” was never acted upon.<br />
<br />
Heath, Mabley, Doe and myself were beginning to feel the pull from the outside, the need for a broader political arena of activity, to play a more active role in the community. We were the ones who most often attended radical forums and lectures and kept abreast of what was going on in the Southside community. We often went to the Bugs Club in Washington Park (Chicago’s equivalent of London's Hyde Park), and the Dill Pickle Club on the Northside which was run by the anarchist Jack Jones.<br />
<br />
Heath had gone. Mabley refused the chairmanship, pleading that he was tied down by his family and could not take on additional responsibilities. Doe refused to accept the honor; he was similarly tied down by his job and dental practice. But the real reason for their refusal, which they were to confide to me later, was that they had lost confidence in the group. Without Heath, they saw no future role for it. Like myself, they were attracted to the broader movement, I also declined, giving as my excuse that I was quitting the Post Office in a few days and was going back to my old job on the railroad. A chairman pro-tem was chosen; I don’t remember who.<br />
<br />
I continued my reading along the lines which Otto had suggested. Among the books I read were Henry Morgan’s Ancient Society (which Engels had used as the basis for Origins of the Family), Gustavus Meycr’s History of the Great American Fortunes, John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook the World and Jack London’s The Iron Heel.<br />
<br />
I also kept abreast of world events, reading about Lenin and Trotsky in revolutionary Russia. I followed the post-war colonial rebellions of Sun Yat-sen’s China, Gandhi in India, Ataturk in Turkey, the rebellion of the Riff tribes in Morocco led by Abdul Krim. There were rumblings in black Africa—strikes and demonstrations against colonial oppression. One heard such names as Kadelli and Gumede of the South African National Congress, and of Sandino in Nicaragua who fought the U.S. Marines for many years,<br />
<br />
My fect were getting itchy. I was fed up with the Post Office and the excruciatingly monotonous nature of the work. At the same time, the night shift cramped my social life as well as my growing need for broader political activity. I quit the job without regret.<br />
<br />
Soon after, I started work as a waiter on the Santa Fe’s Chief, the company’s crack train running to Los Angeles. It was an eightday run: three days to the coast, with a two-day layover in Los Angeles and three days back. Our crew would make three trips a month, and a layover one trip (eight days) in Chicago. This schedule gave me approximately twelve free days a month in Chicago---time enough for both political and social life. It was a hard job, but good money for those days and exciting after the drab routine of the Post Office.<br />
<br />
Los Angeles, “Sweet Los,” as we used to call it. The Santa Fe boys, all “big spenders,” were very popular with the girls. A bevy would show up to meet us at the station every trip.<br />
<br />
I was to remain on that run three years, which up to that time was the longest I had ever remained on one job. Upon my return from the first trip, I called Mabley and he informed me that he thought the discussion circle had dissolved. Only one or two guys showed up at the next scheduled meeting, and the pro-tem chairman himself was absent. It was dead.<br />
<br />
My political development continued nevertheless, The runs on the Santa Fe gave ample time for discussion with my fellow crew members. Most of them, though somewhat older, were as aware as those at the Post Office with whom I had worked. I also continued to read, now studying The Communist Manifesto, Engels’ Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, and Marx’s Value, Price and Profit.<br />
<br />
The first stage of my political search was near an end. In the years since I had mustered out of the Army, I had come from being a disgruntled Black ex-soldier to being a self-conscious revolutionary looking for an organization with which to make revolution.<br />
<br />
For three years I had listened in lecture halls, at rallies and in Washington Park to a spate of orators each claiming to meet the challenge of the times. They included the great “people’s lawyer” Clarence Darrow; Judge Fisher of the reform movement; the socialist leader Victor Berger and sundry other members of his party; the anarchist Ben Reichman, Ben Fletcher, the Black IWW orator and organizer, and assorted Garveyites. Although some had their points—for example, the fighting spirit and sincerity of the IWW impressed me-—I rejected them all.<br />
<br />
In the spring of 1922, I approached my brother Otto, whom I knew had joined the Workers (Communist) Party shortly after its inception in 1921. I told him that I wanted to join the Party.<br />
<br />
The fact that Otto was in the Party and had advised me from time to time on my reading had undoubtedly influenced my decision, I had a generally favorable impression of the Black communists I knew; men like Otto, the Owens brothers and Edward Doty. I was also impressed by whites like Jim Early, Sam Hammersmark, Robert Minor and his wife, Lydia Gibson. What added great weight to my favorable impression of the communists, however, was their political identity with the successful Bolshevik Revolution.<br />
<br />
At the time it happened, I had been taken totally unaware of its significance, I first heard of it during an incident that occurred in France in August 1918. My regiment, while marching into positions on the Soissons sector, had paused fora rest. On one side of the road there was a high barbed wire fence and behind it loitered groups of soldiers in strange uniforms. Upon closer observation, it became clear that they were prisoners. They spoke in a strange tongue, but we understood from their gestures that they were asking for cigarettes, A number of us immediately responded, offering them some from our packs.<br />
<br />
When we asked who they were, one of them replied in halting English that they were Russian Cossacks. He explained that their division, which had been fighting on the western front, had been withdrawn from the lines, disarmed and placed in quarantine, They were considered unreliable, he said, because of the revolution in Russia. At the time, I was not even sure of the meaning of the word revolution—some kind of civil disorder I conjectured. Giving the matter no further thought, we resumed our march. It was not until I had returned from France that I began reading about the Russian Revolution. From then on, I followed its course, and despite the distorted view in the U.S. press, its significance slowly dawned on me.<br />
<br />
Here, I felt, was a tangible accomplishment and real power. Along with other Black radicals, I was impressed-—just as a later generation came to look at China, Cuba and Vietnam as models of successful struggle against tyranny, colonialism and oppression.<br />
<br />
Thus, I was particularly attracted to the communists. True, the Party was largely white in its racial composition, with only a handful of Black members. I felt, nevertheless, that it comprised the best and most sincerely revolutionary and internationally minded elements among white radicals,and therefore formed the basis for the revolutionary unity of Blacks and whites. This was so, I believed, because it was a part of a world revolutionary movement uniting Chinese, Africans and Latin Americans with Europeans and North Americans through the Third Communist International.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks had destroyed the czarist rule, established the first workers’ state, and breached the world system of capitalism over a territory comprising more than one-sixth of the earth’s surface. Most impressive as far as Blacks were concerned was that the revolution had laid the basis for solving the national and racial questions on the basis of complete freedom for the numerous nations, colonial peoples and minorities formerly oppressed by the czarist empire. Moscow had now become the focus of the colonial revolution. In the turbulence of those days, there seerned every reason to think that the energy unleashed in Russia would carry the revolution throughout the world.<br />
<br />
In the U.S., the deluge of lies and distortions by the media, the red baiting, the Palmer raids, had not been able to hide this monumental achievement of the Russian Bolsheviks. The uninformed Black man in the street could reason that a phenomenon that evoked such fear and hatred on the part of the white supremacist rulers “couldn't be all bad.” As for me, the socialist victory confirmed my belief in the Bolshevik variety of socialism as a way out for U.S. Blacks.<br />
<br />
I found the theory behind this achievement all there in Lenin’s State and Revolution. He developed and applied the theories of Marx and Engels on the role of the state and the dictatorship of the proletariat. This work was the single most important book I had read in the entire three years of my political search and was decisive in leading me to the Communist Party. In this work, Lenin clarified the nature of the state and the means by which to overthrow it. His approach seemed practical and realistic; it was no longer just abstract theory.<br />
<br />
Using Origins of the Family as a departure point, Lenin demystified and desanctified the myth of the state in capitalist society as an impartial monitor of human affairs. Rather, he exposed the state in capitalist society--and its apparatus of military, police, courts and prisons—as an instrument of ruling class domination, a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
It thus followed that the job of forcibly replacing the state power of the dominant class with that of the proletariat was the paramount and indispensable task of socialist revolution. As far as I could seé, the Soviet example appeared to offer a completely clear solution to the problems facing American workers, both Black and white. I saw the elimination of racism and the achievement of complete equality for Blacks as an inevitable by product of a socialist revolution in the United States, It was at this point that I became fully resolved to make my own personal commitment to the fight for a socialist United States.<br />
<br />
The first part of my odyssey was over.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
=== An Organization of Revolutionaries ===<br />
Otto was pleased when I first told him of my desire to join the Party in the summer of 1922. He said that he had known that that i had been ready to join for some time, but he suggested that i should wait a while before joining. When I asked why, he told me about an unpleasant situation that had arisen in the Party’s Southside branch.<br />
<br />
Most of the few Black members were concentrated in this English-speaking branch, but it seemed that a number of recent Black recruits had dropped out. They resented the paternalistic attitude displayed toward them by some of the white comrades who, Otto said, treated Blacks like children and seemed to think that the whites had all the answers, It was only a temporary situation, he assured me. The matter had been taken up before the Party District Committee; if it was not resolved there, they would take it to the Central Committee.<br />
<br />
“And if you don’t get satisfaction there?” I queried.<br />
<br />
“Well, then there’s the Communist International!” he teplied emphatically. “It’s as much our Party as it is theirs.”<br />
<br />
I was properly impressed by his sincerity and by the idea that we could appeal our case to the “supreme court” of international communism, which included such luminaries as the great Lenin.<br />
<br />
‘The Blacks who had remained in the Party had decided not to bring any new members into the branch until the matter was satisfactorily settled. I was rather surprised to hear all of this.<br />
<br />
Clearly, membership in the Party did not automatically free whites from white supremacist ideas. Nor, for that matter, did it free Blacks from their distrust of whites. Throughout my lifetime, I found that interracial solidarity--even in the Communist Party— required a continuous ideological struggle.<br />
<br />
Otto suggested that until the matter was cleared up I should join the African Blood Brotherhood. The ABB was a secret, all-Black, revolutionary organization to which some of the Black Party members belonged---including Otto. I later learned that the matter of white paternalism was eventually resolved to the satisfaction of the Black comrades. I don’t recall the details; I think that Arne Swabeck (the district organizer) or Robert Minor from the Central Committee finally came down and lectured the branch on the evils of race prejudice and threatened disciplinary action to the point of expulsion of comrades guilty of bringing bourgeois social attitudes into the Party.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, I took Otto’s advice and joined the African Blood Brotherhood. He took me to see Edward Doty, then commander of the Brotherhood’s Chicago Post. Vouched for by Otto and Doty, I was taken to a meeting of the membership committee and went through the induction ceremonies. This consisted of an African fraternization ritual requiring the mixing of blood between the applicant and one of the regular members. The organization took its name from this ritual. Doty performed the ceremony; he pricked our index fingers with a needlc (I hoped it was sterilized!) and when drops of blood appeared, he rubbed them together.<br />
<br />
Now a Blood Brother, I proceeded to take the Oath of Loyalty which contained a clause warning that divulging of any of the secrets of the organization was punishable by death. I was deeply impressed by all this; the atmosphere of great secrecy appealed to my romantic sense. There were two degrees of membership; one was automatically conferred upon joining and the second, which I took a few days later, involved the performance of some service for the organization. In my case, as I recall, it was a trivial task—-the selling of a dozen or so copies of its magazine, The Crusader.<br />
<br />
At the time that I joined the African Blood Brotherhood, I knew little about the organization other than the fact that it wasin some way associated with the Communist Party. I do remember having read a copy or two of The Crusader before I joined the group.<br />
<br />
Some of the history of the ABB I got from Otto and other post members, but most of it I found out much later when I met and worked with Cyril P. Briggs, the original founder of the group. The African Blood Brotherhood was founded in New York City in 1919 by a group of Black radicals under the leadership of Briggs. A West Indian (as were most of the founders), he was a former editor of the Amsterdam News, a Black New York newspaper. He quit in disagrcement over policy with the owner, who attempted to censor his anti-war editorials. Briggs’s own magazine. The Crusader, was established in 1919. The Brotherhood was organized around the magazine with Briggs as its executive head presiding over a supreme council.<br />
<br />
The group was originally conceived as the African Blood Brotherhood “for African liberation and redemption” and was later broadened to “for immediate protection and ultimate liberation of Negroes everywhere.” As it was a secret organization, it never sought broad membership. National headquarters were in New York. Its size never exceeded 3,000. But its influence was many times greater than this; the Crusader at one time claimed a circulation of 33,000.' There was also The Crusader News Service which was distributed to two hundred Black newspapers.<br />
<br />
Briggs, his associates--Richard B. Moore, Grace Campbell and others—-and The Crusader were among the vanguard forces for the New Negro movement, an ideological current which reflected the new mood of militancy and social awareness of young Blacks of the post-war period. In New York, the New Negro movement also included the radical magazine, The Messenger, edited by Chandler Owen and A. Philip Randolph, and The Emancipator, edited by W.A. Domingo. Many of the groups were members of the Socialist Party or close to it politically. They espoused “economic radicalism,” an over-simplificd interpretation of Marxism which, nevertheless, enabled them to see the economic and social roots of racial subjugation. Historically, theirs was the first serious attempt by Blacks to adopt the Marxist world view and the theory of class struggle to the problems of Black Americans.<br />
<br />
Within this broad grouping, however, there were differences which emerged later. Briggs was definitely a revolutionary nationalist; that is, he saw the solution of the “race problem” in the establishment of independent Black nation-states in Africa, the Caribbean and the United States, In America, he felt this could be achieved only through revolutionizing the whole country. This meant he saw revolutionary white workers as allies. These were elements of a program which he perceived as an alternative to Garvey’s plan of mass exodus.<br />
<br />
A self-governing Black state on U.S. soil was a novel idea for which Briggs sent up trial balloons in the form of editorials in the Amsterdam News in 1917, of which he was then editor. Shortly after the entrance of the United States into World War I, he wrote an editorial entitled “Security of Life for Poles and Serbs—Why Not for Colored Americans?”<br />
<br />
Briggs, however, had no definite idea for the location of the future “colored autonomous state,” suggesting at various times Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California or Nevada: Later, after President Wilson had put forth his fourteen points in January 1918, Briggs equated the plight of Blacks in the United States to nations occupied by Germany and demanded:<br />
<br />
'''With what moral authority or justice can President Wilson demand that eight million Belgians be freed when for his entire first term and to the present moment of his second term he has not lifted a finger for justice and liberty for over TEN MILLION colored people, a nation within a nation, a nationality oppressed and jim-crowed, yet worthy as any other people of a square deal or failing that, a separate political existence?'''<br />
<br />
He continued this theme in The Crusader. One year after the founding of the Brotherhood, Briggs shifted from the idea of a Black state on U.S. soil to the advocacy of a Black state in Africa, South America or the Caribbean, where those Blacks who wanted to could migrate. In this, he was undoubtedly on the defensive, giving ground to the overwhelming Garvey deluge then sweeping the national Black community. In 1921, Briggs was to link the struggle for equal rights of U.S. Blacks with the establishment of a Black state in Africa and elsewhere:<br />
<br />
Just as the Negro in the United States can never hope to win equal rights with his white neighbors until Africa is liberated and a strong Negro state (or states) erected on that continent, so, too, we can never liberate Africa unless, and until, the American Section of the Negro Race is made strong enough to play the part for a free Africa that the Irish in America now play for a free Ireland.<br />
<br />
The Brotherhood rejected Garvey’s racial separatism. They knew that Blacks needed allies and tied the struggle for equal rights to that of the progressive section of white labor. In the 1918-1919 elections, the Brotherhood supported the Socialist Party candidates, The Crusader and the ABB were ardent supporters of the Russian Revolution; they saw it as an opportunity for Blacks to identify with a powerful international revolutionary movement. It enabled them to overcome the isolation inherent in their position as a minority people in the midst of a powerful and hostile white oppressor nation. Thus, The Crusader called for an alliance with the Bolsheviks against race prejudice. In 1921, the magazine made its clearest formulation, linking the struggles of Blacks and other oppressed nations with socialism:<blockquote>'''The surest and quickest way, then, in our opinion, to achieve the salvation of the Negro is to combine the two most likely and feasihle propositions, viz.: salvation for all Negroes through the establishment of a strong, stable, independent Negro State (along the lines of our own race genius) in Africa and elsewhere: and salvation for all Negroes (as well as other oppressed people) through the establishment of a Universal Socialist Co-operative commonwealth.'''</blockquote>The split in the world socialist movement as a result of the First World War led to the formation of the Third (Communist) International in 1919. This split was reflected in the New Negro movement as well. Randolph and Owens, the whole Messenger crowd, remained with the social democrats of the Second International who were in opposition to the Bolshevik revolution. Members of The Crusader group--Briggs, Moore and others gravitated toward the Third International and eventually joined its American affiliate, the Communist Party. They were followed in the next year or two by Otto Hall, Lovett Fort-Whiteman and others.<br />
<br />
The decline of the African Blood Brotherhood in the early twenties and its eventual demise coincided with the growing participation of its leadership in the activities of the Communist Party. By 1923-24, the Brotherhood had ceased to exist as an autonomous, organized cxpression of the national revolutionary trend. Its leading members became communists or close sympathizers and its posts served as one of the Party’s recruiting grounds for Blacks.<br />
<br />
I first met Briggs upon my return from Russia in 1930. We were to strike up a lasting friendship--one that went beyond the comradeship of the Party and which extended over more than three decades, until his death in 1967. Throughout those years, we were associated on numerous projects and found ourselves on the same side of many political issues.<br />
<br />
When I first met Briggs, he conformed to the impression that I had been given of him: a tall, impressive-looking man—so light in complexion that he was often mistaken for white. He had a large head and bushy black eyebrows. He was a man possessed of great physical and moral courage, which I was to observe on many occasions. Briggs also had a fiery temper, which was usually controlled in the case of comrades or friends.<br />
<br />
He had one outstanding physical defect--he was a heavy stutterer. He stuttered so much that it often took him several scconds to get out the first word of a sentence, When he took the floor at meetings we would all listen attentively; no one would interrupt him because we knew he always had something important and pertinent to say. While he spoke we would cast our eyes down and look away from him to avoid making him feel self-conscious, though he never seemed to be.<br />
<br />
We noticed that he stuttered less when he was angry, One such occasion was when Garvey rejected Briggs’s offer of cooperation. The wily Garvey saw through the maneuver for what it was-—an attempt by Briggs to gain a position from which he could better attack him. Garvey lashed out at Briggs, calling him a “white man trying to pass himself off as a Negro.”<br />
<br />
Friends told me that this attack sent Briggs into such a rage that he mounted a soapbox at Harlem's 135th Strect and Lenox Avenue and assailed Garvey for two hours without a stutter, branding him a charlatan and a fraud. Not content with this verbal lashing of his enemy, Briggs hauled Garvey into court on the charge of defamation of character. He won the case, forcing Garvey to make a public apology and pay a fine of one dollar.<br />
<br />
Briggs’s real forte, however, was as a kecn polemicist, a veritable master of invective. His speech handicap was a pity, because aside from the stutter he had all the qualities of a good orator. Closely associated with Briggs was Richard B. Moore, a fine orator who did much public speaking for the ABB.<br />
<br />
What were the reasons for the decline of the ABB and its eventual absorption by the Communist Party? Why did Briggs fail to develop the program for Black self-determination in the USA? In the fifties, I had a series of talks with Briggs and asked his opinion on these questions.<br />
<br />
His overall appraisal of the role of the Brotherhood was that it was a forerunner of the contemporary national revolutionary trend and a very positive thing. “Of course, we didn’t stop Garvey,” he said, but “we were beginning to develop a revolutionary alternative. We did put a crimp in his sails,” Briggs added.<br />
<br />
For a while, the ABB had been a rallying center for left opposition to Garvey. Its membership included class-conscious Black workers and revolutionary intcllectuals and drew membership from both disillusioned Garveyites and radicals who never took to Garvey’s program in the first place. The main reason for de-emphasizing the idea of Black nationhood in the United States, Briggs stated, was the unfavorable relationship of forces then existing.<br />
<br />
Garvey, with his Back to Africa program, had preempted the leadership of the mass movement and corralled most of the militants. His hold over the masses was strengthened by the anti-Black violence of the Red Summer of 1919. This gave further credence to Garvey’s contention that the U.S. was a white man’s country where Blacks could never achieve equality. Indeed, for these masses, his program for a Black state in Africa to which American Blacks could migrate seemed far less utopian than the idea of a Black state on U.S. soil.<br />
<br />
As for the South, Briggs did not feel that such a region of entrenched racism could be projected realistically as a territorial focus of a Black nationalist state. It would not have been so accepted by the masses who were in flight from the area. For himself, he reasoned, the very idea of self-determination in the United States presupposed the support of white revolutionaries. That meant a revolutionary crisis in the country as a whole, and in that day no such prospect was in sight. In fact, white revolutionary forces were then small and weak, the target of the vicious anti-red drives of the government and employers.<br />
<br />
In other words, he felt that Black self-determination in the United States was an idea whose time had not yet come. The communists didn’t have all the answers, and neither did we, Briggs indicated. Whites, as well as a number of Black radicals, undoubtedly underestimated the national element; socialism alone was seen as the solution. Briggs was impressed, however, by the sincerity and revolutionary ardor of the communists and by the fact that they were a detachment of Lenin’s Third Communist International. He felt that the future of the revolution in the United States and of Black liberation lay in multinational communist leadership.<br />
<br />
Though the ABB ceased to exist as an organized, independent expression of the national revolutionary current, the tendency itself remained, awaiting the further maturing of its main driving force, the Black proletariat. By the end of the decade, the national revolutionary sentiment was to find expression in the program of the Communist Party.<br />
<br />
By the time I joined the Brotherhood’s Chicago post in the summer of 1922, The Crusader had dropped much of its original national revolutionary orientation. Although I was then unaware of it, Briggs and the supreme council were presiding over the absorption of the organization into the Communist Party.<br />
<br />
In Chicago, the decline of the organization was slower than elsewhere, Perhaps this was because it had a strong base among Black building-tradesmen, plumbers, electricians and bricklayers. Edward Doty, a plumber by trade, was simultaneously the ABB post commander and a leader and founder of the American Consolidated Trades Council (ACTC). The council was a federation of independent Black unions and groups in the building trades industry who had formed their own unions forthe double purpose of protecting Black workers on the job and counteracting the discriminatory policies of the white AFL craft unions dominant in the field.<br />
<br />
Doty, a tall, muscular man, was born in Mobile, Alabama, and had come north in 1912 at the age of seventeen, According to him, most of the Black steamfitters and plumbers had learned their trades in the stockyards during the industrial boom and labor shortage that accompanied World War I. Some, however, had gotten their training at Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. Active in the Brotherhood along with Doty were such outstanding leaders of the Black workers’ struggle as Herman Dorsey (an electrician) and Alexander Dunlap (a plumber).<br />
<br />
Besides the tradesmen, other members of the ABB post included a number of older radicals such as Alonzo Isabel, Norval Allen, Gordon Owens, H.V. Phillips, Otto Hall and several others. Together with Doty, they made up the communist core of the Brotherhood. <br />
<br />
My experiences in the ABB marked my first association with Black communists. I had met some of them before, at forums and lectures; I had heard Owens speak at the Bugs Club and Dill Pickle forums, but I had never worked together with any of them before.” ‘They were mostly workers from the stockyards and other industries. One or two, like myself, were from the service trades. Like Otto, several of them had previously been in the Garvey movement. There was no doubt that they represented a politically advanced section of the Black working class. They were the types who today would be called “political activists,” the people who kept abreast of the issues in the Southside community and participated in local struggles.<br />
<br />
I was interested to learn their backgrounds and how they had come to the revolutionary movement. I found that some of them had been among Chicago's first Marxist-oriented Black radicals and had been associated with the Free Thought Society. This society was formed immediately after the war and held regular forums. I believe its leader and founder was a young man named Tibbs. He was one of the earliest of Chicago’s Black radicals. A victim of police harassment and persecution, Tibbs was arrested during the Palmer raids in 1919 and spent several years in jailona fake charge of stealing automobile tires. This continual perseeution reduced his political effectiveness, which was as the authorities intended.<br />
<br />
In 1920, members of the Free Thought Society took an active part in the campaign of the Independent Non-Partisan League, sponsored by The Whip and its editors. This coalition ran a full slate of candidates in the Republican primary of that year, in which they challenged the old guard Republicans of the second ward Republican organization as well as the so-called New People’s Movement of Oscar DePriest.’<br />
<br />
The election platform called for abolition of all discrimination, for public ownership of utilities, civil service reform, women’s suffrage, children’s welfare service and “organization of labor into one union.” While they were not successful in turning back the Republican old guard, the campaign resulted in appreciable gains for some of the league’s candidates,<br />
<br />
At that time, the main efforts of the ABB were directed at mobilizing community support for the Black ACTC tradesmen. While retaining a secret character, its members participated as individuals in campaigns on local issues. They collaborated with the Trade Union Education League (TUEL) of which Doty was a member, in its drive to organize the stockyards. The TUEL supported the demands of the ACTC. At that time, it was led by William Z. Foster and Jack Johnstone. Later to become the Trade Union Unity League, it was a gathering of the revolutionary and progressive forces within trade unions to fight against the reactionary labor bureaucracy and their collaborationist policies and Jim Crowism.<br />
<br />
Other members of the Brotherhood participated in the cainpaign against high rents that was waged in the Southside community. This was a fight in which a white Party member, Bob Minor, and his wife, Lydia Gibson, played leading roles.<br />
<br />
I found my experience in the Brotherhood both stimulating and rewarding. In addition to learning a lot from the communists with whom I was associated, it was here I forged my first active association with Black industrial workers. I found them literate, articulate and class conscious, a proud and defiant group which had been radicalized by. the struggles against discriminatory practices of the unions and employers. They understood the meaning of solidarity and the need for militant organization to obtain their objectives. In this, they were quite different from the people with whom I had been associated at the post office, as well as writers whom I so commonly found to be stamped with a hustler mentality. Doty and his followers in the Trades Council were pioneers in the struggle for the rights of Black workers, a struggle which has continued over half a century and remains unfinished to this day.<br />
<br />
‘The older tradesmen finally fought their way into the unions, the electricians in 1938 and the plumbers in 1947. In the early fifties, Doty became the first Black officer in the plumbers’ union. But these gains were only token! The bars are still up against Blacks and other minority workers seeking jobs in the ninety billion dollar-a-year industry.<br />
<br />
=== THE YOUNG COMMUNIST LEAGUE ===<br />
My sojourn in the African Blood Brotherhood was brief about six months. I felt the need to move on. My original goal was the Communist Party. While I was in the ABB, the problem of white chauvinism in the Southside branch had been cleared up. Joining the Party was no longer a problem, after all, the Brotherhood had been but a stopover.<br />
<br />
I was about to apply for admission when H.V. Phillips asked me to join the Young Workers (Communist) League, the youth division of the Communist Party. Phillips, I learned, was a member of the district and national committees of the League. When I told him I was just about to join the Party, he said: “That’s all right, but youre a young fellow and should be among the youth. Besides, more of us Blacks are needed in the League.”<br />
<br />
I thought the matter over. “Why not? It’s all the same, they’re all communists.”<br />
<br />
The next day Phillips took me to meet John Harvey, a white youth who was district organizer of the League. Harvey told me that I had been highly recommended to them by Phillips and others. He expressed delight at my decision to join and said that it fit right in with their plans since they were anxious to move forward with work among Black youth, but were handicapped by the faet that they had only a few Black members.<br />
<br />
I expressed doubt that I could be considered a youth at the age of twenty-five.<br />
<br />
They replied that there were a number of members my age and older in the organization. All that was needed, they assured me, was for one to have the “youth angle.”<br />
<br />
“What is that?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“Oh, that simply means the ability to understand youth and their problems and to be able to communicate with them.”<br />
<br />
I was not sure I had all of these qualities, but the proposition appealed to me, So I joined the YCL in the winter of 1923. The League at that time was a close-knit fraternity of idealistic and dedicated young people determined to build a new world for future generations. When we sang the Youth International at meetings, we actually felt ourselves to be as the song proclaimed, “the youthful guardsmen of the proletariat.”<br />
<br />
The organization was small, with only several hundred members. As I recall, Phillips and myself were the only Blacks. I was still working on the Santa Fe and on layovers I spent most of the time getting acquainted with my new comrades, attending classes, meetings and social gatherings. I was impressed by what seemed to me to be a high level of political development and by their use of Marxist terminology. It made me keenly aware of my own sketchy knowledge of Marxism and the revolutionary movement and spurred me to close the gap. A partial explanation for their political sophistication, I felt, was the fact that a large number of them, perhaps a majority, were “red diaper” babies—their parents being old revolutionaries, either members of the Party or its supporters. On the whole, they were a spirited, intelligent group, and as far as I could discern exhibited not a trace of race prejudice. Many went on to become leaders of the Party.<br />
<br />
There was our district organizer, John Harvey, a lanky youth and one of the few WASPs; Max Shachtman, a brilliant young orator and editor of the League’s theoretical organ, the Young Worker, who was later to become first a Trotskyist and then a rabid, professional anti-communist. There was Valeria Meltz, an able young leader, and her brother; their ethnie background was Russian-American, as was that of Jim Sklar (Keller). His brothers Gus and Boris were old stalwarts in the Russian Federation and were well known. There was also Nat Kaplan (Ganley) and Gil Green. Gil was about sixteen at the time; we used to call him “the kid.” He went on to become national chairman of the YCL and later a national leader in the Party. I met a number of the League's national leaders: Johnny Williamson, a Scottish-American and national secretary, Herbert Zam, Sam Darcy, Marty Abern, Phil Herbert and others, many of whom were to become national leaders of the Party.<br />
<br />
There was no searcity of places for meetings or for social affairs. We were on friendly terms with Jane Addams and her people at Hull House, where we sometimes met. Other times we used the halls of various language groups. We participated in and supported the activities of the Anti-Imperialist League, headed by Manny Gomez, the Party’s Latin American specialist. The main eampaign at the time: was against the invasion of Nicaragua by the U.S. Marines.<br />
<br />
I was particularly impressed by Bob Mazut, a young Russian representative of the Young Communist International (YCI) to the League, A small, dark-complected and soft-spoken young man, Mazut hailed from Soviet Georgia, His mild manner belied his impressive background, Only twenty-five when I met him, he had fought in the Revolution and Civil War, first as a Red Partisan and then in the Red Army, in which he advanced to the rank of colonel. He spoke what we called “political English,” and we were always amused by some of his expressions. For example, | remember how we used to kid Mazut about his being sweet on a certain girl comrade, “She likes you very much,” someone would say, “but she’s a little overawed by you.”<br />
<br />
He replied very seriously, “How can I liquidate her suspicions of me?”<br />
<br />
He took particular interest in me. I believe Phillips and I were the first Blacks he had ever really known and for us he was the first real Soviet communist we had met. I asked questions about Russia and told him I wanted to go there and see it for myself. “You undoubtedly will,” he said in a matter-of-fact tone, as if the matter were settled,<br />
<br />
On one occasion he told me of a discussion he had had on the eve of his departure from Russia, Zinoviey, then president of the Communist International, had asked him to look closely into the Afro-American question in the United States, and to see if he could find any confirmation for his belief and that of other Russian leaders that the right of self-determination was the appropriate slogan for Black rebellion. Zinoviev added that he had long believed that the question would become the “Achilles heel of American imperialism,” I told Mazut that I liked the part about the “Achilles heel,” but I didn’t feel that the slogan of self-determination was applicable for U.S. Blacks, It was my understanding that the principle had to do with nations, and Blacks were not a national but a racial minority. To me, it smacked of Garvey’s separatism,<br />
<br />
Mazut nevertheless raised the question of self-determination for discussion in a meeting of the Chicago District Committe of the YCL. Desirous of getting the committee’s reaction to the question, he was literally shouted down by the white comrades, “Blacks are Americans,” they said. “They want equality, not separation.” Phillips and I, the only Black members of the committee, were non-committal, And that was the end of that, They did not pursue the matter further.<br />
<br />
In order to move forward in work with Black youth, we struck upon the idea of organizing an interracial youth forum on the Southside. The organizing committee consisted of Chi (Dum Ping), a Chinese student at the University of Chicago; a young woman official of the colored YMCA; Phillips, a white League member; and myself, During this period, J was still working on the Santa Fe, but on my layovers | devoted all my time to the forum. We had rented a small hall, decorated it and got out our publicity—leaflets, posters and an‘ad in the Chicago Defender, Our first speaker was to be John Harden, a Black radical orator, It was our first effort at mass work among young Blacks and with our youthful enthusiasm, we were certain of success. But the venture proved to be abortive.<br />
<br />
I can still remember our shock when we came to our mecting place to find it wrecked. Furniture was smashed, posters ripped from the walls. There was no doubt in our minds that this was the work of the police who had unleashed their stool pigeons against us. Some of our non-communist friends dropped out, and the project collapsed. The idea of a forum was abandoned---temporarily, we hoped. A less ambitious plan was then agrced to.<br />
<br />
If we could enlarge our cadres by a few more Blacks, we thought, we would have a better base from which to approach mass work. It was therefore suggested that Phillips and I approach some of our acquaintances and try to recruit them directly into the League. I eliminated my waiter friends, all of whom were too old, and approached one of my former colleagues, a postal worker, who had been in our study circle and whom I considered a likely prospect. I remember that he sat very quictly while I delivered a long lecture on the League’s program and activities and the need to get support among Black youth.<br />
<br />
Finally interrupting me, he blurted out, “I’m sorry, Hall, but I find being Black trouble enough, but to be Black and red at the same time, well that’s just double trouble, and when you mix in the whites, why that’s triple trouble.”<br />
<br />
At first I was rather shocked by his off-hand rebuff, considering it to be an expression of cynical opportunism. I felt that he had backslid, even from his position at the post office, but he continued in a more serious tone. Apparently he felt a deep distrust for whites and their motives. He regarded the YCL as just another organization of white “do-gooders” and saw me as their captive Negro. When I interrupted to say something about socialism, he cut me short. He said that he too was for socialism as a final solution, but that was a long way off and he would not put it beyond the whites in the United States to distort socialism in a manner in which they could remain top dogs. In any case, he believed Blacks would have to be on guard. In the meantime, he believed Blacks should retain their own organizations under their own leadership. Alliances, yes—but we ourselves must decide the terms and conditions, he said.<br />
<br />
Our exchange had gotten off on the wrong foot. I was deeply chagrined by his charge that I was a captive of the whites and that the League was a white organization. For me, that meant that he felt that I was a “white folks’ nigger.” As I recall, I retorted by calling him a Black racialist who saw everything in terms of Black and white.<br />
<br />
“Why not?” he replied. “Being a Negro, how else should I see things?”<br />
<br />
After this flare-up, our tempers cooled off and we continued our discussion in calmer tones. But I was definitely on the defensive, trying to explain why I was in the League and that it was not an organization of white “do-gooders” as he had charged. It was a revolutionary, interracial vanguard organization, I asserted. Sure, we only had a few Blacks now, but our numbers would grow, I argued.<br />
<br />
He was still skeptical and repeated that he was for socialism, but a special road toward this goal he felt was necessary for Black Americans, under their own leadership and organization.<br />
<br />
“Do you mean a Black party?” I queried.<br />
<br />
“Why not?” he rejoined. “It might be necessary as a safeguard for our interests.”<br />
<br />
I had no answers to his position. There was a logic to it which I hadn't thought about.<br />
<br />
We finally parted on friendly terms, promising to keep in touch. I left, realizing that I’d come out the worst in our exchange. I felt that I had failed in my first effort to recruit a good Black man to the League and that we still had some study to do with regards to Black nationalism.<br />
<br />
My friend had been, as I recalled, a bitter critic of Garvey, and therefore assumed that he was hostile to Black nationalism. But now it seemed that he expressed some of Garvey’s racial separatism. Thinking the matter over, I finally camc to the conclusion that the main reason for my inability to counter his arguments was that I sensed that they contained a good measure of truth. What was most disturbing was the sense that his position was less isolated from the masses of Blacks than was my own.<br />
<br />
Up to that point, I had failed to understand the contradictory nature of Black nationalism. I had rejected it totally as a reactionary bourgeois philosophy which, in the conditions of the U.S., had found its logical expression in Garvey’s Back to Africa program. It was therefore a diversion from the struggle for economic, social and political equality-—-the true goal of Blacks in the United States. The fight for equality, I felt, was revolutionary in that it was unattainable within the framework of U.S. capitalist society. Nationalism, moreover, was divisive and played into the hands of the reactionary racists. This, of course, did not exclude the acceptance of some of its features, such as race pride and selfreliance, which were not inconsistent with, but an essential element in, the fight for equality.<br />
<br />
While rejecting nationalism, I also rejected the bourgeois assimilationist position of the NAACP and its associates, and their blind acceptance of white middle class values and culture. What confused me were attempts to amalgamate what I felt were two mutually contradictory elements-—--socialism and the class struggle on the one hand, and nationalism on the other. Or was the contradiction more apparent than real, I wondered. My friend’s nationalism did not go to the point of advocacy of a separate Black nation, He demanded only autonomy in leadership and organization of the Black freedom movement. Was this inconsistent with the concept of equality and class unity? Had not Blacks the right to formulate their conditions for unity? For me, this was the first time I had encountered these questions.<br />
<br />
I attempted to reflect on my short experience in the YCL. Was there not a basis for Black distrust of even white revolutionaries? ‘The situation in the League was not as idyllic as I had first thought. There was a certain underestimation of the importance of the Black struggle against discrimination and for equal rights among both the youth and the adults of the communist movement. Behind that, I sensed there was a feeling that the Black struggle was not itself really revolutionary, but was sort of a drag on the “pure” class struggle.<br />
<br />
This was no doubt a legacy of the old Socialist Party, Evensuch a revolutionary as Debs had said: <blockquote>'''“We have nothing special to offer the Negro, and we cannot make separate appeals to all the races, The Socialist Party is the party of the working-class, regardless of color.” And regarding the Afro-American question: “Social equality, forsooth ... is pure fraud and serves to mask the real issue, which is not social equality, but economic freedom.” “The Socialist platform has not a word in reference to ‘social equality.’ ”'''</blockquote>Evidently, there were a number of theoretical matters still to be cleared up on the question of the struggle for Black equality and freedom.<br />
<br />
I joined the Party itself in the spring of 1925, recruited by Robert Minor, with the consent of the League. I had quit the Santa Fe the summer before, and, totally committed to the communist cause, I then decided to devote more time to the work and to eventually becoming a professional revolutionary. I took extra jobs on weekends and worked banquets and an occasional extra trip on the road. I was living at home with my Mother, Father and sister, who had an infant child, David. All were employed, with my Mother accepting occasional catering jobs.<br />
<br />
Minor, whom I had known for some time, was a reconstructed white Southerner from Texas, a direct descendant of Sam Houston (first Governor of the Lone Star State), He was a former anarchist and one of the great political cartoonists of his day. His powerful cartoons were carried in the Sz. Louis Post-Dispatch, and later on in the old Masses (a cultural magazine of the left) and in the Daily Worker. Among his many talents, he was a journalist of no small ability. Having travelled widely in Europe as a news correspondent during the First World War, Minor had visited Russia during the revolutionary period and had met and spoken with Lenin.<br />
<br />
With these impressive credentials, he was now a member of the Party’s Central Committee and responsible for its Negro work. This was understood as an interim assignment, eventually to be taken over by a Black comrade as soon as one could be developed to fill the position. The person then being groomed for the job was Lovett Fort-Whiteman, who was then in Russia taking a crash course in communist leadership. He had been an associate of Briggs on The Crusader and also worked with Randolph and Owens on The Messenger. Later, as I recall, his selection was the cause for some disgruntlement among the Black comrades.<br />
<br />
Why was Fort-Whiteman chosen in preference to such wellknown and capable Blacks as Richard B. Moore, Otto Huiswood or Cyril P. Briggs, all of whom had revolutionary records superior to Fort-Whiteman’s? At that time, there were no Blacks on the Central Committee, and even when Fort-Whiteman returned from Russia in 1925 to take charge of Afro-American work, Minor remained responsible to the Central Committee. While not as flamboyant as Fort-Whiteman, these Black leaders had records comparable to, or better than, those of many whites on the Central Committee.<br />
<br />
Be that as it may, of all the white comrades, Minor was best fitted for the assignment because of his wide knowledge of and close interest in the question. His intense hatred of his Southern racist background came through in some of the most powerful cartoons of the day. He had wide acquaintances among Black middle class intellectuals. Bob and his wife Lydia had turned their Southside apartment into a virtual salon where Black and white friends would gather to discuss the issues of the day. There I met various Black notables, including Dean Pickens, national field secretary of the NAACP, and Abraham Harris, then secretary of the Minneapolis Urban League. Harris would later become Chairman of the Economies Department of Howard University, and then a full professor of the same subject at the University of Chicago.<br />
<br />
=== THE FOURTH CONVENTION OF THE CPUSA ===<br />
It was the period immediately before the Fourth National Convention of the Communist Party. The factional fight was at its height, with the Party split between two warring camps: the Ruthenberg-Pepper group vs. the Foster-Bittelman group. The atmosphere was rife with charges and counter-charges of “right opportunism” and “left sectarianism.” This factionalism had spilled over into the League, which reflected the alignments then current within the Party.<br />
<br />
I had stood aloof from these factions, as I did not clearly understand the issues. The question of Blacks did not seem to be directly involved. I assumed it was a clash mainly between personalities and narrow group interests, and did not reflect political principles. Each side accused the other of responsibility for the “Farmer-Labor fiasco” which left the Party isolated in its first major attempt to form a united front. I could sce no differences among the factions on the question of bolshevization of the Party.<br />
<br />
The Comintern had recently called upon the Party to bolshevize its ranks. Among other things, this called for the reorganization of the Party on the basis of shop and street units, and the elimination of the foreign language clubs as federated organizations within the Party. These clubs remained close to the Party, however, and followed its leadership.<br />
<br />
I was inclined to favor the Ruthenberg-Pepper group because most of the Party’s Black members--Doty, Elizabeth Griffin, Alonzo Isabel, Otto and my sister Eppa—were in that group. This, I suspected, was partly due to the influence of Bob Minor and Lydia Gibson—their work on the Southside in the tenants’ struggle of 1924, their support of Doty’s Consolidated Trades Council, and their consistent advocacy in the Party of the importance of work among Blacks. (Most of this occurred after I had Ieft the ABB and joined the YCL.)<br />
<br />
Upon joining the Party, I immediately became part of the Ruthenberg group. Under Minor’s tutelage, I was to undergo intensive indoctrination. According to the Ruthenberg faction, Foster, Bittelman, Jack Johnstone and their allies(Cannon, Dunne and Shachtman) were opportunist, narrow-minded trade unionists lacking in Marxist theory and hence in the ability to lead a Marxist party. They said that Foster’s group, which possessed a majority of the delegates, was out to steamroll the convention and toss Ruthenberg, Pepper and Lovestone out of the leadership.<br />
<br />
For most of us, the clincher was that the Foster group lacked the confidence of the Communist International. This latter charge, it seemed to me, was confirmed by the decisions of the Fourth Party Convention the following summer, I was a delegate to this convention from the YCL. I was to witness the intervention of the Cl in the person of its on-the-spot representative, Comrade Green (Gusev), an old Bolshevik friend and co-worker of Lenin and Stalin. For obvious security reasons, only the leaders of both factions had direct contact with him. His job was to suppress factionalism and to unite the Party on the basis of the Comintern line. I must say that he tackled this task with an expertise that was remarkable to behold.<br />
<br />
First, he set up what was called a Parity Committee, composed of an equal number of top leaders of both factions, with himself as a neutral chairman. Since the two factions were evenly represented on the committee, his was the deciding vote. I remember that there was widespread speculation among the delegates as to which faction he would support. We didn’t have long to wait.<br />
<br />
The convention had been in session about a week. The atmosphere was charged, passions inflamed, a split seemed imminent. Indeed, our caucus leaders had difficulty in preventing a walkout by some of the more hot-headed members. A message finally arrived in the form of a cable from the CI (which undoubtedly was sent at Gusev’s urging). The cable was presented to the Parity Committee by Gusev. It demanded that “under no circumstances” should the Foster majority “be allowed to suppress the Ruthenberg group... because,” it went on to say, “the Ruthenberg group is more loyal to the decisions of the Communist International and stands closer to its views. It has the majority or strong minority in most districts and the Foster group uses excessively mechanical and ultra-factional methods,” It further demanded that the Ruthenberg group “get not less than forty percent of the Central Executive Committee” and insisted as “an ultimatum” to the majority “that Ruthenberg retains post of Secretary...categorically insist upon Lovestone’s Central Executive Committee membership...demand retention by Ruthenberg group of co-editorship on central organ,”<br />
<br />
The results were greeted with great jubilation by our group. Foster refused to accept the majority of the incoming Central Committee under these circumstances (in which his loyalty was questioned) and ceded leadership to the Ruthenberg group. The result was that the Ruthenberg-Pepper group retained key positions on the new Central Committee--Ruthenberg as general secretary, Lovestone as organizational secretary, Bedacht as agitprop head.<br />
<br />
Despite factionalism, the convention marked a step forward in the work among Blacks, Although its decisions threw no new light on the question, the platform adopted did contain the most elaborate statement the Party had thus far made.<br />
<br />
It subscribed to full equality in the relationship between Black and white workers, It advocated the right to vote, abolition of Jim Crowism in law and custom, including segregation and intermarriage laws. The main thrust of the program, however, was directed towards building Black and white labor unity on the job and in the union, Toward this end the platform asserted that:<blockquote>'''Our Party must work among the unorganized Negro workers destroying whatever prejudice may exist against trade unions, which has been cultivated by white capitalists..(and) the Negro petty-bourgeoisie... Our Party must make itself the foremost spokesman for the real abolition of all discrimination of the as yet largely unorganized Negro workers in the same union with the white workers on the same basis of equality of membership, equality of right to employment in all branches of work and equality of pay.'''</blockquote>The Party called for the inclusion of Black workers in the existing unions. It came out against racial separatism and dual unionism, but it declared its intention to organize Blacks into separate unions wherever they were barred from existing organizations and to use the separation as a battering ram against Black exclusion. Emphasizing the relationship between these partial demands and ultimate goals, the platform declared that the accomplishment of the above aims was not an end in itself and that on the contrary, it was the struggle for their accomplishment that was even more important: <blockquote>'''In the course of the struggle with such demands we will demonstrate...that these aspirations can be realized only as a result of the successful class struggle against capitalism and with the establishment of the rule of the working class in the Soviet form.'''</blockquote>It must be remembered that by this time the attempts to infiltrate the Garvey movement had proven unsuccessful and that the African Blood Brotherhood, the sole revolutionary Black organization in the field, had been dissolved. To meet the necd for an organizational vehicle to put our program into effect, the Party and the Trade Union Educational League sponsored the American Negro Labor Congress (ANLC). <br />
<br />
In the meantime, Lovett Fort-Whiteman, our man in Moscow, returned to head up the Negro work and to prepare the launching of the ANLC. H.V. Phillips, Edwards, Doty and I were assigned to the organizing committce for the congress, drafting and circulating the call, and approaching organizations for delegates. As I remember, most of the Blacks in the Party were assigned to work on the congress. Otto was not involved in these activities, as immediately after the Fourth Party Convention, he had left for Moscow with the first batch of Black students. <br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman was truly a fantastic figure. A brown-skinned man of medium height, Fort-Whiteman’s high cheekbones gave him somewhat of an Oriental look. He had affected a Russian style of dress, sporting a robochka (a man’s long belted shirt) which came almost to his knees, ornamental belt, high boots and a fur hat. Here was a veritable Black Cossack who could be seen sauntering along the streets of Southside Chicago. Fort-Whiteman was a graduate of Tuskegec and, as I understood, had had some training as an actor, He had been a drama critic for The Messenger and for The Crusader. There was no doubt that he was a showman; he always seemed to be acting out a part he had chosen for himself.<br />
<br />
Upon his return from the Soviet Union, he held a number of press conferences in which he delineated plans for the American Negro Labor Congress, and as a Black communist fresh from Russia, he made good news copy.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman had taken responsibility for lining up enter tainment for the opening night of the congress. Characteristically, with his Russian affectations, he arranged for a program of Russian ballet and theater. The rest of us didn’t question what he was doing, and the incongruity of the program didn’t occur to us until the opening night.<br />
<br />
The mecting took place in a hall on Indiana Avenue near Thirty~ first Street, in the midst of the Black ghetto, When I arrived it was packed—-perhaps 500 people or so. Inside, I was suddenly attracted by a commotion at the door. Asa member of the steering committee, I walked over to see what was the matter. Something was amiss with the “Russian ballet” which was about to enter the hall. A young blonde woman in the “ballet” had been shocked by the complexion of most of the audience, which she had apparently expected to be of another hue. Loudly, in a broad Texas accent, she exclaimed, “Ah’m not goin’ ta dance for these niggahs!”<br />
<br />
Somebody shouted, “Throw the cracker bitches out!” and the “Russian” dance group hurriedly left the hall.<br />
<br />
The Russian actors remained to perform a one-act Pushkin play. They, at least, were genuine Russians from the Russian Federation, But alas, it was in Russian. Of itself, the play was undoubtedly interesting, but its relevance to a Black workers’ congress was, to say the least, unclear. Although Pushkin was a Black man, he wrote as a Russian, and the characters portrayed were Russian. More significant, however, and perhaps an indication of our sectarian approach, was the fact that no Black artist appeared on the program.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman made the keynote speech outlining the purposes and tasks of the congress. He was a passable orator and received a good response. Otto Huiswood, an associate of Briggs and one of the first Blacks to join the Party, also spoke. Richard B. Moore brought the house down with an impassioned speech which reached its peroration in Claude McKay's poem, “If We Must Die.” I was spellbound by Moore; I had never heard such oratory.<br />
<br />
That night, Phillips and I left the hall in high spirits. In fact, I was literally walking on air. At last, I felt, we were about to get somewhere in our work among Blacks. Phillips, a bit more sober than I, remarked, “Let’s wait and sec the report of the credentials committee.”<br />
<br />
His caution was justified, for the big letdown came the following morning. The first working session of the congress convened with about forty Black and white delegates, mainly communists and close sympathizers, The crowd of 500 at the opening night rally had been mainly community people. I think it was Phillips who remarked that there was hardly a face in the working session that he didn’t recognize; most participants, sadly, were from the Chicago arca.<br />
<br />
The organizing committee had prepared draft resolutions for the congress to consider. As we had anticipated a much larger turnout, we had made plans for a credentials committee, resolutions committee, etc. But in light of the small attendance, these resolutions and preparations took on an Alice-in-Wonderland quality. For example, according to the constitution, the group’s purpose was to “unify the efforts...of all organizations of Negro workers and farmers as well as organizations composed of both Negro and white workers and farmers."<br />
<br />
Despite our efforts and work, the ANLC never got off the ground. Few local units were formed, resolutions and plans were never carried into action. Only its official paper, the Negro Champion, subsidized by the Party, continued for several years. Among the post-mortems undertaken on the organization was the one made by James Ford in his book, The Negro and the Democratic Front, He commented that “for the period of its existence, it (the ANLC) was almost completely isolated from the basic masses of the Negro people." Disappointment and disillusionment followed and personal differences surfaced among our group. The fact was that the congress had failed, and with it, the first efforts to build a left-led united front among Blacks.<br />
<br />
There was a natural tendency to find seapegoats for the failure. Moore and Huiswood, the able delegates from New York, seemed to have come to Chicago witha chip on their shoulders. They made no attempt to hide their contempt for Fort-Whiteman, whom they had known in New York. They openly alluded to him as “Minor’s man Friday.” At the time, I was a bit shocked at what I felt was an attempt to malign these comrades. This was especially true of Bob Minor, whom I regarded with respect and affection. He was sort of a father figure to me.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman, on the other hand, was still an unknown quantity. My feelings about him were rather mixed. I was both repelled and fascinated by the excessive flamboyance of the man. But much later, I recalled overhearing a conversation between him and Minor during the preparations for the congress. Minor informed Fort-Whiteman that Ben Fletcher, the well-known Black IWW Leader, had expressed a desire to participate in the congress, It was evident that Bob was pleased by the response of such an important Black labor leader. Fletcher, as an IWW organizer, had played a leading role in the successful organization of Philadelphia longshoremen, His attendance would undoubtedly have attracted other Blacks in the labor movement.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman, however, vehemently opposed the idea and exclaimed, “I don’t want to work with him; I know him. He’s the kind of fellow who'll try to take over the whole show.” That ended the discussion; Fletcher was not invited. .<br />
<br />
I didn’t know Fletcher at the time, but as I reflected back onthe incident some time later, it was clear to me that had he been allowed to participate, Fort-Whiteman would have been overshadowed. I was too new to pass judgment on Fort-Whiteman’s qualifications, but I did wonder why he was chosen over such stalwarts as Moore and Huiswood. Huiswood, as a delegate to the Fourth Congress of the Comintern in 1922, was the first Black American to attend a congress of that body. (Claude McKay was also a special fraternal delegate to that congress.) Together with other delegates, Huiswood visited Lenin and became the first Black man to meet the great Bolshevik. He later became the first Black to serve as a candidate member of the Executive Committee of the Communist International.<br />
<br />
On the whole, I was very optimistic during my early years in the Party—confident we were building the kind of party that would eventually triumph over capitalism.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 5 ==<br />
<br />
=== A Student in Moscow ===<br />
Otto’s delegation of Black students to the Soviet Union caused quite a stir in the States. The FBI kept an eye on their activities and, in late summer 1925, their departure was sensationalized in the New York Times.! The article attributed a statement to Lovett Fort-Whiteman to the effect that he had sent ten Blacks to the Soviet Union to study bolshevism and prepare for careers in the communist “diplomatic service.” The article concluded with a statement calling for action against such “subversive activity.”<br />
<br />
At the time, we all felt that any Black applying for a passport would be subjected to close scrutiny. Therefore, when I learned that I too would soon be studying in Moscow, I applied for a first names of my Mother (Harriet) and Father (Haywood). This name was to stick with me the rest of my life.<br />
<br />
Several weeks after I received my passport, I heard the FBI had been making inquiries about me. By that time, I had become known as one of the founders of the ANLC. Therefore, as the time for my departure drew near, I hid out at the home of comrades on Chicago's Westside until arrangements were made. I went to the national office of the Communist Party, then in Chicago, and was informed by Ruthenberg or Lovestone that I should get ready to leave, Political credentials, typed on silk, were sewn into the lining of my coat sleeve. In order to avoid going through the port of New York, I left by way of Canada.<br />
<br />
In the manner of the old Underground Railroad, I was passed on from one set of comrades to the next: from Detroit, Rudy Baker, the district organizer, forwarded me on to the Canadian Party headquarters in Toronto where Jim MacDonald and Tim Buck were in charge. They sent me on to Montreal where comrades housed me and booked passage for me to Hamburg, Germany. Boarding ship in Quebec in the late spring of 1926, I sailed on the Canadian Pacific liner, the old Empress of Scotland. From Hamburg, I took a train to Berlin, arriving on a Saturday afternoon,<br />
<br />
Thad the address of Hazel Harrison the wife of a Chicago friend of mine who was a concert pianist studying in Berlin, where she had had her professional debut. (Years later, she was to head the Music Department at Howard University.) At that time, she was living at a boarding house near the Kurfurstendamm and I stopped there for the remainder of the weekend.<br />
<br />
This was the first time I had been in Berlin, Germany was then emerging from post-war crisis, during which currency inflation had reached astronomical heights, resulting in the virtual expropriation of a large section of the middle class. It was common to see shabbily dressed men still trying to keep up appearances by wearing starched white collars under their patched clothing,<br />
<br />
The owners of the boarding house, two middle-aged widows who were friends of Hazel’s, showed me a trunk filled with paper notes—-old German marks which were now worthless. This had probably represented a life’s savings.<br />
<br />
Hazel and her two friends took me out to the Tiergarten—the famous Berlin Zoo. I was attracted by the sight of three lion cubs that had been mothered by a German police dog. The cubs were getting big, and it was clear that the “mother” was no longer able to control them. We watched for some time, fascinated. I turned around and realized that there was a crowd around us. At first I thought they were looking at the cubs, but then it became clear that Hazel and I were the center of attention. Blacks were rare in Berlin in those days-—there were only half a dozen or so, mostly from the former German colonies of the Cameroons.<br />
<br />
Monday morning I took a cab to the headquarters of the German Party, at Karl Marx House on Rosenthallerstrasse. It was a dour, fortress-like structure, with high walls surrounding the main building which was set in the middle. I entered into the anteroom just inside the walls, in which there were a number of sturdy looking young men lounging around. When I came in, they jumped up and stood eyeing me suspicously.<br />
<br />
They were unarmed, but I knew their weapons were within arms’ reach, This was a symbol of the times for it was not long after the Beer Hall Putsch of Hitler’s brownshirts in Munich, and the battle for the streets of Berlin had already begun. I presented my credentials to a man named Walters, who was undoubtedly the head of security.<br />
<br />
It was on this occasion that I first met Ernst Thaelmann, a former Hamburg longshoreman and then leader of the German Communist Party. He was passing through the gate and Walters stopped him and introduced us. Thaelmann spoke fairly good English (probably acquired in his work as a seaman) and we chatted. a while. He asked after Foster, Ruthenberg and others. Wishing me good luck, he passed on his way.<br />
<br />
Walters gave me some spending money and arranged for me to stay with some German comrades, a young couple who had an elaborate apartment. The husband ran a haberdashery store on Friedrichstrasse and was a commander in the Rote Front (the red front)---the para-military organization which the communists had organized for defense of workers against the fascists.<br />
<br />
One day while walking down the Kurfurstendamm, I saw a cabaret billboard advertising the Black jazz band of Leland and Drayton and their Charleston dancers. It was a well-known band back. in the States. I had little money, but I couldn’t resist the temptation to stop in and hear them. I sat down at a table and ordered a beer. ‘To my dismay, the waiter said they didn’t sell beer, just wine. So | took the wine card and chose the cheapest bottle I could find.<br />
<br />
A number of band members and dancers came over to my table and asked where I was going. When I told them I was a student going to Moscow, they said they had just returned from a six-month tour in Russia, They were the first Black jazz group that had gone to the Soviet Union. I asked if they had met Otto and the other Black students there. Yes, they had met them all and they had had good times together. So we all sat down to exchange news.<br />
<br />
As we talked, I began to worry about the bill, and said I was low on money. “Oh, don’t worry about that,” someone said and ordered more wine. But when it came time to pay for the drinks, I got stuck with the whole tab and had to walk several miles across town to get home.<br />
<br />
After a month in Berlin, my visa came through. I was on my way to Stettin, a city on the Baltic Sea which bordered Poland and where I boarded a small Soviet ship. After three days of some of the roughest seas I have ever experienced, we landed in Leningrad. It was April 1926, and we were already in the season of the “white nights,” when daylight lasted until late into the evening.<br />
<br />
As we entered the Gulf of Finland the following morning, we passed the naval fortress of Kronstadt about twenty miles out from Leningrad (the site of the anti-Soviet mutiny of 1920). The ship finally docked in Leningrad. Upon landing, I presented my visa and passport to the authorities, Addressing me in English, a man in civilian dress said, “Oh, you’re going to the Comintern school in Moscow?”<br />
<br />
“Yes,” I replied.<br />
<br />
He immediately took me in charge and got my baggage through customs. I assumed he was a member of the security police. We left the customs building and got into an old beat-up Packard. As we drove away from the docks, he informed me that the Moscow train would not leave until eight that evening. He put me up at a hotel where I could rest and go out to see the city.<br />
<br />
Leningrad (old St. Petersburg) was built by Czar Peter the Great in the sixteenth century and now renamed for the architect of the new socialist society. As I walked down the now famous Nevsky Prospekt, I thought of John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook the World, trying to recapture some of the dramatic scenes in that classic. I passed the Peter and Paul Fortress and then the Winter Palace---once the home of the czars and now a museum of the people. The storming of the Winter Palace in 1917 had been the crucial event in the taking of St. Petersburg by the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
The people I saw passing me on the street were plainly dressed. Many of the men wore the traditional robochka and high boots; others were in European dress. Most people were dressed neatly, though shabhily, and all appeared to be well-fed. They were bright and cheerful, It seemed they went ahout with a purpose—a sharp contrast to the atmosphere of hopelessness that had pervaded Berlin, People in Leningrad looked at me---and I looked at them. By this time, I had become used to being stared at and took it as friendly curiosity. After all, a Black man was seldom seen in those parts.<br />
<br />
After several hours, I returned to my hotel. My friend from the security police showed up promptly at seven with my train ticket and took me to the station to put me on the train to Moscow. Filled with excitement and anticipation, I got little sleep on the train and awoke early to see the Russian landscape flowing by my window— pine forests, groves of birch trees and swamps. I was in the midst of the great Russian steppes.<br />
<br />
When we arrived in Moscow at Yaroslavsky Station, some of my traveling companions hailed a droshky and told the driver to take me to the Comintern.<br />
<br />
Moscow at last! We drove from the station into the vast sprawling city--once the capital of old Russia and now of the new. It was a bright, sunny morning and the sun glistened off the golden church domes in the “city of a thousand churches.” It seemed a maze of narrow, cobblestone streets, intersected by broad boulevards. While Leningrad had been a distinctly European city, Moscow seemed a mixture of the Asiatic and the European—a bizarre and strange combination to me, but a cheerful one. Moscow was more Russian than the cosmopolitan Leningrad. Crowds swarmed in the streets in many different styles of dress.<br />
<br />
We arrived at the Comintern, which was housed in an old eighteenth century structure on Ulitsa Komintern near the Kremlin, across the square from Staraya Konyushnya (the old stables of the czar). I paid the driver and entered the building. The guard at the door checked my credentials and directed me upstairs to a small office on the third floor. After producing my bonafides, I was told to take a seat, to wait for my comrades who would soon becoming for me.<br />
<br />
About half an hour later, Otto and another Black man entered the room. I was overjoyed at the sight of him and his friend, who turned out to be a fellow student, Harold Williams. We embraced Russian style, and I began to feel more at home in this strange jand.<br />
<br />
Otto asked about the family. An expression of sadness crossed his face, however, when I asked him about the rest of the Black students, He then informed me of Jane Golden’s serious illness. She was at that moment in a uremic coma from a kidney ailment and was not expected to live. Her husband was at her side at the hospital. (Though both were from Chicago, I had not met them before.)<br />
<br />
The situation had saddened the whole Black student body, and for that matter, the whole school. In the course of her brief sojourn, Jane had become very popular. Otto described her in glowing terms—a real morale booster, whose spirit had helped all of them through the period of initial adjustment.<br />
<br />
I was impressed. Here was a Black woman, not a member of the Communist Party, who had so easily become accustomed to the new Soviet socialist society. It seemed to me that there must be thousands of Black women like her in the U.S.<br />
<br />
After we had greeted each other, we caught a droshky over to the school in order that I might register officially. In the course of the ride, the driver lashed his horse and cursed at him. I asked Otto what he was saying, and he gave a running translation: “Get up there, you son-of-a-bitch. I feed you oats while I myself eat black bread! Your sire was no good, you bastard, your momma was no good too!” This verbal and physical abuse, Otto told me, was typical of most Russian droshky drivers.<br />
<br />
We finally arrived at the school administration which was housed in another old seventeenth century structure, built before the Revolution. It had been a finishing school for daughters of the aristocracy. Before that, it had been a boys’ school where, rumor has it, the great Pushkin had studied.<br />
<br />
Otto introduced me to the university rector with what sounded to my untrained ear like fluent Russian. We then went to the office of the chancellor, where I was duly registered. I was now a student at the Universitet Trydyashchiysya Vostoka Imeni Stalina (the University of the Toilers of the East Named for Stalin)---Russian acronym KUTVA, Otto and I then walked to the dormitory a few blocks away where I met the other two Black students, Bankole and Farmer,<br />
<br />
We all immediately took a streetcar to the hospital which was located on the other side of the Moscow River. There we were met by Golden and some other students who informed us that Jane Golden had just passed away that morning, Golden seemed to be in a state of shock and the doctors had given him some sedatives. We went into the hospital morgue to view her body. Bankole broke down in uncontrollable tears, I learned afterwards that Jane had been a close friend—a kind of mother to him during the period of his adjustment to this new land.<br />
<br />
We took Golden home to the dormitory. The school collective and its leaders immediately took over the funeral arrangements. The body lay in state in the school auditorium for twenty-four hours, during which time the students thronged past.<br />
<br />
The funeral was held the following day and the whole school turned out. The cortege seemed a mile long as it flowed past Tverskaya towards the cemetery. The students would not allow the casket to be placed upon the cart, but organizing themselves in relays every fifty yards, insisted on carrying it the distance of several miles on their shoulders,<br />
<br />
A good portion of the American colony in Moscow was assembled at the cemetery. The chairman of the school collective, a young Georgian, delivered a stirring eulogy at the graveside. One of the students who was standing next to me made a running translation sotto voce which went something like this:<br />
<br />
The first among her race to come to the land of socialism...in search of freedom for her oppressed peoples, former slaves... to find out how the Soviets had done it. We were happy to receive her and her comrades...condolences to her bereaved husband, our Comrade Golden, and to the rest of the Negro Students,..the whole university has suffered a great loss. Rest in peace, Jane Golden. You were with us only a short time, but all of us have benefitted from your presence and comradeship,<br />
<br />
Turning to Golden, he said:<br />
<br />
We Soviet people and comrades of oppressed colonial and dependent countries must carry on. We pledge our undying support to the cause of your people’s freedom. Long live the freedom fight of our Negro brothers in America! Long live the Soviet Union and its Communist Party, beacon light of the struggle for freedom of all oppressed peoples.<br />
<br />
Golden had borne himself well at the graveside, but we didn't want him to return to his room in the students’ dormitory, which would only remind him of his grievous loss. So we went to the apartment of MacCloud, an old Wobbly friend of ours from Philadelphia, who had attended the funeral and who lived in the Zarechnaya District, across the river. He was a close friend of Big Bill Haywood and had followed the great working class leader to the Soviet Union, There we tried to drown our sorrows in good old Russian vodka, which was in plentiful supply.<br />
<br />
Jane Golden’s funeral and the school collective’s response to her death made a profound impression on me, Through these events, crammed into the first three days of my stay in the Soviet Union, I came to know something about my fellow students and the new socialist society into which I had entered<br />
<br />
=== THE BOLSHEVIKS FIGHT FOR EQUALITY OF NATIONS ===<br />
KUTVA was a unique university. At the time I entered, its student body represented more than seventy nationalities and ethnic groups. It was founded by the Bolsheviks for the special purpose of training cadre from the many national and ethnic groups within the Soviet Union—the former colonial dependencies of the czarist empire—and also to train cadres from colonies and subject nations outside the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
The school was divided into two sections-—inner and outer. At the inner section there were Turkmenians, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Bashkirs, Yakuts, Chuvashes, Kazaks, Kalmucks, Buryat-Mongols and Inner and Outer Mongolians from Soviet Asia. From the Caucasus there were Azerbaidzhanis, Armenians, Georgians,<br />
<br />
Abkhazians and many other national and ethnic groups I had never heard of before, There were Tartars from the Crimea and the Volga region,<br />
<br />
The national and ethnic diversity found within the Soviet Union is hard to imagine. The Revolution had opened up many areas, for example through the Trans-Caucasus Road, and as late as 1928, the existence of new groups was still being “discovered.” These nationalities were all former colonial dependencies of the czars and were referred to as the “Soviet East,” “peoples of the East,” and “borderland countries,” The inner section comprised the main and largest part of the student body in the university.<br />
<br />
We Blacks were of course part of the outer section at the school. It included Indians, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, Persians, Egyptians, Arabs and Palestinian Jews from the Middle East, Arabs from North Africa, Algerians, Moroccans, Chinese and several Japanese (hardly a colonial people, but as revolutionaries, identified with the East).<br />
<br />
The Chinese, several hundred strong, comprised the largest group of the outer section, This was obviously because China, bordering on the USSR, was in the first stage of its own antiimperialist revolution, a revolution receiving direct material and political support from the Soviet Union. While KUTVA trained the communist cadres from China, there was also the Sun Yat-sen University, just outside of Moscow, which trained cadres for the Kuomintang.<br />
<br />
Among its students was the daughter of the famous Christian general, Chang Tso-lin, Several Chinese, including Chiang Kaishek’s son, studied in Soviet military schools during this period. A number of the Chinese students from KUTVA were massacred by Chiang’s troops at the Manchurian border when they returned to China shortly after Chiang’s bloody betrayal of the revoiution in 1927, Otto told me that a former girlfriend of his was among this group. As I remember, there were no Latin Americans at KUTVA during the time I was there, and the sole black African was Bankole, The student body was continually expanding, however, and later included many students from these and other areas.<br />
<br />
We students studied the classic works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. But unlike the past schooling we had known, this whole body of theory was related to practice. Theory was not regarded as dogma, but as a guide to action.<br />
<br />
In May 1925, Stalin had delivered an historic speech at the school, outlining KUTV A’s purpose and its main task. His lecture was the subject of continuous discussion and study. It was our introduction to the Marxist theory on the national question and its development by Lenin and Stalin.<br />
<br />
How did the Bolsheviks transform a territory embracing onesixth of the earth’s surface—known as the “prison-house of nations” under the Czar-—into a family of nations, a free union of peoples? What was the policy pursued by the Soviets which enabled them to forge together more than a hundred different stages of social development into such extraordinary unity of effort for the building of a multinational socialist state—the kind of unity that enabled them to win the civil war within and to defeat the intervention of seventeen nations, including the United States, from without.<br />
<br />
The starting point for us was to understand that the formation of peoples into nations is an objective law of social development around which the Bolsheviks, particularly Lenin and Stalin, had developed a whole body of theory. According to this theory, a nation is an historically constituted stable community of people, based on four main characteristics; a common territory, a common economic life, a common language and a common psychological makeup (national character) manifested in common features in a national culture, Since the development of imperial ism, the liberation of the oppressed nations has become a question whose final resolution would only come through proletarian revolution.<br />
<br />
The guiding principle of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on the national question was to bring about the unity of the laboring masses of the various nationalities for the purpose of waging a joint struggle—first to overthrow czarism and imperialism, and then to build the new society under a working class dictatorship. The accomplishment of the latter required the establishment of equality before the law for all nationalities —with no special privileges for any one people-—and the right of the colonies and subject nations to separate.<br />
<br />
This principle was incorporated into the law of the land in the Declaration of Rights of the People of Russia, passed a few days after the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks. Of course, the declaration of itself did not eliminate national inequality, which as Stalin had observed, “rested on economic inequality, historically formed.” To eliminate this historically based economic and cultural inequality imposed by the czarist regimes upon the former oppressed nations, it was required that the more developed nations assist these formerly oppressed nations and peoples to catch up with the Great Russians in economic and cultural development,<br />
<br />
In pursuance of this aim, the new government was organized on a bicameral basis. One body was chosen on the basis of population alone, the other, the Council of Nationalities, consisted of representatives from each of the national territorial units.the autonomous Soviet republics, autonomous regions and national areas, Any policy in regard to the affairs of these formerly oppressed nations could be carried through only with the approval of the Council of Nationalities. The Communist Party, through its members, was involved in both bodies and worked to see that its policy of full equality and the right of self-determination was implemented,<br />
<br />
As this theory was put into practice, we learned that national cultures could be expressed with a proletarian (socialist) content and that there was no antagonistic contradiction, under socialism, between national cultures and proletarian internationalism. Under the Soviets, the languages and other national characteristics of the many nationalities were developed and strengthened with the aim of drawing the formerly oppressed nationalities into full participation in the new society. Thus, the Bolsheviks upheld the principle of “proletarian in content, national in form.” Through this policy, they hoped to draw all nationalities together, acquainting each with the achievements of the others, leading to a truly universal culture, a joint product of all humanity.<br />
<br />
This is in sharp contrast to imperialism’s policy of forcibly arresting and distorting the free development of nations in order to maintain their economic and cultural backwardness as an essential condition for the extraction of superprofits. Thus, the oppressed nations can achieve liberation only through the path of revolutionary struggle to overthrow imperialism and in alliance with the working class of the oppressor nations. Stalin, proceeding from the experience and practice of the Soviet Union, emphasized the need for the formation and consolidation of a united revolutionary front between the working class of the West and the rising revolutionary movements of the colonies.--a united front based on a struggle against a common enemy. The precondition for forming such unity is that the proletariat of the oppressor nations gives:<blockquote>'''direct and determined support to the liberation movement of the oppressed peoples against the imperialism of its “own country,” for “no nation can be free if it oppresses other nations.” (Engels)... This support implies the advocacy, defense and implementation of the slogan of the right of nations to secession, to independent existence as states'''.</blockquote>Without this cooperation of peoples based on mutual confidence and fraternal interrelations, it will be impossible to establish the material basis for the victory of socialism.<br />
<br />
The test of all this theory was being proven in practice in the Soviet Union. The experience of the Bolsheviks demonstrably proved to us that socialism offered the most favorable conditions for the full development of oppressed nations and peoples.<br />
<br />
At the time of the Revolution, there were many nationalities within the borders of the Soviet Union in which the characteristics of nationhood had not yet fully matured, and in fact had been suppressed by the czars. It was the Soviet system itself which became a powerful factor in the consolidation of these nationalities into nations, as socialist industry and collective farming created the economic basis for this consolidation.<br />
<br />
I observed this firsthand in the Crimea and the Caucasus during my visits there in the summers of 1927 and 1928. The language and culture which had been stifled under the czarist regime were now being developed. The language of the Crimean people was a Turko-Tartar language, but before the Revolution, almost all education, such as there was, was in the Russian language. Now there were schools established which used the native language. Otto and other students made similar observations when they traveled to different areas of the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, | was having my own problems with the Russian language. On first hearing it, the language had sounded most strange to me. I could hardly understand a word and wondered if I would ever be able to master it. As the youngest Black American, I applied myself seriously to its study. The first hurdle was the Cyrillic alphabet—-its uniquely different characters intimidated me. But the crash course at KUTVA, lasting about an hour and a half per day, soon broke down this initial barrier.<br />
<br />
In addition, I studied on my own for a couple of hours each day. I would set out to memorize twenty new words a day, Then at night, | would write them out on a sheet of paper and pin them above the mirror in my room. I would then go over them again in the morning while shaving, and during the day I would make sure to use them in conversation with the Russians.<br />
<br />
English grammar had always seemed irrelevant to me, but I soon came to appreciate the logic of Russian grammar. In fact, I learned most of my English grammar through the study of Russian. Its rules were consistent and understandable. ‘The language soon ceased to be mysterious and revealed itself as being beautifully and simply constructed. In six months | was able to read Pravda with the help of a dictionary.<br />
<br />
=== KUTVA: STRUCTURE AND STUDIES ===<br />
The school structure was fairly complicated, but, as I saw it, thoroughly democratic. There was the collective, the general body which ineluded everybody in the school—from the rector, faculty, students, clerical and maintenance workers to the scrubwoman. The leading body of the collective was the bureau—-composed of representatives clected by the various groups in the university. There was also a Communist Party organization which played the leadership role at all levels.<br />
<br />
Originally established by the Council of Nationalities, KUTVA was now a Party school, administered by the Educational Department (AGITPROP) of the Central Committee of the CPSU. There was a direct representative of the Party, called a “Party strengthener,” in the school administration, Together with the rector and a representative of the students, he was part of the “troika” which constituted the top leadership of the school.<br />
<br />
Students had the rights of citizens, voting and participating in local elections, The school discussed and dealt with all the issues which Soviet workers and peasants discussed at their work places. As with all students who pursued courses in higher education in the Soviet Union, we at KUTVA received full room and board, clothes and a small stipend for spending money. There was, of course, no tuition, We used to attend workers’ cultural clubs and do volunteer work, like working Saturdays to help build the Moscow subways. Education for us was not an ivory tower, but a true integration into the Soviet society, where we received firsthand knowledge from our experiences.<br />
<br />
The curriculum (which was a three-year course) was based on Marxism-Leninism; that is, the teachings of Marx and Engels as developed by Lenin. It included dialectical and historical materialism, the Marxist world concept; the Marxist theory of class struggle as the motive force of human events, the economic doctrines of Marx: value and surplus value, as a key to understanding history by revealing the economic law of motion of modern capitalist societies, Lenin’s analysis of imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism; theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat and its Soviet state form; the problems of socialist construction; Lenin’s theory on the peasant question-—the alliance of workers and peasants as the base for Soviet power; the national and colonial questions; and the role of the party as vanguard of the proletariat. We also studied the specifie history of the CPSU.<br />
<br />
Our favorite teacher was Endré Sik, who taught courses on Leninism and the history of the Soviet Party. Sik was a striking young man. His distinguishing feature was a large shock of white hair, unusual for a manso young---he was probably in his thirties. He was soft-spoken and modest. We all loved Sik; he was an outgoing person who radiated warmth.<br />
<br />
Sik was a Hungarian, a politieal refugee living in Russia, He had been a soldier in the Austro-Hungarian Army during the First World War. Captured by the Russians, he was converted to Bolshevism while in a Russian prison camp. On his release, he had gone baek to Hungary and participated in the short-lived (133 days) Hungarian Soviet government of 1919 of Béla Kun, Withthe defeat of the Béla Kun government, Sik—along with hundreds of other revolutionaries—fled to the Soviet Union. Hungarian exiles made up one of Moscow’s largest foreign colonies. In Moscow, Sik pursued an academic career. He was a graduate of the Institute of Red Professors and like many Hungarian intellectuals, he was multilingual.<br />
<br />
For all his good nature, Sik seemed tired and harassed. He was teaching in many schools, in addition to activity in the Hungarian community. Seven years after the defeat of the Hungarian Soviet, the exiled revolutionaries were bitterly divided and factionalized, laying blame on each other for the failure of the revolution,<br />
<br />
Sik beeame deeply interested in the question of Blacks in the United States and undertook a serious study of the question. He read all the books available and also asked the Black students at KUTVA to join with him. Unfortunately for our personal relationship, Sik and I were to find ourselves on opposite sides of the fenee in the discussion of Black Americans which took place at the Sixth Congress of the Communist International in June 1928.<br />
<br />
Our teacher of Marxist economics was a young man by the name of Rubenstein, a Russian economist in the Gosplan (Governmental Planning Commission). The star pupil in that class turned out to be our modest friend Golden. Golden, who had known nothing about Marxism before eoming to the Soviet Union, was able to grasp the intricacies of Marx’s Capital and Value, Price and Profit seemingly without effort.<br />
<br />
A class that stands out in my memory was one on how tomakea revolution, to seize power onee the situation was ripe. This course eonsisted of a series of Jeetures by a young Red Army officer. He had been a heroie figure in the Moscow uprising of 1917 and the subsequent seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in that city. A tall, handsome young man of bourgeois background, he had been a lieutenant in the army of the Kerensky government. Like many other soldiers, he had been won over by the Bolsheviks on the basis of their demands, which reflected the needs of the people. peace, bread and land. To him, the Moscow uprising against Kerensky, led by the Bolsheviks, was a model for the coming seizure of power in the big cities of the capitalist world.<br />
<br />
He had a large map of Moscow on the wall and would use it to illustrate how it had been done. The eall for the uprising, he said, had come to the Moseow Communist Party by telephone from Leningrad, where the revolutionary workers, sailors and army under the leadership of Lenin had overthrown the Kerensky government and seized power in that eity.<br />
<br />
In Moscow, the Party organization, already prepared, issued a call to the people for an uprising. His regiment, stationed on the outskirts of the eity, together with red guards (workers’ militia), responded and began to march towards the center of the city. The White Guardists were concentrated in the Arbot and in the Kremlin, Here he pointed out, in Russian and other European cities, the working class districts were centered around factories on the outskirts of the city and Moseow was cireled by workers suburbs. Together with defected units of other regiments and with red guards, they marehed towards Moscow’s central area, whence fighting spread throughout the city--even into the trans-Moscow district. The reds finally wiped out the White Guardist strongholds, and the Kremlin, which had changed hands two times before in the fighting, finally surrendered,<br />
<br />
Moscow was ours!<br />
<br />
=== CLASSMATES AT KUTVA ===<br />
Beeausc of the language problem, we students from outside the Soviet Union were subdivided into three main language groups: English, French and Chinese. English and French were the dominant languages of the many colonial areas represented at the university. Spanish was later added when Latin American students began to arrive. In addition to ourselves, the English-speaking group included East Indians, Koreans, Japanese and Indonesians. I had many close friends in this latter group.<br />
<br />
One of the most interesting and brilliant was an Indian student by the name of Sakorov. (They all took Russian names because of the severe repression which they faced back home.) A former machinist in a Detroit auto plant, Sakorov had been sent to the school by the American Party.<br />
<br />
Originally from Bombay, Sakorov had gone to sea on a British ship at the age of twelve and had been subjected to very oppressive conditions his whole career at sea. He eventually jumped ship in Baltimore and wound up working in an auto plant in Detroit. Of all the group of students, he was the closest to us Blacks, He knew first hand the plight of Blacks in the United States, and as a dark skinned Indian, he had experienced much of the same type of racial abuse while there, After he left the school, he returned to India, where he became one of the founders of the Indian Communist Party.<br />
<br />
Later, more Indian students were to come, including one sixteen year old—a tall, lanky boy who took the name of Volkoy. He had been born in California; his parents were Sikhs who had migrated to the U.S. and worked as agricultural workers in the Imperial Valley of California. They were part of a foreign contingent of the Ghadr Party, a revolutionary nationalist party of Sikhs which had been organized in 1916. The Party would pick out young men to be future leaders; Volkov was chosen and sent to Japan for education and stayed there a year. Then he was sent to study in the Soviet Union, perhaps by the Japanese Party. He spoke Japanese and English.<br />
<br />
Among the Indian students was a group of about half a dozen Sikhs, former professional soldiers, survivors of the Hong Kong massacre of 1926. On the pretext of quelling an “imminent mutiny,” the British colonel of the regiment stationed in Hong Kong had called the unarmed Sikh soldiers into the regimental square and turned machine guns on them. (All regiments in the Indian Army included a British machine gun company as a safeguard against mutiny.) Several hundred were killed or wounded. As I understood it, the massacre was engineered to quell the protests over conditions which were being raised by members of the Ghadr Party and its supporters.<br />
<br />
The group who arrived in Moscow were among the few who escaped over the walls; they had fled to Shanghai where they were taken in charge by M.N. Roy, an Indian and then Comintern representative to China. Roy sent them to Moscow. These students, some of them older grey-bearded men, had spent their whole lives in the British Indian Army, They represented a special problem for the school, because most of them had had very little education of any kind. They were not brought into our class, but were put into a special group under the tutelage of Volkov, Sakorov and other of the regular Indian students,<br />
<br />
It was my good fortune to meet many of these Indian students again in 1942, when I was in Bombay as a merchant seaman, Most of them were leading figures in the Indian revolutionary movement. Sakorov had been a defendant in one of the Merut trials, having been charged with “conspiracy against the king,” Since his return to India, he had spent eleven years in prison. Nada, another former schoolmate, was president of the Indian Friends of the Soviet Union and very active among the students and youth,<br />
<br />
There were several Koreans and Japanese at the school, and two Indonesians. I remember Dirja particularly well. A Dutcheducated Indonesian intellectual, he was an old revolutionary who had spent many years in prison. There was another Indonesian, a young man (whose name I cannot recall), who later emerged as a communist leader and was killed in the Indonesian revolt of 1946.<br />
<br />
Kemal Pasha (a party name conferred on him by Sakorov) was a grey-eyed Moroccan from the Riffian tribe of Abdul Krim, I met Kemal Pasha again in Paris during the Spanish Civil War. There were also two whites in the group-June Kroll, then the wife of an American communist leader, Carl Reeves; and Max Halff, a young English lad of Russian-Jewish parentage.<br />
<br />
=== BLACKS IN MOSCOW ===<br />
We students were a fairly congenial lot and in particular I got to know the other Black students quite well. Golden was a handsome, jet-Black man; a former Tuskegee student and a dining car waiter, He was not a member of the Communist Party, but was a good friend of Lovett Fort-Whiteman, head of the Party's Afro-American work.<br />
<br />
Golden told me that his coming to the Soviet Union had been accidental. He had run into Fort-Whiteman, a fellow student at Tuskegee, on the streets of Chicago, Fort-Whiteman had just returned from Russia and was dressed in a Russian blouse and hoots.<br />
<br />
As Golden related it: “I asked Fort-Whiteman what the hell he was wearing, Had he come off the stage and forgotten to change clothes? He informed me that these were Russian clothes and that he had just returned from that country.”<br />
<br />
Golden at first thought it was a put-on, but became interested as Fort-Whiteman talked about his experiences. “Then out of the blue, he asks me if I want to go to Russia as a student. At first, I thought he was kidding, but man, I would have done anything to get off those dining cars! I was finally convinced that he was serious. ‘But I’m married,’ I told him. ‘What about my wife? ‘Why, bring her along too!’ he replied. He took me to his office at the American Negro Labor Congress, an impressive set-up with a secretary, and I was convinced, Fort-Whiteman gave me money to get passports, and the next thing I knew, a couple of weeks later we were on the boat with Otto and the others on the way to Russia. And here I am now.”<br />
<br />
He had a keen sense of humor and kidded the rest of us a lot, particularly Otto, His Southern accent carried over into Russian, and we teased him about being the only person who spoke Russian with a Mississippi accent,<br />
<br />
Then there was Bankole, an African who spent most of his time with the Black Americans. He was an Ashanti, from the Gold Coast (now Ghana) and his family was part of the African elite.<br />
<br />
The son of a wealthy barrister, his family had sent him to London University to study journalism, From there, he had gone to Carnegie Tech in Pittsburgh.<br />
<br />
He had been on the road to becoming a perennial student and had planned to continue at McGill University in Montreal, but was recruited to the Young Communist League in Pittsburgh. In the States, he was confronted with a racism more blatant than any he had met before. I gathered that this had struck him sharply and had been largely responsible for his move to the left,<br />
<br />
My brother Otto had become sort of a character in the school, He was popular among the students, who immediately translated his pseudonym “John Jones” into the Russian “Ivan Ivanovich,” Otto had ahsolutely no tolerance for red tape, and he had hecome a mortal enemy of the apparatchiki (petty bureaucrats) in the school. He had built a reputation for making their lives miserable, and when they saw him coming, they would huddle in a corner; “Here comes Ivan Ivanovich. Ostorozhno (watch out)! Bolshoi skandal budyet (this guy will make a big scandal)!”<br />
<br />
Harold Williams of Chicago was a West Indian and former seaman in the British merchant marine, He had adopted the name of Dessalines, one of the three leaders of the Haitian revolution of the 1790s. Williams had little formal education and some difficulty in grasping theory, but was instinctively a class-conscious guy.<br />
<br />
Finally, there was Mahoney, whose name in the USSR was Jim Farmer. Farmer was a steelworker from East Liverpool, Ohio, a Communist Party member and had played a leading role in local struggles in the steel mills.<br />
<br />
There were only eight of us Blacks in a city of 4,500,000 people. In addition to the six students, there were also two Black American women who had long residence (since before the Revolution) in Moscow.<br />
<br />
I only knew one of the women, Emma Harris. We first met on the occasion of the death of Jane Golden. Emma was a warm, outgoing and earthy middle-aged woman, originally from Georgia. It was evident that she had once been quite handsome—of the type that in the old days we called a “teasin’ brown.” Emma had first come to Moscow as a member of a Black song and dance group, a lowly hoofer in the world of cheap vaudeville. Having been deserted by its manager, the group was left stranded in Moscow.<br />
<br />
While the others had evidently made their way back to the States, Emma had decided to stay. She had liked the country. Here, being Black wasn’t a liability, but on the contrary, a definite asset, With her drive and ambition to be “somebody,” Emma parlayed this asset into a profitable position. She married a Russian who installed her, it seems, as a madam of a house of prostitution. It was no ordinary house, she once explained to me. “Our clients were the wealthy and nobility.” To the former hoofer, this was status.<br />
<br />
Such was Emma’s situation in November 1917, when the Russian Bolsheviks and Red Guards moved in from the proletarjan suburbs of Moscow to capture the bourgeois inner city and the Kremlin. During some mopping-up operations, Emma’s house was raided by the Cheka (the security police). A bunch of White Guardists had holed up there and the whole group was arrested, including Emma. They were taken to the Lubyanka Prison and some of the more notorious White Guardists were summarily executed.<br />
<br />
Emma remained in a cell for a few days. Finally she was called up before a Cheka official. He told her that they were looking into her case. Many of the people who had been arrested at her place were counter-revolutionaries and conspirators against the new Soviet state, and some had been shot. Emma disclaimed knowledge of any conspiracy and stated that she was engaged in “legitimate” business and had nothing to do with the politics of her clients.<br />
<br />
“You know the only reason we didn’t shoot you was because you are a Negro woman,” the official said. To her surprise, he added, “You are free to go now. I advise you to try to find some useful work. Keep out of trouble.”<br />
<br />
When we met Emma, she had become a textile worker. She lived with a young Russian woman--also a textile worker, whom I suspected was a reformed prostitute—in a two-room apartment in an old working class district near Krasnaya Vorota (Red Gate). Soon after the first Black students arrived, she sought them out and grected them like long lost kinfolk.<br />
<br />
At least once a month, we students would pool part of the small stipends we reccived and give Emma money to shop for and prepare some old home cooking for us. On these occasions, she would regale us with stories from her past life. At times one could detect a fleeting expression of sadness, of nostalgia, for her old days of affluence. One could see that she had never become fully adjusted to the new life under the Soviets. While not openly hostile, it was clear that she was not an ardent partisan of the new regime. Knowing our sentiments, she avoided political discussion and kept her views to herself. Our feelings toward her were warmest when we first arrived, but as we developed more ties with the Russians, we went by to see her less often. But we did continue to visit her periodically; she was a sort of mother figure for us, and we all felt sorry for her. She was getting old and often expressed a desire to return to the States. She was finally able to return home after World War II.<br />
<br />
Needless to say, Blacks attracted the curiosity of the Muscovites. Children followed us in the streets. If we paused to grect a (riend, we found ourselves instantly surrounded by curious crowds-—unabashedly staring at us. Once, while strolling down Tverskaya, Otto and I stopped to greet a white American friend and immediately found ourselves surrounded by curious Russians. It was a friendly curiosity which we took in stride. A young Russian woman stepped forward and began to upbraid and lecture the crowd.<br />
<br />
“Why are you staring at these people? They're human beings the same as us. Do you want them to think that we’re savages? Era ne kulturnya! (That is uncultured!)” The last was an epithet and in those days a high insult.<br />
<br />
“Eta ne po-Sovietski! (It’s not the Soviet way!)” she scolded them,<br />
<br />
At that point, someone in the crowd calmly responded: “Well, citizeness, it’s a free country, isn’t it?”<br />
<br />
We were not offended, but amused. We understood all this for what it was.<br />
<br />
There was one occasion when Otto, Farmer, Bankole and I were walking down Tverskaya. Bankole, of course, stood out—attracting more attention than the rest of us with his English cut Savile Row suit, monocle and cane—a black edition of a British aristocrat. We found ourselves being followed by a group of Russian children, who shouted: “Jass Band....Jass Band!”<br />
<br />
Otto, Farmer and I were amused at the incident and took it in stride. Bankole, however, shaking with rage at the implication, jerked around to confront them. His monocle fell off as he shouted: “Net Jass Band! Net Jass Band!” As he spoke, he hit his cane on the ground for emphasis.<br />
<br />
Evidently, to these kids, a jazz band was not just a group of musicians, but a race or tribe of people to which we must belong. They obviously thought we were with Leland and Drayton, the musicians I had met in Berlin, They had been a big hit with the Muscovites. We pulled Bankole away, “C'mon man, cut it out, ‘They don’t mean anything.”<br />
<br />
In the Soviet Union, remnants of national and racial prejudices from the old society were attacked by education and law. It was a crime to give or receive direct or indirect privileges, or to exercise discrimination because of race or nationality. Any manifestation of racial or national superiority was punishable by law and was regarded as a serious political offense, a social crime.<br />
<br />
During my entire stay in the Soviet Union, I encountered only one incident of racial hostility, It was on a Moscow streetear. Several of us Black students had boarded the car on our way to spend an evening with our friend MacCloud. It was after rush hour and the car was only about half filled with Russian passengers. As usual, we were the objects of friendly curiosity. At one stop, a drunken Russian staggered aboard. Seeing us, he muttered (but loud enough for the whole car to hear) something about “Black devils in our country.”<br />
<br />
A group of outraged Russian passengers thereupon seized him and ordered the motorman to stop the ear. It was a citizen's arrest, the first I had ever witnessed. “How dare you, you scum, insult people who are the guests of our country!”<br />
<br />
What then occurred was an impromptu, on-the-spot meeting, where they debated what to do with the man. I was to see many of this kind of “meeting” during my stay in Russia.<br />
<br />
It was decided to take the culprit to the police station which, the conductor informed them, was a few blocks ahead, Upon arrival there, they hustled the drunk out of the car and insisted that we Blacks, as the injured parties, come along to make the charges.<br />
<br />
At first we demurred, saying that the man was obviously drunk and not responsible for his remarks. “No, citizens,” said a young man (who had done most of the talking), “drunk or not, we don’t allow this sort of thing in our country. You must come with us to the militia (police) station and prefer charges against this man.”<br />
<br />
‘The car stopped in front of the station. The poor drunk was hustled off and all the passengers came along. The defendant had sobered up somewhat by this time and began apologizing before we had even entered the building. We got to the commandant of the station.<br />
<br />
The drunk swore that he didn’t mean what he'd said. “I was drunk and angry about something else. I swear to you citizens that I have no race prejudice against those Black gospoda (gentlemen).”<br />
<br />
We actually felt sorry for the poor fellow and we accepted his apology. We didn’t want to press the matter.<br />
<br />
“No,” said the commandant, “we'll keep him overnight. Perhaps this will be a lesson to him<br />
<br />
=== BIG BILL HAYWOOD ===<br />
In addition to the students at KUTVA and the two Black women, there was a sizeable American colony in Moscow during my stay there. There were political representatives of the Communist Party USA to the Comintern, the Profintern, the Crestintern and to the departments, bureaus and secretaries of these organizations—holding jobs as translators, stenographers and researchers <br />
<br />
Soviet cultural and publishing organizations also employed U.S, citizens, and in addition to the political groups, there were a number of technical and skilled workers who came as specialists to work for the new Soviet state. I got to know a number of the Americans during my stay, both official reps and others in the colony.<br />
<br />
Big Bill Haywood was perhaps the most famous of these. He was organizer and founder of the IWW, and a great friend of all Blacks in Moscow. At the time I met him he was in his late fifties and quite ill, suffering from diabetes. Physically, he was only the shell of the man he had once been. He called himself a political refugee from American capitalism, As a sick man, he had fled the U.S. to avoid a ten-year frame-up prison sentence which he knew he would never have survived, Bill was blind in one eye, over which he wore a black patch. I had imagined the loss of his eye had happened in a fight with company or police thugs and was rather disappointed to learn that it was the result of a childhood accident.<br />
<br />
In the Soviet Union he had participated in the organization of the Kuzbas Colony. This project was to reopen and operate industry in the Kuznetsk Basin in the Urals, closed during the Civil War period. The colony was located about a thousand miles from Moscow in an area of enormous coal deposits, vital to socialist industrialization. The district, with its mines and deserted chemical plants, had been established by the Soviet government as an autonomous colony. Big Bill had brought a number of American skilled workers, many of whom were old Wobblies, to reopen the plants and mines,<br />
<br />
Big Bill became a member of the CPUSA at its founding convention in 1921, and while in the Soviet Union he was a member of the CPSU. Bill and his devoted wife, a Russian office worker, lived in the Lux Hotel---a Comintern hostelry.<br />
<br />
His room had become a center for the gathering of American radicals, especially old Wobblies passing through or working in the Soviet Union. Here they would gather on a Saturday night and reminisce about old times and discuss current problems. Often a bunch of us Black students were present, Sometimes these sessions would carry on all night until Sunday morning. There were only a few chairs in the room, and Bill would sit in a huge armchair surrounded by people sitting on the floor. For us Blacks, listening to Big Bill was like a course on the American labor movement. He was a bitter enemy of racism, which he saw as the mainstay of capitalist domination over the U.S. working class, a continuous brake on labor unity, This attitude was reflected in the preamble of the IWW constitution, he told us, It read: “No working man or woman shall be excluded from membership in unions because of creed or color.” This was borne out in practice,<br />
<br />
The IWW was the first labor organization in modern times to invade the South and break down racial barriers in that benighted region. He recounted his experiences in the organizing drives among Southern lumber workers in Louisiana and Texas. This resulted in the organization of the Brotherhood of Timber Workers in 1910, an independent union in the lumber camps of Louisiana, Texas and Arkansas, At its height this union had 25,000 members, half of them Black.<br />
<br />
Big Bill described how the IWW broke down discrimination at the first convention of this union, He had come from the national IWW office to speak to the convention. They were all white, he said, and he inquired why no colored men were present. He was told that the Louisiana state law prohibited meetings of Black and white—the Negro brothers were meeting in another hall nearby. Bill recalled that he then told them: “Damn the law! It’s the law of the lumber bosses. Its objective is to defeat you and to keep you divided and you're not going to get anywhere by obeying the dictates of the bosses. You've got to meet together.” And the latter is exactly what they did, he told us.<br />
<br />
I remember that a few days after one of these gatherings we telephoned to tell him that we were coming over, only to learn from his wife that he had had a stroke and was in the Kremlin hospital. She said that he was getting along OK, but couldn’t see visitors. After several weeks he returned home. Still weak, he received many of his friends, and many of the delegates to the Fourth Congress of the Profintern which was in Moscow at the time. Big Bill had been a leading participant in this organization since its inception.<br />
<br />
Then suddenly, he was back in the hospital, where he died May 18, 1928. The whole American colony turned out for the funeral. There were delegations from the Russian Communist Party, of which he was a member, and from the various international organizations in which he had played a role. The Fourth Congress of the RILU adjourned its sessions, and representatives of trade unions from all over the world attended the funeral.<br />
<br />
I'm sure for all us Black students, our meeting and friendship with this great man were among the most memorable experiences of our stay in Moscow, A stalwart son of the American working class, Bill’s life and battles represented its best traditions. To Blacks, he was a man who would not only stand up with you, but if need be, go down with you. This was the iron test in the fight against the common enemy, U.S, capitalism. Big Bill obviously understood from his own experience the truth of the Marxian maxim that in the U.S., “labor in the white skin can never be free as long as in the Black it is branded.”<br />
<br />
=== Ina ===<br />
I first met my second wife, Ekaterina—-Ina—in December 1926, We were both at a party at the home of Rose Bennett, a British woman who had married M. Petrovsky (Bennett), the chairman of the Anglo-American Commission of the Comintern and formerly Cl representative to Great Britain,<br />
<br />
Ina was one of a group of ballet students whom Rose had invited to meet some of us KUTVA students, She was a small young woman of nineteen or twenty, shy and retiring, and sat off removed from the party. After that party, we met several times, and she told me about herself,<br />
<br />
She was born in Vladikavkaz (in northern Caucasus), the daughter of the mayor of the town, It was one of those towns that was taken and re-taken during the Civil War, one time by the whites, then by the reds. On one occasion when the town fell to the reds, her father was accused of collaborating with the whites, The reds came and arrested him and she never saw him again, Ina was about eleven at the time; she later learned that her father had been executed,<br />
<br />
Her uncle was a famous artist in Moscow and after her father’s execution they went there to live. Ina told me of her trip to Moscow at the height of famine and a typhus epidemic; they rode in freight cars several days through the Ukraine, and saw people dying along the road. Her uncle took charge of them and got them an apartment on Malaya Bronaya. He investigated the case of her father and discovered that a mistake had been made, and her father was posthumously exonerated. As a sort of compensation, she and her mother were regarded as “social activists,” and Ina entered school to study ballet. She later transferred from the ballet school to study English in preparation for work as a translator. We lived together in the spring of 1927 and got married the following fall, after my return from the Crimea.<br />
<br />
In January 1927, I was stunned by the news of the death of my Mother. One morning, when I was at Ina’s house, Otto burst in. Overcome by emotion, he could hardly talk, but managed to blurt out, “Mom’s dead!” He had a letter from our sister Eppa, with a clipping of Mother’s obituary from the Chicago Defender.<br />
<br />
Under the headline “Funeral of Mrs. Harriet Hall,” was her picture and an article which described her, a domestic worker, asa “noted club woman.” She had been a member of the Black Eastern Star and several other lodges and burial societies. The article mentioned that she was survived by her husband, daughter and two sons, the latter in Moscow.<br />
<br />
I was overcome with grief and guilt at not being home. Deeply shocked, I had always assumed that I would return to see Mother again, Born a slave, her world had been confined to the midwest and upper South, She had once told me, “Son, I sure would like to see the ocean,” and I had glibly promised, “Oh, I'll take you there someday, Momma.” I felt that I had been her favorite; | was the responsible one, and yet I hadn’t been able to do what I had promised, Worse yet, I wasn’t even there when she died. It took me some time to get over the shock.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
=== Trotsky’s Day in Court ===<br />
Apart from our academic courses, we received our first tutelage in Leninism and the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the heat of the inner-party struggle then raging between Trotsky and the majority of the Central Committee led by Stalin. We KUTVA students were not simply bystanders, but were active participants in the struggle. Most of the students—and all of our group from the U.S,—-were ardent supporters of Stalin and the Central Committee majority.<br />
<br />
It had not always been thus. Otto told me that in 1924, a year before he arrived, a majority of the students in the school had been supporters of Trotsky. Trotsky was making a play for the Party youth, in opposition to the older Bolshevik stalwarts, With his usual demagogy, he claimed that the old leadership was betraying the revolution and had embarked on a course of “Thermidorian reaction," In this situation, he said, the students and youth were “the Party’s truest barometer,”<br />
<br />
But by the time the Black American students arrived, the temporary attraction to Trotsky had been reversed. The issues involved in the struggle with Trotsky were discussed in the school, They involved the destiny of socialism in the Soviet Union. Which way were the Soviet people to go? What was to be the direction of their economic development? Was it possible to build a socialist economic system? These questions were not only theoretical ones, but were issues of life and death. The economic life of the country would not stand still and wait while they were being debated.<br />
<br />
The Soviet working class, under the leadership of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, had vanquished capitalism over one-sixth of the globe; shattered its economic power; expropriated the capitalists and landlords; converted the factories, railroads and banks into public property; and was beginning to build a state-owned socialist industry. The Soviet government had begun to apply Lenin’s cooperative plans in agriculture and begun to fully develop a socialist economic system. This colossal task had to be undertaken by the workers in alliance with the masses of working peasantry.<br />
<br />
From the October Revolution through 1921, the economic system was characterized by War Communism. Basic industry was nationalized, and all questions were subordinated to the one of meeting the military needs engendered by the civil war and the intervention of the capitalist countries.<br />
<br />
But by 1921, the foreign powers who had attempted to overthrow the Soviets had largely been driven from Russia’s borders, It was then necessary to orient the economy toward a peace-time situation. The NEP (New Economic Policy) formulated at the Tenth Party Congress in 1921 was the policy designed to guide the transition from War Communism to the building of socialism. It replaced a system of surplus appropriation with a tax in kind which would be less of a burden on the peasantry, The NEP was a temporary retreat from socialist forms: smaller industries were leased to private capital to run; peasants were allowed to sell their agricultural surplus on free markets, central control over much of the economy was lessened. All of this was necessary to have the economy function on a peace-time basis, It was a measure designed to restore the exchange of commodities between city and country which had been so greatly disrupted by the civil war and intervention. It was a temporary retreat from the attack on all remnants of capitalism, a time for the socialist state to stabilize its base area, to gather strength for another advance. A year later at the Eleventh Party Congress, Lenin declared that the retreat was ended and called on the Party to “prepare for an offensive on private capital.” <br />
<br />
Lenin was incapacitated by a series of strokes in 1923 and couldno longer participate in the active leadership of the Party. It was precisely at this time, taking advantage of Lenin's absence, that Trotsky made his bid for leadership in the Party. Trotsky had consistently opposed the NEP and its main engineer, Lenin— attacking the measures designed to appease the peasantry and maintain the coalition between the peasants and the workers,<br />
<br />
From late 1922 on, Trotsky made a direct attack on the whole Leninist theory of revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. He denied the possibility (and necessity) of building socialism in one country, and instead characterized that theory as an abandonment of Marxist principles and a betrayal of the revolutionary movement. He postulated his own theory of “permanent revolution,” and contended that a genuine advance of socialism in the USSR would become possible only as a result of a socialist victory in the other industrially developed states.<br />
<br />
While throwing around a good deal of left-sounding rhetoric, Trotsky’s theories were thoroughly defeatist and class-collaborationist. For instance, in the postscript to Program for Peace, written in 1922, he contended that “as long as the hourgeoisie remains in power in the other European countries, we shall be compelled, in our struggle against economic isolation, to strive for agreement with the capitalist world; at the same time it may be said with certainty that these agreements may at best help us to mitigate some of our economic ills, to take one or another step forward, but real progress of a socialist economy in Russia will become possible only after the victory of the proletariat in the major European countries.”<br />
<br />
At the base of this defeatism was Trotsky’s view that the peasantry would be hostile to socialism, since the proletariat would “have to make extremely deep inroads not only into feudal but also into bourgeois property relations.” Thus Trotksy contended that the working class would:<blockquote>'''come into hostile collision not only with all the bourgeois groupings which supported the proletariat during the first Stages of its revolutionary struggle, but also with the broad masses of the peasaniry with whose assistance it came into power. The contradictions in the position of a workers’ government in a backward country with an overwhelmingly peasant population could be solved only ...in the arena of the world proletarian revolution.'''</blockquote>Therefore, it would not be possible to build socialism in a backward, peasant country like Russia. The mass of peasants would exhaust their revolutionary potential even before the revolution had completed its bourgeois democratic tasks—the breakup of the feudal landed estates and the redistribution of the land among the peasantry. This line, which underestimated the role of the peasantry, had been put forward by Trotsky as early as 1915 in his article “The Struggle for Power.” There he claimed that imperialism was causing the revolutionary role of the peasantry to decline and downgraded the importance of the slogan “Confiscate the Landed Estates.”<br />
<br />
As it was pointed out in our classes, Trotsky portrayed the peasantry as an undifferentiated mass. He made no distinction between the masses of peasants who worked their own land (the muczhiks) and the exploiting strata who hired labor (the kulaks). His conclusions openly contradicted the strategy of the Bolsheviks, developed by Lenin, of building the worker-peasant alliance as the basis for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Further, they were at complete variance with any realistic economic or social analysis.<br />
<br />
Trotsky’s entire position reflected a lack of faith in the strength and resources of the Soviet people, the vast majority of whom were peasants. Since it denied the revolutionary potential of the peasantry, the success of the revolution could not come from internal forces, but had to depend on the success of proletarian revolutions in the advanced nations of Western Europe. In the absence of such revolutions, the revolutionary process within the Soviet Union itself would have to be held in abeyance, and the proletariat, which had seized power with the help of the peasantry, would have to hold state power in conflict,with all other classes.<br />
<br />
Behind Trotsky’s revolutionary rhetoric was a simplistic socialdemocratic view which regarded the class struggle for socialism as solely labor against capital. This concept of class struggle did no regard the struggle of peasant against landlord, or peasant against the Czar, as a constituent part of the struggle for socialism. This was reflected as early as 1905, in Trotsky’s slogan, “No Czar, but a Workers’ Government,” which, as Stalin had said, was “the slogan of revolution without the peasantry.”<br />
<br />
Given the state of the revolutionary forces at the time, the position was dangerously defeatist. For instance, 1923 marked a period of recession for the revolutionary wave in Europe; it was a year of defeat for communist movements in Germany, Italy, Poland and Bulgaria. What then, Stalin asked, is left for our revolution? Shall it “vegetate in its own contradictions and rot away while waiting for the world revolution”? To that question, Trotsky had no answer. Stalin’s reply was to build socialism in the Soviet Union. The Soviet working class, allied with the peasantry, had vanquished its own bourgeoisie politically and was fully capable of doing the job economically and building up a socialist society.<br />
<br />
Stalin’s position did not mean the isolation of the Soviet Union. The danger of capitalist restoration still existed and would exist until the advent of classless society. The Soviet people understood that they could not destroy this external danger by their own efforts, that it could only be finally destroyed as a result of a victorious revolution in at Icast several of the countries of the West. The triumph of socialism in the Soviet Union could not be final as long as the external danger existed. Therefore, the success of the revolutionary forces in the capitalist West was a vital concern of the Soviet people.<br />
<br />
Trotsky’s scheme of permanent revolution downgraded not only the peasantry as a revolutionary force, but also the national liberation movements of oppressed peoples within the old Czarist Empire. Thus, in “The Struggle for Power,” he wrote that “imperialism does not contrapose the bourgeois nation to the old regime, but the proletariat to the bourgeois nation.”<br />
<br />
While Trotsky de-emphasized the national colonial question in the epoch of imperialism, Lenin, on the other hand, stressed its new importance. “Imperialism,” said Lenin, means the progressively mounting oppression of the nations of the world by a handful of Great Powers; it means a period of wars between the latter to extend and consolidate the oppression of nations.”<br />
<br />
It was not until sometime later that I was able to fully grasp the implications of Trotsky’s concept of permanent revolution on the international scene. The most dramatic example was in Spain during the Spanish Civil War, 1936-39. The Trotskyist organivation had infiltrated the anarchist movement in Catalonia and incited revolt against the Loyalist government under the slogans of “Socialist Republic” and “Workers’ Government.” The Loyalist government, headed by Juan Negrin, a liberal Republican, was a coalition of all democratic parties. It included socialists, communists, liberal Republicans and anarchists—all in alliance against fascist counter-revolution led by Franco and backed by Hitler and Mussolini. The attempted coup against the Loyalist Government was typical of the Trotskyist attempts to short-circuit the bourgeois-democratic stage of the revolutionary process. The result was a “civil war within a civil war” and, had their strategy succeeded, it would have split the democratic coalition—effec~ tively giving aid to the fascists.<br />
<br />
In the United States I was to witness how Trotsky’s purist concept of class struggle led logically to a denial of the struggle for Black liberation as a special feature of the class struggle, revolutionary in its own right. As a result, American Trotskyists found themselves isolated from that movement during the great upsurge of the thirties. But all this was to come later.<br />
<br />
At the time I was at KUTVA, Trotskyism had not yet emerged as an important tendency on the international scene. | did not foresee its future role as a disruptive force on the fringes of the international revolutionary movement. At that point, I wasn’t clear myself on a number of these theoretical questions. It was somewhat later when my understanding of the national and colonial question-—-particularly the Afro-American question— deepened, that the implications of Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution became fully obvious to me.<br />
<br />
We students felt that Trotsky’s position denigrated the achievement of the Soviet Revolution. We didn’t like his continual harping about Russia’s backwardness and its inability to build socialism, or his theory of permanent revolution. The Soviet Union was an inspiration for all of us, a view confirmed by our experience in the country. Everything we could see defied Trotsky’s logic,<br />
<br />
His writings were readily available throughout the school, and the issues of the struggle were constantly on the agenda in our collective. These were discussed in our classes, as they were in factories, schools and peasant organizations throughout the country,<br />
<br />
About once a month the collective would meet and a report would be given by Party representatives-.-sometimes local, some+ times from the rayon (region of the city) and Moscow district, and sometimes from the Central Committee itself, They would report on the latest developments in the inner-party struggles—Trotsky’s and Lenin's views on the question of the peasantry; the NEP, how it had proved its usefulness and how it was now being phased out; Trotsky’s position on War Communism and Party rules; the dictatorship of the proletariat, and whether it could be a dictatorship in alliance with the peasantry or one over the peasantry. An open discussion would be held after the report. By that time the Trotskyists at KUTVA had dwindled to a small group of bitter-enders.<br />
<br />
The struggle raged over a period of five years (1922-27) during which time the Trotsky bloc had access to the press and Trotsky’s works were widely circulated for everyone to read. Trotsky was not defeated by bureaucratic decisions or Stalin’s control of the Party apparatus—as his partisans and Trotskyite historians claim. He had his day in court and finally lost because his whole position flew in the face of Soviet and world realities, He was doomed to defeat because his views were incorrect and failed to conform to objective conditions, as well as the needs and interests of the Soviet people.<br />
<br />
It was my great misfortune to be out of the dormitory when the Black students were invited to attend a session of the Seventh Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, then meeting in the Kremlin in the late fall of 1926, I was out in the street at the time and couldn’t be found, so they went without me. I missed a historic occasion, my only chance to have seen Trotsky in action. I was bitterly disappointed. When I arrived back at the dormitory, Sakorov, my Indian friend, told me where they had gone. Returning in the early hours of the morning, they found me waiting for them. They described the session and the stellar performance of Trotsky.<br />
<br />
Stalin made the report for the Russian delegation. Trotsky then asked for two hours to defend his position; he was given one. He spoke in Russian, and then personally translated and delivered his speech in German and then in French. In all, he held the floor for about three hours.<br />
<br />
Otto said it was the greatest display of oratory he had ever heard. But despite this, Trotsky and his allies (Zinoviev and Kamenev) suffered a resounding defeat, obtaining only two votes out of the whole body. The delegates from outside the Soviet Union didn’t accept Trotsky’s view that socialism in one country was a betrayal of the revolution. On the contrary, the success of the Soviet Union in building socialism was an inspiration to the international revolution,<br />
<br />
Otto told me that this point was made again and again in the course of the discussion. Ercoli (Togliatti), the young leader of the Italian Party, summed it up well a few days later when he defended the achievements of the Russian Party and revolution as “the strongest impetus for the revolutionary forces of the world.”<br />
<br />
The American Party united across factional lines in support of Stalin, The Trotsky opposition, already defeated within the Soviet Union, was now shattered internationally. From there on out, it was downhill for Trotsky. I witnessed Trotsky’s opposition bloc degenerate from an unprincipled faction within the Party to a counter-revolutionary conspiracy against the Party and the Soviet state. We learned of secret, illegal meetings held in the Silver Woods outside Moscow, the establishment of factional printing presses~all in violation of Party discipline. Their activities reached a high point during the November 7, 1927 anniversary of the Revolution.<br />
<br />
At that Tenth Anniversary, Trotsky’s followers attempted to stage a counter-demonstration in opposition to the traditional celebration. I remember vividly the scene of our school contingent marching on its way to Red Square. As we passed the Hotel Moscow, Trotskyist leaflets were showered down on us, and orators appeared at the windows of the hotel shouting slogans of “Down with Stalin.”<br />
<br />
They were answered with catcalls and booing from the crowds in the streets below. We seized the leaflets and tore them up. This attempt to rally the people against the Party was a total failure and struck no responsive chord among the masses. It was equivalent to rebellion and this demonstration was the last overt act of the Trotskyist opposition.<br />
<br />
During the next month Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev were expelled---along with seventy-five of their chief supporters. They, along with the lesser fry, were sent in exile to Siberia in Central Asia. Trotsky was sent to Alma Alta in Turkestan from where, in 1929, he was allowed to go abroad, first to Turkey and eventually to Mexico.<br />
<br />
Later, many of Trotsky’s followers criticized themselves and were accepted back into the Party, But among them was a hard core of bitter-enders, who “criticized” themselves publicly only in order to continue the struggle against Stalin’s leadership from within the Party, Their bitterness fed on itself and they emerged later in the thirties as part of a conspiracy which wound up onthe side of Nazi Germany.<br />
<br />
Throughout this whole struggle, we Black students at the school had been ardent supporters of the position of Stalin and the Central Committee. Most certainly we were Stalinists--whose policies we saw as the continuation of Lenin’s. Those today who use the term “Stalinist” as an epithet evade the real question: that is, were Stalin and the Central Committee correct? I believe history has proven that they were correct.<br />
<br />
=== RUTHENBERG’S DEATH ===<br />
In March 1927, the American community in Moscow was shocked by the news of the death of Ruthenberg, general secretary of the CPUSA. His death came suddenly, from a ruptured appendix. His last request had been that he be buried in the Kremlin walls in Moscow—a request acceded to by the Russian Communist Party, His ashes were carried to Moscow by J. Louis Engdahl, a member of the Central Committee of the U.S. Party.<br />
<br />
The Moscow funeral was impressive. The procession entered Red Square led by a detachment of Red Cavalry. The square was crowded with thousands of Soviet workers, including the entire work force of the Ruthenberg Factory, which had been named in his honor.<br />
<br />
We half dozen Black students, together with other members of the American colony, marched into the square immediately behind the urn, We followed it until we stood directly in front of the Lenin Mausoleum. On top of the mausoleum was the speakers’ platform, There stood Bukharin, who had recently succeeded Zinoviev as head of the Communist International: Béla Kun, leader of the abortive Hungarian Soviet of 1919; Sen Katayama, the veteran Japanese Communist; and others.<br />
<br />
Bukharin delivered the main eulogy, followed by several speakers. Suddenly I noticed Bukharin whispering to Robert Minor, who was standing beside him. Bukharin pointed down towards our group of Blacks who were gathered below the mausoleum.<br />
<br />
As Minor came down the steps toward us, I was a bit apprehensive, anticipating his mission. Sure enough, addressing my brother Otto, he said, “Comrade Bukharin wants one of the Negro comrades to say a few words.”<br />
<br />
Otto pointed at me and said, “Let Harry speak.”<br />
<br />
I felt trapped, not wanting to start an argument on such a solemn occasion, I reluctantly agreed to speak. and followed Minor back up the steps of the mausoleum, Béla Kun, a polished orator, was speaking, I was to follow. I tried to gather my thoughts, but I was not much of a speaker and certainly not prepared,<br />
<br />
Generalities did not come easy to me, and besides, I hadn’t really known Ruthenberg, I had only met him formally on the occasion of my departure for Moscow when he had shaken my hand and wished me luck. But what could I say about him, specifically in relation to the Blacks?<br />
<br />
I stood there amidst this array of internationally famous revolutionary leaders, and as I looked down on the thousands of faces in Red Square, panic suddenly seized me. Here was my turn to speak, but I found myself unable to utter a coherent sentence.<br />
<br />
I remember saying something about “our great lost leader.” This being my first experience in front of a mike, the words seemed to come back and hit me in the face. Finally, after a minute or two of floundering around | said, “That's all!” and turned away from the mike in disgust and humiliation. The words “that’s all” resounded through the square loud and clear, to my further discomfiture.<br />
<br />
And then came the moment for the translation. The translator was a young Georgian named Tival, one of Stalin’s secretaries. He was one of those people who speak half a dozen languages fluently, Tival got right into the job of translation, assuming an orator’s stance. He had a strong roaring voice, surprising for one of such diminutive stature.<br />
<br />
Swinging his arms, apparently emphasizing points that I was supposed to have made, I must admit that he made a pretty good speech for me. Speaking two or three times longer than my two minutes of rambling, he ‘preceded each point by emphasizing, “Tovarishch Haywood skazal” (Comrade Haywood said).<br />
<br />
The next morning, I went to the school cafeteria for breakfast, And there sat our little group of Black students. Golden had them laughing at something. He saw me and waved the day’s copy of Pravda. The headline was “Pokhorony Tovarishcha Ruthenberga” (Funeral of Comrade Ruthenberg).<br />
<br />
Golden began reading with a straight face, but using that peculiar language of his--Russian with a Mississippi accent. The article quoted from the main speeches and went on to say, Tovarishch Harry Haywood, Americanski Negr, tozhe bystupal (Negro American comrade Harry Haywood also stepped forward with a speech).”<br />
<br />
And Golden read one paragraph after another of the speech Tival gave for me, each paragraph starting with “Tovarishch Haywood skazal...Tovarishch Haywood skazal...Tovarisheh Haywood skazal.”<br />
<br />
Finally Golden looked up from that paper at me, and he said, “Man, you know you ain’t skazaled a goddamned thing!”<br />
<br />
Back home in the U.S., the death of Ruthenberg had signalled another flareup in the factional struggle within the Party. Following the intervention of the Cl at the Fourth Party Convention, there was a period of uneasy peace between the factions. But now a struggle for succession to Ruthenberg’s position as general secretary was raging hot and heavy.<br />
<br />
Lovestone, who had been organizational secretary, was supported by the Ruthenberg stalwarts—-Max Bedacht, Ben Gitlow and John Pepper. Since Ruthenberg’s death, Lovestone (as heir apparent) had pre-empted the interim job of acting secretary. In opposition, William W. Weinstone was the candidate supported by the Foster-Cannon bloc which included Alexander Bittelman and Jack Johnstone.<br />
<br />
Weinstone had formerly been a member of the Ruthenberg faction, but following Ruthenberg’s death, he sought the position of general secretary himself. His move offered an opportunity for the Foster-Cannon group to oppose Lovestone, whom they bitterly detested, with a candidate they believed had more of a chance of winning than did one of their old stalwarts.<br />
<br />
We Blacks in Moscow were isolated from much of this struggle. We were sort of observers from the sidelines, and with the exception of Otto (who had entered the Party immediately after its founding convention), we didn’t have any of the old factional loyalties or political axes to grind. We generally favored the Ruthenberg leadership, although we could hardly be called ardent supporters.<br />
<br />
Ruthenberg’s leadership had been endorsed by the CI, which gave his followers credence in our view. But Lovestone was something else again. On this, even Otto agreed. Lovestone had a reputation for being a factionalist par excellence, involved in the dirty infighting that took place. He was regarded as a hatchet man for the Ruthenberg group.<br />
<br />
None of us in Moscow could discern any principled political differences between the two groups on the question uppermost in our minds-—the question of Black liberation. Though we had not yet fully succeeded in relating our newly acquired Marxist-Leninist perspective to the question of Blacks in the U.S., we were sure— and our studies had confirmed---that Blacks were a potentially powerful revolutionary force in the struggle against U.S. capital, Clearly the common enemy could not be defeated without a revolutionary alliance of Blacks and the class-conscious elements of the working class, It was crucial to us that Party policy be directed towards consummating that alliance. We felt, however, that both factions underestimated the revolutionary potential of Blacks and we were determined not to allow ourselves to become a political football between the two.<br />
<br />
There had been no progress in this area since the folding of the American Negro Labor Congress in 1925, The collapse of the ANLC for us confirmed the Party’s isolation from the Black thasses, According to James Ford, a young Black Party leader, there were only about fifty Blacks in the Party at this time.<br />
<br />
Something was definitely wrong, At the time, we were inclined to attribute the Party’s shortcomings simply to an underestimation of the importance of Afro-American work. We were not, at that point, able to discern any theoretical tendencies within the Party which served to rationalize this underestimation, We felt it was due simply to hangovers of racial prejudices of white Party members and leaders.<br />
<br />
In Moscow, we had been in constant communication with Black comrades in the U.S. We had, in fact, set ourselves up as a sort of unofficial lobby to keep the situation with respect to Blacks continuously before the attention of the Russians and other Comintern leaders. They, for the most part, were sympathetic to our grievances.<br />
<br />
In May 1927, Jay Lovestone (while still acting secretary of the Party) showed up in Moscow at the CI’s Eighth Plenum. During his stay, he invited us Black students to his room at the Lux Hotel to give us an informal report on the Party’s work among Blacks. He had heard, of course, of our discontent and wanted to mollify us. He also knew that the question was coming up for serious discussion at the Sixth Congress of the Communist International, which was to take place the following year. There was no doubt he was out to mend his political fences.<br />
<br />
I had my first close look at the man when we gathered in his room. He tried to give us the impression of being very frank and self-critical, He said the Party leadership, involved in factional struggles, had neglected Black struggles, had neglected AfroAmerican work, an “important phase” of the Party’s activities. But this factional phase had now at long last come to a close and the Party (under his leadership) had now hegun seriously to tackle the job of overcoming this tremendous lag in the work.<br />
<br />
He told us that Otto Huiswood had been placed on the Central Committee and assigned as organizer for the Buffalo (western New York) district, We thought it was about time! Richard B. Moore had been placed as New England organizer for the International Labor Defense, “I cite this,” Lovestone said, “only as an earnest example of the determination of the Central Committee to remedy our default on this most important question.”<br />
<br />
Assuming a modest air, he turned to me and said, “Last but not least, we have decided that you, Harry, as one of our bright young Negroes, are to be transferred to the Lenin School. We've had our eye on you, Harry, for some time.”<br />
<br />
I was delighted at this news. The Lenin School had been established only the year before (1926) as a select training school for the development of leading cadres of the parties in the Communist International. But though I was delighted, I was also suspicious of the man, his cold eyes belied the warmth and modesty he tried to express. It seemed like a bid to buy me out. Otto, however, seemed to have been impressed.<br />
<br />
Though Lovestone was a teetotaler, he had a big bottle of vodka in his room for us students. He had brought us presents-—-which was true of most visitors from the States. It was understood that a visitor would not return to the U.S. with extra things that the students in Moscow could use. Most people, and Lovestone was no exception, came prepared with things to give away. During the course of the evening, Otto had seized a few pair of socks, and Lovestone had given him a tin of pipe tobacco (and cigarettes for us all). As we were leaving, Otto looked over Lovestone’s shoes.<br />
<br />
“Say, Jay,” he said, “you and me wear the same size shoes, don’t we? You got another pair with you?”<br />
<br />
“Sure, Otto, sure,” said Lovestone, and produced an extra pair.<br />
<br />
On our way home, walking down Tverskaya Boulevard towards the dormitory, we exchanged our impressions of the evening. Golden started off: “Oh, he’s full of crap. There’s no sincerity in the man.”<br />
<br />
Otto responded, “I think you’re wrong, Golden, I think you're wrong.”<br />
<br />
Golden said, “I saw his eyes. That’s something you didn’t see, Otto. You had too much vodka. You know I’ve always told you to go light on it—-you know you can’t handle the stuff, You remember what Vesey’s lieutenant said when the slaves rebelled in Virginia: “Beware of those wearing the old clothes of the master, for they will betray you!’ ”<br />
<br />
I never saw Otto so furious! He turned on Golden with his fists clenched, but thought better of it. Golden was too big, I laughed, and he turned towards me, but I was his brother, At that moment a drunk Russian staggered into view and suddenly bumped into him.<br />
<br />
Otto let his fist go and knocked the poor man down. There was a great commotion and a crowd of Russians gathered around. Some Chinese students from our school were across the street, and thinking we were being attacked by “hooligans,” rushed to our defense. We helped the man to his feet and, in the confusion, attempted to explain to the crowd what had happened. Otto said he had thought the drunk was attacking him, and it was thus that we managed to pass the thing off and return to our dorm.<br />
<br />
Lovestone was a consummate factionalist, utterly uninhibited by scruples or principles. He finally won out in the struggle to succeed Ruthenberg, but the mantle of Ruthenberg fit him poorly; the cloven hoof was always visible. His victory was aided by the ineptitude of the Foster-Cannon-Weinstone bloc, which made several tactical blunders (of which Lovestone took full advantage). Lovestone’s friendship with Bukharin was perhaps a factor in his victory, Nikolai Bukharin had succeeded Zinoviev as the president of the Comintern. He was an erstwhile ally of Stalin in the struggle against the Trotskyist “Left” and was later to emerge as a leader of the right deviation within the Soviet Party and the Communist International. As head of the Comintern, he already had begun to line up forces for his next battle which was to break out following the Sixth Congress of the CI in 1928. His man in the U.S. was none other than Jay Lovestone.<br />
<br />
As I have indicated, we KUTVA students in Mosccow were removed from much of the bitterness of the post-Ruthenberg struggle, and at the time, were not fully aware of its intensity. I was to be filled in with a blow-by-blow account of what went on at home by some of my classmates at the Lenin School, which | entered the following autumn.<br />
<br />
=== VACATION IN THE CRIMEA ===<br />
The month of August, vacation time, drew near. Our group of Black students split up and all of us (with the exception of Bankole) left Moscow, Bankole was reluctant to leave his Russian girl friend and remained in the city. Golden’s girl friend, a pretty Kazakhstanian girl, took him home to meet her people in Kazakhstan, an autonomous republic in southwest Asia, inhabited by a Turko-Mongolian people.<br />
<br />
As for myself, I asked for and received permission to spend my vacation in the Crimea. At the Chancellor’s office, I was given money, a railroad ticket and a document entitling me to stay one month at a rest home in Yalta. I was on my own and for the first time since my arrival fourteen months before, I was separated from my fellow Black students, But I had no misgivings. By this time, I had acquired a considerable knowledge of the country and had overcome the main hurdles in the language and could speak and read Russian with some fluency. In fact, I looked forward to my journey with pleasurable expectations, I was not to be disappointed.<br />
<br />
The Autonomous Republic of Crimea is a square-shaped peninsula jutting out into the Black Sea. At that time, it was one of the two Tartar autonomous republics; the other was Tartaria, on the Volga. I immediately fell in love with the country——its lush subtropical climate and its people. The Tartars were a darkskinned Mongolic people, descendants of the Golden Horde of Genghis Khan. When I arrived in Sevastopol, the largest city and seaport, I was struck by the dazzling brilliance of the sun against the pastel-colored buildings, the deep blue of the sea and the verdant Crimean mountains rising behind the city. Tall and stately cypress trees lined the streets. It was a busy seaport; all types of shipping could be found in the harbor from small fishing boats to Black Sea passenger liners and ocean-going freighters of the Soviet trading fleet,<br />
<br />
As a history buff, I stopped over for a couple of days to take in the historic sites of the city and its environs, There was the Panarama, a life-like display graphically depicting the battle of Sevastopol during the Crimean War, 1854-66. (The war was fought mainly on the Crimean peninsula between Russian forces on the one hand; British, French and Turkish allies on the other.). In this battle, the allies sought to knock out the strong Russian naval base in Sevastopol through an invasion by land and bombardment by sea. The Russians lost the war, but Sevastopol remained Russian.<br />
<br />
I drove out to Balaklava, a small village nestling on the sea a few miles southeast of Sevastopol, the scene of the disastrous charge of the British “Light Brigade,” led by Lord Cardigan and immortalized by Tennyson in his poem. Looking at the scene brought back memories of childhood school days when our class recited Tennyson’s poem aloud. I stood on Voronsov Heights overlooking the Valley of Death into which rode the six hundred. I walked over the grounds and viewed the graves of the victims of this blunder of the British officer caste. Fourteen years later, Sevastopol was to be the site of one of the most destructive and bloody battles of World War II.<br />
<br />
My automobile ride to Yalta, about sixty kilometers further along the coast, was not only exciting, but in some parts, a frightening experience. It was mostly along a narrow road, cut out of the side of mountains, on which two cars could barely pass. In some places, one could look down to what appeared to me to be a sheer drop of two or three thousand feet into the sea below, The chauffeurs driving powerful Packards, Cadillacs and Espano-Swiss sped along the road with its many curves at breakneck speed. The obvious fact that they were expert drivers was not enough to allay my fears nor those of the other passengers.<br />
<br />
Nearing Yalta, we passed Lavadaya, a beautiful palace built by an Italian architect during the reign of Alexander the Third. It was situated on a high cliff overlooking the sea. Later, it became the summer home of Czar Nicholas II. Now, under the Soviets, it had been converted into a rest home for local peasant leaders. The palace later housed President Roosevelt and Premier Churchill during the Yalta conference in 1945,<br />
<br />
At last I arrived in Yalta, center of the great Crimean resort area which extended along the coast and behind which rose the Crimean Mountains. Yalta was a town of rest homes and sanitaria, mostly owned by Soviet trade unions, I was put up at a rest home which mainly housed employees of the Moscow city administration.<br />
<br />
Immediately after registering, I put on my bathing trunks and donned the gorgeous Ashanti robe which Bankole had lent meand stepped out for a dip in the sea. I stepped out into the main street which ran alongside the seashore and headed for the beach. Although many of the Tartars of the area were dark-skinned, Blacks were rarely seen, even in these southern climes.<br />
<br />
As I passed along I could hear remarks like, “Kak khorosho zagorelsya (How beautifully sunburnt he is)!” It was a remark I was to hear often. It was good natured, and I sensed in it a trace of envy.<br />
<br />
The crowds were mainly vacationers from the north, who after the long, weary and cold sub-arctic winters of central Russia had fled to this semi-tropical paradise to soak up a little sunshine. Here they formed a cult of sun-worshippers bent on acquiring a suntan to display upon their return home.<br />
<br />
A crowd of small boys followed me out to the public beach a few blocks away. Perhaps they associated me with some of the South Sea Island characters they had seen in movies and waited expectantly for an exhibition of my aquatic skills. I doffed my gorgeous robe and stepped into the water, walked out a few feet and sat down. I tumed to see expressions of amazement, disappointment, and even pity, Their bewilderment was quite natural, for I myself had never met a Russian who didn't know how to swim, These children regarded swimming to be a natural human attribute; to them, an adult who couldn't swim was regarded as sort of a cripple.<br />
<br />
One day, while walking to the beach in Yalta, | was approached by a uniformed officer of the OGPU (federal police), “Bonjour, camarade, vous étes Sénégalais?” he asked in French.<br />
<br />
He seemed a bit surprised when I responded in Russian, telling him that I was an American Black and a student at KUTVA in Moscow.<br />
<br />
He said that he had noticed me several times on the streets and wondered if I were Senegalese, He had fought beside Senegalese riflemen during the world war. His Cossack regiment, he explained, was a part of a small Russian expeditionary force sent to fight with the French Army on the Western Front.<br />
<br />
I told him that I had also fought in the war with an American Black regiment and how | had seen Russian troops in a prison camp on my way to the Soissons front in the late summer of 1918. I asked him if he had been in that camp.<br />
<br />
He shrugged and said that it was quite possible. “They scattered us around in a number of camps; they didn’t want too many of us together in one place,” he said.<br />
<br />
“Our Russian force,” he went on, “was small and had no real military significance.” It had been sent by the Czar as a demonstration of solidarity and friendship between Russia and Francesort of a morale booster for the French people.<br />
<br />
“Be that as it may,” he said, “it didn’t boost our morale any to be there. In France, we fought in some of the toughest battles in the war, on the Champagne front and the Marne salient, and we suffered heavy casualties. Our fellows were homesick and confused, and didn’t know what they were fighting for so far away from Mother Russia.<br />
<br />
“There was much grumbling and always an undercurrent of discontent, All of this was heightened towards the latter part of the war by the bad news of Russian defeats on the Eastern Front. This all came to a head with the news of the fall of the Czar. Shortly after that we were withdrawn from the front by the French, as an unreliable element. Behind the lines, we were surrounded and disarmed by Senegalese troops, and quite a number who resisted were killed or wounded. To say that we were ‘unreliable’ was an understatement; by that time, we were downright mutinous!”<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik Party had active nuclei in the regiments. “I myself was a member of the Party,” said my new-found friend. “We followed the course of the Revolution through French newspapers and were able to glean the truth behind their distortions. We also had contact with some of the French left-socialists and with Bolshevik exiles before they returned home after the outbreak of the February Revolution. After the Armistice was signed, we were sent to Morocco and eventually Soviet ships came to take us to Odessa and home.<br />
<br />
“The French used the Senegalese against us,” he said. “We learned later of a mutiny among the Senegalese troops in which they were shot up and disarmed by the French Blue Devils.” I had just been reading André Barbusse and was surprised to learn how widespread mutiny had been in the French Army.<br />
<br />
“Well, c’est la guerre,” he said, “especially so an imperialist war. After all, what interest had the Senegalese in defending French imperialism? What interest did we Russian workers and muzhiks (peasants) have in fighting the Czar’s wars?”<br />
<br />
We parted, with both of us wanting to meet again, but he had to leave town that evening and I never saw him again.<br />
<br />
Often, we visited the local vineyards and wine cellars and tasted the local wines. It was wine country and Crimean wines were of the first quality, from the sweet ports, tokays and muscatels, to the dry red and white wines. On these outings there was always someone who had a guitar or accordion, and we sat late into the nights singing Russian folk songs and gypsy romans (love songs).<br />
<br />
The Crimea was not just a vacationers’ haven, although tourism occupied a large place in its economy. At that time, the economy was mainly agricultural. Vineyards were constantly expanding in the mountain valleys along the southern coast. Tobacco of fine quality was grown, and there was also an important fishing industry. On the east coast of the peninsula near Kerch, there was an area of rich iron ore deposits and mines. This was to serve as the basis for the construction of the gigantic Kerch metallurgical, chemical and engineering works, contemplated in the first five year plan. It was a plan which sought to quadruple the basic capital of the republic.<br />
<br />
With the renaissance of national cultures which accompanied the Soviet policy on the national question, the Turkic language spoken by the Tartars—which I understood was closely related to; modern Turkish—was being revived and taught in schools, A Latinized alphahet was introduced, replacing the old Arabic script. Tartar literature and culture flourished through this encouragement.<br />
<br />
I met the Party secretary for the county, a young Tartar who took me to visit a kolkhoz (collective farm), a vineyard in this case. A hundred or more peasant families were in the collective, all winegrowers. As in all collective farms, its members were required to sell a definite amount to the government at fixed prices and were allowed to sell the surplus on the free markets.<br />
<br />
Each family had a special plot of land which they cultivated for their own food supply. The chairman of the collective was a huge Ukrainian fellow, who showed us around and explained the wine growing process. The cultivation of grapes and making of the wine required special knowledge, which the government supplied.<br />
<br />
The members of the collective used up-to-date wineries owned by the state and managed by expert vintners. There I was to view the intricate process of wine-making, the pressing of the grapes, the fermenting process and the bottling itself. As I remember, this particular collective specialized in dry wines—both red and white. The Crimeans insisted that their wines were as good as the French. Not being a connoisseur, I wouldn’t know, but all I can say is that they tasted good to me.<br />
<br />
When I returned to Moscow in the fall, Otto told me of the discovery he had made on one of his trips to the southern region of the Caucasus. He had originally gone there on the invitation of one of our fellow students, a young woman from the Abkhazian Republic, a part of Georgia. After meeting some of us, she commented that they too had some Black folk down near her area in a village not very far from Sukhum, the capital of the republic on the Black Sea.<br />
<br />
She invited Otto down to visit the region over his summer vacation, and there he met the people. He described them as being of definite black ancestry—notwithstanding a history of intertarriage with the local people. But the starsata (old man) of the tribe was Black beyond a doubt. His story went some generations back, when he and the others joined the Turkish army as Numidian mercenaries from the Sudan. After several forays into this region they deserted the Army and had settled there. The starsata himself had been in the Czar’s Cavalry with the Dikhi (wild) Division of the Caucasus Cossacks.<br />
<br />
‘The people in the village wanted to know what was happening to “our brothers over the mountains.” Otto related to them the troubles we had gone through, described the travels “over the mountains and across the hig sea.” As the evening wore on and the local hrandy was consumed, toast after toast was drunk to “our little brother from over the hills.” Otto descrihed to them the conditions of Blacks in the U.S.—the lynchings, racism and brutality. Incensed, a few jumped up and pulled out their daggers. “You should make a revolution.”<br />
<br />
“Why don’t you revolt?”<br />
<br />
“Why do you put up with it?”<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
We were not the only ones surprised to learn about this group; it was news to the Russians in Moscow too! Several of these tribesmen later visited Moscow as a result of Otto’s visit. <br />
<br />
== Chapter 7 ==<br />
<br />
=== The Lenin School ===<br />
Following my summer in the Crimea, I returned to Moscow in the fall of 1927 to attend the Lenin School. The school was located off the Arbot on what is now called Ambassadors’ Row, a few blocks down the inner ring of boulevards from the KUTVA dormitories.<br />
<br />
The Lenin School, which was set up by the Comintern, opened in Moscow in May 1926, The plans for the school, formally called the International Lenin Course, had been reported on the previous year by Béla Kun, then head of the Educational (Agitprop) Department of the Comintern, Accordingly, the school was to train sixty to seventy qualified students both in theoretical and practical subjects, which included observations of Soviet trade unions and collective farm work, It offered a full three‘year course and a short course of one year.<br />
<br />
It was a school of great prestige and influence within the international communist movement, Its students, mainly party functionaries of district and section level and some secondary national Icaders who could be spared for the period of study, were generally at a higher level of political development than the students at KUTVA.<br />
<br />
I was the first Black to be assigned to the school, Others followed later; including H.V. Phillips in 1928, Leonard Patterson in the thirties, and Nzula—a Zulu intellectual and national secretary of the South African Communist Party.<br />
<br />
The American students who entered the Lenin School in the fall of 1927 were an impressive lot, They included prominent Party leaders from the national and district level. Outstanding in the group was Charles Krumbcin, a member of the Central Commitice of the Party and formerly in charge of trade union work in Chicago and district organizer for Chicago. A steamfitter by trade and a charter member of the Party, he was one ofa group of young trade unionists who made up the Chicago Party leadership in the twenties. They were the best representatives of the radical tradition of that city’s labor movement. <br />
<br />
Modesty and honesty were hallmarks of Charlie’s character, and he was a man of exceptional organizational and administrative ability. He was a founder of the Trade Union Education League (TUEL) and played a key role in the Chicago Federation of Labor. We developed a close and lasting friendship, and I learned a lot from him about Party history and the background of the revolutionary movement in the United States.<br />
<br />
Margaret Cowl, Charlie's wife, was a capable Party leader and organizer. She had worked in the TUEL and was recognized particularly for her leadership in the struggle for unity of Pennsylvania’s anthracite coal miners in 1927. Later she was to head up the Party’s Women’s Commission and play an active role in the movement for a Woman’s Charter, a broad united front movement launched in 1936 which asserted the rights of women to full equality in all spheres of activity. Margaret also energetically mobilized support for the struggles of women wage workers in the needle trades, textile, electrical and other industries.<br />
<br />
Joseph Zack had emigrated to the U.S. from Eastern Europe shortly after the First World War. Active in the first communist organization in New York, he had been section organizer of Yorktown and served on the Party’s Trade Union Commission. Zack was one of Foster’s leading trade union cadres in New York and had also been one of the first New York Party members assigned to work among Blacks, He was a bitter enemy of Lovestone, but was also critical of Foster. In 1932, he was expelled from the Party for refusing to abide by democratic centralism and by the forties had become an informant for the Dies Committee on Un-American Propaganda Activities.<br />
<br />
Morris Childs, a Chicagoan, was a leader in trade union and Party work. He became Illinois D.O. in the thirties at the same time that I was chairman of the Cook County Committee and secretary of the Southside region. While at the Lenin School, he served as the representative of the American students to the School Bureau.<br />
<br />
Rudy Baker, a Yugoslav comrade who later became D.O. in Pittsburgh and in Detroit, and Lena Davis (Sherer), a good friend of mine who was organizational secretary for New York in the thirties, were also at the school. All of these students were members of the Foster group. As far as I can recall, the sole Lovestone supporter in our class was Gus Sklar of Chicago, a leader in the Russian Federation.<br />
<br />
Poor Gus was alone in the midst of Fosterites, and it must have been an unhappy experience for him. When Lovestone was expelled from the Party in 1929, Gus remained in the Soviet Union and never returned to the U.S. He served as an officer in the Red Army and was killed in the defense of Moscow during the Second World War.<br />
<br />
The American students at the Lenin School were all experienced leaders of the U.S. Party, One might ask why so many were spared from U.S. work at a time when the Party’s position among the masses was so weak.<br />
<br />
Actually, these students were victims of Lovestone’s purge of the Party apparatus following his victory at the Fifth Party Convention in 1927. Part of Lovestone’s strategy was to weaken his opposition on the home front by “exiling” some of its leaders to the Lenin School. His plan backfired however. In Moscow, these “exiles,” as they jokingly called themselves, were to become an effective lobby against Lovestone both in the Comintern and in the CPSU. The political winds were changing.<br />
<br />
From the ashes of the defeated Trotskyist “left ” rose an equally dangerous, organized and secret rightist opposition headed by none other than Lovestone’s patron in the Comintern, Nikolai Bukharin. On the home front, this rightist opposition had its social base among the capitalists, the landlords and the kulaks (upper peasantry) and pushed a line that would have lopsidedly developed industry along consumer lines, to the detriment of the vast masses of Soviet people. Internationally, Bukharin greatly underestimated the war danger and the potentially revolutionary situation then developing on a world scale. At the same time, he greatly overestimated the strength and resiliency of imperialism.<br />
<br />
The Lenin School students helped to legitimize the antiLovestone struggle in the U.S. Party by linking it up with the fight against the right deviation, then only in its incipient stage, The Lenin School was to become a strong point in the fight against this danger.<br />
<br />
There were several other American students who had entered the Lenin School the year before. This group included Clarence Hathaway, Tom Bell, Max Salzman and Car! Reeves (the son of Mother Bloor). Of this group, Hathaway had the most imposing credentials. A machinist from Minneapolis and one of the leading people in the Trade Union Education League, Hathaway proved to be a valuable asset in the Party’s trade union work.<br />
<br />
He was a fine organizer and speaker, particularly effective in debates, and combined these talents with a good grasp of Marxist-Leninist theory. Clearly destined for top leadership in the Party, he later served as D.O. of the New York District, became an editor of the Daily Worker and a member of the Political Bureau. Tom Bell, Hathaway’s close friend, remained in the Soviet Union, married a Russian woman and died sometime before World War Il.<br />
<br />
William Kruse of Chicago was the principal Lovestonite in the school. For a brief period he filled in as acting rep from the Party to the Comintern in the absence of a permanent Party rep. Later, he was D,O. in Chicago under Lovestone’s leadership and was expelled from the Party with Lovestone in 1929.<br />
<br />
The students were organized at the school by language groups, as we had been at KUTVA. In this case, the languages were English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Russian and, later, Chinese. The whole school was a collective, comprising students, teachers, administrators and employees, The leading body was the Party Bureau, which included delegates from the various groups, including the employees. All students transferred membership from their home party to the CPSU, and were directly subject to its discipline. Party meetings were held about once a month.<br />
<br />
Our rector was a handsome, energetic woman named Kursanova. She was a leading communist educator and was married to the old Bolshevik propagandist and CC member, E. Yaroslavsky. She was about forty at the time and had an impressive background, including civil war experiences as a machine-gunner in a detachment of Siberian partisans. Kursanova had also been a delegate to the Bolshevik Conference in April 1917 which adopted Lenin’s famous April Theses.<br />
<br />
In addition to the Americans, others in the English-speaking section included British, Irish, Australians, a New Zealander, two Chinese, two Japanese and two Canadians—Leslie Morris and Stewart Smith, The British group included Springhall, Tanner, Black (a Welshman), Margaret Pollitt and George Brown. My special friend among the British was Springhall, known to all as “Springy,” with whom I roomed at the Lenin School.<br />
<br />
Springy was a British naval veteran of the First World War. He had come from a poor family and his parents had chosen him fora naval career. This latter act, it seemed, was a common practice among British lower class families with several sons. At the age of twelve, therefore, he had been “given” to His Majesty's Navy to be trained as a sailor, He served through the First World War and after the Armistice was involved in a mutiny or near-mutiny among members of the fleet who protested being sent to Leningrad to intervene against the Bolshevik Revolution. At the time, Springy was about twenty-one years old. As a result of the mutiny, he was cashiered from the Navy. Apparently, the admiralty was deterred from taking any harsher measures against the mutineers because of the widespread sympathy their action had evoked among British workers.<br />
<br />
Springy was popular with everybody, particularly among the women on the technical staff. After leaving the Lenin School, he returned to England where he rose rapidly in Party leadership. He also fought in Spain as a member of the Fifteenth International Brigade and was wounded at Jarama.<br />
<br />
At the beginning of World War II, he served as organizational secretary of the British Party. During the early stages of the war, Springy was charged by the Churchill government with subversive activity among the armed forces. This was during the period prior to the German invasion of the Soviet Union, when the war was still an imperialist war and we communists opposed it.<br />
<br />
There was no defense against the charge of subversion in wartime England, and Springy was sentenced to seven years in prison, After his release, he went to China, where he did editorial work on English language publications until his death from cancer in 1953. Springy died in a Moscow hospital, where he had been sent by his Chinese comrades to make sure that everything possible could be done to save him. His ashes were returned to China and interred with a memorial stone in the Revolutionary Martyrs’ Cemetery outside Peking.<br />
<br />
Springy introduced me to the gifted English writer, historian and Marxist scholar, Ralph Fox. A promising young theoretician, Fox was then researching material for one of his books at the Marx-Engels Institute. He died at the age of thirty-seven, fighting the fascists on the Cordova Front during the Spanish Civil War. By the end of his brief life span, he had already published a tremendous body of work.<br />
<br />
I got a lot out of my friendship with Fox. Profiting greatly from his wide-ranging knowledge, I often consulted him on theoretical and political questions which arose during my stay at the school.<br />
<br />
Springy and I were frequent visitors at the apartment of Fox and his wife Midge. It was there that I first met Karl Radek. A Polish expatriate, he had been an active leader in the Polish Social Democratic Party and a member of the Zimmerwald Left (those internationalists who broke off from the Second International in 1915 and were instrumental in founding the Third International). In 1915-16, Radek—along with Rosa Luxemburg—publicly disagreed with Lenin on the question of self-determination of subject nations. Radek later changed his position and fully united with the Bolshevik point of view in 1917.<br />
<br />
Radek was part of the group that returned with Lenin to Russia via Germany in the famous “sealed coach.” He was a member of the Bolshevik Central Committee and Politburo. At the time that I met him in 1928, Radek was still under a shadow politically. He had been a leading member of the Trotsky-Zinoviev opposition and was expelled from the CPSU along with the other leaders of the bloc at the Sixteenth Congress of the CPSU in December 1927. Exiled to the Urals, he publicly repudiated his earlier position and was readmitted to the Party a few months later in 1928. He was assigned as editor of Izvestia and later became the chief foreign affairs commentator in the leading Soviet papers, He was also a member of the Soviet delegation to the Comintern.<br />
<br />
Radek, as I remember him, was a little man, appearing to be somewhat of a dandy in his English tweed jacket, plus-fours and cane, But to me, the most striking thing about him was his beard. It stretched from ear to ear, under his chin and cheeks, giving him a simian look.<br />
<br />
His English, though accented, was fluent, When we first met, he immediately engaged me in a conversation about conditions of Blacks in the United States, which branched off into questions of Black literature, writers and the Harlem Renaissance. To my amazement, it was clear that he knew more about the latter subject than I did. I was embarrassed when he asked my opinion about certain Black writers with whom he was familiar but whom I had never even read. I found out later that Claude MeKay had been a sort of a protégé of Radek’s during the poet’s stay in the Soviet Union,<br />
<br />
In 1937, along with several others in the Trotskyite “Left Opposition,” Radek was convicted of treason, of acting as an “agency” of German and Italian fascism and giving assistance to those who might invade the Soviet Union. He was sent to prison where he died in the forties.<br />
<br />
Springy introduced me to many other young Britons in Moscow: such men as William Rust, who later became editor of the British Worker, Walter Tapsell, editor of the Young Worker; and George Brown. Both Brown and Tapsell were in my brigade in the Spanish Civil War and were killed in battle. Brown was killed at Brunete while I was there.<br />
<br />
Our English-speaking section at the Lenin School included five young Irishmen, all members of the Irish Workers League, a communist-oriented group organized by Big Jim Larkin in 1923. It seems that the Irish Communist Party, founded in 1921 by Young Roderick Connolly (son of James Connolly), had collapsed. I was told that its failure was due to a lack of Marxist-Leninist theory and the inability of its members to relate their views on socialism to the specific conditions in Ireland. But there was certainly no lack of revolutionary enthusiasm and motivation among the young people I met at the Lenin School, some of whom had been members of the Irish Communist Party. The group had been sent to the Lenin School as a step towards rebuilding the Irish Party.<br />
<br />
All five were protégés of the famous Irish revolutionary, Big Jim Larkin—most definitely a man of action and organization, not of theory. A tall, bulky man with a huge, hawk-like nose and bushy eyebrows, Larkin was one of the most colorful figures of the Irish labor movement. From his base among Dublin dockworkers, his activities as a labor leader had ranged over three continents~-from the British Isles, to Argentina, to the U.S.—and at the time that I met him, spanned more than three decades. He had been a founding member of the U.S. Party and was a member of both the Executive Committees of the Communist International and the Red International of Labor Unions (RILU or the Profintern). He was often in Moscow, where I saw him frequently.<br />
<br />
The Irish students came from the background of the 1916 Easter Rebellion and the revolutionary movement reflected in the lives of men like Larkin and James Connolly. Among them were Sean Murray and James Larkin, Jr. (Big Jim's son). All of them had been active in the post-war independence and labor struggles. I was closest to Murray, the oldest of the group, who was a roommate of mine.<br />
<br />
This was my first encounter with Irish revolutionaries and their experiences excited me. As members of oppressed nations, we had a lot in common. I was impressed by their idealism and revolutionary ardor and their implacable hatred of Britain’s imperialist rulers, as well as for their own traitors. But what impressed me most about them was their sense of national pride—not of the chauvinistic variety, but that of revolutionaries aware of the international importance of their independence struggle and the role of Irish workers.<br />
<br />
Then too, they were a much older nation. Their fight against Britain had at that time been going on for 750 years. They were fond of quoting the observations of Marx and Engels on the Irish movement, such as Marx’s letter to Engels in which he said: “English reaction in England had its roots in the subjugation of Ireland.” Another favorite was: “No nation can be free if it oppresses other nations.”!<br />
<br />
But most of all, they liked to point out Lenin’s defense of the Easter Uprising in his reply to Karl Radek, who had called the rebellion a putsch and discounted the significance of the struggle of small nations in the epoch of imperialism. Lenin admonished Radek, stating that “a struggle capable of going to the lengths of insurrection and street fighting, of breaking down the iron discipline of the army and martial law,” on the doorstep of the imperialist metropolis itself, would be a blow against imperialism more significant than that in a remote colony.<br />
<br />
I was shortly to find these observations applicable to the liberation movement of U.S. Blacks. As a result of my association with the Irish, I became deeply intcrested in the Irish question, seeing in it a number of parallels to U.S. Blacks. In retrospect, I am certain that this interest heightened my receptivity to the idea of a Black nation in the United States. <br />
<br />
=== TEACHERS AND CLASSES ===<br />
The teaching method at the school was a combination of lectures and discussions. About once a week the instructor would give a lecture to the entire English-speaking group, all twenty-five or thirty of us. Readings would be assigned, and when material was not available in English, it would be translated especially for us. I had one advantage in this regard because by this time I could read Russian fluently. Following the iccture, the instructor would delineate a number of sub-topics. Several days later, we would all get together again and one person from each group would report on its work. The instructors were often available for consultation during the time the groups were discussing and researching their topics.<br />
<br />
There were no grades given, nor were there any examinations. At the end of the term we would have evaluation sessions, where everyone met and discussed each other’s work, including that of the teachers. It was a process of comradely criticism and self-criticism.<br />
<br />
I found the classes exciting and challenging and the students on the whole sharp and on a high political level. I was under pressure to keep up. The English in general seemed to be a notch above most of us in political economy. This, I believe, was due to the existence of a large number of Labour Party schools which were spread throughout Britain.<br />
<br />
Our instructor for Marxist political economy was Alexandrov, an economist for the Gosplan, the state planning agency. In our class, he was often challenged on some aspect of Marxian economics, He would often have sharp exchanges with one of the British students, I believe it was Black, over differences in interpretations of Marxian economics,<br />
<br />
Black was a perfect foil for Alexandrov, who scemed to enjoy these tilts and invited the whole class to participate. Summing up the discussion, Alexandroy would brand Black’s position as “undialectical, mechanistic, and rooted in vulgar economism and Fabianism.” Black was stubborn, however, and prodded by Alexandrov, kept up his critical attitude for the whole first term, It was only during the evaluations at the end of the term that Black conceded that some of his positions had been in error,<br />
<br />
Perhaps the most prominent among my teachers was Ladislaus Rudas, a noted Hungarian Marxist philosopher and scholar. Like many Hungarian intellectuals, he spoke several languages fluently. He had been a leader of the short-lived Hungarian Soviet and had come to Moscow along with Béla Kun and the other Hungarian refugees. He taught historical and dialectical materialism and his class was one of the most interesting, It prescnted history, my favorite subject, but with a different content: a Marxist-Leninist interpretation, portraying not just the role of individuals but of classes.<br />
<br />
We had lengthy discussions on the French Revolution; the petty bourgeois dictatorship under Robespierre and the Jacobins; Saint Just and the extreme left, the Thermidor and Napoleon— “the man on the white horse.” The English Revolution and Cromwell, the Levellers, the Long Parliament. The Dutch revolution and Prince Egmont. We had extended discussions on the American revolutions---the War of Independence, the Civil War and Reconstruction.<br />
<br />
These discussions brought out our lack of knowledge of our own U.S, history; there was a complete absence of materials which presented U.S. history from a Marxist standpoint. All I can remember is the so-called Marxist analysis in the works of James Oneal (The Workers in American History) and A.M. Simons’s Social Forces in American History.<br />
<br />
The former I never read, but the work by Simons stands out in my memory for its gratuitous slur on U.S. Blacks, Simons claimed that the Black man did not revolt against slavery during the Civil War: “His inaction in time of crisis, his failure to play any part in the struggle that broke his shackles, told the world that he was not of those who to free themselves would strike a blow.”<br />
<br />
I had read about the slave revolts of Gabriel, Nat Turner, and John Brown’s heroic raid on Harper’s Ferry with his band of whites, free Blacks and escaped slaves. I knew of the role of Black soldiers in the Civil War who had to overcome the opposition of the Union Army in order to fight. Simons’s book skipped over all of this,<br />
<br />
I had come across Charles and Mary Beard’s The Rise of American Civilization, The Beards were economic determinists who had characterized the Civil War as the Second American Revolution. The idea seemed novel at the time, all of which points up how widespread had been the distortion of the period by U.S. bourgeois historians.<br />
<br />
My sub-group, which included Springy and the Irishman Sean Murray, had chosen the Civil War and the Reconstruction period as our subject, with myself as the reporter. Our group had long discussions, after which we consulted Rudas, who by that time had evidently done some homework of his own on the matter. He called our attention to the writings of Marx and Engels, their correspondence on the Civil War, and Mary’s series of articles in the New York Herald Tribune. After the discussions, I submitted a paper to the class, which evoked considerable discussion. On the whole it was well-received by my fellow classmates and commended by Rudas.<br />
<br />
Perhaps our most interesting and stimulating course was on Leninism and the history of the CPSU, taught by the historian I. Mintz. A former Red Army officer, he was at the time assigned to work on a history of the CPSU. Mintz was a young Ukrainian Jew, a soft-spoken and mild-mannered little man. He had a way of illustrating his subject through his own personal experiences during the Revolution and the Civil War in the Ukraine. His appearance contrasted sharply with his role and bloody experiences in the battle for the Ukraine. His was a thrilling story, involving a meteoric rise from leader of partisans to commander of a Red Army brigade. They had fought against a whole array of anti-Soviet and interventionist forces: the White Guardist Deniken; the Cossack Hepmans, Kornilov and Kaledin; Makhno’s anarchists (who were sometimes with and sometimes against the Red Army); General Petlura and sundry gangs of marauders and pogromists; and the remnants of the German garrisons in the Ukraine.<br />
<br />
In connection with our studies of the Bolshevik agrarian policy during the Civil War, Mintz told us of his involvement in the settling of the question of land redistribution in a Ukrainian district. This district had been reconquered by his Red Army unit from Denikin in the early winter of 1920. He gave us a general rundown of the agrarian situation at the time, the class forces in the countryside, their shifting alignment during the course of the Revolution, and the evolution of Bolshevik agrarian policy.<br />
<br />
Kerensky’s provisional government had done nothing to solve the agrarian problem, to relieve the land hunger of the masses of peasantry. Though Kerensky’s program had promised confiscation of the big estates, once in power, the government reneged on even that level of reform.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks exhorted the peasants to await the decision of the Constituent Assembly. Thus, at the time of the outbreak of the Revolution, the vast majority of the cultivatable land was still concentrated in the estates of the big landlords. The peasantry, constituting four-fifths of the population of the old Czarist Empire, was composed of three different strata. The well-to-do peasant not only owned enough land to support himself in good fashion, but also often hired labor to work his land. This group comprised only about four to five percent of the total. The poor peasant was without sufficient land to support himself and his family and often hired himself out as a laborer to the landlord or to a well-to-do peasant. The landless peasant subsisted entirely from the sale of his labor to the landlord or well-to-do peasant.<br />
<br />
Under the slogan “Land, Bread and Peace,” the Bolsheviks cgmbined the seizure of power in the cities with the land revolution underway in the countryside. Allied with the Social Revolutionaries (SRs), the traditional party of the peasantry, the land was taken over in two phases, The first phase, nationalization and confiscation, was incorporated in the Land Decree of the All Russian Congress of Soviets, November 8, 1917. This stamped the seal of governmental endorsement on the land seizures and called for their extension.<br />
<br />
In September 1917, Lenin declared Bolshevik support for the land program of the SRs, while pointing out that only a proletarian revolution could put even this program into practice. The SR program called for equal distribution of land among the peasants while the Bolsheviks favored collective, and eventually state-owned farms. But since the SR program represented the understanding of the majority of peasants, Lenin’s policy was to resolve this difference by “teaching the masses, and in turn learning from the masses, the practical expedient measures for bringing about such a transition.”<br />
<br />
The day after seizing power, the Bolsheviks put this policy into practice with their November 8, 1917, Decree on Land which made the SR program into law. Within three weeks, the SRs' left wing—representing the poorer peasants—had split from the rest of the party and entered a coalition government with the Bolsheviks. In the following years, Lenin held to the basie position he stated when presenting the November 8 decree:<blockquote>'''As a democratic government, we cannot ignore the decision of the masses of the people, even though we may disagree with it. In the fire of experience, applying the decree in practice, and carrying it out locally, the peasants will themselves realize where the truth lies... We must be guided by experience, we must allow complete freedom to the creative faculties of the masses.'''</blockquote>It was against this background that Mintz related some of his experiences in the Ukraine. He told us that the Party in the Ukraine had not fully grasped the lessons of the agrarian revolution in Great Russia. He spoke of one occasion when his outfit had attempted to arbitrarily carry out the collectivization of all the big estates in territory occupied by their division of the Red Army; their efforts met with the stiff resistance of the local peasants, even though the peasants supported Soviet power.<br />
<br />
The peasants insisted on the redistribution of all the estates, breaking them up among the individual peasant families, rather than taking over the large estates collectively, This occurred during the fall months of 1919, on the eve of Denikin’s final defeat, when Soviet power in the form of an “independent Ukrainian Republic” was about to be established.<br />
<br />
It was a time when Lenin, in order to allay anti-Russian distrust and suspicion among the Ukrainian peasantry, had insisted that certain concessions be made. Both Russian and Ukrainian were to be used on an equal footing, and attempts to push back the Ukrainian language to a secondary status were to be denounced. Lenin demanded that all officials in the new republic be able to speak Ukrainian and called for the distribution of large farms among the peasants. State farms were to be created “in strictly limited numbers and of limited size and in each casein conformity with the instruments of the surrounding peasantry.”<br />
<br />
Despite this, Mintz said, many of us Ukrainian Bolsheviks tended to downplay the nationality element in our own country. “In my own case, I had long since ceased to consider myself a Jew.” Most of them were what was called at that time “abstract internationalists”; super-internationalists who, in the name of internationalism, renounced the national element in the struggle of the Ukrainian masses.<br />
<br />
“But we were not alone in this deviation,” Mintz told us. “Although Lenin’s policy was eventually adopted by the Central Executive Committee, it was sharply opposed by leading Ukrainian Bolsheviks such as Rakovsky and Manuilsky. What it finally came down to, in the case of our army division, was that as a result of the opposition of the peasants in the area, we were foreed to give up our plan for collectivization; we thus had to settle for having only one of the estates being set aside as a Soviet farm.”<br />
<br />
The first part of each summer at the Lenin School was spent in practical work that related to our studies. In the course of my practical work program in the early summer of 1928, I had my first close-up ohservation of the peasant question in the USSR. I visited a peasant village in an agricultural district to talk with the people and make observations. Though hardly more than 100 versts (about 66 miles) from Moscow, it was truly in “darkest Russia,” a provincial place, isolated from the city. Few inhabitants had been as far away as Moscow.<br />
<br />
After taking a train to the nearest station, I then had to take a droshky another twenty versts to the county seat. Arriving in the morning, I was let down in the middle of the village square. I looked around to get my bearings, and in no time at all, a crowd had gathered to stare at me.<br />
<br />
‘The crowd grew larger by the minute; it seemed as if the whole village had turned out in the square, I could overhear remarks: “Who is he?”<br />
<br />
“Why is he so Black?”<br />
<br />
“What nice teeth!”<br />
<br />
“Look, his palms are white!”<br />
<br />
“He seems sympatichno,” remarked some.<br />
<br />
Someone else who perhaps had done a little reading said, “Oh, he’s probably from Africa. There the sun is so hot that people who have lived there for thousands of years become black.” The crowd seemed to accept this explanation.<br />
<br />
I stuck out my hand to a young man standing nearby. “Zdravstvuyte,” I said. “Could you direct me to the town committee?” He seemed to be surprised that I could speak Russian, but getting himself together, he directed me toa building across the square.<br />
<br />
“Who are you? Where did you come from?” the young man asked.<br />
<br />
“I'm an American Negro from the United States,” I replied.<br />
<br />
Someone in the crowd remarked, “I told you he was of the Negro tribe.” <br />
<br />
Someone else spoke up, “I thought all people in the United States were white.” <br />
<br />
That gave me the chance to get off on my international propaganda spiel, and I jumped right in. “Oh no,” I replied. “There are twelve million Blacks in the U.S.—ahout one-tenth of the population.” I went on to tell them about Blacks inthe South, and the modern-day remnants of the plantation system: sharecropping, Jim Crow and lynch terror.<br />
<br />
Someone remarked, “Oh, Like it was with us under the old regime.” Many of the villagers nodded their heads in agreement with this.<br />
<br />
Just then I noticed an old woman with a cane, slowly making her way through the crowd toward where I was. The young people gave way before her, in deference to her age. When she reached the center, I watched the changes in expression on her old wrinkled face as she gazed at me. First it registered amazement at such a sight; then comprehension when she had “cased” the whole situation,<br />
<br />
Then she spit on the ground and slammed her cane down, “Idite domoi! Go home!” she told me. “Wash your face! You should be ashamed of yourself, trying to fool the people around here!” Waving her cane at me, she then turned scornfully away. In all her ninety-odd years, she had never before seen a Black man!<br />
<br />
=== TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION ===<br />
The first time I met Stalin was at a social gathering in the Kremlin during the World Congress of the Friends of the Soviet Union. The congress coincided with the Tenth Anniversary celebrations in the fall of 1927. The congress sessions were held at the Dom Soyusov (House of the Trade Unions), It was the greatest international gathering I had ever witnessed. There were probably more than one thousand delegates, representing countries from six continents, The most impressive delegation was the huge one (about one hundred people) from China which was headed by the young and beautiful widow of Sun Yat-sen. (Today she is vice-chairman of the National People’s Republic of China.) <br />
<br />
I was surprised and delighted to meet my old friend Chi (Dum Ping), a former Chinese student at the University of Chicago with whom I had worked in the organization of the ill-fated Interracial Youth Forum on the Southside in 1924. He had since gone back to China and was now one of the translators for the Chinese delegation. It was Chi who introduced me to Madame Sun Yatsen. She spoke English with an American accent, which was not surprising since she had been educated in the United States.<br />
<br />
Among the other notables we were to meet were the young Cuban revolutionary, Antonio Mella, later murdered in Mexico City by Machado’s assassins. He was a tall, wiry youth, who always had a guitar slung over his back. There was Henri Barbusse, a pale, wan man, a victim of tuberculosis, He was a great literary figure in France and wrote a biography of Stalin. There was the american novelist Theodore Dreiser, father of American realism who was there with his secretary, Ruth Epperson Kennel, a young American woman. <br />
<br />
A special friend of us Black students was Josiah Gumede, the elderly president of the African National Congress and a descendant of Zulu chiefs. We took him in charge. Every morning we would call for him at his room at the National Hotel on Tverskaya (now Gorky Street) and escort him to the congress sessions. We also accompanied him on the rounds of parties held by the various delegations. He must have been about sixty at the time, but was big, strong and healthy and never seemed to tire.<br />
<br />
The gala occasion for the whole congress was the Evening of National Culture, It consisted of an elaborate pageant of folk dances from the various Soviet republics and autonomous regions. The dancers were all in their traditional costumes, a striking array of color and diversity. On this occasion, our Soviet hosts went all out for their foreign guests.<br />
<br />
The hall in the Dom Soyusov had been converted into a huge banquet room. We were seated before tables loaded with various kinds of liquor, including of course, the best vodka and zakuskas; appetizers of all kinds—cheeses, herrings, caviar, cold sturgeon and cold meats. Then came dinner, from soup to dessert.<br />
<br />
The banquet finally ended. Most of us were in somewhat of a stupor from food and drink, Our group, which included our teacher Sik, was leaving the hall amidst the din of a thousand people talking and laughing. On our way out we stopped and chatted with numerous delegates.<br />
<br />
Gumede was the chief attraction; he had given a stirring speech at a session of the congress a few days before. As I recall, we were nearing the door when we were stopped and greeted by the old Cossack cavalryman, Marshall Budenny. He was a short, powerful, bow-legged man, with a large ferocious black mustache. He was also in a merry mood.<br />
<br />
“Tell the chief,” he said, grasping Gumede’s hand, “that we stand ready to come to his support anytime he needs us!”<br />
<br />
“Thank you, thank you,” beamed Gumede.<br />
<br />
At that moment, someone approached us, I believe it was Tival, Stalin’s seeretary, and informed us that we were invited to a party in the Kremlin.<br />
<br />
We walked the short distance across the square to the Kremlin. Once within the Kremlin walls, we were guided into one of the old palaces and then taken upstairs to a small hall. It was a longroom with an arched ceiling reaching almost to the floors on the sides. It looked to me as though it could have been a throne room of one of the old czars.<br />
<br />
There were perhaps fifty people in the room. In the center there was a large table loaded with the traditional zakuskas, fruits and drinks. It was sort of a buffet; chairs were not directly at the table but rather were along the walls on each side.<br />
<br />
There in the center on one side was Stalin, with a number of people seated beside him, He rose, shook our hands, and after we were introduced, welcomed us, “Be our guests.” He was a short, thick-set man, as T remember, dressed in a neat tan suit with a military collar and boots shined to glisten.<br />
<br />
He motioned us to the vacant chairs on the other side of the room. On that side were a number of folk dancers and musicians, presumably participants in the earlier festivities, Somebody introduced Gumede as an African Zulu chief from the congress, and the dancers probably thought we were all from the same tribe. Gumede, however, was the center of attention, surrounded by the daricers, who insisted on being photographed with him.<br />
<br />
They gathered around him—a couple sitting on his lap and others behind him with their arms around him, Stalin, observing all this from the other side of the room, seemed amused. Later on, Stalin got up, bid us all good-night and walked out. As I remember, it was quite a relaxed evening with no political discussion. We left shortly after Stalin departed and were driven home by a chauffeur from the Kremlin car pool.<br />
<br />
Another version of this occasion was given, I believe by Sik, who insisted that Otto had danced with Stalin that evening. I don’t doubt Sik’s word, but I certainly don’t remember seeing it. Otto didn’t remember the incident either, But I do know that in Russia it was not uncommon for one man to dance with another on festive occasions, As I recall, the hall became more crowded, and I was attracted by a group of folk dancers who offered to help us students with our Russian,<br />
<br />
Afterwards Sik kept reminding Otto, “Don’t you remember, Otto, you asked Stalin to dance, and you danced around the hall with him several times, That was a memorable occasion; how could you forget it?”<br />
<br />
As for Gumede, he returned home a firm supporter of the Soviet Union. Everywhere he went, he gave glowing reports of his visit there. In January 1928, he told an ANC rally that “I have seen the new world to come, where it has already begun. I have been to the new Jerusalem."<br />
<br />
One day in December, Otto called me and said he had inst gotten a call to pick up a young Black woman, Maude White, who was to be a student at KUTVA. She was waiting at the station. He asked me if I'd like to go along and I readily agreed, looking forward with pleasure to meeting this woman—the first Black woman since Jane Golden to study in the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
We rented a droshky and proceeded to the station. It was a cold winter night, the temperature was somewhere around thirty-five below zero. When we got there, we saw the young Black woman, She was about nineteen, standing in the unheated station, she was a strikingly pretty, brown-skinned woman with huge dark eyes.<br />
<br />
She had on a seal skin coat, silk stockings and pumps, and by time we got there she was practically hysterical with the cold. "Get me out of here,” she shouted. Otto and I looke at each other, both thinking the same thing—we're going to have a rough time with this one. <br />
<br />
We couldn't have been more wrong. Maude got right into the swing of things at school. She was a very popular suger ae stayed in Moscow for three years. We later learned that she ha been a school teacher before coming to Moscow, On returning to the States, she became an outstanding Party cadre and a life-long friend of mine.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 8 ==<br />
<br />
=== Self-Determination: The Fight for a Correct Line ===<br />
Towards the end of 1927, Nasanov returned to the Soviet Union after a sojourn in the United States as the representative of the Young Communist International. I had known him briefly in the States before my departure for Russia. Nasanov was one of a group of YCI workers who had been sent on missions to several countries. He had considerable experience with respect to the national and colonial question and was considered an expert on these matters.<br />
<br />
Nasanov's observations had convinced him that U.S. Blacks were essentially an oppressed nation whose struggle for equality would ultimately take an autonomous direction and that the content of the Black liberation movement was the completion of the agrarian and democratic revolution in the South—a struggle which was left unresolved by the Civil War and betrayal of Reconstruction. Therefore, it was the duty of the Party to channel the movement in a revolutionary direction by raising and supporting the slogan of the right of self-determination for Afro-Americans in the Black Belt, the area of their greatest concentration.<br />
<br />
Upon his return, Nasanov sought me out and it was he, I believe, who first informed me that I had been elected to the National Committee of the YCL back in the States. In the months ahead, we were to become close friends. Through him, I met a number of YCI people, mostly Soviet comrades who held the same position as Nasanov did on the national question. They seemed to be pushing to have the matter reviewed at the forthcoming Sixth Congress of the Comintern. And as it later became clear to me, they were anxious to recruit at least one Black to support their position.<br />
<br />
As I have indicated before, the position was not entirely new to me. I was present at the meeting of the YCL District Committee in Chicago in 1924 when Bob Mazut (then YCI rep to the U.S.), at the behest of Zinoviev, had raised the question of self-determination At that time, he had been shouted down by the white comrades. (See Chapter Four.)<br />
<br />
Sen Katayama had told us Black KUTVA students that Lenin had regarded U.S. Blacks as an oppressed nation and referred us to his draft resolution on the national and colonial question which was adopted by the Second Congress of the Comintern in 1920. Otto and other Black students had also told me that they got a similar impression from their meeting with Stalin at the Kremlin shortly after their arrival in the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
All of this seemed tentative to me. No one had elaborated the position fully and Nasanov was the first person I met who attempted to argue it definitively. But all of these arguments, and especially Nasanov’s prodding, set me to thinking and confronted me with the need to apply concretely my newly-acquired Marxist-Leninist knowledge on the national-colonial question to the condition of Blacks in the United States,<br />
<br />
To me, the idea of a Black nation within U.S. boundaries seemed far-fetched and not consonant with American reality. I saw the solution through the incorporation of Blacks into U.S. society on the basis of complete equality, and only socialism could bring this to pass. There was no doubt in my mind that the path to freedom for us Blacks led directly to socialism, uncluttered by any interim stage of self-determination or Black political power. The unity of Black and white workers against the common enemy, U.S. capitalism, was the motor leading toward the dual goal of Black. freedom and socialism.<br />
<br />
I felt that it was difficult enough to build this unity, without adding to it the gratuitous assumption of a non-existent Black nation, with its implication of a separate state on U.S. soil. To do so, I felt, was to create new and unnecessary roadblocks to the already difficult path to Black and white unity.<br />
<br />
Socialism, I reasoned, was not in contradiction to the movement for Black cultural identity, expressed in the cultural renaissance of the twenties and in Garvey’s emphasis on race pride and history (which I regarded as one of the positive aspects of that movement), Socialism for U.S. Blacks did not imply loss of cultural identity any more than it did for the Jews of the Soviet Union, among whom I had witnessed the proliferation of the positive features of Jewish culture—theater, literature and language.<br />
<br />
The Jews were not considered a nation because they were not concentrated in any definite territory; they were regarded as a national minority and Birobidzhan was set aside as a Jewish autonomous province. Such a bolstering of self-respect, dignity and self-assertion on the part of a formerly oppressed minority people was a necessary stage in the development of a universal culture which would amalgamate the best features of all national groups. This was definitely the policy of the Soviet Union with regard to formerly oppressed nationalities and ethnic groups.<br />
<br />
Like the Jews, I reasoned, the position of U.S. Blacks was that of an oppressed race, though at the time I am sure I would have been hard-pressed to define precisely what was meant by that phrase. The main factor in the oppression of Jews under the Czar had been the religious factor; the main factor with U.S, Blacks was race. Blacks lacked some of the essential attributes of a nation which had been defined by Stalin in his classic work, Marxism and the National Question.<br />
<br />
Most assuredly, one could argue that among Blacks there existed elements of a special culture and also a common language (English). But this did not add up to a nation, I reasoned. Missing was the all-important aspect of a national territory. Even if one agreed that the Black Belt, where Blacks were largely concentrated, rightfully belonged to them, they were in no geographic position to assert their right of self-determination.<br />
<br />
I could see many analogies between the national problem in the old Czarist Empire and the problem of U.S. Blacks, but the analogy floundered on this question of territory. For the subject nations of the old Czarist Empire were situated either on the border of the oppressing Great Russian nation or were completely outside it. But American Blacks were set down in the very midst of the oppressing white nation, the strongest capitalist power on earth. Faced with this, it was no wonder that most nationalist movements up until then had taken the road of a separate state outside the United States. How then could one convince U.S. Blacks that the right of self-determination was a realistic program?<br />
<br />
Nasanov and his young friends answered my arguments over the course of a series of discussions and were quick to pick out the flaws in my position, They contended that I was guilty of an ahistoric approach with respect to the elements of nationhood. Certainly, some of the attributes of a nation were weakly developed in the case of U.S. Blacks. But that was the case with most oppressed peoples precisely because the imperialist policy of national oppression is directed towards artificially and forcibly retaining the economic and cultural backwardness of the colonial peoples as a condition for their super-exploitation. My mistake had been to ignore Lenin’s dictum that in the epoch of imperialism it was essential to differentiate between the oppressor and the oppressed nations,<br />
<br />
They further contended that I had presented the matter as though self-determination were solely a question for Blacks. | had therefore separated the Black rebellion from the struggle for socialism in the United States. In fact, it was a constituent part of the latter struggle or, more precisely, a special phase of the struggle of the American working class for socialism.<br />
<br />
My argument added up to a defense of the current position of the U.S. Party, albeit I had embellished the position somewhat against Nasanov's criticisms. Up to this point, the Black students had not challenged the Party’s line on Afro-American work, We reasoned that the Party’s default in the work among Blacks was not the result of an incorrect line, but came from a failure to carry out in practice its declared line. We believed that this failure was due to an underestimation of the importance of work among Blacks, which came from an underestimation of the revolutionary potential of the struggle of the Black masses for equality. All this resulted from the persistence of remnants of white racist ideology vathin the ranks of the Party, including some of its leadership.<br />
<br />
Nasanov and some of his friends agreed with us that the American CP did underestimate the revolutionary potential of the Black struggle for equality. But, they maintained, this underestimation came from a fundamentally incorrect social-democratic line, rather than from white chauvinism, They said that I had stood the whole matter on its head: I had presented the incorrect policies as the result of subjective white chauvinist attitudes; whereas, they pointed out that the white chauvinist attitudes persisted precisely because the Party’s line was fundamentally incorrect in that it denied the national character of the question.<br />
<br />
“Our American comrades seem to think that only the direct struggle for socialism is revolutionary,” they told me, “and that the national movement detracts from that struggle and is therefore reactionary.” This, they pointed out, was an American version of the “pure proletarian revolution” concept; they referred me to Lenin’s polemic against Radek on the question of self-determination.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks also criticized my formulation of the matter as primarily a race question. To call the matter a race question, they said, was to fall into the bourgeois liberal trap of regarding the fight for equality as primarily a fight against racial prejudices of whites. This slurred over the economic and social roots of the question and obscured the question of the agrarian democratic revolution in the South, which was pivotal to the struggle for Black equality throughout the country. They pointed out that it was wrong to counterpose the struggle for equality to the struggle for self-determination. For in fact, in the South, self-determination for Blacks (political power in their own hands) was the guarantee of equality.<br />
<br />
=== HISTORY OF THE QUESTION IN THE COMINTERN ===<br />
In these discussions with my young friends, which extended over the course of several months, I became keenly aware of the gaps in my understanding of Marxist-Leninist theory on the national-colonial question. I was to find, as Nasanov and others had indicated, that the idea of Blacks as an oppressed nation was not new in the Comintern. Though Stalin was undoubtedly the person pushing the position at the time, it had not originated with him, but with Lenin himself.<br />
<br />
It first appeared in Lenin’s “Draft Theses on the National Colonial Question” which he submitted to the Second Congress of the Comintern in 1920. The draft, which was later adopted, called upon the communist parties to “render direct aid to the revolutionary movements among the dependent and underprivileged nations (for example, Ireland, the American Negroes, etc.) and in the colonies.<br />
<br />
Some have argued that Lenin’s reference to U.S. Blacks as a subject nation was merely a tentative deduction. When he submitted his draft, he asked the delegates for opinions and suggestions on fifteen points, one of which was “Negroes in America."<br />
<br />
It was recorded, however, that the Colonial Commission of the congress, which Lenin himself headed and in which Sen Katayama was a leading member, held lengthy discussions on the question of U.S, Blacks. <br />
<br />
John Reed, the American author, was a delegate and participated in the discussion, apparently in opposition to Lenin’s formulations. In fact, he made two speeches, one in the commission and one to the congress, contending that the problem of U.S. Blacks was that of “both a strong race movement and a strong proletarian workers’ movement which is rapidly developing in class consciousness.” Equating all national movements among Blacks to Garvey’s Back to Africa separatism, he contended that “a movement which struggles for a separate national existence has no success among the Negroes, like the ‘Back to Africa’ movement, for example.....” and that Blacks “consider themselves above all Americans, they feel at home in the United States. This makes the tasks of communists very much easier."<br />
<br />
But despite Reed’s objections, the reference to American Blacks as an oppressed nation remained in the resolution as finally adopted. For Lenin’s thesis was not something spun out of thin air, but was the result of a serious study of the question. This is clear from his work “New Data on the Laws Governing the Development of Capitalism in Agriculture,” which spoke about the United States,<br />
<br />
In this work, published in 1915 (and based on the U.S. Census of 1910), Lenin viewed the question of Blacks in the South as one of an uncompleted agrarian and bourgeois democratic revolution, He drew attention to the remarkable similarity between the economic positions of the South’s Black tenants and the emancipated serfs in theagrarian centers of Russia, pointing out that both groups were not tenants in the European civilized sense, but “...semi-slaves, share-croppers...”<br />
<br />
Emphasizing the absence of elementary democratic rights among Blacks, he alluded to the South as “the most stagnant area, where the masses are subjected to the greatest degradation and oppression...a kind of prison where (these ‘emancipated’ Negroes) are hemmed in, isolated, and deprived of fresh air.” These kinds of conditions, the lot of the vast majority of U.S. Blacks, undoubtedly led Lenin to conclude that their movement for “emancipation” would take a national revolutionary direction.<br />
<br />
Conclusive proof of Lenin’s thinking at the time with respect to U.S. Blacks can be found in an uncompleted work written in 1917 though not available until 1935. The work, “Statistics and Sociology,” was begun in the early part of 1917, but was interrupted by the February Revolution and never resumed. <br />
<br />
In the section of the manuscript referring to U.S. Blacks, he drew a clear distinction between their positions and that of the foreign-born immigrants, that is between the white foreign-born assimilables and the Black unassimilables.<blockquote>'''In the United States, the Negroes (and also the Mulattos and Indians) account for only 11.1 per cent. They should be classed as an oppressed nation, for the equality won in the Civil War of 1861-1865 and guaranteed by the Constitution of the republic was in many respects increasingly curtailed in the chief Negro areas (the South) in connection with the transition from the progressive, pre-monopoly capitalism of 1860-1870 to the reactionary, monopoly capitalism (imperialism) of the new era."'''</blockquote>Whereas with the white foreign-born immigrants, Lenin observed that the speed of development of capitalism in America has “produced a situation in which vast national differences are speedily and fundamentally, as nowhere else in the world, smoothed out to form a single ‘American nation.’ <br />
<br />
All of this shows that the idea that U.S. Blacks comprise an oppressed nation was neither a temporary nor tentative formulation on Lenin’s part. <br />
<br />
Despite the thesis of the Second Congress, Reed’s views reflecting as they did the position of the young American Party-— were to persist in the U.S. without serious challenge through the Fifth Congress of the Comintern. The Third Congress of 1921 recorded no discussion with respect to the character of the problem. <br />
<br />
The Fourth Congress in 1922 also did not seriously discuss the point. This mecting, however, marked the first appearance of Black delegates to the Comintern. They were Otto Huiswood as regular Party delegate, and the poet Claude McKay as a special fraternal delegate. It was also the first congress to set up a Negro Commission, and extended discussions took place on the thesis brought in by the commission which characterized the position of U.S. Blacks as an aspect of the colonial question. It stressed the special role of American Blacks in support of the liberation struggles of Africa, Central and South America and the Caribbean. <br />
<br />
The thesis of the Fourth Congress did add a new, international dimension to the question, but it did not challenge the Party's basic anti-self-determination position. This position was stressed in a speech by Huiswood (Billings) which called the Afro-American question “another phase of the racial and colonial question,’ an essentially economic problem which was “intensified by the friction which exists between the white and black races,"<br />
<br />
The discussion of the character of the question came up in the Fifth Congress in 1924, this time in connection with the Draft Program of the Communist International. For the first time since the Second Congress, the discussion centered directly on the character of the question as an oppressed nation and the appropriateness of the slogan of the right of self-determination.<br />
<br />
August Thalheimer (the German head of the Commission on the Draft Program) reported that “the slogan of the right of self-determination cannot solve all national questions,” Such is the case in the United States, “where there is an extraordinarily mixed population” and where the “race question” is also involved. Therefore, he pointed out, “the Program Commission was of the opinion that the slogan of right of self-determination must be supplemented by another slogan: ‘Equal Rights for all Nationalities and Races."<br />
<br />
Representing the U.S. at the Fifth Congress, John Pepper supported this anti-self-determination position. According to him, the United States was a country in which the different nationalities could not be separated. Self-determination was not appropriate; Blacks in the U.S, did not want it. “They do not want to set up a separate state inside the U.S.A.,” and they wish to remain inside the U.S,, not leave it for Africa. To the demand of “social equality,” he held that “we should change these words to the following: full equality in every respect.”<br />
<br />
Lovett Fort-Whiteman, the sole Black delegate, apparently supported Pepper’s position and gave his standard speech (which I was to hear a number of times in the States), He stressed the racial aspect of the problem and called for a special communist approach to Blacks.<br />
<br />
There appeared to be no opposition to the draft program, but, after all, it was only the first version. The program in its final form was to be discussed and adopted at the Sixth Congress. Apparently Zinoviev and others in the CI leadership were not satisfied with the formulation that had rejected self-determination for U.S. Blacks. Zinoviev had instructed Bob Mazut to investigate the question while on his assignment to the U.S., immediately following the congress.<br />
<br />
Such was the situation following the Fifth Congress. The question can be raised as to why the U.S. Party’s position was not seriously challenged during this whole period and why the proponents in the Comintern of the self-determination thesis failed to press for their position.<br />
<br />
Their reluctance in this regard, I presume, was because they did not want to push their position against the unanimous opposition of the American Party, including its Black members. After all, the Comintern was a voluntary union of communist parties which operated under democratic-centralism. It was not the policy of the Comintern leadership to arbitrarily force positions on member parties. <br />
<br />
=== 1928; A REEXAMINATION OF THE QUESTION ===<br />
How are we to account then for the renewed interest in the Afro-American question among certain influential leaders of the Comintern on the eve of the Sixth Congress? Why the drive to re open the question? The answer lies in the changed world situation: the sharpened crisis of the world capitalist system, consequent on the breakdown of partial capitalist stabilization, the beginning of a deepening economic depression in Europe; and the continued upsurge of the colonial revolutions in China, India and Indonesia,<br />
<br />
These harbingers of the new period were pointed out by Stalin at the Fifteenth Congress of the CPSU in early December 1927, in which he referred to the “collapsing stabilization” of capitalism. <br />
<br />
It was to be a period of revolutionary struggle. In order to lead these struggles, an attack on right opportunism was required in the practice and work of the communist parties. It was a period in which the national and colonial question was to acquire a new urgency. The CI paid special attention to the fight against those views which liquidated or downplayed the importance of the question. In this context, the Comintern felt that the establishment of a revolutionary line on the Afro-American question was key if the CPUSA was to lead the joint struggle of the Black and white working masses in the coming period.<br />
<br />
The low status of the CP’s Negro work itself was another factor pressing for a radical policy review. There had been no progress in this work, despite the prodding of the Comintern. As already mentioned, the highly touted American Negro Labor Congress had failed to even get off the ground.<br />
<br />
In a speech at the Sixth Congress, James Ford counted nineteen communications from the Comintern to the U.S, Party on Negro work, none of which had been put into effect or brought before the Party. He further observed that “we have no more than 50 Negroes in our Party, out of the 12 million Negroes in America." <br />
<br />
All of these factors strengthened the determination of the Comintern to make the Sixth Congress the arena for a drastic reevaluation of work and policy in this area.<br />
<br />
In the winter of 1928, preparations were already afoot for the Sixth Congress which was to convene the following summer. The Anglo-American Secretariat of the CI set up a special subcommitteee on the Negro question which would prepare a draft resolution for the official Negro Commission of the Congress.<br />
<br />
As I recall, the subcommittce consisted of Nasanov and five students: four Blacks (including my brother Otto and myself) and one white student, Clarence Hathaway, from the Lenin School, In addition, there were some ex-officio members: Profintern rep Bill Dunne and Comintern rep Bob Minor, They seldom attended our sessions. James Ford, who was then assigned to the Profintern, also attended some sessions.<br />
<br />
Our subcommittee met and broke the subject down into topics; each of us accepted one as his assignment to research and report on to the committee as a whole. The high point in the discussion was the report of my brother Otto on Garvey’s Back to Africa movement. In his report, he concluded that the nationalism expressed in that movement had no objective base in the economic, social and political conditions of U.S. Blacks. It was, he asserted, a foreign importation artificially grafted onto the freedom movement of U.S, Blacks by the West Indian nationalist, Garvey.<br />
<br />
U.S. Blacks, Otto concluded, were not an oppressed nation but an oppressed racial minority. The long-range goal of the movement was not the right of self-determination but complete economic, social and political equality to be won through a revolutionary alliance of Blacks and class-conscious white labor in a joint struggle for socialism against the common enemy, U.S. capitalism.<br />
<br />
Up to that point, I was still not certain as regarded tbe applicability of the right of self-determination to the problems of Blacks in the U.S., but my misgivings about the slogan had been shaken somewhat by the series of discussions I had had with my Russian friends. Otto, in his report, had merely restated the CP’s current position. But somehow, against the background of our discussion of the Garvey movement, the inadequacy of that position stood out like a sore thumb. Otto, however, had done more than simply restate the position; he brought out into the open what had been implicit in the Party’s position all along. That is, that any type of nationalism among Blacks was reactionary.<br />
<br />
This view, it occurred to me, was the logical outcome of any position which saw only the “pure proletarian” class struggle as the sole revolutionary struggle against capitalism. The Party had traditionally considered the Afro-American question as that of a persecuted racial minority. They centered their activity almost exclusively on Blacks as workers and treated the question as basically a simple trade union matter, underrating other aspects of the struggle. The struggle for equal rights was seen as a diversion that would obscure or overshadow the struggle for socialism.<br />
<br />
But how could one wage a fight against white chauvinism from that position? I thought at the time that viewing everything in light of the trade union question would lead to a denial of the revolutionary potential of the struggle of the whole people for equality. Otto’s rejection of nationalism as an indigenous trend brought these points out sharply in my mind.<br />
<br />
In the discussion, I pointed out that Otto's position was not merely a rejection of Garveyism but also a denial of nationalism as a legitimate trend in the Black freedom movement, I felt that it amounted to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. With my insight sharpened by previous discussions, I argued further that the nationalism reflected in the Garvey movement was not a foreign transplant, nor did it spring full-blown from the brow of Jove. On the contrary, it was an indigenous product, arising from the soil of Black super-exploitation and oppression in the United States, It expressed the yearnings of millions of Blacks for a nation of their own.<br />
<br />
As I pursued this logic, a totally new thought occurred to me, and for me it was the clincher. The Garvey movement is dead, I reasoned, but not Black nationalism. Nationalism, which Garvey diverted under the slogan of Back to Africa, was an authentic trend, likely to flare up again in periods of crisis and stress. Sucha movement might again fall under the leadership of utopian visionaries who would seek to divert it from the struggle against the main enemy, U.S. imperialism, and on to a reactionary separatist path. The only way such a diversion of the struggle could be forestalled was by presenting a revolutionary alternative to Blacks.<br />
<br />
To the slogan of “Back to Africa,” I argued, we must counterpose the slogan of “right of self-determination here in the Deep South.” Our slogan for the U.S, Black rebellion therefore must be the “right of self-determination in the South, with full equality throughout the country,” to be won through revolutionary alliance with politically conscious white workers against the common enemy-—-U.S. imperialism,<br />
<br />
Nasanov was seated across the table from me during this discussion and, elated at my presentation, he demonstratively rose to shake my hand. I was the first American communist (with perhaps the exception of Briggs) to support the thesis that U.S. Blacks constituted an oppressed nation.<br />
<br />
The next day, Nasanov and I submitted a resolution to the subcommittee incorporating our views. We couldn't get a majority but we had Hathaway’s support, as I remember. It was agreed that the resolution be submitted to the Anglo-American Secretariat as the views of those who subscribed to it, and those who disagreed with it would present their own views.<br />
<br />
The only really persistent opposition in the subcommittee, as I remember, came from Otto; the other students were somewhat ambivalent on the question. I attributed much of this to Sik’s influence, since he had already begun to develop his position which held that the question of U.S. Blacks was a “race” question and that Blacks should not demand seif-determination, but simply full social and political equality. His theories were later used by the Lovestoncites and others who opposed the self-determination position.<br />
<br />
Once my hesitations were overcome, the whole theory fell logicatly into place. Here is the full analysis as I came to understand it. The thesis that called for the right of selfdetermination is supported by a serious economic-historical analysis of U.S. Blacks.<br />
<br />
The evolution of American Blacks as an oppressed nation was begun in slavery. In the final analysis, however, it was the result of the unfinished bourgeois democratic revolution of the Civil War and the betrayal of Reconstruction through the Hayes-Tilden (Gentiemen’s) Agreement of 1877.<br />
<br />
This betrayal was followed by withdrawal of federal troops and the unleashing of counter-revolutionary terror, including the massacre of thousands of Blacks and the overthrow of the Reconstruction governments which had been based on an alliance of Blacks, poor whites and carpetbaggers. The result was that the Black freedmen, deserted by their former Republican allies, were left without land. Their newly-won rights were destroyed with the abrogation of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and they were thrust back upon the plantations of their former masters in a position but little removed from chattel bondage.<br />
<br />
The revolution had stopped short of a solution to the crucial land question, there was neither confiscation of the big plantations of the former slaveholding class, nor distribution of the land among the Negro freedmen and poor whites. It was around this issue of land for the freedmen that the revolutionary democratic wave of Radical Reconstruction beat in vain and finally broke.<br />
<br />
The advent of imperialism, the epoch of trusts and monopolies at the turn of the century, froze the Blacks in their post-Reconstruction position; landless, semi-slaves in the South. It blocked the road to fusion of Blacks and whites into one nation on the basis of equality and put the final seal on the special oppression of Blacks. The path towards equality and freedom via assimilation was foreclosed by these events, and the struggle for Black equality thenceforth was ultimately bound to take a national revolutionary direction.<br />
<br />
Under conditions of imperialist and racist oppression, Blacks in the South were to acquire all the attributes of a subject nation. They are a people set apart by a common ethnic origin, economically interrelated in various classes, united by a common historical experience, reflected in a special culture and psychological makeup. The territory of this subject nation is the Black Belt, an area encompassing the Deep South, which, despite massive outmigrations, still contained (and does to this day) the country’s largest concentration of Blacks.<br />
<br />
Thus, imperialist oppression created the conditions for the eventual rise ofa national liberation movement with its base in the South. The content of this movement would be the completion of the agrarian democratic revolution in the South; that is, the right of self-determination as the guarantee of complete equality throughout the country.<br />
<br />
This new analysis defined the status of Blacks in the north as an unassimilable national minority who cannot escape oppression by fleeing the South. The shadow of the plantation falls upon them throughout the country, as the semi-slave relations in the Black Belt continually reproduce Black inequality and servitude in all walks of life.<br />
<br />
There are certain singular features of the submerged Afro-American nation which differentiate it from other oppressed nations and which have made the road towards national eonsciousness and identity difficult and arduous. Afro-Americans are not only “a nation within a nation,” but a captive nation, suffering a colonial-type oppression while trapped within the geographic bounds of one of the world’s most powerful imperialist countries.<br />
<br />
Blacks were forced into the stream of U.S. history in a peculiar manner, as chattel slaves, and are victims of an excruciatingly destructive system of oppression and persecution, due not only to the economic and social survivals of slavery, but also to its ideological heritage, racism.<br />
<br />
The Afro-American nation is also unique in that it is a new nation evolved from a people forcibly transplanted from their original African homeland. A people comprised of various tribal and linguistic groups, they are a product not of their native African soil, but of the conditions of their transplantation.<br />
<br />
The overwhelming, stifling factor of race, the doctrine of inherent Black inferiority perpetuated by ruling class ideologues, has sunk deep into the thinking of Americans. It has become endemic, permeating the entire structure of U.S. life. Given this, Blacks could only remain permanently unabsorbed in the new world’s “melting pot.”<br />
<br />
The race factor has also left its stigma on the consciousness of the Black nation, creating a powerful mystification about Black Americans which has served to obscure their objective status as an oppressed nation. It has twisted the direction of the Afro-American liberation movement and scarred it while still in its embryonic state.<br />
<br />
Although the objective base for equality and freedom via direct integration was foreclosed by the defeat of Reconstruction andthe advent of the U.S. as an imperialist power, bourgeois assimilationist illusions were continued into the new era. They were nurtured and kept alive by the nascent Black middle class and the liberal detachment of the white bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Conditions, however, were maturing for the rise of a mass nationalist movement. This movement was to burst with explosive force upon the political scene in the period following World War I, with the rise of the Garvey movement. The potentially revolutionary movement of Black toilers was diverted into utopian reactionary channels of a peaceful return to Africa.<br />
<br />
The period of bourgeois democratic revolutions in the United States ended with the defeat of democratic Reconstruction. The issue of Black freedom was carried over into the epoch of imperialism. Its full solution postponed to the next stage of human progress, socialism. The question has remained and become the most vulnerable area on the domestic front of U.S. capitalism, its “Achilles heel”—a major focus of the contradictions in U.S. society.<br />
<br />
Blacks, therefore, in the struggle for national liberation and the entire working class in its struggle for socialism are natural allies. The forging of this alliance is enhanced by the presence of a growing Black industria} working class. with direct and historical connections with white labor.<br />
<br />
This new line established that the Black freedom struggle is a revolutionary movement in its own right, directed against the very foundations of U.S. imperialism, with its own dynamic pace and momentum, resulting from the unfinished democratic and land revolutions in the South. It places the Black liberation movement and the class struggle of U.S. workers in their proper relationship as two aspects of the fight against the common enemy—U.S. capitalism, It elevates the Black movement to a position of equality in that battle.<br />
<br />
The new theory destroys forever the white racist theory traditional among class-conscious white workers which had relegated the struggle of Blacks to a subsidiary position in the revolutionary movement. Race is defined as a device of national oppression, a smokescreen thrown up by the class enemy, to hide the underlying economic and social conditions involved in Black oppression and to maintain the division of the working class.<br />
<br />
The new theory was to sensitize the Party to the revolutionary significance of the Black liberation struggle. During the crisis of the thirties, a significant segment of radicalized white workers would come to see the Blacks as revolutionary allies.<br />
<br />
The struggle for this position had now begun; there remained its adoption by the Comintern and its final acceptance by the U.S. Party. Our draft resolution, which summed up these points, was turned over to Petrovsky (Bennett), Chairman of the AngloAmerican Secretariat. He seemed quite pleased with it, expressed his agreement and suggested some minor changes. He agreed to submit it to the Negro Commission at the forthcoming Sixth Congress.<br />
<br />
I continued to work with Nasanov on preparations for the congress. By that time, we had become quite a team. Our next project was the South African question, a question which also fell under the jurisdiction of the Anglo-American Secretariat.<br />
<br />
We were assigned to work with James La Guma, a South African Colored comrade who had come to Moscow to attend the Tenth Anniversary celebrations and stayed on to discuss with the ECCI and the Anglo-American Secretariat the problems of the South African Party. Specifically, we were to draft a new resolution on the question, restating and elaborating the Comintern line of an independent Native South African Republic, (The word “Native” was in common usage at the time of the Sixth Congress, though today it is considered derogatory and has been replaced with Black republic or Azania.) <br />
<br />
=== SOUTH AFRICA ===<br />
This line, formulated the year before with the cooperation of La Guma during his first visit to the Soviet Union in the spring of 1927, had been rejected by the leadership of the South African Party.<br />
<br />
La Guma, as I recall, was a young brown-skinned man of Malagasy and French parentage. In South Africa, this placed him in the Colored category, a rung above the Natives on the racial ladder established by the white supremacist rulers. Colored persons were defined as those of mixed blood, including descendants of Javanese slaves, mixed in varying degrees with European whites.<br />
<br />
La Guma, however, identified completely with the Natives and their movement. He had been general secretary of the ICU (Industrial and Commercial Union, the federation of Native trade unions) and also secretary of the Capetown branch of the ANC. Later, after his expulsion from the ICU by the red-baiting clique of Clements Kadalie (a Native social democrat), La Guma became secretary of the non-European trade union federation in Cape town.<br />
<br />
La Guma was the first South African communist I had ever met. I was delighted and impressed with him and was to find, in the course of our brief collaboration, striking parallels between the struggles of U.S. Blacks for equality and those of the Native South Africans. In both countries, the white leadership of their respective parties underestimated the revolutionary potential of the Black movement,<br />
<br />
La Guma had made his first trip to Moscow the year before. He and Josiah Gumede, president of the ANC, had come as delegates to the inaugural conference of the League Against Imperialism which had convened in Brussels, Belgium, in February 1927. Gumede attended as a delegate from the ANC, while La Guma was a delegate from the South African Communist Party. It was La Guma’s first international gathering, and he had the opportunity to meet with leaders from colonial and semi-colonial countries and discuss the South African question with them. Madame Sun Yat-sen and Pandit Nehru were among those present, The conference adopted the resolutions of the South African delegates on the right of self-determination through the complete overthrow of imperialism. The general resolutions of the congress proclaimed: “Africa for the Africans, and their full freedom and equality with other races and the right to govern Afriea.”<br />
<br />
After Brussels, La Guma went on a speaking tour to Germany, after which he came to Moscow. Although the Brussels conference had called for the right of self-determination, it left unanswered many specific questions that are raised by that slogan. Were the Natives in South Africa a nation? What was to be done with the whites?<br />
<br />
La Guma was to find the answer to these questions in Moscow, where he consulted with ECCI leaders, including Bukharin, who was then president of the Comintern. He participated with ECCI leaders in the formulation of a resolution on the South Afriean question, calling for the return of the land to the natives and for “an independent native South African republic as a stage towards a workers’ and peasants’ republic with full, equal rights for all races.”<br />
<br />
La Guma returned to South Africa with the resolution in June 1927, Gumede also arrived home in the same month. But the resolution was received hostilely by Bunting and was rejected by the South African Party leadership at its annual conference in December 1927.<br />
<br />
Bunting was a British lawyer who had come to South Africa some years before. An early South African socialist and a founder of the Communist Party, he was the son of a British peer. As Bunting later commented, he nearly used up the small fortune he had inherited in the support of Party work and publications.<br />
<br />
Bunting and his followers insisted that the South African revolution, unlike those in the colonies, was a direct struggle for socialism without any intermediary stages. To the Comintern slogan of a “Native South African Republic,” Bunting counterposed the slogan of a “Workers’ and Peasants’ Republic.” This concept of “pure proletarian revolution” was an echo of what we had found in the U.S. Party with respect to Blacks. But here, the error stood out grotesquely given the reality of the South African situation with its overwhelming Native majority.<br />
<br />
it was against this background that La Guma and Gumede left to go to Moscow to attend the Tenth Anniversary celebrations, and the Congress of the Friends of the Soviet Union. La Guma apparently was not in Moscow on that oceasion; he was probably out on a tour of the provinces. Both he and Gumede travelled widely during their visit to the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
Our purpose at this time was to develop and clarify the line laid down in the resolution formulated the previous year. Our draft, with few changes, was adopted by the Sixth Congress of the Comintern and the ECCI.<br />
<br />
As already noted, Bunting had put forward the slogan of a South African “Workers’ and Peasants’ Government.” Bunting’s formulation denied the colonial character of South Africa, He failed, therefore, to see the inherent revolutionary nature of the Natives’ struggle for emancipation.<br />
<br />
As opposed to this, our resolution began with a definition of South Africa as “a British dominion of the colonial type” whose colonial features included:<br />
<br />
1, The country was exploited by British imperialism, with the participation of the South African white bourgeoisie (British and Boer), with British capital occupying the principal economic position.<br />
<br />
2. The overwhelming majority of the population were Natives and Colored (five million Natives and Colored, with one and a half million whites, according to the 1921 Census).<br />
<br />
3. Natives, who held only one-eighth of the land, were almost completely landless, the great bulk of their land having been expropriated by the white minority.<br />
<br />
4, The “great difference in wages and material conditions of the white and black proletariat,” and the widespread corruption of the white workers by the racist propaganda and ideology of the imperialists.<br />
<br />
These features, we held, determined the character of the South African revolution which, in its first stage, would be a struggle of Natives and non-European peoples for independence and land. As the previous resolution had done, our draft (in the form adopted by the Sixth Congress and the ECCI) held that as a result of these canditions, in order to lead and influence that movement, communists—black and white—must put forth and fight for the general political slogan of “an independent Native South African Republic as a stage towards a workers’ and peasants’ republic, with full, equal rights for all races, black, coloured and white.”<br />
<br />
“South Afriea is a black country,” the resolution went onto say, with a mainly black peasant population, whose land had been expropriated by the white colonizers. Therefore, the agrarian question lies at the foundation of the revolution. The black peasantry, in alliance with and under the leadership of the working class, is the main driving foree. Thus, along with the slogan of a “Native Republic,” the Party must place the slogan “return of the land to the Natives.”<br />
<br />
This latter formulation does not appear in the resolution as finally adopted. Instead, it includes the following two formulations:<br />
<br />
1. Whites must accept the “correct principle that South Africa belongs to the native population.”<br />
<br />
2. “The basic question in the agrarian situation in South Africa is the land hunger of the blacks and . . . their interest is of prior importance in the solution of the agrarian question.”<br />
<br />
With the new resolution completed, La Guma returned to South Africa. In the year since the first resolution, the opposition to the line had intensified and had already come to a head at the December Party Congress—-even before La Guma’s return.<br />
<br />
Bunting put forward his position in a fourteen page document in the early part of 1928. He equated the nationalism of the Boer minority to the nationalism of the Natives and justified his opposition to nationalism on the basis that all national movements were subject to capitalist corruption, and, in the case of South Afriea, a national movement among Natives “would probably only accelerate the fusion, in opposition to it, of the Dutch and British imperialists." Since it would thus only consolidate the forees against it, it was not to be supported.<br />
<br />
Bunting not only underrated nationalism, he played on the whites’ fear of it and raised the specter of blacks being given free reign, with a resulting campaign to drive the whites into thesea. He was echoing the specter that was haunting whites who remembered the song of the Xhosas:<blockquote>'''To chase the white men from the earth''' <br />
<br />
'''And drive them to the sea.'''<br />
<br />
'''The sea that cast them up at first'''<br />
<br />
'''For Ama Xhosa’s curse and bane''' <br />
<br />
'''Howls for the progeny she nursed'''<br />
<br />
'''To swallow them again.'''</blockquote>According to Bunting, the elimination of whites seemed to be implied in the slogan of a “Native Republic.” He regarded the phrase “safeguards for minorities ” as having little meaning, since whites would assume that the existing injustices would be reversed; that, in effect, blacks would do to them what they had been handing out for so long.<br />
<br />
While Bunting had held that all nationalism was reactionary, La Guma distinguished between the revolutionary nationalism of the Natives and the “nationalism” of the Boers (which in reality was simply a quarrel between sections of the ruling class), He argued that the communists must not hold back on the revolutionary demands of the Natives in order to pacify the white workers who are still “saturated with an imperialist ideology” and conscious of the privileges they enjoy at the Natives’ expense. <br />
<br />
Bunting held that the road to socialism would be traveled under white leadership; to La Guma, the securing of black rights was the first step to be taken, As the Simonses described it, “First establish African majority rule, he argued, and unity, leading to socialism, would follow.” La Guma called on communists to “build up a mass party based upon the non-European masses,” put forward the slogan of a Native Republic and thus destroy the traditional subservience to whites among Africans. This argument continued up through the Sixth Congress.<br />
<br />
=== MY STAY IN THE CAUCASUS ===<br />
In the middle of April 1928, I left Moscow for a stay in the Caucasus. The winter had been one of those long, cold, dark Moscow winters, Snow was still on the ground in April, Over the whole season, I had been plagued by recurrent seizures of grippe. Between the demands of school and the preparations for the Sixth Congress, it had been a winter of intense activity, Undoubtedly, this had contributed to my inability to shake off the illness. By the spring, I was pretty run down. <br />
<br />
The school doctor detected a slight anemia and recommended a month in a rest home. So, I was shipped off to Kislovodsk, a famous health resort in the northern Caucasus. I traveled south and east, across the Ukrainian steppe, where spring had already come to Rostov-on-Don, the administrative center for the northerm Caucasus region, Then on to Mincralny Vody (Mineral Water), the gateway to the Caucasus and a major railroad junction. I changed there for Kislovodsk, a short distance further towards the mountains.<br />
<br />
Stepping off the train in Kislovodsk in early morning, I felt better at my first breath of fresh mountain air. The city was located in the foothills on the northern range of the Caucasus. Its mineral springs were famed for their medicinal properties, especially for coronary patients. Formerly a famous watcring-place for the wealthy, it was now enjoyed by all the Soviet people. Kislovodsk was the source of the famous Narzan water which cost forty or fifty kopeks a bottle in Moscow. Here it bubbled from the ground in numerous springs, and you could drink all you wanted.<br />
<br />
Checking in at the sanitarium, I was assigned to a room shared by three others-—two workers and a Party functionary from Tbilisi named Kolya Tsereteli. Kolya was a tall, handsome, swarthy young man. He cut quite a figure in his long Georgian robochka, soft leather boots, high astrakhan cap and ornamental belt, complete with kinjal (dagger). He immediately took me in charge and became my constant companion during my stay there. <br />
<br />
After I had been examined by a doctor who prescribed daily baths, Kolya took me around on a sightseeing tour. The sun was coming up over the parks, cypress trees and places for open air concerts.<br />
<br />
After several weeks, I felt much better and was soon chafing at the bit, bored with the regimen and eager to return to Moscow, At this point Kolya suggested that we might try to arrange my accompanying him to his home in Tbilisi (hot springs) and stay for a week before returning to Moscow. I was delighted and had no difficulty in getting both my release from the sanitarium and permission from the school to make the trip.<br />
<br />
Tbilisi--the Florence of the Caucasus—was a beautiful modern city, stretching for miles along both sides of the Kura River. Ithad spacious avenues lined by stately cypress trees; handsome buildings and apartments, a magnificent cathedral, its great central dome flanked by four cupolas, framed against a background of the mountains of the mighty Caucasus chain, with Mount David rising 2,500 fect above the city.<br />
<br />
It was a mixed population of mainly Georgians, Armenians, Jews and some Turko-Tartars. Kolya explained that there actually were more Armenians than Georgians living there in the capital of Georgia! He went on to tell me that in the Caucasus, ethnic groups often overlapped their national boundaries as finally constituted. This was particularly so in the case of the Armenians, who were the victims of genocidal persecution and dispersal by Turkey. As a result, there were more Armenians in Azerbaidzhan and Georgia than in the Armenian Republic itself.<br />
<br />
In the old days, Georgian nationalism was directed more against the Armenians than against the Russians. The Armenians had a larger merchant class. They dominated commerce and were an obstacle to the growth of the weak Georgian bourgeoisie who retaliated by whipping up national animosity against the Armenians. Hence, national hatred was often directed against rival national groups rather than against the dominant Czarist power, and the Czarist government exploited these animosities fully.<br />
<br />
The area was known for bloody battles between the various ethnic groups, But all that ended with the revolution, Kolya said, and with the establishment of the Trans-Caucasian Federation. based on national equality and voluntary consent. <br />
<br />
Within the federation, which was composed of three republics (Georgia, Azerbaidzhan and Armenia), the Georgian republic had three minority distriets; Abkhazia and Azaria as autonomous republics, and Yugo-Osetia as an autonomous region, National languages and cultures were flourishing under the new regime.<br />
<br />
“As you will see, here in Tbilisi we have Georgian, Armenian and Russian theaters,” Kolya told me.<br />
<br />
Kolya hailed an izvozchik and we rode to his apartment, located on one of the broad tree-lined avenues of the city. Arriving there, we were happily greeted by his family, His wife, an attractive young schoolteacher, received me warmly and told me that Kolya had written her about me. They had two beautiful children, a boy of about three and a girl about five. They seemed fascinated with my appearance and couldn't take their eyes off me. I was undoubtedly the first Black man they had ever seen. <br />
<br />
On being told by Kolya to “shake hands with the black uncle,” the boy hesitantly extended his little hand. ,<br />
<br />
I took it and gently shook it. When he withdrew it, he looked at his hand to see whether some of the black had come off and seemed rather surprised that it hadn’t.<br />
<br />
“No, it won’t come off,” I said, and we all laughed. I had experienced this reaction from Russian children in Moscow, and it never failed to amuse me.<br />
<br />
The Tseretelis lived in a clean and neatly-furnished three-room apartment on the second floor of the building, with a balcony over the sidewalk. As if reading my thoughts, Kolya said, “Don’t worry, we all usually sleep in one room; the other is for my brother who stays here with us. He is out of town, so you can stay in his room.”<br />
<br />
Kolya was anxious to cheek in at the Party office where he worked, so we left our baggage and walked to his office a short distance away. I was interested in the people we passed. They looked better dressed than the Russians back in Moscow, their costumes were gayer. Perhaps it was due to the milder climate,<br />
<br />
Kolya served as the deputy secretary of the Agitprop Department of the Tbilisi Committee of the Communist Party. He introduced me to his fellow workers in the department; they all seemed glad to see him and remarked how well he looked after his rest. They were speaking Georgian; Kolya asked them to speak in Russian in deference to me, They all seemed to be multilingual. Kolya, I knew, besides his native Georgian, spoke Russian, Armenian and some French. The comrades insisted on calling a conference. Like most Party officials, they were well-informed on both domestic and international questions and were an educated audience.<br />
<br />
They asked me my impressions of their country, and they also had questions about the situation in the United States, about the conditions of Blacks. Kolya told them that I was a student at the Lenin School in Moscow and that formerly I had been at KUTVA. They knew about KUTVA as they too had sent students there. They were interested in the work I had done in preparation for the forthcoming Sixth Congress, and they were familiar with Stalin's report to the Fifteenth Party Congress from that December, where he described the international situation. They asked me questions about the international situation and the war danger and we exchanged opinions.<br />
<br />
Kolya explained that I was only going to bein town for acouple of days. It was Friday then, and I was scheduled to leave on Sunday. As I remember, we took a car from the pool and two or three people from the office accompanied us on a sightseeing tour along the banks of the river.<br />
<br />
We returned to Kolya’s home where his wife had a delicious big meal waiting for us: shashlik, fruits and pastries. We sat up until late that night telling stories.<br />
<br />
The next day we saw a number of places of interest, bathed in the famous hot sulfur springs, went up to the summit of Mount David and saw the old church on the mountain, which dated back centuries, and the mausoleum of famous Georgian poets and patriots. All in all we spent a very enjoyable weekend together.<br />
<br />
On Sunday, Kolya and his wife took me to the station and put me on the train for Moscow. Three days later I was back home. I saw Kolya once again when he was on a visit to Moscow and I took him out to dinner.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 9 ==<br />
<br />
=== Sixth Congress of the Comintern: A Blow Against the Right ===<br />
The Sixth World Congress of the Comintern, held in Moscow in July and August of 1928, was a historic turning point in the world communist movement. Early in July the first U.S. delegates arrived, anxious to get the “lay of the land” and to scout the political situation in the capital of world revolution. As I recall, Lovestone’s group staked out headquarters at the Lux Hotel, while the Foster-Cannon opposition gathered at the Bristol, a short distance further up the street.<br />
<br />
A number of us from the Lenin School were on hand when our comrades in the Foster group arrived. We got together to talk with a number of them, though Foster, Cannon and Bittelman were not present. They were anxious to get a report on the situation in the Soviet Party: Which leaders were involved in the right opposition? What was Bukharin doing? Where did he stand?<br />
<br />
We gave them a rundown on the situation as we saw it. The issues in the discussion included industrialization, the five-year plan, collectivization, the drive against the Kulaks and the war danger.<br />
<br />
We told them about disagreements in the CPSU. There was talk of a hidden right faction involving such leaders as Rykov, Tomsky and possibly Bukharin. Thus far, however, there were only rumors and speculations. The fight was not yet out in the open, but was confined to the Politburo and the Central Committee. A plenum of the Central Committee had been called on the eve of the Sixth Congress and was at that moment in session. We told them that we could undoubtedly find out at the congress if there were any new developments,<br />
<br />
On their part, our fellow oppositionists ran down the latest developments in the inner-Party struggle at home. We already knew of the findings of a special American Commission which had been set up at the Eighth Plenum of the CI in May 1927. The commission’s final resolution had called for the unconditional abolition of all factionalism. Both sides ignored the resolution. however, as the most vicious factionalism continued in the Party. At the Fifth Convention of the CPUSA in the fall of 1927, the Lovestone-Pepper bunch were able to out-maneuver the Foster-Cannon opposition and win control of the organizational apparatus.<br />
<br />
Firmly in the saddle of power and riding high, their support came from the belief on the part of the membership that the Lovestone group had the endorsement of the Comintern—a myth assiduously cultivated by the Lovestone cohorts. They were playing a deceitful game of double-bookkeeping, both with respect to the Comintern as well as to the membership at home. Their method was to give lip service to the fight against the right danger. while in practice undermining its application and attempting to pin the label of “right” on the opposition. Typical of this duplicity was their sabotage of the line of the Red International of Labor Unions’ (RILU) Fourth Congress, which had called for the formation of the new unions in industries and areas where the workers were unorganized.<br />
<br />
In the U.S., the new upsurge in class struggle, combined wit refusal of the AFL craft-type union caters to ieee ie majority of industrial workers, demanded that the communists take the lead and organize the unions themselves. ;<br />
<br />
At this point in the discussion it was pointed out that Foster himself was still not clear on the question of the formation of the new unions. Other members of the grouping admitted that they had also vacillated on the question when it was first raised—after the decisions of the Fourth RILU Congress-—but it appeared that they now had a better grasp of the matter.<br />
<br />
On the question of the estimate of the international situation, they pointed out that their record was clear, whereas the leadership definitely underestimated the economic crisis and radicalization of the workers. They admitted that they were late in pressing the question of independent unions, but now they had finally decided to launch textile, mining and needle trades industrial unions. Lovestone had jumped on the bandwagon at the last minute as a loud trumpeter of the “new unions” line in an attempt to clear his record before the World Congress.<br />
<br />
On the whole, our comrades were full of fight and optimistic at the outcome of placing their case before the World Congress. They seemed sure that they would get a favorable hearing. The strategy was to expose the Lovestone-Pepper leadership as the embodiment of the right danger in the U.S. Party and to explode the myth of their Comintern support, thus laying the basis for the victory of the opposition at the next Party convention. This strategy was pressed at the numerous caucus meetings of the opposition bloc which I attended before and during the congress.<br />
<br />
But all was not well within the ranks of the opposition; that much was evident at the first meeting of our caucus. Foster, the leader of the minority, came under sharp attack for his vacillation on the question of the new unions from his immediate co-workers, Bittelman, Cannon, Browder and Johnstone. Foster had not been alone in his resistance to the new policy. Most of the members of the minority had vacillated on, if not openly resisted, the decisions of the Ninth Plenum and of the Fourth Congress of the RILU on this question.<br />
<br />
But Foster had been the most stubborn, clinging to the old policy based on the organized workers, rather than the unorganized, which placed main emphasis on work within the old reactionary-dominated AFL unions. This policy, which Lozovsky had caricatured as “dancing a quadrille,..around the AFL and its various unions,” regarded the organization of unions independent of the AFL as “dual unionism”--a heresy left over from the days of the IWW.<br />
<br />
Just a month before, in the May Plenum of the CC of the CPUSA, Foster had written a trade union resolution which was supported by Lovestone, While it called for the building of independent textile and miners’ unions, it still reflected many illusions as to the gains communists could make within the AFL. Foster could not bring himself to fully criticize his earlier mistakes, which left Lovestone free to use Foster as a cover for his rightist position.<br />
<br />
All of this was bad for the minority; it blurred the image that it sought to present to the congress—that of consistent fighters against the right danger. There was a heated exchange at the first meeting of the minority caucus. As I recall, Foster contended that he had not in principle been against the new turn, but against those who interpreted it as a signal for desertion of the work in the old unions, It was clear that at this point Foster had lost leadership (at least temporarily) of his own group. Bittelman was chosen to make the report for the minority in the American Commission of the congress,<br />
<br />
With tempers still frayed, we passed on to a brief exchange on the Afro-American question and the proposed new line on self-determination, which they all knew was coming up for fulldress discussion at the congress. I gave a brief outline of the position and how I had been led to it by the study of the Garvey movement.<br />
<br />
Then someone raised the inevitable question, Wouldn't this be construed as an endorsement of Black separation? Does it not conflict with the struggle against segregation?<br />
<br />
Foster objected to that implication, maintaining that selfdetermination didn’t necessarily mean separation. He drew an analogy to our trade union policy with respect to Blacks, He pointed out the necessity to fight for the organization of Blacks and whites in one union and against all segregation, But in unions where Jim Crow bars exclude Blacks, Foster said, we support their right to organize their own separate unions, In such situations, the organization of Black unions should be regarded as a step toward eventual unity and not an advocacy of separation.<br />
<br />
It was evident that Foster had studied the question and was attempting to relate it to his own practical experience. While his analogy was oversimplified, he was clearly taking a correct stand.<br />
<br />
Bittelman, as I recall, seemed the clearest of all. Perhaps this was as a result of his Russian revolutionary background and some acquaintance with the Bolshevik policy on the national question. He pointed out the necessity of making a distinction between the right of separation and separation itself. Separation or independence is only one of the options; there were various forms of federation as Soviet experience had shown. The central question was one of building unity of Black and white workers against U.S. capitalism and this could be achieved only by recognition of the right of self-determination.<br />
<br />
I was happy about the support given to the position by Foster and Bittelman, As the main theoretician of the minority, Bittelman had a great deal of influence. Certainly there was unclarity among the caucus members, but by and large I was favorably impressed by this first airing of the question. After all, I reasoned, the proposed new line did represent a radical shift from past policy. There seemed to be a modesty among these people and a sincere desire to give the matter a full hearing.<br />
<br />
I felt that on the whole my comrades were an honest lot, Despite factional considerations, they were motivated by the overriding desire to achieve clarity on a question which up to that point had frustrated the Party’s best efforts.<br />
<br />
In the caucus meetings, I had my first close-up view of some of the leaders with whom I was to work in the future. Mostly from the midwest, with genuine roots in the American labor tradition, they were a pretty impressive bunch. Most had broad mass experience—especially in the trade union field. The roots of the Lovestone group were much more grounded among former functionaries and propagandists of the Socialist Party.<br />
<br />
William Z. Foster, leader of the minority bloc, was also the leader in the Party’s trade union work. A self-educated man, he had worked at a number of trades, including longshoreman, seaman, lumberjack, street-car conductor and railroad worker Born in Massachusetts, he spent his early childhood in Philadelphia and came into prominence as a trade union leader in Chicago.<br />
<br />
He had been a left socialist, then, for a brief period, joined with the Wobblies. He soon clashed with them on the issue of dual unionism. Foster himself opted for the French syndicalist policy of boring from within the established unions. He joined the Communist Party in the summer of 1921 and brought an entire group of trade unionists with him.<br />
<br />
In Chicago, Foster was deeply involved in trade union work. He had served as business agent for the Brotherhood of Railroad Car Men of America; was a founder of the TUEL; initiated the nationwide drive to organize the stockyard workers in 1917; and was leader of the 1919 steel strike, the attempt to organize 365,000 steelworkers. It was in this strike that he became a nationally known left trade union figure.<br />
<br />
The first time I saw Foster in action was at the Fourth Party Convention in Chicago in the summer of 1925. I remember him angrily pacing with clenched fists back and forth across the platform behind Ruthenberg as the latter berated him from the rostrum. Here in the caucus, he was again an angry man, but under the lashing of his friends and co-factionalists.<br />
<br />
Jack Johnstone, a Scotsman, still had the Scot’s burr in his Speech. An ex-Wobbly and close co-worker of Foster, he had been one of the young radical Chicago trade unionists. A member of the Chicago Federation of Labor from the Painters Union, Johnstone was a leader in the TUEL. I had met him at the Fourth RILU Congress. His name was familiar to me because of his role as a leader in the organization of the Chicago stockyard workers in which my sister had been involved. Johnstone was the organizer of the drive for the Chicago Federation of Labor and later became secretary of the Chicago Stockyards Council with 55,000 white and Black members.<br />
<br />
On the eve of the 1919 riots, he had helped to organize a parade of white stockyard unionists through the Southside in solidarity with the Black workers. I had the pleasure of working with Johnstone later in Pittsburgh and in Chicago, where he was industrial organizer for the district. He was a quiet, unassuming guy with a wry sense of humor.<br />
<br />
Earl Browder of Wichita, Kansas, served his ideological apprenticeship as a radical trade unionist in the socialist and cooperative movements. Arrested in 1917 on charges of defying the draft law, he spent three years in the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas.<br />
<br />
I had known Browdcr briefly in Moscow while he was rep to the Profintern, before he went on a two year mission to the Far East for that organization. We KUTVA students would often visit him at his room in the Lux Hotel where he would play checkers with Golden, who usually won. He told us that when he was at Leavenworth, he had met a number of former members of the Black Twenty-fourth Infantry who had been involved in the mutiny-riot in Houston, Texas, in the summer of 1917. He told us that they often played baseball together in prison. <br />
<br />
At the time, Browder seemed to me to be a quiet, modest, unassuming man. But at this caucus mecting, something had happened which seemed to have transformed him into a “new’ Browder. Though long associated with Foster, he now seemed bent on not only asserting his independence, but on establishing his own claim to leadership.<br />
<br />
At one point in the heated discussion on trade union policy, he exclaimed sarcastically: “You expect to get the support of the Comintern, but you're all divided among yourselves! There’s a Cannon group, a Bittelman Group, a Foster Group—well, I'm for the Browder Group!”<br />
<br />
No one seemed to take his remark seriously, but less than a year later Browder was to emerge as secretary of the Party.<br />
<br />
James P. Cannon was also from Kansas—a tall, raw-boned midwesterner of Irish descent. He came from the same trade union background as the other caucus leaders; he had been a traveling organizer for the Wobblies and an editor of a number of labor papers. Hc was a supporter of Trotsky, although he didn’t admit it at the congress. Later he split from the Party and helped form the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party. <br />
<br />
Bil} Dunne was a man of impressive credentials. Raised in Minnesota, Dunne entered the trade union movement as an electrician. Then in Butte, Montana, during World War I, he edited the Butte Daily Bulletin (official organ of the Montana Federation of Labor and the Butte Central Labor Council).<br />
<br />
Dunne had been secretary of a local of electricians, vice-president of the Montana Federation of Labor and a member of the state legislature (on the Democratic ticket, which in Butte was labor controlled). He helped organize the Socialist Party Branch of Butte and brought it into the Communist Labor Party in 1919.<br />
<br />
I got to know Bill quite well; he was in the Soviet Union for some months before the Sixth Congress as a Profintern rep. I first met him through Clarence Hathaway, and both were associated with the Cannon sub-group. Bill was familiar with the emerging line on self-determination and supported it. He had written a number of articles on Black workers in the mid-twenties.<br />
<br />
To me, he was the most colorful figure in our caucus anda man of unusual brilliance. Keen-witted, sharp in debate, he had an extraordinary sense of humor. Of Irish and French-Canadian parentage, Bill was short and heavy-set, with black bushy eyebrows. He cut a romantic figure onthe streets of Moscow in his Georgian rabochka and sheathed dagger at his waist. I had aclose friendship with Bill which lasted over a number of years.<br />
<br />
Alexander Bittelman was a Russian Jew who had emigrated to the United States when in his early twenties. A little fellow. Bittelman was both ascetic and scholarly. He had been in the socialist movement in Russia and continued on in his political work in the U.S. A serious Marxist student, Bittelman was the main theoretician for the Foster group.<br />
<br />
=== THE LOVESTONE CAUCUS ===<br />
The Lovestone-Pepper caucus was meeting at the same time. They too were mapping out plans for the battle on the floor of the congress. Lovestone also had his troubles—most involved the shedding of his opportunist reputation for that of “crusader against the right danger.”<br />
<br />
Most of the “big guns” were on the scene: Lovestone, Pepper, Weinstone and Wolfe. Gitlow, Bedacht and others were left at home as caretakers; Gitlow ostensibly to carry on the Party’s election campaign (in which he was vice-presidential candidate).<br />
<br />
While I was the only Black in the minority caucus, the Lovestone-Pepper caucus claimed the allegiance, if not the ardent support, of a number of leading Black comrades. In the nine months since the convention, the Lovestone-Pepper leadership had attempted to patch its fences in the work among Blacks. Otto Huiswood, now a member of the Central Committee and district organizer in Buffalo, was the first Black district organizer. Richard B. Moore was assigned to the International Labor Defense, and Cyril P. Briggs was editor of The Crusader News Service, which was subsidized by the Party.<br />
<br />
But none of these could be called ardent supporters of Lovestone. They were all dissatisfied with the status of Afro-American work, which was reflected in the small number of Black cadre in the Party. In general, it was still difficult to draw a hard and fast distinction between the factions on questions concerning Afro-American work.<br />
<br />
Blacks in the Lovestone delegation included H.V. Phillips and Fort-Whiteman (both directly from the United States) and students from the graduating group at KUTVA—Otto, Farmer and Williams (Golden had already left for home). The group also included William L. Patterson, the young attorney who had worked with the Party on the Sacco-Vanzetti case and who had been sent to KUTVA just before the congress.<br />
<br />
James Ford, who worked in the Profintern and was to become an outstanding Party leader in the thirties, stood aloof from both groups as I remember. His sympathies seemed to be with the Foster-Cannon opposition, however.<br />
<br />
Among the Blacks attending the congress, I was the only one supporting the new line on self-determination. The others insisted that “it was a race question, not a national question,” implying that the solution lay through assimilation under socialism. Probing deeper, I found that most were hung up on a purist and non-Marxist concept of the class struggle which ruled out all strivings towards nationality and Black identity as divisive, running counter to internationalism and Black and white unity.<br />
<br />
It was an American version of the “pure proletarian revolution” concept; a domestic manifestation of the old deviation in the socialist and communist movements against which Lenin, Stalin and others had fought in the development of the Bolshevik policy on the national and colonial question.<br />
<br />
Recalling that I myself had held the same view just a few months back, I felt that the resistance of Blacks in the Party to self-determination would be overcome through exposure in the discussions at the congress of the proposed new line. I had no doubt that they would come to see, as I had, the grand irony of a situation in which we Blacks, who so vociferously complained about our white comrades underestimating the revolutionary significance of the Afro-American question, were guilty of the same sin. For the revolutionary significance of the struggle for Black rights lay precisely in the recognition of its character as essentially that of the struggle of an oppressed nation against U.S. imperialism,<br />
<br />
At this point, the opposition to the idea of Black self-determination was to receive theoretical support from an unexpected source, This opposition came from Professor Sik, my old teacher at KUTVA, who was still teaching the Black students there, Sik contended that bourgeois race ideology, which fostered racial prejudices, was the prime factor in the oppression of U.S. Blacks. Therefore, their fight for equal rights should be regarded not as that of an oppressed nation striving for equality via self-determination but, on the contrary, as the fight of an oppressed racial minority (similar to the Jews under cezarism) for assimilation as equals into U.S. society. <br />
<br />
Sik undoubtedly thought that he was presenting original views, but stripped of their pseudo-Marxist phraseology, they were the old bourgeois-liberal reformist views. He slurred over the socioeconomic factors that lay at the base of the question, factors which call for the completion of the agrarian-democratic revolution in the South, His perspective divested the Black movement of its independent revolutionary thrust, reducing it to a bourgeois liberal opposition to race prejudice.<br />
<br />
However, Sik’s thesis continued to be used as a crutch for the right opposition over the next year or so; it appeared in the Communist International (organ of the Comintern) in the midst of the Sixth World Congress. But the pressure for a turn to the left in this work was to flush it out into the open along with other right-wing views on the question. <br />
<br />
Foremost among these were the views of Jay Lovestone. His view of Southern Blacks as a “reserve of capitalist reaction’ provided a theoretical rationale for the Party’s chronic underestimation of the question. This was clear in his report to the Fifth Party Convention in which he contended that: <blockquote>'''The migration of Negroes from the South to the North is another means of proletarianization, consequently the existence of this group asa reserve of capitalist reaction is likewise being undermined.'''</blockquote>Lovestone held that the masses of Blacks in the South become potentially revolutionary only through migration to the industrial centers in the north and participation in class struggle along with white workers. This viewpoint, which was later to become a cornerstone for his theory of “American exceptionalism,” was first outlined in his report for the Fifth Convention of the Party and again in his report in the Daily Worker in February 1928. But these articles passed unnoticed at the time. It was only on the eve of the Sixth World Congress and under the pressure of the new line that we became alerted to Lovestone’s views.<br />
<br />
The general meeting of the American delegation took place the day before the opening of the congress. All factions were represented but, as I recall, there were no fireworks. By that time, lines were clearly drawn and neither faction was trying to convince the other. On our part, we were saving our ammunition for the battle on the floor of the congress and its commissions.<br />
<br />
Apparently there had been some objections in the Lovestone group to the proposed new line on self-determination. To mollify these people, Lovestone stated that he stood for the right of self-determination of oppressed peoples everywhere, surely he said, no communist could oppose this right. I assumed that he regarded the slogan as some sort of showcase principle; something to be declared but which did not commit its advocates to any special line of action. Lovestone knew which way the wind was blowing and was clearly trying to straddle the fence on the issue.<br />
<br />
The delegates at this meeting were assigned to the various commissions; there was no struggle over the assignments as it was understood that all commissions had to include members of both factions. These commissions included the American Negro/ South African Commission, Colonial Commission, Trade Union Commission, and Program Commission.<br />
<br />
=== THE SIXTH WORLD CONGRESS ===<br />
On July 17, 1928, 532 delegates representing fifty-seven parties and nine organizations assembled in the Hall of Trade Unions. The delegation from the United States was a large one— twenty-nine delegates, including twenty voting and nine advisor delegates. The Sixth Congress convened under the slogan of "War Against the Right Danger and the Rightist Conciliators.”<br />
<br />
The period since the February plenum of the Comintern had been marked by the emergence of a clearly defined right opportunist deviation in most of the parties, They advanced the perspective of continuous capitalist recovery and the easing of the class struggle. In the realm of tactics this meant a continuation of the old “united front from above” and a reliance on social reformist trade union leaders. In the U.S., the right was to find its ease exponents in the Lovestone-Pepper leadership, which emphesized the strength of U.S. capitalism and its ability to postpone the crisis.<br />
<br />
A right opposition had also begun to develop in the CPSU, headed by Bukharin; Rykov, chairman of the Council of People's Commissions; and Tomsky, heading the Soviet Trade Unions. This group opposed the programs of the Stalinist majority of the Central Committee with respect to the goals of the new Five Year Plan, which called for intensified industrialization, collectivization, and the drive against the kulaks. The right deviation inthe CPSU and in the other parties of the Comintern had a common source—overestimation of the strength of world capitalism. The congress was faced with the need to answer these critics by deepening its analysis of the period and by spelling out more clearly the policy flowing from it.<br />
<br />
In the Soviet Party, the disagreement had come to a head prior to its plenum of July 1928, which adjourned just before the Sixth Congress. The differences, however, were hushed up by a resolution unanimously adopted by both groups which stated that there were no differences in the leadership of the CPSU. The agreement undoubtedly expressed the desire of the Soviet leadership to keep the congress from becoming an arena for discussion of Soviet problems before they had been finally thrashed out within their own Party.<br />
<br />
The delegates, however, were not unaware of the struggle in the Soviet Party. They gathered in an atmosphere charged with rumor and speculation about differences within the CPSU. The questions in our minds were: Who represented the right danger in the CPSU, the leading Party of the CI? What was the role of Bukharin? What had been the outcome of the discussions in the plenum of the CPSU? How would the congress be affected? We did not have long to wait for answers to these questions. Differences developed over sections of Bukharin’s ''Report on the International Situation and Tasks of the Comintern''.<br />
<br />
In his report which was distributed on July 18, at the second session of the congress, Bukharin analyzed the post-World War I international situation, dividing it into three periods. He defined the first (1917-1923) as one of revolutionary upsurge; the second (1924-1927) as a period of partial stabilization of capitalism; and the third (1928 on) as one of capitalist reconstruction. Bukharin made no clear distinction between the second and third periods; the latter was simply a continuation of the second. According to his characterization, there was nothing new at the present time to shake capitalist stabilization. On the contrary, capitalism was continuing to “reconstruct itself.”<br />
<br />
On this question Bukharin was challenged by his own Soviet delegation which submitted a series of twenty amendments to the thesis. These characterized the third period as one in which partial stabilization was coming to an end. Later, in his criticism of Bukharin’s position, Stalin pointed out the decisive importance of a correct estimate of the third period. The question involved here was: “Are we passing through a period of decline of the revolutionary movement...or are we passing through a period when the conditions are maturing for a new revolutionary upsurge, a period of preparation of the working class for future class battles? It is on this that the tactical line of the Communist Parties depends"<br />
<br />
At first, all of this was somewhat confusing to us. In his opening report Bukharin had himself declared the right deviation the greatest danger” to the Comintern. But in his characterization of the third period as one of virtual capitalist recovery he had adopted the main thesis of the right. He had also put himself in the awkward position of being rejected by his own delegation. But as Stalin was later to point out, it was his own fault for failing to discuss his report in advance with the Soviet delegation, as was customary. Instead he distributed his report to all delagations simulataniously. <br />
<br />
In accordance with our battle plan to expose to Lovestone leadership as the embodiment of the right deviation in the American Party, our caucus took the offensive. Even before the discussion on Bukharin’s report began, our minority had submitted a document entitled “The Right Danger and the American Party.” It was signed by J.W. Johnstone, M. Gomez, W.F Dunne, J.P. Cannon, W.Z. Foster, A. Bittelman and G Siskind. <br />
<br />
The document contained a bill of particulars in which we sought to point out that the rightist tendencies and mistakes of the Lovestone-Pepper leadership added up to a right line.<br />
<br />
Our attack, however, was hobbled by blemishes in the stateside record of our own caucus. At that point it would have been hard to discern any principled political differences between the majority or minority, Nevertheless, differences were developing on the estimation of the third period and U.S. imperialism.<br />
<br />
Pepper and Lovestone exaggerated the might of U.S. impetialism and spoke only of the weakness of the U.S. labor movement and the class struggle in this country. But the minority had also wavered on the question of building independent trade unions, the logical follow-through of the correct estimate of the objective situation in terms of practical policy.<br />
<br />
On the Negro question, the minority record up to that point had been no better than that of the majority. This fact was quickly pointed out by Otto and others. Both groups had shared the same mistakes. As Foster later observed, both factions had “traditionally considered the Negro question as that of a persecuted racial minority of workers and as basically a simple trade union matter.” It was this orientation which explains the Party's shortcomings in this field of work. But now, the tentative endorsement by our caucus of the proposed new line on the Afro-American question strengthened its position vis-a-vis the majority leadership.<br />
<br />
The prospects for our minority were brightened by the difficulties of Lovestone’s friend and mentor, Bukharin. Corridor rumors concerning his right-wing proclivities were now being confirmed by his differences with his own Soviet delegation on the character of the third period.<br />
<br />
The congress was now settling down to work. A number of commissions were formed to discuss and formulate resolutions on the main subjects confronting the eongress. Among them were: 1) A Commission on Program, to complete the drafting of a program for the Comintern; 2) one on the Trade Union question, to apply the struggle against right opportunism to the trade union field; and 3) a commission on the Colonial Question which discussed strategy and tactics of the liberation movements in the colonies and semi-colonies and the tasks of the Comintern. There were also several commissions on the special problems of individual parties.<br />
<br />
My major concern, however, was the Negro Commission, which was to take up the problem of the U.S. Blacks and the South African question. Although set up as an independent commission, in reality it was a subcommittee of the Colonial Commission. The resolutions formulated by it were included in the final draft of the congress’s thesis on the Revolutionary Movement in the Colonies. The Negro Commission was set up on August 6, at the twenty-third session of the congress. It was a memorable day, particularly for us Black communists—a day to which we all had looked forward. At last there was to be a full-dress discussion on the question.<br />
<br />
We listened attentively as the German comrade Remmele, chairman of the session, read off on behalf of the presidium the list of members and officers who would comprise the commission, It was an impressive list and indicated the high priority given the question by the congress. Thirty-two delegates, representing eighteen countries, including the United States, South Africa. Great Britain, the Soviet Union, France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Turkey, India, Palestine and Syria were members of the commission. Impressive also were its officers: the chairman, Ottomar Kuusinen, was a member of the Cl Secretariat and chairman of the Colonial Commission; the vice-chairman Petrovsky (Bennett) was also chairman of the Anglo-American Secretariat; and the recording secretary, Mikhailov (Williams), was a former Cl representative to the American Party. <br />
<br />
The delegates from the U.S, included five Blacks: myself, Jones (Otto Hall), Farmer (Roy Mahoney), James Ford and I believe, Harold Williams; plus two white comrades, Bittelman and Lovestone. Others included Sidney Bunting of South Africa; Fokin and Nasanov, representing the Young Communist International; the Swiss, Humbert-Droz, a top Cl official; Heller, from the Communist fraction of the Profintern; and several members of the Soviet delegation to the congress.<br />
<br />
Participation in commission meetings was not limited to its members, however. Among the important figures who spoke inthe discussions were Manuilsky, a CI official, and the Ukrainian, Skrypnik, both members of the Soviet delegation. The hall was always crowded with interested observers,<br />
<br />
The first order of business before the Commission was the Negro question, It was introduced by Petrovsky, who, as I recall stressed the need for a radical turn in the policy of the American Party with respect to its work among Blacks. He referred to the Negro Subcommittee, set up earlier in the year by the Anglo-American Seerctariat, which was given the task of preparing materials on the question for the Sixth Congress.<br />
<br />
Petrovsky described the two positions which emerged from this subcommittee.<br />
<br />
One held that the weaknesses of the Party’s Negro work was a result of an incorrect line. The partisans of this position regarded Blacks in the South as an oppressed nation and recommended that the right of self-determination be raised as an orientation slogan in their struggle for equality.<br />
<br />
The other position, he said, held that the question was one of a “racial minority” whose immediate and ultimate demands were embraced by the slogan of complete economic, social and political equality, The supporters of this position attributed the weaknesses in the Party’s Afro-American work to the underestimation of the importance of work among Blacks, This resulted, in turn, from the survivals of racial prejudices within the ranks of the Party and its leadership. This position did not challenge the Party’s line, but called for its more energetic application.<br />
<br />
As I recall, Petrovsky stated that he himself favored the position on self-determination. He did not see it as a negation of the slogan of social equality which, he said, would remain the main slogan for the Black masses. But in the Black Belt, where Blacks are in the majority, in addition to the slogan of cquality the Party must raise another slogan—the right of self-determination. For here, equality without the right of Blacks to enforce it is but an empty phrase.<br />
<br />
At the same time he expressed agreement with the comrades who contended that the hangovers of racial prejudice in the Party were a main obstacle to the Party’s effective work among Blacks. He stressed the need to fight against the ideology of white chauvinism, a principle block to the unity of Black and white workers.<br />
<br />
Petrovsky then referred the comrades to the material before them. It included the document by Nasanov and myself, summarizing our position in support of the — self-determination thesis. The document contained a criticism of current Party activities and policies and condemned Pepper’s May 30th resolution, which had made no reference to the Party’s tasks in the South. It also criticized the completely northern orientation of the American Negro Labor Congress, as contained in the policy statements of its leaders, Lovett Fort-Whiteman and H.V. Phillips. Finally, it criticized Lovestone’s characterization of Southern Blacks as “reserves of capitalist reaction.”<br />
<br />
Other documents presented to the commission were a statement by Dunne and Hathaway supporting the self-determination viewpoint and a document by Sik opposing the proposed new line. Sik argued that Blacks were a racial minority whose immediate and ultimate demands were embraced by the slogan of full social equality. <br />
<br />
Later in the discussion, Pepper submitted a document containing his proposals for a “Negro Soviet Republic” in the South, arguing that Southern Blacks were not just a nation but virtually a colony within the body of the United States of America.<br />
<br />
Among the American delegates who spoke in favor of the proposed new line were Bittelman, Foster and Dunne. As I remember, all were self-critical. Bittelman, however, emphasized the dual role of the Black working class envisioned by the new line: first, its role as a basic and constituent element of the American working class and, second, its leadership of the national liberation movement of Black people.<br />
<br />
I do not remember Lovestone speaking. If he did, he did not openly attack the proposed new line, for that would not have been his style. It was clear to all, however, that he had strong reservations. Sam Darey of the Young Communist League was, as I remember, the only white comrade who openly opposed the proposed new line.<br />
<br />
But the strongest opposition to the self-determination thesis both in the commission and on the floor of the congress was from the Black comrades James Ford and Otto Hall. In their arguments it was evident that they relied heavily on Professor Sik and his “new” theory on “race problems.” Up to that point, neither Nasanov nor I had paid much attention to Sik. But now after listening to Otto and Ford we suddenly realized the danger his theories posed to clarity on this vital question.<br />
<br />
Sik had evidently been working hard on his thesis which he was now proselytizing with almost evangelie zeal. He had, if not a captive audience, at least a willing one among the Black students at KUTVA where he taught (of all subjects!) Leninism. Now suddenly it seemed that Sik had become cast in the role of chief theoretician of the opposition to the proposed new policy; in their speeches Otto and Ford repeated verbatim many of his arguments.<br />
<br />
For example, both Otto and Ford insisted that U.S. Negroes were a racial minority rather than an oppressed nation or an oppressed national minority. (They used these two latter terms interchangeably at the time.) They ruled out all national movements among U.S. Blacks as reactionary. According to Ford, such movements were led by the “chauvinistic” Black bourgeoisie who wanted a freer hand to exploit the Black masses. These movements, he argued, “play into the hands of the bourgeoisie by arresting the revolutionary class movement of the Negro masses and further widening the gulf between the white and similar oppressed groups.” He also averred that Blacks lack the characteristics of a nation. There was not the question of one nation oppressing and exploiting another nation, “In the United States,” Ford continued, “we find no economic system separating the two races. The interests of the Negro and white workers are the same. The Negro peasant and the white peasant interests are the same.” The only problem, he contended, was one of racial differences of the color of the skin, barriers set up by the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Otto sharpened the argument and contended that Blacks were “not developing any characteristies of a national minority...there exists no national entity as such among...Negroes.” Continuing along the same line, Otto saw no community of interest between the Black bourgeoisie and the Black toilers, whom, he argued, “are completely separated (from each other) as far as class interests are concerned.” In sum, he contended that “historical development has tended to create in him (the Negro) the desire to be considered a part of the American nation.”<br />
<br />
What then were the objectives of Black liberation? They were, according to Sik, the striving of Blacks for intermingling and amalgamation. I was astounded and dismayed. This seemed to me to be a bourgeois liberal-assimilationist position cloaked in pseudo-Marxist rhetoric.<br />
<br />
A few days before on the floor of the congress, Ford and Otto complained bitterly about the rampant white chauvinism in the Party and the widespread underestimation of the significance of Afro-American work. Could they not see that they were playing into the hands of the white chauvinist downgraders of the Black movement? They had conceded them their main premise: that the movement for Black equality in itself had no revolutionary potential.<br />
<br />
Sik’s theory had stripped the struggle for equality of all revolutionary content; it involved no radical social change, that is, completion of the land and democratic revolution and securing of political power in the South. It was just a struggle against racial ideology.<br />
<br />
How was it possible for Otto and Ford and other Black comrades to fall into this trap? They had separated racism, the most salient external manifestation of Black oppression, from its socio-economic roots, reducing the struggle for equality to a movement against prejudice. It was a theory which even liberal reformists could support.<br />
<br />
And why did they downgrade the revolutionary nature of the Black struggle for equality? I could only assume that it was an attempt on their part to fit the Afro-American question into the simplistic frame of “pure proletarian class struggle.” This theory ruled out all nationalist movements as divisive and distracting from the struggle for socialism. Lovestone’s idea of the Black peasantry in the South being a “reserve of capitalist reaction” was the logical outcome of this kind of thinking.<br />
<br />
What was clear to me was that our thesis of self-determination had correctly elevated the fight for Black rights to a revolutionary position, whereas the proponents of Sik’s theories attempted to downgrade the movement, seeing it as a minor aspect of the class struggle. Our thesis put the question in the proper perspective: that is, as a struggle attacking the very foundation of American imperialism, an integral part of the struggle of the American working class as a whole,<br />
<br />
The sad fact was that Otto, Ford and other partisans of Sik’s theory seemed completely unaware that they had come to a practical agreement with those white chauvinists who denied the revolutionary character of the Black liberation struggle in the false name of socialism.<br />
<br />
Nasanov, sitting beside me, undoubtedly had similar thoughts. He muttered something in Russian that sounded like, “Lord forgive them, for they know not what they do.”<br />
<br />
During an interval in the Negro Commission sessions, I cornered Otto in the corridor and accused him and Ford of downgrading the liberation struggle and playing into the hands of the white chauvinist element in the Party, How, I asked him, did he expect to fight those responsible for the neglect of work among Blacks when he accepted their main premise-—that the struggle of Blacks was not of itself revolutionary and that it only becomes so when they (the Blacks) fight directly for socialism?<br />
<br />
Otto indignantly denied this and accused me of allowing the question to be used as a factional football by the Foster group. I conceded that they were not all clear, But, I added heatedly, at least they had begun to recognize that their position had been wrong and they were trying to change it.<br />
<br />
We broke off the discussion; it was obviously useless to pursue the matter further, We were both getting emotional. No doubt our relationship had become rather strained as a result of our political differences, I was terribly saddened by this growing rift between my brother and me, True, I no longer thought of him as my political mentor, but nevertheless I felt he was a serious and dedicated revolutionary.<br />
<br />
What, I wondered, were the pressures that pushed Black proletarian comrades like Otto and Ford into this position? Foremost was their misguided but honest desire to amalgamate Black labor into the general labor movement. Nationalism, they felt, was a block to labor unity. They failed to recognize the revolutionary element in Black nationalism. I myself had held the same position only a few months earlier, but then I hadn’t studied Leninism under Sik.<br />
<br />
I remember running into Nasanov. We walked down the hall arm in arm and he asked me if I was going to speak. I said, “I don’t know, should I?”<br />
<br />
Knowing my shyness, he laughed and said, “We've got them on the run. We’ve submitted our resolution and supporting documents.”<br />
<br />
We were then accosted by Manuilsky whom I had met before. He wanted to know if I was the only Black supporting the self-determination position. I told him that thus far I was.<br />
<br />
“How did that happen?” he asked. That was a question I was still trying to answer myself. But before I could reply he said, “Oh, I know, They are all good class-conscious comrades, But I understand them. We Bolsheviks had the same type of deviation within the party.” He turned away to greet somebody else.<br />
<br />
And well he should understand, I reflected, for Manuilsky had been one of the leading Ukrainian Communists referred to in our class on Leninism, who, during the Revolution in the Ukraine, had been, guilty of the same deviation.<br />
<br />
He had been one of those whom the Bolsheviks had called “abstract Marxists,” those unable to relate Marxism to the concrete experience of their own people. On that occasion he resisted the resolution of the CC drafted by Lenin which made necessary concessions to Ukrainian nationalism; these included a softer line on the ku/aks and the establishment of Ukrainian as the national language.<br />
<br />
What about Comrade Pepper’s new slogan for a “Negro Soviet Republic?” Had he undergone a sudden conversion to the cause of Black nationhood? Was this the same Pepper who had completely ignored the South in his May thesis and who had, during the Program Commission at the Fifth Congress of the CI (1924), asserted that Blacks in the US wanted nothing to do with the slogan of self-determination?<br />
<br />
Sudden shifts in position were not new to Pepper who, as we have seen, was a man unrestrained by principles. Lominadze had branded Pepper on the floor of the congress as a man of “inadequate firmness of principle and backbone. He always agrees with those who are his seniors even if a minute ago he defended an utterly different viewpoint.”<br />
<br />
The Commission rejected Pepper’s slogan on the grounds that, first, it actually negated the principle of the right of self-determination by making the Party’s support of it contingent upon the acceptance by Blacks of the Soviet governmental form. Secondly, it was an opportunist attempt to skip over the intermediate stage of preparation and mobilization of the Black masses around their immediate demands.<br />
<br />
Pepper's position was actually an attempt to outflank the new position from the “left.” Clearly he sought to grab the spotlight, to upstage the move towards a new policy. Perhaps he thought that the left-sounding term “Soviet” would make the new stress on the national character of the question more palatable to his factional cohorts of the pure revolutionary persuasion.<br />
<br />
Otto seemed to have nibbled on the bait; at least he felt it did not contradict his position. In his previously quoted speech he stated, “There is no objection on our part on (sic) the principle ofa Soviet Republic for Negroes in America. The point we are concerned with here is how to organize these Negroes at present on the basis of their everyday needs for the revolution.”<br />
<br />
In this ease, however, Pepper had overreached himself, having jumped over the bandwagon instead of on it.<br />
<br />
Despite Pepper’s defeat in the commission, he still had a card or two up his sleeve. This we were to find to our surprise and anger when we received the October 1928 issue of The Communist, official organ of the CPUSA. Prominent among the articles was Pepper’s on “American Negro Problems,” which presented his call for a “Negro Soviet Republic.” But that was not all; the article was also published simultaneously in pamphlet form by the American Party. Neither the article nor the pamphlet was labeled as a discussion paper, which gave them the appearance of being official statements of the new policy.<br />
<br />
Pepper's article had originally appeared in the Communist International, organ of the Comintern, as one of a series of discussion articles. The other articles were one by Ford and Patterson (Wilson), “The Comintern Programme and the Racial Problem” by Sik, and “The Negro Problem and the Tasks of the CPUSA,” by me.<br />
<br />
Of these, Sik’s was the only one to appear in the English edition of the magazine. This was because the English edition had suspended publication for technical reasons from September to December.<br />
<br />
But Pepper also sent his article to The Communist, organ of the American Party, where it appeared in October 1928. Because the official resolutions of the congress were not published until January of the following year, Pepper’s distorted version of the new line was the first document available to American Party members, The result was considerable confusion and misunderstanding.<br />
<br />
Particularly aggravating was that Pepper filched the basic facts of our analysis-—-national character, Black Belt territory, etc, — distorting them into a vulgar caricature of our thesis. This latest piece of chicanery did nothing to enhance Pepper’s image in Moscow where it was already on the wane. It was, however, wellreceived in the U.S. where he still had considerable influence.<br />
<br />
=== ESSENCE OF THE NEW LINE ===<br />
The Cl’s new line on the Afro-American question was released by the ECCI in two documents. The first was the full resolution of the commission, which addressed itself to the concrete issues raised in the discussion, The second was a summary of the full resolution, worked out in the commission under the direction of Kuusinen, for incorporation in the congress thesis on the “Revolutionary Movement in the Colonies and Semi-Colonies.”<br />
<br />
The resolution rejected the assimilationist race theories upon which the line of the Party had been based. It defined the Black movement as “national revolutionary” in character on the grounds that “the various forms of oppression of Negroes....concentrated mainly in the so-called ‘Black Belt’ provide the necessary conditions for a national revolutionary movement.”<br />
<br />
Stressing the agrarian roots of the problem it declared that Southern Blacks “are....not reserves of capitalist reaction,” as Lovestone had contended, but they were on the contrary, “reserves of the revolutionary proletariat” whose “objective position facilitates their transformation into a revolutionary force under the leadership of the proletariat.”<br />
<br />
The new line committed the Party to champion the Black struggle for “complete and real equality.....for the abolition of all kinds of racial, social, and political inequalities.” It called for an “energetic struggle against any exhibition of white chauvinism” and for “active resistance to lynching.”<br />
<br />
At the same time, the resolution stressed the need for Black revolutionary workers to resist “petty bourgeois nationalist tendencies” such as Garveyism. It declared that the industrialization of the South and the growth of the Black proletariat was the “most important phenomenon of recent years.” The enlargement of this class, it asserted, offers the possiblity of consistent revolutionary leadership of the movement.<br />
<br />
It called upon the Party to “strengthen its work among Negro proletarians,” drawing into its ranks the most conscious elements, It was also to fight for the acceptance of Black workers into unions from which they are barred, but this fight did not exclude the organization of separate trade unions when necessary. It called for the concentration of work in the South to organize the masses of soil-tillers, And finally, the new line committed the Party to put forth the slogan of the right of self-determination.<blockquote>'''In those regions of the South in which compact Negro masses are living, it is essential to put forward the slogan of the Right of Self-determination.,.a radical transformation of the Agrarian structure of the Southern States is one of the basic tasks of the revolution. Negro Communists must explain to the Negro workers and peasants that only their close union with the white proletariat and joint struggle with them against the American bourgeoisie can lead to their liberation from barbarous exploitation, and that only the victorious proletarian revolution will completely and permanently solve the agrarian and national question of the Southern United States in the interests of the overwhelming majority of the Negro population of the country.'''</blockquote><br />
<br />
=== South Africa ===<br />
[[Category:Library]]<br />
[[Category:Library works by Harry Haywood]]<br />
[[Category:Library works about the United States of America]]<br />
[[Category:Library works about the Soviet Union]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:Black_Bolshevik&diff=63686Library:Black Bolshevik2024-03-04T18:07:28Z<p>RedCustodian: /* THE SIXTH WORLD CONGRESS */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Library work|title=Black Bolshevik: Autobiography Of An Afro-American Communist|image=https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1328767045i/704092.jpg|author=Harry Haywood|publisher=Liberator Press|published_date=January 1, 1978|published_location=Chicago Illinois|type=Book|isbn=9780930720537|source=[https://archive.org/details/black-bolshevik-autobiography-of-an-afro-american-communist/mode/2up archive.org]}}<br />
<br />
''Black Bolshevik'' is the autobiography of [[Harry Haywood]], published January 1, 1978. The son of former slaves who became a leading member of the [[Communist Party of the United States of America|Communist Part USA]] and a pioneering theoretician on the Afro-American struggle.<br />
<br />
The author's first-hand accounts of the Chicago race riot of 1919, the Scottsboro Boys' defense, communist work in the South, the [[Spanish Civil War]], the battle against the revisionist betrayal of the Party, and other history-shaping events are must reading for all who are interested in Black history and the working class struggle.<br />
<br />
It was dedicated to his family; his third wife, son and daughter. <br />
<br />
"To My Family,<br />
<br />
Gwen, Haywood, Jr., and Becky" <br />
<br />
== Acknowledgement ==<br />
There have been many friends and comrades who have, directly or indirectly, helped me with the writing of this book. Unfortunately, they are too numerous to all be named here.<br />
<br />
There are a number of young people who have helped with the editorial, research and typing tasks and helped the project along through political discussions. Special thanks to Ernie Allen, who gave yeoman help with the early chapters. Others whose assistance was indispensable include Jody and Susan Chandler, Paula Cohen, Stu Dowty and Janet Goldwasser, Paul Elitzik, Pat Fry, Gary Goff, Sherman Miller, John Schwartz, Lyn Wells and Carl Davidson. Others who gave me assistance are Renee Blakkan and Nathalie Garcia.<br />
<br />
Over the past years, I have had discussions with several veteran comrades and friends who have helped immeasurably in jogging my memory and filling in the gaps where my own experience was lacking, I extend my warmest appreciation to Jesse Gray, Josh Lawrence, Arthur and Maude (White) Katz, John Killens, Ruth Hamlin, Frances Loman, Al Murphy, Joan Sandler, Delia Page and Jack and Ruth Shulman.<br />
<br />
A political autobiography is necessarily shaped by experiences over the years and by comrades who helped and influenced me in the long battle for self-determination and against revisionism. My earliest political debts are to the first core of Black cadres in the CPUSA: Cyril Briggs, Edward Doty, Richard B. Moore and to my brother Otto Hall, all former members of the African Blood Brotherhood.<br />
<br />
To Harrison George, outstanding son of the working class, charter member of the CPUSA, former editor of the Daily Worker and the Peoples' World, who gave his all to the Communist movement and died alone, victimized for his “premature" anti- revisionism.<br />
<br />
A special tribute to my comrades in the battles against revisionism within the CPUSA and after: Al Lannon, veteran director of the Waterfront Section and member of the Central Committee of the CPUSA; Charles Loman, executive secretary of the Brooklyn Party Organization; Isidore Beagun, executive secretary of the Bronx Party Organization; Allen and Pearl Lawes, Al and Ruth Hamlin, Olga and Victor Agosto. And to my wife, Gwendolyn Midlo Hall, my closest collaborator from 1953 through 1964 in the writing of manuscripts as well as in the Apolitical battles, who has since established her own reputation as historian and essayist.<br />
<br />
A tribute to Ed Strong, former communist youth leader and director of the Southern Negro Youth Congress, whose premature death in the mid-fifties cut short his uncompromising stand within the Central Committee for the right of self-determination for the Black nation.<br />
<br />
To the editors of Soulbook Magazine, who published my writings in 1965-66 and invited me to Oakland, California, in the spring of 1966 during the formative stages of the Black Panther movement.<br />
<br />
To Vincent Harding, who provided me with funds to return to the U.S. from Mexico in 1970 and gave me technical and material assistance to begin this autobiography.<br />
<br />
Thanks to John Henrik Clarke and Francisco and Elizabeth Cattlett de Mora for their enthusiasm and moral support.<br />
<br />
To Robert Warner, Director of the Michigan Historical Collections, for his help and his sensitivity to the need to collect and preserve historically relevant materials from the Black movement in the United States.<br />
<br />
== Prologue ==<br />
On July 28, 1919,1 literally stepped into a battle that was to last the rest of my life. Exactly three months after mustering out of the Army, I found myself in the midst of one of the bloodiest race riots in U.S. history. It was certainly a most dramatic return to the realities of American democracy. <br />
<br />
It came to me then that I had been fighting the wrong war. The Germans weren’t the enemy -the enemy was right here at home. These ideas had been developing ever since I landed home in April, and a lot of other Black veterans were having the same thoughts. <br />
<br />
I had a job as a waiter on the Michigan Central Railroad at the time. In July, I was working the Wolverine, the crack Michigan Central train between Chicago and New York. We would serve lunch and dinner on the run out of Chicago to St. Thomas, Canada, where the dining car was cut off the train. The next morning our cars would be attached to the Chicago-bound train and we would serve breakfast and lunch into Chicago.<br />
<br />
On July 27, the Wolverine left on a regular run to St. Thomas. Passing through Detroit, we heard news that a race riot had broken out in Chicago. The situation had been tense for some time. Several members of the crew, all of them Black, had bought revolvers and ammunition the previous week when on a special to Battle Creek, Michigan. Thus, when we returned to Chicago at about 2:00 P.M. the next day (July 28). we were apprehensive about what awaited us.<br />
<br />
The whole dining car crew, six waiters and four cooks, got off at the Twelfth Street Station in Chicago. Usually we would stay on the car while it backed out to the yards, but the station seemed a better route now. We were all tense as we passed through the station on the way to the elevated which would take us to the Southside and home. Suddenly a white trainman accosted us. “Hey, you guys going out to the Southside?”<br />
<br />
“Yeah, so what?” I said, immediately on the alert, thinking he might start something.<br />
<br />
“If I were you I wouldn’t go by the avenue” He meant Michigan Avenue which was right in front of the station.<br />
<br />
“Why?”<br />
<br />
“There’s a big race riot going on out there, and already this morning a couple of colored soldiers were killed coming in unsuspectingly. If I were you I’d keep off the street, and go right out those tracks by the lake.”<br />
<br />
We took the trainman’s advice, thanked him, and turned toward the tracks. It would be much slower walking home, but if he were right, it would be safer. As we turned down the tracks toward the Southside of the city, towards the Black ghetto, I thought of what I had just been through in Europe and what now lay before me in America.<br />
<br />
On one side of us lay the summer warmness of Lake Michigan. On the other was Chicago, a huge and still growing industrial center of the nation, bursting at its seams; brawling, sprawling Chicago, “hog butcher for the nation” as Carl Sandburg had called it<br />
<br />
As we walked, I remembered the war. On returning from Europe, I had felt good to be alive. I was glad to be back with my family—Mom, Pop and my sister. At twenty-one, my life lay before me. What should I do? The only trade I had learned was waiting tables. I hadn’t even finished the eighth grade. Perhaps I should go back to France, live there and become a French citizen? After all, I hadn’t seen any Jim Crow there.<br />
<br />
Had race prejudice in the U.S. lessened? I knew better. Conditions in the States had not changed, but we Blacks had. We were determined not to take it anymore. But what was I walking into?<br />
<br />
Southside Chicago, the Black ghetto, was like a besieged city. Whole sections of it were in ruins. Buildings burned and the air was heavy with smoke, reminiscent of the holocaust from which I had recently returned.<br />
<br />
Our small band, huddled like a bunch of raw recruits under machine gun fire, turned up Twenty-sixth Street and then into the heart of the ghetto. At Thirty-fifth and Indiana, we split up to go our various ways; I headed for home at Forty-second Place and Bowen. None of us returned to work until the riot was over, more than a week later.<br />
<br />
The battle at home was just as real as the battle in France had been. As I recall, there was full-scale street fighting between Black and white. Blacks were snatched from streetcars and beaten or killed; pitched battles were fought in ghetto streets; hoodlums roamed the neighborhood, shooting at random. Blacks fought hack.<br />
<br />
As I saw it at the time, Chicago was two cities. The one was the Chamber of Commerce’s city of the “American Miracle,” the Chicago of the 1893 World Columbian Exposition. It was the new industrial city which had grown in fifty years from a frontier town to become the second largest city in the country. <br />
<br />
The other, the Black community, had been part of Chicago almost from the time the city was founded. Jean Baptiste Pointe DuSable, a Black trapper from French Canada, was the first settler. Later came fugitive slaves, and after the Civil War- more Blacks, fleeing from post-Reconstruction terror, taking jobs as domestics and personal servants. <br />
<br />
The large increase was in the late 1880s through World War 1, as industry in the city expanded and as Blacks streamed north following the promise of jobs, housing and an end to Jim Crow lynching. The Illinois Central tracks ran straight through the deep South from Chicago to New Orleans, and the Panama Limited made the run every day. <br />
<br />
Those that took the train north didn’t find a promised land. They found jobs and housing, all right, but they had to compete with the thousands of recent immigrants from Europe who were also drawn to the jobs in the packing houses, stockyards and steel mills. <br />
<br />
The promise of an end to Jim Crow was nowhere fulfilled. In those days, the beaches on Lake Michigan were segregated. Most were reserved for whites only. The Twenty-sixth Street Beach, close to the Black community, was open to Blacks—but only as long as they stayed on their own side.<br />
<br />
The riot had started at this beach, which was then jammed with a late July crowd. Eugene Williams, a seventeen-year-old Black youth, was killed while swimming off the white side of the beach. The Black community was immediately alive with accounts of what had happened—that he had been murdered while swimming., that a group of whites had thrown rocks at him and killed him, and that the policeman on duty at the beach had refused to make any arrests.<br />
<br />
This incident was the spark that ignited the flames of racial animosity which had been smoldering for months. Fighting between Blacks and whites broke out on the Twenty-sixth Street beach after Williams’s death. It soon spread beyond the beach and lasted over six days. Before it was over, thirty-eight people—Black and white—were dead, 537 injured and over 1,000 homeless.<br />
<br />
The memory of this mass rebellion is still very sharp in my mind. It was the great turning point in my life, and I have dedicated myself to the struggle against capitalism ever since. In the following pages of my autobiography, I have attempted to trace the development of that struggle in the hopes that today’s youth can learn from both our successes and failures. lt is for the youth and the bright future of a socialist USA that this book has been written.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 ==<br />
<br />
=== A Child of Slaves ===<br />
I was born in South Omaha, Nebraska, on February 4, 1898— the youngest of the three children of Harriet and Haywood Hall. Otto, my older brother, was born in May 1891; and Eppa, my sister, in December 1896. <br />
<br />
The 1890s had been a decade of far-reaching structural change in the economic and political life of the United States. These were fateful years in which the pattern of twentieth century subjugation of Blacks was set. A young U.S. imperialism was ready in 1898 to shoulder its share of the “white man’s burden” and take its "manifest destiny” beyond the Pacific Coast and the Gulf of Mexico. In the war against Spain, it embarked on its first "civilizing” mission against the colored peoples of the Philippines and the “mixed breeds” of Cuba and Puerto Rico. In the course of the decade and a half following the Spanish-American War, the two-faced banner of racism and imperialist “benevolence” was carried to the majority of the Caribbean countries and the whole of Latin America.<br />
<br />
“The echo of this industrial imperialism in America,” said W. E. B. DuBois, “was the expulsion of Black men from American democracy, their subjection to caste control and wage slavery.” In 1877, the Hayes-Tilden agreement had successfully aborted the ongoing democratic revolution of Reconstruction in the South. Blacks were sold down the river, as northern capitalists, with the assistance of some former slaveholders, gained full economic and political control in the South. Henceforward, it was assured that the future development of the region would be carried out in complete harmony with the interests of Wall Street. The following years saw the defeat of the Southern based agrarian populist movement, with its promise of Black and white unity against the power of monopoly capital. The counter-revolution against Reconstruction was in full swing.<br />
<br />
Beginning in 1890, the Southern state legislatures enacted a series of disenfranchisement laws. Within the next sixteen years, these laws were destined to completely abrogate the right of Blacks to vote. This same period saw the revival of the notorious Black Codes, the resurgence of the hooded terror of the Ku Klux Klan and the defeat for reelection in 1905 of the last Black congressman surviving the Reconstruction period. Jim Crow laws enforcing segregation in public facilities were enacted by Southern states and municipal governments. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Jim Crow in the Plessy vs. Ferguson decision in 1896, declaring that legislation is powerless to eradicate “racial instinets” and establishing the principle of “separate but equal.” This decision was only reversed in 1954, when the U.S. Supreme Court held that separate facilities were inherently unequal.<br />
<br />
At the time when I was born, the Black experience was mainly a Southern one. The overwhelming majority of Black people still resided in the South. Most of the Black inhabitants of South Omaha were refugees from the twenty-year terror of the post-Re construction period. Omaha itself, despite its midwestern location, did not escape the terror completely, as indicated by the lynching of a Black man, Joe Coe, by a mob in 1891. Many people had relatives and families in the South. Some had trekked up to Kansas in 1879 under the leadership of Henry Adams of Louisiana and Moses “Pap” Singleton of Tennessee, and many had then continued further north to Omaha and Chicago.<br />
<br />
My parents were born slaves in 1860. They were three years old at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation. My Father was born on a plantation in Martin County, Tennessee, north of Memphis. The plantation was owned by Colonel Haywood Hall, whom my Father remembered as a kind and benevolent man. When the slaves were emancipated in 1863, my Grandfather, with the consent of Mr. Hall, took both the given name and surname of his former master.<br />
<br />
I never knew Grandfather Hall, as he died before I was born. According to my Father and uncles, he was—as they said in those days—“much of a man” He was active in local Reconstruction polities and probably belonged to the Black militia. Although Tennessee did not have a Reconstruction government, there were many whites who supported the democratic aims that were pursued during the Reconstruction period.<br />
<br />
But Tennessee was also the home of the Ku Klux Klan, where it was first organized after the Civil War. In the terror that followed the Hayes-Tilden agreement, these “night riders” had marked my Grandfather out as a “bad nigger” for lynching. At first they were deterred because of the paternalism of Colonel Hall. Many of Hall’s former slaves still lived on his plantation after the war ended, and the colonel had let it be known that he would kill the first “son-of-a-bitch” that trespassed on his property and tried to terrorize his “nigrahs.”<br />
<br />
But the anger of the night riders, strengthened by corn liquor, finally overcame their fear of Colonel Hall. My Father, who was about fifteen at the time, described what happened. One night the Klansmen rode onto the plantation and headed straight for Grandfather’s cabin. They broke open the door and one poked his head into the darkened cabin. “Hey, Hall’s nigger-where are you?"<br />
<br />
My Grandfather was standing inside and fired his shotgun point blank at the hooded head. The Klansman, half his head blown off, toppled onto the floor of the cabin, and his companions mounted their horses and fled. Grandmother, then pregnant, fell against the iron bed.<br />
<br />
Grandfather got the family out of the cabin and they ran to the “big house” for protection. It was obvious they couldn’t stay in Tennessee, so the Colonel hitched up a wagon and personally drove them to safety, outside of Martin County. Some of Grandfather’s family were already living in Des Moines, Iowa, so the Hall family left by train for Des Moines the following morning. The shock of this experience was so great that Grandmother gave birth prematurely to their third child—my Uncle George who lived to be ninety-five. Grandmother, however, became a chronic invalid and died a few years after the flight from Tennessee.<br />
<br />
Father was only in his teens when the family left for Des Moines, so he spent most of his youth there. In the late 1880s, he left and moved to South Omaha where there was more of a chance to get work. He got a job at Cudahy’s Packing Company, where he worked for more than twenty years—first as a beef-lugger (loading sides of beef on refrigerated freight cars), and then as a janitor in the main office building. Not long after his arrival, he met and married Mother—Harriet Thorpe—who had come up from Kansas City, Missouri, at about the same time.<br />
<br />
Father was powerfully built—of medium height, but with tremendous breadth (he had a forty-six-inch chest and weighed over 200 pounds). He was an extremely intelligent man. With little or no formal schooling, he had taught himself to read and write and was a prodigious reader. Unfortunately, despite his great strength, he was not much of a fighter, or so it seemed to me. In later years, some of the old slave psychology and fear remained. He was an ardent admirer of Booker T. Washington who, in his Atlanta compromise speech of 1895, had called on Blacks to submit to the racist status quo,<br />
<br />
Uncle George was the opposite. He would brook no insult and had been known to clean out a whole barroom when offended. The middle brother, Watt, was also a fighter and was especially dangerous if he had a knife or had been drinking. I remember both of them complaining of my Father’s timidity.<br />
<br />
My Mother’s family also had great fighting spirit. Her father, Jerry Thorpe, was born on a plantation near Bowling Green, Kentucky. He was illiterate, but very smart and very strong. Even as an old man, his appearance made us believe the stories that were told of his strength as a young man. When he was feeling fine and happy, his exuberance would get the best of him and he’d grab the largest man around, hoist him on his shoulders, and run around the yard with him.<br />
<br />
Grandfather Thorpe was half Creek Indian and had an Indian profile with a humped nose and high cheekbones. His hair was short and curly and he had a light brown complexion. He had a straggly white beard that he tried to cultivate into a Van Dyke. He said his father was a Creek Indian and his mother a Black plantation slave. No one knew his exact age, but we made a guess based on a story he often told us.<br />
<br />
He was about six or seven years old when, he said, “The stars fell”<br />
<br />
“When was that, Grandpa?”<br />
<br />
“Oh, one night the stars fell, I remember it very clearly. The skies were all lit up by falling stars. People were scared almost out of I heir wits. The old master and mistress and all the slaves were running out on the road, falling down on their knees to pray and ask forgiveness. We thought the Judgement Day had surely come. Glory Hallelujah! It was the last fire! The next day, the ground was all covered with ashes!”<br />
<br />
At first we thought all of that was just his imagination, something he had fantasized as a child and then remembered as a real event. But when my older brother Otto was in high school, he got interested in astronomy and came across a reference to a meteor shower of 1833. We figured out that was what Grandfather Thorpe had been talking about, so we concluded that he was born around 1825 or 1826.<br />
<br />
Grandfather Thorpe was filled with stories, many about slavery.<br />
<br />
“Chillen, I’ve got scars I’ll carry to my grave.” He would show us the welts on his back from slave beatings (my Grandmother also had them). Most of his beatings came from his first master in Kentucky. But he was later sold to a man in Missouri, whom he said treated him much better. This may have been due in part to his value as a slave—he was skilled both as a carpenter and cabinetmaker.<br />
<br />
Grandfather had many stories to tell about the Civil War. He was in Missouri at the time, living in an area that was first taken by a group known as Quantrell's raiders (a guerrilla-like band of irregulars who fought for the South) and then by the Union forces.<br />
<br />
When the Union soldiers first came into the plantations, they would call in slaves from the fields and make them sit down in the great drawing room of the house. They would then force the master and mistress and their family to cook and serve for the slaves. Grandfather told us that the soldiers would never eat any of the food that was served, because they were afraid of getting poisoned.<br />
<br />
The master on the plantation was generally decent when it became clear that the Union forces were going to control the area for awhile. At that time, Grandfather and my Grandmother Ann lived on adjacent plantations somewhere near Moberly, Missouri. Grandfather was allowed to visit Ann on weekends. Often on Sundays when he went to make a visit, he was challenged by Union guards. They would roughly demand to know his mission. My Grandfather and Grandmother got married, with the agreement of their two masters, and eventually had a family of five daughters and two sons. Grandfather Thorpe was given a plot of land in return for his services as a carpenter, but the family soon moved into Moberly. As the children reached working age, the family began to break up, but the girls always remained very close. They came back to visit frequently and never broke family ties as the boys had.<br />
<br />
My Mother, Harriet, was born when Grandmother was a slave on the plantation of Squire Sweeney in Howard County, Missouri. After the family moved into Moberly, Mother worked for a white family in town. She later went to St. Joseph, Missouri, to work for another white family. One day, while she was at work in St. Joseph, she heard a shot and then screams from down the street. She ran out to see what had happened. There was a great commotion and a crowd of people was gathering in front of the house next door.<br />
<br />
The family living there went by the name of Howard—a man, wife and two children. Both the man and his wife were church members; they appeared to be a most respectable couple. Mrs. Howard had been very active in church affairs and socials. Her husband was frequently absent because, she said, he was a traveling salesman and his work took him out of town for long periods of time.<br />
<br />
What the neighbors were not aware of was that “Mr. Howard” was none other than the legendary Jesse James. He was shot in the hack while hanging a picture in his house. The man who killed him was Robert Ford—a member of Jesse's own gang who had turned 11 a it or for a bribe offered by the Burns Detective Agency.<br />
<br />
When my Mother did the laundry, I remember she would often ring the “Ballad of Jesse James"—a song which became popular niter his death.<br />
<br />
'''Jesse James was a man—he killed many a man,'''<br />
<br />
'''The man that robbed that Denver train.'''<br />
<br />
'''It was a dirty little coward Who shot Mr. Howard,'''<br />
<br />
'''And they laid Jesse James in his grave.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh the people held their breath When they heard of Jesse's death,'''<br />
<br />
'''And they wondered how he came to die.'''<br />
<br />
'''He was shot on the sly By little Robert Ford,'''<br />
<br />
'''And they laid poor Jesse in his grave.'''<br />
<br />
In 1893, my Mother went to Chicago to visit her sister and see the Exposition. She said she saw Frank James, Jesse's brother, lie was out of prison then, a very dignified old man with a long white beard. He had been hired to ride around as an attraction at one of the exhibitions.<br />
<br />
Mother kept moving up to the north by stages. After the job in St. Joseph, she found work in St. Louis. She arrived to Find the city in a tense situation- the whole town was on the verge of a race riot. The immediate cause was the murder of an Irish cop named Brady. The Black community was elated, for Brady was a “nigger-hating cop" who carved notches on his pistol to show the number of Blacks he had killed. Brady finally met his end at the hands of a "bad" Black man who ran a gambling house in Brady's district.<br />
<br />
The gambling, of course, was illegal. But as was often the case, The cops were paid off with a “cut" from the takings of the house. As the story was told to me, Brady and the gambler met on the street one day and got into an argument. Brady accused the gambler of not giving him his proper “cut." This was denied vehemently. Brady then threatened to close the place down. The Black man told him, “Don’t you come into my place when the game’s going on!” He then turned and walked off. The scene was witnessed by several Blacks, and the news of how the gambler had defied Brady spread immediately throughout the Black district.<br />
<br />
This was bad stuff for Brady. It might lead to “niggers gettin’ notions,” as the cops put it. A few days passed, and Brady made his move. He went to the gambling house when the game was on and was shot dead.<br />
<br />
Some anonymous Black bard wrote a song about it all:<br />
<br />
'''Brady, why didn’t you run,'''<br />
<br />
'''You know you done wrong.'''<br />
<br />
'''You came in the room when the game was going on!''' <br />
<br />
'''Brady went below looking mighty curious.'''<br />
<br />
'''Devil said, " Where you from?”'''<br />
<br />
'''"I'm from East St. Louis .”'''<br />
<br />
'''"East St. Louie, come this way I’ve been expecting you every day!”'''<br />
<br />
The song was immediately popular in the Black community and became a symbol of rebellious feelings. Mother said that when she arrived in St. Louis, Blacks were singing this song all over town. The police realized the danger in such “notions” and began to arrest anyone they caught singing it. Forty years later. I was pleasantly surprised to hear Carl Sandburg sing the same song as part of his repertoire of folk ballads of the midwest. I had not heard it since Mother had sung it to us.<br />
<br />
Mother later moved to Kansas City, Missouri, and then to South Omaha. Her marriage there to my Father was her second. As a very young girl in Moberly, she had married John Harvey, but he was, to use her words, “a no-good yellah nigger, who expected me to support him.” They had one child, Gertrude, before he deserted her.<br />
<br />
Gertie came to Omaha some time after my Mother, and married my Father’s youngest brother, George. I have a feeling that Mother promoted this match; the two hard-working, sober Hall brothers must have been quite a catch!<br />
<br />
As I remember Mother in my childhood years, she was a small, brown-skinned woman, rather on the plumpish side, with large and beautiful soft brown eyes. She had the humped, Indian nose of the Thorpe family.<br />
<br />
My first memory of her is hearing her sing as she did housework. She had a melodious contralto voice and what seemed to me to be an endless and varied repertoire. Much of what I know about this period, I learned from her songs. These included lullabies (“Go to Sleep You Little Pickaninny, Mamma’s Gonna Swat You if You Don’t”) and many spirituals and jubilee songs. There were also innumerable folk ballads, and the popular songs of her day like "Down at the Ball” and “Where Did You Get That Hat?” Then there was the old song the slaves sang about their masters fleeing the Union Army—“The Year of Jubilo.”<br />
<br />
'''Oh darkies, have you seen the Massah with the mustache on his face?'''<br />
<br />
'''He was gwine down de road dis mornin’ like''' <br />
<br />
'''he's gwine to leave dis place.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, de Massah run, ha ha!'''<br />
<br />
'''And the darkies sing, ho ho!'''<br />
<br />
'''It must be now the Kingdom cornin' and de year of Jubilo!'''<br />
<br />
Mother never went to school a day in her life, but she had a phenomenal memory and was a virtual repository of Black folklore. My brother Otto taught her to read and write when she when forty years old. She told stories of life on the plantations, of the “hollers” they used. When a slave wanted to talk to a friend on n neighboring plantation, she would throw back her head and half sing, half yell: “Oh, Bes-sie, I wa-ant to see you.” Often you could hear one of the “hollers” a mile away.<br />
<br />
When Mother was a girl, camp meetings were a big part of her life. She had songs she remembered from the meetings, like “I Don’t Feel Weary, No Ways Tired,” and she would imitate the preachers with all of their promises of fire and brimstone. Later, when we lived in South Omaha, she was very active in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. As a means of raising funds, she used to organize church theatricals. Otto would help her read the plays; she would then direct them and usually play the leading role herself. She was a natural mimic. I heard her go through entire plays from beginning to end, imitating the voices (even the male ones) and the actions of the performers.<br />
<br />
In addition to caring for Otto, Eppa and myself, Mother got jobs catering parties for rich white families in North Omaha. She would bring us back all sorts of goodies and leftovers from these parties. Sometimes she would get together with her friends among the other domestics, and they would have a great time panning their employers and exchanging news of the white folks’ scandalous doings.<br />
<br />
Mother had the great fighting spirit of her family. She was a strong-minded woman with great ambition for her children, especially for us boys. Eppa, who was a plain Black girl, was sensitive but physically tough, courageous, and a regular tomboy.<br />
<br />
Worried about her future, Mother insisted that she learn the piano and arranged for her to take lessons at twenty-five cents each. Though she learned to play minor classics such as “Poet and Peasant,” arias from such operas as Aida and II Trovatore, accompanied the choir and so on, Eppa never liked music very much and was not consoled by it the way Mother was.<br />
<br />
As a wife, Mother had a way of making Father feel the part of the man in the house. She flattered his ego and always addressed him as “Mr. Half’ in front of guests and us children.<br />
<br />
=== LIFE IN SOUTH OMAHA ===<br />
'''You ask what town I love the best.''' <br />
<br />
'''South Omaha, South Omaha!'''<br />
<br />
'''The fairest town of all the rest,'''<br />
<br />
'''South Omaha, South Omaha!'''<br />
<br />
'''Where yonder's Papillion’s limp stream'''<br />
<br />
'''To where Missouri’s waters gleam.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, fairest town, oh town of mine,''' <br />
<br />
'''South Omaha, South Omaha!'''<br />
<br />
In the early part of the century, the days of my youth, South Omaha was an independent city. In 1915, it was annexed to become part of the larger city of Omaha. Like many midwestem towns, the city took its name from the original inhabitants of the area. In this case, it was the Omaha Indians of the Sioux tribal family. The area was a camping ground of the Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1804. It grew in importance when it became a licensed trading post and an important outfitting point during the Colorado Gold Rush. But the main growth of South Omaha came in the 1880s as the meat packing industry developed.<br />
<br />
In 1877, the first refrigerated railroad cars were perfected. This made it possible to slaughter livestock in the midwest and ship the meat to the large markets in eastern cities. As a result, the meat packing industry grew tremendously in the midwest.<br />
<br />
The city leaders saw the opportunity and encouraged the expanding packing industry to settle there—offering them special tux concessions and so forth. The town, situated on a plateau back from the “big muddy” (the Missouri River), began to grow. Soon it was almost an industrial suburb of Omaha and was one of the three largest packing centers in the country. All of the big packers of the time—Armour, Swift, Wilson and Cudahy—had big branches there. Cudahy’s main plant was in South Omaha.<br />
<br />
The industry brought with it growing railroad traffic. As a boy, I watched the dozens of lines of cars as they carried livestock in from the west and butchered meat to ship out to the east. The Burlington; the Chicago and Northwestern; the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific; the Illinois Central; the Rock Island; the Union Pacific—all of these lines had terminals there. By 1910, Omaha was the fourth largest railway center in the country.<br />
<br />
When I was born in 1898, South Omaha was a bustling town of about 20,000. Most of these 20,000 people were foreign-born and first generation immigrants. The two largest groups were the Irish and the Bohemians (or Czechs). There was a sprinkling of other Slavic groups—Poles, Russians, Serbs—as well as Germans, Greeks and Italians.<br />
<br />
The Bohemians were the largest ethnic group in town. They lived mainly in the southern part of town, towards the river, in the Brown Park and Albright sections. One thing that impressed me was their concern with education. They were a cultured group of people. I can’t remember any of them being illiterate and they had their own newspaper. They were involved in the political wheelings and dealings of the town and were successful at it. At one time, both the mayor and chief of police were Bohemians.<br />
<br />
The Irish were the second largest group, scattered throughout the town. The newly arrived poor "shanty” Irish would first settle on Indian Hill, near the stockyards. There were two classes of Irish the "shanty” Irish on the one hand, and the "old settlers” or "lace curtain” Irish on the other. This second group, who had settled only one generation before, was mostly made up of middle class, white collar, civil service and professional workers who lived near North Omaha. There were also a few Irish who were very rich; managers and executives who lived in Omaha proper. They had become well assimilated into the community. The tendency was for the poorer Irish to live in South Omaha, and those who had "made it” to one degree or another would move up to North Omaha or Omaha proper.<br />
<br />
There were only a few dozen Black families in South Omaha, scattered throughout the community. There was no Black ghetto and, as I saw it, no "Negro problem.” This was due undoubtedly to our small numbers, although there was a relatively large number of Blacks living in North Omaha. The Black community there had grown after Blacks were brought in as strikebreakers during the 1894 strike in the packing industry, but no real ghetto developed until after World War I.<br />
<br />
Our family lived in the heart of the Bohemian neighborhood in South Omaha. Nearly all our neighbors were Bohemians. They came from many backgrounds; there were workers and peasants, professionals, artists, musicians and other skilled artisans, all fleeing from the oppressive rule of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.<br />
<br />
They were friendly people, and kept up their language and traditions. On Saturdays, families would gather at one of the beer gardens to sing and dance. I remember watching them dance scottisches and polkas, listening to the beautiful music of their bands and orchestras, or running after their great marching bands when they were in a parade. On special occasions, they would bring out their colorful costumes. Much of their community life centered around the gymnastic clubs—Sokols or Turners’ Halls— which they had established.<br />
<br />
There were differences in how the ethnic groups related to each other and to the Blacks in town. In those days, Indian Hill was the stomping ground of teenage Irish toughs. One day, a mob of predominantly Irish youths ran the small Greek colony out of town when one of their members allegedly killed an Irish cop. I remember seeing the Greek community leaving town one Sunday afternoon. There were men, women and children (about 100 in all) walking down the railroad tracks, carrying everything they could hold. Some of their houses had been burned and a few of them had been beaten up in town.<br />
<br />
We should have seen the danger for us in this, but one Black man even boasted to my Father about how he had helped run the Greeks out. My Father called him a fool. “What business did you have helping that bunch of whites? Next time it might be you they run out!’’ The incident was an ominous sign of tensions that were lo come many years later.<br />
<br />
At the time, however, our family got along well with all the immigrant families in our immediate neighborhood. I loved the sweet haunting melodies of the Irish folk ballads; “Rose of Tralce,” "Mother Machree” and many of the popular songs, like “My Irish Molly-O” and “Augraghawan, I Want to Go Back to Oregon.”<br />
<br />
There was a Bohemian couple living next door. On occasion, Mr. Rehau would get a bit too much under his belt. He’d come home and really raise hell. When this happened, Mrs. Rehau scurried to Officer Bingham, the Black cop, to get some help. I remember one afternoon when Bingham came to lend a hand in laming him. The Bohemian was a little guy compared to him. Officer Bingham threw him down out in the yard and plunked himself down on Rehau’s back.<br />
<br />
Dust flew as he kicked and thrashed and tried to get out from under the Black man. Bingham just “rode the storm” and when Rehau raised his head, he’d smack him around until the rebellion subsided.<br />
<br />
“Had enough?" he’d yell at his victim. “You gonna behave now and mind what Mrs. Rehau says?" All the while, she was running around them, waving her apron.<br />
<br />
“Beat him some more, Mr, Bingham, please! Make him be good.”<br />
<br />
Finally, either Bingham got tired or Mr. Rehau just gave out and peace returned to the neighborhood.<br />
<br />
“Police and community relations" were less tense then. The cops knew how to control a situation without using guns. Often this meant they'd get into actual fist fights. In those days, there was a big Black guy in town named Sam, a beef lugger like my Father. Sam was a nice quiet guy, but on occasion he'd go on a drunk and fight anyone within arm’s length (which was a big area). The cops generally handled it by fighting it out with him.<br />
<br />
But I remember one time Sam really caused a row. He was outside a bar on J Street, up in Omaha proper. During the course of his drunk, he’d beaten up five or six of the regular cops. This called for extreme measures. Briggs, the chief of police, came to the scene to restore law and order. He marched up to Sam and threw out his chest, “Now Sam, it's time for you to behave, you hear?" He even pulled out his thirty-eight to show he meant business.<br />
<br />
But Sam wasn’t ready to behave. He came at Briggs, intending to lay him out like he’d done with the other officers, Briggs backed up, one step at a time. “Sam, you stop. You hear me Sam? Time to stop, now." Sam forced Briggs all the way back to his carriage. Once Briggs was in, he delivered his final threat: “Sam, you come down to City Hall on Monday and see me. This just can’t happen this way."<br />
<br />
Briggs drove off. Monday morning came and Sam went down to City Hall. He was fined for being drunk and disorderly. He didn’t fight the court and willingly paid the fine. It seemed like an unwritten agreement. The cops wouldn’t shoot when Sam went on a spree. When it was over, Sam would go and pay his fine and that would end the whole business.<br />
<br />
Our family was the only Black family in our neighborhood, and we were pretty well insulated from the racist pressures of the outside world. As children we were only very dimly aware of what DuBois called the “veil of color between the races.”<br />
<br />
I First became aware of the veil, not from anything that happened in the town, but from what my parents and grandparents told me of how Southern whites had persecuted Blacks and of how they had suffered under slavery. I remember Grandfather and Grandmother Thorpe showing me the scars they had on their backs from the overseer’s lash. I remember Pa reading newspaper accounts of the endless reign of lynch terror in the South, and about the 1908 riots in Springfield, Illinois.<br />
<br />
In 1908, Jack Johnson, the first Black heavyweight champion, defeated the “great white hope.” Jim Jeffries. Pa said that it was the occasion for a new round of lynchings in the South. There were other great Black fighters—Sam Langford, Joe Jeanett and Sam McVey for instance—but Johnson was the first Black heavyweight to be able to fight for the championship and the first to win it.<br />
<br />
He was conscious that he was a Black man in a racist world. “I’m Black, they never let me forget it. Pm Black, Til never forget it.” Jeffries had been pushed as the hope of the white race to reclaim the heavyweight crown from Johnson. When Johnson knocked out Jeffries, it was a symbol of Black defiance and self-assertion. To Blacks, the victory meant pride and hope. It was a challenge to the authority of bigoted whites and to them it called for extra measures to “keep the niggers in their place.”<br />
<br />
To us children, Black repression seemed restricted to the South, outside the orbit of our immediate experience. As I saw it then, there was no deliberate plot of white against Black. I thought there were two kinds of white folk: good and bad, and the latter were mainly in the South. Most of those I knew in South Omaha were good people. Disillusionment came later in my life.<br />
<br />
The friendly interracial atmosphere of South Omaha was illustrated by the presence of Officer Bingham and Officer Ballou, two Black cops in the town’s small police force. Bingham was a big, Black and jolly fellow. His beat was our neighborhood. Ballou was a tall, slim, ramrod straight and light brown-skinned Black. He was a veteran of the Black Tenth Cavalry. He had fought in the Indian wars against Geronimo and had participated in the chase for Billy the Kid. Ballou was also a veteran of the Spanish- American War. All the kids, Black and white, regarded him with a special awe and respect. Both Black officers were treated as respectable members of the community, liked by the people because they had their confidence. While they wore guns, they never seemed to use them. These cops fought tough characters with fists and clubs, pulling a gun only rarely, and then only in self- defense. It seemed that a large part of their duty was to keep the kids out of mischief.<br />
<br />
“Officer Bingham,” the Bohemian woman across the alley would call, “would you please keep an eye on my boy Frontal. See he don’t make trouble.”<br />
<br />
“Don’t worry, Mrs. Brazda. He’s a good boy.”<br />
“<br />
<br />
Has Haywood been a good boy?”<br />
<br />
“Oh yes, Mrs. Hall. He’s all right.’’And he would stop for a chat.<br />
My sister Eppa, a lad called Willy Starens and I were the only Black kids in the Brown Park Elementary School. My brother Otto had already graduated and was in South Omaha High. Our schoolmates were predominantly Bohemians, with a sprinkling of Irish, German and a few Anglo-Americans. My close childhood chums included two Bohemian lads, Frank Brazda and Jimmy Rehau; an Anglo-Irish kid, Earl Power; and Willy Ziegler, who was of German parentage. We were an inseparable fivesome, in and out of each other’s homes all the time.<br />
<br />
During my first years in school, I was plagued by asthma, and was absent from school many months at a time. The result was that I was a year behind. I finally outgrew this infirmity and became a strong, healthy boy. By the time I reached the eighth grade, I had become one of the best students in my class, sharing this honor with a Bohemian girl, Bertha Himmel. Both of us could solve any problem in arithmetic, both were good at spelling, and at interschool spelling bees our school usually won the first prize. My self-confidence was encouraged by my teachers, all of whom were white and yet uniformly kind and sympathetic.<br />
<br />
Of course, like all kids, I had plenty of fights. But race was seldom involved. Occasionally, I would hear the word “nigger.” While it evoked anger in me, it seemed no more disparaging than the terms “bohunk,” “sheeny,” “dago,” “shanty Irish” or “poor white trash.” All were terms of common usage, interchangeable as slurring epithets on one’s ethnic background, and usually employed outside the hearing of the person in question.<br />
<br />
In contrast to the daily life of the neighborhood, however, the virus of racism was subtly injected into the classroom at the Brown Park School I attended. The five races of mankind illustrated in our geography books portrayed the Negro with the receding forehead and prognathous jaws of a gorilla. There was a complete absence of Black heroes in the history books, supporting the inference that the Black man had contributed nothing to civilization. We were taught that Blacks were brought out of the savagery of the jungles of Africa and introduced to civilization through slavery under the benevolent auspices of the white man.<br />
<br />
In spite of my Father’s submissive attitude, it is to him that I must give credit for scotching this big lie about the Negro’s past. His attitude grew out of his concern for our survival in a hostile environment. He felt most strongly that the Negro was not innately inferior, He perceived that his children must have some sense of self-respect and confidence to sustain them until that distant day when, through “obvious merit and just dessert,” Blacks would receive their award of equality and recognition.<br />
<br />
Father possessed an amazing store of knowledge which he had culled from his readings. He would tell us about the Black civilizations of ancient Egypt, Ethiopia and Cush. He would quote from the Song of Solomon: “I am Black and comely, oh ye daughters of Jerusalem.” He would tell us about Black soldiers in the Civil War; about the massacre of Blacks at Fort Pillow and the battle cry they used thereafter, “Remember Fort Pillow! Remember Fort Pillow!”2 He knew about the Haitian Revolution, the defeat of Napoleon’s Army by Toussaint L’Ouverture, Dessalines and Jean Christophe. He told us about the famous Zulu chief Shaka in South Africa; about Alexandre Dumas, the great French romanticist, and Pushkin, the great Russian poet, who were both Black.<br />
<br />
Father said that he had taught himself to read and write. He had an extensive library, which took up half of one of the walls in our subject. They included such titles as The Decisive Battles of the World The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, and many histories of England, France, Germany and Russia. He had Stanley in Africa, and a number of biographies of famous men, including Napoleon, Caesar and Hannibal (who Father said was a Negro). He had Scott’s Ivanhoe and his Waverly novels; Bulwer Lytton; Alexandre Dumas’ novels and the Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, and Up From Slavery by Booker T. Washington.<br />
<br />
On another wall there was a huge picture of the charge of the Twenty-fifth Black Infantry and the Tenth Cavalry at San Juan Hill, rescuing Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders. There were pictures of Frederick Douglass and, of course, his hero, Booker T. Washington. He would lecture to us on history, displaying his .extensive knowledge. He was a great admirer of Napoleon. He would get into one of his lecturing moods and pace up and down with his hands behind his back before the rapt audience of my sister Eppa and myself. Talking about the Battle of Waterloo, he would say:<br />
<br />
“Wellington was in a tough spot that day. Napoleon was about to whip him; the trouble was Blucher hadn’t shown up.”<br />
<br />
“Who was he, Pa?”<br />
<br />
“He was the German general who was supposed to reinforce Wellington with 13,000 Prussian troops. Wellington was getting awful nervous, walking up and down behind the lines and saying, 4Oh! If Blucher fails to come! Where is Blucher?”<br />
<br />
“Did he Finally get there, Pa?”<br />
<br />
“Yes, son, he finally got there and turned the tide of battle. And if he hadn’t shown up and Napoleon had won, the whole course of history would have been changed.”<br />
<br />
It was through Father that I entered the world of books. I developed an unquenchable thirst to learn about people and their history. I remember going to the town library when I was nine or ten and asking, “Do you have a history of the world for children?” My first love became the historical novel. I loved George Henty’s books; they always dealt with the exploits of a sixteen-year-old during an important historical period. Through Henty’s heroes, I too was with Bonnie Prince Charlie, with Wellington in rite Spanish Peninsula, with Gustavus Adolphus at Lutsen in the Thirty Years War, with Clive in India and Under Drake's Flag around the world. I was also fascinated by romances of the feudal period such as When Knighthood Was in Flower and Ivanhoe. I read Twain’s Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer, and the works of H. Rider Haggard.<br />
<br />
I went through a definite Anglophile stage, in part due to the influence of a Jamaican named Mr. Williams who worked as assistant janitor with my Father. Mr. Williams was a huge Black man with scars all over his face. He was a former stoker in the British Navy. I was attracted by his strange accent and haughty demeanor. Evidently he saw in me an appreciative audience. I would listen with open mouth and wonder at the stories of the strange places he had seen, of his adventures in faraway lands. He was a real British patriot, a Black imperialist, if such was possible.<br />
<br />
He would declare, “The sun never sets on the British Empire,” and then sing “Rule Brittania, Brittania Rule the Waves.” He quoted Napoleon as allegedly saying, “Britain is a small garden, but she grows some bitter weeds,” and “Give me French soldiers and British officers, and I will conquer the world.” I pictured myself as a British sailor, and read Two Years Before the Mast and Battle of Trafalgar.<br />
<br />
“Do you think they would let me join the British Navy?” I asked Mr. Williams.<br />
<br />
“No, my lad,” he answered, “You have to be a British citizen or subject to do that.” I was quite disappointed.<br />
But it was not only British romance that fascinated me. At about the age of twelve I became a Francophile. I read all of Dumas’ novels and quite a number of other novels about France. I had begun to read French history, which to me turned out to be as interesting as the novels and equally romantic. I read about Joan of Arc, the Hundred Years’ War, Francis I, about Catherine de Medici, the Huguenots and Admiral Coligny, the Due de Guise, the massacre of St. Bartholomew Eve or the night of the long knives; then the French Revolution, A Tale of Two Cities, the guillotining of Charlotte Corday and the assassination of Marat.<br />
<br />
Occasionally, the ugly reality of race would intrude upon the dream world of my childhood. I distinctly remember two such occasions. One was when a white family from Arkansas moved across the alley from us. Mr. Faught, the patriarch of the clan, was a typical red-necked peckerwood. He would sit around the store front, chawing tobacco, telling how they treated “niggers” down his way.<br />
<br />
“They were made to stay in their place- -down in the cotton patch—not in factories taking white men’s jobs.”<br />
<br />
As I remember, his racist harangues did not make much of an impression on the local white audience. Apparently at that time there was no feeling of competition in South Omaha because there were so few Blacks. I would also imagine that his slovenly appearance did not jibe with his white supremacist pretensions.<br />
<br />
One day a substitute teacher took over our class. I was about ten years old. The substitute was a Southerner from Arkansas. During history class she started talking about the Civil War. The slaves, she said, did not really want freedom because they were happy as they were. They would have been freed by their masters in a few years anyway. Her villain was General Grant, whom she contrasted unfavorably with General Robert E. Lee.<br />
<br />
“Lee was a gentleman,” she put forth, “But Grant was a cigar-smoking liquor-drinking roughneck.”<br />
<br />
She didn’t like Sherman either, and talked about his “murdering rampage” through Georgia. I wasn't about to take all of this and challenged her.<br />
<br />
“I don’t know about General Grant’s habits, but he did beat Lee. Besides, Lee couldn’t have been much of a gentleman; he owned slaves!”<br />
<br />
Livid with rage, she shouted, “That’s enough —what I could say about you!”<br />
<br />
“Well, what could you say?” I challenged.<br />
She apparently saw that wild racist statements wouldn’t work in this situation, and that I was trying to provoke her to do something like that. She cut short the argument, shouting, “That’s enough”<br />
<br />
“Yes, that’s enough,” I sassed.<br />
During the heated exchange, I felt that I had the sympathy of most of my classmates. After school, some gathered around me and said, “You certainly told her off?”<br />
<br />
When I told Mother she supported me. “You done right, son,” she said.<br />
<br />
But Father was not so sure. “You might have gotten into trouble.”<br />
<br />
I feel now that one of the reasons for my self-confidence during my childhood years, and why the racist notions of innate Black inferiority left me cold, was my older brother Otto. His example belied such claims. He was the most brilliant one in our family, and probably in all of South Omaha. He had skipped a grade both in grade school and in high school, and was a real prodigy. He was a natural poet, and won many prizes in composition. His poem on the charge of the Twenty-fifth Black Infantry and Tenth Cavalry at San Juan Hill was published in one of the Omaha dailies. Otto was praised by all of his teachers. “An unusual boy,” they said, “clearly destined to become a leader of his race.”<br />
<br />
One day, one of his teachers and a Catholic priest called on Mother and Father to talk about Otto’s future. Otto was about fourteen at the time. They suggested that he might be good material for the priesthood, and that there was a possibility of his getting a scholarship for Creighton University, Omaha’s famous Jesuit school. The teacher suggested that if this were agreed to, he should take up Latin. My parents were extremely flattered, despite the fact that they were good Methodists (AME). Even Father, who did not seem ambitious for his children, was impressed.<br />
<br />
But when the proposition was placed before Otto, he vehemently disagreed. He did not want to become a priest nor did he want to study Latin. He wanted, he said, to be an architect! Doctors, dentists, teachers and preachers -these were the professions for an ambitious Black in those days.<br />
<br />
“An architect!” they exclaimed in amazement. “Who ever heard of a Black architect?”<br />
<br />
“Who ever heard of a Black priest?” Otto retorted. (At that time there were only two or three Black priests in the entire U.S.)<br />
<br />
“But Otto,” Mother argued,“you’ll have the support of a lot of prominent white folks. They’ll help you through college.”<br />
<br />
But Otto would have none of it. Undoubtedly, my parents thought that they could finally wear down his opposition and that he would become more amenable in time. They did force him to take Latin, a subject he hated.<br />
<br />
Otto stayed in school, but no longer seemed interested in his studies. He dropped out of school suddenly in his senior year. He was sixteen. He left home and got a job as a bellhop in a hotel in North Omaha’s Black community. This move cut completely the few remaining tics he had with his white age group in South Omaha.<br />
<br />
Otto’s drop-out from high school evidently signified that he had given up the struggle to be somebody in the white world. He had become disillusioned with the white world and therefore sought identity with his own people. During my childhood years, our relationship had never been close. There was, of course, the age gap—he was seven years older. But even in later years, when we were closer and had more in common, we never talked about our childhood. I don’t know why. As a child I had been proud of his academic feats and boasted about them to my friends.<br />
<br />
At the time he left high school Otto was the only Black in South Omaha High and was about to become its first Black graduate. Highly praised by his teachers and popular among his fellow students, he was a real showpiece in the school.<br />
<br />
What caused him to drop out of school in his senior year? Thinking back on it, I don’t believe that it had anything to do with the attempt to make him a priest. I think that he had won that battle a couple of years before. At least, I never heard the matter mentioned again.<br />
<br />
Otto undoubtedly had had high aspirations at one time, as evidenced by his desire to become an architect. Somewhere along the line they disappeared. Perhaps a contributing factor was the accumulating effect of Otto’s malady. On occasion, Mother would remind us that Otto had water on the brain, and that he was different from Eppa and myself. At the time, he seemed smarter than us, more independent and in rebellion against Pa’s lack of encouragement, moral support and his parental authority. Certainly in adult life Otto used to sleep about ten hours a day and very often fell asleep in meetings. He seemed to lack the ability of prolonged concentration, although whatever brain damage he may have suffered never affected the quickness of his mind and ability to grasp the nub of any question or the capacity for leadership which he showed on a number of occasions.<br />
<br />
But more debilitating, probably, than any physical disease was the generation gap of that era—between parents of slave backgrounds and children born free, particularly in the north. Otto’s dropping out of school and his later radical political development were undoubtedly related to a conflict more intense than the ones of today.<br />
<br />
Father was an ardent follower of Booker T. Washington. His ambitions for his sons were very modest, to put it mildly. He undoubtedly would have been satisfied if we could become good law-abiding citizens with stable jobs. He thought of jobs a notch or two above his own station, like a postal employee, a skilled tradesman, or a clerk in the civil service. The offer of a scholarship for the priesthood was, therefore, simply beyond his expectations, and I guess that the old man was deeply disappointed at Otto’s rejection of it.<br />
<br />
Otto was quite independent and would not conform to Father’s idea of discipline. For example, he was completely turned off on the question of religion, and Father could not force him to go to church I don’t remember Otto ever going to church with the family. Father claimed that Otto was irresponsible and wild. As a result, there was mutual hostility between them. The results were numerous thrashings when Otto was young and violent quarrels between them as he grew older. Mother would usually defend Otto. Grandpa Thorpe, himself a strict disciplinarian, would warn Mother: “Hattie, you mark my words, that boy is going to lan’ in the pen.”<br />
<br />
At some point, Otto came to the conclusion that there was no use in continuing his education. He must have felt that it was irrelevant. Opportunities for educated Blacks were few, even in North Omaha’s Black community where there were only a few professionals. In that community there were a few preachers, one doctor, one dentist and one or two teachers. Black businesses consisted of owners of several undertaking establishments, a couple of barber shops and a few pool rooms. The only other Blacks in any sort of middle class positions were a few postal employees, civil service workers, pullman porters and waiters.<br />
<br />
Then too, Otto had passed through the age of puberty and was becoming more and more conscious of his race. Along with the natural detachment and withdrawal from childhood socializing with girls—in his case white girls who were former childhood sweethearts—Otto experienced a withdrawal and non-socialization because of his race. He ended up quite alone because there were not many Black kids his age in South Omaha. There wasn’t much contact with the Black kids from North Omaha either. As a very sensitive person on the verge of manhood, I imagine he began to feel these changes keenly.<br />
<br />
After he dropped out of school in 1908, Otto was soon attracted to the “sportin’ life”...the pool halls and sporting houses of North<br />
Omaha. He wanted to be among Black people; he was anxious to get away from Father. Thus, he left home and got jobs as a bellhop, shoeshine boy, and busboy. He began to absorb a new way of life, stepping fully into the social life of the Black community in North Omaha. He’d evidently heeded the “call of the blood” and gone back to the race. It was not until a few years later, when I had similar experiences, that I understood that Otto had arrived at the first stage in his identity crisis and had gone to where he felt he belonged.<br />
<br />
He would come home quite often, though, flaunting his new clothes, a “box-backed” suit—“fitting nowhere but the shoulders,” high-heeled Stacey Adams button shoes, and a stetson hat. He’d give a few dollars to Mother and some dimes to me and my sister. Sometimes he would bring a pretty girl friend with him. But most of the time, he would bring a young man, Henry Starens, who was a piano player. He played a style popular in those days, later to be known as boogie-woogie, in which the piano was the whole orchestra. He played Ma Rainey’s famous blues, “Make Me a Pallet on Your Floor, Make It Where Your Man Will Never Know,” and the old favorite, “Alabama Bound.”<br />
<br />
'''Alabama Bound'''<br />
<br />
'''I'm Alabama Bound.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, babe, don't leave me here,'''<br />
<br />
'''Just leave a dime for beer.'''<br />
<br />
A boy of ten at the time, I was tremendously impressed. There is no doubt that Otto’s experience served to weaken some of my childish notions about making it in the white world.<br />
<br />
=== HALLEY’S COMET AND MY RELIGION ===<br />
On May 4, 1910, Halley’s Comet appeared flaring down out of the heavens, its luminous tail switching to earth. It was an ominous sight.<br />
<br />
A rash of religious revival swept Omaha. Prophets and messiahs appeared on street comers and in churches preaching the end of the world. Hardened sinners “got religion.” Backsliders renewed their faith. The comet, with its tail moving ever closer to the earth, seemed to lend credence to forecasts of imminent cosmic disaster.<br />
<br />
Both my Mother and Father were deeply religious. Theirs was that “old time religion,” the fire-and-brimstone kind which leaned heavily on the Old Testament. It was the kind that accepted the Bible and all its legends as the literal gospel truth. We children had the “fear of the Lord” drilled into us from early age. My image of God was that of a vengeful old man who demanded unquestioned faith, strict obedience and repentant love as the price of salvation;<br />
<br />
'''I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.'''<br />
<br />
Every Sunday, rain or shine, the family would attend services at the little frame church near the railroad tracks. For me, this was a tortuous ordeal. I looked forward to Sundays with dread. We would spend all of eight hours in church. We would sit through the morning service, then the Sunday school, after which followed a break for dinner. We returned at five for the Young People’s Christian Endeavor and finally the evening service. It was not just boredom. Fear was the dominant emotion, especially when our preacher, Reverend Jamieson, a big Black man with a beautiful voice, would launch into one of his fire-and-brimstone sermons. He would start out slowly and in a low voice, gradually raising it higher he would swing to a kind of sing-song rhythm, holding his congregation rapt with vivid word pictures. They would respond with “Hallelujah! ” “Ain’t it the truth! ” “Preach it, brother!”<br />
<br />
He would go on in this manner for what seemed an interminable time, and would reach his peroration on a high note, winding up with a rafter-shaking burst of oratory. He would then pause dramatically amidst moans, shouts and even screams of some of the women, one or two of whom would fall out in a dead faint. Waiting for them to subside he would then, in a lowered, scarcely audible voice, reassure his flock that it was not yet too late to repent and achieve salvation. All that was necessary was to: “Repent sinners, and love and obey the Lord. Amen.” Someone would then rise and lead off with an appropriate spiritual such as:<br />
<br />
'''Oh, my sins are forgiven and my soul set free-ah,'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, glory Halelua-a-a-a'''<br />
<br />
'''Just let me in the kingdom when the world is all a'fi-ah.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh Glory Halelu!'''<br />
<br />
'''I don't feel worried, no ways tiahd,'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, glory Halelu!'''<br />
<br />
I remember the family Bible, a huge book which lay on the center table in the front room. The first several pages were blank, set aside for recording the vital family statistics: births, deaths, marriages. The book was filled with graphic illustrations of biblical happenings. Leafing through Genesis (which we used to call “the begats”), one came to Exodus and from there on a pageant of bloodshed and violence unfolded. Portrayed in striking colors were the interminable tribal wars in which the Israelites slew the Mennonites and Pharoah’s soldiers killed little children in march of Moses. There was the great God, Jehovah himself, whitebearded and eyes flashing, looking very much like our old cracker neighbor, Mr. Faught.<br />
<br />
Just a couple of weeks before Halley’s comet appeared, Mother had taken us to see the silent film, Dante’s Inferno, through which I sat with open mouth horror. Needless to say, this experience did not lessen my apprehension.<br />
<br />
The comet continued its descent, its tail like the flaming sword of vengeance. Collision seemed not just possible, but almost certain. What had we poor mortals done to incur such wrath of the Lord?<br />
<br />
My deportment underwent a change. I did all my chores without complaint and helped Mama around the house. This was so unlike me that she didn’t know what to make of it. I overheard her telling Pa about my good behavior and how helpful I had become lately. But I hadn’t really changed. I was just scared. I was simply trying to carry out another one of God’s commandments, “Honor thy lather and thy mother that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.'’<br />
<br />
Then one night, when the whole neighborhood had gathered as usual on the hill to watch the comet, it appeared to have ceased its movement towards the earth. We were not sure, but the next night we were certain. It had not only ceased its descent, but was definitely withdrawing. In a couple more nights, it had disappeared. A wave of relief swept over the town.<br />
<br />
“It’s not true!” I thought to myself. “The fire and brimstone, the leering devils, the angry vengeful God. None of it is true.”<br />
<br />
It was as if a great weight had been lifted from my mind. It was the end of my religion, although I still thought that there was most likely a supreme being. But if God existed, he was nothing like the God portrayed in our family Bible. I was no longer terrified of him. Later, at the age of fourteen or fifteen, I read some of the lectures of Robert G. Ingersoll and became an agnostic, doubting the existence of a god. From there, I later moved to positive atheism.<br />
<br />
Two years later, the great event was the sinking of the Titanic.This was significant in Omaha because one of the Brandeis brothers, owners of the biggest department store in North Omaha, went down with her. In keeping with the custom of Blacks to gloat over the misfortunes of whites, especially rich ones, some Black bard composed the "Titanic Blues":<br />
<br />
'''When old John Jacob As tor left his home,'''<br />
<br />
'''He never thought he was going to die.'''<br />
<br />
'''Titanic fare thee well'''<br />
<br />
'''I say fare thee well.'''<br />
<br />
But disaster was more frequently reserved for the Black community. On Easter Sunday 1913, a tornado struck North Omaha. It ripped a two-block swath through the Black neighborhood, leaving death and destruction in its wake. Among the victims were a dozen or so Black youths trapped in a basement below a pool hall where they had evidently been shooting craps. Mother did not fail to point out the incident as another example of God's wrath. While I was sorry for the youths and their families (some of them were friends of Otto), the implied warning left me cold. My God-fearing days had ended with Halley's Comet.<br />
<br />
Misfortune, however, was soon to strike our immediate family. It happened that summer, in 1913. My Father fled town after being attacked and beaten by a gang of whites on Q Street, right outside the gate of the packing plant. They told him to get out of town or they would kill him.<br />
<br />
I remember vividly the scene that night when Father staggered through the door. Consternation gripped us at the sight. His face was swollen and bleeding, his clothes torn and in disarray. He had a frightened, hunted look in his eyes. My sister Eppa and I were alone. Mother had gone for the summer to work for her employers, rich white folks, at Lake Okoboji, Iowa. <br />
<br />
"What happened?" we asked.<br />
<br />
He gasped out the story of how he had been attacked and beaten.<br />
<br />
"They said they were going to kill me if I didn't get out of town."<br />
<br />
We asked him who "they" were. He said that he recognized some of them as belonging to the Irish gang on Indian Hill, but there were also some grown men.<br />
<br />
"But why, Pa? Why should they pick on you?"<br />
<br />
"Why don't we call the police?"<br />
<br />
"That ain't goin' to do no good. We just have to leave town."<br />
<br />
"But Pa," I said, "how can we? We own this house. We've got friends here. If you tell them, they wouldn't let anybody harm us."<br />
<br />
Again the frightened look crossed his face.<br />
<br />
"No, we got to go."<br />
<br />
"Where, where will we go?"<br />
<br />
"We'll move up to Minneapolis, your uncles Watt and George are there. I'll get work there. I'm going to telegraph your Mother to come home now."<br />
<br />
He washed his face and then went into the bedroom and began packing his bags. The next morning he gave Eppa some money and said, "This will tide you over till your Mother comes. She'll be here in a day or two. I'm going to telegraph her as soon as I get to the depot. I'll send for you all soon."<br />
<br />
He kissed us goodbye and left.<br />
<br />
Only when he closed the door behind him did we feel the full impact of the shock. It had happened so suddenly. Our whole world had collapsed. Home and security were gone. The feeling of safety in our little haven of interracial goodwill had proved elusive. Now we were just homeless "niggers" on the run.<br />
<br />
The crudest blow, perhaps, was the shattering of my image of lather. True enough, I had not regarded him as a hero. Still, however, I had retained a great deal of respect for him. He was undoubtedly a very complex man, very sensitive and imaginative. Probably he had never gotten over the horror of that scene in the cabin near Martin, Tennessee, where as a boy of fifteen he had seen his father kill the Klansman. He distrusted and feared poor whites, especially the native born and, in Omaha, the shanty Irish.<br />
<br />
Mother arrived the next day. For her it was a real tragedy. Our home was gone and our family broken up. She had lived in Omaha for nearly a quarter of a century. She had raised her family there and had built up a circle of close friends. With her regular summer job at Lake Okoboji and catering parties the rest of the year, she had helped pay for our home. Now it was gone. We would be lucky if we even got a fraction of the money we had put into it, not to speak of the labor. Now she was to leave all this. Friends and neighbors would ask why Father had run away.<br />
<br />
Why had he let some poor white trash run him out of town? He had friends there. Ours was an old respected family. He also had influential white patrons. There was Ed Cudahy of the family that owned the packing plant where he worked. The Cudahys had become one of the nation's big three in the slaughtering and meat packing industry. Father had known him from boyhood. There was Mr. Wilkins, general manager at Cudahy's, whom Father had known as an office boy, and who now gave Father all his old clothes.<br />
<br />
A few days later, Mr. Cannon, a railroad man in charge of a buffet car on the Omaha and Minneapolis run and an old friend of the family, called with a message from Father. He said that Father was all right, that he had gotten a job for himself and Mother at the Minneapolis Women's Club. Father was to become caretaker and janitor, Mother was to cater the smaller parties at the club and to assist at the larger affairs. They were to live on the place in a basement apartment.<br />
<br />
The salary was ridiculously small (I think about $60 per month for both of them) and the employers insisted that only one of us children would be allowed to live at the place. That, of course, would be Eppa. He said that Father had arranged for me to live with another family. This, he said, would be a temporary arrangement. He was sure he could find another job, and rent a house where we could all be together again. As for me, Father suggested that since I was fifteen, I could find a part-time job to help out while continuing school. Mr. Cannon said that he was to take me back to Minneapolis with him, and that Mother and Eppa were to follow in a few days.<br />
<br />
With regards to our house, Mr. Cannon said that he knew a lawyer, an honest fellow, who for a small commission would handle its sale. Mother later claimed that after deducting the lawyer's commission and paying off a small mortgage, they only got the paltry sum of $300! This was for a five-room house with electricity and running water.<br />
<br />
The next day, Mr. Cannon took me out to his buffet car in the railroad yards. He put me in the pantry and told me to stay there, and if the conductor looked in: "Don't be afraid, he's a friend of mine." Our car was then attached to a train which backed down to the station to load passengers. I looked out the window as we left Omaha. I was not to see Omaha again until after World War I, when I was a waiter on the Burlington Railroad.<br />
<br />
My childhood and part of my adolescence was now behind me. I felt that I was practically on my own. What did the world hold for me—a Black youth?<br />
<br />
Arriving in Minneapolis, I went to my new school. As I entered the room, the all-white class was singing old darkie plantation songs. Upon seeing me, their voices seemed to take on a mocking, derisive tone. Loudly emphasizing the Negro dialect and staring directly at me, they sang:<br />
<br />
'''"Down in De Caunfiel—HEAH DEM darkies moan'''<br />
<br />
'''All De darkies AM a weeping'''<br />
<br />
'''MASSAHS in DE Cold Cold Ground"'''<br />
<br />
They were really having a ball.<br />
<br />
In my state of increased racial awareness, this was just too much for me. I was already in a mood of deep depression. With the breakup of our family, the separation from my childhood friends, and the interminable quarrels between my Mother and Father (in which I sided with Mother), I was in no mood to be kidded or scoffed at.<br />
<br />
That was my last day in school. I never returned. I made up my mind to drop out and get a full-time job.<br />
<br />
I was fifteen and in the second semester of the eighth grade.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 ==<br />
<br />
=== A Black Regiment in World War I ===<br />
'''On the Negroes this double experience of deliberate and devilish persecution from their own countrymen, coupled with a taste of real democracy and world-old culture, was revolutionizing. They began to hate prejudice and discrimination as they had never hated it before. They began to realize its eternal meaning and complications., .they were filled with a bitter, dogged determination never to give up the fight for Negro equality in America....A new, radical Negro spirit has been born in France, which leaves us older radicals far behind. Thousands of young Black men have offered their lives for the Lilies of France and they return ready to offer them again for the Sunflowers of Afro-America. W.E.B. DuBois, June 1919'''<br />
<br />
Despite my bitter encounter with racism in school, I liked Minneapolis. I was impressed by the beauty of this city with its many lakes and surrounding pine forests. The racial climate in 1913 was not as bad as my early experience in school would indicate, either. Blacks seemed to get along well, especially with the Scandinavian nationalities, who constituted the most numerous ethnic grouping in the city. <br />
<br />
Upon quitting school, I became a part of the small Black community and completely identified with it. I found friends among Black boys and girls of my age group, attended parties, dances, picnics at Lake Minnetonka, and ice skated in the winter time. Here, as in Omaha, a ghetto had not yet fully formed, though I here were the beginnings of one in the Black community on the north side.<br />
<br />
Included in the Black community and among my new friends were a relatively large number of mulattos, the progeny of mixed marriages between Scandinavian women and Black men. This phenomenon dated back to the turn of the century. At that time it was the fashion among wealthy white families to import Scandinavian maids. Many of these families had Black male servants— butlers, chauffeurs, etc.—and the small Black population was preponderantly male. The result was a rash of inter-marriages between the Scandinavian maids and the Black male house servants. The interracial couples formed a society called Manasseh which held well-known yearly balls. As a whole the children of this group were a hot-headed lot and seemed even more racially conscious than the rest of us.<br />
<br />
It was in Minneapolis that I too reached a heightened stage of racial awareness. This was hastened, no doubt, by the tragic events in South Omaha and the fact that I was now an adolescent and there was the problem of girls. I had noticed that it was in the period of pubescence that a Black boy, raised even in communities of relative racial tolerance, was first confronted with the problem of race. It had been so with my brother Otto in Omaha, and now it was so with me.<br />
<br />
During the first year after dropping out of school I worked as a bootblack, barber shop porter, bell hop and busboy, continuing in the last long enough to acquire the rudiments of the waiter's trade. At the age of sixteen, I got a j ob as dining car waiter on the Chicago Northwestern Railway. The first run was also my first trip to the big city, where I had four aunts (my Mother's sisters). All through my childhood my Mother had told stories about her first visit there at the time of the Chicago Exposition. Upon arrival, one of the older waiters on the car, Lon Holliday, took me to see the town. I'm sure he looked forward to showing a young "innocent" the ropes. After a visit to my aunts, he took me to a notorious dive on the Southside. It was the back room of a saloon at Thirty-second and State Street.<br />
<br />
The piano man was playing "boogie woogie" style, popular in those days. The few couples on the floor were "walking the dog," "balling the jack," and so on. Then one of the dancers, a woman, called to the pianist, "Oh, Mr. Johnson, please play 'Those Dirty Motherfuckers.'" He enthusiastically complied and sang a number of verses of the bawdy tune. I almost sank through the floor in embarrassment and even amazement. Lon, who was watching, burst out laughing and he said, "Boy, you ain't seen nothing yet!"<br />
<br />
He then took me to the famous "Mecca Flats" on Federal Street, where a rent party was in process. There he introduced me to a young woman, whom he evidently knew, and slipped her some money, saying, "Take care of my young friend here; be sure you get him back on the car in the morning. We leave for Minneapolis at 10:00 A.M."<br />
<br />
The railroads were a way to see the country and in the months that followed I took advantage of that, working for different lines, on different runs as far west as Seattle. On one run in Montana called the Loop, the dining car shuttled between Great Falls and Butte by way of Helena, stopping at each town overnight. It was known as the "outlaw run" and I soon found out why. It attracted a number of characters wanted by police in other cities, searching for an escape or a temporary hideout.<br />
<br />
While laying over in Butte one night, our chef murdered the parlor car porter—cut his throat while he was sleeping in the parlor car. They had been feuding for days. I went through the parlor car that morning and was the first to see the ghastly sight. The police came, but the chef had disappeared. My enthusiasm for the job was gone. It might have been me, I thought, for I had had a number of arguments with the chef about my orders.<br />
<br />
I quit and headed back to Minneapolis, arriving there shortly after war broke out in Europe in 1914.1 was sixteen and had been avidly following the news, reading of the invasions of Belgium, France, the Battle of the Marne, etc. <br />
<br />
One day, walking along Hennepin Avenue I saw a Canadian recruiting sergeant. He was wearing the uniform of the Princess Pat Regiment, bright red jacket and black kilt. A handsome fellow, I thought, looking like Bonnie Prince Charlie himself. He noticed me looking at him and asked, "You want to join up with the Princess Pat, my lad? We've got a number of Black boys like you in the regiment. You'll find you're treated like anyone else up there. We make no difference between Black and white in Canada."<br />
<br />
Imagining myself in the red jacket and black kilt, I said, "Sure,I'll join."<br />
<br />
Then looking at me closely, he asked, "How old are you?"<br />
<br />
"Eighteen," I lied.<br />
<br />
"Your parents living?"<br />
<br />
"Yes."<br />
<br />
"Well, you've got to get their consent."<br />
<br />
"Oh, they'll agree," I said.<br />
<br />
"They live in the city?"<br />
<br />
"Yes."<br />
<br />
"Well, you come back here tomorrow and bring one of them with you and I'll sign you up."<br />
<br />
"Okay," I said, but I knew that my parents would never agree. And well it was, too, for I later learned that this regiment was among the first victims of the German mustard gas attack at Ypres, and what was left of them was practically wiped out at bloody Paschendale on the Sommes front.<br />
<br />
Life in Minneapolis was beginning to bore me. I was anxious to get back to Chicago, "the big city," so I moved there and stayed with my Aunt Lucy at Forty-third and State. In 1915 my parents, at the urging of my Mother, also moved to Chicago, and I then stayed with them.<br />
<br />
In Chicago I got a job as a busboy at the Tip Top Inn, then considered the finest restaurant in town. It was owned by old man Hieronymous, a famous chef, and was noted for its French cuisine and service. In the trade it was taken for granted that if you had been a waiter at the Tip Top Inn you could work anywhere in the country. After a few months I was promoted to waiter and felt that I had perfected my skills. During the next three years I worked at a number of places: the Twentieth Century Limited, the New York Central's crack train; the Wolverine (Michigan Central); the Sherman House; the old Palmer House; and the Auditorium.<br />
<br />
During this time in Chicago I saw Casey Jones, a Black man and a legendary character known to at least four generations of Black Chicagoans. As I remember, he was partially paralyzed, probably from cerebral palsy. He would go through the streets with trained chickens, which he put through various capers, shouting, "Crabs, crabs, I got them!" He had a defect in his speech which he exploited. The audience would literally fall out at his rendering of the popular sentimental ballad, "The Curse of an Aching Heart":<br />
<br />
'''You made me what I am today,'''<br />
<br />
'''I hope you're satisfied.'''<br />
<br />
'''You dragged and dragged me down until'''<br />
<br />
'''a The heart within me died.'''<br />
<br />
'''Although you're not true,'''<br />
<br />
'''May God bless you,'''<br />
<br />
'''That's the curse of an aching heart!'''<br />
<br />
Then there was the beloved comedian, String Beans, who often appeared at the old Peking Theater at Thirty-first and State Street. The Dolly Sisters also appeared there; they were very famous at the time. Teenan Jones'slush night spot was at Thirty-fifth and State Street. Then at the Panama, another night club, I would listen to Mamie Smith sing "Shimmy-sha-Wobble, That's All," a very popular song and dance at the time.<br />
<br />
Once, when I wanted to go back to Minneapolis to visit, I caught the Pioneer Limited—riding the rods—out of the station on the west side. This was my first experience in hoboing. I rode the rods as far as Beloit, Wisconsin.<br />
<br />
At Beloit I got off, but was afraid to get back on because a yard dick was going around the cars. I stayed there overnight—a fairly cold night as I remember. I met a white man, a "professional" hobo, who took me in tow and told me about the trains leaving in the morning. He said we could catch a train that would pull us right into Minneapolis. It was a passenger train, and we could "ride the blinds in," that is, the space between the two Pullman cars.<br />
<br />
We rode the blinds, reaching La Crosse, Wisconsin. On the way he warned, "You know, there's a bad dick up there in La Crosse. We gotta watch out for him." When the train pulled to a stop in La Crosse both of us hopped off. Other guys were flying out of the train from all sides—from the rods, the blinds, and there were some on top, too. But this notorious yard dick caught us. He was a rough character, and let us know it as he lined us up.<br />
<br />
"Hey, up there!"<br />
<br />
I was at the end of the line of about a dozen guys and was the only Black there. I had my hands in my pocket.<br />
<br />
"Take yer hands outta yer pockets!"<br />
<br />
I took my hands out of my pockets.<br />
<br />
The engine's fireman was looking out, watching all of this. He called to the yard dick, "Say, Jim, let me have that young colored boy over there to slide down coal for me into Minneapolis."<br />
<br />
The dick looked at me and scowled, "All right, you, get up there!"<br />
<br />
He shouted to the fireman, "But see that he works!"<br />
<br />
"I'll see to that; he'll work."<br />
<br />
I scrambled on the engine tender and slid coal all the way to Minneapolis, where I got off at the station.<br />
<br />
Among my new friends in Chicago were several members of the Eighth Illinois, Black National Guard Regiment. They would regale me with tall stories of their exploits on the Mexican border in the summer of 1916 when the regiment took part in a "show of force" against the Mexican Revolution. None of us, of course, knew the real issues involved.<br />
<br />
I remember reading of the exploits of the famous Black Tenth Cavalry Regiment, which was a part of the force sent by General Funston across the border in pursuit of Pancho Villa. They had been ambushed by Villa and a number of them killed. The papers, on that occasion, had been full of accounts of the heroic Black cavalrymen and their valiant white officers. The Eighth, however, had been in the rear near San Antonio, Texas, and saw no action during the abortive campaign.<br />
<br />
Intrigued by their experiences, I joined the Eighth Regiment in the winter of 1917. I was nineteen. The regiment, officered by Blacks from the colonel on down (many of them veterans of the four Black Regular Army regiments), gave me a feeling of pride. They had a high esprit de corps which emphasized racial solidarity. I didn't regard it just as a part of a U.S. Army unit, but as some sort of a big social club of fellow race-men. Still, I knew that we would eventually get into the war. That did not bother me; on the contrary, romance, adventure, travel beckoned. I saw possible escape from the inequities and oppression which was the lot of Blacks in the U.S. I was already a Francophile. I had read and heard about the fairness of the French with respect to the race issue. It seems now, as I look back upon it, that patriotism was the least of my motives. I was avidly following all the news of the war and it seemed certain that the U.S. was going to get involved, despite protestations of President Wilson to the contrary.<br />
<br />
Already the press was whipping up war sentiment. Tin PanAlley joined in with a rash of jingoistic songs: "Don't Bite the Hand That's Feeding You," "Let's All Be American Now," ad nauseum. All this left us cold. However, the song that brought tears to my eyes was "Joan of Arc":<br />
<br />
'''Joan of Arc, Joan of Arc,'''<br />
<br />
'''Do your eyes from the skies see the foe?'''<br />
<br />
'''Can't you see the drooping Fleur de Lys,'''<br />
<br />
'''Can't you hear the tears of Normandy?'''<br />
<br />
'''Joan of Arc, Joan of Arc,'''<br />
<br />
'''Let your spirit guide us through.'''<br />
<br />
'''Awake old France to victory!'''<br />
<br />
'''Joan of Arc, we're calling you.'''<br />
<br />
Truly, nothing was sacred to Tin Pan Alley!<br />
<br />
The Lusitania was sunk; the U.S. declared war in April 1917. Our regiment was federalized on July 25, 1917, and in the late summer we were on our way to basic training at Camp Logan, near Houston, Texas.<br />
<br />
A demagogic promise was widely circulated that things would be better if Blacks fought loyally. For example, there was the statement of President Wilson: "Out of this conflict you must expect nothing less than the enjoyment of full citizenship rights." This propaganda was immediately belied by the mounting wave of new lynchings in the South, which claimed thirty-eight victims in 1917 and fifty-eight in 1918. Worst of all was the East St. Louis riot in September 1917; at least forty Blacks were massacred in a bloody pogrom that lasted several days.<br />
<br />
Then there was the mutiny-riot of the Twenty-fourth Infantry in Houston, Texas, where our regiment was to receive its basic training. Company G of our outfit was already in Houston at the time, having been sent on as an advance detachment to prepare the camp for our occupation. It was through them that I learned exactly what had happened.<br />
<br />
Black soldiers of the Twenty-fourth Infantry, an old Regular Army regiment, had for months been subjected to insults and abuse by Houston police and civilians. The outfit had stationed its military police in Houston, who were, in theory, supposed to cooperate with local police in maintaining law and order among soldiers on leave. Instead, the Black military police found themselves the object of abuse, insults and beatings by local police. This treatment of Black MPs by racist cops was evidently encouraged by the fact that they (the Blacks) were unarmed.<br />
<br />
A report of the special on-the-spot investigator for the NAACP published in the Crisis, its organ, reads:<br />
<br />
'''In deference to the southern feeling against the arming of Negroes and because of the expected cooperation of the City Police Department, members of the provost guard were not armed, thus creating a situation without precedent in the history of this guard. A few carried clubs, but none of them had guns, and most of them were without weapons of any kind. They were supposed to call on white police officers to make arrests. The feeling is strong among the colored people of Houston that this was the real cause of the riot.'''<br />
<br />
'''On the afternoon of August 23, two policemen, Lee Sparks and Rufe Daniels—the former known to the colored people as a brutal bully—entered the house of a respectable colored woman in an alleged search for a colored fugitive accused of crap-shooting. Failing to find him, they arrested the woman, striking and cursing her and forcing her out into the street only partly clad. While they were waiting for the patrol wagon a crowd gathered about the weeping woman who had become hysterical and was begging to know why she was being arrested.'''<br />
<br />
'''In this crowd was a colored soldier, Private Edwards. Edwards seems to have questioned the police officers or remonstrated with them. Accounts differ on this point, but they all agree that the officers immediately set upon him and beat him to the ground with the butts of their six-shooters, continuing to beat and kick him while he was on the ground, and arrested him. In the words of Sparks himself: "I beat that nigger until his heart got right. He was a good nigger when I got through with him."'''<br />
<br />
'''Later Corporal Baltimore, a member of the military police, approached the officers and inquired for Edwards, as it was his duty to do. Sparks immediately opened fire and Baltimore, being unarmed, fled....They followed...beat him up, and arrested him. It was this outrage which infuriated the men of the Twenty-fourth Infantry to the point of revolt.'''<br />
<br />
When word of this outrage reached the camp, feeling ran high. It was by no means the first incident of the kind that had occurred.<br />
<br />
The white officers, feeling that the men would seek revenge, ordered them disarmed. The arms were stacked in a tent guarded by a sergeant. A group of men killed the sergeant, seized their rifles, and under the leadership of Sergeant Vida Henry, an eighteen-year veteran, marched on Houston in company strength.<br />
<br />
When the soldiers left camp their slogan was "On to the Police Station!" They entered town by way of San Felipe Street which ran through the heart of the Black community. The fact that they took this route and avoided the more direct one which lead through a white neighborhood disproved the charge by local newspapers and the police that they were out to shoot up the town and kill all whites. Their target was clearly the Houston cops. On the way to the station they shot every person who looked like a cop.<br />
<br />
Finally meeting resistance, a battle ensued which ended with seventeen whites, thirteen of them policemen, killed. The alarm went out and a whole division of white troops, which was stationed in the camp, was sent in to round up the mutineers. Finally cornered, the men threw down their arms and surrendered, with the exception of Sergeant Vida Henry, who committed suicide rather than be taken. <br />
<br />
The whole battalion of the Twenty-fourth Infantry, including the mutineers, was hurriedly placed aboard a guarded troop train and sent to Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Immediately upon arrival there, those involved were given a drum-head court martial. Thirteen were executed and forty-one others were sentenced to life imprisonment.<br />
<br />
The bodies of all the executed men were sent home to their families for burial. I remember reading of the funeral of Corporal Baltimore in some little town in Illinois.<br />
<br />
Our regiment entrained for Camp Logan with our ardor considerably dampened by these events. Indeed, we left Chicago in an angry and apprehensive mood which lasted all the way to Texas. We passed through East St. Louis in the middle of the night. Those of us who were awake were brooding about the massacre of our kinsmen which had recently taken place there. The regiment traveled in three sections, a battalion each, in old style tourist cars (sort of second-class Pullmans).<br />
<br />
The next morning we arrived in Jonesboro, Arkansas, our first stop on the other side of the Mason-Dixon line. We were in enemy territory. For many of us it was our first time in the South. Jonesboro was a division point—all three sections of the train pulled up on sidings while the engines were being changed and the cars serviced.<br />
<br />
It was a bright, warm and sunny Sunday morning. It seemed like the whole town had turned out at the station platform to see the strange sight of armed Black soldiers. Whites were on one side of the station platform and Blacks on the other. We pulled into the station with the windows open and our 1903 Springfield rifles on the tables in plain view of the crowd.<br />
<br />
We were at our provocative best. We threw kisses at the white girls on the station platform, calling out to them: "Come over here, baby, give me a kiss!" "Look at that pretty redhead over there, ain't she a beaut!" And so forth.<br />
<br />
A passenger train pulled up beside us on the next track. There, peering out the open window, was a real stereotype of an Arkansas red-neck. The sight of him was provocation enough for Willie Morgan, a huge Black in our company who was originally from Mississippi. Morgan was sitting directly across from the white man. He undoubtedly retained bitter memories of insults and persecutions from the past and quickly took advantage of what was perhaps his first opportunity to bait a cracker in his own habitat.<br />
<br />
He reached a big ham-like hand through the window, grabbed the fellow's face and shouted, "What the hell you staring at, you peckerwood motherfucker?" The man pulled back, his hat flew off. Bending down, he recovered it and then moved quickly to the other side of his car, a frightened and puzzled look on his face. Our whole car let out a big roar.<br />
<br />
Then a yard man, walking along the side of the car, asked, "Where are you boys going?"<br />
<br />
"Goin' to see your momma, you cracker son-of-a-bitch!" came the reply.<br />
<br />
The startled man looked up in amazement.<br />
<br />
All of us were hungry. We had been given only a couple of apples for breakfast and now noticed that there were a number of shops and stores in the streets behind the station. I believe our first thought was to buy some food. The vestibule guards would not allow us to take our rifles off the cars, so we left them on our seats and proceeded to the stores in groups. As the stores became crowded, and as the storekeepers were busy serving some of our group, others started to snatch up any article in sight.<br />
<br />
Cases of Coca-Cola, ginger ale and near-beer went back to the cars. The path to the train was strewn with loot dropped by some of the fellows. In the stores, some bought as others stole—this spontaneously evolved pattern was employed in raids on all stores in Jonesboro and at other train stops along the road to Houston.<br />
<br />
The only serious confrontation that took place that day<br />
<br />
involved the group I was with. We crowded into a little store and a fellow named Jeffries, one of my squad buddies, approached the storekeeper who was standing behind the counter. Putting his money down, he demanded a coke. Whereupon the guy said, 'Til serve you one, but y'all can't drink it in heah."<br />
<br />
"Why?" Jeffries asked, innocently.<br />
<br />
"Cause we don't serve niggahs heah."<br />
<br />
Just as we were about to jump him and wreck the place, Jeffries, a comedian, decided to play it straight. He turned to us and said, "Now wait, fellahs, let me handle this. What the man is saying is that you don't know your place."<br />
<br />
Turning to the storekeeper he put his money down and with feigned meekness said, "All right, mister, give me a coke. I know my place, I'll drink it outside."<br />
<br />
"Thank goodness this nigger's got some sense," the storekeeper must have thought as he placed a coke on the counter. Jeffries snatched up the bottle and immediately hit him on the head, knocking him out cold.<br />
<br />
We then proceeded to wreck the place. We took everything in sight. Rushing back to the train, I heard a loud crash—a plate glass window someone had smashed as a parting gift to the niggerhating storekeeper.<br />
<br />
Up to this time we had not seen any of our officers. They had been up front in the first-class Pullmans. Many of them, we suspected, were sleeping off the after effects of the parties held on the eve of our departure. Major Hunt and Captain Hill now appeared and gave orders to the non-coms and the vestibule guards to allow no one else to leave the train.<br />
<br />
We waved goodbye to the Blacks on the station platform. They looked frightened, sad and cowed. We were leaving, but they had to stay and face the wrath of the local crackers. <br />
<br />
The train headed to Texarkana, where the scene was repeated though on a smaller scale. In Texarkana the train stopped only a few minutes and we raided one store near the railroad station. I was the last one out, running to the train with a box of pilfered Havana cigars in my hand. Nearing the train, I passed a couple of local whites talking about the raid. One said to the other, "You see all those niggers taking that man's stuff?"<br />
<br />
"Yeah, I see it."<br />
<br />
"Well, what are we going to do about it?"<br />
<br />
I reached the train just as it was pulling out, relieved not to have been left behind to find out the answer. The next stop was Tyler, deep in the heart of Texas, scene of our most serious confrontation. Here we confronted the law in the person of the county sheriff. Tyler seemed to be a larger town than the others. It was a division point and all three sections pulled up on the sidings. As in Jonesboro, a large crowd had gathered at the station; Blacks on one side, whites on the other. Again, with our guns in view, we started flirting with the white women, throwing kisses at them and so on.<br />
<br />
We were very hungry. There had been some foul-up in logistics so there wasn't any food on the train. All we had that day was a couple of sandwiches and some coffee. We piled off the train and headed for the stores, elbowing whites out of the way. We didn't carry our guns but many of us wore sheathed bayonets.<br />
<br />
Major Hunt finally appeared but he was only able to stop a few of us. By that time most of us were already ransacking the stores in the immediate vicinity of the station. The path back to the station was strewn with bottles of soft drinks, hams, fruits, wrappers from the candy and cigarettes, etc. The major was frantically blowing his whistle and calling the fellows to come back to the cars. Finally we all got back and were eating our pilfered food, drinking our near-beer and soda.<br />
<br />
Suddenly a large white man stepped forward out of the crowd. He wore a khaki uniform, a Sam Brown belt and a Colt forty-five in his holster. He approached Major Hunt and identified himself as the sheriff. (Or he might have been chief of police.) He said he intended to search the train and recover the stolen goods.<br />
<br />
The major, a short, heavy-set Black man, said: "No, you don't. This is a military train. Any searching to be done will be done by our officers."<br />
<br />
"I know," he said, "I want to accompany you."<br />
<br />
"No you don't. You won't set foot on this train."<br />
<br />
The sheriff hesitated and looked around at the crowd of white and Black. It was clearly a bitter pill for him to swallow, having for the first time in his life to take low to a Black man in front of his white constituents, as well as setting a bad example for the Blacks. He pushed the unarmed major aside and walked forward.<br />
<br />
"Come on you peckerwood son-of-a-bitch!" we hollered from the car.<br />
<br />
He approached the vestibule of our car where Jimmy Bland, a mean, grey-eyed and light-skinned Black was on guard.<br />
<br />
"Back! Get back or I'll blow you apart!" Jimmy pushed the sheriff in the belly with the barrel of his rifle. To further impress upon him that the gun was loaded, he threw the bolt and ejected a bullet. The sheriff, who had doubled over from the blow, straightened up. his face ghastly white. He gasped out something to the effect that he was going to report this affair to the government and walked away. We all let out a tremendous roar.<br />
<br />
We arrived in Houston the next day, five days after the mutiny of the Twenty-fourth. We were informed that five dollars would be docked from each man's pay to cover the damage incurred on the trip down. I believe we all felt that it was a small price to pay for the lift in morale that resulted from our forays on the trip.<br />
<br />
We were greeted by our comrades from Company G of our battalion on arriving at Camp Logan. They had been there at the time of the mutiny-riot and gave us a detailed account of what had happened. We expected to be confronted by the hostile white population, but to our surprise, the confrontation with the Twenty-fourth seemed to have bettered the racial climate of this typical Southern town. Houston in those days was a small city of perhaps 100,000 people, not the metropolis it has now become. The whites, especially the police, had learned that they couldn't treat all Black people as they had been used to treating the local Blacks.<br />
<br />
I can't remember a single clash between soldiers and police during our six-month stay in the area. On the contrary, if there were any incidents involving our men, the local cops would immediately call in the military police. There was also a notable improvement in the morale of the local Black population, who were quick to notice the change in attitude of the Houston cops. The cops had obviously learned to fear retaliation by Black soldiers if they committed any acts of brutality and intimidation in the Black community.<br />
<br />
Houston Blacks were no longer the cowed, intimidated people they had been before the mutiny. They were proud of us and it was clear that our presence made them feel better. A warm and friendly relationship developed between our men and the Black community. The girls were especially proud of us. Local Blacks would point out places where some notorious, nigger-hating cop had been killed.<br />
<br />
"See those bullet holes in the telephone pole over there," they'd say. "That's where that bad cop, old Pat Grayson, got his."<br />
<br />
"Those Twenty-fourths certainly were sharpshooters!"<br />
<br />
I occasionally took my laundry to an elderly woman who had known Corporal Baltimore. She told me what a nice young man he was.<br />
<br />
"I hear he was hanged," she said.<br />
<br />
"That's right," I replied.<br />
<br />
Tears came to her eyes and she cluck-clucked. "He left some of his laundry here; you're about his size, you want it?"<br />
<br />
"Yes, I'll take it."<br />
<br />
She handed me several pairs of khaki trousers and some underwear and shirts all washed and starched and insisted that I pay only the cost of the laundry.<br />
<br />
In Camp Logan, our Black Regiment, a part of the Thirty-third Illinois National Guard Division, went into intensive training. We had high esprit de corps. Our officers lost no opportunity to lecture us on the importance of race loyalty and race pride. They went out to disprove the ideas spread by the white brass to the effect that Black soldiers could be good, but only when officered by whites.<br />
<br />
Our solidarity was strengthened when the Army attempted to remove Colonel Charles R. Young from the regiment. Young was the first Black West Point graduate and the highest ranking Black officer in the Regular Army. He wanted to go overseas very badly, but it was quite clear that they did not want a Black officer of his rank over there. He was examined by an Army medical board and found unfit for overseas service. We all knew it was a fraud. It was in all the Black papers and was known by Blacks throughout the country.<br />
<br />
We men didn't let our officers down. We were out to show the whites that not only were we as good in everything as they, but better. In Camp Logan, our regiment held division championships in most of the sports: track, boxing, baseball, etc. We had the highest number of marksmen, sharpshooters and expert riflemen. Of course, there was no socializing between Blacks and whites, but it was clear that we had the respect, if not the friendship, of many of the white soldiers in the division.<br />
<br />
In fact, despite all the efforts of the command, there was a certain degree of solidarity between Black and white soldiers in our division. In Spartanburg, North Carolina, white soldiers from New York came to the defense of their Black fellows of the Fifteenth New York when the latter were attacked by Southern whites. Many of us felt that in the case of a showdown in town with the local crackerdom, we could get support from some of the white members of our division who happened to be around. At least, we felt they would not side with the crackers against us.<br />
<br />
The high morale of the regiment, the new tolerance (at least on the part of the local white establishment), the new spirit of Houston Blacks were all displayed during the parade of our division in downtown Houston. About two months before our departure, we received notice from headquarters that the regiment was to participate in a parade. We were to pass in review before Governor Howden of Illinois, our host governor of Texas, high brass from the War Department and other notables.<br />
<br />
We spent a couple of days getting our clothes and equipment into shape. We washed and starched our khaki uniforms, bleached our canvas leggings snow white, cleaned and polished our rifles and side arms, shined our shoes to a mirror gloss. On the day of the parade, we marched the five miles into town, halting just before we reached the center of the city. We wiped the dust from our rifles and shoes and continued the march.<br />
<br />
Executing perfectly the change from squad formation to platoon front, we entered the main square. With our excellent band playing the Illinois March, we passed the reviewing stand with our special rhythmic swagger which only Black troops could affect. We were greeted by a thunderous ovation from the crowds, especially the Blacks.<br />
<br />
I believe all of Black Houston turned out that day. The next morning, the Houston Post, a white daily, headlined a story about the parade and declared that "the best looking outfit in the parade was the Negro Eighth Illinois."<br />
<br />
Given final leave, we bid good-bye to our girls and friends in Houston. After that, security was clamped down and no one was allowed to leave the camp. A few days later, we boarded the train and were on our way to a port of embarkation. We didn't know where we were headed but suspected it was New York. Instead, five days later, we wound up in Camp Stewart near Newport News, Virginia.<br />
<br />
In Newport News, we barely escaped a serious confrontation with some local crackers and the police. The first batches of our fellows given passes to the town were subjected to the taunts and slurs of the local cops.<br />
<br />
"Why don't you darkies stay in camp? We don't want you downtown making trouble."<br />
<br />
Several fights ensued. Some of the men from our regiment were arrested and others literally driven out of town. They returned to the barracks, some of them badly beaten, and told us what had happened. A repetition of the riot of the Twenty-fourth Infantry at Houston was narrowly averted, as a number of us grabbed our guns and were about to head downtown. We were turned back, however, by our officers, who intervened and pleaded with us to return to our barracks. Among them was Lt. Benote Lee, whom we all loved and respected.<br />
<br />
"Don't play into the hands of these crackers," he said. "We'll be leaving any day now. All they want is to get us in trouble on the eve of our departure."<br />
<br />
"How about our guys who were arrested?" we asked.<br />
<br />
"Don't worry. We'll get them out."<br />
<br />
We returned to the barracks and, sure enough, our comrades were returned the next day, escorted by white MPs. We spent the next days on standby orders, apparently waiting for our ship to arrive. After that, all leaves were cancelled.<br />
<br />
It was on the same day, I believe, that we first learned that we had been separated from our Thirty-third Illinois Division. Henceforth, we were to be known as the 370th Infantry.<br />
<br />
One morning shortly after this, we looked down into the harbor and saw three big ships. We knew then that we would soon be on our way. The following morning the regiment marched down to the dockside to board ship. Yet another incident occurred at the dock. We lined up in company front facing the harbor and halted a few yards from the fence which ran the entire length of the dock.<br />
<br />
Facing us in front of the fence were several groups of loitering white native males, probably dockworkers. They stared at us as if we were some strange species. Our captain apparently wanted to move the company closer to the fence and gave the command, "Forward march." But he "forgot" to call "halt." That was all we needed.<br />
<br />
We were still angry about the beating of our comrades in downtown Newport News a few days before. We marched directly into the whites, closing in on them, cursing and cuffing them with fists and rifle butts, kicking and kneeing them; in short, applying the skills of close order combat we had learned during our basic training. Of course, we didn't want to kill anybody, we just wanted to rough them up a bit.<br />
<br />
We were finally stopped by the excited cries of our officers, "Halt! Halt!" We withdrew, opening up a path through which our victims ran or limped away. Then at the command of "Attention! Right face!" we marched along the dock in columns of two's and finally boarded the ship.<br />
<br />
=== ON TO FRANCE ===<br />
We sailed for France in early April 1918, on the old USS Washington, a passenger liner converted into a troop ship. I have crossed the Atlantic many times since, but I can truthfully say that I have never experienced rougher seas. Our three ships sailed out of Newport News without escort. Of course, we were worried; there were rumors of German submarines. Our anxiety was relieved when in mid-ocean we picked up two escort vessels, one of which was the battle cruiser Covington. When we reached the war zone, about three days out of Brest, a dozen destroyers took over, circling our ships all the way into port.<br />
<br />
It took us sixteen days in all to reach Brest, France, where we arrived on April 22. We were so weak on landing that one-half of the regiment fell out while climbing the hill to the old Napoleon Barracks where we were quartered. Immediately upon our arrival, we were put to work cleaning up ourselves and our equipment, notwithstanding our weakened condition.<br />
<br />
The next morning we passed in review before some U.S. and French big brass. The following day we boarded a train. We crossed the whole of France from east to west and detrained at Granvillars, a village in French Alsace, close to the Swiss frontier. There we found out that we had been brigaded with and were to be an integral part of the French Army. <br />
<br />
The reason we were separated from the white Americans was, as the white brass put it, "to avoid friction." But the American command of General Pershing was not satisfied just to separate us; they tried to extend the long arm of Jim Crow to the French. The American Staff Headquarters, through its French mission, tried to make sure that the French understood the status of Blacks in the United States. Their Secret Information Bulletin Concerning Black American Troops is now notorious, though I did not learn of it until after I had returned from France. The Army of Democracy spoke to its French allies:<br />
<br />
It is important for French officers who have been called upon to exercise command over black American troops, or to live in close contact with them, to have an exact idea of the position occupied by Negroes in the United States. The increasing number of Negroes in the United States (about 15,000,000) would create for the white race in the Republic a menace of degeneracy were it not that an impassable gulf has been made between them....<br />
<br />
Although a citizen of the United States, the black man is regarded by the white American as an inferior being with whom relations of business or service only are possible. The black is constantly being censured for his want of intelligence and discretion, his lack of civic and professional conscience, and for his tendency toward undue familiarity.<br />
<br />
The vices of the Negro are a constant menace to the American who has to repress them sternly. For instance, the black American troops in France have, by themselves, given rise to as many complaints for attempted rape as the rest of the army....<br />
<br />
Conclusion:<br />
<br />
1. We must prevent the rise of any pronounced degree of intimacy between French officers and black officers. We may be courteous and amiable with these last, but we cannot deal with them on the same plane as with the white American officers without deeply wounding the latter. We must not eat with them, must not shake hands or seek to talk or meet with them outside the requirements of military service.<br />
<br />
2. We must not commend too highly the black American troops, particularly in the presence of [white] Americans....<br />
<br />
3. Make a point of keeping the native cantonment population from "spoiling" the Negroes. [White] Americans become greatly incensed at any public expression of intimacy between white women with black men....Familiarity on the part of white women with black men is furthermore a source of profound regret to our experienced colonials, who see in it an overweening menace to the prestige of the white race.<br />
<br />
Apparently this classic statement of U.S. racism was ineffectual with the French troops and people, even though it was supplemented by wild stories circulated by the white U.S. troops. These included the claim that Blacks had tails like monkeys, which was especially told to women, including those in the brothels.<br />
<br />
Our regiment was not sorry to be incorporated into the French military. In fact, most of us thought it was the best thing that could have happened. The French treated Blacks well—that is, as human beings. There was no Jim Crow. At the time, I thought the French seemed to be free of the virulent U.S. brand of racism.<br />
<br />
The American Command not only wanted its front line to be all white, it also wanted all regiment commanders (even those under the French) to be white. Consequently, our Black colonel, Franklin A. Dennison; our lieutenant colonel, James H. Johnson; and two of our majors (battalion commanders) were replaced by white officers. Colonel Dennison was sent back to the States, kicked upstairs, given the rank of brigadier general, and placed in command of the Officer Training Camp for Colored Men at Fort Des Moines, Iowa. Although our first reaction was anger, we became reconciled to the shift.<br />
<br />
Our new white colonel, T. A. Roberts, seemed to be warm, paternalistic and deeply concerned about the welfare of his men. He would often make the rounds of the field kitchens, tasting the food and admonishing the cooks about ill-prepared food. He even gave instructions on how the various dishes should be cooked. Naturally, this made a great hit with the men. Our confidence in him was high because we felt that he was a professional soldier who knew his business.<br />
<br />
I remember the day the new colonel took over. The regiment formed in the village square. Colonel Roberts introduced himself. He seemed quite modest. He said that he was honored to be our new commander and that he knew the record of our regiment dating back to 1892 and its exploits during the Spanish-American War.<br />
<br />
"Since West Point," he said, "I have always served with colored troops—the Ninth and Tenth Cavalry." He then turned to Captain Patton, our Black regiment adjutant. "Captain Patton knows me, he was one of my staff sergeants in the old Tenth Cavalry." Patton nodded.<br />
<br />
The colonel smiled and pointed to our top sergeant. "Over there is Mark Thompson. I remember him when he was company clerk in Troop C of the Tenth Cavalry." He went on to point out a dozen or so officers and non-coms with whom he had served in the Ninth or Tenth Cavalry. "These men will tell you where I stand with respect to the race issue and everything else. We are going into the lines soon and I am sure that the men of this regiment will pile up a record of which your people and the whole of America will be proud."<br />
<br />
The process of integration into the French Army was thorough. The American equipment with which we had trained at home was taken away and we were issued French weapons—rifles, carbines, machine guns, automatic rifles, pistols, helmets, gas masks and knapsacks. We were even issued French rations—with the exception of the wine, which our officers apparently felt we could not handle. We got all the wine we wanted anyway from the French troops. They were issued a liter (about a quart) a day and for a few centimes could buy more at the canteen.<br />
<br />
The regiment was completely reorganized along French lines, with a machine gun company to every battalion. My Company E of the Second Battalion was converted into Machine Gun Company No. 2. We entered a six-week period of intensive training under French instructors to master our new weapons. Our main weapon was the old air-cooled Hotchkiss. And we had to master the enemy's gun, the water-cooled Maxim.<br />
<br />
The period of French training was not an easy one. It was a miserable spring—dark and dreary, and it rained incessantly the whole time we were there. There was a lot of illness—grippe, pneumonia and bronchitis. We lost a number of men, several from our company. The men were in a sullen mood as the time approached for the regiment to move up to the front.<br />
<br />
Disgruntlement was often voiced in the now familiar form of "What are we doing over here? Germans ain't done nothing to us. It's those crackers we should be fighting." While we were lined up in the square one day, our captain took the occasion to comment on these sentiments.<br />
<br />
"Well," he said, "I've been hearing all this stuff about guys saying that they weren't going to fight the Germans. Well, we certainly can't make you fight if you don't want to. But I'll tell you one thing we can and will do is take you up to the front where the Germans are, and you can use your own judgment as to whether you fight them or not."<br />
<br />
In early June 1918, we entered the trenches at the St. Mihiel Salient near the Swiss frontier as a part of the Tenth Division of the French Army under General Mittelhauser. We were intermingled with the French troops in the Tenth Division so that our officers and men might observe and profit by close association with veteran soldiers. At that time St. Mihiel was a quiet sector. Except for occasional shelling, desultory machine gun and rifle fire, nothing much occurred. We lost no men.<br />
<br />
It was here, however, that we made our first acquaintance with two pests—the rat and the louse—whom thereafter were our inseparable companions for our entire stay at the front. Undoubtedly there were more rats than men; there were hordes of them. Regiments and battalions of rats. They were the largest rats I had ever seen. We soon became tired of killing them; it seemed a wasted effort. Some of the rats became quite bold, even impudent. They seemed to say, "I've got as much right here as you have." They would walk along, pick up food scraps and eat them right there in front of you! The dark dug-outs were their real havens. When we slept we would keep our heads covered with blankets as protection against rat bites. This may seem flimsy protection, but we were so conditioned that we would awake at any attempt on the part of a rat to bite through the blanket. I have often wondered why there were so few rat bites. Probably the rats felt that it was not worthwhile fooling with live humans when there were so many dead ones around. We soon got used to the rats and learned to live with them.<br />
<br />
It was the same with the lice. I woke up lousy after my first sleep in a dug-out. My reaction to the pests took the following progression: first, I was besieged by interminable itching, followed by depression. Then I began to lose appetite and weight, finally becoming quite ill. All this was within a period of a few days. Most of the fellows exhibited the same symptoms. <br />
<br />
One might say that our illness was mainly psychological, but it was nonetheless real. Since this was a quiet front, I had no difficulty in getting permission to go back to the rear for a few hours. Foolishly, I thought if I could get cleaned up just once, I would feel a lot better. I got some delousing soap, took a bath and washed my clothes. I then returned to the front, stood machine gun watch and then went into the dug-out for a nap. Needless to say, I woke up lousy again.<br />
<br />
I told my troubles to an old French veteran who had been assigned to my machine gun squad. "Oh, it's nothing! You must forget all about it,' he said. "You'll get used to it. I've been at the front for nearly four years and I've been lousy all the time, except when I was in the hospital or at home on leave."<br />
<br />
I took his advice which was all to the good, because I was not to be rid of these pests until six months later during my sojourn in hospitals at Mantes-sur-Seine and Paris after the Armistice. Even then, it was only a temporary respite, for I was reinfected upon rejoining my regiment at the embarkation port of Brest. After a brief stay with the regiment, I was returned to the hospital, again deloused, only to be reinfected again on the hospital ship returning to the States. I parted company with my last louse at the debarkation hospital at Grand Central Palace in New York City.<br />
<br />
We remained in the St. Mihiel sector about two weeks. We were then withdrawn and moved into a sector in the Argonne Forest near Verdun, site of the great battles of 1916; we arrived there in late July 1918. We were still brigaded with the Tenth French Division. The area around Verdun was a vast cemetery with a half million crosses of those who had perished in that great holocaust, each bearing the legend, Mort Pour La France. <br />
<br />
The Argonne at that time was also a quiet sector. But it was here that we suffered our first casualty, Private Robert M. Lee of Chicago. The incident occurred during machine gun target practice. The first and second line trenches ran along parallel hills about a hundred yards apart. The French had set up a make-shift range in the valley in between the trenches. Behind the gun there was a two or three foot rise in the earth, on which a number of us French and Blacks were sitting, chewing the rag, awaiting our turn at the machine gun. <br />
<br />
Suddenly, there was a short burst of machine gun fire. It was not from our guns. Bullets whizzed over our heads—they seemed to be coming from behind the target. All of us scrambled to get into the communication trench which opened on the valley. Second Lieutenant Binga DesMond, our platoon commander (and the University of Chicago's great sprinting star), fell from the embankment on top of me. Fortunately, he was not hit. But even with his 180 pounds on my back, I am sure I made that ten or fifteen yards to the communication trench, crawling on my hands and knees, as fast as he could have sprinted the distance!<br />
<br />
The fire was coming from behind the target. What obviously had happened was that the Germans had cased the position of our guns and had somehow got around behind the target and waited for a pause in our target practice to open fire on us. We never found out how they did it, for none of us knew the exact topography of the place. The French of course knew it, but they had assured us that the place was safe and that they had been using the range for months.<br />
<br />
We were crouched down, panting, in the communication trench for about five minutes after the German guns ceased fire. The French lieutenant (bless his soul) then sent a French gun crew out to get the gun. To our great surprise they also brought back Robert M. Lee. He was quite dead, with bullets right through the heart. He had evidently been hit by the first burst and had fallen forward in front of the embankment. All of us were deeply saddened by the incident.<br />
<br />
No one spoke as we bore his body back to the rear. He was only nineteen, a very sweet fellow, and he was our first casualty. We buried him down in the valley, beside the graves of those fallen at Verdun. The funeral was quite impressive. He was given a hero's burial, with representatives both from our regiment and our French counterparts. We were especially impressed by the appearance of General Mittelhauser who came down from Division Headquarters to express condolences and appreciation to the Black troops now under his command.<br />
<br />
=== THE SOISSONS SECTOR ===<br />
Despite the fact that we had been in aa quiet sector, it was still the front lines with its daily tensions of anticipated attack. In the middle of August, we were pulled out of the Argonne sector and sent to rest behind the lines near Bar-le-Duc. We were deeply pleased by the hospitality and kindness extended to us by the townspeople there. They invited us into their homes and plied us with food and wine. Half-jokingly they told us to come back after the war and we could have our pick of the girls. As we did throughout our stay in France, we deported ourselves well. For pleasures of the flesh, there were a number of legal houses of prostitution, or “houses of pleasure” as they were called by the French, It was with regret that we left that area.<br />
<br />
By this time, we had become an integral part of the French Army. Along with our French equipment, training and so forth, we had affected the style of the French poilu (doughboy). The flaps of our overcoats were buttoned back in order to give us more leg room while on the march, as was their style. Like the French infantry, we used walking sticks, which helped to ease the burden of our seventy pounds of equipment. French peasants along the road, hearing our strange language and noticing our color, would often mistake us for French colonials. Not Senegalese, who were practically all black but Algerians, Moroccans or Sudanese, We would swing along the road to the tune of our favorite marching song:<br />
<br />
'''My old mistress promised me, Raise a ruckus tonight,'''<br />
<br />
'''When she died she'd set me free, Raise a ruckus tonight.'''<br />
<br />
'''She lived so long her head got bald, Raise a ruckus tonight.'''<br />
<br />
'''She didn’t get to set me free at all, Raise a ruckus tonight!'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, come along, little children come along, While the moon is shining bright;'''<br />
<br />
'''Get on board on down the river flow, Gonna’ raise a ruckus tonight.'''<br />
<br />
But we had not escaped the long arm of American racism. We were rudely confronted with this reality upon our arrival in a small town on the Compiégne front in the department of Meuse. We entrained here for our next front. The regiment was confronted dramatically with the effects of the racist campaign launched by the American high brass,<br />
<br />
Upon entering the town, the regiment was drawn up in battalion formation in the square, Before being assigned to billets, we were informed by the battalion commander that a Black soldier from a labor battalion had been court martialed and hanged in the very square where we were standing, It had happened just a few weeks before our arrival. His crime was the raping of a village girl. His body had been left hanging there for twenty-four hours, as a demonstration of American justice,<br />
<br />
“As a result,” he told us, “you may find the town population hostile, In case this is so,” the major warned, “you are not to be provoked or to take umbrage at any discourtesies, but are to deport yourselves as gentlemen at all times,” In any case, we were to be there only for a few days, during which time we were to remain close to our barracks, Then, in a lowered voice, he muttered, “This is what i have been told to tell you.”<br />
<br />
We kept close to our billets the first day or so, but then gradually ventured further into town. At first, the townsfolk seemed to be aloof, but the coolness was gradually broken down, probably as a result of our correct deportment, especially our attitude towards the children (with whom we always immediately struck up friendships). Friendly relations were finally established with the villagers. When we asked about the hanging, they shrugged the matter off,<br />
<br />
“So what? That was only one soldier. The others were nice enough,” When asked why they had been so aloof when we first arrived, they said it was the result of the warnings of the white officers. “They didn’t want us to fraternize with the Blacks.”<br />
<br />
Continuing the conversation, they seemed puzzled about why the sentence had been so severe and the body barbarously left exposed in the square. “Trés brutale, trés horrible!” they exclaimed. With regard to the girl, “Ah, she had been raped many times before,” one of them jeered.<br />
<br />
After two weeks of rest, the regiment began to move by stages toward the front lines again. A few days later, we boarded a train consisting of a long line of box-cars. Each car was marked: “Quarante hommes ou huit chevaux.” (Forty men or eight horses.)<br />
<br />
The last couple of months had been quiet and relatively pleasant, with the exception of the Lec incident and the events just related. But now, we felt, we were going into the thick of it. The premonition was confirmed the very next morning when we woke (that is, those of us who had been able to sleep in such crowded conditions),<br />
<br />
We were passing through Chateau-Thierry. There could be no doubt about it, eventhough part of the sign had been blown away and only the word “Thierry” remained. The woods around the station and Belleau Woods, a few miles further on, looked like they had been hit by a cyclone: broken and uprooted trees, gaping shell holes, men from the Graves Registration walking around with crosses, Black Pioneers removing ammunition, All were grim reminders of the great battles that had been fought there by American troops only several weeks before.<br />
<br />
We were on the Soissons front, where we became part of the famous Armée Mangin, General Mangin (le boucher or the butcher as he was called by the French) was commander of the Tenth Army of France, among whom were a number of shock troops; Chausseurs Alpines, Chausseurs d’Afrique (Algerians and Moroccans), Senegalese riflemen and the Foreign Legion. His army was pivotal in breaking the Hindenburg Lineabout Soissons. On this front, we were brigaded with the Fifty-ninth French Division, under the command of General Vincendon.<br />
<br />
We bypassed Thierry and Belleau Woods and detrained at the village of Villers-Cotteréts, the birthplace of Alexandre Dumas. ‘The atmosphere was charged with expectancy, Observation balloons hung like giant sausages on the horizon. Big guns rumbled ominously in the distance, A steady stream of ambulances carrying wounded jammed the roads leading from the front. Obviously a big battle was in progress not too far away. But it turned out that we were not going into that sector. We left the village and marched west to Crépy-en-Valois. Turning north through the Compiégne Forest, we reached the Aisne River at a point near Vie-sur-Aisne and continued on to Resson-le-Long where we established our depot company. The march from the railhead to Resson took about three days. It was a forced march and covered about twenty-five kilometers (fifteen miles) a day.<br />
<br />
This was pretty rough after the restless night we had spent on the crowded train. As one of the company wags observed, “One thing bout these kilomeeters, they sho’ will kill you if you keep on meetin’ “em.”<br />
<br />
Our regiment spent six months in the lines in all. We took part in the fifty-nine day drive of Mangin’s Tenth Army which ended on the day of the Armistice. During that period, one or another of our units was always under fire or fighting. Our toughest battles were at the Death Valley Jump Off near the Aisne Canal, the taking of Mont Singes (Monkey Mountain which was later renamed Hill 370 in honor of our regiment), fighting at a railroad embankment northwest of Guilleminet Farm, and the advance into the Hindenburg Line at the Oise-Aisne Triangle.<br />
<br />
It was in the battles on the Hindenburg Line that we met the strongest enemy resistance and sustained most of our losses. The enemy resistance was broken in these battles and they began a general withdrawal, at first orderly and accompanied by brief rearguard actions. Finally, there was the flight to the Belgian frontier, destroying roads and railroads on orders to impede our advance. After Laon, their flight was so precipitous that we had difficulty maintaining contact. We entered many villages which they had left the day before.<br />
<br />
Our outfit was the first allied troops to enter the fortified city of Laon, wresting it from the Germans after four years of war. We were greeted with tremendous elation by the population, who had lived under German occupation the whole of that period.<br />
<br />
The regiment was highly praised by the French. It won twenty-one Distinguished Service Crosses, sixty-eight Croix de Guerre and one Distinguished Service Medal. In the whole two months’ drive, casualties were 500 killed and wounded-—a total of about one-fifth of the regiment. These casualties were light when compared with those of Black regiments on other fronts. For example, the 37] st Infantry of drafted men lost 1,065 out of 2,384 men in three days’ fighting during the great September defensive on the Compiégne Front. I believe that the German resistance on these other fronts, east and west of Soissons, was more stubborn than on our front.<br />
<br />
All of our Black regiments were fortunate to have been brigaded with the French. In this respect, the American High Command did us a big favor, unintentionally, lam sure. For as far as we were able to observe, the French made no discrimination in the treatment of Black officers and men, with whom they fraternized freely. They regarded us as brothers-in-arms.<br />
<br />
Similarly, the French people in the villages in which we stopped or were stationed were uniformly courteous and friendly, and we made many friends, I must say that we were also on our best behavior. I don’t remember a single incident of misbehavior on the part of our men toward French villagers. The latter were quick to notice this and to contrast our gentlemanly deportment with the rudeness of the white Americans. Many of the white soldiers made no effort to hide their disdain for the French(whom they regarded as inferiors) and commonly referred to them as “frogs.”<br />
<br />
But even as we fought, we were being stabbed in the back by the American High Command. We were not to learn, however, until our return to the States of the slanderous, racist document issued by the American General Staff Headquarters through its brainwashed French Mission (the Secret Information Concerning Black American Troops referred to earlier).<br />
<br />
We learned also that the hanging of the Black soldier on the Compiégne Front was not an isolated incident, but part of a deliberate campaign conducted by higher and lower echelons in the American Command to influence French civilians against Blacks. The campaign focused on the effort to build up the Black rapist scare among them.<br />
<br />
Such was a memorandum issued by headquarters of the Ninety-second Division (a Black division officered largely by whites) on August 21, 1918. Its purpose was to “prevent the presence of colored troops from being a menace to women,” The memorandum read in part:<br />
<br />
On account of increasing frequency of the crime of rape, or attempted rape, in this Division, drastic preventive measures have become necessary... Until further notice, there will be a check of all troops of the 92nd Division every hour daily between reveille and 11 P.M,, with a written record showing how each check was made, by whom, and the result...the one mile limit regulation will be strictly enforced at all times, and no passes will be issued except to men of known reliability.<br />
<br />
This was followed the next day by another memorandum saying that the commander-in-chief of the American Expeditionary Forces “would send the 92nd Division back to the States or break it up into labor battalions as unfit to bear arms in France, if efforts to prevent rape were not taken more seriously.”<br />
<br />
As a result, Dr. Robert R. Moton of Tuskegee was sent by President Wilson and the secretary of war to investigate the charges. He found only one case of rape in the whole division of 15,000 men. Two other men who were from labor battalions in the Ninety-second area were convicted. One of these was hanged, and I’m sure that this was the unfortunate soldier whom we saw on the Compiégne Front. General headquarters was forced to admit that the crime of rape, as later stated by Moton, “was no more prevalent among coloured soliders than among white, or any other soldiers.”<br />
<br />
This whole racist smear of Black troops, I was to conclude later, represented but an extension to France of the anti-Black racist campaign then current in the States, It was designed to maintain Black subjugation and prevent its erosion by liberal racial attitudes of the French. Back in the States, the campaign was marked by an upturn of lynchings during the war years, with thirty-eight Black victims in 1917 and half again that number in the following year. Even then, things were working up to the bloody riots of 1919.<br />
<br />
In contrast to all of this, the appreciation of the French for Black soldiers from the U.S. was shown by the accolade given by the French division commander, General Vincendon, to our regiment. On December 19, 1918, we were transferred from the French Army back to the American Army. On that day, General Order 4785, directed to the Fifty-ninth Division of the Army of France, was read to the officers and men of the 370th. It commended us for our contributions to France. remember being struck by the poetry of the language, it was all beautifully French to me:<br />
<br />
We at first, in September at Mareuil-sur-Ourcg, admitted your fine appearance under arms, the precision of your review, the suppleness of your evolutions that presented to the eye the appearance of silk unrolling its waves...<br />
<br />
Further on in remembering our dead, the communique read:<br />
<br />
The blood of your comrades who fell on the soil of France, mixed with the blood of our soldiers, renders indissoluble the bonds of affection that unite us.<br />
<br />
=== THE ROAD HOME ===<br />
The road back from Soissons lay through the old battlefields where we had fought a couple of months before. Near Anizy-le Chateau there were crosses marking the graves of some of our comrades who had died in the fighting there. We paused before the graves, seeking out those of the comrades we knew. We all had the same thoughts: “What rotten luck that they should die almost in sight of victory.”<br />
<br />
Among the crosses, there was one marked “Sergeant Theodore Gamelin.” Gamelin hadn’t died in combat. 1 remember the incident clearly, We were all lined up in some hastily dug trenches that morning, waiting for the “over the top” signal. The cooks had just distributed reserved rations. These consisted of a half-loaf of French bread (not the crispy white kind, but a coarse grayish loaf baked especially for the troops, which we called “war bread”) and a big bar of chocolate. Somehow, Gamelin had missed out on these rations. Jump-off time was drawing near. He looked around and his eyes fixed upon a private named Brown, who was sitting on the firing step, putting his rations in a knapsack. Now, Private Brown was one of those quiet, meek little fellows. He always took low, was never known to fight. But Brown was the type of man, I have observed, who can become dangerous. This is particularly true in a combat situation where one doesn’t know whether one will live five minutes longer. Gamelin, a big bullying type, an amateur boxer and very unpopular with his men, called to Brown:<br />
<br />
“Give me some of that bread, Brown. I didn’t get my rations.”<br />
<br />
“Now, that’s just too bad, sergeant,” Brown responded, “I’m not going to give you any of this bread. It’s not my fault you missed your rations.”<br />
<br />
Gamelin, with one hand on his pistol, moved as though he were going to seize the bread. Brown had his rifle lying across his lap. He simply raised it and coolly pulled the trigger. The sergeant fell dead!<br />
<br />
The platoon commander heard the commotion and ran to the spot, inquiring about what had happened. The men told him that Gamelin was trying to take Brown’s reserve rations and had made a move toward his pistol. Brown, they said, had shot in self-defense,<br />
<br />
Obviously nothing could be done about Brown in those circumstances. So the lieutenant said, “Consider yourself under arrest, Brown. We will take this matter up after this action.”<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, Brown was killed a few days later, The memory of this incident was on our minds as we viewed Gamelin’s grave, His helmet hung on a cross, which ironically bore the inscription “Sergeant Theodore Gamelin—Mort Pour La France (Died for France), September 1918.”<br />
<br />
Thad gone through six months at the front without a scratch or a day of illness. But as we neared Soissons, I began to feel faint and light-headed, By the time we reached the city, I had developed quite a high fever, It was the period of the first great flu epidemic which wreaked havoc among U.S. troops in France. I reported to the infirmary and lined up with a group of about fifty men. The medical sergeant took our temperatures and then tied tags to our coats. I looked at mine and it read “influenza.” We were evacuated to a field hospital near Soissons, where I remained for about five days. After that, we boarded a hospital train and were told that we were going to the big base hospital in Paris, Now, I liked that.<br />
<br />
I had never seen Paris and was most anxious to visit the famed city before going home. There were two of us in the compartment, another soldier from the regiment and myself, I felt a little drowsy, sol told my compartment mate that I was going to take a little nap and to wake me up when the chow came around, I “awoke” five days later in a French hospital at Mantes-sur-Seine, near Paris.<br />
<br />
They had put me off the train as an emergency case just before Paris. I came out of a coma to find a number of strange people around my bed—nurses who were Catholic nuns, doctors and a number of patients, They were all smiling. “Thank God, young man,” said the doctor, “we thought we were going to lose you. You've been in a coma for five days, but you’re going to be all right now.”<br />
<br />
“Where am I? Is this Paris?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“No, this is Mantes-sur-Seine, close to Paris. They had to put you off here as an emergency case.”<br />
<br />
“What’s wrong with me?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“Qh, you've had a little kidney infection and it has affected your heart.”<br />
<br />
“That sounds bad,” I said.<br />
<br />
“Well, you’re young and have a remarkable constitution. You'll pull through all right—you’re out of danger now,” he assured me.<br />
<br />
I remained in the hospital for about a month, receiving the kindest and most solicitous attention from nurses, doctors and patients. All seemed to regard me as their special charge, No one spoke English, but I got along all right. It was like a crash course in French, They told me I had a beautiful accent. They brought in an old lady to talk English with me, but she bored me to death, Really, my French was better than her English. She came once and didn’t return,<br />
<br />
I was feeling much better when the head sister came to me one evening to tell me I was to leave the next morning for Paris and the American hospital at Neuilly.<br />
<br />
“You've never been to Paris, have you?” she asked.<br />
<br />
“No,” I said. ,<br />
<br />
“Well, you’ve got a treat coming’<br />
<br />
I was filled with great expectations, The next morning, after embracing all my fellow patients and exchanging warm goodbyes with the doctor and sisters, the head nurse (or sister) took me out in front of the hospital where an American ambulance was waiting.<br />
<br />
“Hop in, buddy,” said the driver.<br />
<br />
“Haywood, be sure to write us when you get back to Chicago,” said the sister. “Remember we are your friends and want to know how you are getting along.”<br />
<br />
I promised that I would. As we pulled out, she stood on the road waving a white handkerchief and continued to wave it as long as we were in sight. I never wrote them, hut often thought of them.<br />
<br />
Paris, you wondrous city! I was feeling good that morning as we pulled into the hospital at Neuilly. The hospital was situated on the Avenue Neuilly near the Boulevard de la Grande Armée, only a few blocks from the Arc de Triomphe. It was a veritable palace. I was assigned to a ward in which there were only four guys, three Australians and one white American from Wisconsin. They greeted me and gave mea run-down on the situation. They were having a hall seeing Paris, taking in all the events, theaters, race tracks, boxing and girls, I don’t believe that I saw a real sick man in that hospital. There were some of course, but they must have been secluded in some out of sight wards. We were all convalescents in our ward. A couple were recuperating from wounds received at the front,<br />
<br />
“What do you do for money?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“Oh, we don’t worry about that—-just stick around a while and we'll show you the ropes,”<br />
<br />
Under their tutelage, it didn’t take me long to catch on. At that time there were dozens of rich American women, including a number from the social register in Paris. They were under the auspices of the Red Cross and had taken over the hospital and its patients as their special “war duty.” They would organize excursions, get tickets for shows, sports events, etc. Coming to the hospital in relays, they would leave huge boxes of chocolates and other goodies.<br />
<br />
We were showered with gifts—Gillette razors, Waterman fountain pens, and even some serviceable wrist watches if you asked for them. They would come in waves. Scarcely had one group left when another would come, leaving the same gifts. The guys had it down perfect. They always left one man on watch in the ward. He was there in case the gals would come in while the others were out and receive all the presents and gifts for them. He would point to the three un oceupied beds (there were only five of us in an eight bed ward) and pretend that their occupants were out in the streets. He would suggest that the presents be left for them, also. Old Wisconsin Slim was the real genius in all this, He even hung a couple of crosses over the unoccupied beds to give more substance to the fiction that they were occupied,<br />
<br />
Every morning we would gather all our presents, take them to the gate, and sell them fora good price to the French who gathered there to buy them. We would then return to the ward and divide the “swag.” Razors and fountain pens seemed to be rare in France at that time. The going rate for razors was about ten francs ($2) and for Waterman fountain pens even more. All this was carried out under the benign gaze of the hospital authorities.<br />
<br />
Discipline was lax, almost nonexistent. We could stay out for two days at a time. The attitude seemed to be: let the boys have a good time, they deserve it. Besides, it’s essential for their convalescence, When we would get a little money together (about once a week), we would run out to Montmartre and the famous Rue Pigalle, “Pig Alley,” to see the girls.<br />
<br />
As an old Francophile, I was also interested in French history and culture. I got a guidebook and spent days walking all over Paris, visiting all the historical places about which I had read, mentally reconstructing the events.<br />
<br />
Time was passing rapidly. I had been in the hospital about two months when an administrator called me into his office.<br />
<br />
“Well, Corporal Hall,” he said. “I hope you've been having a good time in Paris.”<br />
<br />
“Oh yes,” I replied.<br />
<br />
“That’s good,” he said, “We're sending you back to your regiment tomorrow.”<br />
<br />
“Where are they?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“They’re in Brest, waiting to embark for the voyage home.”<br />
<br />
The next morning I got on the train at the Gare Ouest and arrived in Brest that evening. In Brest, I strolled around a bit on the waterfront and finally sat down at a sidewalk cafe. I was in no hurry to get back into the old regimental harness, I was about to order a drink when suddenly a big white MP appeared. Glowering at me, he said, “Where’s your pass, soldier?”<br />
<br />
“Here it is. I’ve just got back from the hospital in Paris and I'm going to my outfit up on the hill,” I explained.<br />
<br />
He grabbed it, glanced at it and shouted, “Well, get going up that hill right now. You're not supposed to hang around here.”<br />
<br />
I left without my drink and started climbing the hill to the old Napoleon barracks where we had been eleven months before. It seemed like that had been years ago, so much had been crowded into the brief intervening period.<br />
<br />
T rejoined my outfit. They were living in tents in what seemed to me like a swamp. The weather was miserable, a steady cold rain. The mud was ankle deep. I was greeted warmly by my comrades. I don’t think that more than half the old boys of my company were left. The rest were dead, wounded, or ill in hospitals all over France.<br />
<br />
A couple of bottles of cognac were produced. The guys started reminiscing about what they were going to do when they got home. The news from home was bad. Discrimination and Jim Crow were rampant, worse than before. Blacks were being lynched everywhere. “Now, they want us to go to war with Japan,” observed one of the fellows. (The Hearst newspapers at the time were again raising the specter of the “yellow peril.”)<br />
<br />
“Well,” someone said, “they won’t get me to fight their yellow peril. If it comes to that, I'll join the Japs. They are colored.” There was unanimous agreement on that point.<br />
<br />
I bunked down that night and awoke the next morning with a high fever. I went to the infirmary and again was evacuated to a hospital. I immediately began to worry whether I would be able to return with my outfit. As I was waiting on the side of the road to hitch a ride to the hospital, I heard footsteps behind me. I turned and there was Colonel Roberts, our white commander whom I had not seen for months.<br />
<br />
I started to spring to my feet and salute, but he motioned me to remain seated. “Corporal, you're from our regiment, aren’t you?”<br />
<br />
“Yes, sir,” I said, “I'm sick and going to the hospital.”<br />
<br />
“What’s the matter?”<br />
<br />
“I guess I got the flu.”<br />
<br />
“Well,” he said, “you’re in no condition to walk that distance.” He hailed a passing truck and instructed the driver to take me to the hospital. “Take care, son; we’re going home soon. Try to come hack with us.” That’s the last time I saw Colonel Roberts.<br />
<br />
A month later, while in the hospital, I picked up the Paris edition of the Herald Tribune. The headline read: “The 370th Infantry (the old Eighth Illinois) returns and is given hero’s welcome in victory parade down State Street.” I felt pretty bad, because I could imagine my old Mother standing there waiting for me to pass by, Since I hadn’t written in months, she would probably assume the worst.<br />
<br />
I had been away from the States for quite a while, in free France so to speak, and I had become less used to the American nigger-hating way of life. But I was thrown abruptly back into reality as soon as I crossed the threshold of the American Army hospital in Brest.<br />
<br />
It seemed to be manned by an all Southern staff: doctors, nurses, etc. All of them spoke with broad Southern accents. I was assigned a bed at one end of the ward. When I looked around, I could see only Blacks were in that end. Whites were at the other end. There were no screens, no Jim Crow signs. The Jim Crow was de facto, but nonetheless real. I also noticed that there was a large space between the Black and white sections.<br />
<br />
After a cursory entrance examination, the doctor seemed to think that I didn’t have the flu, and upon hearing my recent medical history, he decided that it was a relapse of the old illness.<br />
<br />
Thad no sooner gotten settled when J heard a nurse bawling out a Black soldier for being so dirty. The poor fellow had just come in from some mud hole like the one in which my regiment was situated, where there was no opportunity to bathe.<br />
<br />
“You don’t see any of our white boys that dirty!” she shouted, her eyes flashing indignantly at what she, a white lady, was forced to put up with, For the first time, it occurred to me that our Black regiment had been put in a worse location than the whites. Now, that’s pretty hard stuff for a front-line veteran to take. If I had been ill when I came in, I was really sick now. I could feel my blood pressure and-fever mount.<br />
<br />
There was a Black sergeant from my outfit in the same ward, He was a tall, dignified and proud looking man, convalescing from a previous illness. He wasn’t a bed patient and was therefore supposed to make his own bed. This he did, but he never seemed to do it to the satisfaction of the nurse, who kept berating him.<br />
<br />
“Make it over, that’s not good enough.”<br />
<br />
“I've already made it, and I’m not going to do it again.”<br />
<br />
“Don’t talk back to me,” she shouted. “Make that bed!”<br />
<br />
“I’m not going to,” he said.<br />
<br />
“You dare disobey my order?” she yelled.<br />
<br />
“I'm a front-line soldier and you don’t have to yell at me.”<br />
<br />
She turned and walked to the office and returned with the ward doctor, a little pip-squeak of a man. Ina stentorian voice he said:<br />
<br />
“Make that bed, soldier.” The sergeant didn’t move. The doctor looked at his watch and said, “I’m giving you two minutes to start making that bed. If you don’t, I’m going to prefer charges against you for disobeying your superior officers.”<br />
<br />
You could see that the proud sergeant was thinking it over and coming to a decision. I could almost read his mind; it seemed that he was thinking that this wasn’t the time to die. He only had a couple more months to go.<br />
<br />
He finally burst into tears, but he got up and made the bed. I’ve seen this sort of situation before, and I feel almost certain that had there been a loaded gun around, the sergeant might have started shooting. It would have been reported in the news as “Another nigger runs amuck.” All of us, including some of the whites, breathed a sigh of relief at this peaceful culmination of what could have been a dangerous incident. At least the nurse never bothered the sergeant after that. Undoubtedly, she sensed the inherent danger of any further provocation.<br />
<br />
After my stay in Paris, I was seized periodically by moods of depression. These deepened and became chronic during my stay at the Brest hospital, especially after witnessing such humiliating incidents. I felt that I could never again adjust myself to the conditions of Blacks in the States after the spell of freedom from racism in France, I did not want to go back and my feeling was shared by many Black soldiers.<br />
<br />
I thought of remaining in France, getting my discharge there and possibly becoming a French citizen. But I did not know how to go about this. Besides, I was ill, and there was my Mother whom! wanted to see again. Probably, some day, if I got well, I would come back—or so I thought as I lay in the hospital at Brest.<br />
<br />
Finally, the day came. We were discharged from the hospital, given casual’s pay (one month’s pay), which in my case amounted to $33, and boarded the ship for home. There was no change in the Jim Crow pattern. We were merely transferred from a Jim Crow hospital to a Jim Crow hospital ship. We Blacks found ourselves quartered in a separate section of the ship. The segregation, however, did not extend to the mess hall or the lavatories (heads). I guess that would have been too much trouble. But the ship’s military command passed up no opportunity to let us know our place.<br />
<br />
For example, on the first day out we were given tickets for mess—~-breakfast, lunch and supper. We were supposed to present them to a checker who stood at the foot of the stairway leading up to the mess hall. A Black soldier who had evidently misplaced his ticket tried to slip by the checker unnoticed, but he was not quick enough. A cracker officer who was standing by the checker hollered: “Hey, Nigger, come back here!”<br />
<br />
The guy kept going and tried to merge into a group of us Blacks who had already passed through. Again the officer shouted, “Nigger, come back here. You, I mean. I mean the tall one over there. That nigger knows who I’m calling.” The soldier finally turned and walked back. Purple with rage, protected by his bars and white skin, the officer said, “Listen, you Black son of a bitch, where is your ticket?” Clearly, the officer had already gauged his man and concluded that there was no fight in him,<br />
<br />
“I couldn’t find it,” said the soldier.<br />
<br />
“Well, why didn’t you say that in the first place instead of tryin’ toslip through heah? Well, you go on back and try to find it. If you can’t, see the sergeant in charge. Don’t evah try that trick again,” said the officer. His anger seemed to ebb and a glow of self-satisfaction spread across his face. He had done his chore for the day. He had put a nigger in his place.<br />
<br />
The seas were rough again. It was a small ship, leased from the Japanese. Most of us were seasick. The sailors were having a ball at our expense, When one of us would rush to the rail to vomit, one of them would holler, “A dollar he comes.”<br />
<br />
One night, the ship tilted sharply and a number of us were thrown out of our bunks, The bunks were in tiers and I was in a top one, I got a pretty hard bump. The next morning on deck the sailors were talking loudly among themselves (for our benefit of course),<br />
<br />
“Gee,” said one, “this is the roughest sea I’ve ever seen. This old pile is about to come apart, The Japs leased us the worst ship they had.”<br />
<br />
“It just might be sabotage,” another one suggested,<br />
<br />
“I hope we make it, but I’m not so sure,” said another,<br />
<br />
Not being seamen, most of us were taking this seriously, A Black soldier turned to me and said, “You know man, after all I’ve been through, if this ship were to sink now almost in sight of home, I would get off and walk the water like the good Lord,”<br />
<br />
Another voice, that of a white sergeant from Florida who had been rather friendly to us: “You know,” he drawled, “this reminds me of old Sam down home.”<br />
<br />
Here it comes, we thought, one of those nigger jokes.<br />
<br />
“He was up theah on the gallows with a rope around his neck and the sheriff said, ‘Well Sam, is there anything you want to say before you die?<br />
<br />
“All T got to say sheriff, said Sam, ‘this sho’ would be a lesson to me,’ ”<br />
<br />
The voyage proceeded uneventfully, with one exception, The gamblers among us were out to get the soldiers’ casual pay. The law of concentration of money into fewer and fewer hands was in process, This was taking place in one of the endless crap games which started in the Bay of Biscay and wound up at Sandy Hook,<br />
<br />
IT never really gambled, even in the Army with room and board guaranteed, If you were broke, you could always borrow some money. The lender knew you couldn’t run out on him. His only risk was that you might become a casualty. But motivated by nothing more than sheer boredom, I got into the game this time.<br />
<br />
After all, what good was $33 going to do me? To my surprise, I hit a streak of luck and over a period of a week in and out of the game, I ran my paltry grub stake up to the tremendous sum of $1200, That was the high point, after which time my luck began to peter out. Nevertheless, I left the ship with $500. It was my last gambling venture,<br />
<br />
That morning, we lined up at the rail as our ship passed Sandy Hook and pulled into New York Harbor, It was my first view of the New York skyline, Overcome with emotion, tears welled up in my eyes, Embarrassed, I looked around and found that I was not alone. The guy next to me was obviously crying,<br />
<br />
Our landing was a memorable one, Ship stacks were blasting, foghorns blowing, bells were ringing and fire boats were sending up great sprays of water, Passengers in ferryboats were waving and shouting greetings.<br />
<br />
Upon docking, we were met by two reception committees of young women. A white one to receive the white soldiers and a Black one to greet us, This time segregation didn’t bother us at all, we were so pleased to see the pretty Black girls, They drew us aside as we came down the gang plank, ushered us into waiting ambulances, and drove us to Grand Central Palace which had been converted into a deharkation hospital, Leaving us in the lobby, they said goodbye and promised to come back soon and show us around.<br />
<br />
A woman from the Red Cross took our home addresses to notify our families of our arrival. We were then escorted into a large room and told to strip off our clothes. Leaving them in the room, we then went through the delousing process. We were sprayed with some sort of chemical and washed off under showers. We were then given pajamas and a bathrobe and shown to our Jim Crow ward.<br />
<br />
The next day, after a physical examination, we were paid off, receiving all of our back pay, In my case, it was for twelve months, amounting to about $450, This, plus the $500 I had won on the ship, seemed to me a small fortune, the largest amount of money I had ever had in my life. J was, so to speak, chafing at the bit, raring to get out and up to famed Harlem.<br />
<br />
On the ship, I had met a Black sergeant named Patterson, who was from the 369th, the old Fifteenth New York. He had also won a considerable sum in the crap game. He suggested that we team up and go to Harlem together. He said he knew his way around there since that was where he lived before he joined the Army.<br />
<br />
After the pay off, we were still without clothes. But a clothing salesman came around to take orders for new uniforms. Patterson and I ordered suits, for which we were measured. In a couple of hours the man was back with two brand new whip cord uniforms with chevrons and service stripes sewed on. We had also ordered shoes, which were promptly delivered, We then sneaked out of the hospital.<br />
<br />
After we banked most of our money downtown, we took the subway up to 125th Street and visited several “Buffet Flats” (a current euphemism for a high-class whorehouse), drinking and looking over the girls. Patterson seemed to be an old friend of all the madams. They greeted him like a long lost brother. We finally wound up in one real classy joint where we stayed for four days, playing sultan-in-a-harem with the girls.<br />
<br />
We returned to the hospital, expecting to be sharply reprimanded and restricted to quarters, but the doctor on his rounds merely asked, “Where have you boys been?” Before we could answer, he simply said, “I suggest that you stick around a day or two, we have some tests to make.”<br />
<br />
From New York, we left for Camp Grant near Rockford, Illinois, where we were demobilized out of the service, I was discharged on April 29, 1919. After a cursory examination, I was pronounced physically fit. “What about my chronic endocarditis and chronic nephritis?” I protested,<br />
<br />
“Oh, you're all right, you’ve overcome it all. You’re young and fit as a fiddle,” the doctor answered me. From Camp Grant I returned home to Chicago to see my parents.<br />
<br />
=== REUNION WITH OTTO ===<br />
Not too long after my discharge, I came home one evening to find Otto. He had just arrived after mustering out of the service at Camp Grant. We were all happy to see him, especially Mother. He showed us his honorable discharge.<br />
<br />
“You know,” he said, “I’m lucky to get this.”<br />
<br />
He then told stories about his harrowing experiences in a stevedore battalion in the South and then in France. The main mass of Black draftees had been relegated to these labor units, euphemistically called “service battalions,” “engineers,” “pioneer infantry,” ete.<br />
<br />
Regardless of education or ability, young Blacks were herded indiscriminately into these stevedore outfits and faced the drudgery and hard’ work with no possibility of promotion beyond the rank of corporal. With few exceptions, the officers were KKK whites, as also were the sergeants. Many of them were plantation riding boss types, especially recruited for these jobs. Southern newspapers openly carried want ads calling for white men who had “experience in handling Negroes,” Black draftees were not only subjected to the drudgery of hard labor, but insults, abuse, and in many cases blows from white officers and sergeants.<br />
<br />
Otto told us his worst experience was in Camp Stewart in Newport News, Virginia, where he was stationed during the terribly cold winter of 1917-18, For a considerable period after their arrival, they were forced to live in tents without floors or stoves. In most cases, they had only a blanket, some not even that.<br />
<br />
New arrivals to the camp were forced to stand around fires outside all night or sleep under trees for partial protection from the weather, For months there were no bathing facilities nor clothing for the men, These conditions were subsequently changed as a result of protests by the men and reports by investigators.<br />
<br />
His outfit landed in the port of St. Lazare, France, and during the great advance participated in the all-out effort to keep the front-lines supplied in the “race to Berlin.” They worked from dawn to nightfall unloading supplies, including all kinds of railroad equipment, engines, tractors and bulldozers. They built and repaired roads, warehouses and barracks. Discipline was strict; guys were thrown in the guardhouse on the most flimsy pretexts. A Black soldier seen on the street with a French woman was likely to be arrested by the MPs. <br />
<br />
“The spirit of St. Lazare,” said one officer, “is the spirit of the South.”<br />
<br />
Needless to say, Otto often found himself in the guard house as a result of fights, AWOLs, etc. How he escaped general court martial or imprisonment I don’t know.<br />
<br />
His outfit was finally moved to the American military base at Le Mans, about a hundred miles from Paris. Things were somewhat better there. There were even a few “reliable” Black corporals who were allowed weekend passes to visit Paris, Otto was assigned to mess duty as a cook,<br />
<br />
When he applied for leave, he was refused, however, “Well, I didn’t intend to come this close to Paris without seeing it,” he said, “so I went AWOL.”<br />
<br />
He did not see much of it, however, before he was arrested by MPs. I was surprised to learn that he had been in Paris during the period that I was in the hospital in Neuilly. Most of his time in the great city was spent in the Hotel St. Anne, the notorious American military jail run by the sadistic Marine captain, “hard-boiled Smith.”<br />
<br />
Here now, bitter and disillusioned, Otto continued his rebellion, It led him first to the Garvey movement where he served for a brief period as an officer in Garvey’s Black Legion, Then in succession, Wobblies, or Industrial Workers of the World ([WW), the African Blood Brotherhood and finally the Communist Party—joining soon after its unity convention in 1921. After returning from the service, Otto stayed at home only a short time and then moved in with some of his new friends.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 ==<br />
<br />
=== Searching for Answers ===<br />
Back home in Chicago, I was soon working again as a waiter on the Michigan Central Railroad. As I have already mentioned, the first day of the bloody Chicago race riot (July 28, 1919) came while I was working on the Wolverine run up through Michigan, When arrived home from work that afternoon, the whole family greeted me emotionally. We were all there except for Otto. The disagreements I had had with my Father in the past were forgotten, Both my Mother and sister were weeping. Everyone was keyed up and had been worrying about my safety in getting from the station to the house.<br />
<br />
Following our brief reunion, I tore loose from the family to find out what was happening outside. I went to the Regimental Armory at Thirty-fifth and Giles Avenue because I wanted to find some of my buddies from the regiment. The street, old Forrest Avenue, had recently been renamed in honor of Lt. Giles, a member of our outfit killed in France. I knew they would be planning an armed defense and I wanted to get in on the action. I found them and they told me of their plans. It was rumored that Irishmen from west of the Wentworth Avenue dividing line were planning to invade the ghetto that night, coming in across the tracks by way of Fifty-first Street. We planned a defensive action to meet them.<br />
<br />
it was not surprising that defensive preparations were under way. There had been clashes before, often when white youths in “athletic clubs” invaded the Black community. These “clubs” were really racist gangs, organized by city ward heelers and precinct captains,<br />
<br />
Once of the guys from the regiment took us to the apartment of a friend, It had a good position overlooking Fifty-first Street near State. Someone had brought a Browning submachine gun; he’d gotten it sometime before, most likely from the Regimental Armory. We didn’t ask where it had come from, or the origin of the 1903 Springfield rifles (Army issue) that appeared. We set to work mounting the submachine gun and set up watch for the invaders, Fortunately for them, they never arrived and we all returned home in the morning, The following day it rained and the National Guard moved into the Black community, so overt raids by whites did not materialize.<br />
<br />
Ours was not the only group which used its recent Army training for self-defense of the Black community. We heard rumors about another group of veterans who set up a similar ambush, On several occasions groups of whites had driven a truck at breakneck speed up south State Street, in the heart of the Black ghetto, with six or seven men in the back firing indiscriminately at the people on the sidewalks,<br />
<br />
The Black veterans set up their ambush at Thirty-fifth and State, waiting in a car with the engine running, When the whites on the truck came through, they pulled in behind and opened up with a machine gun, The truck crashed into a telephone pole at Thirty-ninth Street, most of the men in the truck had been shot down and the others fled, Among them were several Chicago police officers—“off duty,” of course!<br />
<br />
I remember standing before the Angeles Flats on Thirty-fifth and Wabash where the day before four Blacks had been shot by police. It appeared that enraged Blacks had set fire to the building and were attacking some white police officers when the latter fired on them.<br />
<br />
Along with other Blacks, I gloated over the mysterious killing of two Black cops with a history of viciousness in the Black community, They had been found dead in an alley between State and Wabash, Undoubtedly they had been killed by Blacks who had taken advantage of the confusion to settle old scores with these Black enforcers of the white man’s law.<br />
<br />
Bewilderment and shock struck the Black community as well. I had seen Blacks standing before the burned-out buildings of their former homes, trying to salvage whatever possible, Apparent on their faces was bewilderment and anger.<br />
<br />
The Chicago rebellion of 1919 was a pivotal point in my life, Always I had been hot-tempered and never took any insults lying down. This was even more true after the war. I had walked out of a number of jobs because of my refusal to take any crap from anyone, My experiences abroad in the Army and at home with the police left me totally disillusioned about being able to find any solution to the racial problem through the help of the government; for I had seen that official agencies of the country were among the most racist and most dangerous to me and my people.<br />
<br />
I began to see that I had to fight; I had to commit myself to struggle against whatever it was that made racism possible. Racism, which erupted in the Chicago riot—and the bombings and terrorist attacks which preceded it---must be eliminated. My spirit was not unique--it was shared by many young Blacks at that time, The returned veterans and other young militants were all fighting back. And there was a lot to fight against, Racism reached a high tide in the summer of 1919, This was the “Red Summer” which involved twenty-six race riots across the country—“red” for the blood that ran in the streets, Chicago was the bloodiest.<br />
<br />
The holocaust in Chicago was the worst race riot in the nation’s post-war history. But riots took place in such widely separate places as Long View, Texas, Charleston, South Carolina; Elaine, Arkansas, Knoxville, Tennessee, and Omaha, Nebraska. The flareup of racial violence in Omaha, my old home town, followed the Chicago riots by less than two months, It resulted in the lynching of Will Brown, a packing house worker, for an alleged assault on a white woman, When Omaha’s mayor, Edward P. Smith, sought to intervene, he was seized by the mob. They were close to hanging the mayor from a trolley pole when police cut the rope and rushed him to a hospital, badly injured.<br />
<br />
The common underlying cause of riots in most of the northern cities was the racial tension caused by the migration of tens of thousands of Blacks into these centers and the competition for jobs, housing and the facilities of the city. Rather than being at a temporary peak, this outbreak of racism was more like the rising of a plateau—-it never got any higher, but it never really went down, either. Writing in the middle of a riot in Washington, D.C., that summer, the Black poet Claude McKay caught the bitter and belligerent mood of many Blacks:<br />
<br />
'''If we must die, let it not be like hogs'''<br />
<br />
'''Hunted and penned in an inglorious spot,''' <br />
<br />
'''While round us bark the mad and hungry dogs,''' <br />
<br />
'''Making their mock at our accursed lot.'''<br />
<br />
'''if we must die, O let us nobly die'''<br />
<br />
'''So that our precious blood may not be shed'''<br />
<br />
'''Jn vain; then even the monsters we defy'''<br />
<br />
'''Shall be constrained to honor us though dead!'''<br />
<br />
'''* Okinsmen! We must meet the common foe!''' <br />
<br />
'''Though far outnumbered let us show us brave,''' <br />
<br />
'''And for their thousand blows deal one death blow!''' <br />
<br />
'''What though before us lies the open grave?'''<br />
<br />
'''Like men we'll face the murderous, cowardly pack,''' <br />
<br />
'''Pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back!''' <br />
<br />
‘The war and the riots of the “Red Summer” of 1919 left me bitter and frustrated. I felt that I could never again adjust to the situation of Black inequality. But how had it come about? Who was responsible?<br />
<br />
Chicago in the early twenties was an ideal place and time for the education of a Black radical. As a result of the migration of Blacks during World War I, the Chicago area came to have the largest concentration of Black proletarians in the country. It was a major point of contact for these masses with the white labor movement and its advanced, radical sector. In the thirties it was to become a main testing ground for Black and white labor unity.<br />
<br />
The city itself was the core of a vast urban industrial complex. Sprawling along the southeast shore of Lake Michigan, the area includes five Illinois counties and two in Indiana. The latter contains such industrial towns as East Chicago, Gary and Hammond. This metropolitan area contains the greatest concentration of heavy industry in the country.<br />
<br />
By the second half of the twentieth century, it had forged into the lead of the steel-making industry, surpassing the great Monongahela Valley of Pittsburgh in the production of primary metals; including steel mill, refining and non-ferrous metals operations. There was the gigantic U.S. Steel Corporation in Gary, the Inland Steel Company plant in East Chicago and the U.S. Steel South Works, These are now the three largest steel works in the United States. The steel mills of the Chicago area supply more than 14,000 manufacturing plants,<br />
<br />
Chicago was at that time, and remains today, the world’s largest railway center. It ranks first in the manufacture of railroad equipment, including freight and passenger cars, Pullmans, locomotives and specialized rolling stock.<br />
<br />
The core city itself was most famous for its wholesale slaughter and meat packing industry. Chicago was known as the meat capital of the world, or in Carl Sandburg’s more homely terms, “hog butcher for the nation.”<br />
<br />
The city’s colossal wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few men, who comprised the industrial, commercial and financial oligarchy. Among these were such giants as Judge Gary of the mighty U.S. Steel; Cyrus McCormick of International Harvester, the meat packers Philip D, Armour, Gustavus Swift and the Wilson brothers; George Pullman. of the Pullman Works; Rosenwald of Montgomery Ward; General Wood of Sears and Roebuck; the “merchant prince” Marshall Field; and Samuel Insull of utilities. These were the real rulers, Ostensible political power rested in the notoriously corrupt, gangster ridden, county political machine headed by Mayor William Hale (Big Bill) Thompson, who carried on the tradition exposed as early as 1903 by Lincoln Steffens in his book, The Shame of the Cities.<br />
<br />
The glitter and wealth of Chicago’s Gold Coast was based on the most inhuman exploitation of the city’s largely foreign-born working force. A scathing indictment of the horrible conditions in Chicago's meat packing industry was contained in Upton Sinclair’s novel, The Jungle, published in 1910. It was inevitable that the wage slave would rebel, that Chicago should become the scene of some of the nation’s bloodiest battles in the struggle between labor and capital, The first of these clashes was the railroad strike of 1877 which erupted in pitched battles between strikers and federal troops,<br />
<br />
Then in 1886 came the famous Haymarket riot which grew out of a strike for the eight-hour day at the McCormick reaper plant. During a protest rally, a bomb was thrown which killed one policeman and injured six others. ‘This led to the arrest of eight anarchist leaders; four were hanged, one committed suicide or was murdered in his cell, and the others were sentenced to life imprisonment. Obviously being tried and executed simply because they were labor leaders, these innocent men became a cause célebre of international labor, Thousands of visitors made yearly pilgrimages to the city where monuments to the executed men were raised, Haymarket became a rallying word for the eight-hour day. The martyrs were memorialized by the designation of the first of May as International Labor Day. <br />
<br />
Several years later the city was the scene of the great Pullman strike led by Eugene V. Debs and his radical but lily-white American Railway Union, which precipitated a nationwide shutdown of railroads in 1894. Again the federal troops were called in and armed clashes between workers and troops ensued. ‘These battles were merely high points in the city’s long history of labor radicalism. It was the national center of the early anarcho-socialist movements. In 1905, the Industrial Workers of the World (the IWW or Wobblies) was founded there. The IWW maintained its headquarters and edited its paper, Solidarity, there. In 1921, Chicago was to become the site of the founding convention of the Workers (Communist) Party, USA, which maintained its headquarters and the editorial offices of the Daily Worker there from 1923 to 1927.<br />
<br />
Blacks, however, played little or no role in the turbulent early history of the Chicago labor movement. This was so simply because they were not a part of the industrial labor force. Prior to World War I, Blacks were employed mainly in the domestic or personal service occupations, untouched by labor organizations. They were not needed in industry where the seemingly endless tide of cheap European immigrant labor—Irish, Scots, English, Swedes, Germans, Poles, East Europeans and Italians—sufficed to fill the city’s manpower needs.<br />
<br />
The only opportunity Blacks had of entering basic industry was as strikebreakers. Thus, in the early part of the century, Blacks were brought in as strikebreakers on two important occasions, the stockyards strike of 1904 and the city-wide teamsters’ strike in 1905. In the first instance, Blacks were discharged as soon as the strike was broken. After the teamsters’ strike, a relatively large number of Blacks remained. As a result of the defeat of the 1904 strike, the packing houses remained virtually unorganized for thirteen more years, and the animosities which developed toward the Black strikebreakers became a part of the racial tension of the city.<br />
<br />
At the outbreak of World War I, the situation with respect to Chicago’s Black labor underwent a basic change, Now Blacks were needed to fill the labor vacuum caused by the war boom and the quotas on foreign immigration. Chicago's employers turned to the South, to the vast and untapped reservoir of Black labor eager to escape the conditions of plantation serfdom--exacerbated by the cotton crisis, the boll weevil plague and the wave of lynchings. The “great migrations” began and continued in successive waves through the sixties. <br />
<br />
During the war, the occupational status of Blacks thus shifted from largely personal service to basic industry. In the tens of thousands, Blacks flocked to the stockyards and steel mills. During the war, the Black population went from 50,000 to 100,000. Successive waves of Black migration were to bring the Black population to over a million within the next fifty years. Black labor, getting its first foothold in basic industry during the war, had now become an integral part of Chicago’s industrial labor force.4<br />
<br />
With the tapping of this vast reservoir of cheap and unskilled labor, there was no longer any need for the peasantry of eastern and southern Europe. There was, however, a difference between the position of Blacks and that of the European immigrants. The latter, after a generation or two, could rise to higher skilled and better paying jobs, to administrative and even managerial positions. They were able to leave the ethnic enclaves and disperse throughout the city—to become assimilated into the national melting pot, The Blacks, to the contrary, found themselves permanently relegated to a second-class status in the labor force, with a large group outside as a permanent surplus labor pool to be replenished when necessary from the inexhaustible reservoir of Black, poverty-ridden and land-starved peasantry of the South.<br />
<br />
‘The employers now had in hand a new source of cheap labor, the victims of racist proscription, to use as a weapon against the workers’ movement. Indeed, this went hand in hand with the Jim Crow policies of the trade union leaders, who had been largely responsible for keeping Blacks out of basic industry in the first place. <br />
<br />
These labor bureaucrats premised their racism on the doctrine of a natural Black inferiority, The theory of an instinctive animosity between the races was a powerful instrument for an anti-union, anti-working class, divide and rule policy. The use of racial differences was found to be a much more effective dividing instrument than the use of cultural and language differences between various white ethnic groups and the native born. As we know, ethnic conflicts proved transient as the various European nationalities became assimilated into the general population. Blacks, on the other hand, remain to this day permanently unassimilable under the present system.<br />
<br />
Such were conditions in the days when I undertook my search for answers to the question of Black oppression and the road to liberation. Living conditions were pretty rough then, and I had gone back to my old trade of waiting tables in order to make some sort of living.<br />
<br />
But I was restless, moody, short-tempered-—-qualities ill-suited to the trade, Naturally, I had trouble holding a job. My trouble was not with the guests so much as with my immediate superiors; captains, head waiters and dining car stewards, most of whom were white. In less than a month after the Chicago riot, I lost my job on the Michigan Central as a result of a run-in with an inspector.<br />
<br />
The dining car inspectors were a particularly vicious breed. Their job was to see that discipline was maintained and service kept up to par. These inspectors, whom we called company spies, would board the train unexpectedly anywhere along the route, hoping to catch a member of the crew violating some regulation or not giving what they considered proper service. They would then reprimand the guilty party personally, or if the offense was sufficiently serious, would turn him in to the main office to be laid off or fired. Usually the inspector’s word was law from which there was no appeal. The dining car crew had no unions in those days.<br />
<br />
This particular inspector (his name was McCormick) had taken a dislike to me. He had made that clear on other occasions. The feeling was mutual. Perhaps he sensed my independent attitude. He probably felt I was not sufficiently impressed by him and did not care about my job. He was right on both counts. <br />
<br />
He boarded the Chicago-bound train one morning in Detroit, We were serving breakfast. It was just one of those days when everything went wrong. People were lined up at each end of the diner, waiting to be served. Service was slow. The guests were squawking and I was in a mean mood myself. I was cutting bread in the pantry when McCormick peered in and shouted, “Say, Hall, that silver is in terrible condition.”<br />
<br />
The silver! What the hell is this man talking about dirty silver when I’ve got all these people out there clamoring for their breakfast. 2<br />
<br />
“I’ve been noticing you lately,” he continued. “It looks as though you don’t want to work. If you don't like your job why in hell don't you quit?”<br />
<br />
I took that as downright provocation. “Damn you and your job!” I exploded, advancing on him.<br />
<br />
He turned pale and ran out of the pantry. A friend of mine in the crew grabbed me by the wrist.<br />
<br />
“What the hell’s the matter with you, Hall? Are you crazy?” It was only then that I realized that I had been waving the bread knife at the inspector.<br />
<br />
In a few minutes, the brakeman and the conductor came into the pantry. MeCormick brought up the rear,<br />
<br />
“That’s the one,” he said pointing at me.<br />
<br />
Addressing me, the conductor said, “The inspector here says you threatened him with a knife. Is that true?”<br />
<br />
I denied it, stating that I had been cutting bread when the argument started and had a knife in my hand. I wasn’t threatening him with it. My friend (who had grabbed my wrist) substantiated my story.<br />
<br />
“Well,” said the conductor, “you’d better get your things and ride to Chicago in the coach. We don’t want any more trouble here, and the inspector has said he doesn’t want you in the dining car.”<br />
<br />
I went up forward in the coach. I got off the train in Chicago at Sixty-third and Stony Island. I didn’t go to the downtown station, thinking that the cops might be waiting there.<br />
<br />
So much for my job with the Michigan Central.<br />
<br />
I went back to working sporadically in restaurants, hotels and on trains. I didn’t stay anywhere very long. The first job that I regarded as steady was the Illinois Athletic Club, where I remained for several months, 1 was beginning to settle down a little and participate in the social life of the community, attending dances, parties and visiting cabarets. The Royal Gardens, a night club on Thirty-first Street, was one of my favorite hangouts. King Oliver and Louis Armstrong were often featured there. At the Panama, on Thirty-fifth Street between State and Wabash, we went to see our favorite comedians-—Butter Beans and Susie.<br />
<br />
It was on one of these occasions that I met my first wife, Hazel. She belonged to Chicago’s Black social elite, such as it was. Her father had died and her family was on the downgrade. Her mother was left with four children, three girls and a boy, of whom Hazel was the oldest. The other children were still teenagers, and Hazel and her mother had supported them by doing domestic work and catering for wealthy whites. I was twenty-one and she was twenty five.<br />
<br />
Hazel was attractive, a high school graduate. She spoke good English and, as Mother said, “had good manners.” She worked for Montgomery Ward, then owned by the philanthropic Rosenwald family, the first big company to hire Blacks as office clerks. She had a nice singing voice and used to sing around at parties. Her friends were among the Black upper strata and the family belonged to the Episcopal Church on Thirty-eighth and Wabash which at that time was the church of the colored elite. We were married in 1920. I was all decked out in a rented swallowtail coat, striped pants, spats and a derby. The ceremony was impressive. Photos appeared in the Chicago Defender.<br />
<br />
In a short time, the romance wore off. Hazel’s ambition to get ahead in the world, “to be somebody,” clashed with my love of freedom. I soon had visions of myself, a quarter century hence-making mortgage payments on a fancy house, installments on furniture, and trapped in a drab, lower middle-class existence, surrounded by a large and quarrelsome family.<br />
<br />
The worst of it was having to put up with being kicked around on the job and taking all that crap from headwaiters and captains. I had been working at the Athletic Club for several months before I got married. Then nobody had bothered me. When I asked for time off to get married, the white headwaiter and the captain seemed delighted. “Sure Hall, that’s fine. Congratulations, Take a couple of weeks off.”<br />
<br />
Upon my return, I immediately felt a change in their attitude, Now that I was married, they felt they had me where they wanted me. They became more and more demanding. One day at lunch I had some difficulty getting my orders out of the kitchen, and the guests were complaining—not an unusual occurrence in any restaurant. Instead of helping me out and calming down the guests, or seeing what the hang-up was in the kitchen, the captain started shouting at me in front of the guests. “What’s the matter with you, Hall? Why don’t you bring these people’s orders?”<br />
<br />
“Can’t you see that I’m tied up in the kitchen?” I said. “Why don’t you go out and see the chef instead of hollering at me!”<br />
<br />
All puffed up, he yelled out, “Don’t give me any of your lip or I'll snatch that badge off you!”<br />
<br />
I jerked my badge off, threw both badge and side towel into his face, and shouted, “Take your badge and shove it!”<br />
<br />
I was moving on him when a friend of mine, Johnson, a waiter at the next station, jumped between us, I turned away, walked down the steps, through the kitchen and into the dressing room. Johnson followed me into the dressing room a few minutes later. “Hurry up and get out of here. They’re calling the cops.” I changed and left.<br />
<br />
My marriage went down the drain along with the job. That was a period of post-war crisis. Jobs were hard to find, and especially so for me since I had been blacklisted from several places because of my temper. 1 was no longer the same man that Hazel married, and the truth of the matter was that I wanted it that way. Her hangups were typical of Black aspirants for social status—strivers, we called them-—-who never really doubted the validity of the prejudice from which they suffered. Hazel slavishly accepted white middle class values. I, on the other hand, was looking around trying to figure out how best to maladjust<br />
<br />
=== MY REBELLION ===<br />
For me, the break-up of our marriage in the spring of 1920 destroyed my last ties with the old conventional way of life. I was completely disenchanted with the middle class crowd into which Hazel was trying to draw me. But more important, I not only rejected the status quo, I was determined to do something about it--to make my rebellion count.<br />
<br />
I sought answers to a number of questions: What was the nature of the forces behind Black subjugation? Who were its main beneficiaries? Why was racism being entrenched in the north in this period? How did it differ from the South? Could the situation be altered and, if so, what were the forces for change and the program?<br />
<br />
l renewed my search for a way to go, pressed by a driving need for a world view which would provide a rational explanation of society and a clue to securing Black freedom and dignity. My search was to continue during what must have been the most virulent and widespread racist campaign in U.S. history, The forces of racist bigotry unleashed during the riots of the “Red Summer” of 1919 were still on the march through the twenties. Indeed, they had intensified and extended their campaign. <br />
<br />
The whole country seemed gripped in a frenzy of racist hate. Anti-Black propaganda was carried in the press, in magazine articles, literature and in theater. D.W. Griffith’s obscene movie, The Birth of a Nation, which glorified the Ku Klux Klan and pictured Blacks as depraved animals, was shown to millions.5 Thomas Dickson’s two novels, The Klansman (upon which Griffith’s picture was based) and The Leopard's Spots (an earlier book on the theme of the white man’s burden) were best sellers. Racist demagogues of the stripe of “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman of South Carolina, Vardeman of Mississippi, and “Cotton” Ed Smith of South Carolina, were in demand on northern lecture platforms.<br />
<br />
Closely behind the trumpeters of race-hate rode their cavalry, A revived Ku Klux Klan now extended to the north and made its appearance in twenty-seven states.6 This organization, embracing millions, headed the list of a whole rash of super-patriotic groups who were anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, anti-foreign-born and anti-Black. The apostles of white, Anglo-Saxon and Nordic supremacy included in their galaxy of ethnic outcasts Asians (the “yellow peril”), Latin Americans and other foreign-born from southern and eastern Europe. Their hate propaganda pitted Protestants against Catholics, Christians against Jews, native against foreign-born, and all against the Blacks, upon whom was fixed the stigma of inherent and eternal inferiority.<br />
<br />
It seemed as though the prophets of the “lost cause” were out to reverse their military defeat at Appomattox by the cultural subversion of the north. That they were receiving encouragement by powerful northern interests was self-evident. Tin Pan Alley added its contribution to the attack with a spate of Mammy songs, and along the same vein, “That’s Why Darkies Were Born”:<blockquote>'''Someone had to pick the cotton,''' <br />
<br />
'''Someone had to plant the corn,'''<br />
<br />
'''Someone had to slave and be able to sing,''' <br />
<br />
'''That's why darkies were born.'''<br />
<br />
'''Though the balance is wrong,'''<br />
<br />
'''Sull your faith must be strong,'''<br />
<br />
'''Accept your destiny brothers, listen to me.'''</blockquote>A main objective of the racist assault was the academic establishment. The old crude forms of racist propaganda proved inadequate in an age of advancing science. The hucksters of race hate conducted raids upon the sciences, especially upon the new disciplines-—anthropology, ethnology and psychology--in an attempt to establish a scientific foundation for the race myth.<br />
<br />
The new “science of race” evolved and flourished during the period, Spadework for this grotesque growth had been done in the middle of the last century by the Frenchman, Count Arthur D. Gobineau, in his work, The Inequality of the Human Races (1851-1853), It was carried on by his disciple, the Englishman turned German, Houston Chamberlain, who asserted that racial mixture was a natural crime. In the U.S, early efforts in this field were the works of Knott and Glidden. Also, there was Ripley's Races of Mankind.<br />
<br />
Carrying on in this pseudo-scientific tradition during the war and postwar years were the popular theorists Lathrop Stoddard, The Rising Tide of Color: Against White World Supremacy (1923) and Madison Grant, The Passing of a Great Race: The Racial Basis of European History (1916). The cornerstone of this pseudo-scientific structure was Social Darwinism which was an attempt to subvert Darwin’s theory of evolution and arbitrarily apply natural selection in plant and animal society to human society. According to the Social Darwinists, led by Herbert Spencer, the British sociologist, history was a continuous struggle for existence between races. In this struggle, the Nordic, Anglo-Saxon, or Aryan civilizations naturally survived as the fittest.<br />
<br />
The racists had a field day in history, long the area in which the heroes of the “lost cause” had their greatest, most effective concentration. They had held chairs in some of the nation’s most prestigious universities—Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Harvard, etc, Among such historians was William Archibald Dunning, who during his long tenure at Columbia miseducated generations of students by his distortions of the Reconstruction, Civil War and slave periods.7<br />
<br />
In the academic world this pseudoscience of racism held sway with only a few open challengers. The latter seemed to be isolated voices in the wilderness, as the counter-offensive was slow in getting underway. In anthropology there was Franz Boaz’s antiracist thrust, Mind of Primitive Man. This was written in 1911, and not widely known at the time. The works of his students and colleagues-—-most notably Melville Hershovitz, The Myth of the Negro Past, Jane Weltfish, Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead and Otto Klineburg-—-were not to appear until the next decade.<br />
<br />
In history, the movement for revision was then decades away. It only became a trend with the Black Revolt of the sixties, Black scholars had pioneered the reexamination: W.E.B. DuBois, his tour de force, Black Reconstruction, and the epilogue, “Propaganda of History,” which contained a bitter indictment of the white historical establishment, was not to appear until the mid-thirties. J.A. Rogers, popular Black historian, had not yet appeared on the scene, Young Carter Woodson, who had founded his Association for the Study of Negro History in 1915, only began to publish the Journal of Negro History in 1916. His own important historical works were yet to come. <br />
<br />
‘Thus, from its tap-roots in the Southern plantation system, the anti-Black virus had spread throughout the country, shaping the pattern of Black-white relationships in the industrial urban north as well. The dogma of the inherent inferiority of Blacks had permeated the national consciousness to become an integral part of the American way of life. Racist dogma, first a rationale for chattel slavery and then plantation peonage, was now carried over to the north as justification for a new system of de facto segregation.<br />
<br />
Black subjugation, city-style Jim Crow, became fixed by the twenties, and continues up to the present day. Its components were the residential segregation of the ghetto with its inferior education, slums and the second class status of Black workers in the labor force where they were relegated to the bottom rung of the occupational ladder and prevented by discrimination from moving into better skills and higher paid jobs.<br />
<br />
Although its purpose was not clear to me then, I later realized that the virulent racism of the period served to justify and bulwark the structure of Black powerlessness which was developing in every northern city where we had become a sizable portion of the work force,<br />
<br />
At the time the racist deluge simply revealed great gaps in my own education and knowledge. I knew that the propaganda was a tissue of lies, but I felt the need for disproving them on the basis of scientific fact. I rejected racism—the lie of the existence in nature of superior and inferior races--and its concomitant fiction of intuitive hostility between races. For one thing, it ran counter to my own background of experience in Omaha.<br />
<br />
Religion as an explanation for the riddles of the universe I had rejected long before. I knew that our predicament was not the result of some divine disposition and therefore that racial oppression was neither a spiritual or natural phenomenon. It was created by man, and therefore must be changed by man, How? Well, that was the question to be explored. I had only a smattering of knowledge of natural and social sciences, much of which I had gathered through reading the lectures of Robert G. Ingersoll. It was through him that I discovered Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution through natural selection.<br />
<br />
Armed with a dictionary and a priori knowledge gleaned from Ingersoll’s popularizations, I was able to make my way through Origin of the Species. Darwin showed the origin of the species to be a result of the process of evolution and not the mysterious act of a divine creation. Here at last was a scientific refutation of religious dogma. I had at last found a basis for my atheism which had before been based mainly upon practical knowledge.<br />
<br />
Continuing my search, I found myself attracted to other social iconoclasts or image-destroyers, and to their attacks upon established beliefs. I remember staying up all night reading Max Nordau’s Conventional Lies of Our Civilization, being thrilled by his castigation of middle class hypocrisy, prejudices and philistinism. Moving on to the contemporary scene, I discovered H.L. Mencken, “The Sage of Baltimore,” and his “smart set” crowd.<br />
<br />
For a short while, I was an avid reader of the Mercury which he helped to establish in 1920 as a forum for his views, I was particularly delighted by his critical potshots at some of the most sacred cultural cows of what he called “the American Babbitry,” “boobocracy,” “anthropoid majority’--Menckenian sobriquets for middle class commoners. Mencken enjoyed a brief popularity among young Black radicals of the day who saw in his searing diatribes against WASP cultural idols ammunition with which to blast the claims of white supremacists. The novelty soon wore off as it became clear that Mencken’s type of iconoclasm posed no real challenge to the prevailing social structure, In fact, it was reactionary. He sought to replace destroyed idols with even more reactionary oncs, as I soon found out. <br />
<br />
Mencken’s philosophical mentor was none other than the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, prophet of the superman, of the aristocratic minority destined to rile over the unenlightened hoardes of Untermenschen—-the “perenially and inherently unequal majority of mankind.” Most Blacks then, including myself, who flirted with Mencken never accepted him fully. The one exception was George Schuyler of the Pittsburgh Courier, who took Mencken's snobbery and reactionary politics and made a career of them which has lasted for forty years.<br />
<br />
What confused me most were the contentions of the Social Darwinists, who claimed to be the authentic continuators of Darwin’s theories. Darwin had not dealt with the question of race per se, But it had seemed to me that his theory of evolution precluded the myth of race. How could Darwin's theory which had helped me finally and irrevocably throw aside the veil of mysticism and put the understanding of the descent of man within my grasp—how could this be used as an endorsement of racism? Perhaps I had been wrong? Was I reading into Darwin more than, what he implied?<br />
<br />
It was my brother Otto who finally cleared me up on this point. He and I were running in different circles, but we would meet from time to time and exchange notes. Otto pointed out that Social Darwinists had distorted Darwin by mechanically transferring the laws of existence among plants and animals to the field of social and human relations. Human society had its own laws, he asserted. Ah, what were those laws? That was the subject that I wanted to explore.<br />
<br />
“You ought to quit reading those bourgeois authors and start reading Marx and Engels,” Otto told me, suggesting also that I read Henry Lewis Morgan’s Ancient Society and the works of Redpath. ’<br />
<br />
About this time I got a job as a clerk at the Chicago Post Office. I heard that jobs were available and that veterans were given preference. Following the advice of friends, I approached S.L. Jackson of the Wabash Avenue YMCA, who at that time was a Black Republican stalwart with connections in the Madden political machine. Jackson gave me a note to some Post Office official in charge of employment. I passed the civil service examination, in which veterans were given a ten percent advantage, and was employed as a substitute clerk.<br />
<br />
The Post Office job in those days carried considerable prestige. It was almost the only clerical job open to Blacks. Postal workers, along with waiters, Pullman porters and tradesmen, were traditionally considered a part of the Black middle class. A number of prominent community leaders came from this group. Many officers of the old Eighth Illinois were postal employees, a good percentage of them mail-carriers.<br />
<br />
The Post Office became a refuge for poor Black students and unemployed university graduates, For some of the latter it was a sort of way-station on the road to their professional careers. Others remained, settling for regular Post Office careers. But even here opportunities were limited. Blacks held only a few supervisory positions, as advancement depended solely on the discretion of the white postmaster.<br />
<br />
On the job I found the work extremely boring. It consisted of standing before a case eight hours a night, sorting mail. All substitutes were relegated to the night shift. It took years to get on the day shift which was preempted by the veteran employees: On the other hand, I found the company of my new young fellow workers very stimulating.<br />
<br />
In those days the organization of Black postal employees was the Phalanx Forum. Before the war, the organization had played an important political and social role in the community. It was dominated by the conservative crowd of social climbers and political aspirants, who were the most active group among postal employees and had close ties with the local Republican machine.<br />
<br />
Their leadership was completely incffective with respect to the job issues of Black rank-and-file employees, and it had little or no influence over the younger group of new employees, which included many veterans and students. The gap between the old, conservative crowd and the new, youthful element was sharp. Among the latter a radical sentiment was growing.<br />
<br />
I was immediately attracted to this group among whom I was to find friends who seemed to be impelled by the same motivations as myself-—to find new answers to the problems afflicting our people. Most of those with whom I fraternized considered the postal job as temporary, a step to other careers. Our interest at the time, therefore, was not so much with the immediate economic or onthe-job needs of Black postal workers, but with the “race problem” generally. The drive for unionization of postal employees was to come later.<br />
<br />
The issue to which we addressed ourselves was the current campaign of white racist propaganda: how to counter it on the basis of scientific truth. We saw the network of racist lies as clearly aimed at justifying Black subjugation and destroying our dignity as a people. On this question we had long, endless discussions on the job while sorting mail, at rest, during lunch breaks and on Sundays when some of us would meet. I soon identified with what I considered the more vocal segment. Among our group of aspirant intellectuals there was a medical student, a couple of law students, a dentist (whom we all called “Doc”), students of education and some intellectually oriented workers like myself. On one Sunday when we had gathered, it was suggested, I think by Joc Mabley, that we organize ourselves as an informal discussion group, and that our purpose would be to answer the racist lies on the basis of scientific truth. The idea was instantly agreed upon.<br />
<br />
The discussion circle was loosely organized, not more than a dozen participants in all, and bent on finding answers. The moving spirits of the group were John Heath, Joe Mabley and “Doc.”<br />
<br />
Heath was a tall, light-complexioned man with high cheekbones. He was a graduate student in the field of education, anda man whose sterling character and keen intellect we all respected. Then there was Joc Mabley, a brilliant, small Black man. He had large velvety eyes and was a college dropout. He was married and had a family-—two or three children—and had settled down to a regular Post Office job, He and Doe were the only regular postal workers in our group—the rest of us being suhstitutes. Doc had set up an office on the Southside and was trying hard to build upa clientele while working night shifts.<br />
<br />
Originally we had planned to meet every Sunday at noon as the most convenient time for the fellows on our shift. The meeting places were to alternate between the homes or apartments of the members. When we got to procedure, the group would choose a topic of discussion and ask for volunteers or assign a member to make introductory reports, He would then have a week to prepare the report, Our original plans included the eventual organization of a forum in which the issues of the day could be debated, and the holding of social affairs. All of this proved to be too ambitious, We found it impractical to have weekly meetings and finally agreed that twice a month was more feasible. The forum idea never got off the ground.<br />
<br />
Among us I think we had most of the answers on the question of race, that is, to all but the big lie, the onc that was most convincing to the white masses and is the cornerstone on which the whole structure stood or fell: the assertion that Blacks have no history.<br />
<br />
A leading formulator of the lie at that time was John Burgess, professor of political science and history at Columbia University:<blockquote>T'''he claim that there is nothing in the color of the skin from the point of view of political ethics is a great sophism. A black skin means membership in a race of men which has never of itself’ succeeded in subjecting passion to reason, has never, therefore, created any civilization of any kind.'''</blockquote>We wanted to refute the slanders on the basis of scientific truth. For this, we needed more ammunition and better weapons, particularly in the field of history. It was ahout this time that I met George Wells Parker, a brilliant young Black graduate student from Omaha’s Creighton University. I was introduced to him by my brother Otto, who had known him in Omaha. He was in Chicago to visit relatives and to conduct research for his dissertation. His major was history, I believe. We found him a virtual storehouse of knowledge on the race question, especially Black history. His major objective in life was apparently to refute the prevalent racist lies and to huild Black dignity and pride, He possessed wide knowledge and seemed to have read everything.<br />
<br />
Parker called our attention to the writings of the great anthropologist Franz Boas; the Egyptologist Virchow; to Max Mueller (philologist who formulated the Aryan myth and then rejected it); to the Frenchman Jean Finot; to Sir Harry Johnstone (British authority on African history); and to the Italian Giuseppe Serg and his theory of the Mediterranean races, arefutation of the Aryan mythology. Proponents of this myth claimed all civilizations—Indian, Near East, Egyptians—as Aryan, One wonders why the Chinese were left out, but then that would have been too palpable a fraud! It was Parker who called our attention to Herodotus (ancient Greek historian) who had described the Egyptians of his time (around 400 B.C.) as “Black and with woolly hair.”<br />
<br />
Otto and I introduced Parker to friends and acquaintances, and I, of course, to our discussion circle. He spoke before numerous groups. Everywhere there was hunger for his knowledge. Weeven brought him before the Bugs Club Forum in Washington Park, where he led a discussion on the race question. <br />
<br />
This brilliant young man returned to Omaha to resume his studies. The next winter he was dead. We heard it was the result of a mental breakdown. Thus was a brilliant career cut short and a potentially great scholar lost. Surviving, I believe, was only one brief paper and some notes.<br />
<br />
=== GARVEY’S BACK TO AFRICA MOVEMENT ===<br />
But time and tide did not stand still to wait for our answers to the social problems of the day, or for the results of our intellectual researches. While we sought arguments with which to counter the racist thrust, the masses were forging their own weapons. Their growing resistance was finally to erupt on the political scene in the grcatest mass movement of Blacks since Reconstruction,<br />
<br />
Great masses of Blacks found the answer in the Back to Africa program of the West Indian Marcus Garvey. Under his aegis this movement was eventually diverted from the encmy at home into utopian Zionistic channels of peaceful return to Africa and the establishment of a Black state in the ancestral land.<br />
<br />
The organizational course of the movement was Garvey’s Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA). He first launched this organization in Jamaica, British West Indies, in 1914. Coming to the USA, he founded its first section in New York City in 1917. The organization grew rapidly during the war and the immediate post-war period, At its height in the early twenties, it claimed a membership of half a million. While estimates of the organization's membership vary-—from half a million to a million—it was the largest organization in the history of U.S. Blacks. There can be no doubt that its influence extended to millions who identified wholly or partially with its programs.<br />
<br />
What in Garvey’s program attracted these masses?<br />
<br />
Garvey was a charismatic leader and in that tradition best articulated the sentiments and yearnings of the masses of Black people. In his UNIA he also created the vehicle for their organization, Equally important, he was a master at understanding how to use pageantry, ritual and ceremony to provide the Black peasantry with psychological relief from the daily burdens of their oppression. His apparatus included such high sounding titles as potentate, supreme deputy potentate, knights of the Nile, knights of distinguished service, the order of Ethiopia, the dukes of Nigeria and Uganda. There were Black gods and Black angels and a flag of black, red and green: “Black for the race, Red for their blood and Green for their hopes.”<br />
<br />
The movement’s program was fully outlined in the historic Declaration of Rights of the Negro Peoples of the World, adopted at the first convention of the organization in New York City August 13, 1920. In the manner of the Nation of Islam and its publication Muhammad Speaks (Bilalian News), the program of Garvey combined a realistic assessment of the conditions facing Blacks with a fantasy and mystification about the solution. Along with the Back to Africa slogan, the document contained a devastating indictment of the plight of the Black peoples in the United States. Expressing the militancy of its delegates, it called for opposition to the incquality of wages betwecn Blacks and whites, it protested their cxclusion from unions, their deprivation of land, taxation without representation, unjust military service, and Jim Crow laws.<br />
<br />
Anticipating the Black Power Revolt of the sixties, the document called for “complete control of our social institutions without the interference of any other race or races.” Reflecting the rising worldwide anti-colonial movement of the period, it called for self-determination of peoples and repudiated the loosely formed League of Nations, declaring its decisions “null and void as far as the Blacks were concerned because it seeks to deprive them of their independence.” This latter point was in reference to the assignment of mandates to European powers over African territories wrested from the Germans.<br />
<br />
Through this atmosphere of militancy, expressing the desire of the masses to defend their rights at home, ran the incongruent theme of Back to Africa. Declared Garvey:<blockquote>'''Being satisfied to drink of the dregs from the cup of human progress will not demonstrate our fitness as a people to exist alongside others, but when of our own initiative we strike out to build industries, governments, and ultimately empires (sic), then and only then, will we as a race prove to our Creator and to man in general that we are fit to survive and capable of shaping our own destiny.'''<br />
<br />
'''Wake up, Africa! Let us work toward the one glorious end of a free, redeemed, and mighty nation. Let Africa be a bright star among the constellation of nations.'''</blockquote>Who were Garvey’s followers?<br />
<br />
Garvey's Zionistic message was beamed mainly to the submerged Black peasantry, especially its uprooted vanguard, the new migrants in such industrial centers as New York City, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago and St. Louis. These masses made up the rank and file of the movement. They were embittered and disillusioned by racist terror and unemployment, and saw in Garvey’s program of Back to Africa the fulfillment of their yearnings for land and freedom to be guaranteed by a government of their own.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, Garveyism was the trend of a section of the ghetto lower middle classes, small businessmen, shopkeepers, property holders who were pushed to the wall, ruined or threatened with ruin by the ravages of the post-war crisis, Also attracted to Garveyism were the frustrated and unemployed Black intelligentsia: professionals, doctors, lawyers with impoverished clientele, storefront preachers who had followed their flocks to the promised land of the north, and poverty stricken students.<br />
<br />
Garveyism reflected the desperation of these strata before the ruthless encroachments of predatory white corporate interests upon their already meager markets. It reflected an attempt by them to escape from the sharpening racist oppression, the terror of race riots, the lynchings, economic and social frustrations. It was from these strata that the movement drew its leadership cadres.<br />
<br />
The immediate pecuniary interests of this element were expressed in the form of ghetto enterprises, the organization of a whole network of cooperative enterprises, including grocery stores, laundries, restaurants, hotels and printing plants. The most ambitious was the Black Star Steamship Line. Several ships were purchased and trade relations were established with groups in the West Indies and Africa, including the Republic of Liberia.<br />
<br />
The New York City division comprised a large segment of the intensely nationalistic West Indian immigrants. West Indians were prominent in the leadership, in Garvey's close coterie, and in the organization’s inner councils. There can be no doubt of the considerable influence of this element on the organization. But the attempt on the part of some writers to brand the movement as a foreign import with no indigenous roots is superficial and without foundation in fact. It is clear that Garveyism had both a social and economic base in Black society of the twenties. Nor was Garvey’s nationalism a new trend among Blacks—nationalist currents had repeatedly emerged, going back even before the Civil War.<br />
<br />
A key role in the movement was also played by deeply disillusioned Black veterans who had fought an illusory battle to “make the world safe for democracy” only to return to continued and even harsher slavery. Veterans were involved in the setting up of the skeleton army for the future African state, and in such paramilitary organizations as the Universal African Legion, the Universal Black Cross Nurses, the African Motor Corps and the Black Eagle Flying Corps. Many Black radicals—even some socialistically inclined—were swept into thé Garvey movement, attracted by its militancy.<br />
<br />
Despite his hostility toward local communists, Garvey seemed to regard the Soviet experience with some favor-at least in the early years of his movement. This probably reflected the sentiments of many of his followers. As late as 1924, in an editorial in the Negro World, he publicly mourned the passing of Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union, calling him “probably the world’s greatest man between 1917 and ...1924.” On that occasion, he sent a cable to Moscow “expressing the sorrow and condolence of the 400,000,000 Negroes of the world.”<br />
<br />
‘The Garvey movement revealed the wide rift between the policies of the traditional upper class of the NAACP and associates, and the life needs of the sorely oppressed people. It represented a mass rejection of the policies and programs of this leadership, which during the war had built up false hopes and now offered no tangible proposals for meeting the rampant anti-Black violence and joblessness of the post-war period. This mood was expressed by Garvey, who denounced the whole upper class leadership, claiming that they were motivated solely by the drive for assimilation and banked their hopes for equality on the support of whites—all classes of whom, he contended, were the Black man’s enemy. The policy of this leadership, he maintained, was a policy of compromise.<br />
<br />
It was in these conditions that Garvey, as thespokesman for the new ghetto petty bourgeoisie, seized leadership of the incipient Black revolt and diverted it into the blind alley of utopian escapism.<br />
<br />
My contact with the movement was limited. [ had never seen Garvey. I had missed his appearance in 1919 at the Eighth Regiment Armory. I never visited the organization’s Liberty Hall headquarters. In Chicago, the movement seemed to spring up overnight, I first took serious notice of it in 1920. I listened to its orators on street corners, watched its spectacular parades through the Southside streets, The black, red and green flag of the movement was carried at the head of the parade. The parades were lively and snappy; marching were the African Legion and the Universal Black Cross Nurses in their spotless white uniforms and white veils, All marched in step with a band. It was quite impressive, but to me it was unreal and had little or no relevance to the actual problems that confronted Blacks.<br />
<br />
From the first, the Garvey movement met heavy opposition in Chicago, The powerful Chicago Defender, edited by Robert S. Abbott, took the lead. If not the world’s greatest weekly as its masthead proclaimed, it had great influence among Chicago and Sofithern Blacks, due to its role in promoting the migration to the north. It was widely read in the South where a daily newspaper of Athens, Georgia, called it “the greatest disturbing element that has yet entered Georgia.” The Defender was relentless in its attack, throwing scorn and contempt on the movement and Garvey himself.<br />
<br />
In addition to The Defender’s attacks, the so-called Abyssinia Affair in the summer of 1920 served to discredit the movement. The Star Order of Ethiopia and Ethiopian Missionaries to Abyssinia was an extremist split off from Chicago’s UNIA branch. The leaders of the group held a parade and rally on Thirty-fifth and Indiana. Speakers clad in loud African costume called upon the crowd to return to their African ancestral land.<br />
<br />
To show their scorn for the U.S., they burned an American flag, and when white policemen sought to intervene, the Abyssinians shot and killed two white men and wounded a third. This incident was blown up in the white press as an armed rebellion of Blacks. It was condemned on ali sides in the Black community and by its leaders, including the editors of The Defender, who helped authorities in capturing the Abyssinian dissidents.<br />
<br />
Despite its repudiation by the official Garvey organization, the Abyssinian affair served to muddy the Garvey image in Chicago. I was working on the New York Central at the time and heard a graphic account of the affair from my aunts when I arrived intown the next day. They lived right around the corner on Indiana Avenue.<br />
<br />
Despite the hostile Black press and the Abyssinian affair, the UNIA grew. At its height, it claimed a Chicago membership of 9,000 devoted followers. This is probably exaggerated, but there is no doubt that the sympathizers numbered in the tens of thousands.<br />
<br />
Our Sunday discussion group underestimated the significance of the Garvey movement and the strength it was later to reveal. We regarded it as a transient phenomenon. We applauded some of the cultural aspects of the movement—Garvey’s emphasis on race pride, dignity, self-reliance, his exultation of things Black. This was all to the good, we felt. However, we rejected in its entirety the Back to Africa program as fantastic, unreal and a dangerous diversion which could only lead to desertion of the struggle for our rights in the USA. This was our country, we strongly felt, and Blacks should not waive their just claims to equality and justice in the land to whose wealth and greatness we and our forefathers had made such great contributions.<br />
<br />
Finally, we could not go along with Garvey’s idea about inherent racial antagonisms between Black and white. This to us seemed equivalent to ceding the racist enemy one of his main points. While it is true that I personally often wavered in the direction of race against race, I was not prepared to accept the idea as a philosophy. It did not jibe with my experience with whites.<br />
<br />
While rejecting Garvey’s program, our ideas for a viable alternative were still vague and unformed. The most important effect the Garvey movement had on us was that it put into clear focus the questions to which we sought answers.<br />
<br />
Who were the enemies of the Black freedom struggle? While Garvey claimed the cntire white race was the enemy, it did not escape us that he was inconsistent, being soft on white capitalists. His main target was clearly white labor and the trade union movement. According to Garvey:<blockquote>'''It seems strange and a paradox, but the only convenient friend the Negro worker or laborer has, in America, at the present time, is the white capitalist. The capitalist being selfish---seeking only the largest profit out of labor-—is willing and glad to use Negro labor wherever possible on a scale “reasonably” below the standard white union wage....but, if the Negro unionizes himself to the level of the white worker... the choice and preference of employment is given to the white worker...'''<br />
<br />
'''If the Negro takes my advice he will organize by himself and always keep his scale of wage a little lower than the whites until he is able to become, through proper leadership, his own employer; by doing so he will keep the good will of the white employer and live a little longer under the present scheme of things.'''</blockquote>There was no doubt that Garvey was voicing the sentiments of the vast mass of new migrant workers. And it was not that we had any compunction about strikebreaking in industries from which Blacks were barred. In fact, that had been one of the ways Blacks broke into industries such as stockyards and steel. We were also keenly aware of the Jim Crow policies of the existing trade union leadership and of the anti-Black prejudices rampant among white workers. But in casting Blacks permanently into the role of strikebreakers, Garvey was helping to further divide an already polarized situation and playing into the hands of businessmen, bankers, factory owners and the reactionary leadership of the trade unions,<br />
<br />
My own experience with unions in the waiters’ trade was bad. Old waiters would tell us how in the first part of the century they had listened to the siren call of white union leaders. They had gone out on strike, ostensibly to better their conditions, only to find their jobs immediately taken by whites. This had been quite a serious blow because at that time, Black waiters had had jobs in most of the best hotels and in a number of fine restaurants. It is therefore understandable that in 1920, we Black waiters felt not the slightest pang of conscience in taking over the jobs of white waiters on strike at the Marygold Gardens (the old Bismark Gardens) on the Northside, one of the swankiest night spots in Chicago, It was also probably the best waiter’s job in town; in fact, so good that some of the German captains who remained on the job used to drive to and from work in Cadillacs. The strike was broken after several months, and Blacks were turned out.<br />
<br />
Strikebreaking to me was not a philosophy or principle as Garvey contended, but an expedient forced upon Blacks by the Jim Crow policies of the bosses and the unions.<br />
<br />
Even as Garvey was putting forward such views, times were beginning to change. Large numbers of Blacks had been brought into industry during the war and had joined unions, especially in steel and the packing houses. A new industrial unionism was developing and raising the slogan of Black and white labor unity.<br />
<br />
My sister Eppa’s experiences in 1919 at Swift Packing Company were a case in point, She was one of the first Black women to join the union during the organizing drive of the Stockyards Labor Council, which was headed by two communists-—-William Z. Foster and Jack Johnstone. The drive was supported by John Fitzpatrick, chairman of the Chicago Federation of Labor and a bitter foe of the Jim Crow machine of Samuel Gompers’ AFL. Despite inevitable racial tensions fostered by the employers, Eppa had seen the basic unity of interest between all workers and felt strongly that the union was the best place to fight for the interests of Black workers.<br />
<br />
In looking back at our study of the Garvey movement, it must be evaluated in light of the fact that it was our first confrontation with nationalism as a mass movement. Our mistake, which I was to find out later through my own experience and study of nationalist movements, resulted from the failure to understand the contradictory nature of the nationalism of oppressed peoples. This contradiction or dualism was inherent in the inter-class character of these movements once they assume a popular mass form.<br />
<br />
‘They comprise various classes and social groupings with conflicting interests, tendencies and motives, all gathered under the unifying banner of national liberation, each with its own concept of that goal and how it should be attained. These conflicts, at first submerged, surface as the movement develops.<br />
<br />
‘They are expressed in two main currents (tendencies) within the movement. First of all, there is the nationalism which reflects the interests of the basic masses~-workers and peasants—-determined to fight for liberation against the oppressor of the nation. Then there is the nationalism of the Black bourgeoisie who, while at time in conflict with the white oppressors, tend toward compromise and accommodation to protect their own weak position.<br />
<br />
From the very beginning this dualism was reflected in the Garvey movement. A highly vocal and aggressively dominant current within the movement was the drive of the small business, professional and intellectual elements for a Black controlled economy. They sought fulfillment of this goal through withdrawal to Africa where they envisioned establishment of their own State, their right to exploit their own masses free from the overwhelming competition of dominant white capital. (A historical example of this can be seen in Liberia.) They thought they could accomplish this, presumably with the acquiescence of the American white rulers, and even the active support of some.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, there was a grass-roots nationalism of the masses, the uprooted, dispossessed soil-tillers of the South; their poverty-ridden counterparts in the slum ghettos of the cities. ‘These masses saw in the Black nationalist state fulfillment of their age-old yearnings for land, equality and freedom through power in their own hands to guarantee and protect these freedoms. It was this indigenous, potentially revolutionary nationalism that Garvey diverted with his Back to Africa slogan.<br />
<br />
We failed to recognize the objective conflict of interests between these class components of the movement, equating the social and political aims of the ghetto nationalists, the bourgeoisie, to that of the masses~-condemning the whole as reactionary, escapist and utopian.<br />
<br />
These were the internal contradictions upon which the movement was to flounder and finally collapse. They were brought to a head by the subsiding of the post-war economic depression, the ushering in of the “boom,” and subsequent easing of the plight of Blacks, the partial adjustment of migrants to their new environment and their partial absorption into industry.<br />
<br />
The main contradiction inherent in the Garvey movement from its very beginning had been the conflict between the needs of the masses to defend and advance their rights in the USA and the fantastic Back to Africa schemes of the Garvey leadership. Garvey’s emphasis on these fantastic schemes reflected his resolution of the conflict in favor of business interests and against the interests of the masses. The resources and energy of the organization were increasingly diverted to support racial business enterprises such as the Black Star Line and the Negro Factories Corporation. The concentration on selling stock for the Black Star Steamship Line by the UNIA leadership from 1921 on neglected the immediate needs of the masses and began to erode the base of support.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, Garvey’s response to the crisis in the movement exposed the dangerously reactionary logic of a program based upon complete separation of the races and its acceptance of the white racist doctrine of natural racial incompatibility. Pursuing the logic of this idea against the backdrop of the organization's decline inevitably drove Garvey into an alliance of expediency with the most rabid segregationists and race bigots of the period.<br />
<br />
Thus, in 1922, Garvey sought the support of Edward Young Clark, the imperial giant of the Ku Klux Klan. This “meeting of the minds” between Garvey and the Klan was not fortuitous. It was an open secret that it took place on the basis of Garvey’s agreement to soft-pedal the struggle for equality in the U.S. in return for help in the settlement of Blacks in Africa. This ideological kinship arose from the mutual acceptance of the racist dogma of natural incompatibility of races, race purity and so forth.<br />
<br />
In 1924 Garvey went so far seeking support for his Back to Africa program as to invite John Powell, organizer of the AngloSaxon Clubs, and other prominent racists to speak at UNIA headquarters. Garvey also publicly praised the KKK. According to W.E.B. DuBois, the Kian issued circulars defending Garvey and declared that the opposition to him was from the Catholic Church. In the late thirties, Senator Bilbo of Mississippi introduced a bill to deport thirteen million Blacks to Africa and received the support of the remnants of the Garvey organization.<br />
<br />
The final curtain was to drop on the Garvey episode with the failure of the Black Star Linc. The movement was torn by factionalism and splits, with some of the leadership and remaining rank and file demanding that the domestic fight for equal rights be emphasized over the Back to Africa scheme of Garvey. The internal struggle drove many out of the organization and others into a multitude of splinter groups, each a variation of Garveyism itself. Taking advantage of this disarray, the government moved in.<br />
<br />
In 1925, Garvey was framed on charges of using the mail to defraud in connection with the sale of stocks for the Black Star Line and was sent to the Atlanta federal prison for two years. He was deported to the West Indies upon release from prison. This debacle marked the end of Garveyism as an important mass movement, although the offshoots continued to exist in numbers of smaller groups advocating Garvey’s theory.<br />
<br />
At the time, I had taken Garvey’s peculiar brand as representing nationalism in general and had simply rejected the whole ideology as a foreign import with no roots in the conditions of U.S. Blacks, Seeing only the negative features of nationalism in the UNIA, I was blind to the progressive and potentially revolutionary aspects which were to prove so important in my own later development.<br />
<br />
Thus, the great movement that Garvey built passed into history. But nationalism, as a mass trend, persisted in the Black freedom struggle. Existing side by side with the assimilationist trend, it was eclipsed by the latter in so-called normal times while flaring up in times of stress and crisis.<br />
<br />
The Garvey movement was the U.S. counterpart of the vast upsurge of national and colonial liberation struggles which swept the world during the war and post-war period. In this period, masses of Blacks had come to consider themselves as an oppressed nation. Garvey’s ability to capture leadership of this nationalist upsurge by default was the result of the immaturity of the revolutionary forces, Black and white. The collapse of the Garvey movement proved conclusively that the petty bourgeois ghetto nationalist current, left to itself, led only to a hopeless blind alley. Unfortunately the forces which could give Black nationalism revolutionary content and direction were only in the process of formation.<br />
<br />
The Black working class and its spokesmen had not yet arrived on the scene as an independent force in the Black community and, therefore, was not capable of challenging either the assimilationist leadership of the NAACP or the ghetto nationalism of Garvey. Its counterparts among radical, class-conscious white labor were waging an uphill fight against the Jim Crow-minded AFL bureaucracy led by the Gompers machine. ‘These radical sections of white labor were not yet clear as to the significance of the Black freedom struggle as a revolutionary force in its own right and regarded it simply as a part of the general labor question. Coalescence of these two forces was then a decade away, destined not to take place until the crisis of the thirties.<br />
<br />
The preceding analysis is hindsight. I didn't realize the significance of Garvey’s movement until a few years later, when, as a student in Moscow, I was assigned to a commission to prepare a resolution on the Negro question in the USA for the Sixth Congress of the Communist International in 1928. It was in the course of these discussions that I came to the recognition of nationalism as an authentic and potentially revolutionary trend in the movement.<br />
<br />
The assimilationist programs of the NAACP had been easy to reject. Garvey was somewhat more difficult. But while the Garvey movement was forcing me to a consideration of nationalism (which at the time I also rejected) I could not help but notice the other political developments of the period.<br />
<br />
Most conspicuous was the concerted and vicious attack being carried out against white radicals and the trade union movement. The same forces appeared to be behind the Palmer raids of 1919 and 1920, behind the wave of racism and behind the violent union and strike busting which took place. The foreigners who were being deported, the radicals who were imprisoned and the workers throughout the country who were attacked by Pinkerton “private armies,” were white as well as Black. In Chicago, the strikes at the stockyards and the steel mills in the area particularly attracted my attention.<br />
<br />
For me, the Garvey movement, the racists’ assault and the attacks on labor and the radical movement sharpened my political perceptions. The racial fog lifted and the face and location of the enemy was clearly outlined. I began to see that the main beneficiaries of Black subjugation also profited from the social oppression of poor whites, native and foreign-born.<br />
<br />
The enemy was those who controlled and manipulated the levers of power; they were the super-rich, white moneyed interests who owned the nation’s factories and banks, and thus controlled its wealth, They were known by many names: the corporate elite; the industrial, financial (and robber) barons; ete. Chicago was the home base of a significant segment of this ruling class. <br />
<br />
Here the chain of command was clear: on the political side, it extended from city hall down to the lowliest wardheeler and precinct captain and was tied in at all levels with organized crime, On the economic side, it was represented by such employer organizations as the Chicago Chamber of Commerce, by trade associations and by top management in the giant industrial plants, railroads, big commercial establishments, banks, utilities and insurance firms, Their chain of command extended down to the foremen and department heads, and on-the-job supervisors. <br />
<br />
These levers of power also controlled education, the media, the arts and all law enforcement agencies, both military and police, At the bottom of this pyramid and hearing its weight were the working people who toiled in the steel mills, the packing plants, the railway yards, and the thousands of other sweatshops. Lowliest among these were the Blacks, pushed to the very bottom by the “divide and rule” policy of the corporate giants and their henchmen, and the complimentary Jim Crow policies and practices of the AFL trade union bureaucracy.<br />
<br />
=== PASSAGES ===<br />
Our postal discussion circle, which had held together scarcely three months, was breaking up. Heath, our chairman and recognized leader, was leaving. He had played the greatest role in keeping the group together. Now he had taken a job at some college in Virginia, his native state.<br />
<br />
Differences had already developed in the group, and with Heath gone, the possibilities for reconciling them seemed slim. These differences, as I recall, were not of a political or ideological nature. ‘They were seldom expressed in the open, but were reflected in the opposition of some members to proposals for enlarging the group and moving it into the outside political arena. This opposition evidently reflected the desire of some members to retain the group as a narrow discussion circle with membership restricted by tacit understanding to those whom they, considered their intellectual peers. It seemed to me they sought to reduce it to a sort of elitist mutual admiration society. As a result of this sectarian attitude, the group hardly grew beyond its original membership of a dozen or so.<br />
<br />
There was no doubt, though, that our association had been mutually beneficial. All of us had grown in political understanding and awareness. But up to the time of Heath’s departure, we had advanced no program for putting our newly acquired political understanding into practice. Our original plans for the organization of a forum to debate the issues of the day never got off the ground. We had not developed a program for involvement in the struggles of the community, nor, for that matter, in the immediate on-the-job problems of Black postal employees. We never even got around to deciding on a name for the group. One suggestion, that we call ourselves the “New Negro Forum,” was never acted upon.<br />
<br />
Heath, Mabley, Doe and myself were beginning to feel the pull from the outside, the need for a broader political arena of activity, to play a more active role in the community. We were the ones who most often attended radical forums and lectures and kept abreast of what was going on in the Southside community. We often went to the Bugs Club in Washington Park (Chicago’s equivalent of London's Hyde Park), and the Dill Pickle Club on the Northside which was run by the anarchist Jack Jones.<br />
<br />
Heath had gone. Mabley refused the chairmanship, pleading that he was tied down by his family and could not take on additional responsibilities. Doe refused to accept the honor; he was similarly tied down by his job and dental practice. But the real reason for their refusal, which they were to confide to me later, was that they had lost confidence in the group. Without Heath, they saw no future role for it. Like myself, they were attracted to the broader movement, I also declined, giving as my excuse that I was quitting the Post Office in a few days and was going back to my old job on the railroad. A chairman pro-tem was chosen; I don’t remember who.<br />
<br />
I continued my reading along the lines which Otto had suggested. Among the books I read were Henry Morgan’s Ancient Society (which Engels had used as the basis for Origins of the Family), Gustavus Meycr’s History of the Great American Fortunes, John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook the World and Jack London’s The Iron Heel.<br />
<br />
I also kept abreast of world events, reading about Lenin and Trotsky in revolutionary Russia. I followed the post-war colonial rebellions of Sun Yat-sen’s China, Gandhi in India, Ataturk in Turkey, the rebellion of the Riff tribes in Morocco led by Abdul Krim. There were rumblings in black Africa—strikes and demonstrations against colonial oppression. One heard such names as Kadelli and Gumede of the South African National Congress, and of Sandino in Nicaragua who fought the U.S. Marines for many years,<br />
<br />
My fect were getting itchy. I was fed up with the Post Office and the excruciatingly monotonous nature of the work. At the same time, the night shift cramped my social life as well as my growing need for broader political activity. I quit the job without regret.<br />
<br />
Soon after, I started work as a waiter on the Santa Fe’s Chief, the company’s crack train running to Los Angeles. It was an eightday run: three days to the coast, with a two-day layover in Los Angeles and three days back. Our crew would make three trips a month, and a layover one trip (eight days) in Chicago. This schedule gave me approximately twelve free days a month in Chicago---time enough for both political and social life. It was a hard job, but good money for those days and exciting after the drab routine of the Post Office.<br />
<br />
Los Angeles, “Sweet Los,” as we used to call it. The Santa Fe boys, all “big spenders,” were very popular with the girls. A bevy would show up to meet us at the station every trip.<br />
<br />
I was to remain on that run three years, which up to that time was the longest I had ever remained on one job. Upon my return from the first trip, I called Mabley and he informed me that he thought the discussion circle had dissolved. Only one or two guys showed up at the next scheduled meeting, and the pro-tem chairman himself was absent. It was dead.<br />
<br />
My political development continued nevertheless, The runs on the Santa Fe gave ample time for discussion with my fellow crew members. Most of them, though somewhat older, were as aware as those at the Post Office with whom I had worked. I also continued to read, now studying The Communist Manifesto, Engels’ Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, and Marx’s Value, Price and Profit.<br />
<br />
The first stage of my political search was near an end. In the years since I had mustered out of the Army, I had come from being a disgruntled Black ex-soldier to being a self-conscious revolutionary looking for an organization with which to make revolution.<br />
<br />
For three years I had listened in lecture halls, at rallies and in Washington Park to a spate of orators each claiming to meet the challenge of the times. They included the great “people’s lawyer” Clarence Darrow; Judge Fisher of the reform movement; the socialist leader Victor Berger and sundry other members of his party; the anarchist Ben Reichman, Ben Fletcher, the Black IWW orator and organizer, and assorted Garveyites. Although some had their points—for example, the fighting spirit and sincerity of the IWW impressed me-—I rejected them all.<br />
<br />
In the spring of 1922, I approached my brother Otto, whom I knew had joined the Workers (Communist) Party shortly after its inception in 1921. I told him that I wanted to join the Party.<br />
<br />
The fact that Otto was in the Party and had advised me from time to time on my reading had undoubtedly influenced my decision, I had a generally favorable impression of the Black communists I knew; men like Otto, the Owens brothers and Edward Doty. I was also impressed by whites like Jim Early, Sam Hammersmark, Robert Minor and his wife, Lydia Gibson. What added great weight to my favorable impression of the communists, however, was their political identity with the successful Bolshevik Revolution.<br />
<br />
At the time it happened, I had been taken totally unaware of its significance, I first heard of it during an incident that occurred in France in August 1918. My regiment, while marching into positions on the Soissons sector, had paused fora rest. On one side of the road there was a high barbed wire fence and behind it loitered groups of soldiers in strange uniforms. Upon closer observation, it became clear that they were prisoners. They spoke in a strange tongue, but we understood from their gestures that they were asking for cigarettes, A number of us immediately responded, offering them some from our packs.<br />
<br />
When we asked who they were, one of them replied in halting English that they were Russian Cossacks. He explained that their division, which had been fighting on the western front, had been withdrawn from the lines, disarmed and placed in quarantine, They were considered unreliable, he said, because of the revolution in Russia. At the time, I was not even sure of the meaning of the word revolution—some kind of civil disorder I conjectured. Giving the matter no further thought, we resumed our march. It was not until I had returned from France that I began reading about the Russian Revolution. From then on, I followed its course, and despite the distorted view in the U.S. press, its significance slowly dawned on me.<br />
<br />
Here, I felt, was a tangible accomplishment and real power. Along with other Black radicals, I was impressed-—just as a later generation came to look at China, Cuba and Vietnam as models of successful struggle against tyranny, colonialism and oppression.<br />
<br />
Thus, I was particularly attracted to the communists. True, the Party was largely white in its racial composition, with only a handful of Black members. I felt, nevertheless, that it comprised the best and most sincerely revolutionary and internationally minded elements among white radicals,and therefore formed the basis for the revolutionary unity of Blacks and whites. This was so, I believed, because it was a part of a world revolutionary movement uniting Chinese, Africans and Latin Americans with Europeans and North Americans through the Third Communist International.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks had destroyed the czarist rule, established the first workers’ state, and breached the world system of capitalism over a territory comprising more than one-sixth of the earth’s surface. Most impressive as far as Blacks were concerned was that the revolution had laid the basis for solving the national and racial questions on the basis of complete freedom for the numerous nations, colonial peoples and minorities formerly oppressed by the czarist empire. Moscow had now become the focus of the colonial revolution. In the turbulence of those days, there seerned every reason to think that the energy unleashed in Russia would carry the revolution throughout the world.<br />
<br />
In the U.S., the deluge of lies and distortions by the media, the red baiting, the Palmer raids, had not been able to hide this monumental achievement of the Russian Bolsheviks. The uninformed Black man in the street could reason that a phenomenon that evoked such fear and hatred on the part of the white supremacist rulers “couldn't be all bad.” As for me, the socialist victory confirmed my belief in the Bolshevik variety of socialism as a way out for U.S. Blacks.<br />
<br />
I found the theory behind this achievement all there in Lenin’s State and Revolution. He developed and applied the theories of Marx and Engels on the role of the state and the dictatorship of the proletariat. This work was the single most important book I had read in the entire three years of my political search and was decisive in leading me to the Communist Party. In this work, Lenin clarified the nature of the state and the means by which to overthrow it. His approach seemed practical and realistic; it was no longer just abstract theory.<br />
<br />
Using Origins of the Family as a departure point, Lenin demystified and desanctified the myth of the state in capitalist society as an impartial monitor of human affairs. Rather, he exposed the state in capitalist society--and its apparatus of military, police, courts and prisons—as an instrument of ruling class domination, a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
It thus followed that the job of forcibly replacing the state power of the dominant class with that of the proletariat was the paramount and indispensable task of socialist revolution. As far as I could seé, the Soviet example appeared to offer a completely clear solution to the problems facing American workers, both Black and white. I saw the elimination of racism and the achievement of complete equality for Blacks as an inevitable by product of a socialist revolution in the United States, It was at this point that I became fully resolved to make my own personal commitment to the fight for a socialist United States.<br />
<br />
The first part of my odyssey was over.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
=== An Organization of Revolutionaries ===<br />
Otto was pleased when I first told him of my desire to join the Party in the summer of 1922. He said that he had known that that i had been ready to join for some time, but he suggested that i should wait a while before joining. When I asked why, he told me about an unpleasant situation that had arisen in the Party’s Southside branch.<br />
<br />
Most of the few Black members were concentrated in this English-speaking branch, but it seemed that a number of recent Black recruits had dropped out. They resented the paternalistic attitude displayed toward them by some of the white comrades who, Otto said, treated Blacks like children and seemed to think that the whites had all the answers, It was only a temporary situation, he assured me. The matter had been taken up before the Party District Committee; if it was not resolved there, they would take it to the Central Committee.<br />
<br />
“And if you don’t get satisfaction there?” I queried.<br />
<br />
“Well, then there’s the Communist International!” he teplied emphatically. “It’s as much our Party as it is theirs.”<br />
<br />
I was properly impressed by his sincerity and by the idea that we could appeal our case to the “supreme court” of international communism, which included such luminaries as the great Lenin.<br />
<br />
‘The Blacks who had remained in the Party had decided not to bring any new members into the branch until the matter was satisfactorily settled. I was rather surprised to hear all of this.<br />
<br />
Clearly, membership in the Party did not automatically free whites from white supremacist ideas. Nor, for that matter, did it free Blacks from their distrust of whites. Throughout my lifetime, I found that interracial solidarity--even in the Communist Party— required a continuous ideological struggle.<br />
<br />
Otto suggested that until the matter was cleared up I should join the African Blood Brotherhood. The ABB was a secret, all-Black, revolutionary organization to which some of the Black Party members belonged---including Otto. I later learned that the matter of white paternalism was eventually resolved to the satisfaction of the Black comrades. I don’t recall the details; I think that Arne Swabeck (the district organizer) or Robert Minor from the Central Committee finally came down and lectured the branch on the evils of race prejudice and threatened disciplinary action to the point of expulsion of comrades guilty of bringing bourgeois social attitudes into the Party.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, I took Otto’s advice and joined the African Blood Brotherhood. He took me to see Edward Doty, then commander of the Brotherhood’s Chicago Post. Vouched for by Otto and Doty, I was taken to a meeting of the membership committee and went through the induction ceremonies. This consisted of an African fraternization ritual requiring the mixing of blood between the applicant and one of the regular members. The organization took its name from this ritual. Doty performed the ceremony; he pricked our index fingers with a needlc (I hoped it was sterilized!) and when drops of blood appeared, he rubbed them together.<br />
<br />
Now a Blood Brother, I proceeded to take the Oath of Loyalty which contained a clause warning that divulging of any of the secrets of the organization was punishable by death. I was deeply impressed by all this; the atmosphere of great secrecy appealed to my romantic sense. There were two degrees of membership; one was automatically conferred upon joining and the second, which I took a few days later, involved the performance of some service for the organization. In my case, as I recall, it was a trivial task—-the selling of a dozen or so copies of its magazine, The Crusader.<br />
<br />
At the time that I joined the African Blood Brotherhood, I knew little about the organization other than the fact that it wasin some way associated with the Communist Party. I do remember having read a copy or two of The Crusader before I joined the group.<br />
<br />
Some of the history of the ABB I got from Otto and other post members, but most of it I found out much later when I met and worked with Cyril P. Briggs, the original founder of the group. The African Blood Brotherhood was founded in New York City in 1919 by a group of Black radicals under the leadership of Briggs. A West Indian (as were most of the founders), he was a former editor of the Amsterdam News, a Black New York newspaper. He quit in disagrcement over policy with the owner, who attempted to censor his anti-war editorials. Briggs’s own magazine. The Crusader, was established in 1919. The Brotherhood was organized around the magazine with Briggs as its executive head presiding over a supreme council.<br />
<br />
The group was originally conceived as the African Blood Brotherhood “for African liberation and redemption” and was later broadened to “for immediate protection and ultimate liberation of Negroes everywhere.” As it was a secret organization, it never sought broad membership. National headquarters were in New York. Its size never exceeded 3,000. But its influence was many times greater than this; the Crusader at one time claimed a circulation of 33,000.' There was also The Crusader News Service which was distributed to two hundred Black newspapers.<br />
<br />
Briggs, his associates--Richard B. Moore, Grace Campbell and others—-and The Crusader were among the vanguard forces for the New Negro movement, an ideological current which reflected the new mood of militancy and social awareness of young Blacks of the post-war period. In New York, the New Negro movement also included the radical magazine, The Messenger, edited by Chandler Owen and A. Philip Randolph, and The Emancipator, edited by W.A. Domingo. Many of the groups were members of the Socialist Party or close to it politically. They espoused “economic radicalism,” an over-simplificd interpretation of Marxism which, nevertheless, enabled them to see the economic and social roots of racial subjugation. Historically, theirs was the first serious attempt by Blacks to adopt the Marxist world view and the theory of class struggle to the problems of Black Americans.<br />
<br />
Within this broad grouping, however, there were differences which emerged later. Briggs was definitely a revolutionary nationalist; that is, he saw the solution of the “race problem” in the establishment of independent Black nation-states in Africa, the Caribbean and the United States, In America, he felt this could be achieved only through revolutionizing the whole country. This meant he saw revolutionary white workers as allies. These were elements of a program which he perceived as an alternative to Garvey’s plan of mass exodus.<br />
<br />
A self-governing Black state on U.S. soil was a novel idea for which Briggs sent up trial balloons in the form of editorials in the Amsterdam News in 1917, of which he was then editor. Shortly after the entrance of the United States into World War I, he wrote an editorial entitled “Security of Life for Poles and Serbs—Why Not for Colored Americans?”<br />
<br />
Briggs, however, had no definite idea for the location of the future “colored autonomous state,” suggesting at various times Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California or Nevada: Later, after President Wilson had put forth his fourteen points in January 1918, Briggs equated the plight of Blacks in the United States to nations occupied by Germany and demanded:<br />
<br />
'''With what moral authority or justice can President Wilson demand that eight million Belgians be freed when for his entire first term and to the present moment of his second term he has not lifted a finger for justice and liberty for over TEN MILLION colored people, a nation within a nation, a nationality oppressed and jim-crowed, yet worthy as any other people of a square deal or failing that, a separate political existence?'''<br />
<br />
He continued this theme in The Crusader. One year after the founding of the Brotherhood, Briggs shifted from the idea of a Black state on U.S. soil to the advocacy of a Black state in Africa, South America or the Caribbean, where those Blacks who wanted to could migrate. In this, he was undoubtedly on the defensive, giving ground to the overwhelming Garvey deluge then sweeping the national Black community. In 1921, Briggs was to link the struggle for equal rights of U.S. Blacks with the establishment of a Black state in Africa and elsewhere:<br />
<br />
Just as the Negro in the United States can never hope to win equal rights with his white neighbors until Africa is liberated and a strong Negro state (or states) erected on that continent, so, too, we can never liberate Africa unless, and until, the American Section of the Negro Race is made strong enough to play the part for a free Africa that the Irish in America now play for a free Ireland.<br />
<br />
The Brotherhood rejected Garvey’s racial separatism. They knew that Blacks needed allies and tied the struggle for equal rights to that of the progressive section of white labor. In the 1918-1919 elections, the Brotherhood supported the Socialist Party candidates, The Crusader and the ABB were ardent supporters of the Russian Revolution; they saw it as an opportunity for Blacks to identify with a powerful international revolutionary movement. It enabled them to overcome the isolation inherent in their position as a minority people in the midst of a powerful and hostile white oppressor nation. Thus, The Crusader called for an alliance with the Bolsheviks against race prejudice. In 1921, the magazine made its clearest formulation, linking the struggles of Blacks and other oppressed nations with socialism:<blockquote>'''The surest and quickest way, then, in our opinion, to achieve the salvation of the Negro is to combine the two most likely and feasihle propositions, viz.: salvation for all Negroes through the establishment of a strong, stable, independent Negro State (along the lines of our own race genius) in Africa and elsewhere: and salvation for all Negroes (as well as other oppressed people) through the establishment of a Universal Socialist Co-operative commonwealth.'''</blockquote>The split in the world socialist movement as a result of the First World War led to the formation of the Third (Communist) International in 1919. This split was reflected in the New Negro movement as well. Randolph and Owens, the whole Messenger crowd, remained with the social democrats of the Second International who were in opposition to the Bolshevik revolution. Members of The Crusader group--Briggs, Moore and others gravitated toward the Third International and eventually joined its American affiliate, the Communist Party. They were followed in the next year or two by Otto Hall, Lovett Fort-Whiteman and others.<br />
<br />
The decline of the African Blood Brotherhood in the early twenties and its eventual demise coincided with the growing participation of its leadership in the activities of the Communist Party. By 1923-24, the Brotherhood had ceased to exist as an autonomous, organized cxpression of the national revolutionary trend. Its leading members became communists or close sympathizers and its posts served as one of the Party’s recruiting grounds for Blacks.<br />
<br />
I first met Briggs upon my return from Russia in 1930. We were to strike up a lasting friendship--one that went beyond the comradeship of the Party and which extended over more than three decades, until his death in 1967. Throughout those years, we were associated on numerous projects and found ourselves on the same side of many political issues.<br />
<br />
When I first met Briggs, he conformed to the impression that I had been given of him: a tall, impressive-looking man—so light in complexion that he was often mistaken for white. He had a large head and bushy black eyebrows. He was a man possessed of great physical and moral courage, which I was to observe on many occasions. Briggs also had a fiery temper, which was usually controlled in the case of comrades or friends.<br />
<br />
He had one outstanding physical defect--he was a heavy stutterer. He stuttered so much that it often took him several scconds to get out the first word of a sentence, When he took the floor at meetings we would all listen attentively; no one would interrupt him because we knew he always had something important and pertinent to say. While he spoke we would cast our eyes down and look away from him to avoid making him feel self-conscious, though he never seemed to be.<br />
<br />
We noticed that he stuttered less when he was angry, One such occasion was when Garvey rejected Briggs’s offer of cooperation. The wily Garvey saw through the maneuver for what it was-—an attempt by Briggs to gain a position from which he could better attack him. Garvey lashed out at Briggs, calling him a “white man trying to pass himself off as a Negro.”<br />
<br />
Friends told me that this attack sent Briggs into such a rage that he mounted a soapbox at Harlem's 135th Strect and Lenox Avenue and assailed Garvey for two hours without a stutter, branding him a charlatan and a fraud. Not content with this verbal lashing of his enemy, Briggs hauled Garvey into court on the charge of defamation of character. He won the case, forcing Garvey to make a public apology and pay a fine of one dollar.<br />
<br />
Briggs’s real forte, however, was as a kecn polemicist, a veritable master of invective. His speech handicap was a pity, because aside from the stutter he had all the qualities of a good orator. Closely associated with Briggs was Richard B. Moore, a fine orator who did much public speaking for the ABB.<br />
<br />
What were the reasons for the decline of the ABB and its eventual absorption by the Communist Party? Why did Briggs fail to develop the program for Black self-determination in the USA? In the fifties, I had a series of talks with Briggs and asked his opinion on these questions.<br />
<br />
His overall appraisal of the role of the Brotherhood was that it was a forerunner of the contemporary national revolutionary trend and a very positive thing. “Of course, we didn’t stop Garvey,” he said, but “we were beginning to develop a revolutionary alternative. We did put a crimp in his sails,” Briggs added.<br />
<br />
For a while, the ABB had been a rallying center for left opposition to Garvey. Its membership included class-conscious Black workers and revolutionary intcllectuals and drew membership from both disillusioned Garveyites and radicals who never took to Garvey’s program in the first place. The main reason for de-emphasizing the idea of Black nationhood in the United States, Briggs stated, was the unfavorable relationship of forces then existing.<br />
<br />
Garvey, with his Back to Africa program, had preempted the leadership of the mass movement and corralled most of the militants. His hold over the masses was strengthened by the anti-Black violence of the Red Summer of 1919. This gave further credence to Garvey’s contention that the U.S. was a white man’s country where Blacks could never achieve equality. Indeed, for these masses, his program for a Black state in Africa to which American Blacks could migrate seemed far less utopian than the idea of a Black state on U.S. soil.<br />
<br />
As for the South, Briggs did not feel that such a region of entrenched racism could be projected realistically as a territorial focus of a Black nationalist state. It would not have been so accepted by the masses who were in flight from the area. For himself, he reasoned, the very idea of self-determination in the United States presupposed the support of white revolutionaries. That meant a revolutionary crisis in the country as a whole, and in that day no such prospect was in sight. In fact, white revolutionary forces were then small and weak, the target of the vicious anti-red drives of the government and employers.<br />
<br />
In other words, he felt that Black self-determination in the United States was an idea whose time had not yet come. The communists didn’t have all the answers, and neither did we, Briggs indicated. Whites, as well as a number of Black radicals, undoubtedly underestimated the national element; socialism alone was seen as the solution. Briggs was impressed, however, by the sincerity and revolutionary ardor of the communists and by the fact that they were a detachment of Lenin’s Third Communist International. He felt that the future of the revolution in the United States and of Black liberation lay in multinational communist leadership.<br />
<br />
Though the ABB ceased to exist as an organized, independent expression of the national revolutionary current, the tendency itself remained, awaiting the further maturing of its main driving force, the Black proletariat. By the end of the decade, the national revolutionary sentiment was to find expression in the program of the Communist Party.<br />
<br />
By the time I joined the Brotherhood’s Chicago post in the summer of 1922, The Crusader had dropped much of its original national revolutionary orientation. Although I was then unaware of it, Briggs and the supreme council were presiding over the absorption of the organization into the Communist Party.<br />
<br />
In Chicago, the decline of the organization was slower than elsewhere, Perhaps this was because it had a strong base among Black building-tradesmen, plumbers, electricians and bricklayers. Edward Doty, a plumber by trade, was simultaneously the ABB post commander and a leader and founder of the American Consolidated Trades Council (ACTC). The council was a federation of independent Black unions and groups in the building trades industry who had formed their own unions forthe double purpose of protecting Black workers on the job and counteracting the discriminatory policies of the white AFL craft unions dominant in the field.<br />
<br />
Doty, a tall, muscular man, was born in Mobile, Alabama, and had come north in 1912 at the age of seventeen, According to him, most of the Black steamfitters and plumbers had learned their trades in the stockyards during the industrial boom and labor shortage that accompanied World War I. Some, however, had gotten their training at Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. Active in the Brotherhood along with Doty were such outstanding leaders of the Black workers’ struggle as Herman Dorsey (an electrician) and Alexander Dunlap (a plumber).<br />
<br />
Besides the tradesmen, other members of the ABB post included a number of older radicals such as Alonzo Isabel, Norval Allen, Gordon Owens, H.V. Phillips, Otto Hall and several others. Together with Doty, they made up the communist core of the Brotherhood. <br />
<br />
My experiences in the ABB marked my first association with Black communists. I had met some of them before, at forums and lectures; I had heard Owens speak at the Bugs Club and Dill Pickle forums, but I had never worked together with any of them before.” ‘They were mostly workers from the stockyards and other industries. One or two, like myself, were from the service trades. Like Otto, several of them had previously been in the Garvey movement. There was no doubt that they represented a politically advanced section of the Black working class. They were the types who today would be called “political activists,” the people who kept abreast of the issues in the Southside community and participated in local struggles.<br />
<br />
I was interested to learn their backgrounds and how they had come to the revolutionary movement. I found that some of them had been among Chicago's first Marxist-oriented Black radicals and had been associated with the Free Thought Society. This society was formed immediately after the war and held regular forums. I believe its leader and founder was a young man named Tibbs. He was one of the earliest of Chicago’s Black radicals. A victim of police harassment and persecution, Tibbs was arrested during the Palmer raids in 1919 and spent several years in jailona fake charge of stealing automobile tires. This continual perseeution reduced his political effectiveness, which was as the authorities intended.<br />
<br />
In 1920, members of the Free Thought Society took an active part in the campaign of the Independent Non-Partisan League, sponsored by The Whip and its editors. This coalition ran a full slate of candidates in the Republican primary of that year, in which they challenged the old guard Republicans of the second ward Republican organization as well as the so-called New People’s Movement of Oscar DePriest.’<br />
<br />
The election platform called for abolition of all discrimination, for public ownership of utilities, civil service reform, women’s suffrage, children’s welfare service and “organization of labor into one union.” While they were not successful in turning back the Republican old guard, the campaign resulted in appreciable gains for some of the league’s candidates,<br />
<br />
At that time, the main efforts of the ABB were directed at mobilizing community support for the Black ACTC tradesmen. While retaining a secret character, its members participated as individuals in campaigns on local issues. They collaborated with the Trade Union Education League (TUEL) of which Doty was a member, in its drive to organize the stockyards. The TUEL supported the demands of the ACTC. At that time, it was led by William Z. Foster and Jack Johnstone. Later to become the Trade Union Unity League, it was a gathering of the revolutionary and progressive forces within trade unions to fight against the reactionary labor bureaucracy and their collaborationist policies and Jim Crowism.<br />
<br />
Other members of the Brotherhood participated in the cainpaign against high rents that was waged in the Southside community. This was a fight in which a white Party member, Bob Minor, and his wife, Lydia Gibson, played leading roles.<br />
<br />
I found my experience in the Brotherhood both stimulating and rewarding. In addition to learning a lot from the communists with whom I was associated, it was here I forged my first active association with Black industrial workers. I found them literate, articulate and class conscious, a proud and defiant group which had been radicalized by. the struggles against discriminatory practices of the unions and employers. They understood the meaning of solidarity and the need for militant organization to obtain their objectives. In this, they were quite different from the people with whom I had been associated at the post office, as well as writers whom I so commonly found to be stamped with a hustler mentality. Doty and his followers in the Trades Council were pioneers in the struggle for the rights of Black workers, a struggle which has continued over half a century and remains unfinished to this day.<br />
<br />
‘The older tradesmen finally fought their way into the unions, the electricians in 1938 and the plumbers in 1947. In the early fifties, Doty became the first Black officer in the plumbers’ union. But these gains were only token! The bars are still up against Blacks and other minority workers seeking jobs in the ninety billion dollar-a-year industry.<br />
<br />
=== THE YOUNG COMMUNIST LEAGUE ===<br />
My sojourn in the African Blood Brotherhood was brief about six months. I felt the need to move on. My original goal was the Communist Party. While I was in the ABB, the problem of white chauvinism in the Southside branch had been cleared up. Joining the Party was no longer a problem, after all, the Brotherhood had been but a stopover.<br />
<br />
I was about to apply for admission when H.V. Phillips asked me to join the Young Workers (Communist) League, the youth division of the Communist Party. Phillips, I learned, was a member of the district and national committees of the League. When I told him I was just about to join the Party, he said: “That’s all right, but youre a young fellow and should be among the youth. Besides, more of us Blacks are needed in the League.”<br />
<br />
I thought the matter over. “Why not? It’s all the same, they’re all communists.”<br />
<br />
The next day Phillips took me to meet John Harvey, a white youth who was district organizer of the League. Harvey told me that I had been highly recommended to them by Phillips and others. He expressed delight at my decision to join and said that it fit right in with their plans since they were anxious to move forward with work among Black youth, but were handicapped by the faet that they had only a few Black members.<br />
<br />
I expressed doubt that I could be considered a youth at the age of twenty-five.<br />
<br />
They replied that there were a number of members my age and older in the organization. All that was needed, they assured me, was for one to have the “youth angle.”<br />
<br />
“What is that?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“Oh, that simply means the ability to understand youth and their problems and to be able to communicate with them.”<br />
<br />
I was not sure I had all of these qualities, but the proposition appealed to me, So I joined the YCL in the winter of 1923. The League at that time was a close-knit fraternity of idealistic and dedicated young people determined to build a new world for future generations. When we sang the Youth International at meetings, we actually felt ourselves to be as the song proclaimed, “the youthful guardsmen of the proletariat.”<br />
<br />
The organization was small, with only several hundred members. As I recall, Phillips and myself were the only Blacks. I was still working on the Santa Fe and on layovers I spent most of the time getting acquainted with my new comrades, attending classes, meetings and social gatherings. I was impressed by what seemed to me to be a high level of political development and by their use of Marxist terminology. It made me keenly aware of my own sketchy knowledge of Marxism and the revolutionary movement and spurred me to close the gap. A partial explanation for their political sophistication, I felt, was the fact that a large number of them, perhaps a majority, were “red diaper” babies—their parents being old revolutionaries, either members of the Party or its supporters. On the whole, they were a spirited, intelligent group, and as far as I could discern exhibited not a trace of race prejudice. Many went on to become leaders of the Party.<br />
<br />
There was our district organizer, John Harvey, a lanky youth and one of the few WASPs; Max Shachtman, a brilliant young orator and editor of the League’s theoretical organ, the Young Worker, who was later to become first a Trotskyist and then a rabid, professional anti-communist. There was Valeria Meltz, an able young leader, and her brother; their ethnie background was Russian-American, as was that of Jim Sklar (Keller). His brothers Gus and Boris were old stalwarts in the Russian Federation and were well known. There was also Nat Kaplan (Ganley) and Gil Green. Gil was about sixteen at the time; we used to call him “the kid.” He went on to become national chairman of the YCL and later a national leader in the Party. I met a number of the League's national leaders: Johnny Williamson, a Scottish-American and national secretary, Herbert Zam, Sam Darcy, Marty Abern, Phil Herbert and others, many of whom were to become national leaders of the Party.<br />
<br />
There was no searcity of places for meetings or for social affairs. We were on friendly terms with Jane Addams and her people at Hull House, where we sometimes met. Other times we used the halls of various language groups. We participated in and supported the activities of the Anti-Imperialist League, headed by Manny Gomez, the Party’s Latin American specialist. The main eampaign at the time: was against the invasion of Nicaragua by the U.S. Marines.<br />
<br />
I was particularly impressed by Bob Mazut, a young Russian representative of the Young Communist International (YCI) to the League, A small, dark-complected and soft-spoken young man, Mazut hailed from Soviet Georgia, His mild manner belied his impressive background, Only twenty-five when I met him, he had fought in the Revolution and Civil War, first as a Red Partisan and then in the Red Army, in which he advanced to the rank of colonel. He spoke what we called “political English,” and we were always amused by some of his expressions. For example, | remember how we used to kid Mazut about his being sweet on a certain girl comrade, “She likes you very much,” someone would say, “but she’s a little overawed by you.”<br />
<br />
He replied very seriously, “How can I liquidate her suspicions of me?”<br />
<br />
He took particular interest in me. I believe Phillips and I were the first Blacks he had ever really known and for us he was the first real Soviet communist we had met. I asked questions about Russia and told him I wanted to go there and see it for myself. “You undoubtedly will,” he said in a matter-of-fact tone, as if the matter were settled,<br />
<br />
On one occasion he told me of a discussion he had had on the eve of his departure from Russia, Zinoviey, then president of the Communist International, had asked him to look closely into the Afro-American question in the United States, and to see if he could find any confirmation for his belief and that of other Russian leaders that the right of self-determination was the appropriate slogan for Black rebellion. Zinoviev added that he had long believed that the question would become the “Achilles heel of American imperialism,” I told Mazut that I liked the part about the “Achilles heel,” but I didn’t feel that the slogan of self-determination was applicable for U.S. Blacks, It was my understanding that the principle had to do with nations, and Blacks were not a national but a racial minority. To me, it smacked of Garvey’s separatism,<br />
<br />
Mazut nevertheless raised the question of self-determination for discussion in a meeting of the Chicago District Committe of the YCL. Desirous of getting the committee’s reaction to the question, he was literally shouted down by the white comrades, “Blacks are Americans,” they said. “They want equality, not separation.” Phillips and I, the only Black members of the committee, were non-committal, And that was the end of that, They did not pursue the matter further.<br />
<br />
In order to move forward in work with Black youth, we struck upon the idea of organizing an interracial youth forum on the Southside. The organizing committee consisted of Chi (Dum Ping), a Chinese student at the University of Chicago; a young woman official of the colored YMCA; Phillips, a white League member; and myself, During this period, J was still working on the Santa Fe, but on my layovers | devoted all my time to the forum. We had rented a small hall, decorated it and got out our publicity—leaflets, posters and an‘ad in the Chicago Defender, Our first speaker was to be John Harden, a Black radical orator, It was our first effort at mass work among young Blacks and with our youthful enthusiasm, we were certain of success. But the venture proved to be abortive.<br />
<br />
I can still remember our shock when we came to our mecting place to find it wrecked. Furniture was smashed, posters ripped from the walls. There was no doubt in our minds that this was the work of the police who had unleashed their stool pigeons against us. Some of our non-communist friends dropped out, and the project collapsed. The idea of a forum was abandoned---temporarily, we hoped. A less ambitious plan was then agrced to.<br />
<br />
If we could enlarge our cadres by a few more Blacks, we thought, we would have a better base from which to approach mass work. It was therefore suggested that Phillips and I approach some of our acquaintances and try to recruit them directly into the League. I eliminated my waiter friends, all of whom were too old, and approached one of my former colleagues, a postal worker, who had been in our study circle and whom I considered a likely prospect. I remember that he sat very quictly while I delivered a long lecture on the League’s program and activities and the need to get support among Black youth.<br />
<br />
Finally interrupting me, he blurted out, “I’m sorry, Hall, but I find being Black trouble enough, but to be Black and red at the same time, well that’s just double trouble, and when you mix in the whites, why that’s triple trouble.”<br />
<br />
At first I was rather shocked by his off-hand rebuff, considering it to be an expression of cynical opportunism. I felt that he had backslid, even from his position at the post office, but he continued in a more serious tone. Apparently he felt a deep distrust for whites and their motives. He regarded the YCL as just another organization of white “do-gooders” and saw me as their captive Negro. When I interrupted to say something about socialism, he cut me short. He said that he too was for socialism as a final solution, but that was a long way off and he would not put it beyond the whites in the United States to distort socialism in a manner in which they could remain top dogs. In any case, he believed Blacks would have to be on guard. In the meantime, he believed Blacks should retain their own organizations under their own leadership. Alliances, yes—but we ourselves must decide the terms and conditions, he said.<br />
<br />
Our exchange had gotten off on the wrong foot. I was deeply chagrined by his charge that I was a captive of the whites and that the League was a white organization. For me, that meant that he felt that I was a “white folks’ nigger.” As I recall, I retorted by calling him a Black racialist who saw everything in terms of Black and white.<br />
<br />
“Why not?” he replied. “Being a Negro, how else should I see things?”<br />
<br />
After this flare-up, our tempers cooled off and we continued our discussion in calmer tones. But I was definitely on the defensive, trying to explain why I was in the League and that it was not an organization of white “do-gooders” as he had charged. It was a revolutionary, interracial vanguard organization, I asserted. Sure, we only had a few Blacks now, but our numbers would grow, I argued.<br />
<br />
He was still skeptical and repeated that he was for socialism, but a special road toward this goal he felt was necessary for Black Americans, under their own leadership and organization.<br />
<br />
“Do you mean a Black party?” I queried.<br />
<br />
“Why not?” he rejoined. “It might be necessary as a safeguard for our interests.”<br />
<br />
I had no answers to his position. There was a logic to it which I hadn't thought about.<br />
<br />
We finally parted on friendly terms, promising to keep in touch. I left, realizing that I’d come out the worst in our exchange. I felt that I had failed in my first effort to recruit a good Black man to the League and that we still had some study to do with regards to Black nationalism.<br />
<br />
My friend had been, as I recalled, a bitter critic of Garvey, and therefore assumed that he was hostile to Black nationalism. But now it seemed that he expressed some of Garvey’s racial separatism. Thinking the matter over, I finally camc to the conclusion that the main reason for my inability to counter his arguments was that I sensed that they contained a good measure of truth. What was most disturbing was the sense that his position was less isolated from the masses of Blacks than was my own.<br />
<br />
Up to that point, I had failed to understand the contradictory nature of Black nationalism. I had rejected it totally as a reactionary bourgeois philosophy which, in the conditions of the U.S., had found its logical expression in Garvey’s Back to Africa program. It was therefore a diversion from the struggle for economic, social and political equality-—-the true goal of Blacks in the United States. The fight for equality, I felt, was revolutionary in that it was unattainable within the framework of U.S. capitalist society. Nationalism, moreover, was divisive and played into the hands of the reactionary racists. This, of course, did not exclude the acceptance of some of its features, such as race pride and selfreliance, which were not inconsistent with, but an essential element in, the fight for equality.<br />
<br />
While rejecting nationalism, I also rejected the bourgeois assimilationist position of the NAACP and its associates, and their blind acceptance of white middle class values and culture. What confused me were attempts to amalgamate what I felt were two mutually contradictory elements-—--socialism and the class struggle on the one hand, and nationalism on the other. Or was the contradiction more apparent than real, I wondered. My friend’s nationalism did not go to the point of advocacy of a separate Black nation, He demanded only autonomy in leadership and organization of the Black freedom movement. Was this inconsistent with the concept of equality and class unity? Had not Blacks the right to formulate their conditions for unity? For me, this was the first time I had encountered these questions.<br />
<br />
I attempted to reflect on my short experience in the YCL. Was there not a basis for Black distrust of even white revolutionaries? ‘The situation in the League was not as idyllic as I had first thought. There was a certain underestimation of the importance of the Black struggle against discrimination and for equal rights among both the youth and the adults of the communist movement. Behind that, I sensed there was a feeling that the Black struggle was not itself really revolutionary, but was sort of a drag on the “pure” class struggle.<br />
<br />
This was no doubt a legacy of the old Socialist Party, Evensuch a revolutionary as Debs had said: <blockquote>'''“We have nothing special to offer the Negro, and we cannot make separate appeals to all the races, The Socialist Party is the party of the working-class, regardless of color.” And regarding the Afro-American question: “Social equality, forsooth ... is pure fraud and serves to mask the real issue, which is not social equality, but economic freedom.” “The Socialist platform has not a word in reference to ‘social equality.’ ”'''</blockquote>Evidently, there were a number of theoretical matters still to be cleared up on the question of the struggle for Black equality and freedom.<br />
<br />
I joined the Party itself in the spring of 1925, recruited by Robert Minor, with the consent of the League. I had quit the Santa Fe the summer before, and, totally committed to the communist cause, I then decided to devote more time to the work and to eventually becoming a professional revolutionary. I took extra jobs on weekends and worked banquets and an occasional extra trip on the road. I was living at home with my Mother, Father and sister, who had an infant child, David. All were employed, with my Mother accepting occasional catering jobs.<br />
<br />
Minor, whom I had known for some time, was a reconstructed white Southerner from Texas, a direct descendant of Sam Houston (first Governor of the Lone Star State), He was a former anarchist and one of the great political cartoonists of his day. His powerful cartoons were carried in the Sz. Louis Post-Dispatch, and later on in the old Masses (a cultural magazine of the left) and in the Daily Worker. Among his many talents, he was a journalist of no small ability. Having travelled widely in Europe as a news correspondent during the First World War, Minor had visited Russia during the revolutionary period and had met and spoken with Lenin.<br />
<br />
With these impressive credentials, he was now a member of the Party’s Central Committee and responsible for its Negro work. This was understood as an interim assignment, eventually to be taken over by a Black comrade as soon as one could be developed to fill the position. The person then being groomed for the job was Lovett Fort-Whiteman, who was then in Russia taking a crash course in communist leadership. He had been an associate of Briggs on The Crusader and also worked with Randolph and Owens on The Messenger. Later, as I recall, his selection was the cause for some disgruntlement among the Black comrades.<br />
<br />
Why was Fort-Whiteman chosen in preference to such wellknown and capable Blacks as Richard B. Moore, Otto Huiswood or Cyril P. Briggs, all of whom had revolutionary records superior to Fort-Whiteman’s? At that time, there were no Blacks on the Central Committee, and even when Fort-Whiteman returned from Russia in 1925 to take charge of Afro-American work, Minor remained responsible to the Central Committee. While not as flamboyant as Fort-Whiteman, these Black leaders had records comparable to, or better than, those of many whites on the Central Committee.<br />
<br />
Be that as it may, of all the white comrades, Minor was best fitted for the assignment because of his wide knowledge of and close interest in the question. His intense hatred of his Southern racist background came through in some of the most powerful cartoons of the day. He had wide acquaintances among Black middle class intellectuals. Bob and his wife Lydia had turned their Southside apartment into a virtual salon where Black and white friends would gather to discuss the issues of the day. There I met various Black notables, including Dean Pickens, national field secretary of the NAACP, and Abraham Harris, then secretary of the Minneapolis Urban League. Harris would later become Chairman of the Economies Department of Howard University, and then a full professor of the same subject at the University of Chicago.<br />
<br />
=== THE FOURTH CONVENTION OF THE CPUSA ===<br />
It was the period immediately before the Fourth National Convention of the Communist Party. The factional fight was at its height, with the Party split between two warring camps: the Ruthenberg-Pepper group vs. the Foster-Bittelman group. The atmosphere was rife with charges and counter-charges of “right opportunism” and “left sectarianism.” This factionalism had spilled over into the League, which reflected the alignments then current within the Party.<br />
<br />
I had stood aloof from these factions, as I did not clearly understand the issues. The question of Blacks did not seem to be directly involved. I assumed it was a clash mainly between personalities and narrow group interests, and did not reflect political principles. Each side accused the other of responsibility for the “Farmer-Labor fiasco” which left the Party isolated in its first major attempt to form a united front. I could sce no differences among the factions on the question of bolshevization of the Party.<br />
<br />
The Comintern had recently called upon the Party to bolshevize its ranks. Among other things, this called for the reorganization of the Party on the basis of shop and street units, and the elimination of the foreign language clubs as federated organizations within the Party. These clubs remained close to the Party, however, and followed its leadership.<br />
<br />
I was inclined to favor the Ruthenberg-Pepper group because most of the Party’s Black members--Doty, Elizabeth Griffin, Alonzo Isabel, Otto and my sister Eppa—were in that group. This, I suspected, was partly due to the influence of Bob Minor and Lydia Gibson—their work on the Southside in the tenants’ struggle of 1924, their support of Doty’s Consolidated Trades Council, and their consistent advocacy in the Party of the importance of work among Blacks. (Most of this occurred after I had Ieft the ABB and joined the YCL.)<br />
<br />
Upon joining the Party, I immediately became part of the Ruthenberg group. Under Minor’s tutelage, I was to undergo intensive indoctrination. According to the Ruthenberg faction, Foster, Bittelman, Jack Johnstone and their allies(Cannon, Dunne and Shachtman) were opportunist, narrow-minded trade unionists lacking in Marxist theory and hence in the ability to lead a Marxist party. They said that Foster’s group, which possessed a majority of the delegates, was out to steamroll the convention and toss Ruthenberg, Pepper and Lovestone out of the leadership.<br />
<br />
For most of us, the clincher was that the Foster group lacked the confidence of the Communist International. This latter charge, it seemed to me, was confirmed by the decisions of the Fourth Party Convention the following summer, I was a delegate to this convention from the YCL. I was to witness the intervention of the Cl in the person of its on-the-spot representative, Comrade Green (Gusev), an old Bolshevik friend and co-worker of Lenin and Stalin. For obvious security reasons, only the leaders of both factions had direct contact with him. His job was to suppress factionalism and to unite the Party on the basis of the Comintern line. I must say that he tackled this task with an expertise that was remarkable to behold.<br />
<br />
First, he set up what was called a Parity Committee, composed of an equal number of top leaders of both factions, with himself as a neutral chairman. Since the two factions were evenly represented on the committee, his was the deciding vote. I remember that there was widespread speculation among the delegates as to which faction he would support. We didn’t have long to wait.<br />
<br />
The convention had been in session about a week. The atmosphere was charged, passions inflamed, a split seemed imminent. Indeed, our caucus leaders had difficulty in preventing a walkout by some of the more hot-headed members. A message finally arrived in the form of a cable from the CI (which undoubtedly was sent at Gusev’s urging). The cable was presented to the Parity Committee by Gusev. It demanded that “under no circumstances” should the Foster majority “be allowed to suppress the Ruthenberg group... because,” it went on to say, “the Ruthenberg group is more loyal to the decisions of the Communist International and stands closer to its views. It has the majority or strong minority in most districts and the Foster group uses excessively mechanical and ultra-factional methods,” It further demanded that the Ruthenberg group “get not less than forty percent of the Central Executive Committee” and insisted as “an ultimatum” to the majority “that Ruthenberg retains post of Secretary...categorically insist upon Lovestone’s Central Executive Committee membership...demand retention by Ruthenberg group of co-editorship on central organ,”<br />
<br />
The results were greeted with great jubilation by our group. Foster refused to accept the majority of the incoming Central Committee under these circumstances (in which his loyalty was questioned) and ceded leadership to the Ruthenberg group. The result was that the Ruthenberg-Pepper group retained key positions on the new Central Committee--Ruthenberg as general secretary, Lovestone as organizational secretary, Bedacht as agitprop head.<br />
<br />
Despite factionalism, the convention marked a step forward in the work among Blacks, Although its decisions threw no new light on the question, the platform adopted did contain the most elaborate statement the Party had thus far made.<br />
<br />
It subscribed to full equality in the relationship between Black and white workers, It advocated the right to vote, abolition of Jim Crowism in law and custom, including segregation and intermarriage laws. The main thrust of the program, however, was directed towards building Black and white labor unity on the job and in the union, Toward this end the platform asserted that:<blockquote>'''Our Party must work among the unorganized Negro workers destroying whatever prejudice may exist against trade unions, which has been cultivated by white capitalists..(and) the Negro petty-bourgeoisie... Our Party must make itself the foremost spokesman for the real abolition of all discrimination of the as yet largely unorganized Negro workers in the same union with the white workers on the same basis of equality of membership, equality of right to employment in all branches of work and equality of pay.'''</blockquote>The Party called for the inclusion of Black workers in the existing unions. It came out against racial separatism and dual unionism, but it declared its intention to organize Blacks into separate unions wherever they were barred from existing organizations and to use the separation as a battering ram against Black exclusion. Emphasizing the relationship between these partial demands and ultimate goals, the platform declared that the accomplishment of the above aims was not an end in itself and that on the contrary, it was the struggle for their accomplishment that was even more important: <blockquote>'''In the course of the struggle with such demands we will demonstrate...that these aspirations can be realized only as a result of the successful class struggle against capitalism and with the establishment of the rule of the working class in the Soviet form.'''</blockquote>It must be remembered that by this time the attempts to infiltrate the Garvey movement had proven unsuccessful and that the African Blood Brotherhood, the sole revolutionary Black organization in the field, had been dissolved. To meet the necd for an organizational vehicle to put our program into effect, the Party and the Trade Union Educational League sponsored the American Negro Labor Congress (ANLC). <br />
<br />
In the meantime, Lovett Fort-Whiteman, our man in Moscow, returned to head up the Negro work and to prepare the launching of the ANLC. H.V. Phillips, Edwards, Doty and I were assigned to the organizing committce for the congress, drafting and circulating the call, and approaching organizations for delegates. As I remember, most of the Blacks in the Party were assigned to work on the congress. Otto was not involved in these activities, as immediately after the Fourth Party Convention, he had left for Moscow with the first batch of Black students. <br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman was truly a fantastic figure. A brown-skinned man of medium height, Fort-Whiteman’s high cheekbones gave him somewhat of an Oriental look. He had affected a Russian style of dress, sporting a robochka (a man’s long belted shirt) which came almost to his knees, ornamental belt, high boots and a fur hat. Here was a veritable Black Cossack who could be seen sauntering along the streets of Southside Chicago. Fort-Whiteman was a graduate of Tuskegec and, as I understood, had had some training as an actor, He had been a drama critic for The Messenger and for The Crusader. There was no doubt that he was a showman; he always seemed to be acting out a part he had chosen for himself.<br />
<br />
Upon his return from the Soviet Union, he held a number of press conferences in which he delineated plans for the American Negro Labor Congress, and as a Black communist fresh from Russia, he made good news copy.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman had taken responsibility for lining up enter tainment for the opening night of the congress. Characteristically, with his Russian affectations, he arranged for a program of Russian ballet and theater. The rest of us didn’t question what he was doing, and the incongruity of the program didn’t occur to us until the opening night.<br />
<br />
The mecting took place in a hall on Indiana Avenue near Thirty~ first Street, in the midst of the Black ghetto, When I arrived it was packed—-perhaps 500 people or so. Inside, I was suddenly attracted by a commotion at the door. Asa member of the steering committee, I walked over to see what was the matter. Something was amiss with the “Russian ballet” which was about to enter the hall. A young blonde woman in the “ballet” had been shocked by the complexion of most of the audience, which she had apparently expected to be of another hue. Loudly, in a broad Texas accent, she exclaimed, “Ah’m not goin’ ta dance for these niggahs!”<br />
<br />
Somebody shouted, “Throw the cracker bitches out!” and the “Russian” dance group hurriedly left the hall.<br />
<br />
The Russian actors remained to perform a one-act Pushkin play. They, at least, were genuine Russians from the Russian Federation, But alas, it was in Russian. Of itself, the play was undoubtedly interesting, but its relevance to a Black workers’ congress was, to say the least, unclear. Although Pushkin was a Black man, he wrote as a Russian, and the characters portrayed were Russian. More significant, however, and perhaps an indication of our sectarian approach, was the fact that no Black artist appeared on the program.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman made the keynote speech outlining the purposes and tasks of the congress. He was a passable orator and received a good response. Otto Huiswood, an associate of Briggs and one of the first Blacks to join the Party, also spoke. Richard B. Moore brought the house down with an impassioned speech which reached its peroration in Claude McKay's poem, “If We Must Die.” I was spellbound by Moore; I had never heard such oratory.<br />
<br />
That night, Phillips and I left the hall in high spirits. In fact, I was literally walking on air. At last, I felt, we were about to get somewhere in our work among Blacks. Phillips, a bit more sober than I, remarked, “Let’s wait and sec the report of the credentials committee.”<br />
<br />
His caution was justified, for the big letdown came the following morning. The first working session of the congress convened with about forty Black and white delegates, mainly communists and close sympathizers, The crowd of 500 at the opening night rally had been mainly community people. I think it was Phillips who remarked that there was hardly a face in the working session that he didn’t recognize; most participants, sadly, were from the Chicago arca.<br />
<br />
The organizing committee had prepared draft resolutions for the congress to consider. As we had anticipated a much larger turnout, we had made plans for a credentials committee, resolutions committee, etc. But in light of the small attendance, these resolutions and preparations took on an Alice-in-Wonderland quality. For example, according to the constitution, the group’s purpose was to “unify the efforts...of all organizations of Negro workers and farmers as well as organizations composed of both Negro and white workers and farmers."<br />
<br />
Despite our efforts and work, the ANLC never got off the ground. Few local units were formed, resolutions and plans were never carried into action. Only its official paper, the Negro Champion, subsidized by the Party, continued for several years. Among the post-mortems undertaken on the organization was the one made by James Ford in his book, The Negro and the Democratic Front, He commented that “for the period of its existence, it (the ANLC) was almost completely isolated from the basic masses of the Negro people." Disappointment and disillusionment followed and personal differences surfaced among our group. The fact was that the congress had failed, and with it, the first efforts to build a left-led united front among Blacks.<br />
<br />
There was a natural tendency to find seapegoats for the failure. Moore and Huiswood, the able delegates from New York, seemed to have come to Chicago witha chip on their shoulders. They made no attempt to hide their contempt for Fort-Whiteman, whom they had known in New York. They openly alluded to him as “Minor’s man Friday.” At the time, I was a bit shocked at what I felt was an attempt to malign these comrades. This was especially true of Bob Minor, whom I regarded with respect and affection. He was sort of a father figure to me.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman, on the other hand, was still an unknown quantity. My feelings about him were rather mixed. I was both repelled and fascinated by the excessive flamboyance of the man. But much later, I recalled overhearing a conversation between him and Minor during the preparations for the congress. Minor informed Fort-Whiteman that Ben Fletcher, the well-known Black IWW Leader, had expressed a desire to participate in the congress, It was evident that Bob was pleased by the response of such an important Black labor leader. Fletcher, as an IWW organizer, had played a leading role in the successful organization of Philadelphia longshoremen, His attendance would undoubtedly have attracted other Blacks in the labor movement.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman, however, vehemently opposed the idea and exclaimed, “I don’t want to work with him; I know him. He’s the kind of fellow who'll try to take over the whole show.” That ended the discussion; Fletcher was not invited. .<br />
<br />
I didn’t know Fletcher at the time, but as I reflected back onthe incident some time later, it was clear to me that had he been allowed to participate, Fort-Whiteman would have been overshadowed. I was too new to pass judgment on Fort-Whiteman’s qualifications, but I did wonder why he was chosen over such stalwarts as Moore and Huiswood. Huiswood, as a delegate to the Fourth Congress of the Comintern in 1922, was the first Black American to attend a congress of that body. (Claude McKay was also a special fraternal delegate to that congress.) Together with other delegates, Huiswood visited Lenin and became the first Black man to meet the great Bolshevik. He later became the first Black to serve as a candidate member of the Executive Committee of the Communist International.<br />
<br />
On the whole, I was very optimistic during my early years in the Party—confident we were building the kind of party that would eventually triumph over capitalism.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 5 ==<br />
<br />
=== A Student in Moscow ===<br />
Otto’s delegation of Black students to the Soviet Union caused quite a stir in the States. The FBI kept an eye on their activities and, in late summer 1925, their departure was sensationalized in the New York Times.! The article attributed a statement to Lovett Fort-Whiteman to the effect that he had sent ten Blacks to the Soviet Union to study bolshevism and prepare for careers in the communist “diplomatic service.” The article concluded with a statement calling for action against such “subversive activity.”<br />
<br />
At the time, we all felt that any Black applying for a passport would be subjected to close scrutiny. Therefore, when I learned that I too would soon be studying in Moscow, I applied for a first names of my Mother (Harriet) and Father (Haywood). This name was to stick with me the rest of my life.<br />
<br />
Several weeks after I received my passport, I heard the FBI had been making inquiries about me. By that time, I had become known as one of the founders of the ANLC. Therefore, as the time for my departure drew near, I hid out at the home of comrades on Chicago's Westside until arrangements were made. I went to the national office of the Communist Party, then in Chicago, and was informed by Ruthenberg or Lovestone that I should get ready to leave, Political credentials, typed on silk, were sewn into the lining of my coat sleeve. In order to avoid going through the port of New York, I left by way of Canada.<br />
<br />
In the manner of the old Underground Railroad, I was passed on from one set of comrades to the next: from Detroit, Rudy Baker, the district organizer, forwarded me on to the Canadian Party headquarters in Toronto where Jim MacDonald and Tim Buck were in charge. They sent me on to Montreal where comrades housed me and booked passage for me to Hamburg, Germany. Boarding ship in Quebec in the late spring of 1926, I sailed on the Canadian Pacific liner, the old Empress of Scotland. From Hamburg, I took a train to Berlin, arriving on a Saturday afternoon,<br />
<br />
Thad the address of Hazel Harrison the wife of a Chicago friend of mine who was a concert pianist studying in Berlin, where she had had her professional debut. (Years later, she was to head the Music Department at Howard University.) At that time, she was living at a boarding house near the Kurfurstendamm and I stopped there for the remainder of the weekend.<br />
<br />
This was the first time I had been in Berlin, Germany was then emerging from post-war crisis, during which currency inflation had reached astronomical heights, resulting in the virtual expropriation of a large section of the middle class. It was common to see shabbily dressed men still trying to keep up appearances by wearing starched white collars under their patched clothing,<br />
<br />
The owners of the boarding house, two middle-aged widows who were friends of Hazel’s, showed me a trunk filled with paper notes—-old German marks which were now worthless. This had probably represented a life’s savings.<br />
<br />
Hazel and her two friends took me out to the Tiergarten—the famous Berlin Zoo. I was attracted by the sight of three lion cubs that had been mothered by a German police dog. The cubs were getting big, and it was clear that the “mother” was no longer able to control them. We watched for some time, fascinated. I turned around and realized that there was a crowd around us. At first I thought they were looking at the cubs, but then it became clear that Hazel and I were the center of attention. Blacks were rare in Berlin in those days-—there were only half a dozen or so, mostly from the former German colonies of the Cameroons.<br />
<br />
Monday morning I took a cab to the headquarters of the German Party, at Karl Marx House on Rosenthallerstrasse. It was a dour, fortress-like structure, with high walls surrounding the main building which was set in the middle. I entered into the anteroom just inside the walls, in which there were a number of sturdy looking young men lounging around. When I came in, they jumped up and stood eyeing me suspicously.<br />
<br />
They were unarmed, but I knew their weapons were within arms’ reach, This was a symbol of the times for it was not long after the Beer Hall Putsch of Hitler’s brownshirts in Munich, and the battle for the streets of Berlin had already begun. I presented my credentials to a man named Walters, who was undoubtedly the head of security.<br />
<br />
It was on this occasion that I first met Ernst Thaelmann, a former Hamburg longshoreman and then leader of the German Communist Party. He was passing through the gate and Walters stopped him and introduced us. Thaelmann spoke fairly good English (probably acquired in his work as a seaman) and we chatted. a while. He asked after Foster, Ruthenberg and others. Wishing me good luck, he passed on his way.<br />
<br />
Walters gave me some spending money and arranged for me to stay with some German comrades, a young couple who had an elaborate apartment. The husband ran a haberdashery store on Friedrichstrasse and was a commander in the Rote Front (the red front)---the para-military organization which the communists had organized for defense of workers against the fascists.<br />
<br />
One day while walking down the Kurfurstendamm, I saw a cabaret billboard advertising the Black jazz band of Leland and Drayton and their Charleston dancers. It was a well-known band back. in the States. I had little money, but I couldn’t resist the temptation to stop in and hear them. I sat down at a table and ordered a beer. ‘To my dismay, the waiter said they didn’t sell beer, just wine. So | took the wine card and chose the cheapest bottle I could find.<br />
<br />
A number of band members and dancers came over to my table and asked where I was going. When I told them I was a student going to Moscow, they said they had just returned from a six-month tour in Russia, They were the first Black jazz group that had gone to the Soviet Union. I asked if they had met Otto and the other Black students there. Yes, they had met them all and they had had good times together. So we all sat down to exchange news.<br />
<br />
As we talked, I began to worry about the bill, and said I was low on money. “Oh, don’t worry about that,” someone said and ordered more wine. But when it came time to pay for the drinks, I got stuck with the whole tab and had to walk several miles across town to get home.<br />
<br />
After a month in Berlin, my visa came through. I was on my way to Stettin, a city on the Baltic Sea which bordered Poland and where I boarded a small Soviet ship. After three days of some of the roughest seas I have ever experienced, we landed in Leningrad. It was April 1926, and we were already in the season of the “white nights,” when daylight lasted until late into the evening.<br />
<br />
As we entered the Gulf of Finland the following morning, we passed the naval fortress of Kronstadt about twenty miles out from Leningrad (the site of the anti-Soviet mutiny of 1920). The ship finally docked in Leningrad. Upon landing, I presented my visa and passport to the authorities, Addressing me in English, a man in civilian dress said, “Oh, you’re going to the Comintern school in Moscow?”<br />
<br />
“Yes,” I replied.<br />
<br />
He immediately took me in charge and got my baggage through customs. I assumed he was a member of the security police. We left the customs building and got into an old beat-up Packard. As we drove away from the docks, he informed me that the Moscow train would not leave until eight that evening. He put me up at a hotel where I could rest and go out to see the city.<br />
<br />
Leningrad (old St. Petersburg) was built by Czar Peter the Great in the sixteenth century and now renamed for the architect of the new socialist society. As I walked down the now famous Nevsky Prospekt, I thought of John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook the World, trying to recapture some of the dramatic scenes in that classic. I passed the Peter and Paul Fortress and then the Winter Palace---once the home of the czars and now a museum of the people. The storming of the Winter Palace in 1917 had been the crucial event in the taking of St. Petersburg by the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
The people I saw passing me on the street were plainly dressed. Many of the men wore the traditional robochka and high boots; others were in European dress. Most people were dressed neatly, though shabhily, and all appeared to be well-fed. They were bright and cheerful, It seemed they went ahout with a purpose—a sharp contrast to the atmosphere of hopelessness that had pervaded Berlin, People in Leningrad looked at me---and I looked at them. By this time, I had become used to being stared at and took it as friendly curiosity. After all, a Black man was seldom seen in those parts.<br />
<br />
After several hours, I returned to my hotel. My friend from the security police showed up promptly at seven with my train ticket and took me to the station to put me on the train to Moscow. Filled with excitement and anticipation, I got little sleep on the train and awoke early to see the Russian landscape flowing by my window— pine forests, groves of birch trees and swamps. I was in the midst of the great Russian steppes.<br />
<br />
When we arrived in Moscow at Yaroslavsky Station, some of my traveling companions hailed a droshky and told the driver to take me to the Comintern.<br />
<br />
Moscow at last! We drove from the station into the vast sprawling city--once the capital of old Russia and now of the new. It was a bright, sunny morning and the sun glistened off the golden church domes in the “city of a thousand churches.” It seemed a maze of narrow, cobblestone streets, intersected by broad boulevards. While Leningrad had been a distinctly European city, Moscow seemed a mixture of the Asiatic and the European—a bizarre and strange combination to me, but a cheerful one. Moscow was more Russian than the cosmopolitan Leningrad. Crowds swarmed in the streets in many different styles of dress.<br />
<br />
We arrived at the Comintern, which was housed in an old eighteenth century structure on Ulitsa Komintern near the Kremlin, across the square from Staraya Konyushnya (the old stables of the czar). I paid the driver and entered the building. The guard at the door checked my credentials and directed me upstairs to a small office on the third floor. After producing my bonafides, I was told to take a seat, to wait for my comrades who would soon becoming for me.<br />
<br />
About half an hour later, Otto and another Black man entered the room. I was overjoyed at the sight of him and his friend, who turned out to be a fellow student, Harold Williams. We embraced Russian style, and I began to feel more at home in this strange jand.<br />
<br />
Otto asked about the family. An expression of sadness crossed his face, however, when I asked him about the rest of the Black students, He then informed me of Jane Golden’s serious illness. She was at that moment in a uremic coma from a kidney ailment and was not expected to live. Her husband was at her side at the hospital. (Though both were from Chicago, I had not met them before.)<br />
<br />
The situation had saddened the whole Black student body, and for that matter, the whole school. In the course of her brief sojourn, Jane had become very popular. Otto described her in glowing terms—a real morale booster, whose spirit had helped all of them through the period of initial adjustment.<br />
<br />
I was impressed. Here was a Black woman, not a member of the Communist Party, who had so easily become accustomed to the new Soviet socialist society. It seemed to me that there must be thousands of Black women like her in the U.S.<br />
<br />
After we had greeted each other, we caught a droshky over to the school in order that I might register officially. In the course of the ride, the driver lashed his horse and cursed at him. I asked Otto what he was saying, and he gave a running translation: “Get up there, you son-of-a-bitch. I feed you oats while I myself eat black bread! Your sire was no good, you bastard, your momma was no good too!” This verbal and physical abuse, Otto told me, was typical of most Russian droshky drivers.<br />
<br />
We finally arrived at the school administration which was housed in another old seventeenth century structure, built before the Revolution. It had been a finishing school for daughters of the aristocracy. Before that, it had been a boys’ school where, rumor has it, the great Pushkin had studied.<br />
<br />
Otto introduced me to the university rector with what sounded to my untrained ear like fluent Russian. We then went to the office of the chancellor, where I was duly registered. I was now a student at the Universitet Trydyashchiysya Vostoka Imeni Stalina (the University of the Toilers of the East Named for Stalin)---Russian acronym KUTVA, Otto and I then walked to the dormitory a few blocks away where I met the other two Black students, Bankole and Farmer,<br />
<br />
We all immediately took a streetcar to the hospital which was located on the other side of the Moscow River. There we were met by Golden and some other students who informed us that Jane Golden had just passed away that morning, Golden seemed to be in a state of shock and the doctors had given him some sedatives. We went into the hospital morgue to view her body. Bankole broke down in uncontrollable tears, I learned afterwards that Jane had been a close friend—a kind of mother to him during the period of his adjustment to this new land.<br />
<br />
We took Golden home to the dormitory. The school collective and its leaders immediately took over the funeral arrangements. The body lay in state in the school auditorium for twenty-four hours, during which time the students thronged past.<br />
<br />
The funeral was held the following day and the whole school turned out. The cortege seemed a mile long as it flowed past Tverskaya towards the cemetery. The students would not allow the casket to be placed upon the cart, but organizing themselves in relays every fifty yards, insisted on carrying it the distance of several miles on their shoulders,<br />
<br />
A good portion of the American colony in Moscow was assembled at the cemetery. The chairman of the school collective, a young Georgian, delivered a stirring eulogy at the graveside. One of the students who was standing next to me made a running translation sotto voce which went something like this:<br />
<br />
The first among her race to come to the land of socialism...in search of freedom for her oppressed peoples, former slaves... to find out how the Soviets had done it. We were happy to receive her and her comrades...condolences to her bereaved husband, our Comrade Golden, and to the rest of the Negro Students,..the whole university has suffered a great loss. Rest in peace, Jane Golden. You were with us only a short time, but all of us have benefitted from your presence and comradeship,<br />
<br />
Turning to Golden, he said:<br />
<br />
We Soviet people and comrades of oppressed colonial and dependent countries must carry on. We pledge our undying support to the cause of your people’s freedom. Long live the freedom fight of our Negro brothers in America! Long live the Soviet Union and its Communist Party, beacon light of the struggle for freedom of all oppressed peoples.<br />
<br />
Golden had borne himself well at the graveside, but we didn't want him to return to his room in the students’ dormitory, which would only remind him of his grievous loss. So we went to the apartment of MacCloud, an old Wobbly friend of ours from Philadelphia, who had attended the funeral and who lived in the Zarechnaya District, across the river. He was a close friend of Big Bill Haywood and had followed the great working class leader to the Soviet Union, There we tried to drown our sorrows in good old Russian vodka, which was in plentiful supply.<br />
<br />
Jane Golden’s funeral and the school collective’s response to her death made a profound impression on me, Through these events, crammed into the first three days of my stay in the Soviet Union, I came to know something about my fellow students and the new socialist society into which I had entered<br />
<br />
=== THE BOLSHEVIKS FIGHT FOR EQUALITY OF NATIONS ===<br />
KUTVA was a unique university. At the time I entered, its student body represented more than seventy nationalities and ethnic groups. It was founded by the Bolsheviks for the special purpose of training cadre from the many national and ethnic groups within the Soviet Union—the former colonial dependencies of the czarist empire—and also to train cadres from colonies and subject nations outside the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
The school was divided into two sections-—inner and outer. At the inner section there were Turkmenians, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Bashkirs, Yakuts, Chuvashes, Kazaks, Kalmucks, Buryat-Mongols and Inner and Outer Mongolians from Soviet Asia. From the Caucasus there were Azerbaidzhanis, Armenians, Georgians,<br />
<br />
Abkhazians and many other national and ethnic groups I had never heard of before, There were Tartars from the Crimea and the Volga region,<br />
<br />
The national and ethnic diversity found within the Soviet Union is hard to imagine. The Revolution had opened up many areas, for example through the Trans-Caucasus Road, and as late as 1928, the existence of new groups was still being “discovered.” These nationalities were all former colonial dependencies of the czars and were referred to as the “Soviet East,” “peoples of the East,” and “borderland countries,” The inner section comprised the main and largest part of the student body in the university.<br />
<br />
We Blacks were of course part of the outer section at the school. It included Indians, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, Persians, Egyptians, Arabs and Palestinian Jews from the Middle East, Arabs from North Africa, Algerians, Moroccans, Chinese and several Japanese (hardly a colonial people, but as revolutionaries, identified with the East).<br />
<br />
The Chinese, several hundred strong, comprised the largest group of the outer section, This was obviously because China, bordering on the USSR, was in the first stage of its own antiimperialist revolution, a revolution receiving direct material and political support from the Soviet Union. While KUTVA trained the communist cadres from China, there was also the Sun Yat-sen University, just outside of Moscow, which trained cadres for the Kuomintang.<br />
<br />
Among its students was the daughter of the famous Christian general, Chang Tso-lin, Several Chinese, including Chiang Kaishek’s son, studied in Soviet military schools during this period. A number of the Chinese students from KUTVA were massacred by Chiang’s troops at the Manchurian border when they returned to China shortly after Chiang’s bloody betrayal of the revoiution in 1927, Otto told me that a former girlfriend of his was among this group. As I remember, there were no Latin Americans at KUTVA during the time I was there, and the sole black African was Bankole, The student body was continually expanding, however, and later included many students from these and other areas.<br />
<br />
We students studied the classic works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. But unlike the past schooling we had known, this whole body of theory was related to practice. Theory was not regarded as dogma, but as a guide to action.<br />
<br />
In May 1925, Stalin had delivered an historic speech at the school, outlining KUTV A’s purpose and its main task. His lecture was the subject of continuous discussion and study. It was our introduction to the Marxist theory on the national question and its development by Lenin and Stalin.<br />
<br />
How did the Bolsheviks transform a territory embracing onesixth of the earth’s surface—known as the “prison-house of nations” under the Czar-—into a family of nations, a free union of peoples? What was the policy pursued by the Soviets which enabled them to forge together more than a hundred different stages of social development into such extraordinary unity of effort for the building of a multinational socialist state—the kind of unity that enabled them to win the civil war within and to defeat the intervention of seventeen nations, including the United States, from without.<br />
<br />
The starting point for us was to understand that the formation of peoples into nations is an objective law of social development around which the Bolsheviks, particularly Lenin and Stalin, had developed a whole body of theory. According to this theory, a nation is an historically constituted stable community of people, based on four main characteristics; a common territory, a common economic life, a common language and a common psychological makeup (national character) manifested in common features in a national culture, Since the development of imperial ism, the liberation of the oppressed nations has become a question whose final resolution would only come through proletarian revolution.<br />
<br />
The guiding principle of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on the national question was to bring about the unity of the laboring masses of the various nationalities for the purpose of waging a joint struggle—first to overthrow czarism and imperialism, and then to build the new society under a working class dictatorship. The accomplishment of the latter required the establishment of equality before the law for all nationalities —with no special privileges for any one people-—and the right of the colonies and subject nations to separate.<br />
<br />
This principle was incorporated into the law of the land in the Declaration of Rights of the People of Russia, passed a few days after the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks. Of course, the declaration of itself did not eliminate national inequality, which as Stalin had observed, “rested on economic inequality, historically formed.” To eliminate this historically based economic and cultural inequality imposed by the czarist regimes upon the former oppressed nations, it was required that the more developed nations assist these formerly oppressed nations and peoples to catch up with the Great Russians in economic and cultural development,<br />
<br />
In pursuance of this aim, the new government was organized on a bicameral basis. One body was chosen on the basis of population alone, the other, the Council of Nationalities, consisted of representatives from each of the national territorial units.the autonomous Soviet republics, autonomous regions and national areas, Any policy in regard to the affairs of these formerly oppressed nations could be carried through only with the approval of the Council of Nationalities. The Communist Party, through its members, was involved in both bodies and worked to see that its policy of full equality and the right of self-determination was implemented,<br />
<br />
As this theory was put into practice, we learned that national cultures could be expressed with a proletarian (socialist) content and that there was no antagonistic contradiction, under socialism, between national cultures and proletarian internationalism. Under the Soviets, the languages and other national characteristics of the many nationalities were developed and strengthened with the aim of drawing the formerly oppressed nationalities into full participation in the new society. Thus, the Bolsheviks upheld the principle of “proletarian in content, national in form.” Through this policy, they hoped to draw all nationalities together, acquainting each with the achievements of the others, leading to a truly universal culture, a joint product of all humanity.<br />
<br />
This is in sharp contrast to imperialism’s policy of forcibly arresting and distorting the free development of nations in order to maintain their economic and cultural backwardness as an essential condition for the extraction of superprofits. Thus, the oppressed nations can achieve liberation only through the path of revolutionary struggle to overthrow imperialism and in alliance with the working class of the oppressor nations. Stalin, proceeding from the experience and practice of the Soviet Union, emphasized the need for the formation and consolidation of a united revolutionary front between the working class of the West and the rising revolutionary movements of the colonies.--a united front based on a struggle against a common enemy. The precondition for forming such unity is that the proletariat of the oppressor nations gives:<blockquote>'''direct and determined support to the liberation movement of the oppressed peoples against the imperialism of its “own country,” for “no nation can be free if it oppresses other nations.” (Engels)... This support implies the advocacy, defense and implementation of the slogan of the right of nations to secession, to independent existence as states'''.</blockquote>Without this cooperation of peoples based on mutual confidence and fraternal interrelations, it will be impossible to establish the material basis for the victory of socialism.<br />
<br />
The test of all this theory was being proven in practice in the Soviet Union. The experience of the Bolsheviks demonstrably proved to us that socialism offered the most favorable conditions for the full development of oppressed nations and peoples.<br />
<br />
At the time of the Revolution, there were many nationalities within the borders of the Soviet Union in which the characteristics of nationhood had not yet fully matured, and in fact had been suppressed by the czars. It was the Soviet system itself which became a powerful factor in the consolidation of these nationalities into nations, as socialist industry and collective farming created the economic basis for this consolidation.<br />
<br />
I observed this firsthand in the Crimea and the Caucasus during my visits there in the summers of 1927 and 1928. The language and culture which had been stifled under the czarist regime were now being developed. The language of the Crimean people was a Turko-Tartar language, but before the Revolution, almost all education, such as there was, was in the Russian language. Now there were schools established which used the native language. Otto and other students made similar observations when they traveled to different areas of the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, | was having my own problems with the Russian language. On first hearing it, the language had sounded most strange to me. I could hardly understand a word and wondered if I would ever be able to master it. As the youngest Black American, I applied myself seriously to its study. The first hurdle was the Cyrillic alphabet—-its uniquely different characters intimidated me. But the crash course at KUTVA, lasting about an hour and a half per day, soon broke down this initial barrier.<br />
<br />
In addition, I studied on my own for a couple of hours each day. I would set out to memorize twenty new words a day, Then at night, | would write them out on a sheet of paper and pin them above the mirror in my room. I would then go over them again in the morning while shaving, and during the day I would make sure to use them in conversation with the Russians.<br />
<br />
English grammar had always seemed irrelevant to me, but I soon came to appreciate the logic of Russian grammar. In fact, I learned most of my English grammar through the study of Russian. Its rules were consistent and understandable. ‘The language soon ceased to be mysterious and revealed itself as being beautifully and simply constructed. In six months | was able to read Pravda with the help of a dictionary.<br />
<br />
=== KUTVA: STRUCTURE AND STUDIES ===<br />
The school structure was fairly complicated, but, as I saw it, thoroughly democratic. There was the collective, the general body which ineluded everybody in the school—from the rector, faculty, students, clerical and maintenance workers to the scrubwoman. The leading body of the collective was the bureau—-composed of representatives clected by the various groups in the university. There was also a Communist Party organization which played the leadership role at all levels.<br />
<br />
Originally established by the Council of Nationalities, KUTVA was now a Party school, administered by the Educational Department (AGITPROP) of the Central Committee of the CPSU. There was a direct representative of the Party, called a “Party strengthener,” in the school administration, Together with the rector and a representative of the students, he was part of the “troika” which constituted the top leadership of the school.<br />
<br />
Students had the rights of citizens, voting and participating in local elections, The school discussed and dealt with all the issues which Soviet workers and peasants discussed at their work places. As with all students who pursued courses in higher education in the Soviet Union, we at KUTVA received full room and board, clothes and a small stipend for spending money. There was, of course, no tuition, We used to attend workers’ cultural clubs and do volunteer work, like working Saturdays to help build the Moscow subways. Education for us was not an ivory tower, but a true integration into the Soviet society, where we received firsthand knowledge from our experiences.<br />
<br />
The curriculum (which was a three-year course) was based on Marxism-Leninism; that is, the teachings of Marx and Engels as developed by Lenin. It included dialectical and historical materialism, the Marxist world concept; the Marxist theory of class struggle as the motive force of human events, the economic doctrines of Marx: value and surplus value, as a key to understanding history by revealing the economic law of motion of modern capitalist societies, Lenin’s analysis of imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism; theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat and its Soviet state form; the problems of socialist construction; Lenin’s theory on the peasant question-—the alliance of workers and peasants as the base for Soviet power; the national and colonial questions; and the role of the party as vanguard of the proletariat. We also studied the specifie history of the CPSU.<br />
<br />
Our favorite teacher was Endré Sik, who taught courses on Leninism and the history of the Soviet Party. Sik was a striking young man. His distinguishing feature was a large shock of white hair, unusual for a manso young---he was probably in his thirties. He was soft-spoken and modest. We all loved Sik; he was an outgoing person who radiated warmth.<br />
<br />
Sik was a Hungarian, a politieal refugee living in Russia, He had been a soldier in the Austro-Hungarian Army during the First World War. Captured by the Russians, he was converted to Bolshevism while in a Russian prison camp. On his release, he had gone baek to Hungary and participated in the short-lived (133 days) Hungarian Soviet government of 1919 of Béla Kun, Withthe defeat of the Béla Kun government, Sik—along with hundreds of other revolutionaries—fled to the Soviet Union. Hungarian exiles made up one of Moscow’s largest foreign colonies. In Moscow, Sik pursued an academic career. He was a graduate of the Institute of Red Professors and like many Hungarian intellectuals, he was multilingual.<br />
<br />
For all his good nature, Sik seemed tired and harassed. He was teaching in many schools, in addition to activity in the Hungarian community. Seven years after the defeat of the Hungarian Soviet, the exiled revolutionaries were bitterly divided and factionalized, laying blame on each other for the failure of the revolution,<br />
<br />
Sik beeame deeply interested in the question of Blacks in the United States and undertook a serious study of the question. He read all the books available and also asked the Black students at KUTVA to join with him. Unfortunately for our personal relationship, Sik and I were to find ourselves on opposite sides of the fenee in the discussion of Black Americans which took place at the Sixth Congress of the Communist International in June 1928.<br />
<br />
Our teacher of Marxist economics was a young man by the name of Rubenstein, a Russian economist in the Gosplan (Governmental Planning Commission). The star pupil in that class turned out to be our modest friend Golden. Golden, who had known nothing about Marxism before eoming to the Soviet Union, was able to grasp the intricacies of Marx’s Capital and Value, Price and Profit seemingly without effort.<br />
<br />
A class that stands out in my memory was one on how tomakea revolution, to seize power onee the situation was ripe. This course eonsisted of a series of Jeetures by a young Red Army officer. He had been a heroie figure in the Moscow uprising of 1917 and the subsequent seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in that city. A tall, handsome young man of bourgeois background, he had been a lieutenant in the army of the Kerensky government. Like many other soldiers, he had been won over by the Bolsheviks on the basis of their demands, which reflected the needs of the people. peace, bread and land. To him, the Moscow uprising against Kerensky, led by the Bolsheviks, was a model for the coming seizure of power in the big cities of the capitalist world.<br />
<br />
He had a large map of Moscow on the wall and would use it to illustrate how it had been done. The eall for the uprising, he said, had come to the Moseow Communist Party by telephone from Leningrad, where the revolutionary workers, sailors and army under the leadership of Lenin had overthrown the Kerensky government and seized power in that eity.<br />
<br />
In Moscow, the Party organization, already prepared, issued a call to the people for an uprising. His regiment, stationed on the outskirts of the eity, together with red guards (workers’ militia), responded and began to march towards the center of the city. The White Guardists were concentrated in the Arbot and in the Kremlin, Here he pointed out, in Russian and other European cities, the working class districts were centered around factories on the outskirts of the city and Moseow was cireled by workers suburbs. Together with defected units of other regiments and with red guards, they marehed towards Moscow’s central area, whence fighting spread throughout the city--even into the trans-Moscow district. The reds finally wiped out the White Guardist strongholds, and the Kremlin, which had changed hands two times before in the fighting, finally surrendered,<br />
<br />
Moscow was ours!<br />
<br />
=== CLASSMATES AT KUTVA ===<br />
Beeausc of the language problem, we students from outside the Soviet Union were subdivided into three main language groups: English, French and Chinese. English and French were the dominant languages of the many colonial areas represented at the university. Spanish was later added when Latin American students began to arrive. In addition to ourselves, the English-speaking group included East Indians, Koreans, Japanese and Indonesians. I had many close friends in this latter group.<br />
<br />
One of the most interesting and brilliant was an Indian student by the name of Sakorov. (They all took Russian names because of the severe repression which they faced back home.) A former machinist in a Detroit auto plant, Sakorov had been sent to the school by the American Party.<br />
<br />
Originally from Bombay, Sakorov had gone to sea on a British ship at the age of twelve and had been subjected to very oppressive conditions his whole career at sea. He eventually jumped ship in Baltimore and wound up working in an auto plant in Detroit. Of all the group of students, he was the closest to us Blacks, He knew first hand the plight of Blacks in the United States, and as a dark skinned Indian, he had experienced much of the same type of racial abuse while there, After he left the school, he returned to India, where he became one of the founders of the Indian Communist Party.<br />
<br />
Later, more Indian students were to come, including one sixteen year old—a tall, lanky boy who took the name of Volkoy. He had been born in California; his parents were Sikhs who had migrated to the U.S. and worked as agricultural workers in the Imperial Valley of California. They were part of a foreign contingent of the Ghadr Party, a revolutionary nationalist party of Sikhs which had been organized in 1916. The Party would pick out young men to be future leaders; Volkov was chosen and sent to Japan for education and stayed there a year. Then he was sent to study in the Soviet Union, perhaps by the Japanese Party. He spoke Japanese and English.<br />
<br />
Among the Indian students was a group of about half a dozen Sikhs, former professional soldiers, survivors of the Hong Kong massacre of 1926. On the pretext of quelling an “imminent mutiny,” the British colonel of the regiment stationed in Hong Kong had called the unarmed Sikh soldiers into the regimental square and turned machine guns on them. (All regiments in the Indian Army included a British machine gun company as a safeguard against mutiny.) Several hundred were killed or wounded. As I understood it, the massacre was engineered to quell the protests over conditions which were being raised by members of the Ghadr Party and its supporters.<br />
<br />
The group who arrived in Moscow were among the few who escaped over the walls; they had fled to Shanghai where they were taken in charge by M.N. Roy, an Indian and then Comintern representative to China. Roy sent them to Moscow. These students, some of them older grey-bearded men, had spent their whole lives in the British Indian Army, They represented a special problem for the school, because most of them had had very little education of any kind. They were not brought into our class, but were put into a special group under the tutelage of Volkov, Sakorov and other of the regular Indian students,<br />
<br />
It was my good fortune to meet many of these Indian students again in 1942, when I was in Bombay as a merchant seaman, Most of them were leading figures in the Indian revolutionary movement. Sakorov had been a defendant in one of the Merut trials, having been charged with “conspiracy against the king,” Since his return to India, he had spent eleven years in prison. Nada, another former schoolmate, was president of the Indian Friends of the Soviet Union and very active among the students and youth,<br />
<br />
There were several Koreans and Japanese at the school, and two Indonesians. I remember Dirja particularly well. A Dutcheducated Indonesian intellectual, he was an old revolutionary who had spent many years in prison. There was another Indonesian, a young man (whose name I cannot recall), who later emerged as a communist leader and was killed in the Indonesian revolt of 1946.<br />
<br />
Kemal Pasha (a party name conferred on him by Sakorov) was a grey-eyed Moroccan from the Riffian tribe of Abdul Krim, I met Kemal Pasha again in Paris during the Spanish Civil War. There were also two whites in the group-June Kroll, then the wife of an American communist leader, Carl Reeves; and Max Halff, a young English lad of Russian-Jewish parentage.<br />
<br />
=== BLACKS IN MOSCOW ===<br />
We students were a fairly congenial lot and in particular I got to know the other Black students quite well. Golden was a handsome, jet-Black man; a former Tuskegee student and a dining car waiter, He was not a member of the Communist Party, but was a good friend of Lovett Fort-Whiteman, head of the Party's Afro-American work.<br />
<br />
Golden told me that his coming to the Soviet Union had been accidental. He had run into Fort-Whiteman, a fellow student at Tuskegee, on the streets of Chicago, Fort-Whiteman had just returned from Russia and was dressed in a Russian blouse and hoots.<br />
<br />
As Golden related it: “I asked Fort-Whiteman what the hell he was wearing, Had he come off the stage and forgotten to change clothes? He informed me that these were Russian clothes and that he had just returned from that country.”<br />
<br />
Golden at first thought it was a put-on, but became interested as Fort-Whiteman talked about his experiences. “Then out of the blue, he asks me if I want to go to Russia as a student. At first, I thought he was kidding, but man, I would have done anything to get off those dining cars! I was finally convinced that he was serious. ‘But I’m married,’ I told him. ‘What about my wife? ‘Why, bring her along too!’ he replied. He took me to his office at the American Negro Labor Congress, an impressive set-up with a secretary, and I was convinced, Fort-Whiteman gave me money to get passports, and the next thing I knew, a couple of weeks later we were on the boat with Otto and the others on the way to Russia. And here I am now.”<br />
<br />
He had a keen sense of humor and kidded the rest of us a lot, particularly Otto, His Southern accent carried over into Russian, and we teased him about being the only person who spoke Russian with a Mississippi accent,<br />
<br />
Then there was Bankole, an African who spent most of his time with the Black Americans. He was an Ashanti, from the Gold Coast (now Ghana) and his family was part of the African elite.<br />
<br />
The son of a wealthy barrister, his family had sent him to London University to study journalism, From there, he had gone to Carnegie Tech in Pittsburgh.<br />
<br />
He had been on the road to becoming a perennial student and had planned to continue at McGill University in Montreal, but was recruited to the Young Communist League in Pittsburgh. In the States, he was confronted with a racism more blatant than any he had met before. I gathered that this had struck him sharply and had been largely responsible for his move to the left,<br />
<br />
My brother Otto had become sort of a character in the school, He was popular among the students, who immediately translated his pseudonym “John Jones” into the Russian “Ivan Ivanovich,” Otto had ahsolutely no tolerance for red tape, and he had hecome a mortal enemy of the apparatchiki (petty bureaucrats) in the school. He had built a reputation for making their lives miserable, and when they saw him coming, they would huddle in a corner; “Here comes Ivan Ivanovich. Ostorozhno (watch out)! Bolshoi skandal budyet (this guy will make a big scandal)!”<br />
<br />
Harold Williams of Chicago was a West Indian and former seaman in the British merchant marine, He had adopted the name of Dessalines, one of the three leaders of the Haitian revolution of the 1790s. Williams had little formal education and some difficulty in grasping theory, but was instinctively a class-conscious guy.<br />
<br />
Finally, there was Mahoney, whose name in the USSR was Jim Farmer. Farmer was a steelworker from East Liverpool, Ohio, a Communist Party member and had played a leading role in local struggles in the steel mills.<br />
<br />
There were only eight of us Blacks in a city of 4,500,000 people. In addition to the six students, there were also two Black American women who had long residence (since before the Revolution) in Moscow.<br />
<br />
I only knew one of the women, Emma Harris. We first met on the occasion of the death of Jane Golden. Emma was a warm, outgoing and earthy middle-aged woman, originally from Georgia. It was evident that she had once been quite handsome—of the type that in the old days we called a “teasin’ brown.” Emma had first come to Moscow as a member of a Black song and dance group, a lowly hoofer in the world of cheap vaudeville. Having been deserted by its manager, the group was left stranded in Moscow.<br />
<br />
While the others had evidently made their way back to the States, Emma had decided to stay. She had liked the country. Here, being Black wasn’t a liability, but on the contrary, a definite asset, With her drive and ambition to be “somebody,” Emma parlayed this asset into a profitable position. She married a Russian who installed her, it seems, as a madam of a house of prostitution. It was no ordinary house, she once explained to me. “Our clients were the wealthy and nobility.” To the former hoofer, this was status.<br />
<br />
Such was Emma’s situation in November 1917, when the Russian Bolsheviks and Red Guards moved in from the proletarjan suburbs of Moscow to capture the bourgeois inner city and the Kremlin. During some mopping-up operations, Emma’s house was raided by the Cheka (the security police). A bunch of White Guardists had holed up there and the whole group was arrested, including Emma. They were taken to the Lubyanka Prison and some of the more notorious White Guardists were summarily executed.<br />
<br />
Emma remained in a cell for a few days. Finally she was called up before a Cheka official. He told her that they were looking into her case. Many of the people who had been arrested at her place were counter-revolutionaries and conspirators against the new Soviet state, and some had been shot. Emma disclaimed knowledge of any conspiracy and stated that she was engaged in “legitimate” business and had nothing to do with the politics of her clients.<br />
<br />
“You know the only reason we didn’t shoot you was because you are a Negro woman,” the official said. To her surprise, he added, “You are free to go now. I advise you to try to find some useful work. Keep out of trouble.”<br />
<br />
When we met Emma, she had become a textile worker. She lived with a young Russian woman--also a textile worker, whom I suspected was a reformed prostitute—in a two-room apartment in an old working class district near Krasnaya Vorota (Red Gate). Soon after the first Black students arrived, she sought them out and grected them like long lost kinfolk.<br />
<br />
At least once a month, we students would pool part of the small stipends we reccived and give Emma money to shop for and prepare some old home cooking for us. On these occasions, she would regale us with stories from her past life. At times one could detect a fleeting expression of sadness, of nostalgia, for her old days of affluence. One could see that she had never become fully adjusted to the new life under the Soviets. While not openly hostile, it was clear that she was not an ardent partisan of the new regime. Knowing our sentiments, she avoided political discussion and kept her views to herself. Our feelings toward her were warmest when we first arrived, but as we developed more ties with the Russians, we went by to see her less often. But we did continue to visit her periodically; she was a sort of mother figure for us, and we all felt sorry for her. She was getting old and often expressed a desire to return to the States. She was finally able to return home after World War II.<br />
<br />
Needless to say, Blacks attracted the curiosity of the Muscovites. Children followed us in the streets. If we paused to grect a (riend, we found ourselves instantly surrounded by curious crowds-—unabashedly staring at us. Once, while strolling down Tverskaya, Otto and I stopped to greet a white American friend and immediately found ourselves surrounded by curious Russians. It was a friendly curiosity which we took in stride. A young Russian woman stepped forward and began to upbraid and lecture the crowd.<br />
<br />
“Why are you staring at these people? They're human beings the same as us. Do you want them to think that we’re savages? Era ne kulturnya! (That is uncultured!)” The last was an epithet and in those days a high insult.<br />
<br />
“Eta ne po-Sovietski! (It’s not the Soviet way!)” she scolded them,<br />
<br />
At that point, someone in the crowd calmly responded: “Well, citizeness, it’s a free country, isn’t it?”<br />
<br />
We were not offended, but amused. We understood all this for what it was.<br />
<br />
There was one occasion when Otto, Farmer, Bankole and I were walking down Tverskaya. Bankole, of course, stood out—attracting more attention than the rest of us with his English cut Savile Row suit, monocle and cane—a black edition of a British aristocrat. We found ourselves being followed by a group of Russian children, who shouted: “Jass Band....Jass Band!”<br />
<br />
Otto, Farmer and I were amused at the incident and took it in stride. Bankole, however, shaking with rage at the implication, jerked around to confront them. His monocle fell off as he shouted: “Net Jass Band! Net Jass Band!” As he spoke, he hit his cane on the ground for emphasis.<br />
<br />
Evidently, to these kids, a jazz band was not just a group of musicians, but a race or tribe of people to which we must belong. They obviously thought we were with Leland and Drayton, the musicians I had met in Berlin, They had been a big hit with the Muscovites. We pulled Bankole away, “C'mon man, cut it out, ‘They don’t mean anything.”<br />
<br />
In the Soviet Union, remnants of national and racial prejudices from the old society were attacked by education and law. It was a crime to give or receive direct or indirect privileges, or to exercise discrimination because of race or nationality. Any manifestation of racial or national superiority was punishable by law and was regarded as a serious political offense, a social crime.<br />
<br />
During my entire stay in the Soviet Union, I encountered only one incident of racial hostility, It was on a Moscow streetear. Several of us Black students had boarded the car on our way to spend an evening with our friend MacCloud. It was after rush hour and the car was only about half filled with Russian passengers. As usual, we were the objects of friendly curiosity. At one stop, a drunken Russian staggered aboard. Seeing us, he muttered (but loud enough for the whole car to hear) something about “Black devils in our country.”<br />
<br />
A group of outraged Russian passengers thereupon seized him and ordered the motorman to stop the ear. It was a citizen's arrest, the first I had ever witnessed. “How dare you, you scum, insult people who are the guests of our country!”<br />
<br />
What then occurred was an impromptu, on-the-spot meeting, where they debated what to do with the man. I was to see many of this kind of “meeting” during my stay in Russia.<br />
<br />
It was decided to take the culprit to the police station which, the conductor informed them, was a few blocks ahead, Upon arrival there, they hustled the drunk out of the car and insisted that we Blacks, as the injured parties, come along to make the charges.<br />
<br />
At first we demurred, saying that the man was obviously drunk and not responsible for his remarks. “No, citizens,” said a young man (who had done most of the talking), “drunk or not, we don’t allow this sort of thing in our country. You must come with us to the militia (police) station and prefer charges against this man.”<br />
<br />
‘The car stopped in front of the station. The poor drunk was hustled off and all the passengers came along. The defendant had sobered up somewhat by this time and began apologizing before we had even entered the building. We got to the commandant of the station.<br />
<br />
The drunk swore that he didn’t mean what he'd said. “I was drunk and angry about something else. I swear to you citizens that I have no race prejudice against those Black gospoda (gentlemen).”<br />
<br />
We actually felt sorry for the poor fellow and we accepted his apology. We didn’t want to press the matter.<br />
<br />
“No,” said the commandant, “we'll keep him overnight. Perhaps this will be a lesson to him<br />
<br />
=== BIG BILL HAYWOOD ===<br />
In addition to the students at KUTVA and the two Black women, there was a sizeable American colony in Moscow during my stay there. There were political representatives of the Communist Party USA to the Comintern, the Profintern, the Crestintern and to the departments, bureaus and secretaries of these organizations—holding jobs as translators, stenographers and researchers <br />
<br />
Soviet cultural and publishing organizations also employed U.S, citizens, and in addition to the political groups, there were a number of technical and skilled workers who came as specialists to work for the new Soviet state. I got to know a number of the Americans during my stay, both official reps and others in the colony.<br />
<br />
Big Bill Haywood was perhaps the most famous of these. He was organizer and founder of the IWW, and a great friend of all Blacks in Moscow. At the time I met him he was in his late fifties and quite ill, suffering from diabetes. Physically, he was only the shell of the man he had once been. He called himself a political refugee from American capitalism, As a sick man, he had fled the U.S. to avoid a ten-year frame-up prison sentence which he knew he would never have survived, Bill was blind in one eye, over which he wore a black patch. I had imagined the loss of his eye had happened in a fight with company or police thugs and was rather disappointed to learn that it was the result of a childhood accident.<br />
<br />
In the Soviet Union he had participated in the organization of the Kuzbas Colony. This project was to reopen and operate industry in the Kuznetsk Basin in the Urals, closed during the Civil War period. The colony was located about a thousand miles from Moscow in an area of enormous coal deposits, vital to socialist industrialization. The district, with its mines and deserted chemical plants, had been established by the Soviet government as an autonomous colony. Big Bill had brought a number of American skilled workers, many of whom were old Wobblies, to reopen the plants and mines,<br />
<br />
Big Bill became a member of the CPUSA at its founding convention in 1921, and while in the Soviet Union he was a member of the CPSU. Bill and his devoted wife, a Russian office worker, lived in the Lux Hotel---a Comintern hostelry.<br />
<br />
His room had become a center for the gathering of American radicals, especially old Wobblies passing through or working in the Soviet Union. Here they would gather on a Saturday night and reminisce about old times and discuss current problems. Often a bunch of us Black students were present, Sometimes these sessions would carry on all night until Sunday morning. There were only a few chairs in the room, and Bill would sit in a huge armchair surrounded by people sitting on the floor. For us Blacks, listening to Big Bill was like a course on the American labor movement. He was a bitter enemy of racism, which he saw as the mainstay of capitalist domination over the U.S. working class, a continuous brake on labor unity, This attitude was reflected in the preamble of the IWW constitution, he told us, It read: “No working man or woman shall be excluded from membership in unions because of creed or color.” This was borne out in practice,<br />
<br />
The IWW was the first labor organization in modern times to invade the South and break down racial barriers in that benighted region. He recounted his experiences in the organizing drives among Southern lumber workers in Louisiana and Texas. This resulted in the organization of the Brotherhood of Timber Workers in 1910, an independent union in the lumber camps of Louisiana, Texas and Arkansas, At its height this union had 25,000 members, half of them Black.<br />
<br />
Big Bill described how the IWW broke down discrimination at the first convention of this union, He had come from the national IWW office to speak to the convention. They were all white, he said, and he inquired why no colored men were present. He was told that the Louisiana state law prohibited meetings of Black and white—the Negro brothers were meeting in another hall nearby. Bill recalled that he then told them: “Damn the law! It’s the law of the lumber bosses. Its objective is to defeat you and to keep you divided and you're not going to get anywhere by obeying the dictates of the bosses. You've got to meet together.” And the latter is exactly what they did, he told us.<br />
<br />
I remember that a few days after one of these gatherings we telephoned to tell him that we were coming over, only to learn from his wife that he had had a stroke and was in the Kremlin hospital. She said that he was getting along OK, but couldn’t see visitors. After several weeks he returned home. Still weak, he received many of his friends, and many of the delegates to the Fourth Congress of the Profintern which was in Moscow at the time. Big Bill had been a leading participant in this organization since its inception.<br />
<br />
Then suddenly, he was back in the hospital, where he died May 18, 1928. The whole American colony turned out for the funeral. There were delegations from the Russian Communist Party, of which he was a member, and from the various international organizations in which he had played a role. The Fourth Congress of the RILU adjourned its sessions, and representatives of trade unions from all over the world attended the funeral.<br />
<br />
I'm sure for all us Black students, our meeting and friendship with this great man were among the most memorable experiences of our stay in Moscow, A stalwart son of the American working class, Bill’s life and battles represented its best traditions. To Blacks, he was a man who would not only stand up with you, but if need be, go down with you. This was the iron test in the fight against the common enemy, U.S, capitalism. Big Bill obviously understood from his own experience the truth of the Marxian maxim that in the U.S., “labor in the white skin can never be free as long as in the Black it is branded.”<br />
<br />
=== Ina ===<br />
I first met my second wife, Ekaterina—-Ina—in December 1926, We were both at a party at the home of Rose Bennett, a British woman who had married M. Petrovsky (Bennett), the chairman of the Anglo-American Commission of the Comintern and formerly Cl representative to Great Britain,<br />
<br />
Ina was one of a group of ballet students whom Rose had invited to meet some of us KUTVA students, She was a small young woman of nineteen or twenty, shy and retiring, and sat off removed from the party. After that party, we met several times, and she told me about herself,<br />
<br />
She was born in Vladikavkaz (in northern Caucasus), the daughter of the mayor of the town, It was one of those towns that was taken and re-taken during the Civil War, one time by the whites, then by the reds. On one occasion when the town fell to the reds, her father was accused of collaborating with the whites, The reds came and arrested him and she never saw him again, Ina was about eleven at the time; she later learned that her father had been executed,<br />
<br />
Her uncle was a famous artist in Moscow and after her father’s execution they went there to live. Ina told me of her trip to Moscow at the height of famine and a typhus epidemic; they rode in freight cars several days through the Ukraine, and saw people dying along the road. Her uncle took charge of them and got them an apartment on Malaya Bronaya. He investigated the case of her father and discovered that a mistake had been made, and her father was posthumously exonerated. As a sort of compensation, she and her mother were regarded as “social activists,” and Ina entered school to study ballet. She later transferred from the ballet school to study English in preparation for work as a translator. We lived together in the spring of 1927 and got married the following fall, after my return from the Crimea.<br />
<br />
In January 1927, I was stunned by the news of the death of my Mother. One morning, when I was at Ina’s house, Otto burst in. Overcome by emotion, he could hardly talk, but managed to blurt out, “Mom’s dead!” He had a letter from our sister Eppa, with a clipping of Mother’s obituary from the Chicago Defender.<br />
<br />
Under the headline “Funeral of Mrs. Harriet Hall,” was her picture and an article which described her, a domestic worker, asa “noted club woman.” She had been a member of the Black Eastern Star and several other lodges and burial societies. The article mentioned that she was survived by her husband, daughter and two sons, the latter in Moscow.<br />
<br />
I was overcome with grief and guilt at not being home. Deeply shocked, I had always assumed that I would return to see Mother again, Born a slave, her world had been confined to the midwest and upper South, She had once told me, “Son, I sure would like to see the ocean,” and I had glibly promised, “Oh, I'll take you there someday, Momma.” I felt that I had been her favorite; | was the responsible one, and yet I hadn’t been able to do what I had promised, Worse yet, I wasn’t even there when she died. It took me some time to get over the shock.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
=== Trotsky’s Day in Court ===<br />
Apart from our academic courses, we received our first tutelage in Leninism and the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the heat of the inner-party struggle then raging between Trotsky and the majority of the Central Committee led by Stalin. We KUTVA students were not simply bystanders, but were active participants in the struggle. Most of the students—and all of our group from the U.S,—-were ardent supporters of Stalin and the Central Committee majority.<br />
<br />
It had not always been thus. Otto told me that in 1924, a year before he arrived, a majority of the students in the school had been supporters of Trotsky. Trotsky was making a play for the Party youth, in opposition to the older Bolshevik stalwarts, With his usual demagogy, he claimed that the old leadership was betraying the revolution and had embarked on a course of “Thermidorian reaction," In this situation, he said, the students and youth were “the Party’s truest barometer,”<br />
<br />
But by the time the Black American students arrived, the temporary attraction to Trotsky had been reversed. The issues involved in the struggle with Trotsky were discussed in the school, They involved the destiny of socialism in the Soviet Union. Which way were the Soviet people to go? What was to be the direction of their economic development? Was it possible to build a socialist economic system? These questions were not only theoretical ones, but were issues of life and death. The economic life of the country would not stand still and wait while they were being debated.<br />
<br />
The Soviet working class, under the leadership of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, had vanquished capitalism over one-sixth of the globe; shattered its economic power; expropriated the capitalists and landlords; converted the factories, railroads and banks into public property; and was beginning to build a state-owned socialist industry. The Soviet government had begun to apply Lenin’s cooperative plans in agriculture and begun to fully develop a socialist economic system. This colossal task had to be undertaken by the workers in alliance with the masses of working peasantry.<br />
<br />
From the October Revolution through 1921, the economic system was characterized by War Communism. Basic industry was nationalized, and all questions were subordinated to the one of meeting the military needs engendered by the civil war and the intervention of the capitalist countries.<br />
<br />
But by 1921, the foreign powers who had attempted to overthrow the Soviets had largely been driven from Russia’s borders, It was then necessary to orient the economy toward a peace-time situation. The NEP (New Economic Policy) formulated at the Tenth Party Congress in 1921 was the policy designed to guide the transition from War Communism to the building of socialism. It replaced a system of surplus appropriation with a tax in kind which would be less of a burden on the peasantry, The NEP was a temporary retreat from socialist forms: smaller industries were leased to private capital to run; peasants were allowed to sell their agricultural surplus on free markets, central control over much of the economy was lessened. All of this was necessary to have the economy function on a peace-time basis, It was a measure designed to restore the exchange of commodities between city and country which had been so greatly disrupted by the civil war and intervention. It was a temporary retreat from the attack on all remnants of capitalism, a time for the socialist state to stabilize its base area, to gather strength for another advance. A year later at the Eleventh Party Congress, Lenin declared that the retreat was ended and called on the Party to “prepare for an offensive on private capital.” <br />
<br />
Lenin was incapacitated by a series of strokes in 1923 and couldno longer participate in the active leadership of the Party. It was precisely at this time, taking advantage of Lenin's absence, that Trotsky made his bid for leadership in the Party. Trotsky had consistently opposed the NEP and its main engineer, Lenin— attacking the measures designed to appease the peasantry and maintain the coalition between the peasants and the workers,<br />
<br />
From late 1922 on, Trotsky made a direct attack on the whole Leninist theory of revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. He denied the possibility (and necessity) of building socialism in one country, and instead characterized that theory as an abandonment of Marxist principles and a betrayal of the revolutionary movement. He postulated his own theory of “permanent revolution,” and contended that a genuine advance of socialism in the USSR would become possible only as a result of a socialist victory in the other industrially developed states.<br />
<br />
While throwing around a good deal of left-sounding rhetoric, Trotsky’s theories were thoroughly defeatist and class-collaborationist. For instance, in the postscript to Program for Peace, written in 1922, he contended that “as long as the hourgeoisie remains in power in the other European countries, we shall be compelled, in our struggle against economic isolation, to strive for agreement with the capitalist world; at the same time it may be said with certainty that these agreements may at best help us to mitigate some of our economic ills, to take one or another step forward, but real progress of a socialist economy in Russia will become possible only after the victory of the proletariat in the major European countries.”<br />
<br />
At the base of this defeatism was Trotsky’s view that the peasantry would be hostile to socialism, since the proletariat would “have to make extremely deep inroads not only into feudal but also into bourgeois property relations.” Thus Trotksy contended that the working class would:<blockquote>'''come into hostile collision not only with all the bourgeois groupings which supported the proletariat during the first Stages of its revolutionary struggle, but also with the broad masses of the peasaniry with whose assistance it came into power. The contradictions in the position of a workers’ government in a backward country with an overwhelmingly peasant population could be solved only ...in the arena of the world proletarian revolution.'''</blockquote>Therefore, it would not be possible to build socialism in a backward, peasant country like Russia. The mass of peasants would exhaust their revolutionary potential even before the revolution had completed its bourgeois democratic tasks—the breakup of the feudal landed estates and the redistribution of the land among the peasantry. This line, which underestimated the role of the peasantry, had been put forward by Trotsky as early as 1915 in his article “The Struggle for Power.” There he claimed that imperialism was causing the revolutionary role of the peasantry to decline and downgraded the importance of the slogan “Confiscate the Landed Estates.”<br />
<br />
As it was pointed out in our classes, Trotsky portrayed the peasantry as an undifferentiated mass. He made no distinction between the masses of peasants who worked their own land (the muczhiks) and the exploiting strata who hired labor (the kulaks). His conclusions openly contradicted the strategy of the Bolsheviks, developed by Lenin, of building the worker-peasant alliance as the basis for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Further, they were at complete variance with any realistic economic or social analysis.<br />
<br />
Trotsky’s entire position reflected a lack of faith in the strength and resources of the Soviet people, the vast majority of whom were peasants. Since it denied the revolutionary potential of the peasantry, the success of the revolution could not come from internal forces, but had to depend on the success of proletarian revolutions in the advanced nations of Western Europe. In the absence of such revolutions, the revolutionary process within the Soviet Union itself would have to be held in abeyance, and the proletariat, which had seized power with the help of the peasantry, would have to hold state power in conflict,with all other classes.<br />
<br />
Behind Trotsky’s revolutionary rhetoric was a simplistic socialdemocratic view which regarded the class struggle for socialism as solely labor against capital. This concept of class struggle did no regard the struggle of peasant against landlord, or peasant against the Czar, as a constituent part of the struggle for socialism. This was reflected as early as 1905, in Trotsky’s slogan, “No Czar, but a Workers’ Government,” which, as Stalin had said, was “the slogan of revolution without the peasantry.”<br />
<br />
Given the state of the revolutionary forces at the time, the position was dangerously defeatist. For instance, 1923 marked a period of recession for the revolutionary wave in Europe; it was a year of defeat for communist movements in Germany, Italy, Poland and Bulgaria. What then, Stalin asked, is left for our revolution? Shall it “vegetate in its own contradictions and rot away while waiting for the world revolution”? To that question, Trotsky had no answer. Stalin’s reply was to build socialism in the Soviet Union. The Soviet working class, allied with the peasantry, had vanquished its own bourgeoisie politically and was fully capable of doing the job economically and building up a socialist society.<br />
<br />
Stalin’s position did not mean the isolation of the Soviet Union. The danger of capitalist restoration still existed and would exist until the advent of classless society. The Soviet people understood that they could not destroy this external danger by their own efforts, that it could only be finally destroyed as a result of a victorious revolution in at Icast several of the countries of the West. The triumph of socialism in the Soviet Union could not be final as long as the external danger existed. Therefore, the success of the revolutionary forces in the capitalist West was a vital concern of the Soviet people.<br />
<br />
Trotsky’s scheme of permanent revolution downgraded not only the peasantry as a revolutionary force, but also the national liberation movements of oppressed peoples within the old Czarist Empire. Thus, in “The Struggle for Power,” he wrote that “imperialism does not contrapose the bourgeois nation to the old regime, but the proletariat to the bourgeois nation.”<br />
<br />
While Trotsky de-emphasized the national colonial question in the epoch of imperialism, Lenin, on the other hand, stressed its new importance. “Imperialism,” said Lenin, means the progressively mounting oppression of the nations of the world by a handful of Great Powers; it means a period of wars between the latter to extend and consolidate the oppression of nations.”<br />
<br />
It was not until sometime later that I was able to fully grasp the implications of Trotsky’s concept of permanent revolution on the international scene. The most dramatic example was in Spain during the Spanish Civil War, 1936-39. The Trotskyist organivation had infiltrated the anarchist movement in Catalonia and incited revolt against the Loyalist government under the slogans of “Socialist Republic” and “Workers’ Government.” The Loyalist government, headed by Juan Negrin, a liberal Republican, was a coalition of all democratic parties. It included socialists, communists, liberal Republicans and anarchists—all in alliance against fascist counter-revolution led by Franco and backed by Hitler and Mussolini. The attempted coup against the Loyalist Government was typical of the Trotskyist attempts to short-circuit the bourgeois-democratic stage of the revolutionary process. The result was a “civil war within a civil war” and, had their strategy succeeded, it would have split the democratic coalition—effec~ tively giving aid to the fascists.<br />
<br />
In the United States I was to witness how Trotsky’s purist concept of class struggle led logically to a denial of the struggle for Black liberation as a special feature of the class struggle, revolutionary in its own right. As a result, American Trotskyists found themselves isolated from that movement during the great upsurge of the thirties. But all this was to come later.<br />
<br />
At the time I was at KUTVA, Trotskyism had not yet emerged as an important tendency on the international scene. | did not foresee its future role as a disruptive force on the fringes of the international revolutionary movement. At that point, I wasn’t clear myself on a number of these theoretical questions. It was somewhat later when my understanding of the national and colonial question-—-particularly the Afro-American question— deepened, that the implications of Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution became fully obvious to me.<br />
<br />
We students felt that Trotsky’s position denigrated the achievement of the Soviet Revolution. We didn’t like his continual harping about Russia’s backwardness and its inability to build socialism, or his theory of permanent revolution. The Soviet Union was an inspiration for all of us, a view confirmed by our experience in the country. Everything we could see defied Trotsky’s logic,<br />
<br />
His writings were readily available throughout the school, and the issues of the struggle were constantly on the agenda in our collective. These were discussed in our classes, as they were in factories, schools and peasant organizations throughout the country,<br />
<br />
About once a month the collective would meet and a report would be given by Party representatives-.-sometimes local, some+ times from the rayon (region of the city) and Moscow district, and sometimes from the Central Committee itself, They would report on the latest developments in the inner-party struggles—Trotsky’s and Lenin's views on the question of the peasantry; the NEP, how it had proved its usefulness and how it was now being phased out; Trotsky’s position on War Communism and Party rules; the dictatorship of the proletariat, and whether it could be a dictatorship in alliance with the peasantry or one over the peasantry. An open discussion would be held after the report. By that time the Trotskyists at KUTVA had dwindled to a small group of bitter-enders.<br />
<br />
The struggle raged over a period of five years (1922-27) during which time the Trotsky bloc had access to the press and Trotsky’s works were widely circulated for everyone to read. Trotsky was not defeated by bureaucratic decisions or Stalin’s control of the Party apparatus—as his partisans and Trotskyite historians claim. He had his day in court and finally lost because his whole position flew in the face of Soviet and world realities, He was doomed to defeat because his views were incorrect and failed to conform to objective conditions, as well as the needs and interests of the Soviet people.<br />
<br />
It was my great misfortune to be out of the dormitory when the Black students were invited to attend a session of the Seventh Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, then meeting in the Kremlin in the late fall of 1926, I was out in the street at the time and couldn’t be found, so they went without me. I missed a historic occasion, my only chance to have seen Trotsky in action. I was bitterly disappointed. When I arrived back at the dormitory, Sakorov, my Indian friend, told me where they had gone. Returning in the early hours of the morning, they found me waiting for them. They described the session and the stellar performance of Trotsky.<br />
<br />
Stalin made the report for the Russian delegation. Trotsky then asked for two hours to defend his position; he was given one. He spoke in Russian, and then personally translated and delivered his speech in German and then in French. In all, he held the floor for about three hours.<br />
<br />
Otto said it was the greatest display of oratory he had ever heard. But despite this, Trotsky and his allies (Zinoviev and Kamenev) suffered a resounding defeat, obtaining only two votes out of the whole body. The delegates from outside the Soviet Union didn’t accept Trotsky’s view that socialism in one country was a betrayal of the revolution. On the contrary, the success of the Soviet Union in building socialism was an inspiration to the international revolution,<br />
<br />
Otto told me that this point was made again and again in the course of the discussion. Ercoli (Togliatti), the young leader of the Italian Party, summed it up well a few days later when he defended the achievements of the Russian Party and revolution as “the strongest impetus for the revolutionary forces of the world.”<br />
<br />
The American Party united across factional lines in support of Stalin, The Trotsky opposition, already defeated within the Soviet Union, was now shattered internationally. From there on out, it was downhill for Trotsky. I witnessed Trotsky’s opposition bloc degenerate from an unprincipled faction within the Party to a counter-revolutionary conspiracy against the Party and the Soviet state. We learned of secret, illegal meetings held in the Silver Woods outside Moscow, the establishment of factional printing presses~all in violation of Party discipline. Their activities reached a high point during the November 7, 1927 anniversary of the Revolution.<br />
<br />
At that Tenth Anniversary, Trotsky’s followers attempted to stage a counter-demonstration in opposition to the traditional celebration. I remember vividly the scene of our school contingent marching on its way to Red Square. As we passed the Hotel Moscow, Trotskyist leaflets were showered down on us, and orators appeared at the windows of the hotel shouting slogans of “Down with Stalin.”<br />
<br />
They were answered with catcalls and booing from the crowds in the streets below. We seized the leaflets and tore them up. This attempt to rally the people against the Party was a total failure and struck no responsive chord among the masses. It was equivalent to rebellion and this demonstration was the last overt act of the Trotskyist opposition.<br />
<br />
During the next month Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev were expelled---along with seventy-five of their chief supporters. They, along with the lesser fry, were sent in exile to Siberia in Central Asia. Trotsky was sent to Alma Alta in Turkestan from where, in 1929, he was allowed to go abroad, first to Turkey and eventually to Mexico.<br />
<br />
Later, many of Trotsky’s followers criticized themselves and were accepted back into the Party, But among them was a hard core of bitter-enders, who “criticized” themselves publicly only in order to continue the struggle against Stalin’s leadership from within the Party, Their bitterness fed on itself and they emerged later in the thirties as part of a conspiracy which wound up onthe side of Nazi Germany.<br />
<br />
Throughout this whole struggle, we Black students at the school had been ardent supporters of the position of Stalin and the Central Committee. Most certainly we were Stalinists--whose policies we saw as the continuation of Lenin’s. Those today who use the term “Stalinist” as an epithet evade the real question: that is, were Stalin and the Central Committee correct? I believe history has proven that they were correct.<br />
<br />
=== RUTHENBERG’S DEATH ===<br />
In March 1927, the American community in Moscow was shocked by the news of the death of Ruthenberg, general secretary of the CPUSA. His death came suddenly, from a ruptured appendix. His last request had been that he be buried in the Kremlin walls in Moscow—a request acceded to by the Russian Communist Party, His ashes were carried to Moscow by J. Louis Engdahl, a member of the Central Committee of the U.S. Party.<br />
<br />
The Moscow funeral was impressive. The procession entered Red Square led by a detachment of Red Cavalry. The square was crowded with thousands of Soviet workers, including the entire work force of the Ruthenberg Factory, which had been named in his honor.<br />
<br />
We half dozen Black students, together with other members of the American colony, marched into the square immediately behind the urn, We followed it until we stood directly in front of the Lenin Mausoleum. On top of the mausoleum was the speakers’ platform, There stood Bukharin, who had recently succeeded Zinoviev as head of the Communist International: Béla Kun, leader of the abortive Hungarian Soviet of 1919; Sen Katayama, the veteran Japanese Communist; and others.<br />
<br />
Bukharin delivered the main eulogy, followed by several speakers. Suddenly I noticed Bukharin whispering to Robert Minor, who was standing beside him. Bukharin pointed down towards our group of Blacks who were gathered below the mausoleum.<br />
<br />
As Minor came down the steps toward us, I was a bit apprehensive, anticipating his mission. Sure enough, addressing my brother Otto, he said, “Comrade Bukharin wants one of the Negro comrades to say a few words.”<br />
<br />
Otto pointed at me and said, “Let Harry speak.”<br />
<br />
I felt trapped, not wanting to start an argument on such a solemn occasion, I reluctantly agreed to speak. and followed Minor back up the steps of the mausoleum, Béla Kun, a polished orator, was speaking, I was to follow. I tried to gather my thoughts, but I was not much of a speaker and certainly not prepared,<br />
<br />
Generalities did not come easy to me, and besides, I hadn’t really known Ruthenberg, I had only met him formally on the occasion of my departure for Moscow when he had shaken my hand and wished me luck. But what could I say about him, specifically in relation to the Blacks?<br />
<br />
I stood there amidst this array of internationally famous revolutionary leaders, and as I looked down on the thousands of faces in Red Square, panic suddenly seized me. Here was my turn to speak, but I found myself unable to utter a coherent sentence.<br />
<br />
I remember saying something about “our great lost leader.” This being my first experience in front of a mike, the words seemed to come back and hit me in the face. Finally, after a minute or two of floundering around | said, “That's all!” and turned away from the mike in disgust and humiliation. The words “that’s all” resounded through the square loud and clear, to my further discomfiture.<br />
<br />
And then came the moment for the translation. The translator was a young Georgian named Tival, one of Stalin’s secretaries. He was one of those people who speak half a dozen languages fluently, Tival got right into the job of translation, assuming an orator’s stance. He had a strong roaring voice, surprising for one of such diminutive stature.<br />
<br />
Swinging his arms, apparently emphasizing points that I was supposed to have made, I must admit that he made a pretty good speech for me. Speaking two or three times longer than my two minutes of rambling, he ‘preceded each point by emphasizing, “Tovarishch Haywood skazal” (Comrade Haywood said).<br />
<br />
The next morning, I went to the school cafeteria for breakfast, And there sat our little group of Black students. Golden had them laughing at something. He saw me and waved the day’s copy of Pravda. The headline was “Pokhorony Tovarishcha Ruthenberga” (Funeral of Comrade Ruthenberg).<br />
<br />
Golden began reading with a straight face, but using that peculiar language of his--Russian with a Mississippi accent. The article quoted from the main speeches and went on to say, Tovarishch Harry Haywood, Americanski Negr, tozhe bystupal (Negro American comrade Harry Haywood also stepped forward with a speech).”<br />
<br />
And Golden read one paragraph after another of the speech Tival gave for me, each paragraph starting with “Tovarishch Haywood skazal...Tovarishch Haywood skazal...Tovarisheh Haywood skazal.”<br />
<br />
Finally Golden looked up from that paper at me, and he said, “Man, you know you ain’t skazaled a goddamned thing!”<br />
<br />
Back home in the U.S., the death of Ruthenberg had signalled another flareup in the factional struggle within the Party. Following the intervention of the Cl at the Fourth Party Convention, there was a period of uneasy peace between the factions. But now a struggle for succession to Ruthenberg’s position as general secretary was raging hot and heavy.<br />
<br />
Lovestone, who had been organizational secretary, was supported by the Ruthenberg stalwarts—-Max Bedacht, Ben Gitlow and John Pepper. Since Ruthenberg’s death, Lovestone (as heir apparent) had pre-empted the interim job of acting secretary. In opposition, William W. Weinstone was the candidate supported by the Foster-Cannon bloc which included Alexander Bittelman and Jack Johnstone.<br />
<br />
Weinstone had formerly been a member of the Ruthenberg faction, but following Ruthenberg’s death, he sought the position of general secretary himself. His move offered an opportunity for the Foster-Cannon group to oppose Lovestone, whom they bitterly detested, with a candidate they believed had more of a chance of winning than did one of their old stalwarts.<br />
<br />
We Blacks in Moscow were isolated from much of this struggle. We were sort of observers from the sidelines, and with the exception of Otto (who had entered the Party immediately after its founding convention), we didn’t have any of the old factional loyalties or political axes to grind. We generally favored the Ruthenberg leadership, although we could hardly be called ardent supporters.<br />
<br />
Ruthenberg’s leadership had been endorsed by the CI, which gave his followers credence in our view. But Lovestone was something else again. On this, even Otto agreed. Lovestone had a reputation for being a factionalist par excellence, involved in the dirty infighting that took place. He was regarded as a hatchet man for the Ruthenberg group.<br />
<br />
None of us in Moscow could discern any principled political differences between the two groups on the question uppermost in our minds-—the question of Black liberation. Though we had not yet fully succeeded in relating our newly acquired Marxist-Leninist perspective to the question of Blacks in the U.S., we were sure— and our studies had confirmed---that Blacks were a potentially powerful revolutionary force in the struggle against U.S. capital, Clearly the common enemy could not be defeated without a revolutionary alliance of Blacks and the class-conscious elements of the working class, It was crucial to us that Party policy be directed towards consummating that alliance. We felt, however, that both factions underestimated the revolutionary potential of Blacks and we were determined not to allow ourselves to become a political football between the two.<br />
<br />
There had been no progress in this area since the folding of the American Negro Labor Congress in 1925, The collapse of the ANLC for us confirmed the Party’s isolation from the Black thasses, According to James Ford, a young Black Party leader, there were only about fifty Blacks in the Party at this time.<br />
<br />
Something was definitely wrong, At the time, we were inclined to attribute the Party’s shortcomings simply to an underestimation of the importance of Afro-American work. We were not, at that point, able to discern any theoretical tendencies within the Party which served to rationalize this underestimation, We felt it was due simply to hangovers of racial prejudices of white Party members and leaders.<br />
<br />
In Moscow, we had been in constant communication with Black comrades in the U.S. We had, in fact, set ourselves up as a sort of unofficial lobby to keep the situation with respect to Blacks continuously before the attention of the Russians and other Comintern leaders. They, for the most part, were sympathetic to our grievances.<br />
<br />
In May 1927, Jay Lovestone (while still acting secretary of the Party) showed up in Moscow at the CI’s Eighth Plenum. During his stay, he invited us Black students to his room at the Lux Hotel to give us an informal report on the Party’s work among Blacks. He had heard, of course, of our discontent and wanted to mollify us. He also knew that the question was coming up for serious discussion at the Sixth Congress of the Communist International, which was to take place the following year. There was no doubt he was out to mend his political fences.<br />
<br />
I had my first close look at the man when we gathered in his room. He tried to give us the impression of being very frank and self-critical, He said the Party leadership, involved in factional struggles, had neglected Black struggles, had neglected AfroAmerican work, an “important phase” of the Party’s activities. But this factional phase had now at long last come to a close and the Party (under his leadership) had now hegun seriously to tackle the job of overcoming this tremendous lag in the work.<br />
<br />
He told us that Otto Huiswood had been placed on the Central Committee and assigned as organizer for the Buffalo (western New York) district, We thought it was about time! Richard B. Moore had been placed as New England organizer for the International Labor Defense, “I cite this,” Lovestone said, “only as an earnest example of the determination of the Central Committee to remedy our default on this most important question.”<br />
<br />
Assuming a modest air, he turned to me and said, “Last but not least, we have decided that you, Harry, as one of our bright young Negroes, are to be transferred to the Lenin School. We've had our eye on you, Harry, for some time.”<br />
<br />
I was delighted at this news. The Lenin School had been established only the year before (1926) as a select training school for the development of leading cadres of the parties in the Communist International. But though I was delighted, I was also suspicious of the man, his cold eyes belied the warmth and modesty he tried to express. It seemed like a bid to buy me out. Otto, however, seemed to have been impressed.<br />
<br />
Though Lovestone was a teetotaler, he had a big bottle of vodka in his room for us students. He had brought us presents-—-which was true of most visitors from the States. It was understood that a visitor would not return to the U.S. with extra things that the students in Moscow could use. Most people, and Lovestone was no exception, came prepared with things to give away. During the course of the evening, Otto had seized a few pair of socks, and Lovestone had given him a tin of pipe tobacco (and cigarettes for us all). As we were leaving, Otto looked over Lovestone’s shoes.<br />
<br />
“Say, Jay,” he said, “you and me wear the same size shoes, don’t we? You got another pair with you?”<br />
<br />
“Sure, Otto, sure,” said Lovestone, and produced an extra pair.<br />
<br />
On our way home, walking down Tverskaya Boulevard towards the dormitory, we exchanged our impressions of the evening. Golden started off: “Oh, he’s full of crap. There’s no sincerity in the man.”<br />
<br />
Otto responded, “I think you’re wrong, Golden, I think you're wrong.”<br />
<br />
Golden said, “I saw his eyes. That’s something you didn’t see, Otto. You had too much vodka. You know I’ve always told you to go light on it—-you know you can’t handle the stuff, You remember what Vesey’s lieutenant said when the slaves rebelled in Virginia: “Beware of those wearing the old clothes of the master, for they will betray you!’ ”<br />
<br />
I never saw Otto so furious! He turned on Golden with his fists clenched, but thought better of it. Golden was too big, I laughed, and he turned towards me, but I was his brother, At that moment a drunk Russian staggered into view and suddenly bumped into him.<br />
<br />
Otto let his fist go and knocked the poor man down. There was a great commotion and a crowd of Russians gathered around. Some Chinese students from our school were across the street, and thinking we were being attacked by “hooligans,” rushed to our defense. We helped the man to his feet and, in the confusion, attempted to explain to the crowd what had happened. Otto said he had thought the drunk was attacking him, and it was thus that we managed to pass the thing off and return to our dorm.<br />
<br />
Lovestone was a consummate factionalist, utterly uninhibited by scruples or principles. He finally won out in the struggle to succeed Ruthenberg, but the mantle of Ruthenberg fit him poorly; the cloven hoof was always visible. His victory was aided by the ineptitude of the Foster-Cannon-Weinstone bloc, which made several tactical blunders (of which Lovestone took full advantage). Lovestone’s friendship with Bukharin was perhaps a factor in his victory, Nikolai Bukharin had succeeded Zinoviev as the president of the Comintern. He was an erstwhile ally of Stalin in the struggle against the Trotskyist “Left” and was later to emerge as a leader of the right deviation within the Soviet Party and the Communist International. As head of the Comintern, he already had begun to line up forces for his next battle which was to break out following the Sixth Congress of the CI in 1928. His man in the U.S. was none other than Jay Lovestone.<br />
<br />
As I have indicated, we KUTVA students in Mosccow were removed from much of the bitterness of the post-Ruthenberg struggle, and at the time, were not fully aware of its intensity. I was to be filled in with a blow-by-blow account of what went on at home by some of my classmates at the Lenin School, which | entered the following autumn.<br />
<br />
=== VACATION IN THE CRIMEA ===<br />
The month of August, vacation time, drew near. Our group of Black students split up and all of us (with the exception of Bankole) left Moscow, Bankole was reluctant to leave his Russian girl friend and remained in the city. Golden’s girl friend, a pretty Kazakhstanian girl, took him home to meet her people in Kazakhstan, an autonomous republic in southwest Asia, inhabited by a Turko-Mongolian people.<br />
<br />
As for myself, I asked for and received permission to spend my vacation in the Crimea. At the Chancellor’s office, I was given money, a railroad ticket and a document entitling me to stay one month at a rest home in Yalta. I was on my own and for the first time since my arrival fourteen months before, I was separated from my fellow Black students, But I had no misgivings. By this time, I had acquired a considerable knowledge of the country and had overcome the main hurdles in the language and could speak and read Russian with some fluency. In fact, I looked forward to my journey with pleasurable expectations, I was not to be disappointed.<br />
<br />
The Autonomous Republic of Crimea is a square-shaped peninsula jutting out into the Black Sea. At that time, it was one of the two Tartar autonomous republics; the other was Tartaria, on the Volga. I immediately fell in love with the country——its lush subtropical climate and its people. The Tartars were a darkskinned Mongolic people, descendants of the Golden Horde of Genghis Khan. When I arrived in Sevastopol, the largest city and seaport, I was struck by the dazzling brilliance of the sun against the pastel-colored buildings, the deep blue of the sea and the verdant Crimean mountains rising behind the city. Tall and stately cypress trees lined the streets. It was a busy seaport; all types of shipping could be found in the harbor from small fishing boats to Black Sea passenger liners and ocean-going freighters of the Soviet trading fleet,<br />
<br />
As a history buff, I stopped over for a couple of days to take in the historic sites of the city and its environs, There was the Panarama, a life-like display graphically depicting the battle of Sevastopol during the Crimean War, 1854-66. (The war was fought mainly on the Crimean peninsula between Russian forces on the one hand; British, French and Turkish allies on the other.). In this battle, the allies sought to knock out the strong Russian naval base in Sevastopol through an invasion by land and bombardment by sea. The Russians lost the war, but Sevastopol remained Russian.<br />
<br />
I drove out to Balaklava, a small village nestling on the sea a few miles southeast of Sevastopol, the scene of the disastrous charge of the British “Light Brigade,” led by Lord Cardigan and immortalized by Tennyson in his poem. Looking at the scene brought back memories of childhood school days when our class recited Tennyson’s poem aloud. I stood on Voronsov Heights overlooking the Valley of Death into which rode the six hundred. I walked over the grounds and viewed the graves of the victims of this blunder of the British officer caste. Fourteen years later, Sevastopol was to be the site of one of the most destructive and bloody battles of World War II.<br />
<br />
My automobile ride to Yalta, about sixty kilometers further along the coast, was not only exciting, but in some parts, a frightening experience. It was mostly along a narrow road, cut out of the side of mountains, on which two cars could barely pass. In some places, one could look down to what appeared to me to be a sheer drop of two or three thousand feet into the sea below, The chauffeurs driving powerful Packards, Cadillacs and Espano-Swiss sped along the road with its many curves at breakneck speed. The obvious fact that they were expert drivers was not enough to allay my fears nor those of the other passengers.<br />
<br />
Nearing Yalta, we passed Lavadaya, a beautiful palace built by an Italian architect during the reign of Alexander the Third. It was situated on a high cliff overlooking the sea. Later, it became the summer home of Czar Nicholas II. Now, under the Soviets, it had been converted into a rest home for local peasant leaders. The palace later housed President Roosevelt and Premier Churchill during the Yalta conference in 1945,<br />
<br />
At last I arrived in Yalta, center of the great Crimean resort area which extended along the coast and behind which rose the Crimean Mountains. Yalta was a town of rest homes and sanitaria, mostly owned by Soviet trade unions, I was put up at a rest home which mainly housed employees of the Moscow city administration.<br />
<br />
Immediately after registering, I put on my bathing trunks and donned the gorgeous Ashanti robe which Bankole had lent meand stepped out for a dip in the sea. I stepped out into the main street which ran alongside the seashore and headed for the beach. Although many of the Tartars of the area were dark-skinned, Blacks were rarely seen, even in these southern climes.<br />
<br />
As I passed along I could hear remarks like, “Kak khorosho zagorelsya (How beautifully sunburnt he is)!” It was a remark I was to hear often. It was good natured, and I sensed in it a trace of envy.<br />
<br />
The crowds were mainly vacationers from the north, who after the long, weary and cold sub-arctic winters of central Russia had fled to this semi-tropical paradise to soak up a little sunshine. Here they formed a cult of sun-worshippers bent on acquiring a suntan to display upon their return home.<br />
<br />
A crowd of small boys followed me out to the public beach a few blocks away. Perhaps they associated me with some of the South Sea Island characters they had seen in movies and waited expectantly for an exhibition of my aquatic skills. I doffed my gorgeous robe and stepped into the water, walked out a few feet and sat down. I tumed to see expressions of amazement, disappointment, and even pity, Their bewilderment was quite natural, for I myself had never met a Russian who didn't know how to swim, These children regarded swimming to be a natural human attribute; to them, an adult who couldn't swim was regarded as sort of a cripple.<br />
<br />
One day, while walking to the beach in Yalta, | was approached by a uniformed officer of the OGPU (federal police), “Bonjour, camarade, vous étes Sénégalais?” he asked in French.<br />
<br />
He seemed a bit surprised when I responded in Russian, telling him that I was an American Black and a student at KUTVA in Moscow.<br />
<br />
He said that he had noticed me several times on the streets and wondered if I were Senegalese, He had fought beside Senegalese riflemen during the world war. His Cossack regiment, he explained, was a part of a small Russian expeditionary force sent to fight with the French Army on the Western Front.<br />
<br />
I told him that I had also fought in the war with an American Black regiment and how | had seen Russian troops in a prison camp on my way to the Soissons front in the late summer of 1918. I asked him if he had been in that camp.<br />
<br />
He shrugged and said that it was quite possible. “They scattered us around in a number of camps; they didn’t want too many of us together in one place,” he said.<br />
<br />
“Our Russian force,” he went on, “was small and had no real military significance.” It had been sent by the Czar as a demonstration of solidarity and friendship between Russia and Francesort of a morale booster for the French people.<br />
<br />
“Be that as it may,” he said, “it didn’t boost our morale any to be there. In France, we fought in some of the toughest battles in the war, on the Champagne front and the Marne salient, and we suffered heavy casualties. Our fellows were homesick and confused, and didn’t know what they were fighting for so far away from Mother Russia.<br />
<br />
“There was much grumbling and always an undercurrent of discontent, All of this was heightened towards the latter part of the war by the bad news of Russian defeats on the Eastern Front. This all came to a head with the news of the fall of the Czar. Shortly after that we were withdrawn from the front by the French, as an unreliable element. Behind the lines, we were surrounded and disarmed by Senegalese troops, and quite a number who resisted were killed or wounded. To say that we were ‘unreliable’ was an understatement; by that time, we were downright mutinous!”<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik Party had active nuclei in the regiments. “I myself was a member of the Party,” said my new-found friend. “We followed the course of the Revolution through French newspapers and were able to glean the truth behind their distortions. We also had contact with some of the French left-socialists and with Bolshevik exiles before they returned home after the outbreak of the February Revolution. After the Armistice was signed, we were sent to Morocco and eventually Soviet ships came to take us to Odessa and home.<br />
<br />
“The French used the Senegalese against us,” he said. “We learned later of a mutiny among the Senegalese troops in which they were shot up and disarmed by the French Blue Devils.” I had just been reading André Barbusse and was surprised to learn how widespread mutiny had been in the French Army.<br />
<br />
“Well, c’est la guerre,” he said, “especially so an imperialist war. After all, what interest had the Senegalese in defending French imperialism? What interest did we Russian workers and muzhiks (peasants) have in fighting the Czar’s wars?”<br />
<br />
We parted, with both of us wanting to meet again, but he had to leave town that evening and I never saw him again.<br />
<br />
Often, we visited the local vineyards and wine cellars and tasted the local wines. It was wine country and Crimean wines were of the first quality, from the sweet ports, tokays and muscatels, to the dry red and white wines. On these outings there was always someone who had a guitar or accordion, and we sat late into the nights singing Russian folk songs and gypsy romans (love songs).<br />
<br />
The Crimea was not just a vacationers’ haven, although tourism occupied a large place in its economy. At that time, the economy was mainly agricultural. Vineyards were constantly expanding in the mountain valleys along the southern coast. Tobacco of fine quality was grown, and there was also an important fishing industry. On the east coast of the peninsula near Kerch, there was an area of rich iron ore deposits and mines. This was to serve as the basis for the construction of the gigantic Kerch metallurgical, chemical and engineering works, contemplated in the first five year plan. It was a plan which sought to quadruple the basic capital of the republic.<br />
<br />
With the renaissance of national cultures which accompanied the Soviet policy on the national question, the Turkic language spoken by the Tartars—which I understood was closely related to; modern Turkish—was being revived and taught in schools, A Latinized alphahet was introduced, replacing the old Arabic script. Tartar literature and culture flourished through this encouragement.<br />
<br />
I met the Party secretary for the county, a young Tartar who took me to visit a kolkhoz (collective farm), a vineyard in this case. A hundred or more peasant families were in the collective, all winegrowers. As in all collective farms, its members were required to sell a definite amount to the government at fixed prices and were allowed to sell the surplus on the free markets.<br />
<br />
Each family had a special plot of land which they cultivated for their own food supply. The chairman of the collective was a huge Ukrainian fellow, who showed us around and explained the wine growing process. The cultivation of grapes and making of the wine required special knowledge, which the government supplied.<br />
<br />
The members of the collective used up-to-date wineries owned by the state and managed by expert vintners. There I was to view the intricate process of wine-making, the pressing of the grapes, the fermenting process and the bottling itself. As I remember, this particular collective specialized in dry wines—both red and white. The Crimeans insisted that their wines were as good as the French. Not being a connoisseur, I wouldn’t know, but all I can say is that they tasted good to me.<br />
<br />
When I returned to Moscow in the fall, Otto told me of the discovery he had made on one of his trips to the southern region of the Caucasus. He had originally gone there on the invitation of one of our fellow students, a young woman from the Abkhazian Republic, a part of Georgia. After meeting some of us, she commented that they too had some Black folk down near her area in a village not very far from Sukhum, the capital of the republic on the Black Sea.<br />
<br />
She invited Otto down to visit the region over his summer vacation, and there he met the people. He described them as being of definite black ancestry—notwithstanding a history of intertarriage with the local people. But the starsata (old man) of the tribe was Black beyond a doubt. His story went some generations back, when he and the others joined the Turkish army as Numidian mercenaries from the Sudan. After several forays into this region they deserted the Army and had settled there. The starsata himself had been in the Czar’s Cavalry with the Dikhi (wild) Division of the Caucasus Cossacks.<br />
<br />
‘The people in the village wanted to know what was happening to “our brothers over the mountains.” Otto related to them the troubles we had gone through, described the travels “over the mountains and across the hig sea.” As the evening wore on and the local hrandy was consumed, toast after toast was drunk to “our little brother from over the hills.” Otto descrihed to them the conditions of Blacks in the U.S.—the lynchings, racism and brutality. Incensed, a few jumped up and pulled out their daggers. “You should make a revolution.”<br />
<br />
“Why don’t you revolt?”<br />
<br />
“Why do you put up with it?”<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
We were not the only ones surprised to learn about this group; it was news to the Russians in Moscow too! Several of these tribesmen later visited Moscow as a result of Otto’s visit. <br />
<br />
== Chapter 7 ==<br />
<br />
=== The Lenin School ===<br />
Following my summer in the Crimea, I returned to Moscow in the fall of 1927 to attend the Lenin School. The school was located off the Arbot on what is now called Ambassadors’ Row, a few blocks down the inner ring of boulevards from the KUTVA dormitories.<br />
<br />
The Lenin School, which was set up by the Comintern, opened in Moscow in May 1926, The plans for the school, formally called the International Lenin Course, had been reported on the previous year by Béla Kun, then head of the Educational (Agitprop) Department of the Comintern, Accordingly, the school was to train sixty to seventy qualified students both in theoretical and practical subjects, which included observations of Soviet trade unions and collective farm work, It offered a full three‘year course and a short course of one year.<br />
<br />
It was a school of great prestige and influence within the international communist movement, Its students, mainly party functionaries of district and section level and some secondary national Icaders who could be spared for the period of study, were generally at a higher level of political development than the students at KUTVA.<br />
<br />
I was the first Black to be assigned to the school, Others followed later; including H.V. Phillips in 1928, Leonard Patterson in the thirties, and Nzula—a Zulu intellectual and national secretary of the South African Communist Party.<br />
<br />
The American students who entered the Lenin School in the fall of 1927 were an impressive lot, They included prominent Party leaders from the national and district level. Outstanding in the group was Charles Krumbcin, a member of the Central Commitice of the Party and formerly in charge of trade union work in Chicago and district organizer for Chicago. A steamfitter by trade and a charter member of the Party, he was one ofa group of young trade unionists who made up the Chicago Party leadership in the twenties. They were the best representatives of the radical tradition of that city’s labor movement. <br />
<br />
Modesty and honesty were hallmarks of Charlie’s character, and he was a man of exceptional organizational and administrative ability. He was a founder of the Trade Union Education League (TUEL) and played a key role in the Chicago Federation of Labor. We developed a close and lasting friendship, and I learned a lot from him about Party history and the background of the revolutionary movement in the United States.<br />
<br />
Margaret Cowl, Charlie's wife, was a capable Party leader and organizer. She had worked in the TUEL and was recognized particularly for her leadership in the struggle for unity of Pennsylvania’s anthracite coal miners in 1927. Later she was to head up the Party’s Women’s Commission and play an active role in the movement for a Woman’s Charter, a broad united front movement launched in 1936 which asserted the rights of women to full equality in all spheres of activity. Margaret also energetically mobilized support for the struggles of women wage workers in the needle trades, textile, electrical and other industries.<br />
<br />
Joseph Zack had emigrated to the U.S. from Eastern Europe shortly after the First World War. Active in the first communist organization in New York, he had been section organizer of Yorktown and served on the Party’s Trade Union Commission. Zack was one of Foster’s leading trade union cadres in New York and had also been one of the first New York Party members assigned to work among Blacks, He was a bitter enemy of Lovestone, but was also critical of Foster. In 1932, he was expelled from the Party for refusing to abide by democratic centralism and by the forties had become an informant for the Dies Committee on Un-American Propaganda Activities.<br />
<br />
Morris Childs, a Chicagoan, was a leader in trade union and Party work. He became Illinois D.O. in the thirties at the same time that I was chairman of the Cook County Committee and secretary of the Southside region. While at the Lenin School, he served as the representative of the American students to the School Bureau.<br />
<br />
Rudy Baker, a Yugoslav comrade who later became D.O. in Pittsburgh and in Detroit, and Lena Davis (Sherer), a good friend of mine who was organizational secretary for New York in the thirties, were also at the school. All of these students were members of the Foster group. As far as I can recall, the sole Lovestone supporter in our class was Gus Sklar of Chicago, a leader in the Russian Federation.<br />
<br />
Poor Gus was alone in the midst of Fosterites, and it must have been an unhappy experience for him. When Lovestone was expelled from the Party in 1929, Gus remained in the Soviet Union and never returned to the U.S. He served as an officer in the Red Army and was killed in the defense of Moscow during the Second World War.<br />
<br />
The American students at the Lenin School were all experienced leaders of the U.S. Party, One might ask why so many were spared from U.S. work at a time when the Party’s position among the masses was so weak.<br />
<br />
Actually, these students were victims of Lovestone’s purge of the Party apparatus following his victory at the Fifth Party Convention in 1927. Part of Lovestone’s strategy was to weaken his opposition on the home front by “exiling” some of its leaders to the Lenin School. His plan backfired however. In Moscow, these “exiles,” as they jokingly called themselves, were to become an effective lobby against Lovestone both in the Comintern and in the CPSU. The political winds were changing.<br />
<br />
From the ashes of the defeated Trotskyist “left ” rose an equally dangerous, organized and secret rightist opposition headed by none other than Lovestone’s patron in the Comintern, Nikolai Bukharin. On the home front, this rightist opposition had its social base among the capitalists, the landlords and the kulaks (upper peasantry) and pushed a line that would have lopsidedly developed industry along consumer lines, to the detriment of the vast masses of Soviet people. Internationally, Bukharin greatly underestimated the war danger and the potentially revolutionary situation then developing on a world scale. At the same time, he greatly overestimated the strength and resiliency of imperialism.<br />
<br />
The Lenin School students helped to legitimize the antiLovestone struggle in the U.S. Party by linking it up with the fight against the right deviation, then only in its incipient stage, The Lenin School was to become a strong point in the fight against this danger.<br />
<br />
There were several other American students who had entered the Lenin School the year before. This group included Clarence Hathaway, Tom Bell, Max Salzman and Car! Reeves (the son of Mother Bloor). Of this group, Hathaway had the most imposing credentials. A machinist from Minneapolis and one of the leading people in the Trade Union Education League, Hathaway proved to be a valuable asset in the Party’s trade union work.<br />
<br />
He was a fine organizer and speaker, particularly effective in debates, and combined these talents with a good grasp of Marxist-Leninist theory. Clearly destined for top leadership in the Party, he later served as D.O. of the New York District, became an editor of the Daily Worker and a member of the Political Bureau. Tom Bell, Hathaway’s close friend, remained in the Soviet Union, married a Russian woman and died sometime before World War Il.<br />
<br />
William Kruse of Chicago was the principal Lovestonite in the school. For a brief period he filled in as acting rep from the Party to the Comintern in the absence of a permanent Party rep. Later, he was D,O. in Chicago under Lovestone’s leadership and was expelled from the Party with Lovestone in 1929.<br />
<br />
The students were organized at the school by language groups, as we had been at KUTVA. In this case, the languages were English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Russian and, later, Chinese. The whole school was a collective, comprising students, teachers, administrators and employees, The leading body was the Party Bureau, which included delegates from the various groups, including the employees. All students transferred membership from their home party to the CPSU, and were directly subject to its discipline. Party meetings were held about once a month.<br />
<br />
Our rector was a handsome, energetic woman named Kursanova. She was a leading communist educator and was married to the old Bolshevik propagandist and CC member, E. Yaroslavsky. She was about forty at the time and had an impressive background, including civil war experiences as a machine-gunner in a detachment of Siberian partisans. Kursanova had also been a delegate to the Bolshevik Conference in April 1917 which adopted Lenin’s famous April Theses.<br />
<br />
In addition to the Americans, others in the English-speaking section included British, Irish, Australians, a New Zealander, two Chinese, two Japanese and two Canadians—Leslie Morris and Stewart Smith, The British group included Springhall, Tanner, Black (a Welshman), Margaret Pollitt and George Brown. My special friend among the British was Springhall, known to all as “Springy,” with whom I roomed at the Lenin School.<br />
<br />
Springy was a British naval veteran of the First World War. He had come from a poor family and his parents had chosen him fora naval career. This latter act, it seemed, was a common practice among British lower class families with several sons. At the age of twelve, therefore, he had been “given” to His Majesty's Navy to be trained as a sailor, He served through the First World War and after the Armistice was involved in a mutiny or near-mutiny among members of the fleet who protested being sent to Leningrad to intervene against the Bolshevik Revolution. At the time, Springy was about twenty-one years old. As a result of the mutiny, he was cashiered from the Navy. Apparently, the admiralty was deterred from taking any harsher measures against the mutineers because of the widespread sympathy their action had evoked among British workers.<br />
<br />
Springy was popular with everybody, particularly among the women on the technical staff. After leaving the Lenin School, he returned to England where he rose rapidly in Party leadership. He also fought in Spain as a member of the Fifteenth International Brigade and was wounded at Jarama.<br />
<br />
At the beginning of World War II, he served as organizational secretary of the British Party. During the early stages of the war, Springy was charged by the Churchill government with subversive activity among the armed forces. This was during the period prior to the German invasion of the Soviet Union, when the war was still an imperialist war and we communists opposed it.<br />
<br />
There was no defense against the charge of subversion in wartime England, and Springy was sentenced to seven years in prison, After his release, he went to China, where he did editorial work on English language publications until his death from cancer in 1953. Springy died in a Moscow hospital, where he had been sent by his Chinese comrades to make sure that everything possible could be done to save him. His ashes were returned to China and interred with a memorial stone in the Revolutionary Martyrs’ Cemetery outside Peking.<br />
<br />
Springy introduced me to the gifted English writer, historian and Marxist scholar, Ralph Fox. A promising young theoretician, Fox was then researching material for one of his books at the Marx-Engels Institute. He died at the age of thirty-seven, fighting the fascists on the Cordova Front during the Spanish Civil War. By the end of his brief life span, he had already published a tremendous body of work.<br />
<br />
I got a lot out of my friendship with Fox. Profiting greatly from his wide-ranging knowledge, I often consulted him on theoretical and political questions which arose during my stay at the school.<br />
<br />
Springy and I were frequent visitors at the apartment of Fox and his wife Midge. It was there that I first met Karl Radek. A Polish expatriate, he had been an active leader in the Polish Social Democratic Party and a member of the Zimmerwald Left (those internationalists who broke off from the Second International in 1915 and were instrumental in founding the Third International). In 1915-16, Radek—along with Rosa Luxemburg—publicly disagreed with Lenin on the question of self-determination of subject nations. Radek later changed his position and fully united with the Bolshevik point of view in 1917.<br />
<br />
Radek was part of the group that returned with Lenin to Russia via Germany in the famous “sealed coach.” He was a member of the Bolshevik Central Committee and Politburo. At the time that I met him in 1928, Radek was still under a shadow politically. He had been a leading member of the Trotsky-Zinoviev opposition and was expelled from the CPSU along with the other leaders of the bloc at the Sixteenth Congress of the CPSU in December 1927. Exiled to the Urals, he publicly repudiated his earlier position and was readmitted to the Party a few months later in 1928. He was assigned as editor of Izvestia and later became the chief foreign affairs commentator in the leading Soviet papers, He was also a member of the Soviet delegation to the Comintern.<br />
<br />
Radek, as I remember him, was a little man, appearing to be somewhat of a dandy in his English tweed jacket, plus-fours and cane, But to me, the most striking thing about him was his beard. It stretched from ear to ear, under his chin and cheeks, giving him a simian look.<br />
<br />
His English, though accented, was fluent, When we first met, he immediately engaged me in a conversation about conditions of Blacks in the United States, which branched off into questions of Black literature, writers and the Harlem Renaissance. To my amazement, it was clear that he knew more about the latter subject than I did. I was embarrassed when he asked my opinion about certain Black writers with whom he was familiar but whom I had never even read. I found out later that Claude MeKay had been a sort of a protégé of Radek’s during the poet’s stay in the Soviet Union,<br />
<br />
In 1937, along with several others in the Trotskyite “Left Opposition,” Radek was convicted of treason, of acting as an “agency” of German and Italian fascism and giving assistance to those who might invade the Soviet Union. He was sent to prison where he died in the forties.<br />
<br />
Springy introduced me to many other young Britons in Moscow: such men as William Rust, who later became editor of the British Worker, Walter Tapsell, editor of the Young Worker; and George Brown. Both Brown and Tapsell were in my brigade in the Spanish Civil War and were killed in battle. Brown was killed at Brunete while I was there.<br />
<br />
Our English-speaking section at the Lenin School included five young Irishmen, all members of the Irish Workers League, a communist-oriented group organized by Big Jim Larkin in 1923. It seems that the Irish Communist Party, founded in 1921 by Young Roderick Connolly (son of James Connolly), had collapsed. I was told that its failure was due to a lack of Marxist-Leninist theory and the inability of its members to relate their views on socialism to the specific conditions in Ireland. But there was certainly no lack of revolutionary enthusiasm and motivation among the young people I met at the Lenin School, some of whom had been members of the Irish Communist Party. The group had been sent to the Lenin School as a step towards rebuilding the Irish Party.<br />
<br />
All five were protégés of the famous Irish revolutionary, Big Jim Larkin—most definitely a man of action and organization, not of theory. A tall, bulky man with a huge, hawk-like nose and bushy eyebrows, Larkin was one of the most colorful figures of the Irish labor movement. From his base among Dublin dockworkers, his activities as a labor leader had ranged over three continents~-from the British Isles, to Argentina, to the U.S.—and at the time that I met him, spanned more than three decades. He had been a founding member of the U.S. Party and was a member of both the Executive Committees of the Communist International and the Red International of Labor Unions (RILU or the Profintern). He was often in Moscow, where I saw him frequently.<br />
<br />
The Irish students came from the background of the 1916 Easter Rebellion and the revolutionary movement reflected in the lives of men like Larkin and James Connolly. Among them were Sean Murray and James Larkin, Jr. (Big Jim's son). All of them had been active in the post-war independence and labor struggles. I was closest to Murray, the oldest of the group, who was a roommate of mine.<br />
<br />
This was my first encounter with Irish revolutionaries and their experiences excited me. As members of oppressed nations, we had a lot in common. I was impressed by their idealism and revolutionary ardor and their implacable hatred of Britain’s imperialist rulers, as well as for their own traitors. But what impressed me most about them was their sense of national pride—not of the chauvinistic variety, but that of revolutionaries aware of the international importance of their independence struggle and the role of Irish workers.<br />
<br />
Then too, they were a much older nation. Their fight against Britain had at that time been going on for 750 years. They were fond of quoting the observations of Marx and Engels on the Irish movement, such as Marx’s letter to Engels in which he said: “English reaction in England had its roots in the subjugation of Ireland.” Another favorite was: “No nation can be free if it oppresses other nations.”!<br />
<br />
But most of all, they liked to point out Lenin’s defense of the Easter Uprising in his reply to Karl Radek, who had called the rebellion a putsch and discounted the significance of the struggle of small nations in the epoch of imperialism. Lenin admonished Radek, stating that “a struggle capable of going to the lengths of insurrection and street fighting, of breaking down the iron discipline of the army and martial law,” on the doorstep of the imperialist metropolis itself, would be a blow against imperialism more significant than that in a remote colony.<br />
<br />
I was shortly to find these observations applicable to the liberation movement of U.S. Blacks. As a result of my association with the Irish, I became deeply intcrested in the Irish question, seeing in it a number of parallels to U.S. Blacks. In retrospect, I am certain that this interest heightened my receptivity to the idea of a Black nation in the United States. <br />
<br />
=== TEACHERS AND CLASSES ===<br />
The teaching method at the school was a combination of lectures and discussions. About once a week the instructor would give a lecture to the entire English-speaking group, all twenty-five or thirty of us. Readings would be assigned, and when material was not available in English, it would be translated especially for us. I had one advantage in this regard because by this time I could read Russian fluently. Following the iccture, the instructor would delineate a number of sub-topics. Several days later, we would all get together again and one person from each group would report on its work. The instructors were often available for consultation during the time the groups were discussing and researching their topics.<br />
<br />
There were no grades given, nor were there any examinations. At the end of the term we would have evaluation sessions, where everyone met and discussed each other’s work, including that of the teachers. It was a process of comradely criticism and self-criticism.<br />
<br />
I found the classes exciting and challenging and the students on the whole sharp and on a high political level. I was under pressure to keep up. The English in general seemed to be a notch above most of us in political economy. This, I believe, was due to the existence of a large number of Labour Party schools which were spread throughout Britain.<br />
<br />
Our instructor for Marxist political economy was Alexandrov, an economist for the Gosplan, the state planning agency. In our class, he was often challenged on some aspect of Marxian economics, He would often have sharp exchanges with one of the British students, I believe it was Black, over differences in interpretations of Marxian economics,<br />
<br />
Black was a perfect foil for Alexandrov, who scemed to enjoy these tilts and invited the whole class to participate. Summing up the discussion, Alexandroy would brand Black’s position as “undialectical, mechanistic, and rooted in vulgar economism and Fabianism.” Black was stubborn, however, and prodded by Alexandrov, kept up his critical attitude for the whole first term, It was only during the evaluations at the end of the term that Black conceded that some of his positions had been in error,<br />
<br />
Perhaps the most prominent among my teachers was Ladislaus Rudas, a noted Hungarian Marxist philosopher and scholar. Like many Hungarian intellectuals, he spoke several languages fluently. He had been a leader of the short-lived Hungarian Soviet and had come to Moscow along with Béla Kun and the other Hungarian refugees. He taught historical and dialectical materialism and his class was one of the most interesting, It prescnted history, my favorite subject, but with a different content: a Marxist-Leninist interpretation, portraying not just the role of individuals but of classes.<br />
<br />
We had lengthy discussions on the French Revolution; the petty bourgeois dictatorship under Robespierre and the Jacobins; Saint Just and the extreme left, the Thermidor and Napoleon— “the man on the white horse.” The English Revolution and Cromwell, the Levellers, the Long Parliament. The Dutch revolution and Prince Egmont. We had extended discussions on the American revolutions---the War of Independence, the Civil War and Reconstruction.<br />
<br />
These discussions brought out our lack of knowledge of our own U.S, history; there was a complete absence of materials which presented U.S. history from a Marxist standpoint. All I can remember is the so-called Marxist analysis in the works of James Oneal (The Workers in American History) and A.M. Simons’s Social Forces in American History.<br />
<br />
The former I never read, but the work by Simons stands out in my memory for its gratuitous slur on U.S. Blacks, Simons claimed that the Black man did not revolt against slavery during the Civil War: “His inaction in time of crisis, his failure to play any part in the struggle that broke his shackles, told the world that he was not of those who to free themselves would strike a blow.”<br />
<br />
I had read about the slave revolts of Gabriel, Nat Turner, and John Brown’s heroic raid on Harper’s Ferry with his band of whites, free Blacks and escaped slaves. I knew of the role of Black soldiers in the Civil War who had to overcome the opposition of the Union Army in order to fight. Simons’s book skipped over all of this,<br />
<br />
I had come across Charles and Mary Beard’s The Rise of American Civilization, The Beards were economic determinists who had characterized the Civil War as the Second American Revolution. The idea seemed novel at the time, all of which points up how widespread had been the distortion of the period by U.S. bourgeois historians.<br />
<br />
My sub-group, which included Springy and the Irishman Sean Murray, had chosen the Civil War and the Reconstruction period as our subject, with myself as the reporter. Our group had long discussions, after which we consulted Rudas, who by that time had evidently done some homework of his own on the matter. He called our attention to the writings of Marx and Engels, their correspondence on the Civil War, and Mary’s series of articles in the New York Herald Tribune. After the discussions, I submitted a paper to the class, which evoked considerable discussion. On the whole it was well-received by my fellow classmates and commended by Rudas.<br />
<br />
Perhaps our most interesting and stimulating course was on Leninism and the history of the CPSU, taught by the historian I. Mintz. A former Red Army officer, he was at the time assigned to work on a history of the CPSU. Mintz was a young Ukrainian Jew, a soft-spoken and mild-mannered little man. He had a way of illustrating his subject through his own personal experiences during the Revolution and the Civil War in the Ukraine. His appearance contrasted sharply with his role and bloody experiences in the battle for the Ukraine. His was a thrilling story, involving a meteoric rise from leader of partisans to commander of a Red Army brigade. They had fought against a whole array of anti-Soviet and interventionist forces: the White Guardist Deniken; the Cossack Hepmans, Kornilov and Kaledin; Makhno’s anarchists (who were sometimes with and sometimes against the Red Army); General Petlura and sundry gangs of marauders and pogromists; and the remnants of the German garrisons in the Ukraine.<br />
<br />
In connection with our studies of the Bolshevik agrarian policy during the Civil War, Mintz told us of his involvement in the settling of the question of land redistribution in a Ukrainian district. This district had been reconquered by his Red Army unit from Denikin in the early winter of 1920. He gave us a general rundown of the agrarian situation at the time, the class forces in the countryside, their shifting alignment during the course of the Revolution, and the evolution of Bolshevik agrarian policy.<br />
<br />
Kerensky’s provisional government had done nothing to solve the agrarian problem, to relieve the land hunger of the masses of peasantry. Though Kerensky’s program had promised confiscation of the big estates, once in power, the government reneged on even that level of reform.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks exhorted the peasants to await the decision of the Constituent Assembly. Thus, at the time of the outbreak of the Revolution, the vast majority of the cultivatable land was still concentrated in the estates of the big landlords. The peasantry, constituting four-fifths of the population of the old Czarist Empire, was composed of three different strata. The well-to-do peasant not only owned enough land to support himself in good fashion, but also often hired labor to work his land. This group comprised only about four to five percent of the total. The poor peasant was without sufficient land to support himself and his family and often hired himself out as a laborer to the landlord or to a well-to-do peasant. The landless peasant subsisted entirely from the sale of his labor to the landlord or well-to-do peasant.<br />
<br />
Under the slogan “Land, Bread and Peace,” the Bolsheviks cgmbined the seizure of power in the cities with the land revolution underway in the countryside. Allied with the Social Revolutionaries (SRs), the traditional party of the peasantry, the land was taken over in two phases, The first phase, nationalization and confiscation, was incorporated in the Land Decree of the All Russian Congress of Soviets, November 8, 1917. This stamped the seal of governmental endorsement on the land seizures and called for their extension.<br />
<br />
In September 1917, Lenin declared Bolshevik support for the land program of the SRs, while pointing out that only a proletarian revolution could put even this program into practice. The SR program called for equal distribution of land among the peasants while the Bolsheviks favored collective, and eventually state-owned farms. But since the SR program represented the understanding of the majority of peasants, Lenin’s policy was to resolve this difference by “teaching the masses, and in turn learning from the masses, the practical expedient measures for bringing about such a transition.”<br />
<br />
The day after seizing power, the Bolsheviks put this policy into practice with their November 8, 1917, Decree on Land which made the SR program into law. Within three weeks, the SRs' left wing—representing the poorer peasants—had split from the rest of the party and entered a coalition government with the Bolsheviks. In the following years, Lenin held to the basie position he stated when presenting the November 8 decree:<blockquote>'''As a democratic government, we cannot ignore the decision of the masses of the people, even though we may disagree with it. In the fire of experience, applying the decree in practice, and carrying it out locally, the peasants will themselves realize where the truth lies... We must be guided by experience, we must allow complete freedom to the creative faculties of the masses.'''</blockquote>It was against this background that Mintz related some of his experiences in the Ukraine. He told us that the Party in the Ukraine had not fully grasped the lessons of the agrarian revolution in Great Russia. He spoke of one occasion when his outfit had attempted to arbitrarily carry out the collectivization of all the big estates in territory occupied by their division of the Red Army; their efforts met with the stiff resistance of the local peasants, even though the peasants supported Soviet power.<br />
<br />
The peasants insisted on the redistribution of all the estates, breaking them up among the individual peasant families, rather than taking over the large estates collectively, This occurred during the fall months of 1919, on the eve of Denikin’s final defeat, when Soviet power in the form of an “independent Ukrainian Republic” was about to be established.<br />
<br />
It was a time when Lenin, in order to allay anti-Russian distrust and suspicion among the Ukrainian peasantry, had insisted that certain concessions be made. Both Russian and Ukrainian were to be used on an equal footing, and attempts to push back the Ukrainian language to a secondary status were to be denounced. Lenin demanded that all officials in the new republic be able to speak Ukrainian and called for the distribution of large farms among the peasants. State farms were to be created “in strictly limited numbers and of limited size and in each casein conformity with the instruments of the surrounding peasantry.”<br />
<br />
Despite this, Mintz said, many of us Ukrainian Bolsheviks tended to downplay the nationality element in our own country. “In my own case, I had long since ceased to consider myself a Jew.” Most of them were what was called at that time “abstract internationalists”; super-internationalists who, in the name of internationalism, renounced the national element in the struggle of the Ukrainian masses.<br />
<br />
“But we were not alone in this deviation,” Mintz told us. “Although Lenin’s policy was eventually adopted by the Central Executive Committee, it was sharply opposed by leading Ukrainian Bolsheviks such as Rakovsky and Manuilsky. What it finally came down to, in the case of our army division, was that as a result of the opposition of the peasants in the area, we were foreed to give up our plan for collectivization; we thus had to settle for having only one of the estates being set aside as a Soviet farm.”<br />
<br />
The first part of each summer at the Lenin School was spent in practical work that related to our studies. In the course of my practical work program in the early summer of 1928, I had my first close-up ohservation of the peasant question in the USSR. I visited a peasant village in an agricultural district to talk with the people and make observations. Though hardly more than 100 versts (about 66 miles) from Moscow, it was truly in “darkest Russia,” a provincial place, isolated from the city. Few inhabitants had been as far away as Moscow.<br />
<br />
After taking a train to the nearest station, I then had to take a droshky another twenty versts to the county seat. Arriving in the morning, I was let down in the middle of the village square. I looked around to get my bearings, and in no time at all, a crowd had gathered to stare at me.<br />
<br />
‘The crowd grew larger by the minute; it seemed as if the whole village had turned out in the square, I could overhear remarks: “Who is he?”<br />
<br />
“Why is he so Black?”<br />
<br />
“What nice teeth!”<br />
<br />
“Look, his palms are white!”<br />
<br />
“He seems sympatichno,” remarked some.<br />
<br />
Someone else who perhaps had done a little reading said, “Oh, he’s probably from Africa. There the sun is so hot that people who have lived there for thousands of years become black.” The crowd seemed to accept this explanation.<br />
<br />
I stuck out my hand to a young man standing nearby. “Zdravstvuyte,” I said. “Could you direct me to the town committee?” He seemed to be surprised that I could speak Russian, but getting himself together, he directed me toa building across the square.<br />
<br />
“Who are you? Where did you come from?” the young man asked.<br />
<br />
“I'm an American Negro from the United States,” I replied.<br />
<br />
Someone in the crowd remarked, “I told you he was of the Negro tribe.” <br />
<br />
Someone else spoke up, “I thought all people in the United States were white.” <br />
<br />
That gave me the chance to get off on my international propaganda spiel, and I jumped right in. “Oh no,” I replied. “There are twelve million Blacks in the U.S.—ahout one-tenth of the population.” I went on to tell them about Blacks inthe South, and the modern-day remnants of the plantation system: sharecropping, Jim Crow and lynch terror.<br />
<br />
Someone remarked, “Oh, Like it was with us under the old regime.” Many of the villagers nodded their heads in agreement with this.<br />
<br />
Just then I noticed an old woman with a cane, slowly making her way through the crowd toward where I was. The young people gave way before her, in deference to her age. When she reached the center, I watched the changes in expression on her old wrinkled face as she gazed at me. First it registered amazement at such a sight; then comprehension when she had “cased” the whole situation,<br />
<br />
Then she spit on the ground and slammed her cane down, “Idite domoi! Go home!” she told me. “Wash your face! You should be ashamed of yourself, trying to fool the people around here!” Waving her cane at me, she then turned scornfully away. In all her ninety-odd years, she had never before seen a Black man!<br />
<br />
=== TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION ===<br />
The first time I met Stalin was at a social gathering in the Kremlin during the World Congress of the Friends of the Soviet Union. The congress coincided with the Tenth Anniversary celebrations in the fall of 1927. The congress sessions were held at the Dom Soyusov (House of the Trade Unions), It was the greatest international gathering I had ever witnessed. There were probably more than one thousand delegates, representing countries from six continents, The most impressive delegation was the huge one (about one hundred people) from China which was headed by the young and beautiful widow of Sun Yat-sen. (Today she is vice-chairman of the National People’s Republic of China.) <br />
<br />
I was surprised and delighted to meet my old friend Chi (Dum Ping), a former Chinese student at the University of Chicago with whom I had worked in the organization of the ill-fated Interracial Youth Forum on the Southside in 1924. He had since gone back to China and was now one of the translators for the Chinese delegation. It was Chi who introduced me to Madame Sun Yatsen. She spoke English with an American accent, which was not surprising since she had been educated in the United States.<br />
<br />
Among the other notables we were to meet were the young Cuban revolutionary, Antonio Mella, later murdered in Mexico City by Machado’s assassins. He was a tall, wiry youth, who always had a guitar slung over his back. There was Henri Barbusse, a pale, wan man, a victim of tuberculosis, He was a great literary figure in France and wrote a biography of Stalin. There was the american novelist Theodore Dreiser, father of American realism who was there with his secretary, Ruth Epperson Kennel, a young American woman. <br />
<br />
A special friend of us Black students was Josiah Gumede, the elderly president of the African National Congress and a descendant of Zulu chiefs. We took him in charge. Every morning we would call for him at his room at the National Hotel on Tverskaya (now Gorky Street) and escort him to the congress sessions. We also accompanied him on the rounds of parties held by the various delegations. He must have been about sixty at the time, but was big, strong and healthy and never seemed to tire.<br />
<br />
The gala occasion for the whole congress was the Evening of National Culture, It consisted of an elaborate pageant of folk dances from the various Soviet republics and autonomous regions. The dancers were all in their traditional costumes, a striking array of color and diversity. On this occasion, our Soviet hosts went all out for their foreign guests.<br />
<br />
The hall in the Dom Soyusov had been converted into a huge banquet room. We were seated before tables loaded with various kinds of liquor, including of course, the best vodka and zakuskas; appetizers of all kinds—cheeses, herrings, caviar, cold sturgeon and cold meats. Then came dinner, from soup to dessert.<br />
<br />
The banquet finally ended. Most of us were in somewhat of a stupor from food and drink, Our group, which included our teacher Sik, was leaving the hall amidst the din of a thousand people talking and laughing. On our way out we stopped and chatted with numerous delegates.<br />
<br />
Gumede was the chief attraction; he had given a stirring speech at a session of the congress a few days before. As I recall, we were nearing the door when we were stopped and greeted by the old Cossack cavalryman, Marshall Budenny. He was a short, powerful, bow-legged man, with a large ferocious black mustache. He was also in a merry mood.<br />
<br />
“Tell the chief,” he said, grasping Gumede’s hand, “that we stand ready to come to his support anytime he needs us!”<br />
<br />
“Thank you, thank you,” beamed Gumede.<br />
<br />
At that moment, someone approached us, I believe it was Tival, Stalin’s seeretary, and informed us that we were invited to a party in the Kremlin.<br />
<br />
We walked the short distance across the square to the Kremlin. Once within the Kremlin walls, we were guided into one of the old palaces and then taken upstairs to a small hall. It was a longroom with an arched ceiling reaching almost to the floors on the sides. It looked to me as though it could have been a throne room of one of the old czars.<br />
<br />
There were perhaps fifty people in the room. In the center there was a large table loaded with the traditional zakuskas, fruits and drinks. It was sort of a buffet; chairs were not directly at the table but rather were along the walls on each side.<br />
<br />
There in the center on one side was Stalin, with a number of people seated beside him, He rose, shook our hands, and after we were introduced, welcomed us, “Be our guests.” He was a short, thick-set man, as T remember, dressed in a neat tan suit with a military collar and boots shined to glisten.<br />
<br />
He motioned us to the vacant chairs on the other side of the room. On that side were a number of folk dancers and musicians, presumably participants in the earlier festivities, Somebody introduced Gumede as an African Zulu chief from the congress, and the dancers probably thought we were all from the same tribe. Gumede, however, was the center of attention, surrounded by the daricers, who insisted on being photographed with him.<br />
<br />
They gathered around him—a couple sitting on his lap and others behind him with their arms around him, Stalin, observing all this from the other side of the room, seemed amused. Later on, Stalin got up, bid us all good-night and walked out. As I remember, it was quite a relaxed evening with no political discussion. We left shortly after Stalin departed and were driven home by a chauffeur from the Kremlin car pool.<br />
<br />
Another version of this occasion was given, I believe by Sik, who insisted that Otto had danced with Stalin that evening. I don’t doubt Sik’s word, but I certainly don’t remember seeing it. Otto didn’t remember the incident either, But I do know that in Russia it was not uncommon for one man to dance with another on festive occasions, As I recall, the hall became more crowded, and I was attracted by a group of folk dancers who offered to help us students with our Russian,<br />
<br />
Afterwards Sik kept reminding Otto, “Don’t you remember, Otto, you asked Stalin to dance, and you danced around the hall with him several times, That was a memorable occasion; how could you forget it?”<br />
<br />
As for Gumede, he returned home a firm supporter of the Soviet Union. Everywhere he went, he gave glowing reports of his visit there. In January 1928, he told an ANC rally that “I have seen the new world to come, where it has already begun. I have been to the new Jerusalem."<br />
<br />
One day in December, Otto called me and said he had inst gotten a call to pick up a young Black woman, Maude White, who was to be a student at KUTVA. She was waiting at the station. He asked me if I'd like to go along and I readily agreed, looking forward with pleasure to meeting this woman—the first Black woman since Jane Golden to study in the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
We rented a droshky and proceeded to the station. It was a cold winter night, the temperature was somewhere around thirty-five below zero. When we got there, we saw the young Black woman, She was about nineteen, standing in the unheated station, she was a strikingly pretty, brown-skinned woman with huge dark eyes.<br />
<br />
She had on a seal skin coat, silk stockings and pumps, and by time we got there she was practically hysterical with the cold. "Get me out of here,” she shouted. Otto and I looke at each other, both thinking the same thing—we're going to have a rough time with this one. <br />
<br />
We couldn't have been more wrong. Maude got right into the swing of things at school. She was a very popular suger ae stayed in Moscow for three years. We later learned that she ha been a school teacher before coming to Moscow, On returning to the States, she became an outstanding Party cadre and a life-long friend of mine.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 8 ==<br />
<br />
=== Self-Determination: The Fight for a Correct Line ===<br />
Towards the end of 1927, Nasanov returned to the Soviet Union after a sojourn in the United States as the representative of the Young Communist International. I had known him briefly in the States before my departure for Russia. Nasanov was one of a group of YCI workers who had been sent on missions to several countries. He had considerable experience with respect to the national and colonial question and was considered an expert on these matters.<br />
<br />
Nasanov's observations had convinced him that U.S. Blacks were essentially an oppressed nation whose struggle for equality would ultimately take an autonomous direction and that the content of the Black liberation movement was the completion of the agrarian and democratic revolution in the South—a struggle which was left unresolved by the Civil War and betrayal of Reconstruction. Therefore, it was the duty of the Party to channel the movement in a revolutionary direction by raising and supporting the slogan of the right of self-determination for Afro-Americans in the Black Belt, the area of their greatest concentration.<br />
<br />
Upon his return, Nasanov sought me out and it was he, I believe, who first informed me that I had been elected to the National Committee of the YCL back in the States. In the months ahead, we were to become close friends. Through him, I met a number of YCI people, mostly Soviet comrades who held the same position as Nasanov did on the national question. They seemed to be pushing to have the matter reviewed at the forthcoming Sixth Congress of the Comintern. And as it later became clear to me, they were anxious to recruit at least one Black to support their position.<br />
<br />
As I have indicated before, the position was not entirely new to me. I was present at the meeting of the YCL District Committee in Chicago in 1924 when Bob Mazut (then YCI rep to the U.S.), at the behest of Zinoviev, had raised the question of self-determination At that time, he had been shouted down by the white comrades. (See Chapter Four.)<br />
<br />
Sen Katayama had told us Black KUTVA students that Lenin had regarded U.S. Blacks as an oppressed nation and referred us to his draft resolution on the national and colonial question which was adopted by the Second Congress of the Comintern in 1920. Otto and other Black students had also told me that they got a similar impression from their meeting with Stalin at the Kremlin shortly after their arrival in the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
All of this seemed tentative to me. No one had elaborated the position fully and Nasanov was the first person I met who attempted to argue it definitively. But all of these arguments, and especially Nasanov’s prodding, set me to thinking and confronted me with the need to apply concretely my newly-acquired Marxist-Leninist knowledge on the national-colonial question to the condition of Blacks in the United States,<br />
<br />
To me, the idea of a Black nation within U.S. boundaries seemed far-fetched and not consonant with American reality. I saw the solution through the incorporation of Blacks into U.S. society on the basis of complete equality, and only socialism could bring this to pass. There was no doubt in my mind that the path to freedom for us Blacks led directly to socialism, uncluttered by any interim stage of self-determination or Black political power. The unity of Black and white workers against the common enemy, U.S. capitalism, was the motor leading toward the dual goal of Black. freedom and socialism.<br />
<br />
I felt that it was difficult enough to build this unity, without adding to it the gratuitous assumption of a non-existent Black nation, with its implication of a separate state on U.S. soil. To do so, I felt, was to create new and unnecessary roadblocks to the already difficult path to Black and white unity.<br />
<br />
Socialism, I reasoned, was not in contradiction to the movement for Black cultural identity, expressed in the cultural renaissance of the twenties and in Garvey’s emphasis on race pride and history (which I regarded as one of the positive aspects of that movement), Socialism for U.S. Blacks did not imply loss of cultural identity any more than it did for the Jews of the Soviet Union, among whom I had witnessed the proliferation of the positive features of Jewish culture—theater, literature and language.<br />
<br />
The Jews were not considered a nation because they were not concentrated in any definite territory; they were regarded as a national minority and Birobidzhan was set aside as a Jewish autonomous province. Such a bolstering of self-respect, dignity and self-assertion on the part of a formerly oppressed minority people was a necessary stage in the development of a universal culture which would amalgamate the best features of all national groups. This was definitely the policy of the Soviet Union with regard to formerly oppressed nationalities and ethnic groups.<br />
<br />
Like the Jews, I reasoned, the position of U.S. Blacks was that of an oppressed race, though at the time I am sure I would have been hard-pressed to define precisely what was meant by that phrase. The main factor in the oppression of Jews under the Czar had been the religious factor; the main factor with U.S, Blacks was race. Blacks lacked some of the essential attributes of a nation which had been defined by Stalin in his classic work, Marxism and the National Question.<br />
<br />
Most assuredly, one could argue that among Blacks there existed elements of a special culture and also a common language (English). But this did not add up to a nation, I reasoned. Missing was the all-important aspect of a national territory. Even if one agreed that the Black Belt, where Blacks were largely concentrated, rightfully belonged to them, they were in no geographic position to assert their right of self-determination.<br />
<br />
I could see many analogies between the national problem in the old Czarist Empire and the problem of U.S. Blacks, but the analogy floundered on this question of territory. For the subject nations of the old Czarist Empire were situated either on the border of the oppressing Great Russian nation or were completely outside it. But American Blacks were set down in the very midst of the oppressing white nation, the strongest capitalist power on earth. Faced with this, it was no wonder that most nationalist movements up until then had taken the road of a separate state outside the United States. How then could one convince U.S. Blacks that the right of self-determination was a realistic program?<br />
<br />
Nasanov and his young friends answered my arguments over the course of a series of discussions and were quick to pick out the flaws in my position, They contended that I was guilty of an ahistoric approach with respect to the elements of nationhood. Certainly, some of the attributes of a nation were weakly developed in the case of U.S. Blacks. But that was the case with most oppressed peoples precisely because the imperialist policy of national oppression is directed towards artificially and forcibly retaining the economic and cultural backwardness of the colonial peoples as a condition for their super-exploitation. My mistake had been to ignore Lenin’s dictum that in the epoch of imperialism it was essential to differentiate between the oppressor and the oppressed nations,<br />
<br />
They further contended that I had presented the matter as though self-determination were solely a question for Blacks. | had therefore separated the Black rebellion from the struggle for socialism in the United States. In fact, it was a constituent part of the latter struggle or, more precisely, a special phase of the struggle of the American working class for socialism.<br />
<br />
My argument added up to a defense of the current position of the U.S. Party, albeit I had embellished the position somewhat against Nasanov's criticisms. Up to this point, the Black students had not challenged the Party’s line on Afro-American work, We reasoned that the Party’s default in the work among Blacks was not the result of an incorrect line, but came from a failure to carry out in practice its declared line. We believed that this failure was due to an underestimation of the importance of work among Blacks, which came from an underestimation of the revolutionary potential of the struggle of the Black masses for equality. All this resulted from the persistence of remnants of white racist ideology vathin the ranks of the Party, including some of its leadership.<br />
<br />
Nasanov and some of his friends agreed with us that the American CP did underestimate the revolutionary potential of the Black struggle for equality. But, they maintained, this underestimation came from a fundamentally incorrect social-democratic line, rather than from white chauvinism, They said that I had stood the whole matter on its head: I had presented the incorrect policies as the result of subjective white chauvinist attitudes; whereas, they pointed out that the white chauvinist attitudes persisted precisely because the Party’s line was fundamentally incorrect in that it denied the national character of the question.<br />
<br />
“Our American comrades seem to think that only the direct struggle for socialism is revolutionary,” they told me, “and that the national movement detracts from that struggle and is therefore reactionary.” This, they pointed out, was an American version of the “pure proletarian revolution” concept; they referred me to Lenin’s polemic against Radek on the question of self-determination.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks also criticized my formulation of the matter as primarily a race question. To call the matter a race question, they said, was to fall into the bourgeois liberal trap of regarding the fight for equality as primarily a fight against racial prejudices of whites. This slurred over the economic and social roots of the question and obscured the question of the agrarian democratic revolution in the South, which was pivotal to the struggle for Black equality throughout the country. They pointed out that it was wrong to counterpose the struggle for equality to the struggle for self-determination. For in fact, in the South, self-determination for Blacks (political power in their own hands) was the guarantee of equality.<br />
<br />
=== HISTORY OF THE QUESTION IN THE COMINTERN ===<br />
In these discussions with my young friends, which extended over the course of several months, I became keenly aware of the gaps in my understanding of Marxist-Leninist theory on the national-colonial question. I was to find, as Nasanov and others had indicated, that the idea of Blacks as an oppressed nation was not new in the Comintern. Though Stalin was undoubtedly the person pushing the position at the time, it had not originated with him, but with Lenin himself.<br />
<br />
It first appeared in Lenin’s “Draft Theses on the National Colonial Question” which he submitted to the Second Congress of the Comintern in 1920. The draft, which was later adopted, called upon the communist parties to “render direct aid to the revolutionary movements among the dependent and underprivileged nations (for example, Ireland, the American Negroes, etc.) and in the colonies.<br />
<br />
Some have argued that Lenin’s reference to U.S. Blacks as a subject nation was merely a tentative deduction. When he submitted his draft, he asked the delegates for opinions and suggestions on fifteen points, one of which was “Negroes in America."<br />
<br />
It was recorded, however, that the Colonial Commission of the congress, which Lenin himself headed and in which Sen Katayama was a leading member, held lengthy discussions on the question of U.S, Blacks. <br />
<br />
John Reed, the American author, was a delegate and participated in the discussion, apparently in opposition to Lenin’s formulations. In fact, he made two speeches, one in the commission and one to the congress, contending that the problem of U.S. Blacks was that of “both a strong race movement and a strong proletarian workers’ movement which is rapidly developing in class consciousness.” Equating all national movements among Blacks to Garvey’s Back to Africa separatism, he contended that “a movement which struggles for a separate national existence has no success among the Negroes, like the ‘Back to Africa’ movement, for example.....” and that Blacks “consider themselves above all Americans, they feel at home in the United States. This makes the tasks of communists very much easier."<br />
<br />
But despite Reed’s objections, the reference to American Blacks as an oppressed nation remained in the resolution as finally adopted. For Lenin’s thesis was not something spun out of thin air, but was the result of a serious study of the question. This is clear from his work “New Data on the Laws Governing the Development of Capitalism in Agriculture,” which spoke about the United States,<br />
<br />
In this work, published in 1915 (and based on the U.S. Census of 1910), Lenin viewed the question of Blacks in the South as one of an uncompleted agrarian and bourgeois democratic revolution, He drew attention to the remarkable similarity between the economic positions of the South’s Black tenants and the emancipated serfs in theagrarian centers of Russia, pointing out that both groups were not tenants in the European civilized sense, but “...semi-slaves, share-croppers...”<br />
<br />
Emphasizing the absence of elementary democratic rights among Blacks, he alluded to the South as “the most stagnant area, where the masses are subjected to the greatest degradation and oppression...a kind of prison where (these ‘emancipated’ Negroes) are hemmed in, isolated, and deprived of fresh air.” These kinds of conditions, the lot of the vast majority of U.S. Blacks, undoubtedly led Lenin to conclude that their movement for “emancipation” would take a national revolutionary direction.<br />
<br />
Conclusive proof of Lenin’s thinking at the time with respect to U.S. Blacks can be found in an uncompleted work written in 1917 though not available until 1935. The work, “Statistics and Sociology,” was begun in the early part of 1917, but was interrupted by the February Revolution and never resumed. <br />
<br />
In the section of the manuscript referring to U.S. Blacks, he drew a clear distinction between their positions and that of the foreign-born immigrants, that is between the white foreign-born assimilables and the Black unassimilables.<blockquote>'''In the United States, the Negroes (and also the Mulattos and Indians) account for only 11.1 per cent. They should be classed as an oppressed nation, for the equality won in the Civil War of 1861-1865 and guaranteed by the Constitution of the republic was in many respects increasingly curtailed in the chief Negro areas (the South) in connection with the transition from the progressive, pre-monopoly capitalism of 1860-1870 to the reactionary, monopoly capitalism (imperialism) of the new era."'''</blockquote>Whereas with the white foreign-born immigrants, Lenin observed that the speed of development of capitalism in America has “produced a situation in which vast national differences are speedily and fundamentally, as nowhere else in the world, smoothed out to form a single ‘American nation.’ <br />
<br />
All of this shows that the idea that U.S. Blacks comprise an oppressed nation was neither a temporary nor tentative formulation on Lenin’s part. <br />
<br />
Despite the thesis of the Second Congress, Reed’s views reflecting as they did the position of the young American Party-— were to persist in the U.S. without serious challenge through the Fifth Congress of the Comintern. The Third Congress of 1921 recorded no discussion with respect to the character of the problem. <br />
<br />
The Fourth Congress in 1922 also did not seriously discuss the point. This mecting, however, marked the first appearance of Black delegates to the Comintern. They were Otto Huiswood as regular Party delegate, and the poet Claude McKay as a special fraternal delegate. It was also the first congress to set up a Negro Commission, and extended discussions took place on the thesis brought in by the commission which characterized the position of U.S. Blacks as an aspect of the colonial question. It stressed the special role of American Blacks in support of the liberation struggles of Africa, Central and South America and the Caribbean. <br />
<br />
The thesis of the Fourth Congress did add a new, international dimension to the question, but it did not challenge the Party's basic anti-self-determination position. This position was stressed in a speech by Huiswood (Billings) which called the Afro-American question “another phase of the racial and colonial question,’ an essentially economic problem which was “intensified by the friction which exists between the white and black races,"<br />
<br />
The discussion of the character of the question came up in the Fifth Congress in 1924, this time in connection with the Draft Program of the Communist International. For the first time since the Second Congress, the discussion centered directly on the character of the question as an oppressed nation and the appropriateness of the slogan of the right of self-determination.<br />
<br />
August Thalheimer (the German head of the Commission on the Draft Program) reported that “the slogan of the right of self-determination cannot solve all national questions,” Such is the case in the United States, “where there is an extraordinarily mixed population” and where the “race question” is also involved. Therefore, he pointed out, “the Program Commission was of the opinion that the slogan of right of self-determination must be supplemented by another slogan: ‘Equal Rights for all Nationalities and Races."<br />
<br />
Representing the U.S. at the Fifth Congress, John Pepper supported this anti-self-determination position. According to him, the United States was a country in which the different nationalities could not be separated. Self-determination was not appropriate; Blacks in the U.S, did not want it. “They do not want to set up a separate state inside the U.S.A.,” and they wish to remain inside the U.S,, not leave it for Africa. To the demand of “social equality,” he held that “we should change these words to the following: full equality in every respect.”<br />
<br />
Lovett Fort-Whiteman, the sole Black delegate, apparently supported Pepper’s position and gave his standard speech (which I was to hear a number of times in the States), He stressed the racial aspect of the problem and called for a special communist approach to Blacks.<br />
<br />
There appeared to be no opposition to the draft program, but, after all, it was only the first version. The program in its final form was to be discussed and adopted at the Sixth Congress. Apparently Zinoviev and others in the CI leadership were not satisfied with the formulation that had rejected self-determination for U.S. Blacks. Zinoviev had instructed Bob Mazut to investigate the question while on his assignment to the U.S., immediately following the congress.<br />
<br />
Such was the situation following the Fifth Congress. The question can be raised as to why the U.S. Party’s position was not seriously challenged during this whole period and why the proponents in the Comintern of the self-determination thesis failed to press for their position.<br />
<br />
Their reluctance in this regard, I presume, was because they did not want to push their position against the unanimous opposition of the American Party, including its Black members. After all, the Comintern was a voluntary union of communist parties which operated under democratic-centralism. It was not the policy of the Comintern leadership to arbitrarily force positions on member parties. <br />
<br />
=== 1928; A REEXAMINATION OF THE QUESTION ===<br />
How are we to account then for the renewed interest in the Afro-American question among certain influential leaders of the Comintern on the eve of the Sixth Congress? Why the drive to re open the question? The answer lies in the changed world situation: the sharpened crisis of the world capitalist system, consequent on the breakdown of partial capitalist stabilization, the beginning of a deepening economic depression in Europe; and the continued upsurge of the colonial revolutions in China, India and Indonesia,<br />
<br />
These harbingers of the new period were pointed out by Stalin at the Fifteenth Congress of the CPSU in early December 1927, in which he referred to the “collapsing stabilization” of capitalism. <br />
<br />
It was to be a period of revolutionary struggle. In order to lead these struggles, an attack on right opportunism was required in the practice and work of the communist parties. It was a period in which the national and colonial question was to acquire a new urgency. The CI paid special attention to the fight against those views which liquidated or downplayed the importance of the question. In this context, the Comintern felt that the establishment of a revolutionary line on the Afro-American question was key if the CPUSA was to lead the joint struggle of the Black and white working masses in the coming period.<br />
<br />
The low status of the CP’s Negro work itself was another factor pressing for a radical policy review. There had been no progress in this work, despite the prodding of the Comintern. As already mentioned, the highly touted American Negro Labor Congress had failed to even get off the ground.<br />
<br />
In a speech at the Sixth Congress, James Ford counted nineteen communications from the Comintern to the U.S, Party on Negro work, none of which had been put into effect or brought before the Party. He further observed that “we have no more than 50 Negroes in our Party, out of the 12 million Negroes in America." <br />
<br />
All of these factors strengthened the determination of the Comintern to make the Sixth Congress the arena for a drastic reevaluation of work and policy in this area.<br />
<br />
In the winter of 1928, preparations were already afoot for the Sixth Congress which was to convene the following summer. The Anglo-American Secretariat of the CI set up a special subcommitteee on the Negro question which would prepare a draft resolution for the official Negro Commission of the Congress.<br />
<br />
As I recall, the subcommittce consisted of Nasanov and five students: four Blacks (including my brother Otto and myself) and one white student, Clarence Hathaway, from the Lenin School, In addition, there were some ex-officio members: Profintern rep Bill Dunne and Comintern rep Bob Minor, They seldom attended our sessions. James Ford, who was then assigned to the Profintern, also attended some sessions.<br />
<br />
Our subcommittee met and broke the subject down into topics; each of us accepted one as his assignment to research and report on to the committee as a whole. The high point in the discussion was the report of my brother Otto on Garvey’s Back to Africa movement. In his report, he concluded that the nationalism expressed in that movement had no objective base in the economic, social and political conditions of U.S. Blacks. It was, he asserted, a foreign importation artificially grafted onto the freedom movement of U.S, Blacks by the West Indian nationalist, Garvey.<br />
<br />
U.S. Blacks, Otto concluded, were not an oppressed nation but an oppressed racial minority. The long-range goal of the movement was not the right of self-determination but complete economic, social and political equality to be won through a revolutionary alliance of Blacks and class-conscious white labor in a joint struggle for socialism against the common enemy, U.S. capitalism.<br />
<br />
Up to that point, I was still not certain as regarded tbe applicability of the right of self-determination to the problems of Blacks in the U.S., but my misgivings about the slogan had been shaken somewhat by the series of discussions I had had with my Russian friends. Otto, in his report, had merely restated the CP’s current position. But somehow, against the background of our discussion of the Garvey movement, the inadequacy of that position stood out like a sore thumb. Otto, however, had done more than simply restate the position; he brought out into the open what had been implicit in the Party’s position all along. That is, that any type of nationalism among Blacks was reactionary.<br />
<br />
This view, it occurred to me, was the logical outcome of any position which saw only the “pure proletarian” class struggle as the sole revolutionary struggle against capitalism. The Party had traditionally considered the Afro-American question as that of a persecuted racial minority. They centered their activity almost exclusively on Blacks as workers and treated the question as basically a simple trade union matter, underrating other aspects of the struggle. The struggle for equal rights was seen as a diversion that would obscure or overshadow the struggle for socialism.<br />
<br />
But how could one wage a fight against white chauvinism from that position? I thought at the time that viewing everything in light of the trade union question would lead to a denial of the revolutionary potential of the struggle of the whole people for equality. Otto’s rejection of nationalism as an indigenous trend brought these points out sharply in my mind.<br />
<br />
In the discussion, I pointed out that Otto's position was not merely a rejection of Garveyism but also a denial of nationalism as a legitimate trend in the Black freedom movement, I felt that it amounted to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. With my insight sharpened by previous discussions, I argued further that the nationalism reflected in the Garvey movement was not a foreign transplant, nor did it spring full-blown from the brow of Jove. On the contrary, it was an indigenous product, arising from the soil of Black super-exploitation and oppression in the United States, It expressed the yearnings of millions of Blacks for a nation of their own.<br />
<br />
As I pursued this logic, a totally new thought occurred to me, and for me it was the clincher. The Garvey movement is dead, I reasoned, but not Black nationalism. Nationalism, which Garvey diverted under the slogan of Back to Africa, was an authentic trend, likely to flare up again in periods of crisis and stress. Sucha movement might again fall under the leadership of utopian visionaries who would seek to divert it from the struggle against the main enemy, U.S. imperialism, and on to a reactionary separatist path. The only way such a diversion of the struggle could be forestalled was by presenting a revolutionary alternative to Blacks.<br />
<br />
To the slogan of “Back to Africa,” I argued, we must counterpose the slogan of “right of self-determination here in the Deep South.” Our slogan for the U.S, Black rebellion therefore must be the “right of self-determination in the South, with full equality throughout the country,” to be won through revolutionary alliance with politically conscious white workers against the common enemy-—-U.S. imperialism,<br />
<br />
Nasanov was seated across the table from me during this discussion and, elated at my presentation, he demonstratively rose to shake my hand. I was the first American communist (with perhaps the exception of Briggs) to support the thesis that U.S. Blacks constituted an oppressed nation.<br />
<br />
The next day, Nasanov and I submitted a resolution to the subcommittee incorporating our views. We couldn't get a majority but we had Hathaway’s support, as I remember. It was agreed that the resolution be submitted to the Anglo-American Secretariat as the views of those who subscribed to it, and those who disagreed with it would present their own views.<br />
<br />
The only really persistent opposition in the subcommittee, as I remember, came from Otto; the other students were somewhat ambivalent on the question. I attributed much of this to Sik’s influence, since he had already begun to develop his position which held that the question of U.S. Blacks was a “race” question and that Blacks should not demand seif-determination, but simply full social and political equality. His theories were later used by the Lovestoncites and others who opposed the self-determination position.<br />
<br />
Once my hesitations were overcome, the whole theory fell logicatly into place. Here is the full analysis as I came to understand it. The thesis that called for the right of selfdetermination is supported by a serious economic-historical analysis of U.S. Blacks.<br />
<br />
The evolution of American Blacks as an oppressed nation was begun in slavery. In the final analysis, however, it was the result of the unfinished bourgeois democratic revolution of the Civil War and the betrayal of Reconstruction through the Hayes-Tilden (Gentiemen’s) Agreement of 1877.<br />
<br />
This betrayal was followed by withdrawal of federal troops and the unleashing of counter-revolutionary terror, including the massacre of thousands of Blacks and the overthrow of the Reconstruction governments which had been based on an alliance of Blacks, poor whites and carpetbaggers. The result was that the Black freedmen, deserted by their former Republican allies, were left without land. Their newly-won rights were destroyed with the abrogation of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and they were thrust back upon the plantations of their former masters in a position but little removed from chattel bondage.<br />
<br />
The revolution had stopped short of a solution to the crucial land question, there was neither confiscation of the big plantations of the former slaveholding class, nor distribution of the land among the Negro freedmen and poor whites. It was around this issue of land for the freedmen that the revolutionary democratic wave of Radical Reconstruction beat in vain and finally broke.<br />
<br />
The advent of imperialism, the epoch of trusts and monopolies at the turn of the century, froze the Blacks in their post-Reconstruction position; landless, semi-slaves in the South. It blocked the road to fusion of Blacks and whites into one nation on the basis of equality and put the final seal on the special oppression of Blacks. The path towards equality and freedom via assimilation was foreclosed by these events, and the struggle for Black equality thenceforth was ultimately bound to take a national revolutionary direction.<br />
<br />
Under conditions of imperialist and racist oppression, Blacks in the South were to acquire all the attributes of a subject nation. They are a people set apart by a common ethnic origin, economically interrelated in various classes, united by a common historical experience, reflected in a special culture and psychological makeup. The territory of this subject nation is the Black Belt, an area encompassing the Deep South, which, despite massive outmigrations, still contained (and does to this day) the country’s largest concentration of Blacks.<br />
<br />
Thus, imperialist oppression created the conditions for the eventual rise ofa national liberation movement with its base in the South. The content of this movement would be the completion of the agrarian democratic revolution in the South; that is, the right of self-determination as the guarantee of complete equality throughout the country.<br />
<br />
This new analysis defined the status of Blacks in the north as an unassimilable national minority who cannot escape oppression by fleeing the South. The shadow of the plantation falls upon them throughout the country, as the semi-slave relations in the Black Belt continually reproduce Black inequality and servitude in all walks of life.<br />
<br />
There are certain singular features of the submerged Afro-American nation which differentiate it from other oppressed nations and which have made the road towards national eonsciousness and identity difficult and arduous. Afro-Americans are not only “a nation within a nation,” but a captive nation, suffering a colonial-type oppression while trapped within the geographic bounds of one of the world’s most powerful imperialist countries.<br />
<br />
Blacks were forced into the stream of U.S. history in a peculiar manner, as chattel slaves, and are victims of an excruciatingly destructive system of oppression and persecution, due not only to the economic and social survivals of slavery, but also to its ideological heritage, racism.<br />
<br />
The Afro-American nation is also unique in that it is a new nation evolved from a people forcibly transplanted from their original African homeland. A people comprised of various tribal and linguistic groups, they are a product not of their native African soil, but of the conditions of their transplantation.<br />
<br />
The overwhelming, stifling factor of race, the doctrine of inherent Black inferiority perpetuated by ruling class ideologues, has sunk deep into the thinking of Americans. It has become endemic, permeating the entire structure of U.S. life. Given this, Blacks could only remain permanently unabsorbed in the new world’s “melting pot.”<br />
<br />
The race factor has also left its stigma on the consciousness of the Black nation, creating a powerful mystification about Black Americans which has served to obscure their objective status as an oppressed nation. It has twisted the direction of the Afro-American liberation movement and scarred it while still in its embryonic state.<br />
<br />
Although the objective base for equality and freedom via direct integration was foreclosed by the defeat of Reconstruction andthe advent of the U.S. as an imperialist power, bourgeois assimilationist illusions were continued into the new era. They were nurtured and kept alive by the nascent Black middle class and the liberal detachment of the white bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Conditions, however, were maturing for the rise of a mass nationalist movement. This movement was to burst with explosive force upon the political scene in the period following World War I, with the rise of the Garvey movement. The potentially revolutionary movement of Black toilers was diverted into utopian reactionary channels of a peaceful return to Africa.<br />
<br />
The period of bourgeois democratic revolutions in the United States ended with the defeat of democratic Reconstruction. The issue of Black freedom was carried over into the epoch of imperialism. Its full solution postponed to the next stage of human progress, socialism. The question has remained and become the most vulnerable area on the domestic front of U.S. capitalism, its “Achilles heel”—a major focus of the contradictions in U.S. society.<br />
<br />
Blacks, therefore, in the struggle for national liberation and the entire working class in its struggle for socialism are natural allies. The forging of this alliance is enhanced by the presence of a growing Black industria} working class. with direct and historical connections with white labor.<br />
<br />
This new line established that the Black freedom struggle is a revolutionary movement in its own right, directed against the very foundations of U.S. imperialism, with its own dynamic pace and momentum, resulting from the unfinished democratic and land revolutions in the South. It places the Black liberation movement and the class struggle of U.S. workers in their proper relationship as two aspects of the fight against the common enemy—U.S. capitalism, It elevates the Black movement to a position of equality in that battle.<br />
<br />
The new theory destroys forever the white racist theory traditional among class-conscious white workers which had relegated the struggle of Blacks to a subsidiary position in the revolutionary movement. Race is defined as a device of national oppression, a smokescreen thrown up by the class enemy, to hide the underlying economic and social conditions involved in Black oppression and to maintain the division of the working class.<br />
<br />
The new theory was to sensitize the Party to the revolutionary significance of the Black liberation struggle. During the crisis of the thirties, a significant segment of radicalized white workers would come to see the Blacks as revolutionary allies.<br />
<br />
The struggle for this position had now begun; there remained its adoption by the Comintern and its final acceptance by the U.S. Party. Our draft resolution, which summed up these points, was turned over to Petrovsky (Bennett), Chairman of the AngloAmerican Secretariat. He seemed quite pleased with it, expressed his agreement and suggested some minor changes. He agreed to submit it to the Negro Commission at the forthcoming Sixth Congress.<br />
<br />
I continued to work with Nasanov on preparations for the congress. By that time, we had become quite a team. Our next project was the South African question, a question which also fell under the jurisdiction of the Anglo-American Secretariat.<br />
<br />
We were assigned to work with James La Guma, a South African Colored comrade who had come to Moscow to attend the Tenth Anniversary celebrations and stayed on to discuss with the ECCI and the Anglo-American Secretariat the problems of the South African Party. Specifically, we were to draft a new resolution on the question, restating and elaborating the Comintern line of an independent Native South African Republic, (The word “Native” was in common usage at the time of the Sixth Congress, though today it is considered derogatory and has been replaced with Black republic or Azania.) <br />
<br />
=== SOUTH AFRICA ===<br />
This line, formulated the year before with the cooperation of La Guma during his first visit to the Soviet Union in the spring of 1927, had been rejected by the leadership of the South African Party.<br />
<br />
La Guma, as I recall, was a young brown-skinned man of Malagasy and French parentage. In South Africa, this placed him in the Colored category, a rung above the Natives on the racial ladder established by the white supremacist rulers. Colored persons were defined as those of mixed blood, including descendants of Javanese slaves, mixed in varying degrees with European whites.<br />
<br />
La Guma, however, identified completely with the Natives and their movement. He had been general secretary of the ICU (Industrial and Commercial Union, the federation of Native trade unions) and also secretary of the Capetown branch of the ANC. Later, after his expulsion from the ICU by the red-baiting clique of Clements Kadalie (a Native social democrat), La Guma became secretary of the non-European trade union federation in Cape town.<br />
<br />
La Guma was the first South African communist I had ever met. I was delighted and impressed with him and was to find, in the course of our brief collaboration, striking parallels between the struggles of U.S. Blacks for equality and those of the Native South Africans. In both countries, the white leadership of their respective parties underestimated the revolutionary potential of the Black movement,<br />
<br />
La Guma had made his first trip to Moscow the year before. He and Josiah Gumede, president of the ANC, had come as delegates to the inaugural conference of the League Against Imperialism which had convened in Brussels, Belgium, in February 1927. Gumede attended as a delegate from the ANC, while La Guma was a delegate from the South African Communist Party. It was La Guma’s first international gathering, and he had the opportunity to meet with leaders from colonial and semi-colonial countries and discuss the South African question with them. Madame Sun Yat-sen and Pandit Nehru were among those present, The conference adopted the resolutions of the South African delegates on the right of self-determination through the complete overthrow of imperialism. The general resolutions of the congress proclaimed: “Africa for the Africans, and their full freedom and equality with other races and the right to govern Afriea.”<br />
<br />
After Brussels, La Guma went on a speaking tour to Germany, after which he came to Moscow. Although the Brussels conference had called for the right of self-determination, it left unanswered many specific questions that are raised by that slogan. Were the Natives in South Africa a nation? What was to be done with the whites?<br />
<br />
La Guma was to find the answer to these questions in Moscow, where he consulted with ECCI leaders, including Bukharin, who was then president of the Comintern. He participated with ECCI leaders in the formulation of a resolution on the South Afriean question, calling for the return of the land to the natives and for “an independent native South African republic as a stage towards a workers’ and peasants’ republic with full, equal rights for all races.”<br />
<br />
La Guma returned to South Africa with the resolution in June 1927, Gumede also arrived home in the same month. But the resolution was received hostilely by Bunting and was rejected by the South African Party leadership at its annual conference in December 1927.<br />
<br />
Bunting was a British lawyer who had come to South Africa some years before. An early South African socialist and a founder of the Communist Party, he was the son of a British peer. As Bunting later commented, he nearly used up the small fortune he had inherited in the support of Party work and publications.<br />
<br />
Bunting and his followers insisted that the South African revolution, unlike those in the colonies, was a direct struggle for socialism without any intermediary stages. To the Comintern slogan of a “Native South African Republic,” Bunting counterposed the slogan of a “Workers’ and Peasants’ Republic.” This concept of “pure proletarian revolution” was an echo of what we had found in the U.S. Party with respect to Blacks. But here, the error stood out grotesquely given the reality of the South African situation with its overwhelming Native majority.<br />
<br />
it was against this background that La Guma and Gumede left to go to Moscow to attend the Tenth Anniversary celebrations, and the Congress of the Friends of the Soviet Union. La Guma apparently was not in Moscow on that oceasion; he was probably out on a tour of the provinces. Both he and Gumede travelled widely during their visit to the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
Our purpose at this time was to develop and clarify the line laid down in the resolution formulated the previous year. Our draft, with few changes, was adopted by the Sixth Congress of the Comintern and the ECCI.<br />
<br />
As already noted, Bunting had put forward the slogan of a South African “Workers’ and Peasants’ Government.” Bunting’s formulation denied the colonial character of South Africa, He failed, therefore, to see the inherent revolutionary nature of the Natives’ struggle for emancipation.<br />
<br />
As opposed to this, our resolution began with a definition of South Africa as “a British dominion of the colonial type” whose colonial features included:<br />
<br />
1, The country was exploited by British imperialism, with the participation of the South African white bourgeoisie (British and Boer), with British capital occupying the principal economic position.<br />
<br />
2. The overwhelming majority of the population were Natives and Colored (five million Natives and Colored, with one and a half million whites, according to the 1921 Census).<br />
<br />
3. Natives, who held only one-eighth of the land, were almost completely landless, the great bulk of their land having been expropriated by the white minority.<br />
<br />
4, The “great difference in wages and material conditions of the white and black proletariat,” and the widespread corruption of the white workers by the racist propaganda and ideology of the imperialists.<br />
<br />
These features, we held, determined the character of the South African revolution which, in its first stage, would be a struggle of Natives and non-European peoples for independence and land. As the previous resolution had done, our draft (in the form adopted by the Sixth Congress and the ECCI) held that as a result of these canditions, in order to lead and influence that movement, communists—black and white—must put forth and fight for the general political slogan of “an independent Native South African Republic as a stage towards a workers’ and peasants’ republic, with full, equal rights for all races, black, coloured and white.”<br />
<br />
“South Afriea is a black country,” the resolution went onto say, with a mainly black peasant population, whose land had been expropriated by the white colonizers. Therefore, the agrarian question lies at the foundation of the revolution. The black peasantry, in alliance with and under the leadership of the working class, is the main driving foree. Thus, along with the slogan of a “Native Republic,” the Party must place the slogan “return of the land to the Natives.”<br />
<br />
This latter formulation does not appear in the resolution as finally adopted. Instead, it includes the following two formulations:<br />
<br />
1. Whites must accept the “correct principle that South Africa belongs to the native population.”<br />
<br />
2. “The basic question in the agrarian situation in South Africa is the land hunger of the blacks and . . . their interest is of prior importance in the solution of the agrarian question.”<br />
<br />
With the new resolution completed, La Guma returned to South Africa. In the year since the first resolution, the opposition to the line had intensified and had already come to a head at the December Party Congress—-even before La Guma’s return.<br />
<br />
Bunting put forward his position in a fourteen page document in the early part of 1928. He equated the nationalism of the Boer minority to the nationalism of the Natives and justified his opposition to nationalism on the basis that all national movements were subject to capitalist corruption, and, in the case of South Afriea, a national movement among Natives “would probably only accelerate the fusion, in opposition to it, of the Dutch and British imperialists." Since it would thus only consolidate the forees against it, it was not to be supported.<br />
<br />
Bunting not only underrated nationalism, he played on the whites’ fear of it and raised the specter of blacks being given free reign, with a resulting campaign to drive the whites into thesea. He was echoing the specter that was haunting whites who remembered the song of the Xhosas:<blockquote>'''To chase the white men from the earth''' <br />
<br />
'''And drive them to the sea.'''<br />
<br />
'''The sea that cast them up at first'''<br />
<br />
'''For Ama Xhosa’s curse and bane''' <br />
<br />
'''Howls for the progeny she nursed'''<br />
<br />
'''To swallow them again.'''</blockquote>According to Bunting, the elimination of whites seemed to be implied in the slogan of a “Native Republic.” He regarded the phrase “safeguards for minorities ” as having little meaning, since whites would assume that the existing injustices would be reversed; that, in effect, blacks would do to them what they had been handing out for so long.<br />
<br />
While Bunting had held that all nationalism was reactionary, La Guma distinguished between the revolutionary nationalism of the Natives and the “nationalism” of the Boers (which in reality was simply a quarrel between sections of the ruling class), He argued that the communists must not hold back on the revolutionary demands of the Natives in order to pacify the white workers who are still “saturated with an imperialist ideology” and conscious of the privileges they enjoy at the Natives’ expense. <br />
<br />
Bunting held that the road to socialism would be traveled under white leadership; to La Guma, the securing of black rights was the first step to be taken, As the Simonses described it, “First establish African majority rule, he argued, and unity, leading to socialism, would follow.” La Guma called on communists to “build up a mass party based upon the non-European masses,” put forward the slogan of a Native Republic and thus destroy the traditional subservience to whites among Africans. This argument continued up through the Sixth Congress.<br />
<br />
=== MY STAY IN THE CAUCASUS ===<br />
In the middle of April 1928, I left Moscow for a stay in the Caucasus. The winter had been one of those long, cold, dark Moscow winters, Snow was still on the ground in April, Over the whole season, I had been plagued by recurrent seizures of grippe. Between the demands of school and the preparations for the Sixth Congress, it had been a winter of intense activity, Undoubtedly, this had contributed to my inability to shake off the illness. By the spring, I was pretty run down. <br />
<br />
The school doctor detected a slight anemia and recommended a month in a rest home. So, I was shipped off to Kislovodsk, a famous health resort in the northern Caucasus. I traveled south and east, across the Ukrainian steppe, where spring had already come to Rostov-on-Don, the administrative center for the northerm Caucasus region, Then on to Mincralny Vody (Mineral Water), the gateway to the Caucasus and a major railroad junction. I changed there for Kislovodsk, a short distance further towards the mountains.<br />
<br />
Stepping off the train in Kislovodsk in early morning, I felt better at my first breath of fresh mountain air. The city was located in the foothills on the northern range of the Caucasus. Its mineral springs were famed for their medicinal properties, especially for coronary patients. Formerly a famous watcring-place for the wealthy, it was now enjoyed by all the Soviet people. Kislovodsk was the source of the famous Narzan water which cost forty or fifty kopeks a bottle in Moscow. Here it bubbled from the ground in numerous springs, and you could drink all you wanted.<br />
<br />
Checking in at the sanitarium, I was assigned to a room shared by three others-—two workers and a Party functionary from Tbilisi named Kolya Tsereteli. Kolya was a tall, handsome, swarthy young man. He cut quite a figure in his long Georgian robochka, soft leather boots, high astrakhan cap and ornamental belt, complete with kinjal (dagger). He immediately took me in charge and became my constant companion during my stay there. <br />
<br />
After I had been examined by a doctor who prescribed daily baths, Kolya took me around on a sightseeing tour. The sun was coming up over the parks, cypress trees and places for open air concerts.<br />
<br />
After several weeks, I felt much better and was soon chafing at the bit, bored with the regimen and eager to return to Moscow, At this point Kolya suggested that we might try to arrange my accompanying him to his home in Tbilisi (hot springs) and stay for a week before returning to Moscow. I was delighted and had no difficulty in getting both my release from the sanitarium and permission from the school to make the trip.<br />
<br />
Tbilisi--the Florence of the Caucasus—was a beautiful modern city, stretching for miles along both sides of the Kura River. Ithad spacious avenues lined by stately cypress trees; handsome buildings and apartments, a magnificent cathedral, its great central dome flanked by four cupolas, framed against a background of the mountains of the mighty Caucasus chain, with Mount David rising 2,500 fect above the city.<br />
<br />
It was a mixed population of mainly Georgians, Armenians, Jews and some Turko-Tartars. Kolya explained that there actually were more Armenians than Georgians living there in the capital of Georgia! He went on to tell me that in the Caucasus, ethnic groups often overlapped their national boundaries as finally constituted. This was particularly so in the case of the Armenians, who were the victims of genocidal persecution and dispersal by Turkey. As a result, there were more Armenians in Azerbaidzhan and Georgia than in the Armenian Republic itself.<br />
<br />
In the old days, Georgian nationalism was directed more against the Armenians than against the Russians. The Armenians had a larger merchant class. They dominated commerce and were an obstacle to the growth of the weak Georgian bourgeoisie who retaliated by whipping up national animosity against the Armenians. Hence, national hatred was often directed against rival national groups rather than against the dominant Czarist power, and the Czarist government exploited these animosities fully.<br />
<br />
The area was known for bloody battles between the various ethnic groups, But all that ended with the revolution, Kolya said, and with the establishment of the Trans-Caucasian Federation. based on national equality and voluntary consent. <br />
<br />
Within the federation, which was composed of three republics (Georgia, Azerbaidzhan and Armenia), the Georgian republic had three minority distriets; Abkhazia and Azaria as autonomous republics, and Yugo-Osetia as an autonomous region, National languages and cultures were flourishing under the new regime.<br />
<br />
“As you will see, here in Tbilisi we have Georgian, Armenian and Russian theaters,” Kolya told me.<br />
<br />
Kolya hailed an izvozchik and we rode to his apartment, located on one of the broad tree-lined avenues of the city. Arriving there, we were happily greeted by his family, His wife, an attractive young schoolteacher, received me warmly and told me that Kolya had written her about me. They had two beautiful children, a boy of about three and a girl about five. They seemed fascinated with my appearance and couldn't take their eyes off me. I was undoubtedly the first Black man they had ever seen. <br />
<br />
On being told by Kolya to “shake hands with the black uncle,” the boy hesitantly extended his little hand. ,<br />
<br />
I took it and gently shook it. When he withdrew it, he looked at his hand to see whether some of the black had come off and seemed rather surprised that it hadn’t.<br />
<br />
“No, it won’t come off,” I said, and we all laughed. I had experienced this reaction from Russian children in Moscow, and it never failed to amuse me.<br />
<br />
The Tseretelis lived in a clean and neatly-furnished three-room apartment on the second floor of the building, with a balcony over the sidewalk. As if reading my thoughts, Kolya said, “Don’t worry, we all usually sleep in one room; the other is for my brother who stays here with us. He is out of town, so you can stay in his room.”<br />
<br />
Kolya was anxious to cheek in at the Party office where he worked, so we left our baggage and walked to his office a short distance away. I was interested in the people we passed. They looked better dressed than the Russians back in Moscow, their costumes were gayer. Perhaps it was due to the milder climate,<br />
<br />
Kolya served as the deputy secretary of the Agitprop Department of the Tbilisi Committee of the Communist Party. He introduced me to his fellow workers in the department; they all seemed glad to see him and remarked how well he looked after his rest. They were speaking Georgian; Kolya asked them to speak in Russian in deference to me, They all seemed to be multilingual. Kolya, I knew, besides his native Georgian, spoke Russian, Armenian and some French. The comrades insisted on calling a conference. Like most Party officials, they were well-informed on both domestic and international questions and were an educated audience.<br />
<br />
They asked me my impressions of their country, and they also had questions about the situation in the United States, about the conditions of Blacks. Kolya told them that I was a student at the Lenin School in Moscow and that formerly I had been at KUTVA. They knew about KUTVA as they too had sent students there. They were interested in the work I had done in preparation for the forthcoming Sixth Congress, and they were familiar with Stalin's report to the Fifteenth Party Congress from that December, where he described the international situation. They asked me questions about the international situation and the war danger and we exchanged opinions.<br />
<br />
Kolya explained that I was only going to bein town for acouple of days. It was Friday then, and I was scheduled to leave on Sunday. As I remember, we took a car from the pool and two or three people from the office accompanied us on a sightseeing tour along the banks of the river.<br />
<br />
We returned to Kolya’s home where his wife had a delicious big meal waiting for us: shashlik, fruits and pastries. We sat up until late that night telling stories.<br />
<br />
The next day we saw a number of places of interest, bathed in the famous hot sulfur springs, went up to the summit of Mount David and saw the old church on the mountain, which dated back centuries, and the mausoleum of famous Georgian poets and patriots. All in all we spent a very enjoyable weekend together.<br />
<br />
On Sunday, Kolya and his wife took me to the station and put me on the train for Moscow. Three days later I was back home. I saw Kolya once again when he was on a visit to Moscow and I took him out to dinner.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 9 ==<br />
<br />
=== Sixth Congress of the Comintern: A Blow Against the Right ===<br />
The Sixth World Congress of the Comintern, held in Moscow in July and August of 1928, was a historic turning point in the world communist movement. Early in July the first U.S. delegates arrived, anxious to get the “lay of the land” and to scout the political situation in the capital of world revolution. As I recall, Lovestone’s group staked out headquarters at the Lux Hotel, while the Foster-Cannon opposition gathered at the Bristol, a short distance further up the street.<br />
<br />
A number of us from the Lenin School were on hand when our comrades in the Foster group arrived. We got together to talk with a number of them, though Foster, Cannon and Bittelman were not present. They were anxious to get a report on the situation in the Soviet Party: Which leaders were involved in the right opposition? What was Bukharin doing? Where did he stand?<br />
<br />
We gave them a rundown on the situation as we saw it. The issues in the discussion included industrialization, the five-year plan, collectivization, the drive against the Kulaks and the war danger.<br />
<br />
We told them about disagreements in the CPSU. There was talk of a hidden right faction involving such leaders as Rykov, Tomsky and possibly Bukharin. Thus far, however, there were only rumors and speculations. The fight was not yet out in the open, but was confined to the Politburo and the Central Committee. A plenum of the Central Committee had been called on the eve of the Sixth Congress and was at that moment in session. We told them that we could undoubtedly find out at the congress if there were any new developments,<br />
<br />
On their part, our fellow oppositionists ran down the latest developments in the inner-Party struggle at home. We already knew of the findings of a special American Commission which had been set up at the Eighth Plenum of the CI in May 1927. The commission’s final resolution had called for the unconditional abolition of all factionalism. Both sides ignored the resolution. however, as the most vicious factionalism continued in the Party. At the Fifth Convention of the CPUSA in the fall of 1927, the Lovestone-Pepper bunch were able to out-maneuver the Foster-Cannon opposition and win control of the organizational apparatus.<br />
<br />
Firmly in the saddle of power and riding high, their support came from the belief on the part of the membership that the Lovestone group had the endorsement of the Comintern—a myth assiduously cultivated by the Lovestone cohorts. They were playing a deceitful game of double-bookkeeping, both with respect to the Comintern as well as to the membership at home. Their method was to give lip service to the fight against the right danger. while in practice undermining its application and attempting to pin the label of “right” on the opposition. Typical of this duplicity was their sabotage of the line of the Red International of Labor Unions’ (RILU) Fourth Congress, which had called for the formation of the new unions in industries and areas where the workers were unorganized.<br />
<br />
In the U.S., the new upsurge in class struggle, combined wit refusal of the AFL craft-type union caters to ieee ie majority of industrial workers, demanded that the communists take the lead and organize the unions themselves. ;<br />
<br />
At this point in the discussion it was pointed out that Foster himself was still not clear on the question of the formation of the new unions. Other members of the grouping admitted that they had also vacillated on the question when it was first raised—after the decisions of the Fourth RILU Congress-—but it appeared that they now had a better grasp of the matter.<br />
<br />
On the question of the estimate of the international situation, they pointed out that their record was clear, whereas the leadership definitely underestimated the economic crisis and radicalization of the workers. They admitted that they were late in pressing the question of independent unions, but now they had finally decided to launch textile, mining and needle trades industrial unions. Lovestone had jumped on the bandwagon at the last minute as a loud trumpeter of the “new unions” line in an attempt to clear his record before the World Congress.<br />
<br />
On the whole, our comrades were full of fight and optimistic at the outcome of placing their case before the World Congress. They seemed sure that they would get a favorable hearing. The strategy was to expose the Lovestone-Pepper leadership as the embodiment of the right danger in the U.S. Party and to explode the myth of their Comintern support, thus laying the basis for the victory of the opposition at the next Party convention. This strategy was pressed at the numerous caucus meetings of the opposition bloc which I attended before and during the congress.<br />
<br />
But all was not well within the ranks of the opposition; that much was evident at the first meeting of our caucus. Foster, the leader of the minority, came under sharp attack for his vacillation on the question of the new unions from his immediate co-workers, Bittelman, Cannon, Browder and Johnstone. Foster had not been alone in his resistance to the new policy. Most of the members of the minority had vacillated on, if not openly resisted, the decisions of the Ninth Plenum and of the Fourth Congress of the RILU on this question.<br />
<br />
But Foster had been the most stubborn, clinging to the old policy based on the organized workers, rather than the unorganized, which placed main emphasis on work within the old reactionary-dominated AFL unions. This policy, which Lozovsky had caricatured as “dancing a quadrille,..around the AFL and its various unions,” regarded the organization of unions independent of the AFL as “dual unionism”--a heresy left over from the days of the IWW.<br />
<br />
Just a month before, in the May Plenum of the CC of the CPUSA, Foster had written a trade union resolution which was supported by Lovestone, While it called for the building of independent textile and miners’ unions, it still reflected many illusions as to the gains communists could make within the AFL. Foster could not bring himself to fully criticize his earlier mistakes, which left Lovestone free to use Foster as a cover for his rightist position.<br />
<br />
All of this was bad for the minority; it blurred the image that it sought to present to the congress—that of consistent fighters against the right danger. There was a heated exchange at the first meeting of the minority caucus. As I recall, Foster contended that he had not in principle been against the new turn, but against those who interpreted it as a signal for desertion of the work in the old unions, It was clear that at this point Foster had lost leadership (at least temporarily) of his own group. Bittelman was chosen to make the report for the minority in the American Commission of the congress,<br />
<br />
With tempers still frayed, we passed on to a brief exchange on the Afro-American question and the proposed new line on self-determination, which they all knew was coming up for fulldress discussion at the congress. I gave a brief outline of the position and how I had been led to it by the study of the Garvey movement.<br />
<br />
Then someone raised the inevitable question, Wouldn't this be construed as an endorsement of Black separation? Does it not conflict with the struggle against segregation?<br />
<br />
Foster objected to that implication, maintaining that selfdetermination didn’t necessarily mean separation. He drew an analogy to our trade union policy with respect to Blacks, He pointed out the necessity to fight for the organization of Blacks and whites in one union and against all segregation, But in unions where Jim Crow bars exclude Blacks, Foster said, we support their right to organize their own separate unions, In such situations, the organization of Black unions should be regarded as a step toward eventual unity and not an advocacy of separation.<br />
<br />
It was evident that Foster had studied the question and was attempting to relate it to his own practical experience. While his analogy was oversimplified, he was clearly taking a correct stand.<br />
<br />
Bittelman, as I recall, seemed the clearest of all. Perhaps this was as a result of his Russian revolutionary background and some acquaintance with the Bolshevik policy on the national question. He pointed out the necessity of making a distinction between the right of separation and separation itself. Separation or independence is only one of the options; there were various forms of federation as Soviet experience had shown. The central question was one of building unity of Black and white workers against U.S. capitalism and this could be achieved only by recognition of the right of self-determination.<br />
<br />
I was happy about the support given to the position by Foster and Bittelman, As the main theoretician of the minority, Bittelman had a great deal of influence. Certainly there was unclarity among the caucus members, but by and large I was favorably impressed by this first airing of the question. After all, I reasoned, the proposed new line did represent a radical shift from past policy. There seemed to be a modesty among these people and a sincere desire to give the matter a full hearing.<br />
<br />
I felt that on the whole my comrades were an honest lot, Despite factional considerations, they were motivated by the overriding desire to achieve clarity on a question which up to that point had frustrated the Party’s best efforts.<br />
<br />
In the caucus meetings, I had my first close-up view of some of the leaders with whom I was to work in the future. Mostly from the midwest, with genuine roots in the American labor tradition, they were a pretty impressive bunch. Most had broad mass experience—especially in the trade union field. The roots of the Lovestone group were much more grounded among former functionaries and propagandists of the Socialist Party.<br />
<br />
William Z. Foster, leader of the minority bloc, was also the leader in the Party’s trade union work. A self-educated man, he had worked at a number of trades, including longshoreman, seaman, lumberjack, street-car conductor and railroad worker Born in Massachusetts, he spent his early childhood in Philadelphia and came into prominence as a trade union leader in Chicago.<br />
<br />
He had been a left socialist, then, for a brief period, joined with the Wobblies. He soon clashed with them on the issue of dual unionism. Foster himself opted for the French syndicalist policy of boring from within the established unions. He joined the Communist Party in the summer of 1921 and brought an entire group of trade unionists with him.<br />
<br />
In Chicago, Foster was deeply involved in trade union work. He had served as business agent for the Brotherhood of Railroad Car Men of America; was a founder of the TUEL; initiated the nationwide drive to organize the stockyard workers in 1917; and was leader of the 1919 steel strike, the attempt to organize 365,000 steelworkers. It was in this strike that he became a nationally known left trade union figure.<br />
<br />
The first time I saw Foster in action was at the Fourth Party Convention in Chicago in the summer of 1925. I remember him angrily pacing with clenched fists back and forth across the platform behind Ruthenberg as the latter berated him from the rostrum. Here in the caucus, he was again an angry man, but under the lashing of his friends and co-factionalists.<br />
<br />
Jack Johnstone, a Scotsman, still had the Scot’s burr in his Speech. An ex-Wobbly and close co-worker of Foster, he had been one of the young radical Chicago trade unionists. A member of the Chicago Federation of Labor from the Painters Union, Johnstone was a leader in the TUEL. I had met him at the Fourth RILU Congress. His name was familiar to me because of his role as a leader in the organization of the Chicago stockyard workers in which my sister had been involved. Johnstone was the organizer of the drive for the Chicago Federation of Labor and later became secretary of the Chicago Stockyards Council with 55,000 white and Black members.<br />
<br />
On the eve of the 1919 riots, he had helped to organize a parade of white stockyard unionists through the Southside in solidarity with the Black workers. I had the pleasure of working with Johnstone later in Pittsburgh and in Chicago, where he was industrial organizer for the district. He was a quiet, unassuming guy with a wry sense of humor.<br />
<br />
Earl Browder of Wichita, Kansas, served his ideological apprenticeship as a radical trade unionist in the socialist and cooperative movements. Arrested in 1917 on charges of defying the draft law, he spent three years in the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas.<br />
<br />
I had known Browdcr briefly in Moscow while he was rep to the Profintern, before he went on a two year mission to the Far East for that organization. We KUTVA students would often visit him at his room in the Lux Hotel where he would play checkers with Golden, who usually won. He told us that when he was at Leavenworth, he had met a number of former members of the Black Twenty-fourth Infantry who had been involved in the mutiny-riot in Houston, Texas, in the summer of 1917. He told us that they often played baseball together in prison. <br />
<br />
At the time, Browder seemed to me to be a quiet, modest, unassuming man. But at this caucus mecting, something had happened which seemed to have transformed him into a “new’ Browder. Though long associated with Foster, he now seemed bent on not only asserting his independence, but on establishing his own claim to leadership.<br />
<br />
At one point in the heated discussion on trade union policy, he exclaimed sarcastically: “You expect to get the support of the Comintern, but you're all divided among yourselves! There’s a Cannon group, a Bittelman Group, a Foster Group—well, I'm for the Browder Group!”<br />
<br />
No one seemed to take his remark seriously, but less than a year later Browder was to emerge as secretary of the Party.<br />
<br />
James P. Cannon was also from Kansas—a tall, raw-boned midwesterner of Irish descent. He came from the same trade union background as the other caucus leaders; he had been a traveling organizer for the Wobblies and an editor of a number of labor papers. Hc was a supporter of Trotsky, although he didn’t admit it at the congress. Later he split from the Party and helped form the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party. <br />
<br />
Bil} Dunne was a man of impressive credentials. Raised in Minnesota, Dunne entered the trade union movement as an electrician. Then in Butte, Montana, during World War I, he edited the Butte Daily Bulletin (official organ of the Montana Federation of Labor and the Butte Central Labor Council).<br />
<br />
Dunne had been secretary of a local of electricians, vice-president of the Montana Federation of Labor and a member of the state legislature (on the Democratic ticket, which in Butte was labor controlled). He helped organize the Socialist Party Branch of Butte and brought it into the Communist Labor Party in 1919.<br />
<br />
I got to know Bill quite well; he was in the Soviet Union for some months before the Sixth Congress as a Profintern rep. I first met him through Clarence Hathaway, and both were associated with the Cannon sub-group. Bill was familiar with the emerging line on self-determination and supported it. He had written a number of articles on Black workers in the mid-twenties.<br />
<br />
To me, he was the most colorful figure in our caucus anda man of unusual brilliance. Keen-witted, sharp in debate, he had an extraordinary sense of humor. Of Irish and French-Canadian parentage, Bill was short and heavy-set, with black bushy eyebrows. He cut a romantic figure onthe streets of Moscow in his Georgian rabochka and sheathed dagger at his waist. I had aclose friendship with Bill which lasted over a number of years.<br />
<br />
Alexander Bittelman was a Russian Jew who had emigrated to the United States when in his early twenties. A little fellow. Bittelman was both ascetic and scholarly. He had been in the socialist movement in Russia and continued on in his political work in the U.S. A serious Marxist student, Bittelman was the main theoretician for the Foster group.<br />
<br />
=== THE LOVESTONE CAUCUS ===<br />
The Lovestone-Pepper caucus was meeting at the same time. They too were mapping out plans for the battle on the floor of the congress. Lovestone also had his troubles—most involved the shedding of his opportunist reputation for that of “crusader against the right danger.”<br />
<br />
Most of the “big guns” were on the scene: Lovestone, Pepper, Weinstone and Wolfe. Gitlow, Bedacht and others were left at home as caretakers; Gitlow ostensibly to carry on the Party’s election campaign (in which he was vice-presidential candidate).<br />
<br />
While I was the only Black in the minority caucus, the Lovestone-Pepper caucus claimed the allegiance, if not the ardent support, of a number of leading Black comrades. In the nine months since the convention, the Lovestone-Pepper leadership had attempted to patch its fences in the work among Blacks. Otto Huiswood, now a member of the Central Committee and district organizer in Buffalo, was the first Black district organizer. Richard B. Moore was assigned to the International Labor Defense, and Cyril P. Briggs was editor of The Crusader News Service, which was subsidized by the Party.<br />
<br />
But none of these could be called ardent supporters of Lovestone. They were all dissatisfied with the status of Afro-American work, which was reflected in the small number of Black cadre in the Party. In general, it was still difficult to draw a hard and fast distinction between the factions on questions concerning Afro-American work.<br />
<br />
Blacks in the Lovestone delegation included H.V. Phillips and Fort-Whiteman (both directly from the United States) and students from the graduating group at KUTVA—Otto, Farmer and Williams (Golden had already left for home). The group also included William L. Patterson, the young attorney who had worked with the Party on the Sacco-Vanzetti case and who had been sent to KUTVA just before the congress.<br />
<br />
James Ford, who worked in the Profintern and was to become an outstanding Party leader in the thirties, stood aloof from both groups as I remember. His sympathies seemed to be with the Foster-Cannon opposition, however.<br />
<br />
Among the Blacks attending the congress, I was the only one supporting the new line on self-determination. The others insisted that “it was a race question, not a national question,” implying that the solution lay through assimilation under socialism. Probing deeper, I found that most were hung up on a purist and non-Marxist concept of the class struggle which ruled out all strivings towards nationality and Black identity as divisive, running counter to internationalism and Black and white unity.<br />
<br />
It was an American version of the “pure proletarian revolution” concept; a domestic manifestation of the old deviation in the socialist and communist movements against which Lenin, Stalin and others had fought in the development of the Bolshevik policy on the national and colonial question.<br />
<br />
Recalling that I myself had held the same view just a few months back, I felt that the resistance of Blacks in the Party to self-determination would be overcome through exposure in the discussions at the congress of the proposed new line. I had no doubt that they would come to see, as I had, the grand irony of a situation in which we Blacks, who so vociferously complained about our white comrades underestimating the revolutionary significance of the Afro-American question, were guilty of the same sin. For the revolutionary significance of the struggle for Black rights lay precisely in the recognition of its character as essentially that of the struggle of an oppressed nation against U.S. imperialism,<br />
<br />
At this point, the opposition to the idea of Black self-determination was to receive theoretical support from an unexpected source, This opposition came from Professor Sik, my old teacher at KUTVA, who was still teaching the Black students there, Sik contended that bourgeois race ideology, which fostered racial prejudices, was the prime factor in the oppression of U.S. Blacks. Therefore, their fight for equal rights should be regarded not as that of an oppressed nation striving for equality via self-determination but, on the contrary, as the fight of an oppressed racial minority (similar to the Jews under cezarism) for assimilation as equals into U.S. society. <br />
<br />
Sik undoubtedly thought that he was presenting original views, but stripped of their pseudo-Marxist phraseology, they were the old bourgeois-liberal reformist views. He slurred over the socioeconomic factors that lay at the base of the question, factors which call for the completion of the agrarian-democratic revolution in the South, His perspective divested the Black movement of its independent revolutionary thrust, reducing it to a bourgeois liberal opposition to race prejudice.<br />
<br />
However, Sik’s thesis continued to be used as a crutch for the right opposition over the next year or so; it appeared in the Communist International (organ of the Comintern) in the midst of the Sixth World Congress. But the pressure for a turn to the left in this work was to flush it out into the open along with other right-wing views on the question. <br />
<br />
Foremost among these were the views of Jay Lovestone. His view of Southern Blacks as a “reserve of capitalist reaction’ provided a theoretical rationale for the Party’s chronic underestimation of the question. This was clear in his report to the Fifth Party Convention in which he contended that: <blockquote>'''The migration of Negroes from the South to the North is another means of proletarianization, consequently the existence of this group asa reserve of capitalist reaction is likewise being undermined.'''</blockquote>Lovestone held that the masses of Blacks in the South become potentially revolutionary only through migration to the industrial centers in the north and participation in class struggle along with white workers. This viewpoint, which was later to become a cornerstone for his theory of “American exceptionalism,” was first outlined in his report for the Fifth Convention of the Party and again in his report in the Daily Worker in February 1928. But these articles passed unnoticed at the time. It was only on the eve of the Sixth World Congress and under the pressure of the new line that we became alerted to Lovestone’s views.<br />
<br />
The general meeting of the American delegation took place the day before the opening of the congress. All factions were represented but, as I recall, there were no fireworks. By that time, lines were clearly drawn and neither faction was trying to convince the other. On our part, we were saving our ammunition for the battle on the floor of the congress and its commissions.<br />
<br />
Apparently there had been some objections in the Lovestone group to the proposed new line on self-determination. To mollify these people, Lovestone stated that he stood for the right of self-determination of oppressed peoples everywhere, surely he said, no communist could oppose this right. I assumed that he regarded the slogan as some sort of showcase principle; something to be declared but which did not commit its advocates to any special line of action. Lovestone knew which way the wind was blowing and was clearly trying to straddle the fence on the issue.<br />
<br />
The delegates at this meeting were assigned to the various commissions; there was no struggle over the assignments as it was understood that all commissions had to include members of both factions. These commissions included the American Negro/ South African Commission, Colonial Commission, Trade Union Commission, and Program Commission.<br />
<br />
=== THE SIXTH WORLD CONGRESS ===<br />
On July 17, 1928, 532 delegates representing fifty-seven parties and nine organizations assembled in the Hall of Trade Unions. The delegation from the United States was a large one— twenty-nine delegates, including twenty voting and nine advisor delegates. The Sixth Congress convened under the slogan of "War Against the Right Danger and the Rightist Conciliators.”<br />
<br />
The period since the February plenum of the Comintern had been marked by the emergence of a clearly defined right opportunist deviation in most of the parties, They advanced the perspective of continuous capitalist recovery and the easing of the class struggle. In the realm of tactics this meant a continuation of the old “united front from above” and a reliance on social reformist trade union leaders. In the U.S., the right was to find its ease exponents in the Lovestone-Pepper leadership, which emphesized the strength of U.S. capitalism and its ability to postpone the crisis.<br />
<br />
A right opposition had also begun to develop in the CPSU, headed by Bukharin; Rykov, chairman of the Council of People's Commissions; and Tomsky, heading the Soviet Trade Unions. This group opposed the programs of the Stalinist majority of the Central Committee with respect to the goals of the new Five Year Plan, which called for intensified industrialization, collectivization, and the drive against the kulaks. The right deviation inthe CPSU and in the other parties of the Comintern had a common source—overestimation of the strength of world capitalism. The congress was faced with the need to answer these critics by deepening its analysis of the period and by spelling out more clearly the policy flowing from it.<br />
<br />
In the Soviet Party, the disagreement had come to a head prior to its plenum of July 1928, which adjourned just before the Sixth Congress. The differences, however, were hushed up by a resolution unanimously adopted by both groups which stated that there were no differences in the leadership of the CPSU. The agreement undoubtedly expressed the desire of the Soviet leadership to keep the congress from becoming an arena for discussion of Soviet problems before they had been finally thrashed out within their own Party.<br />
<br />
The delegates, however, were not unaware of the struggle in the Soviet Party. They gathered in an atmosphere charged with rumor and speculation about differences within the CPSU. The questions in our minds were: Who represented the right danger in the CPSU, the leading Party of the CI? What was the role of Bukharin? What had been the outcome of the discussions in the plenum of the CPSU? How would the congress be affected? We did not have long to wait for answers to these questions. Differences developed over sections of Bukharin’s ''Report on the International Situation and Tasks of the Comintern''.<br />
<br />
In his report which was distributed on July 18, at the second session of the congress, Bukharin analyzed the post-World War I international situation, dividing it into three periods. He defined the first (1917-1923) as one of revolutionary upsurge; the second (1924-1927) as a period of partial stabilization of capitalism; and the third (1928 on) as one of capitalist reconstruction. Bukharin made no clear distinction between the second and third periods; the latter was simply a continuation of the second. According to his characterization, there was nothing new at the present time to shake capitalist stabilization. On the contrary, capitalism was continuing to “reconstruct itself.”<br />
<br />
On this question Bukharin was challenged by his own Soviet delegation which submitted a series of twenty amendments to the thesis. These characterized the third period as one in which partial stabilization was coming to an end. Later, in his criticism of Bukharin’s position, Stalin pointed out the decisive importance of a correct estimate of the third period. The question involved here was: “Are we passing through a period of decline of the revolutionary movement...or are we passing through a period when the conditions are maturing for a new revolutionary upsurge, a period of preparation of the working class for future class battles? It is on this that the tactical line of the Communist Parties depends"<br />
<br />
At first, all of this was somewhat confusing to us. In his opening report Bukharin had himself declared the right deviation the greatest danger” to the Comintern. But in his characterization of the third period as one of virtual capitalist recovery he had adopted the main thesis of the right. He had also put himself in the awkward position of being rejected by his own delegation. But as Stalin was later to point out, it was his own fault for failing to discuss his report in advance with the Soviet delegation, as was customary. Instead he distributed his report to all delagations simulataniously. <br />
<br />
In accordance with our battle plan to expose to Lovestone leadership as the embodiment of the right deviation in the American Party, our caucus took the offensive. Even before the discussion on Bukharin’s report began, our minority had submitted a document entitled “The Right Danger and the American Party.” It was signed by J.W. Johnstone, M. Gomez, W.F Dunne, J.P. Cannon, W.Z. Foster, A. Bittelman and G Siskind. <br />
<br />
The document contained a bill of particulars in which we sought to point out that the rightist tendencies and mistakes of the Lovestone-Pepper leadership added up to a right line.<br />
<br />
Our attack, however, was hobbled by blemishes in the stateside record of our own caucus. At that point it would have been hard to discern any principled political differences between the majority or minority, Nevertheless, differences were developing on the estimation of the third period and U.S. imperialism.<br />
<br />
Pepper and Lovestone exaggerated the might of U.S. impetialism and spoke only of the weakness of the U.S. labor movement and the class struggle in this country. But the minority had also wavered on the question of building independent trade unions, the logical follow-through of the correct estimate of the objective situation in terms of practical policy.<br />
<br />
On the Negro question, the minority record up to that point had been no better than that of the majority. This fact was quickly pointed out by Otto and others. Both groups had shared the same mistakes. As Foster later observed, both factions had “traditionally considered the Negro question as that of a persecuted racial minority of workers and as basically a simple trade union matter.” It was this orientation which explains the Party's shortcomings in this field of work. But now, the tentative endorsement by our caucus of the proposed new line on the Afro-American question strengthened its position vis-a-vis the majority leadership.<br />
<br />
The prospects for our minority were brightened by the difficulties of Lovestone’s friend and mentor, Bukharin. Corridor rumors concerning his right-wing proclivities were now being confirmed by his differences with his own Soviet delegation on the character of the third period.<br />
<br />
The congress was now settling down to work. A number of commissions were formed to discuss and formulate resolutions on the main subjects confronting the eongress. Among them were: 1) A Commission on Program, to complete the drafting of a program for the Comintern; 2) one on the Trade Union question, to apply the struggle against right opportunism to the trade union field; and 3) a commission on the Colonial Question which discussed strategy and tactics of the liberation movements in the colonies and semi-colonies and the tasks of the Comintern. There were also several commissions on the special problems of individual parties.<br />
<br />
My major concern, however, was the Negro Commission, which was to take up the problem of the U.S. Blacks and the South African question. Although set up as an independent commission, in reality it was a subcommittee of the Colonial Commission. The resolutions formulated by it were included in the final draft of the congress’s thesis on the Revolutionary Movement in the Colonies. The Negro Commission was set up on August 6, at the twenty-third session of the congress. It was a memorable day, particularly for us Black communists—a day to which we all had looked forward. At last there was to be a full-dress discussion on the question.<br />
<br />
We listened attentively as the German comrade Remmele, chairman of the session, read off on behalf of the presidium the list of members and officers who would comprise the commission, It was an impressive list and indicated the high priority given the question by the congress. Thirty-two delegates, representing eighteen countries, including the United States, South Africa. Great Britain, the Soviet Union, France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Turkey, India, Palestine and Syria were members of the commission. Impressive also were its officers: the chairman, Ottomar Kuusinen, was a member of the Cl Secretariat and chairman of the Colonial Commission; the vice-chairman Petrovsky (Bennett) was also chairman of the Anglo-American Secretariat; and the recording secretary, Mikhailov (Williams), was a former Cl representative to the American Party. <br />
<br />
The delegates from the U.S, included five Blacks: myself, Jones (Otto Hall), Farmer (Roy Mahoney), James Ford and I believe, Harold Williams; plus two white comrades, Bittelman and Lovestone. Others included Sidney Bunting of South Africa; Fokin and Nasanov, representing the Young Communist International; the Swiss, Humbert-Droz, a top Cl official; Heller, from the Communist fraction of the Profintern; and several members of the Soviet delegation to the congress.<br />
<br />
Participation in commission meetings was not limited to its members, however. Among the important figures who spoke inthe discussions were Manuilsky, a CI official, and the Ukrainian, Skrypnik, both members of the Soviet delegation. The hall was always crowded with interested observers,<br />
<br />
The first order of business before the Commission was the Negro question, It was introduced by Petrovsky, who, as I recall stressed the need for a radical turn in the policy of the American Party with respect to its work among Blacks. He referred to the Negro Subcommittee, set up earlier in the year by the Anglo-American Seerctariat, which was given the task of preparing materials on the question for the Sixth Congress.<br />
<br />
Petrovsky described the two positions which emerged from this subcommittee.<br />
<br />
One held that the weaknesses of the Party’s Negro work was a result of an incorrect line. The partisans of this position regarded Blacks in the South as an oppressed nation and recommended that the right of self-determination be raised as an orientation slogan in their struggle for equality.<br />
<br />
The other position, he said, held that the question was one of a “racial minority” whose immediate and ultimate demands were embraced by the slogan of complete economic, social and political equality, The supporters of this position attributed the weaknesses in the Party’s Afro-American work to the underestimation of the importance of work among Blacks, This resulted, in turn, from the survivals of racial prejudices within the ranks of the Party and its leadership. This position did not challenge the Party’s line, but called for its more energetic application.<br />
<br />
As I recall, Petrovsky stated that he himself favored the position on self-determination. He did not see it as a negation of the slogan of social equality which, he said, would remain the main slogan for the Black masses. But in the Black Belt, where Blacks are in the majority, in addition to the slogan of cquality the Party must raise another slogan—the right of self-determination. For here, equality without the right of Blacks to enforce it is but an empty phrase.<br />
<br />
At the same time he expressed agreement with the comrades who contended that the hangovers of racial prejudice in the Party were a main obstacle to the Party’s effective work among Blacks. He stressed the need to fight against the ideology of white chauvinism, a principle block to the unity of Black and white workers.<br />
<br />
Petrovsky then referred the comrades to the material before them. It included the document by Nasanov and myself, summarizing our position in support of the — self-determination thesis. The document contained a criticism of current Party activities and policies and condemned Pepper’s May 30th resolution, which had made no reference to the Party’s tasks in the South. It also criticized the completely northern orientation of the American Negro Labor Congress, as contained in the policy statements of its leaders, Lovett Fort-Whiteman and H.V. Phillips. Finally, it criticized Lovestone’s characterization of Southern Blacks as “reserves of capitalist reaction.”<br />
<br />
Other documents presented to the commission were a statement by Dunne and Hathaway supporting the self-determination viewpoint and a document by Sik opposing the proposed new line. Sik argued that Blacks were a racial minority whose immediate and ultimate demands were embraced by the slogan of full social equality. <br />
<br />
Later in the discussion, Pepper submitted a document containing his proposals for a “Negro Soviet Republic” in the South, arguing that Southern Blacks were not just a nation but virtually a colony within the body of the United States of America.<br />
<br />
Among the American delegates who spoke in favor of the proposed new line were Bittelman, Foster and Dunne. As I remember, all were self-critical. Bittelman, however, emphasized the dual role of the Black working class envisioned by the new line: first, its role as a basic and constituent element of the American working class and, second, its leadership of the national liberation movement of Black people.<br />
<br />
I do not remember Lovestone speaking. If he did, he did not openly attack the proposed new line, for that would not have been his style. It was clear to all, however, that he had strong reservations. Sam Darey of the Young Communist League was, as I remember, the only white comrade who openly opposed the proposed new line.<br />
<br />
But the strongest opposition to the self-determination thesis both in the commission and on the floor of the congress was from the Black comrades James Ford and Otto Hall. In their arguments it was evident that they relied heavily on Professor Sik and his “new” theory on “race problems.” Up to that point, neither Nasanov nor I had paid much attention to Sik. But now after listening to Otto and Ford we suddenly realized the danger his theories posed to clarity on this vital question.<br />
<br />
Sik had evidently been working hard on his thesis which he was now proselytizing with almost evangelie zeal. He had, if not a captive audience, at least a willing one among the Black students at KUTVA where he taught (of all subjects!) Leninism. Now suddenly it seemed that Sik had become cast in the role of chief theoretician of the opposition to the proposed new policy; in their speeches Otto and Ford repeated verbatim many of his arguments.<br />
<br />
For example, both Otto and Ford insisted that U.S. Negroes were a racial minority rather than an oppressed nation or an oppressed national minority. (They used these two latter terms interchangeably at the time.) They ruled out all national movements among U.S. Blacks as reactionary. According to Ford, such movements were led by the “chauvinistic” Black bourgeoisie who wanted a freer hand to exploit the Black masses. These movements, he argued, “play into the hands of the bourgeoisie by arresting the revolutionary class movement of the Negro masses and further widening the gulf between the white and similar oppressed groups.” He also averred that Blacks lack the characteristics of a nation. There was not the question of one nation oppressing and exploiting another nation, “In the United States,” Ford continued, “we find no economic system separating the two races. The interests of the Negro and white workers are the same. The Negro peasant and the white peasant interests are the same.” The only problem, he contended, was one of racial differences of the color of the skin, barriers set up by the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Otto sharpened the argument and contended that Blacks were “not developing any characteristies of a national minority...there exists no national entity as such among...Negroes.” Continuing along the same line, Otto saw no community of interest between the Black bourgeoisie and the Black toilers, whom, he argued, “are completely separated (from each other) as far as class interests are concerned.” In sum, he contended that “historical development has tended to create in him (the Negro) the desire to be considered a part of the American nation.”<br />
<br />
What then were the objectives of Black liberation? They were, according to Sik, the striving of Blacks for intermingling and amalgamation. I was astounded and dismayed. This seemed to me to be a bourgeois liberal-assimilationist position cloaked in pseudo-Marxist rhetoric.<br />
<br />
A few days before on the floor of the congress, Ford and Otto complained bitterly about the rampant white chauvinism in the Party and the widespread underestimation of the significance of Afro-American work. Could they not see that they were playing into the hands of the white chauvinist downgraders of the Black movement? They had conceded them their main premise: that the movement for Black equality in itself had no revolutionary potential.<br />
<br />
Sik’s theory had stripped the struggle for equality of all revolutionary content; it involved no radical social change, that is, completion of the land and democratic revolution and securing of political power in the South. It was just a struggle against racial ideology.<br />
<br />
How was it possible for Otto and Ford and other Black comrades to fall into this trap? They had separated racism, the most salient external manifestation of Black oppression, from its socio-economic roots, reducing the struggle for equality to a movement against prejudice. It was a theory which even liberal reformists could support.<br />
<br />
And why did they downgrade the revolutionary nature of the Black struggle for equality? I could only assume that it was an attempt on their part to fit the Afro-American question into the simplistic frame of “pure proletarian class struggle.” This theory ruled out all nationalist movements as divisive and distracting from the struggle for socialism. Lovestone’s idea of the Black peasantry in the South being a “reserve of capitalist reaction” was the logical outcome of this kind of thinking.<br />
<br />
What was clear to me was that our thesis of self-determination had correctly elevated the fight for Black rights to a revolutionary position, whereas the proponents of Sik’s theories attempted to downgrade the movement, seeing it as a minor aspect of the class struggle. Our thesis put the question in the proper perspective: that is, as a struggle attacking the very foundation of American imperialism, an integral part of the struggle of the American working class as a whole,<br />
<br />
The sad fact was that Otto, Ford and other partisans of Sik’s theory seemed completely unaware that they had come to a practical agreement with those white chauvinists who denied the revolutionary character of the Black liberation struggle in the false name of socialism.<br />
<br />
Nasanov, sitting beside me, undoubtedly had similar thoughts. He muttered something in Russian that sounded like, “Lord forgive them, for they know not what they do.”<br />
<br />
During an interval in the Negro Commission sessions, I cornered Otto in the corridor and accused him and Ford of downgrading the liberation struggle and playing into the hands of the white chauvinist element in the Party, How, I asked him, did he expect to fight those responsible for the neglect of work among Blacks when he accepted their main premise-—that the struggle of Blacks was not of itself revolutionary and that it only becomes so when they (the Blacks) fight directly for socialism?<br />
<br />
Otto indignantly denied this and accused me of allowing the question to be used as a factional football by the Foster group. I conceded that they were not all clear, But, I added heatedly, at least they had begun to recognize that their position had been wrong and they were trying to change it.<br />
<br />
We broke off the discussion; it was obviously useless to pursue the matter further, We were both getting emotional. No doubt our relationship had become rather strained as a result of our political differences, I was terribly saddened by this growing rift between my brother and me, True, I no longer thought of him as my political mentor, but nevertheless I felt he was a serious and dedicated revolutionary.<br />
<br />
What, I wondered, were the pressures that pushed Black proletarian comrades like Otto and Ford into this position? Foremost was their misguided but honest desire to amalgamate Black labor into the general labor movement. Nationalism, they felt, was a block to labor unity. They failed to recognize the revolutionary element in Black nationalism. I myself had held the same position only a few months earlier, but then I hadn’t studied Leninism under Sik.<br />
<br />
I remember running into Nasanov. We walked down the hall arm in arm and he asked me if I was going to speak. I said, “I don’t know, should I?”<br />
<br />
Knowing my shyness, he laughed and said, “We've got them on the run. We’ve submitted our resolution and supporting documents.”<br />
<br />
We were then accosted by Manuilsky whom I had met before. He wanted to know if I was the only Black supporting the self-determination position. I told him that thus far I was.<br />
<br />
“How did that happen?” he asked. That was a question I was still trying to answer myself. But before I could reply he said, “Oh, I know, They are all good class-conscious comrades, But I understand them. We Bolsheviks had the same type of deviation within the party.” He turned away to greet somebody else.<br />
<br />
And well he should understand, I reflected, for Manuilsky had been one of the leading Ukrainian Communists referred to in our class on Leninism, who, during the Revolution in the Ukraine, had been, guilty of the same deviation.<br />
<br />
He had been one of those whom the Bolsheviks had called “abstract Marxists,” those unable to relate Marxism to the concrete experience of their own people. On that occasion he resisted the resolution of the CC drafted by Lenin which made necessary concessions to Ukrainian nationalism; these included a softer line on the ku/aks and the establishment of Ukrainian as the national language.<br />
<br />
What about Comrade Pepper’s new slogan for a “Negro Soviet Republic?” Had he undergone a sudden conversion to the cause of Black nationhood? Was this the same Pepper who had completely ignored the South in his May thesis and who had, during the Program Commission at the Fifth Congress of the CI (1924), asserted that Blacks in the US wanted nothing to do with the slogan of self-determination?<br />
<br />
Sudden shifts in position were not new to Pepper who, as we have seen, was a man unrestrained by principles. Lominadze had branded Pepper on the floor of the congress as a man of “inadequate firmness of principle and backbone. He always agrees with those who are his seniors even if a minute ago he defended an utterly different viewpoint.”<br />
<br />
The Commission rejected Pepper’s slogan on the grounds that, first, it actually negated the principle of the right of self-determination by making the Party’s support of it contingent upon the acceptance by Blacks of the Soviet governmental form. Secondly, it was an opportunist attempt to skip over the intermediate stage of preparation and mobilization of the Black masses around their immediate demands.<br />
<br />
Pepper's position was actually an attempt to outflank the new position from the “left.” Clearly he sought to grab the spotlight, to upstage the move towards a new policy. Perhaps he thought that the left-sounding term “Soviet” would make the new stress on the national character of the question more palatable to his factional cohorts of the pure revolutionary persuasion.<br />
<br />
Otto seemed to have nibbled on the bait; at least he felt it did not contradict his position. In his previously quoted speech he stated, “There is no objection on our part on (sic) the principle ofa Soviet Republic for Negroes in America. The point we are concerned with here is how to organize these Negroes at present on the basis of their everyday needs for the revolution.”<br />
<br />
In this ease, however, Pepper had overreached himself, having jumped over the bandwagon instead of on it.<br />
<br />
Despite Pepper’s defeat in the commission, he still had a card or two up his sleeve. This we were to find to our surprise and anger when we received the October 1928 issue of The Communist, official organ of the CPUSA. Prominent among the articles was Pepper’s on “American Negro Problems,” which presented his call for a “Negro Soviet Republic.” But that was not all; the article was also published simultaneously in pamphlet form by the American Party. Neither the article nor the pamphlet was labeled as a discussion paper, which gave them the appearance of being official statements of the new policy.<br />
<br />
Pepper's article had originally appeared in the Communist International, organ of the Comintern, as one of a series of discussion articles. The other articles were one by Ford and Patterson (Wilson), “The Comintern Programme and the Racial Problem” by Sik, and “The Negro Problem and the Tasks of the CPUSA,” by me.<br />
<br />
Of these, Sik’s was the only one to appear in the English edition of the magazine. This was because the English edition had suspended publication for technical reasons from September to December.<br />
<br />
But Pepper also sent his article to The Communist, organ of the American Party, where it appeared in October 1928. Because the official resolutions of the congress were not published until January of the following year, Pepper’s distorted version of the new line was the first document available to American Party members, The result was considerable confusion and misunderstanding.<br />
<br />
Particularly aggravating was that Pepper filched the basic facts of our analysis-—-national character, Black Belt territory, etc, — distorting them into a vulgar caricature of our thesis. This latest piece of chicanery did nothing to enhance Pepper’s image in Moscow where it was already on the wane. It was, however, wellreceived in the U.S. where he still had considerable influence.<br />
[[Category:Library]]<br />
[[Category:Library works by Harry Haywood]]<br />
[[Category:Library works about the United States of America]]<br />
[[Category:Library works about the Soviet Union]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Arab_Republic_of_Egypt&diff=63684Arab Republic of Egypt2024-03-04T16:40:17Z<p>RedCustodian: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Infobox country|name=Arab Republic of Egypt|native_name=جمهورية مصر العربية|image_flag=Flag of Egypt.svg|image_coat=Coat of arms of Egypt.svg|capital=[[Cairo]]|largest_city=[[Cairo]]|mode_of_production=[[Capitalism]]|government_type=Unitary semi-presidential republic|leader_title1=President|leader_name1=[[Abdel Fattah el-Sisi]]|leader_title2=Prime Minister|leader_name2=Moustafa Madbouly|national_anthem="بلادي، بلادي، بلادي"|image_map=Egypt map.png|map_width=260|official_languages=Arabic|national_languages=Egyptian Arabic|religion=[[Islam]]|area_km2=1,010,408|population_estimate=110,000,000|population_estimate_year=2023|currency=Egyptian pound}}<br />
<br />
'''Egypt''' (مصر ''Miṣr or Maṣr''), officially known and recognized as the '''Arab Republic of Egypt''' (جمهورية مِصر العربية), is a transcontinental nation in North [[Africa]] and the Sinai Peninsula and [[West Asia]]. It is bordered by the Mediterranean Sea to the north, Palestine to the northeast, the Red Sea to the east, Sudan to the south, and Libya to the west. Egypt consists of 27 governorates (subdivisions) with [[Cairo]] as the capital and largest city of Egypt, while [[Alexandria]], the second-largest city, is an important industrial and tourist hub at the Mediterranean coast. At approximately 100 million inhabitants, Egypt is the 14th-most populated country in the world, and the third-most populated in Africa, behind [[Federal Republic of Nigeria|Nigeria]] and [[Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia|Ethiopia]]. [[Islam]] is the official [[religion]] with a sizeable Coptic [[Christianity|christian]] minority and Arabic is the official language.<ref>{{Citation|year=2014|title=Constitution of The Arab Republic of Egypt 2014|title-url=http://www.sis.gov.eg/Newvr/Dustor-en001.pdf|pdf=http://www.sis.gov.eg/Newvr/Dustor-en001.pdf|trans-lang=دستور جمهورية مِصر العربية 2014}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=The Association of Religion Data Archives|title=Religion Indexes (Egypt)|url=https://www.thearda.com/world-religion/national-profiles?u=73c|retrieved=2023-11-5}}</ref> <br />
<br />
The majority of its population live near the banks of the Nile River, an area of about 40,000 square kilometres, where the only arable land is found. The large regions of the Sahara desert, which constitute most of Egypt's territory, are sparsely inhabited and mostly by Bedouins, and the south (also called upper Egypt) has a sizeable amount of Nubians. About 43% of Egypt's residents live across the country's urban areas,<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=The World Bank|title=Urban population (% of total population) - Egypt, Arab Rep.|url=https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?locations=EG}}</ref> with most spread across the densely populated centers of greater Cairo, Alexandria and other major cities in the Nile Delta. <br />
<br />
Egypt has one of the longest histories of any country, tracing its heritage along the Nile Delta back to the 6th–4th millennia BCE. It is considered a cradle of civilization. <br />
<br />
Egypt's long and rich cultural heritage is an integral part of its national identity, which reflects its unique transcontinental location being simultaneously [[Mediterranean]], West Asian and African. <br />
<br />
Egypt is a founding member of the [[United Nations]], the anti-imperialist [[Non-Aligned Movement]], the [[Arab League]], the [[African Union]], [[Organization of Islamic Cooperation]] and the [[World Youth Forum]]. <br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
<br />
=== Ancient history ===<br />
[[Menes]] united Upper and Lower Egypt by military conquest and proclaimed himself pharaoh. He created a centralized state with a [[ruling class]] of priests and officials below himself. During the Old Kingdom, Egypt conquered the Sinai Peninsula and used its copper to make tools. The pharaohs were overthrown around 2250 BCE following a period of famine and foreign invasion.<br />
<br />
Around 1600 BCE, the New Kingdom took power in Egypt before collapsing again to invaders in the 12th century BCE. Stonemasons and carpenters organized first recorded [[Strike action|strike]] in history in 1170 BCE.<ref name=":02222">{{Citation|author=Neil Faulkner|year=2013|title=A Marxist History of the World: From Neanderthals to Neoliberals|chapter=The First Class Societies|page=18–24|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacedljwr5izotdclz23o3c5p4di4t3ero3ncbfytip55slhiz4otuls?filename=Neil%20Faulkner%20-%20A%20Marxist%20History%20of%20the%20World_%20From%20Neanderthals%20to%20Neoliberals-Pluto%20Press%20%282013%29.pdf|publisher=Pluto Press|isbn=9781849648639|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=91CA6C708BFE15444FE27899217FBA8E}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== 1919 revolution ===<br />
The [[Egyptian Communist Party]] supported the [[Wafd Party]]'s 1919 uprising against the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801–1922)|British]].<ref name=":02" /> Women of all classes protested against the British and cut telephone lines, leading the British to kill many of them. Egypt gave women the right to vote in 1923 but reversed it soon after.<ref name=":2">{{Citation|author=[[Vijay Prashad]]|year=2008|title=The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World|chapter=Cairo|page=51–60|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceascnzh26r5d6uitjjs2z7rflhaxlt7rboz5whzdf76qg6xxvecqq?filename=%28A%20New%20Press%20People%27s%20history%29%20Vijay%20Prashad%20-%20The%20darker%20nations_%20a%20people%27s%20history%20of%20the%20third%20world-The%20New%20Press%20%282008%29.pdf|publisher=The New Press|isbn=9781595583420|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=9B40B96E830128A7FE0E0E887C06829F}}</ref><br />
<br />
In 1924, when [[Saad Zaghloul]] of the Wafd Party became prime minister, he arrested the entire central committee of the ECP.<ref name=":02">{{Citation|author=[[Vijay Prashad]]|year=2017|title=Red Star over the Third World|chapter=Enemy of Imperialism|page=78|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacecu7gb2ei65us6ip3r2ugcgkblneqcftbm456mb6bzvprkbqk55qm?filename=Vijay%20Prashad%20-%20Red%20Star%20Over%20the%20Third%20World-LeftWord%20Books%20%282018%29.pdf|city=New Delhi|publisher=LeftWord Books}}</ref><br />
<br />
===1952 revolution and republic ===<br />
=== United Arab Republic (UAR) ===<br />
<br />
=== United Arab States (UAS) ===<br />
<br />
=== Federation of Arab Republics ===<br />
<br />
===Arab Republic of Egypt===<br />
<br />
=== Arab Spring ===<br />
<br />
==== '''2011 revolution''' ====<br />
In 2011, millions of people in Egypt rose up to overthrow the U.S.-backed police state led by [[Hosni Mubarak]].<ref name=":0">{{News citation|author=Mazda Majidi|newspaper=[[Liberation News]]|title=U.S. imperialism and the coup in Egypt|date=2013-07-20|url=https://www.liberationnews.org/us-imperialism-and-the-coup-html/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190714134706/https://www.liberationnews.org/us-imperialism-and-the-coup-html/|archive-date=2019-07-14|retrieved=2022-07-13}}</ref> Due to the lack of a revolutionary socialist party, the capitalist Muslim Brotherhood party took power under [[Mohamed Morsi]].<ref>{{News citation|newspaper=[[Liberation School]]|title=How can we make a revolution? Lessons of Egypt and Occupy|date=2014-07-06|url=https://www.liberationschool.org/can-make-revolution-lessons-egypt-occupy/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210505234706/https://www.liberationschool.org/can-make-revolution-lessons-egypt-occupy/|archive-date=2021-05-05|retrieved=2022-07-13}}</ref><br />
<br />
Morsi supported U.S. efforts to overthrow [[Bashar al-Assad]] in [[Syrian Arab Republic|Syria]] and passed a new constitution limiting the rights of women and religious minorities.<ref name=":0" /><br />
<br />
==== 2013 Egyptian coup d'état ====<br />
In 2013, with US and UK support,<ref>{{Web citation|author=[[Kit Klarenberg]]|newspaper=[[The Grayzone]]|title=Leaked documents reveal Reuters helped overthrow Egyptian democracy|date=2023-07-05|url=https://thegrayzone.com/2023/07/05/reuters-overthrow-egyptian-democracy/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230708210001/https://thegrayzone.com/2023/07/05/reuters-overthrow-egyptian-democracy/|archive-date=2023-07-08}}</ref> General [[Abdel Fattah al-Sisi|Abdul Fatah Saeed el-Sisi]] removed Morsi from power and appointed [[Hazem El Beblawi|Hazem Al Beblawi]] as prime minister. The military has killed almost 100 supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood.<ref name=":0" /> In 2022, el-Sisi told poor people to "eat leaves" to survive due to food shortages.<ref name=":1">{{News citation|author=Dejan Kukic|newspaper=[[In Defence of Marxism]]|title=Sisi says “let them eat leaves” as food crisis sharpens class lines in Egypt|date=2022-07-08|url=https://www.marxist.com/sisi-says-let-them-eat-leaves-as-food-crisis-fuels-sharpens-class-lines-in-egypt.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220709165928/https://www.marxist.com/sisi-says-let-them-eat-leaves-as-food-crisis-fuels-sharpens-class-lines-in-egypt.htm|archive-date=2022-07-09|retrieved=2022-07-16}}</ref><br />
== Geography ==<br />
[[File:Egypt administrative regions.png|thumb]]<br />
== References ==<br />
[[Category:African countries]]<br />
[[Category:Countries]]<br />
[[Category:Asian countries]]<br />
<references /></div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Socialist_Party_of_America&diff=63677Socialist Party of America2024-03-04T05:10:08Z<p>RedCustodian: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Infobox political party|name=Socialist Party of America|logo=SPA logo.png|founded=July 29, 1901|founders=Eugene Debs<br>Morris Hillquit|dissolved=December 31, 1972|youth_wing=Young People's Socialist League|membership=150,000 (May 1912)|political_orientation=[[Democratic socialism]]<br>[[Opportunist]]<br>[[Revisionist]]}}<br />
<br />
The '''Socialist Party of America''' ('''SPA''') was a left-wing political party in the [[United States of America|United States]]. It was founded in 1901 and declined after a split in 1912 between opportunists and the left faction of the party.<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
<br />
=== Foundation ===<br />
The Socialist Party of America was founded on July 29, 1901 in Indianapolis. 125 delegates were present at the founding convention: 70 from [[Morris Hillquit]]'s faction of the [[Socialist Labor Party of America|Socialist Labor Party]], 47 from the [[Social Democratic Party of America|Social Democratic Party]] led by [[Eugene V. Debs|Eugene Debs]], and eight from other groups.<br />
<br />
The second convention of the party, held in May 1904, had 184 delegates from 35 states. By this point, the SPA had over 20,000 members and ran several newspapers in English and other languages.<ref name=":0">{{Citation|author=[[William Z. Foster]]|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|chapter=The Socialist Party (1900-1905)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-seven-socialist-party-1900-1905.html|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== Peak ===<br />
In 1908, the party created a national women's commission. By 1912, the Socialist Party had 120,000 members, a tenth of them in the state of Pennsylvania. The Socialist Party had socialists as mayors in 56 towns and cities, including Milwaukee, and [[Victor Berger]] was elected as the first socialist congressman. In 1913, the [[Young People's Socialist League]] was formed as the youth wing of the party.<ref name=":1">{{Citation|author=William Z. Foster|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=The Heyday of the Socialist Party (1905-1914)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-eight-heyday-of-socialist-party.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== Split ===<br />
In May 1912, the Socialist Party held a congress in Indianapolis. The right wing of the party, led by Hillquit, proposed an amendment to the party constitution that banned violence or sabotage against the [[bourgeoisie]]. The amendment was adopted by a vote of 190 to 91. The rightists tried to prevent Eugene Debs from running for president and kicked [[Bill Haywood]] out of the National Committee. In the first four months after the split, party membership dropped from 150,000 to 40,000. The Socialist Party continued to exist for decades after the split, but was highly [[Opportunism|opportunist]]. The left-wing members of the party, including [[C. E. Ruthenberg]], went on to found the [[Communist Party of the United States of America|Communist Party USA]].<ref name=":1" /><br />
<br />
=== Suppression ===<br />
During the [[First Red Scare]], members of the [[Ku Klux Klan|KKK]] and [[American Legion]] attacked Socialists. As a result of this repression and defections to the new Communist Party, membership dropped to 12,000 in 1922.<ref name=":0233">{{Citation|author=Albert Szymanski|year=1984|title=Human Rights in the Soviet Union|chapter=The Land of the Free|page=172|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceazdmtb2y3qq27fve5ib3gk7uv2unt6ae2xss74xmfpur7k5uhl5m?filename=Albert%20Szymanski%20-%20Human%20Rights%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union_%20Including%20Comparisons%20with%20the%20U.S.A.-Zed%20Books%20Ltd.%20%281984%29.pdf|city=London|publisher=Zed Books Ltd|isbn=0862320186|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=C597B1232D9EA6B0F3DCB438D7E15A81}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== Attempted Trotskyist infiltration ===<br />
After being purged from the CPUSA in 1928 and dissolving their newly formed [[Workers Party of the United States]], [[James Cannon]] and [[Max Shachtman]]'s followers joined the Socialist Party in 1936. Soon after, the SPA purged them, and they created the [[Socialist Workers Party (United States)|Socialist Workers Party]].<ref>{{Web citation|author=J. Sykes|newspaper=[[Fight Back! News]]|title=Against Trotskyism: The Socialist Workers Party and the decline of Trotskyism in the United States|date=2023-06-27|url=https://www.fightbacknews.org/2023/6/27/against-trotskyism-socialist-workers-party-and-decline-trotskyism-united-states|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230705081007/https://www.fightbacknews.org/2023/6/27/against-trotskyism-socialist-workers-party-and-decline-trotskyism-united-states|archive-date=2023-07-05}}</ref><br />
<br />
== Criticism ==<br />
The Socialist Party of America had a [[Class reductionism|class reductionist]] policy towards the [[African diaspora in the United States]]. The party's leadership was also infiltrated by the [[petty bourgeoisie]].<ref name=":0" /> [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]] and the [[Second International]] criticized the party for its [[racism]] against [[Qing dynasty (1636–1912)|Chinese]] immigrants.<ref name=":1" /><br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references /><br />
[[Category:Socialist political parties]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Eugene_V._Debs&diff=63676Eugene V. Debs2024-03-04T05:09:21Z<p>RedCustodian: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Infobox politician|image_size=200|birth_date=November 5, 1855|birth_place=Terre Haute, [[Indiana]], [[United States of America|United States]]|death_date=October 20, 1926|death_place=Elmhurst, [[Illinois]], United States|political_orientation=Alleged [[Marxism]]<br>[[Democratic socialism]]<br>[[Opportunism]]<br>[[Revisionism]]|political_party=[[Socialist Party of America]]|image=Eugene V. Debs.png}}<br />
<br />
'''Eugene Victor''' "'''Gene'''" '''Debs''' (November 5, 1855 – October 20, 1926) was a [[United States of America|Statesian]] [[Socialism|socialist]], [[political activist]], [[Trade union|trade unionist]], one of the founding members of the [[Industrial Workers of the World]] (IWW), and five times the candidate of the [[Socialist Party of America]] for President of the United States. Through his presidential candidacies as well as his work with labor movements, Debs eventually became one of the best-known socialists living in the United States.<br />
<br />
Early in his political career, Debs was a member of the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]]. He was elected as a Democrat to the Indiana General Assembly in 1884. After working with several smaller unions, including the [[Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen]], Debs led his union in [[Burlington railway strike of 1888|a major ten-month strike against the CB&Q Railroad in 1888]]. Debs was instrumental in the founding of the [[American Railway Union]] (ARU), one of the nation's first [[Industrial union|industrial unions]]. After workers at the [[Pullman Palace Car Company]] organized a [[Wildcat strike action|wildcat strike]] over pay cuts in the summer of 1894, Debs signed many into the ARU. He led a [[boycott]] by the ARU against handling trains with Pullman cars in what became the nationwide [[Pullman Strike]], affecting most lines west of Detroit and more than 250,000 workers in 27 states. Purportedly to keep the mail running, President Grover Cleveland used the United States Army to break the strike. As a leader of the ARU, Debs was convicted of federal charges for defying a court injunction against the strike and served six months in prison.<br />
<br />
In prison, Debs read various works of socialist theory and emerged six months later as a committed adherent of the [[Marxism|international socialist]] movement. Debs was a founding member of the [[Social Democracy of America]] (1897), the [[Social Democratic Party of America]] (1898) and the Socialist Party of America (1901). Debs ran as a Socialist candidate for [[President of the United States]] five times, including 1900 (earning 0.6 percent of the popular vote), 1904 (3.0 percent), 1908 (2.8 percent), 1912 (6.0 percent), and 1920 (3.4 percent), the last time from a prison cell.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Deirdre Grisworld|newspaper=[[Workers World]]|title=The anti-war presidential candidate|date=2020-02-24|url=https://www.workers.org/2020/02/46531/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221203052940/https://www.workers.org/2020/02/46531/|archive-date=2022-12-03|retrieved=2023-01-14}}</ref> He was also a candidate for United States Congress from his native state Indiana in 1916.<br />
<br />
In 1896, Debs became involved with a [[Utopian socialism|Utopian]] [[Settler colonialism|settler colonial]] project of settling sparsely populated western or southern states to create co-operative colonies in league with the Brotherhood of the Cooperative Commonwealth<ref>{{Web citation|author=Chicago Record|newspaper=Chicago Record|title=Plan to Redeem Toil|date=1897-05-24|url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Plan_to_Redeem_Toil;_Eugene_V._Debs|quote=He is confident that a membership of 1 million could be obtained in six months. These members would be asked to contribute whatever amount they felt able to give, and the fund thus raised would be used in sending men into that Western or Southwestern state where the effort is to be made to obtain political control.}}</ref>. Even begging John D. Rockefeller for financial assistance<ref>{{Citation|author=William D. Haywood|year=1929|title=Original: Bill Haywood’s Book<br />
Electronic: BIG BILL HAYWOOD<br />
The Autobiography of William D. Haywood.|chapter=Telluride|quote=Debs was already well known to the delegates, as he had helped the W.F.M. as a speaker and organizer when the Cloud City Miners’ Union had been on strike at Leadville in 1896. He was known to all of us as one of the finest orators in the labor movement. We all knew his weaknesses and some of us knew of his pathetic letter to John D. Rockefeller appealing for funds for his colonization scheme.|city=New York|publisher=Original: International Publishers Co, original<br />
Electronic: NightHawk Books}}</ref>.<br />
<br />
Debs was noted for his oratorical skills, and his speech denouncing American participation in [[World War I]] led to his second arrest in 1918. He was convicted under the [[Sedition Act of 1918]] and sentenced to a ten-year term. President [[Warren G. Harding]] commuted his sentence in December 1921. Debs died in 1926, not long after being admitted to a sanatorium due to cardiovascular problems that developed during his time in prison.<br />
<br />
== Library works ==<br />
The following are works by Eugene V. Debs in ProleWiki's own Library. <br />
<categorytree mode="pages" depth="5">Library works by Eugene V. Debs</categorytree><br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
[[Category:Statesian communists]]<br />
[[Category:Communist political candidates]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:Plan_to_Redeem_Toil;_Eugene_V._Debs&diff=63675Library:Plan to Redeem Toil; Eugene V. Debs2024-03-04T05:03:35Z<p>RedCustodian: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Library work|title=Plan to Redeem Toil|author=Chicago Record|written in=1897-05-24|publisher=Chicago Record|type=Newspaper|source=https://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1897/970524-chicagorecord-debslermondmeet.pdf}}<br />
<br />
== Eugene V. Debs and Others Look Toward Establishing a Colony in the West that Finally Will Enfold All Labor (May 24, 1897) ==<br />
Special to the Chicago Record.<br />
<br />
Terre Haute, Ind., May 24 [1897].— Eugene V. Debs has returned from his trip to Utah and Colorado and finds awaiting him here N. [Norman Wallace] Lermond of Thomaston, Maine, Secretary of the Brotherhood of the Cooperative Commonwealth. Mr. Lermond has been in Tennessee and Arkansas looking for a location for a cooperative colony, but since his conference with Mr. Debs he announces that no further steps will be taken by brotherhood until after the convention, or conference, which is to be held in Chicago after the special convention of the American Railway Union, which is called for June 15. It is probable that the brotherhood, which now has 2,000 members, will be merged into the new organization, which will endeavor to get political possession of some western state and there try the experiment of a state cooperative commonwealth. Mr. Debs, himself, is opposed to the colony idea, because he believes it is not on a scale large enough to accomplish much good even if it were successful. But it is his impression that there is to be a radical change in the industrial system throughout the country, and that the successful operation of the cooperative idea in one state will cause it to be adopted everywhere.<br />
<br />
=== Prepare for Chicago Conference. ===<br />
The Chicago conference will be attended by delegates from labor organizations in most of the larger cities, especially in the West. There will also be present such men as Prof. [Frank] Parsons of Boston, Prof. [George D.] Herron of Iowa, and Henry D[emarest] Lloyd. Mr. Debs says that while he cannot speak for the conference his own theory is that as soon as possible 100 men should begin the work of enrolling of members of the new organization. He is confident that a membership of 1 million could be obtained in six months. These members would be asked to contribute whatever amount they felt able to give, and the fund thus raised would be used in sending men into that Western or Southwestern state where the effort is to be made to obtain political control. After this has been accomplished, a constitutional convention would be called, and the organic law of the state changed in such a manner as to permit of the complete introduction of the cooperative plan. The Chicago conference will determine which state is to be selected.<br />
<br />
=== Kind of Men Wanted. ===<br />
While Debs denies that he is to lead an army of unemployed in a march to the field of endeavor on the part of the cooperative people, still he is in favor of sending large numbers of men to the state, perhaps 1,000 at a time, and this, too, as soon as possible. They will not go as mendicants, however, nor will they be the idle and disreputable part of humanity, such as would have been called together by a rallying cry for a marching army. The manner in which they will move to the state is yet to be decided, but if they march, it will be as self-respecting men, who are backed with money to pay their way, and will not depend on the charity of the country through which they pass. Mr. Debs says that perhaps it may be determined to march not so much for the purpose of economy as to attract the attention of the country to the cooperative movement, but if it is decided to march every precaution will be taken to prevent the movement being brought into ridicule or disrepute by the character of the men or the march itself. When the army starts it will be with a public meeting, perhaps in Chicago, which will be addressed by men whose hearts are in the movement, such as B[enjamin] Fay Mills, perhaps, or Myron Reed, or Henry D. Lloyd<br />
<br />
=== Receives Much Encouragement ===<br />
Mr. Debs has received many letters about the cooperative scheme since he was interviewed on the subject a few weeks ago, and all are of an encouraging nature. Among those who have written is Dr. Rainsford, the Episcopal clergymen of New York. In New England, among the professional men and those not engaged in commercial pursuits, Mr. Lermond says there is almost a unanimous sentiment in favor of some effort to bring about a change in the industrial system, and these men are willing to assist the state cooperative commonwealth movement. Mr. Debs is confident that $50,000 a month can be raised after a few months of organization, and this money will be sufficient to keep the new men in the state employed until they can find a market for their product. In this respect, it is intended to have all members of the organization assist in supporting the movement by buying from [their] own producers. In the larger cities stores will be established where the products of the cooperative industries will be on sale. [The intimation] is that the cities of Chicago, St. Louis, and Milwaukee will furnish much assistance to the movement, both in membership and in the purchase of products. It is also true that there are thousands in those cities who will join an army to go anywhere.<br />
<br />
Mr. Debs has been informed that some persons in Chicago want to hold meetings of the unemployed, but he has urgently requested that this be not done. He knows the temper of the idle men, and also fears the effect of what some excitable speaker might say on the cooperative movement. He says that while he has the utmost sympathy for the unemployed men, no matter how far they have slipped away from self-respecting manhood in their idleness, still care must be taken not to do anything that would lose the support of all people who desire a change in the condition of the industrial element in the country.<br />
<br />
=== Mr. Debs’ Trip to the West. ===<br />
Mr. Debs says that while in Utah he made close investigation of the workings of the original cooperative scheme of the Mormons. He found that it was perfect until the spirit of commercialism came upon the leaders of the church. He thinks that the work of the Mormons in building up Utah out of a desert has not been fully understood, because the public knows Mormonism only by its upholding of polygamy. The details of the cooperative scheme of the Mormons, however, show that it was perfect. When asked if the church discipline did not have a great deal to do with making the Mormons prosperous and content with their lot, he said it undoubtedly did, but that in the new cooperative movement there would be equally as strong influences in the belief of those who undertake it in the doctrine of cooperation. Only such men as believe in the doctrine as devout Christians believe in their religion would take part in the movement. There are thousands of men who are now believers in the doctrine who a few years ago would not give it a thought. These men have come to see that there is no hope for the relief they have been counting upon from trade unions or from political parties. Trade unions are utterly unable to stop the constantly lowering of wages simply because these reductions are part of a natural law and are inevitable. The grinding process is the natural result of the rule of capitalism, and no organization of men can uphold wages when the heartless strife for gain is ruling all industry and commerce. Workingmen cannot be held in line, he says, for trade unionism when they see the futility of these organizations. They want something which gives promise of results, and the cooperative scheme appeals to them strongly now as it never did before.<br />
<br />
=== Further Wage Reductions. ===<br />
While in the West Mr. Debs learned that there is to be a reduction of wages all along the line in mining, railroad service, and in all industries within the next 90 days, and he does not see how it can be prevented. The miners, whose convention he has just attended,<ref>Debs and his wife were the guests of the Western Federation of Miners, who held their 5th Annual Convention in Salt Lake City.</ref> fought the Leadville strike at a cost of $1.5 million and lost. Those men know there must now be a new plan of operations, and they are going into cooperative mining as fast as they can do so. They are in an ugly temper, though, and when President [Edward] Boyce made the following recommendation in his annual address he was cheered to the echo, and the recommendation was adopted.<blockquote>I strongly advise you to devise ways and means to provide every member with the latest improved rifle which can be obtained from the factory at a nominal price. I entreat you to take action on this important question so that in two years we can hear the inspiring music of the martial tread of 25,000 armed men in the ranks of labor. </blockquote>Published in the Chicago Record, vol. 17, no. 124 (May 25, 1897), pg. 1.<br />
[[Category:Library documents from the United States of America]]<br />
<references /><br />
[[Category:Library works by Eugene V. Debs]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Eugene_V._Debs&diff=63674Eugene V. Debs2024-03-04T04:59:57Z<p>RedCustodian: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Infobox politician|image_size=200|birth_date=November 5, 1855|birth_place=Terre Haute, [[Indiana]], [[United States of America|United States]]|death_date=October 20, 1926|death_place=Elmhurst, [[Illinois]], United States|political_orientation=[[Marxism]]<br>[[Democratic socialism]]|political_party=[[Socialist Party of America]]|image=Eugene V. Debs.png}}<br />
<br />
'''Eugene Victor''' "'''Gene'''" '''Debs''' (November 5, 1855 – October 20, 1926) was a [[United States of America|Statesian]] [[Socialism|socialist]], [[political activist]], [[Trade union|trade unionist]], one of the founding members of the [[Industrial Workers of the World]] (IWW), and five times the candidate of the [[Socialist Party of America]] for President of the United States. Through his presidential candidacies as well as his work with labor movements, Debs eventually became one of the best-known socialists living in the United States.<br />
<br />
Early in his political career, Debs was a member of the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]]. He was elected as a Democrat to the Indiana General Assembly in 1884. After working with several smaller unions, including the [[Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen]], Debs led his union in [[Burlington railway strike of 1888|a major ten-month strike against the CB&Q Railroad in 1888]]. Debs was instrumental in the founding of the [[American Railway Union]] (ARU), one of the nation's first [[Industrial union|industrial unions]]. After workers at the [[Pullman Palace Car Company]] organized a [[Wildcat strike action|wildcat strike]] over pay cuts in the summer of 1894, Debs signed many into the ARU. He led a [[boycott]] by the ARU against handling trains with Pullman cars in what became the nationwide [[Pullman Strike]], affecting most lines west of Detroit and more than 250,000 workers in 27 states. Purportedly to keep the mail running, President Grover Cleveland used the United States Army to break the strike. As a leader of the ARU, Debs was convicted of federal charges for defying a court injunction against the strike and served six months in prison.<br />
<br />
In prison, Debs read various works of socialist theory and emerged six months later as a committed adherent of the [[Marxism|international socialist]] movement. Debs was a founding member of the [[Social Democracy of America]] (1897), the [[Social Democratic Party of America]] (1898) and the Socialist Party of America (1901). Debs ran as a Socialist candidate for [[President of the United States]] five times, including 1900 (earning 0.6 percent of the popular vote), 1904 (3.0 percent), 1908 (2.8 percent), 1912 (6.0 percent), and 1920 (3.4 percent), the last time from a prison cell.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Deirdre Grisworld|newspaper=[[Workers World]]|title=The anti-war presidential candidate|date=2020-02-24|url=https://www.workers.org/2020/02/46531/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221203052940/https://www.workers.org/2020/02/46531/|archive-date=2022-12-03|retrieved=2023-01-14}}</ref> He was also a candidate for United States Congress from his native state Indiana in 1916.<br />
<br />
In 1896, Debs became involved with a [[Utopian socialism|Utopian]] [[Settler colonialism|settler colonial]] project of settling sparsely populated western or southern states to create co-operative colonies in league with the Brotherhood of the Cooperative Commonwealth<ref>{{Web citation|author=Chicago Record|newspaper=Chicago Record|title=Plan to Redeem Toil|date=1897-05-24|url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Plan_to_Redeem_Toil;_Eugene_V._Debs|quote=He is confident that a membership of 1 million could be obtained in six months. These members would be asked to contribute whatever amount they felt able to give, and the fund thus raised would be used in sending men into that Western or Southwestern state where the effort is to be made to obtain political control.}}</ref>. Even begging John D. Rockefeller for financial assistance<ref>{{Citation|author=William D. Haywood|year=1929|title=Original: Bill Haywood’s Book<br />
Electronic: BIG BILL HAYWOOD<br />
The Autobiography of William D. Haywood.|chapter=Telluride|quote=Debs was already well known to the delegates, as he had helped the W.F.M. as a speaker and organizer when the Cloud City Miners’ Union had been on strike at Leadville in 1896. He was known to all of us as one of the finest orators in the labor movement. We all knew his weaknesses and some of us knew of his pathetic letter to John D. Rockefeller appealing for funds for his colonization scheme.|city=New York|publisher=Original: International Publishers Co, original<br />
Electronic: NightHawk Books}}</ref>.<br />
<br />
Debs was noted for his oratorical skills, and his speech denouncing American participation in [[World War I]] led to his second arrest in 1918. He was convicted under the [[Sedition Act of 1918]] and sentenced to a ten-year term. President [[Warren G. Harding]] commuted his sentence in December 1921. Debs died in 1926, not long after being admitted to a sanatorium due to cardiovascular problems that developed during his time in prison.<br />
<br />
== Library works ==<br />
The following are works by Eugene V. Debs in ProleWiki's own Library. <br />
<categorytree mode="pages" depth="5">Library works by Eugene V. Debs</categorytree><br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
[[Category:Statesian communists]]<br />
[[Category:Communist political candidates]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Eugene_V._Debs&diff=63673Eugene V. Debs2024-03-04T04:59:02Z<p>RedCustodian: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Infobox politician|image_size=200|birth_date=November 5, 1855|birth_place=Terre Haute, [[Indiana]], [[United States of America|United States]]|death_date=October 20, 1926|death_place=Elmhurst, [[Illinois]], United States|political_orientation=[[Marxism]]<br>[[Democratic socialism]]|political_party=[[Socialist Party of America]]|image=Eugene V. Debs.png}}<br />
<br />
'''Eugene Victor''' "'''Gene'''" '''Debs''' (November 5, 1855 – October 20, 1926) was a [[United States of America|Statesian]] [[Socialism|socialist]], [[political activist]], [[Trade union|trade unionist]], one of the founding members of the [[Industrial Workers of the World]] (IWW), and five times the candidate of the [[Socialist Party of America]] for President of the United States. Through his presidential candidacies as well as his work with labor movements, Debs eventually became one of the best-known socialists living in the United States.<br />
<br />
Early in his political career, Debs was a member of the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]]. He was elected as a Democrat to the Indiana General Assembly in 1884. After working with several smaller unions, including the [[Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen]], Debs led his union in [[Burlington railway strike of 1888|a major ten-month strike against the CB&Q Railroad in 1888]]. Debs was instrumental in the founding of the [[American Railway Union]] (ARU), one of the nation's first [[Industrial union|industrial unions]]. After workers at the [[Pullman Palace Car Company]] organized a [[Wildcat strike action|wildcat strike]] over pay cuts in the summer of 1894, Debs signed many into the ARU. He led a [[boycott]] by the ARU against handling trains with Pullman cars in what became the nationwide [[Pullman Strike]], affecting most lines west of Detroit and more than 250,000 workers in 27 states. Purportedly to keep the mail running, President Grover Cleveland used the United States Army to break the strike. As a leader of the ARU, Debs was convicted of federal charges for defying a court injunction against the strike and served six months in prison.<br />
<br />
In prison, Debs read various works of socialist theory and emerged six months later as a committed adherent of the [[Marxism|international socialist]] movement. Debs was a founding member of the [[Social Democracy of America]] (1897), the [[Social Democratic Party of America]] (1898) and the Socialist Party of America (1901). Debs ran as a Socialist candidate for [[President of the United States]] five times, including 1900 (earning 0.6 percent of the popular vote), 1904 (3.0 percent), 1908 (2.8 percent), 1912 (6.0 percent), and 1920 (3.4 percent), the last time from a prison cell.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Deirdre Grisworld|newspaper=[[Workers World]]|title=The anti-war presidential candidate|date=2020-02-24|url=https://www.workers.org/2020/02/46531/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221203052940/https://www.workers.org/2020/02/46531/|archive-date=2022-12-03|retrieved=2023-01-14}}</ref> He was also a candidate for United States Congress from his native state Indiana in 1916.<br />
<br />
In 1896, Debs became involved with a [[Utopian socialism|Utopian]] [[Settler colonialism|settler colonial]] project of settling sparsely populated western or southern states to create co-operative colonies in league with the Brotherhood of the Cooperative Commonwealth<ref>{{Web citation|author=Chicago Record|newspaper=Chicago Record|title=Plan to Redeem Toil|date=1897-05-24|url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Plan_to_Redeem_Toil;_Eugene_V._Debs|quote=He is confident that a membership of 1 million could be obtained in six months. These members would be asked to contribute whatever amount they felt able to give, and the fund thus raised would be used in sending men into that Western or Southwestern state where the effort is to be made to obtain political control.}}</ref>. Even begging John D. Rockefeller for financial assistance<ref>{{Citation|author=William D. Haywood|year=1929|title=Original: Bill Haywood’s Book<br />
Electronic: BIG BILL HAYWOOD<br />
The Autobiography of William D. Haywood.|quote=Debs was already well known to the delegates, as he had helped the W.F.M. as a speaker and organizer when the Cloud City Miners’ Union had been on strike at Leadville in 1896. He was known to all of us as one of the finest orators in the labor movement. We all knew his weaknesses and some of us knew of his pathetic letter to John D. Rockefeller appealing for funds for his colonization scheme.|city=New York|publisher=Original: International Publishers Co, original<br />
Electronic: NightHawk Books}}</ref>.<br />
<br />
Debs was noted for his oratorical skills, and his speech denouncing American participation in [[World War I]] led to his second arrest in 1918. He was convicted under the [[Sedition Act of 1918]] and sentenced to a ten-year term. President [[Warren G. Harding]] commuted his sentence in December 1921. Debs died in 1926, not long after being admitted to a sanatorium due to cardiovascular problems that developed during his time in prison.<br />
<br />
== Library works ==<br />
The following are works by Eugene V. Debs in ProleWiki's own Library. <br />
<categorytree mode="pages" depth="5">Library works by Eugene V. Debs</categorytree><br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
[[Category:Statesian communists]]<br />
[[Category:Communist political candidates]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:Plan_to_Redeem_Toil;_Eugene_V._Debs&diff=63672Library:Plan to Redeem Toil; Eugene V. Debs2024-03-04T04:10:11Z<p>RedCustodian: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Library work|title=Plan to Redeem Toil|author=Chicago Record|written in=1897-05-24|publisher=Chicago Record|type=Newspaper|source=https://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1897/970524-chicagorecord-debslermondmeet.pdf}}<br />
<br />
== Eugene V. Debs and Others Look Toward Establishing a Colony in the West that Finally Will Enfold All Labor (May 24, 1897) ==<br />
Special to the Chicago Record.<br />
<br />
Terre Haute, Ind., May 24 [1897].— Eugene V. Debs has returned from his trip to Utah and Colorado and finds awaiting him here N. [Norman Wallace] Lermond of Thomaston, Maine, Secretary of the Brotherhood of the Cooperative Commonwealth. Mr. Lermond has been in Tennessee and Arkansas looking for a location for a cooperative colony, but since his conference with Mr. Debs he announces that no further steps will be taken by brotherhood until after the convention, or conference, which is to be held in Chicago after the special convention of the American Railway Union, which is called for June 15. It is probable that the brotherhood, which now has 2,000 members, will be merged into the new organization, which will endeavor to get political possession of some western state and there try the experiment of a state cooperative commonwealth. Mr. Debs, himself, is opposed to the colony idea, because he believes it is not on a scale large enough to accomplish much good even if it were successful. But it is his impression that there is to be a radical change in the industrial system throughout the country, and that the successful operation of the cooperative idea in one state will cause it to be adopted everywhere.<br />
<br />
=== Prepare for Chicago Conference. ===<br />
The Chicago conference will be attended by delegates from labor organizations in most of the larger cities, especially in the West. There will also be present such men as Prof. [Frank] Parsons of Boston, Prof. [George D.] Herron of Iowa, and Henry D[emarest] Lloyd. Mr. Debs says that while he cannot speak for the conference his own theory is that as soon as possible 100 men should begin the work of enrolling of members of the new organization. He is confident that a membership of 1 million could be obtained in six months. These members would be asked to contribute whatever amount they felt able to give, and the fund thus raised would be used in sending men into that Western or Southwestern state where the effort is to be made to obtain political control. After this has been accomplished, a constitutional convention would be called, and the organic law of the state changed in such a manner as to permit of the complete introduction of the cooperative plan. The Chicago conference will determine which state is to be selected.<br />
<br />
=== Kind of Men Wanted. ===<br />
While Debs denies that he is to lead an army of unemployed in a march to the field of endeavor on the part of the cooperative people, still he is in favor of sending large numbers of men to the state, perhaps 1,000 at a time, and this, too, as soon as possible. They will not go as mendicants, however, nor will they be the idle and disreputable part of humanity, such as would have been called together by a rallying cry for a marching army. The manner in which they will move to the state is yet to be decided, but if they march, it will be as self-respecting men, who are backed with money to pay their way, and will not depend on the charity of the country through which they pass. Mr. Debs says that perhaps it may be determined to march not so much for the purpose of economy as to attract the attention of the country to the cooperative movement, but if it is decided to march every precaution will be taken to prevent the movement being brought into ridicule or disrepute by the character of the men or the march itself. When the army starts it will be with a public meeting, perhaps in Chicago, which will be addressed by men whose hearts are in the movement, such as B[enjamin] Fay Mills, perhaps, or Myron Reed, or Henry D. Lloyd<br />
<br />
=== Receives Much Encouragement ===<br />
Mr. Debs has received many letters about the cooperative scheme since he was interviewed on the subject a few weeks ago, and all are of an encouraging nature. Among those who have written is Dr. Rainsford, the Episcopal clergymen of New York. In New England, among the professional men and those not engaged in commercial pursuits, Mr. Lermond says there is almost a unanimous sentiment in favor of some effort to bring about a change in the industrial system, and these men are willing to assist the state cooperative commonwealth movement. Mr. Debs is confident that $50,000 a month can be raised after a few months of organization, and this money will be sufficient to keep the new men in the state employed until they can find a market for their product. In this respect, it is intended to have all members of the organization assist in supporting the movement by buying from [their] own producers. In the larger cities stores will be established where the products of the cooperative industries will be on sale. [The intimation] is that the cities of Chicago, St. Louis, and Milwaukee will furnish much assistance to the movement, both in membership and in the purchase of products. It is also true that there are thousands in those cities who will join an army to go anywhere.<br />
<br />
Mr. Debs has been informed that some persons in Chicago want to hold meetings of the unemployed, but he has urgently requested that this be not done. He knows the temper of the idle men, and also fears the effect of what some excitable speaker might say on the cooperative movement. He says that while he has the utmost sympathy for the unemployed men, no matter how far they have slipped away from self-respecting manhood in their idleness, still care must be taken not to do anything that would lose the support of all people who desire a change in the condition of the industrial element in the country.<br />
<br />
=== Mr. Debs’ Trip to the West. ===<br />
Mr. Debs says that while in Utah he made close investigation of the workings of the original cooperative scheme of the Mormons. He found that it was perfect until the spirit of commercialism came upon the leaders of the church. He thinks that the work of the Mormons in building up Utah out of a desert has not been fully understood, because the public knows Mormonism only by its upholding of polygamy. The details of the cooperative scheme of the Mormons, however, show that it was perfect. When asked if the church discipline did not have a great deal to do with making the Mormons prosperous and content with their lot, he said it undoubtedly did, but that in the new cooperative movement there would be equally as strong influences in the belief of those who undertake it in the doctrine of cooperation. Only such men as believe in the doctrine as devout Christians believe in their religion would take part in the movement. There are thousands of men who are now believers in the doctrine who a few years ago would not give it a thought. These men have come to see that there is no hope for the relief they have been counting upon from trade unions or from political parties. Trade unions are utterly unable to stop the constantly lowering of wages simply because these reductions are part of a natural law and are inevitable. The grinding process is the natural result of the rule of capitalism, and no organization of men can uphold wages when the heartless strife for gain is ruling all industry and commerce. Workingmen cannot be held in line, he says, for trade unionism when they see the futility of these organizations. They want something which gives promise of results, and the cooperative scheme appeals to them strongly now as it never did before.<br />
<br />
=== Further Wage Reductions. ===<br />
While in the West Mr. Debs learned that there is to be a reduction of wages all along the line in mining, railroad service, and in all industries within the next 90 days, and he does not see how it can be prevented. The miners, whose convention he has just attended,<ref>Debs and his wife were the guests of the Western Federation of Miners, who held their 5th Annual Convention in Salt Lake City.</ref> fought the Leadville strike at a cost of $1.5 million and lost. Those men know there must now be a new plan of operations, and they are going into cooperative mining as fast as they can do so. They are in an ugly temper, though, and when President [Edward] Boyce made the following recommendation in his annual address he was cheered to the echo, and the recommendation was adopted.<blockquote>I strongly advise you to devise ways and means to provide every member with the latest improved rifle which can be obtained from the factory at a nominal price. I entreat you to take action on this important question so that in two years we can hear the inspiring music of the martial tread of 25,000 armed men in the ranks of labor. </blockquote>Published in the Chicago Record, vol. 17, no. 124 (May 25, 1897), pg. 1.<br />
[[Category:Library documents from the United States of America]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:Plan_to_Redeem_Toil;_Eugene_V._Debs&diff=63671Library:Plan to Redeem Toil; Eugene V. Debs2024-03-04T04:00:39Z<p>RedCustodian: Created page with "== Eugene V. Debs and Others Look Toward Establishing a Colony in the West that Finally Will Enfold All Labor (May 24, 1897) == Special to the Chicago Record. Terre Haute, Ind., May 24 [1897].— Eugene V. Debs has returned from his trip to Utah and Colorado and finds awaiting him here N. [Norman Wallace] Lermond of Thomaston, Maine, Secretary of the Brotherhood of the Cooperative Commonwealth. Mr. Lermond has been in Tennessee and Arkansas looking for a location for a..."</p>
<hr />
<div>== Eugene V. Debs and Others Look Toward Establishing a Colony in the West that Finally Will Enfold All Labor (May 24, 1897) ==<br />
Special to the Chicago Record.<br />
<br />
Terre Haute, Ind., May 24 [1897].— Eugene V. Debs has returned from his trip to Utah and Colorado and finds awaiting him here N. [Norman Wallace] Lermond of Thomaston, Maine, Secretary of the Brotherhood of the Cooperative Commonwealth. Mr. Lermond has been in Tennessee and Arkansas looking for a location for a cooperative colony, but since his conference with Mr. Debs he announces that no further steps will be taken by brotherhood until after the convention, or conference, which is to be held in Chicago after the special convention of the American Railway Union, which is called for June 15. It is probable that the brotherhood, which now has 2,000 members, will be merged into the new organization, which will endeavor to get political possession of some western state and there try the experiment of a state cooperative commonwealth. Mr. Debs, himself, is opposed to the colony idea, because he believes it is not on a scale large enough to accomplish much good even if it were successful. But it is his impression that there is to be a radical change in the industrial system throughout the country, and that the successful operation of the cooperative idea in one state will cause it to be adopted everywhere.<br />
<br />
=== Prepare for Chicago Conference. ===<br />
The Chicago conference will be attended by delegates from labor organizations in most of the larger cities, especially in the West. There will also be present such men as Prof. [Frank] Parsons of Boston, Prof. [George D.] Herron of Iowa, and Henry D[emarest] Lloyd. Mr. Debs says that while he cannot speak for the conference his own theory is that as soon as possible 100 men should begin the work of enrolling of members of the new organization. He is confident that a membership of 1 million could be obtained in six months. These members would be asked to contribute whatever amount they felt able to give, and the fund thus raised would be used in sending men into that Western or Southwestern state where the effort is to be made to obtain political control. After this has been accomplished, a constitutional convention would be called, and the organic law of the state changed in such a manner as to permit of the complete introduction of the cooperative plan. The Chicago conference will determine which state is to be selected.<br />
<br />
=== Kind of Men Wanted. ===<br />
While Debs denies that he is to lead an army of unemployed in a march to the field of endeavor on the part of the cooperative people, still he is in favor of sending large numbers of men to the state, perhaps 1,000 at a time, and this, too, as soon as possible. They will not go as mendicants, however, nor will they be the idle and disreputable part of humanity, such as would have been called together by a rallying cry for a marching army. The manner in which they will move to the state is yet to be decided, but if they march, it will be as self-respecting men, who are backed with money to pay their way, and will not depend on the charity of the country through which they pass. Mr. Debs says that perhaps it may be determined to march not so much for the purpose of economy as to attract the attention of the country to the cooperative movement, but if it is decided to march every precaution will be taken to prevent the movement being brought into ridicule or disrepute by the character of the men or the march itself. When the army starts it will be with a public meeting, perhaps in Chicago, which will be addressed by men whose hearts are in the movement, such as B[enjamin] Fay Mills, perhaps, or Myron Reed, or Henry D. Lloyd<br />
<br />
=== Receives Much Encouragement ===<br />
Mr. Debs has received many letters about the cooperative scheme since he was interviewed on the subject a few weeks ago, and all are of an encouraging nature. Among those who have written is Dr. Rainsford, the Episcopal clergymen of New York. In New England, among the professional men and those not engaged in commercial pursuits, Mr. Lermond says there is almost a unanimous sentiment in favor of some effort to bring about a change in the industrial system, and these men are willing to assist the state cooperative commonwealth movement. Mr. Debs is confident that $50,000 a month can be raised after a few months of organization, and this money will be sufficient to keep the new men in the state employed until they can find a market for their product. In this respect, it is intended to have all members of the organization assist in supporting the movement by buying from [their] own producers. In the larger cities stores will be established where the products of the cooperative industries will be on sale. [The intimation] is that the cities of Chicago, St. Louis, and Milwaukee will furnish much assistance to the movement, both in membership and in the purchase of products. It is also true that there are thousands in those cities who will join an army to go anywhere.<br />
<br />
Mr. Debs has been informed that some persons in Chicago want to hold meetings of the unemployed, but he has urgently requested that this be not done. He knows the temper of the idle men, and also fears the effect of what some excitable speaker might say on the cooperative movement. He says that while he has the utmost sympathy for the unemployed men, no matter how far they have slipped away from self-respecting manhood in their idleness, still care must be taken not to do anything that would lose the support of all people who desire a change in the condition of the industrial element in the country.<br />
<br />
=== Mr. Debs’ Trip to the West. ===<br />
Mr. Debs says that while in Utah he made close investigation of the workings of the original cooperative scheme of the Mormons. He found that it was perfect until the spirit of commercialism came upon the leaders of the church. He thinks that the work of the Mormons in building up Utah out of a desert has not been fully understood, because the public knows Mormonism only by its upholding of polygamy. The details of the cooperative scheme of the Mormons, however, show that it was perfect. When asked if the church discipline did not have a great deal to do with making the Mormons prosperous and content with their lot, he said it undoubtedly did, but that in the new cooperative movement there would be equally as strong influences in the belief of those who undertake it in the doctrine of cooperation. Only such men as believe in the doctrine as devout Christians believe in their religion would take part in the movement. There are thousands of men who are now believers in the doctrine who a few years ago would not give it a thought. These men have come to see that there is no hope for the relief they have been counting upon from trade unions or from political parties. Trade unions are utterly unable to stop the constantly lowering of wages simply because these reductions are part of a natural law and are inevitable. The grinding process is the natural result of the rule of capitalism, and no organization of men can uphold wages when the heartless strife for gain is ruling all industry and commerce. Workingmen cannot be held in line, he says, for trade unionism when they see the futility of these organizations. They want something which gives promise of results, and the cooperative scheme appeals to them strongly now as it never did before.<br />
<br />
=== Further Wage Reductions. ===<br />
While in the West Mr. Debs learned that there is to be a reduction of wages all along the line in mining, railroad service, and in all industries within the next 90 days, and he does not see how it can be prevented. The miners, whose convention he has just attended,<ref>Debs and his wife were the guests of the Western Federation of Miners, who held their 5th Annual Convention in Salt Lake City.</ref> fought the Leadville strike at a cost of $1.5 million and lost. Those men know there must now be a new plan of operations, and they are going into cooperative mining as fast as they can do so. They are in an ugly temper, though, and when President [Edward] Boyce made the following recommendation in his annual address he was cheered to the echo, and the recommendation was adopted.<blockquote>I strongly advise you to devise ways and means to provide every member with the latest improved rifle which can be obtained from the factory at a nominal price. I entreat you to take action on this important question so that in two years we can hear the inspiring music of the martial tread of 25,000 armed men in the ranks of labor. </blockquote>Published in the Chicago Record, vol. 17, no. 124 (May 25, 1897), pg. 1.<br />
[[Category:Library documents from the United States of America]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:The_London_Congress_of_the_Russian_Social-Democratic_Labour_Party&diff=63670Library:The London Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party2024-03-04T03:52:57Z<p>RedCustodian: </p>
<hr />
<div>http://www.marx2mao.com/PDFs/StWorks2.pdf <br />
<br />
(Notes of a Delegate) <br />
<br />
The London Congress is over. In spite of the expectations of liberal hacks, such as the Vergezhskys 33 and Kuskovas, 34 the congress did not result in a split, but in the further consolidation of the Party, in the further unification of the advanced workers of all Russia in one indivisible party. It was a real all-Russian unity congress, for at this congress our Polish comrades, our comrades of the Bund, and our Lettish comrades were for the first time most widely and fully represented, for the first time they took an active part in the work of the Party congress and, consequently, for the first time most directly linked the fate of their respective organisations with the fate of the entire Party. In this respect the London Congress greatly contributed to the consolidation and strengthening of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party.<br />
<br />
Such is the first and an important result of the London Congress. But the importance of the London Congress is not confined to this. The point is that, in spite of the wishes of the liberal hacks we have referred to, the congress ended in the victory of “Bolshevism,” in the victory of revolutionary Social-Democracy over the opportunist wing of our Party, over “Menshevism.” Everybody, of course, is aware of the disagreements among us on the role of the different classes and parties in our revolution and of our attitude towards them. Everybody knows, too, that in a number of pronouncements the official centre of the Party, which is Menshevik in composition, took a stand in opposition to the Party as a whole. <br />
<br />
Recall, for example, the case of the Central Committee’s slogan of a responsible Cadet ministry, which the Party rejected in the period of the First Duma; the case of the same Central Committee’s slogan of “resumption of the session of the Duma” after the First Duma was dispersed, which was also rejected by the Party; and the case of the Central Committee’s well-known call for a general strike in connection with the dispersion of the First Duma, which was also rejected by the Party. . . . It was necessary to put an end to that abnormal situation. And to do this it was necessary to sum up the actual victories the Party had achieved over the opportunist Central Committee, the victories which fill the history of our Party’s internal development during the whole of the past year. And so the London Congress summed up all these victories of revolutionary Social-Democracy and sealed the victory by adopting the tactics of that section of Social-Democracy.<br />
<br />
Consequently, the Party will henceforth pursue the strictly class policy of the socialist proletariat. The red flag of the proletariat will no longer be hauled down before the spell-binders of liberalism. A mortal blow has been struck at the vacillation characteristic of intellectuals, which is unbecoming to the proletariat.<br />
<br />
Such is the second and no less important result of the London Congress of our Party. The actual unification of the advanced workers of all Russia into a single all-Russian party under the banner of revolutionary Social-Democracy—that is the significance of the London Congress, that is its general character. We shall now pass to a more detailed characterisation of the congress.<br />
<br />
=== THE COMPOSITION OF THE CONGRESS ===<br />
In all about 330 delegates were present at the congress. Of these, 302 had the right to vote; they represented over 150,000 Party members. The rest were consultative delegates. The distribution of the delegates according to groups was approximately as follows (counting only those with right to vote): Bolsheviks 92, Mensheviks 85, Bundists 54, Poles 45 and Letts 26.<br />
<br />
As regards the social status of the delegates (workers or non-workers) the congress presented the following picture: manual workers 116 in all, office and distributive workers 24, the rest were non-workers. The manual workers were distributed among the different groups as follows: Bolshevik group 38 (36 per cent), Menshevik group 30 (31 per cent), Poles 27 (61 per cent), Letts 12 (40 percent) and Bundists 9 (15 per cent). Professional revolutionaries were distributed among the groups as follows: Bolshevik group 18 (17 per cent), Menshevik group 22 (22 per cent), Poles 5 (11 per cent), Letts 2 (6 per cent), Bundists 9 (15 per cent).<br />
<br />
We were all “amazed” by these statistics. How is this? The Mensheviks had shouted so much about our Party consisting of intellectuals; day and night they had been denouncing the Bolsheviks as intellectuals; they had threatened to drive all the intellectuals out of the Party and had all the time been reviling the professional revolutionaries—and suddenly it turned out that they had far fewer workers in their group than the Bolshevik “intellectuals” had! It turned out that they had far more professional revolutionaries than the Bolsheviks! But we explained the Menshevik shouts by the proverb: “The tongue ever turns to the aching tooth.”<br />
<br />
Still more interesting are the figures of the composition of the congress showing the “territorial distribution” of the delegates. It turned out that the large groups of Menshevik delegates came mainly from the peasant and handicraft districts: Guria (9 delegates), Tiflis (10 delegates), Little-Russian peasant organisation “Spilka” (I think 12 delegates), the Bund (the overwhelming majority were Mensheviks) and, by way of exception, the Donets Basin (7 delegates). On the other hand, the large groups of Bolshevik delegates came exclusively from the large-scale industry districts: St. Petersburg (12 delegates), Moscow (13 or 14 delegates), the Urals (21 delegates), Ivanovo-Voznesensk (11 delegates), Poland (45 delegates).<br />
<br />
Obviously, the tactics of the Bolsheviks are the tactics of the proletarians in big industry, the tactics of those areas where class contradictions are especially clear and the class struggle especially acute. Bolshevism is the tactics of the real proletarians.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, it is no less obvious that the tactics of the Mensheviks are primarily the tactics of the handicraft workers and the peasant semi-proletarians, the tactics of those areas where class contradictions are not quite clear and the class struggle is masked. Menshevism is the tactics of the semi-bourgeois elements among the proletariat.<br />
<br />
So say the figures.<br />
<br />
And this is not difficult to understand: it is impossible to talk seriously among the workers of Lodz, Moscow or Ivanovo Voznesensk about blocs with the very same liberal bourgeoisie whose members are waging a fierce struggle against them and who, every now and again, “punish” them with partial dismissals and mass lockouts. There Menshevism will find no sympathy; there Bolshevism, the tactics of uncompromising proletarian class struggle, is needed. On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to inculcate the idea of the class struggle among the peasants of Guria or say, the handicraftsmen of Shklov, who do not feel the sharp and systematic blows of the class struggle and, therefore, readily agree to all sorts of agreements against the “common enemy.” There Bolshevism is not yet needed; there Menshevism is needed, for there an atmosphere of agreements and compromises pervades everything.<br />
<br />
No less interesting is the national composition of the congress. The figures showed that the majority of the Menshevik group were Jews (not counting the Bundists, of course), then came Georgians and then Russians. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of the Bolshevik group were Russians, then came Jews (not counting Poles and Letts, of course), then Georgians, etc. In this connection one of the Bolsheviks (I think it was Comrade Alexinsky 35 ) observed in jest that the Mensheviks constituted a Jewish group while the Bolsheviks constituted a true-Russian group and, therefore, it wouldn’t be a bad idea for us Bolsheviks to organise a pogrom in the Party.<br />
<br />
It is not difficult to explain this composition of the different groups: the main centres of Bolshevism are the areas of large-scale industry, purely Russian districts with the exception of Poland, whereas the Menshevik districts are districts with small production and, at the same time, Jewish, Georgian, etc., districts.<br />
<br />
As regards the different trends revealed at the congress, it must be noted that the formal division of the congress into five groups (Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Poles, etc.) retained a certain validity, inconsider- able it is true, only up to the discussion on questions of principle (the question of the non-proletarian parties, the labour congress, etc.). When these questions of principle came up for discussion the formal grouping was in fact cast aside, and when a vote was taken the congress, as a rule, divided into two parts: Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. There was no so-called centre, or marsh, at the congress. Trotsky proved to be “pretty but useless.” All the Poles definitely sided with the Bolsheviks. The overwhelming majority of the Letts also definitely supported the Bolsheviks. The Bund, the overwhelming majority of whose delegates in fact always supported the Mensheviks, formally pursued an extremely ambiguous policy, which, on the one hand, raised a smile, and on the other, caused irritation. Comrade Rosa Luxemburg aptly characterised the policy of the Bund when she said that the Bund’s policy was not the policy of a mature political organisation that influenced the masses, but the policy of shopkeepers who are eternally looking forward to, and hopefully expecting, a drop in the price of sugar tomorrow. Of the Bundists, only 8 to 10 delegates supported the Bolsheviks, and then not always.<br />
<br />
In general, predominance, and rather considerable predominance, was on the side of the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
Thus, the congress was a Bolshevik congress, although not sharply Bolshevik. Of the Menshevik resolutions only the one on guerilla actions was carried, and that by sheer accident: on that point the Bolsheviks did not accept battle, or rather, they did not wish to fight the issue to a conclusion, purely out of the desire to “give the Menshevik comrades at least one opportunity to rejoice.” . . .<br />
<br />
=== THE AGENDA. REPORT OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE. REPORT OF THE GROUP IN THE DUMA ===<br />
[[Category:Library works by Joseph Stalin]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:Reflections_of_a_young_man_on_the_choice_of_a_profession&diff=63669Library:Reflections of a young man on the choice of a profession2024-03-04T03:51:14Z<p>RedCustodian: </p>
<hr />
<div>Nature herself has determined the sphere of activity in which the animal should move, and it peacefully moves within that sphere, without attempting to go beyond it, without even an inkling of any other. To man, too, the Deity gave a general aim, that of ennobling mankind and himself, but he left it to man to seek the means by which this aim can be achieved; he left it to him to choose the position in society most suited to him, from which he can best uplift himself and society.<br />
<br />
This choice is a great privilege of man over the rest of creation, but at the same time it is an act which can destroy his whole life, frustrate all his plans, and make him unhappy. Serious consideration of this choice, therefore, is certainly the first duty of a young man who is beginning his career and does not want to leave his most important affairs to chance.<br />
<br />
Everyone has an aim in view, which to him at least seems great, and actually is so if the deepest conviction, the innermost voice of the heart declares it so, for the Deity never leaves mortal man wholly without a guide; he speaks softly but with certainty. But this voice can easily be drowned, and what we took for inspiration can be the product of the moment, which another moment can perhaps also destroy. Our imagination, perhaps, is set on fire, our emotions excited, phantoms flit before our eyes, and we plunge headlong into what impetuous instinct suggests, which we imagine the Deity himself has pointed out to us. But what we ardently embrace soon repels us and we see our whole existence in ruins.<br />
<br />
We must therefore seriously examine whether we have really been inspired in our choice of a profession, whether an inner voice approves it, or whether this inspiration is a delusion, and what we took to be a call from the Deity was self-deception. But how can we recognise this except by tracing the source of the inspiration itself?<br />
<br />
What is great glitters, its glitter arouses ambition, and ambition can easily have produced the inspiration, or what we took for inspiration; but reason can no longer restrain the man who is tempted by the demon of ambition, and he plunges head- long into what impetuous instinct suggests: he no longer chooses his position in life, instead it is determined by chance and illusion.<br />
<br />
Nor are we called upon to adopt the position which offers us the most brilliant opportunities; that is not the one which, in the long series of years in which we may perhaps hold it, will never tire us, never dampen our zeal, never let our enthusiasm grow cold, but one in which we shall soon see our wishes unfulfilled, our ideas unsatisfied, and we shall inveigh against the Deity and curse mankind.<br />
<br />
But it is not only ambition which can arouse sudden enthusiasm for a particular profession; we may perhaps have embellished it in our imagination, and embellished it so that it appears the highest that life can offer. We have not analysed it, not considered the whole burden, the great responsibility it imposes on us; we have seen it only from a distance, and distance is deceptive.<br />
<br />
Our own reason cannot be counsellor here; for it is supported neither by experience nor by profound observation, being deceived by emotion and blinded by fantasy. To whom then should we turn our eyes? Who should support us where our reason forsakes us?<br />
<br />
Our parents, who have already traveled life's road and experienced the severity of fate — our heart tells us. <br />
<br />
And if then our enthusiasm still persists, if we still continue to love a profession and believe ourselves called to it after we have examined it in cold blood, after we have perceived its burdens and become acquainted with its difficulties, then we ought to adopt it, then neither does our enthusiasm deceive us nor does overhastiness carry us away.<br />
<br />
But we cannot always attain the position to which we believe we are called; our relations in society have to some extent already<br />
begun to be established before we are in a position to determine them.<br />
<br />
Our physical constitution itself is often a threatening obstacle, and let no one scoff at its rights.<br />
[[Category:Library works by Karl Marx]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:The_London_Congress_of_the_Russian_Social-Democratic_Labour_Party&diff=63668Library:The London Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party2024-03-04T03:40:39Z<p>RedCustodian: </p>
<hr />
<div>http://www.marx2mao.com/PDFs/StWorks2.pdf <br />
<br />
(Notes of a Delegate) <br />
<br />
The London Congress is over. In spite of the expectations of liberal hacks, such as the Vergezhskys 33 and Kuskovas, 34 the congress did not result in a split, but in the further consolidation of the Party, in the further unification of the advanced workers of all Russia in one indivisible party. It was a real all-Russian unity congress, for at this congress our Polish comrades, our comrades of the Bund, and our Lettish comrades were for the first time most widely and fully represented, for the first time they took an active part in the work of the Party congress and, consequently, for the first time most directly linked the fate of their respective organisations with the fate of the entire Party. In this respect the London Congress greatly contributed to the consolidation and strengthening of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party.<br />
<br />
Such is the first and an important result of the London Congress. But the importance of the London Congress is not confined to this. The point is that, in spite of the wishes of the liberal hacks we have referred to, the congress ended in the victory of “Bolshevism,” in the victory of revolutionary Social-Democracy over the opportunist wing of our Party, over “Menshevism.” Everybody, of course, is aware of the disagreements among us on the role of the different classes and parties in our revolution and of our attitude towards them. Everybody knows, too, that in a number of pronouncements the official centre of the Party, which is Menshevik in composition, took a stand in opposition to the Party as a whole. <br />
<br />
Recall, for example, the case of the Central Committee’s slogan of a responsible Cadet ministry, which the Party rejected in the period of the First Duma; the case of the same Central Committee’s slogan of “resumption of the session of the Duma” after the First Duma was dispersed, which was also rejected by the Party; and the case of the Central Committee’s well-known call for a general strike in connection with the dispersion of the First Duma, which was also rejected by the Party. . . . It was necessary to put an end to that abnormal situation. And to do this it was necessary to sum up the actual victories the Party had achieved over the opportunist Central Committee, the victories which fill the history of our Party’s internal development during the whole of the past year. And so the London Congress summed up all these victories of revolutionary Social-Democracy and sealed the victory by adopting the tactics of that section of Social-Democracy.<br />
<br />
Consequently, the Party will henceforth pursue the strictly class policy of the socialist proletariat. The red flag of the proletariat will no longer be hauled down before the spell-binders of liberalism. A mortal blow has been struck at the vacillation characteristic of intellectuals, which is unbecoming to the proletariat.<br />
<br />
Such is the second and no less important result of the London Congress of our Party. The actual unification of the advanced workers of all Russia into a single all-Russian party under the banner of revolutionary Social-Democracy—that is the significance of the London Congress, that is its general character. We shall now pass to a more detailed characterisation of the congress.<br />
<br />
=== THE COMPOSITION OF THE CONGRESS ===<br />
In all about 330 delegates were present at the congress. Of these, 302 had the right to vote; they represented over 150,000 Party members. The rest were consultative delegates. The distribution of the delegates according to groups was approximately as follows (counting only those with right to vote): Bolsheviks 92, Mensheviks 85, Bundists 54, Poles 45 and Letts 26.<br />
<br />
As regards the social status of the delegates (workers or non-workers) the congress presented the following picture: manual workers 116 in all, office and distributive workers 24, the rest were non-workers. The manual workers were distributed among the different groups as follows: Bolshevik group 38 (36 per cent), Menshevik group 30 (31 per cent), Poles 27 (61 per cent), Letts 12 (40 percent) and Bundists 9 (15 per cent). Professional revolutionaries were distributed among the groups as follows: Bolshevik group 18 (17 per cent), Menshevik group 22 (22 per cent), Poles 5 (11 per cent), Letts 2 (6 per cent), Bundists 9 (15 per cent).<br />
<br />
We were all “amazed” by these statistics. How is this? The Mensheviks had shouted so much about our Party consisting of intellectuals; day and night they had been denouncing the Bolsheviks as intellectuals; they had threatened to drive all the intellectuals out of the Party and had all the time been reviling the professional revolutionaries—and suddenly it turned out that they had far fewer workers in their group than the Bolshevik “intellectuals” had! It turned out that they had far more professional revolutionaries than the Bolsheviks! But we explained the Menshevik shouts by the proverb: “The tongue ever turns to the aching tooth.”<br />
<br />
Still more interesting are the figures of the composition of the congress showing the “territorial distribution” of the delegates. It turned out that the large groups of Menshevik delegates came mainly from the peasant and handicraft districts: Guria (9 delegates), Tiflis (10 delegates), Little-Russian peasant organisation “Spilka” (I think 12 delegates), the Bund (the overwhelming majority were Mensheviks) and, by way of exception, the Donets Basin (7 delegates). On the other hand, the large groups of Bolshevik delegates came exclusively from the large-scale industry districts: St. Petersburg (12 delegates), Moscow (13 or 14 delegates), the Urals (21 delegates), Ivanovo-Voznesensk (11 delegates), Poland (45 delegates).<br />
<br />
Obviously, the tactics of the Bolsheviks are the tactics of the proletarians in big industry, the tactics of those areas where class contradictions are especially clear and the class struggle especially acute. Bolshevism is the tactics of the real proletarians.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, it is no less obvious that the tactics of the Mensheviks are primarily the tactics of the handicraft workers and the peasant semi-proletarians, the tactics of those areas where class contradictions are not quite clear and the class struggle is masked. Menshevism is the tactics of the semi-bourgeois elements among the proletariat.<br />
<br />
So say the figures.<br />
<br />
And this is not difficult to understand: it is impossible to talk seriously among the workers of Lodz, Moscow or Ivanovo Voznesensk about blocs with the very same liberal bourgeoisie whose members are waging a fierce struggle against them and who, every now and again, “punish” them with partial dismissals and mass lockouts. There Menshevism will find no sympathy; there Bolshevism, the tactics of uncompromising proletarian class struggle, is needed. On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to inculcate the idea of the class struggle among the peasants of Guria or say, the handicraftsmen of Shklov, who do not feel the sharp and systematic blows of the class struggle and, therefore, readily agree to all sorts of agreements against the “common enemy.” There Bolshevism is not yet needed; there Menshevism is needed, for there an atmosphere of agreements and compromises pervades everything.<br />
<br />
No less interesting is the national composition of the congress. The figures showed that the majority of the Menshevik group were Jews (not counting the Bundists, of course), then came Georgians and then Russians. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of the Bolshevik group were Russians, then came Jews (not counting Poles and Letts, of course), then Georgians, etc. In this connection one of the Bolsheviks (I think it was Comrade Alexinsky 35 ) observed in jest that the Mensheviks constituted a Jewish group while the Bolsheviks constituted a true-Russian group and, therefore, it wouldn’t be a bad idea for us Bolsheviks to organise a pogrom in the Party.<br />
<br />
It is not difficult to explain this composition of the different groups: the main centres of Bolshevism are the areas of large-scale industry, purely Russian districts with the exception of Poland, whereas the Menshevik districts are districts with small production and, at the same time, Jewish, Georgian, etc., districts.<br />
<br />
As regards the different trends revealed at the congress, it must be noted that the formal division of the congress into five groups (Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Poles, etc.) retained a certain validity, inconsider- able it is true, only up to the discussion on questions of principle (the question of the non-proletarian parties, the labour congress, etc.). When these questions of principle came up for discussion the formal grouping was in fact cast aside, and when a vote was taken the congress, as a rule, divided into two parts: Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. There was no so-called centre, or marsh, at the congress. Trotsky proved to be “pretty but useless.” All the Poles definitely sided with the Bolsheviks. The overwhelming majority of the Letts also definitely supported the Bolsheviks. The Bund, the overwhelming majority of whose delegates in fact always supported the Mensheviks, formally pursued an extremely ambiguous policy, which, on the one hand, raised a smile, and on the other, caused irritation. Comrade Rosa Luxemburg aptly characterised the policy of the Bund when she said that the Bund’s policy was not the policy of a mature political organisation that influenced the masses, but the policy of shopkeepers who are eternally looking forward to, and hopefully expecting, a drop in the price of sugar tomorrow. Of the Bundists, only 8 to 10 delegates supported the Bolsheviks, and then not always.<br />
<br />
In general, predominance, and rather considerable predominance, was on the side of the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
Thus, the congress was a Bolshevik congress, although not sharply Bolshevik. Of the Menshevik resolutions only the one on guerilla actions was carried, and that by sheer accident: on that point the Bolsheviks did not accept battle, or rather, they did not wish to fight the issue to a conclusion, purely out of the desire to “give the Menshevik comrades at least one opportunity to rejoice.” . . .<br />
<br />
=== THE AGENDA. REPORT OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE. REPORT OF THE GROUP IN THE DUMA ===</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:The_London_Congress_of_the_Russian_Social-Democratic_Labour_Party&diff=63664Library:The London Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party2024-03-04T03:32:26Z<p>RedCustodian: /* THE AGENDA. */</p>
<hr />
<div>(Notes of a Delegate) <br />
<br />
The London Congress is over. In spite of the expectations of liberal hacks, such as the Vergezhskys 33 and Kuskovas, 34 the congress did not result in a split, but in the further consolidation of the Party, in the further unification of the advanced workers of all Russia in one indivisible party. It was a real all-Russian unity congress, for at this congress our Polish comrades, our comrades of the Bund, and our Lettish comrades were for the first time most widely and fully represented, for the first time they took an active part in the work of the Party congress and, consequently, for the first time most directly linked the fate of their respective organisations with the fate of the entire Party. In this respect the London Congress greatly contributed to the consolidation and strengthening of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party.<br />
<br />
Such is the first and an important result of the London Congress. But the importance of the London Congress is not confined to this. The point is that, in spite of the wishes of the liberal hacks we have referred to, the congress ended in the victory of “Bolshevism,” in the victory of revolutionary Social-Democracy over the opportunist wing of our Party, over “Menshevism.” Everybody, of course, is aware of the disagreements among us on the role of the different classes and parties in our revolution and of our attitude towards them. Everybody knows, too, that in a number of pronouncements the official centre of the Party, which is Menshevik in composition, took a stand in opposition to the Party as a whole. <br />
<br />
Recall, for example, the case of the Central Committee’s slogan of a responsible Cadet ministry, which the Party rejected in the period of the First Duma; the case of the same Central Committee’s slogan of “resumption of the session of the Duma” after the First Duma was dispersed, which was also rejected by the Party; and the case of the Central Committee’s well-known call for a general strike in connection with the dispersion of the First Duma, which was also rejected by the Party. . . . It was necessary to put an end to that abnormal situation. And to do this it was necessary to sum up the actual victories the Party had achieved over the opportunist Central Committee, the victories which fill the history of our Party’s internal development during the whole of the past year. And so the London Congress summed up all these victories of revolutionary Social-Democracy and sealed the victory by adopting the tactics of that section of Social-Democracy.<br />
<br />
Consequently, the Party will henceforth pursue the strictly class policy of the socialist proletariat. The red flag of the proletariat will no longer be hauled down before the spell-binders of liberalism. A mortal blow has been struck at the vacillation characteristic of intellectuals, which is unbecoming to the proletariat.<br />
<br />
Such is the second and no less important result of the London Congress of our Party. The actual unification of the advanced workers of all Russia into a single all-Russian party under the banner of revolutionary Social-Democracy—that is the significance of the London Congress, that is its general character. We shall now pass to a more detailed characterisation of the congress.<br />
<br />
=== THE COMPOSITION OF THE CONGRESS ===<br />
In all about 330 delegates were present at the congress. Of these, 302 had the right to vote; they represented over 150,000 Party members. The rest were consultative delegates. The distribution of the delegates according to groups was approximately as follows (counting only those with right to vote): Bolsheviks 92, Mensheviks 85, Bundists 54, Poles 45 and Letts 26.<br />
<br />
As regards the social status of the delegates (workers or non-workers) the congress presented the following picture: manual workers 116 in all, office and distributive workers 24, the rest were non-workers. The manual workers were distributed among the different groups as follows: Bolshevik group 38 (36 per cent), Menshevik group 30 (31 per cent), Poles 27 (61 per cent), Letts 12 (40 percent) and Bundists 9 (15 per cent). Professional revolutionaries were distributed among the groups as follows: Bolshevik group 18 (17 per cent), Menshevik group 22 (22 per cent), Poles 5 (11 per cent), Letts 2 (6 per cent), Bundists 9 (15 per cent).<br />
<br />
We were all “amazed” by these statistics. How is this? The Mensheviks had shouted so much about our Party consisting of intellectuals; day and night they had been denouncing the Bolsheviks as intellectuals; they had threatened to drive all the intellectuals out of the Party and had all the time been reviling the professional revolutionaries—and suddenly it turned out that they had far fewer workers in their group than the Bolshevik “intellectuals” had! It turned out that they had far more professional revolutionaries than the Bolsheviks! But we explained the Menshevik shouts by the proverb: “The tongue ever turns to the aching tooth.”<br />
<br />
Still more interesting are the figures of the composition of the congress showing the “territorial distribution” of the delegates. It turned out that the large groups of Menshevik delegates came mainly from the peasant and handicraft districts: Guria (9 delegates), Tiflis (10 delegates), Little-Russian peasant organisation “Spilka” (I think 12 delegates), the Bund (the overwhelming majority were Mensheviks) and, by way of exception, the Donets Basin (7 delegates). On the other hand, the large groups of Bolshevik delegates came exclusively from the large-scale industry districts: St. Petersburg (12 delegates), Moscow (13 or 14 delegates), the Urals (21 delegates), Ivanovo-Voznesensk (11 delegates), Poland (45 delegates).<br />
<br />
Obviously, the tactics of the Bolsheviks are the tactics of the proletarians in big industry, the tactics of those areas where class contradictions are especially clear and the class struggle especially acute. Bolshevism is the tactics of the real proletarians.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, it is no less obvious that the tactics of the Mensheviks are primarily the tactics of the handicraft workers and the peasant semi-proletarians, the tactics of those areas where class contradictions are not quite clear and the class struggle is masked. Menshevism is the tactics of the semi-bourgeois elements among the proletariat.<br />
<br />
So say the figures.<br />
<br />
And this is not difficult to understand: it is impossible to talk seriously among the workers of Lodz, Moscow or Ivanovo Voznesensk about blocs with the very same liberal bourgeoisie whose members are waging a fierce struggle against them and who, every now and again, “punish” them with partial dismissals and mass lockouts. There Menshevism will find no sympathy; there Bolshevism, the tactics of uncompromising proletarian class struggle, is needed. On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to inculcate the idea of the class struggle among the peasants of Guria or say, the handicraftsmen of Shklov, who do not feel the sharp and systematic blows of the class struggle and, therefore, readily agree to all sorts of agreements against the “common enemy.” There Bolshevism is not yet needed; there Menshevism is needed, for there an atmosphere of agreements and compromises pervades everything.<br />
<br />
No less interesting is the national composition of the congress. The figures showed that the majority of the Menshevik group were Jews (not counting the Bundists, of course), then came Georgians and then Russians. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of the Bolshevik group were Russians, then came Jews (not counting Poles and Letts, of course), then Georgians, etc. In this connection one of the Bolsheviks (I think it was Comrade Alexinsky 35 ) observed in jest that the Mensheviks constituted a Jewish group while the Bolsheviks constituted a true-Russian group and, therefore, it wouldn’t be a bad idea for us Bolsheviks to organise a pogrom in the Party.<br />
<br />
It is not difficult to explain this composition of the different groups: the main centres of Bolshevism are the areas of large-scale industry, purely Russian districts with the exception of Poland, whereas the Menshevik districts are districts with small production and, at the same time, Jewish, Georgian, etc., districts.<br />
<br />
As regards the different trends revealed at the congress, it must be noted that the formal division of the congress into five groups (Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Poles, etc.) retained a certain validity, inconsider- able it is true, only up to the discussion on questions of principle (the question of the non-proletarian parties, the labour congress, etc.). When these questions of principle came up for discussion the formal grouping was in fact cast aside, and when a vote was taken the congress, as a rule, divided into two parts: Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. There was no so-called centre, or marsh, at the congress. Trotsky proved to be “pretty but useless.” All the Poles definitely sided with the Bolsheviks. The overwhelming majority of the Letts also definitely supported the Bolsheviks. The Bund, the overwhelming majority of whose delegates in fact always supported the Mensheviks, formally pursued an extremely ambiguous policy, which, on the one hand, raised a smile, and on the other, caused irritation. Comrade Rosa Luxemburg aptly characterised the policy of the Bund when she said that the Bund’s policy was not the policy of a mature political organisation that influenced the masses, but the policy of shopkeepers who are eternally looking forward to, and hopefully expecting, a drop in the price of sugar tomorrow. Of the Bundists, only 8 to 10 delegates supported the Bolsheviks, and then not always.<br />
<br />
In general, predominance, and rather considerable predominance, was on the side of the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
Thus, the congress was a Bolshevik congress, although not sharply Bolshevik. Of the Menshevik resolutions only the one on guerilla actions was carried, and that by sheer accident: on that point the Bolsheviks did not accept battle, or rather, they did not wish to fight the issue to a conclusion, purely out of the desire to “give the Menshevik comrades at least one opportunity to rejoice.” . . .<br />
<br />
=== THE AGENDA. REPORT OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE. REPORT OF THE GROUP IN THE DUMA ===</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:The_London_Congress_of_the_Russian_Social-Democratic_Labour_Party&diff=63663Library:The London Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party2024-03-04T03:32:07Z<p>RedCustodian: /* THE COMPOSITION OF THE CONGRESS */</p>
<hr />
<div>(Notes of a Delegate) <br />
<br />
The London Congress is over. In spite of the expectations of liberal hacks, such as the Vergezhskys 33 and Kuskovas, 34 the congress did not result in a split, but in the further consolidation of the Party, in the further unification of the advanced workers of all Russia in one indivisible party. It was a real all-Russian unity congress, for at this congress our Polish comrades, our comrades of the Bund, and our Lettish comrades were for the first time most widely and fully represented, for the first time they took an active part in the work of the Party congress and, consequently, for the first time most directly linked the fate of their respective organisations with the fate of the entire Party. In this respect the London Congress greatly contributed to the consolidation and strengthening of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party.<br />
<br />
Such is the first and an important result of the London Congress. But the importance of the London Congress is not confined to this. The point is that, in spite of the wishes of the liberal hacks we have referred to, the congress ended in the victory of “Bolshevism,” in the victory of revolutionary Social-Democracy over the opportunist wing of our Party, over “Menshevism.” Everybody, of course, is aware of the disagreements among us on the role of the different classes and parties in our revolution and of our attitude towards them. Everybody knows, too, that in a number of pronouncements the official centre of the Party, which is Menshevik in composition, took a stand in opposition to the Party as a whole. <br />
<br />
Recall, for example, the case of the Central Committee’s slogan of a responsible Cadet ministry, which the Party rejected in the period of the First Duma; the case of the same Central Committee’s slogan of “resumption of the session of the Duma” after the First Duma was dispersed, which was also rejected by the Party; and the case of the Central Committee’s well-known call for a general strike in connection with the dispersion of the First Duma, which was also rejected by the Party. . . . It was necessary to put an end to that abnormal situation. And to do this it was necessary to sum up the actual victories the Party had achieved over the opportunist Central Committee, the victories which fill the history of our Party’s internal development during the whole of the past year. And so the London Congress summed up all these victories of revolutionary Social-Democracy and sealed the victory by adopting the tactics of that section of Social-Democracy.<br />
<br />
Consequently, the Party will henceforth pursue the strictly class policy of the socialist proletariat. The red flag of the proletariat will no longer be hauled down before the spell-binders of liberalism. A mortal blow has been struck at the vacillation characteristic of intellectuals, which is unbecoming to the proletariat.<br />
<br />
Such is the second and no less important result of the London Congress of our Party. The actual unification of the advanced workers of all Russia into a single all-Russian party under the banner of revolutionary Social-Democracy—that is the significance of the London Congress, that is its general character. We shall now pass to a more detailed characterisation of the congress.<br />
<br />
=== THE COMPOSITION OF THE CONGRESS ===<br />
In all about 330 delegates were present at the congress. Of these, 302 had the right to vote; they represented over 150,000 Party members. The rest were consultative delegates. The distribution of the delegates according to groups was approximately as follows (counting only those with right to vote): Bolsheviks 92, Mensheviks 85, Bundists 54, Poles 45 and Letts 26.<br />
<br />
As regards the social status of the delegates (workers or non-workers) the congress presented the following picture: manual workers 116 in all, office and distributive workers 24, the rest were non-workers. The manual workers were distributed among the different groups as follows: Bolshevik group 38 (36 per cent), Menshevik group 30 (31 per cent), Poles 27 (61 per cent), Letts 12 (40 percent) and Bundists 9 (15 per cent). Professional revolutionaries were distributed among the groups as follows: Bolshevik group 18 (17 per cent), Menshevik group 22 (22 per cent), Poles 5 (11 per cent), Letts 2 (6 per cent), Bundists 9 (15 per cent).<br />
<br />
We were all “amazed” by these statistics. How is this? The Mensheviks had shouted so much about our Party consisting of intellectuals; day and night they had been denouncing the Bolsheviks as intellectuals; they had threatened to drive all the intellectuals out of the Party and had all the time been reviling the professional revolutionaries—and suddenly it turned out that they had far fewer workers in their group than the Bolshevik “intellectuals” had! It turned out that they had far more professional revolutionaries than the Bolsheviks! But we explained the Menshevik shouts by the proverb: “The tongue ever turns to the aching tooth.”<br />
<br />
Still more interesting are the figures of the composition of the congress showing the “territorial distribution” of the delegates. It turned out that the large groups of Menshevik delegates came mainly from the peasant and handicraft districts: Guria (9 delegates), Tiflis (10 delegates), Little-Russian peasant organisation “Spilka” (I think 12 delegates), the Bund (the overwhelming majority were Mensheviks) and, by way of exception, the Donets Basin (7 delegates). On the other hand, the large groups of Bolshevik delegates came exclusively from the large-scale industry districts: St. Petersburg (12 delegates), Moscow (13 or 14 delegates), the Urals (21 delegates), Ivanovo-Voznesensk (11 delegates), Poland (45 delegates).<br />
<br />
Obviously, the tactics of the Bolsheviks are the tactics of the proletarians in big industry, the tactics of those areas where class contradictions are especially clear and the class struggle especially acute. Bolshevism is the tactics of the real proletarians.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, it is no less obvious that the tactics of the Mensheviks are primarily the tactics of the handicraft workers and the peasant semi-proletarians, the tactics of those areas where class contradictions are not quite clear and the class struggle is masked. Menshevism is the tactics of the semi-bourgeois elements among the proletariat.<br />
<br />
So say the figures.<br />
<br />
And this is not difficult to understand: it is impossible to talk seriously among the workers of Lodz, Moscow or Ivanovo Voznesensk about blocs with the very same liberal bourgeoisie whose members are waging a fierce struggle against them and who, every now and again, “punish” them with partial dismissals and mass lockouts. There Menshevism will find no sympathy; there Bolshevism, the tactics of uncompromising proletarian class struggle, is needed. On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to inculcate the idea of the class struggle among the peasants of Guria or say, the handicraftsmen of Shklov, who do not feel the sharp and systematic blows of the class struggle and, therefore, readily agree to all sorts of agreements against the “common enemy.” There Bolshevism is not yet needed; there Menshevism is needed, for there an atmosphere of agreements and compromises pervades everything.<br />
<br />
No less interesting is the national composition of the congress. The figures showed that the majority of the Menshevik group were Jews (not counting the Bundists, of course), then came Georgians and then Russians. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of the Bolshevik group were Russians, then came Jews (not counting Poles and Letts, of course), then Georgians, etc. In this connection one of the Bolsheviks (I think it was Comrade Alexinsky 35 ) observed in jest that the Mensheviks constituted a Jewish group while the Bolsheviks constituted a true-Russian group and, therefore, it wouldn’t be a bad idea for us Bolsheviks to organise a pogrom in the Party.<br />
<br />
It is not difficult to explain this composition of the different groups: the main centres of Bolshevism are the areas of large-scale industry, purely Russian districts with the exception of Poland, whereas the Menshevik districts are districts with small production and, at the same time, Jewish, Georgian, etc., districts.<br />
<br />
As regards the different trends revealed at the congress, it must be noted that the formal division of the congress into five groups (Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Poles, etc.) retained a certain validity, inconsider- able it is true, only up to the discussion on questions of principle (the question of the non-proletarian parties, the labour congress, etc.). When these questions of principle came up for discussion the formal grouping was in fact cast aside, and when a vote was taken the congress, as a rule, divided into two parts: Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. There was no so-called centre, or marsh, at the congress. Trotsky proved to be “pretty but useless.” All the Poles definitely sided with the Bolsheviks. The overwhelming majority of the Letts also definitely supported the Bolsheviks. The Bund, the overwhelming majority of whose delegates in fact always supported the Mensheviks, formally pursued an extremely ambiguous policy, which, on the one hand, raised a smile, and on the other, caused irritation. Comrade Rosa Luxemburg aptly characterised the policy of the Bund when she said that the Bund’s policy was not the policy of a mature political organisation that influenced the masses, but the policy of shopkeepers who are eternally looking forward to, and hopefully expecting, a drop in the price of sugar tomorrow. Of the Bundists, only 8 to 10 delegates supported the Bolsheviks, and then not always.<br />
<br />
In general, predominance, and rather considerable predominance, was on the side of the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
Thus, the congress was a Bolshevik congress, although not sharply Bolshevik. Of the Menshevik resolutions only the one on guerilla actions was carried, and that by sheer accident: on that point the Bolsheviks did not accept battle, or rather, they did not wish to fight the issue to a conclusion, purely out of the desire to “give the Menshevik comrades at least one opportunity to rejoice.” . . .<br />
<br />
=== THE AGENDA. ===<br />
<br />
=== REPORT OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE. ===<br />
<br />
=== REPORT OF THE GROUP IN THE DUMA ===</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:Black_Bolshevik&diff=63647Library:Black Bolshevik2024-03-03T23:30:46Z<p>RedCustodian: /* THE SIXTH WORLD CONGRESS */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Library work|title=Black Bolshevik: Autobiography Of An Afro-American Communist|image=https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1328767045i/704092.jpg|author=Harry Haywood|publisher=Liberator Press|published_date=January 1, 1978|published_location=Chicago Illinois|type=Book|isbn=9780930720537|source=[https://archive.org/details/black-bolshevik-autobiography-of-an-afro-american-communist/mode/2up archive.org]}}<br />
<br />
''Black Bolshevik'' is the autobiography of [[Harry Haywood]], published January 1, 1978. The son of former slaves who became a leading member of the [[Communist Party of the United States of America|Communist Part USA]] and a pioneering theoretician on the Afro-American struggle.<br />
<br />
The author's first-hand accounts of the Chicago race riot of 1919, the Scottsboro Boys' defense, communist work in the South, the [[Spanish Civil War]], the battle against the revisionist betrayal of the Party, and other history-shaping events are must reading for all who are interested in Black history and the working class struggle.<br />
<br />
It was dedicated to his family; his third wife, son and daughter. <br />
<br />
"To My Family,<br />
<br />
Gwen, Haywood, Jr., and Becky" <br />
<br />
== Acknowledgement ==<br />
There have been many friends and comrades who have, directly or indirectly, helped me with the writing of this book. Unfortunately, they are too numerous to all be named here.<br />
<br />
There are a number of young people who have helped with the editorial, research and typing tasks and helped the project along through political discussions. Special thanks to Ernie Allen, who gave yeoman help with the early chapters. Others whose assistance was indispensable include Jody and Susan Chandler, Paula Cohen, Stu Dowty and Janet Goldwasser, Paul Elitzik, Pat Fry, Gary Goff, Sherman Miller, John Schwartz, Lyn Wells and Carl Davidson. Others who gave me assistance are Renee Blakkan and Nathalie Garcia.<br />
<br />
Over the past years, I have had discussions with several veteran comrades and friends who have helped immeasurably in jogging my memory and filling in the gaps where my own experience was lacking, I extend my warmest appreciation to Jesse Gray, Josh Lawrence, Arthur and Maude (White) Katz, John Killens, Ruth Hamlin, Frances Loman, Al Murphy, Joan Sandler, Delia Page and Jack and Ruth Shulman.<br />
<br />
A political autobiography is necessarily shaped by experiences over the years and by comrades who helped and influenced me in the long battle for self-determination and against revisionism. My earliest political debts are to the first core of Black cadres in the CPUSA: Cyril Briggs, Edward Doty, Richard B. Moore and to my brother Otto Hall, all former members of the African Blood Brotherhood.<br />
<br />
To Harrison George, outstanding son of the working class, charter member of the CPUSA, former editor of the Daily Worker and the Peoples' World, who gave his all to the Communist movement and died alone, victimized for his “premature" anti- revisionism.<br />
<br />
A special tribute to my comrades in the battles against revisionism within the CPUSA and after: Al Lannon, veteran director of the Waterfront Section and member of the Central Committee of the CPUSA; Charles Loman, executive secretary of the Brooklyn Party Organization; Isidore Beagun, executive secretary of the Bronx Party Organization; Allen and Pearl Lawes, Al and Ruth Hamlin, Olga and Victor Agosto. And to my wife, Gwendolyn Midlo Hall, my closest collaborator from 1953 through 1964 in the writing of manuscripts as well as in the Apolitical battles, who has since established her own reputation as historian and essayist.<br />
<br />
A tribute to Ed Strong, former communist youth leader and director of the Southern Negro Youth Congress, whose premature death in the mid-fifties cut short his uncompromising stand within the Central Committee for the right of self-determination for the Black nation.<br />
<br />
To the editors of Soulbook Magazine, who published my writings in 1965-66 and invited me to Oakland, California, in the spring of 1966 during the formative stages of the Black Panther movement.<br />
<br />
To Vincent Harding, who provided me with funds to return to the U.S. from Mexico in 1970 and gave me technical and material assistance to begin this autobiography.<br />
<br />
Thanks to John Henrik Clarke and Francisco and Elizabeth Cattlett de Mora for their enthusiasm and moral support.<br />
<br />
To Robert Warner, Director of the Michigan Historical Collections, for his help and his sensitivity to the need to collect and preserve historically relevant materials from the Black movement in the United States.<br />
<br />
== Prologue ==<br />
On July 28, 1919,1 literally stepped into a battle that was to last the rest of my life. Exactly three months after mustering out of the Army, I found myself in the midst of one of the bloodiest race riots in U.S. history. It was certainly a most dramatic return to the realities of American democracy. <br />
<br />
It came to me then that I had been fighting the wrong war. The Germans weren’t the enemy -the enemy was right here at home. These ideas had been developing ever since I landed home in April, and a lot of other Black veterans were having the same thoughts. <br />
<br />
I had a job as a waiter on the Michigan Central Railroad at the time. In July, I was working the Wolverine, the crack Michigan Central train between Chicago and New York. We would serve lunch and dinner on the run out of Chicago to St. Thomas, Canada, where the dining car was cut off the train. The next morning our cars would be attached to the Chicago-bound train and we would serve breakfast and lunch into Chicago.<br />
<br />
On July 27, the Wolverine left on a regular run to St. Thomas. Passing through Detroit, we heard news that a race riot had broken out in Chicago. The situation had been tense for some time. Several members of the crew, all of them Black, had bought revolvers and ammunition the previous week when on a special to Battle Creek, Michigan. Thus, when we returned to Chicago at about 2:00 P.M. the next day (July 28). we were apprehensive about what awaited us.<br />
<br />
The whole dining car crew, six waiters and four cooks, got off at the Twelfth Street Station in Chicago. Usually we would stay on the car while it backed out to the yards, but the station seemed a better route now. We were all tense as we passed through the station on the way to the elevated which would take us to the Southside and home. Suddenly a white trainman accosted us. “Hey, you guys going out to the Southside?”<br />
<br />
“Yeah, so what?” I said, immediately on the alert, thinking he might start something.<br />
<br />
“If I were you I wouldn’t go by the avenue” He meant Michigan Avenue which was right in front of the station.<br />
<br />
“Why?”<br />
<br />
“There’s a big race riot going on out there, and already this morning a couple of colored soldiers were killed coming in unsuspectingly. If I were you I’d keep off the street, and go right out those tracks by the lake.”<br />
<br />
We took the trainman’s advice, thanked him, and turned toward the tracks. It would be much slower walking home, but if he were right, it would be safer. As we turned down the tracks toward the Southside of the city, towards the Black ghetto, I thought of what I had just been through in Europe and what now lay before me in America.<br />
<br />
On one side of us lay the summer warmness of Lake Michigan. On the other was Chicago, a huge and still growing industrial center of the nation, bursting at its seams; brawling, sprawling Chicago, “hog butcher for the nation” as Carl Sandburg had called it<br />
<br />
As we walked, I remembered the war. On returning from Europe, I had felt good to be alive. I was glad to be back with my family—Mom, Pop and my sister. At twenty-one, my life lay before me. What should I do? The only trade I had learned was waiting tables. I hadn’t even finished the eighth grade. Perhaps I should go back to France, live there and become a French citizen? After all, I hadn’t seen any Jim Crow there.<br />
<br />
Had race prejudice in the U.S. lessened? I knew better. Conditions in the States had not changed, but we Blacks had. We were determined not to take it anymore. But what was I walking into?<br />
<br />
Southside Chicago, the Black ghetto, was like a besieged city. Whole sections of it were in ruins. Buildings burned and the air was heavy with smoke, reminiscent of the holocaust from which I had recently returned.<br />
<br />
Our small band, huddled like a bunch of raw recruits under machine gun fire, turned up Twenty-sixth Street and then into the heart of the ghetto. At Thirty-fifth and Indiana, we split up to go our various ways; I headed for home at Forty-second Place and Bowen. None of us returned to work until the riot was over, more than a week later.<br />
<br />
The battle at home was just as real as the battle in France had been. As I recall, there was full-scale street fighting between Black and white. Blacks were snatched from streetcars and beaten or killed; pitched battles were fought in ghetto streets; hoodlums roamed the neighborhood, shooting at random. Blacks fought hack.<br />
<br />
As I saw it at the time, Chicago was two cities. The one was the Chamber of Commerce’s city of the “American Miracle,” the Chicago of the 1893 World Columbian Exposition. It was the new industrial city which had grown in fifty years from a frontier town to become the second largest city in the country. <br />
<br />
The other, the Black community, had been part of Chicago almost from the time the city was founded. Jean Baptiste Pointe DuSable, a Black trapper from French Canada, was the first settler. Later came fugitive slaves, and after the Civil War- more Blacks, fleeing from post-Reconstruction terror, taking jobs as domestics and personal servants. <br />
<br />
The large increase was in the late 1880s through World War 1, as industry in the city expanded and as Blacks streamed north following the promise of jobs, housing and an end to Jim Crow lynching. The Illinois Central tracks ran straight through the deep South from Chicago to New Orleans, and the Panama Limited made the run every day. <br />
<br />
Those that took the train north didn’t find a promised land. They found jobs and housing, all right, but they had to compete with the thousands of recent immigrants from Europe who were also drawn to the jobs in the packing houses, stockyards and steel mills. <br />
<br />
The promise of an end to Jim Crow was nowhere fulfilled. In those days, the beaches on Lake Michigan were segregated. Most were reserved for whites only. The Twenty-sixth Street Beach, close to the Black community, was open to Blacks—but only as long as they stayed on their own side.<br />
<br />
The riot had started at this beach, which was then jammed with a late July crowd. Eugene Williams, a seventeen-year-old Black youth, was killed while swimming off the white side of the beach. The Black community was immediately alive with accounts of what had happened—that he had been murdered while swimming., that a group of whites had thrown rocks at him and killed him, and that the policeman on duty at the beach had refused to make any arrests.<br />
<br />
This incident was the spark that ignited the flames of racial animosity which had been smoldering for months. Fighting between Blacks and whites broke out on the Twenty-sixth Street beach after Williams’s death. It soon spread beyond the beach and lasted over six days. Before it was over, thirty-eight people—Black and white—were dead, 537 injured and over 1,000 homeless.<br />
<br />
The memory of this mass rebellion is still very sharp in my mind. It was the great turning point in my life, and I have dedicated myself to the struggle against capitalism ever since. In the following pages of my autobiography, I have attempted to trace the development of that struggle in the hopes that today’s youth can learn from both our successes and failures. lt is for the youth and the bright future of a socialist USA that this book has been written.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 ==<br />
<br />
=== A Child of Slaves ===<br />
I was born in South Omaha, Nebraska, on February 4, 1898— the youngest of the three children of Harriet and Haywood Hall. Otto, my older brother, was born in May 1891; and Eppa, my sister, in December 1896. <br />
<br />
The 1890s had been a decade of far-reaching structural change in the economic and political life of the United States. These were fateful years in which the pattern of twentieth century subjugation of Blacks was set. A young U.S. imperialism was ready in 1898 to shoulder its share of the “white man’s burden” and take its "manifest destiny” beyond the Pacific Coast and the Gulf of Mexico. In the war against Spain, it embarked on its first "civilizing” mission against the colored peoples of the Philippines and the “mixed breeds” of Cuba and Puerto Rico. In the course of the decade and a half following the Spanish-American War, the two-faced banner of racism and imperialist “benevolence” was carried to the majority of the Caribbean countries and the whole of Latin America.<br />
<br />
“The echo of this industrial imperialism in America,” said W. E. B. DuBois, “was the expulsion of Black men from American democracy, their subjection to caste control and wage slavery.” In 1877, the Hayes-Tilden agreement had successfully aborted the ongoing democratic revolution of Reconstruction in the South. Blacks were sold down the river, as northern capitalists, with the assistance of some former slaveholders, gained full economic and political control in the South. Henceforward, it was assured that the future development of the region would be carried out in complete harmony with the interests of Wall Street. The following years saw the defeat of the Southern based agrarian populist movement, with its promise of Black and white unity against the power of monopoly capital. The counter-revolution against Reconstruction was in full swing.<br />
<br />
Beginning in 1890, the Southern state legislatures enacted a series of disenfranchisement laws. Within the next sixteen years, these laws were destined to completely abrogate the right of Blacks to vote. This same period saw the revival of the notorious Black Codes, the resurgence of the hooded terror of the Ku Klux Klan and the defeat for reelection in 1905 of the last Black congressman surviving the Reconstruction period. Jim Crow laws enforcing segregation in public facilities were enacted by Southern states and municipal governments. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Jim Crow in the Plessy vs. Ferguson decision in 1896, declaring that legislation is powerless to eradicate “racial instinets” and establishing the principle of “separate but equal.” This decision was only reversed in 1954, when the U.S. Supreme Court held that separate facilities were inherently unequal.<br />
<br />
At the time when I was born, the Black experience was mainly a Southern one. The overwhelming majority of Black people still resided in the South. Most of the Black inhabitants of South Omaha were refugees from the twenty-year terror of the post-Re construction period. Omaha itself, despite its midwestern location, did not escape the terror completely, as indicated by the lynching of a Black man, Joe Coe, by a mob in 1891. Many people had relatives and families in the South. Some had trekked up to Kansas in 1879 under the leadership of Henry Adams of Louisiana and Moses “Pap” Singleton of Tennessee, and many had then continued further north to Omaha and Chicago.<br />
<br />
My parents were born slaves in 1860. They were three years old at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation. My Father was born on a plantation in Martin County, Tennessee, north of Memphis. The plantation was owned by Colonel Haywood Hall, whom my Father remembered as a kind and benevolent man. When the slaves were emancipated in 1863, my Grandfather, with the consent of Mr. Hall, took both the given name and surname of his former master.<br />
<br />
I never knew Grandfather Hall, as he died before I was born. According to my Father and uncles, he was—as they said in those days—“much of a man” He was active in local Reconstruction polities and probably belonged to the Black militia. Although Tennessee did not have a Reconstruction government, there were many whites who supported the democratic aims that were pursued during the Reconstruction period.<br />
<br />
But Tennessee was also the home of the Ku Klux Klan, where it was first organized after the Civil War. In the terror that followed the Hayes-Tilden agreement, these “night riders” had marked my Grandfather out as a “bad nigger” for lynching. At first they were deterred because of the paternalism of Colonel Hall. Many of Hall’s former slaves still lived on his plantation after the war ended, and the colonel had let it be known that he would kill the first “son-of-a-bitch” that trespassed on his property and tried to terrorize his “nigrahs.”<br />
<br />
But the anger of the night riders, strengthened by corn liquor, finally overcame their fear of Colonel Hall. My Father, who was about fifteen at the time, described what happened. One night the Klansmen rode onto the plantation and headed straight for Grandfather’s cabin. They broke open the door and one poked his head into the darkened cabin. “Hey, Hall’s nigger-where are you?"<br />
<br />
My Grandfather was standing inside and fired his shotgun point blank at the hooded head. The Klansman, half his head blown off, toppled onto the floor of the cabin, and his companions mounted their horses and fled. Grandmother, then pregnant, fell against the iron bed.<br />
<br />
Grandfather got the family out of the cabin and they ran to the “big house” for protection. It was obvious they couldn’t stay in Tennessee, so the Colonel hitched up a wagon and personally drove them to safety, outside of Martin County. Some of Grandfather’s family were already living in Des Moines, Iowa, so the Hall family left by train for Des Moines the following morning. The shock of this experience was so great that Grandmother gave birth prematurely to their third child—my Uncle George who lived to be ninety-five. Grandmother, however, became a chronic invalid and died a few years after the flight from Tennessee.<br />
<br />
Father was only in his teens when the family left for Des Moines, so he spent most of his youth there. In the late 1880s, he left and moved to South Omaha where there was more of a chance to get work. He got a job at Cudahy’s Packing Company, where he worked for more than twenty years—first as a beef-lugger (loading sides of beef on refrigerated freight cars), and then as a janitor in the main office building. Not long after his arrival, he met and married Mother—Harriet Thorpe—who had come up from Kansas City, Missouri, at about the same time.<br />
<br />
Father was powerfully built—of medium height, but with tremendous breadth (he had a forty-six-inch chest and weighed over 200 pounds). He was an extremely intelligent man. With little or no formal schooling, he had taught himself to read and write and was a prodigious reader. Unfortunately, despite his great strength, he was not much of a fighter, or so it seemed to me. In later years, some of the old slave psychology and fear remained. He was an ardent admirer of Booker T. Washington who, in his Atlanta compromise speech of 1895, had called on Blacks to submit to the racist status quo,<br />
<br />
Uncle George was the opposite. He would brook no insult and had been known to clean out a whole barroom when offended. The middle brother, Watt, was also a fighter and was especially dangerous if he had a knife or had been drinking. I remember both of them complaining of my Father’s timidity.<br />
<br />
My Mother’s family also had great fighting spirit. Her father, Jerry Thorpe, was born on a plantation near Bowling Green, Kentucky. He was illiterate, but very smart and very strong. Even as an old man, his appearance made us believe the stories that were told of his strength as a young man. When he was feeling fine and happy, his exuberance would get the best of him and he’d grab the largest man around, hoist him on his shoulders, and run around the yard with him.<br />
<br />
Grandfather Thorpe was half Creek Indian and had an Indian profile with a humped nose and high cheekbones. His hair was short and curly and he had a light brown complexion. He had a straggly white beard that he tried to cultivate into a Van Dyke. He said his father was a Creek Indian and his mother a Black plantation slave. No one knew his exact age, but we made a guess based on a story he often told us.<br />
<br />
He was about six or seven years old when, he said, “The stars fell”<br />
<br />
“When was that, Grandpa?”<br />
<br />
“Oh, one night the stars fell, I remember it very clearly. The skies were all lit up by falling stars. People were scared almost out of I heir wits. The old master and mistress and all the slaves were running out on the road, falling down on their knees to pray and ask forgiveness. We thought the Judgement Day had surely come. Glory Hallelujah! It was the last fire! The next day, the ground was all covered with ashes!”<br />
<br />
At first we thought all of that was just his imagination, something he had fantasized as a child and then remembered as a real event. But when my older brother Otto was in high school, he got interested in astronomy and came across a reference to a meteor shower of 1833. We figured out that was what Grandfather Thorpe had been talking about, so we concluded that he was born around 1825 or 1826.<br />
<br />
Grandfather Thorpe was filled with stories, many about slavery.<br />
<br />
“Chillen, I’ve got scars I’ll carry to my grave.” He would show us the welts on his back from slave beatings (my Grandmother also had them). Most of his beatings came from his first master in Kentucky. But he was later sold to a man in Missouri, whom he said treated him much better. This may have been due in part to his value as a slave—he was skilled both as a carpenter and cabinetmaker.<br />
<br />
Grandfather had many stories to tell about the Civil War. He was in Missouri at the time, living in an area that was first taken by a group known as Quantrell's raiders (a guerrilla-like band of irregulars who fought for the South) and then by the Union forces.<br />
<br />
When the Union soldiers first came into the plantations, they would call in slaves from the fields and make them sit down in the great drawing room of the house. They would then force the master and mistress and their family to cook and serve for the slaves. Grandfather told us that the soldiers would never eat any of the food that was served, because they were afraid of getting poisoned.<br />
<br />
The master on the plantation was generally decent when it became clear that the Union forces were going to control the area for awhile. At that time, Grandfather and my Grandmother Ann lived on adjacent plantations somewhere near Moberly, Missouri. Grandfather was allowed to visit Ann on weekends. Often on Sundays when he went to make a visit, he was challenged by Union guards. They would roughly demand to know his mission. My Grandfather and Grandmother got married, with the agreement of their two masters, and eventually had a family of five daughters and two sons. Grandfather Thorpe was given a plot of land in return for his services as a carpenter, but the family soon moved into Moberly. As the children reached working age, the family began to break up, but the girls always remained very close. They came back to visit frequently and never broke family ties as the boys had.<br />
<br />
My Mother, Harriet, was born when Grandmother was a slave on the plantation of Squire Sweeney in Howard County, Missouri. After the family moved into Moberly, Mother worked for a white family in town. She later went to St. Joseph, Missouri, to work for another white family. One day, while she was at work in St. Joseph, she heard a shot and then screams from down the street. She ran out to see what had happened. There was a great commotion and a crowd of people was gathering in front of the house next door.<br />
<br />
The family living there went by the name of Howard—a man, wife and two children. Both the man and his wife were church members; they appeared to be a most respectable couple. Mrs. Howard had been very active in church affairs and socials. Her husband was frequently absent because, she said, he was a traveling salesman and his work took him out of town for long periods of time.<br />
<br />
What the neighbors were not aware of was that “Mr. Howard” was none other than the legendary Jesse James. He was shot in the hack while hanging a picture in his house. The man who killed him was Robert Ford—a member of Jesse's own gang who had turned 11 a it or for a bribe offered by the Burns Detective Agency.<br />
<br />
When my Mother did the laundry, I remember she would often ring the “Ballad of Jesse James"—a song which became popular niter his death.<br />
<br />
'''Jesse James was a man—he killed many a man,'''<br />
<br />
'''The man that robbed that Denver train.'''<br />
<br />
'''It was a dirty little coward Who shot Mr. Howard,'''<br />
<br />
'''And they laid Jesse James in his grave.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh the people held their breath When they heard of Jesse's death,'''<br />
<br />
'''And they wondered how he came to die.'''<br />
<br />
'''He was shot on the sly By little Robert Ford,'''<br />
<br />
'''And they laid poor Jesse in his grave.'''<br />
<br />
In 1893, my Mother went to Chicago to visit her sister and see the Exposition. She said she saw Frank James, Jesse's brother, lie was out of prison then, a very dignified old man with a long white beard. He had been hired to ride around as an attraction at one of the exhibitions.<br />
<br />
Mother kept moving up to the north by stages. After the job in St. Joseph, she found work in St. Louis. She arrived to Find the city in a tense situation- the whole town was on the verge of a race riot. The immediate cause was the murder of an Irish cop named Brady. The Black community was elated, for Brady was a “nigger-hating cop" who carved notches on his pistol to show the number of Blacks he had killed. Brady finally met his end at the hands of a "bad" Black man who ran a gambling house in Brady's district.<br />
<br />
The gambling, of course, was illegal. But as was often the case, The cops were paid off with a “cut" from the takings of the house. As the story was told to me, Brady and the gambler met on the street one day and got into an argument. Brady accused the gambler of not giving him his proper “cut." This was denied vehemently. Brady then threatened to close the place down. The Black man told him, “Don’t you come into my place when the game’s going on!” He then turned and walked off. The scene was witnessed by several Blacks, and the news of how the gambler had defied Brady spread immediately throughout the Black district.<br />
<br />
This was bad stuff for Brady. It might lead to “niggers gettin’ notions,” as the cops put it. A few days passed, and Brady made his move. He went to the gambling house when the game was on and was shot dead.<br />
<br />
Some anonymous Black bard wrote a song about it all:<br />
<br />
'''Brady, why didn’t you run,'''<br />
<br />
'''You know you done wrong.'''<br />
<br />
'''You came in the room when the game was going on!''' <br />
<br />
'''Brady went below looking mighty curious.'''<br />
<br />
'''Devil said, " Where you from?”'''<br />
<br />
'''"I'm from East St. Louis .”'''<br />
<br />
'''"East St. Louie, come this way I’ve been expecting you every day!”'''<br />
<br />
The song was immediately popular in the Black community and became a symbol of rebellious feelings. Mother said that when she arrived in St. Louis, Blacks were singing this song all over town. The police realized the danger in such “notions” and began to arrest anyone they caught singing it. Forty years later. I was pleasantly surprised to hear Carl Sandburg sing the same song as part of his repertoire of folk ballads of the midwest. I had not heard it since Mother had sung it to us.<br />
<br />
Mother later moved to Kansas City, Missouri, and then to South Omaha. Her marriage there to my Father was her second. As a very young girl in Moberly, she had married John Harvey, but he was, to use her words, “a no-good yellah nigger, who expected me to support him.” They had one child, Gertrude, before he deserted her.<br />
<br />
Gertie came to Omaha some time after my Mother, and married my Father’s youngest brother, George. I have a feeling that Mother promoted this match; the two hard-working, sober Hall brothers must have been quite a catch!<br />
<br />
As I remember Mother in my childhood years, she was a small, brown-skinned woman, rather on the plumpish side, with large and beautiful soft brown eyes. She had the humped, Indian nose of the Thorpe family.<br />
<br />
My first memory of her is hearing her sing as she did housework. She had a melodious contralto voice and what seemed to me to be an endless and varied repertoire. Much of what I know about this period, I learned from her songs. These included lullabies (“Go to Sleep You Little Pickaninny, Mamma’s Gonna Swat You if You Don’t”) and many spirituals and jubilee songs. There were also innumerable folk ballads, and the popular songs of her day like "Down at the Ball” and “Where Did You Get That Hat?” Then there was the old song the slaves sang about their masters fleeing the Union Army—“The Year of Jubilo.”<br />
<br />
'''Oh darkies, have you seen the Massah with the mustache on his face?'''<br />
<br />
'''He was gwine down de road dis mornin’ like''' <br />
<br />
'''he's gwine to leave dis place.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, de Massah run, ha ha!'''<br />
<br />
'''And the darkies sing, ho ho!'''<br />
<br />
'''It must be now the Kingdom cornin' and de year of Jubilo!'''<br />
<br />
Mother never went to school a day in her life, but she had a phenomenal memory and was a virtual repository of Black folklore. My brother Otto taught her to read and write when she when forty years old. She told stories of life on the plantations, of the “hollers” they used. When a slave wanted to talk to a friend on n neighboring plantation, she would throw back her head and half sing, half yell: “Oh, Bes-sie, I wa-ant to see you.” Often you could hear one of the “hollers” a mile away.<br />
<br />
When Mother was a girl, camp meetings were a big part of her life. She had songs she remembered from the meetings, like “I Don’t Feel Weary, No Ways Tired,” and she would imitate the preachers with all of their promises of fire and brimstone. Later, when we lived in South Omaha, she was very active in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. As a means of raising funds, she used to organize church theatricals. Otto would help her read the plays; she would then direct them and usually play the leading role herself. She was a natural mimic. I heard her go through entire plays from beginning to end, imitating the voices (even the male ones) and the actions of the performers.<br />
<br />
In addition to caring for Otto, Eppa and myself, Mother got jobs catering parties for rich white families in North Omaha. She would bring us back all sorts of goodies and leftovers from these parties. Sometimes she would get together with her friends among the other domestics, and they would have a great time panning their employers and exchanging news of the white folks’ scandalous doings.<br />
<br />
Mother had the great fighting spirit of her family. She was a strong-minded woman with great ambition for her children, especially for us boys. Eppa, who was a plain Black girl, was sensitive but physically tough, courageous, and a regular tomboy.<br />
<br />
Worried about her future, Mother insisted that she learn the piano and arranged for her to take lessons at twenty-five cents each. Though she learned to play minor classics such as “Poet and Peasant,” arias from such operas as Aida and II Trovatore, accompanied the choir and so on, Eppa never liked music very much and was not consoled by it the way Mother was.<br />
<br />
As a wife, Mother had a way of making Father feel the part of the man in the house. She flattered his ego and always addressed him as “Mr. Half’ in front of guests and us children.<br />
<br />
=== LIFE IN SOUTH OMAHA ===<br />
'''You ask what town I love the best.''' <br />
<br />
'''South Omaha, South Omaha!'''<br />
<br />
'''The fairest town of all the rest,'''<br />
<br />
'''South Omaha, South Omaha!'''<br />
<br />
'''Where yonder's Papillion’s limp stream'''<br />
<br />
'''To where Missouri’s waters gleam.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, fairest town, oh town of mine,''' <br />
<br />
'''South Omaha, South Omaha!'''<br />
<br />
In the early part of the century, the days of my youth, South Omaha was an independent city. In 1915, it was annexed to become part of the larger city of Omaha. Like many midwestem towns, the city took its name from the original inhabitants of the area. In this case, it was the Omaha Indians of the Sioux tribal family. The area was a camping ground of the Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1804. It grew in importance when it became a licensed trading post and an important outfitting point during the Colorado Gold Rush. But the main growth of South Omaha came in the 1880s as the meat packing industry developed.<br />
<br />
In 1877, the first refrigerated railroad cars were perfected. This made it possible to slaughter livestock in the midwest and ship the meat to the large markets in eastern cities. As a result, the meat packing industry grew tremendously in the midwest.<br />
<br />
The city leaders saw the opportunity and encouraged the expanding packing industry to settle there—offering them special tux concessions and so forth. The town, situated on a plateau back from the “big muddy” (the Missouri River), began to grow. Soon it was almost an industrial suburb of Omaha and was one of the three largest packing centers in the country. All of the big packers of the time—Armour, Swift, Wilson and Cudahy—had big branches there. Cudahy’s main plant was in South Omaha.<br />
<br />
The industry brought with it growing railroad traffic. As a boy, I watched the dozens of lines of cars as they carried livestock in from the west and butchered meat to ship out to the east. The Burlington; the Chicago and Northwestern; the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific; the Illinois Central; the Rock Island; the Union Pacific—all of these lines had terminals there. By 1910, Omaha was the fourth largest railway center in the country.<br />
<br />
When I was born in 1898, South Omaha was a bustling town of about 20,000. Most of these 20,000 people were foreign-born and first generation immigrants. The two largest groups were the Irish and the Bohemians (or Czechs). There was a sprinkling of other Slavic groups—Poles, Russians, Serbs—as well as Germans, Greeks and Italians.<br />
<br />
The Bohemians were the largest ethnic group in town. They lived mainly in the southern part of town, towards the river, in the Brown Park and Albright sections. One thing that impressed me was their concern with education. They were a cultured group of people. I can’t remember any of them being illiterate and they had their own newspaper. They were involved in the political wheelings and dealings of the town and were successful at it. At one time, both the mayor and chief of police were Bohemians.<br />
<br />
The Irish were the second largest group, scattered throughout the town. The newly arrived poor "shanty” Irish would first settle on Indian Hill, near the stockyards. There were two classes of Irish the "shanty” Irish on the one hand, and the "old settlers” or "lace curtain” Irish on the other. This second group, who had settled only one generation before, was mostly made up of middle class, white collar, civil service and professional workers who lived near North Omaha. There were also a few Irish who were very rich; managers and executives who lived in Omaha proper. They had become well assimilated into the community. The tendency was for the poorer Irish to live in South Omaha, and those who had "made it” to one degree or another would move up to North Omaha or Omaha proper.<br />
<br />
There were only a few dozen Black families in South Omaha, scattered throughout the community. There was no Black ghetto and, as I saw it, no "Negro problem.” This was due undoubtedly to our small numbers, although there was a relatively large number of Blacks living in North Omaha. The Black community there had grown after Blacks were brought in as strikebreakers during the 1894 strike in the packing industry, but no real ghetto developed until after World War I.<br />
<br />
Our family lived in the heart of the Bohemian neighborhood in South Omaha. Nearly all our neighbors were Bohemians. They came from many backgrounds; there were workers and peasants, professionals, artists, musicians and other skilled artisans, all fleeing from the oppressive rule of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.<br />
<br />
They were friendly people, and kept up their language and traditions. On Saturdays, families would gather at one of the beer gardens to sing and dance. I remember watching them dance scottisches and polkas, listening to the beautiful music of their bands and orchestras, or running after their great marching bands when they were in a parade. On special occasions, they would bring out their colorful costumes. Much of their community life centered around the gymnastic clubs—Sokols or Turners’ Halls— which they had established.<br />
<br />
There were differences in how the ethnic groups related to each other and to the Blacks in town. In those days, Indian Hill was the stomping ground of teenage Irish toughs. One day, a mob of predominantly Irish youths ran the small Greek colony out of town when one of their members allegedly killed an Irish cop. I remember seeing the Greek community leaving town one Sunday afternoon. There were men, women and children (about 100 in all) walking down the railroad tracks, carrying everything they could hold. Some of their houses had been burned and a few of them had been beaten up in town.<br />
<br />
We should have seen the danger for us in this, but one Black man even boasted to my Father about how he had helped run the Greeks out. My Father called him a fool. “What business did you have helping that bunch of whites? Next time it might be you they run out!’’ The incident was an ominous sign of tensions that were lo come many years later.<br />
<br />
At the time, however, our family got along well with all the immigrant families in our immediate neighborhood. I loved the sweet haunting melodies of the Irish folk ballads; “Rose of Tralce,” "Mother Machree” and many of the popular songs, like “My Irish Molly-O” and “Augraghawan, I Want to Go Back to Oregon.”<br />
<br />
There was a Bohemian couple living next door. On occasion, Mr. Rehau would get a bit too much under his belt. He’d come home and really raise hell. When this happened, Mrs. Rehau scurried to Officer Bingham, the Black cop, to get some help. I remember one afternoon when Bingham came to lend a hand in laming him. The Bohemian was a little guy compared to him. Officer Bingham threw him down out in the yard and plunked himself down on Rehau’s back.<br />
<br />
Dust flew as he kicked and thrashed and tried to get out from under the Black man. Bingham just “rode the storm” and when Rehau raised his head, he’d smack him around until the rebellion subsided.<br />
<br />
“Had enough?" he’d yell at his victim. “You gonna behave now and mind what Mrs. Rehau says?" All the while, she was running around them, waving her apron.<br />
<br />
“Beat him some more, Mr, Bingham, please! Make him be good.”<br />
<br />
Finally, either Bingham got tired or Mr. Rehau just gave out and peace returned to the neighborhood.<br />
<br />
“Police and community relations" were less tense then. The cops knew how to control a situation without using guns. Often this meant they'd get into actual fist fights. In those days, there was a big Black guy in town named Sam, a beef lugger like my Father. Sam was a nice quiet guy, but on occasion he'd go on a drunk and fight anyone within arm’s length (which was a big area). The cops generally handled it by fighting it out with him.<br />
<br />
But I remember one time Sam really caused a row. He was outside a bar on J Street, up in Omaha proper. During the course of his drunk, he’d beaten up five or six of the regular cops. This called for extreme measures. Briggs, the chief of police, came to the scene to restore law and order. He marched up to Sam and threw out his chest, “Now Sam, it's time for you to behave, you hear?" He even pulled out his thirty-eight to show he meant business.<br />
<br />
But Sam wasn’t ready to behave. He came at Briggs, intending to lay him out like he’d done with the other officers, Briggs backed up, one step at a time. “Sam, you stop. You hear me Sam? Time to stop, now." Sam forced Briggs all the way back to his carriage. Once Briggs was in, he delivered his final threat: “Sam, you come down to City Hall on Monday and see me. This just can’t happen this way."<br />
<br />
Briggs drove off. Monday morning came and Sam went down to City Hall. He was fined for being drunk and disorderly. He didn’t fight the court and willingly paid the fine. It seemed like an unwritten agreement. The cops wouldn’t shoot when Sam went on a spree. When it was over, Sam would go and pay his fine and that would end the whole business.<br />
<br />
Our family was the only Black family in our neighborhood, and we were pretty well insulated from the racist pressures of the outside world. As children we were only very dimly aware of what DuBois called the “veil of color between the races.”<br />
<br />
I First became aware of the veil, not from anything that happened in the town, but from what my parents and grandparents told me of how Southern whites had persecuted Blacks and of how they had suffered under slavery. I remember Grandfather and Grandmother Thorpe showing me the scars they had on their backs from the overseer’s lash. I remember Pa reading newspaper accounts of the endless reign of lynch terror in the South, and about the 1908 riots in Springfield, Illinois.<br />
<br />
In 1908, Jack Johnson, the first Black heavyweight champion, defeated the “great white hope.” Jim Jeffries. Pa said that it was the occasion for a new round of lynchings in the South. There were other great Black fighters—Sam Langford, Joe Jeanett and Sam McVey for instance—but Johnson was the first Black heavyweight to be able to fight for the championship and the first to win it.<br />
<br />
He was conscious that he was a Black man in a racist world. “I’m Black, they never let me forget it. Pm Black, Til never forget it.” Jeffries had been pushed as the hope of the white race to reclaim the heavyweight crown from Johnson. When Johnson knocked out Jeffries, it was a symbol of Black defiance and self-assertion. To Blacks, the victory meant pride and hope. It was a challenge to the authority of bigoted whites and to them it called for extra measures to “keep the niggers in their place.”<br />
<br />
To us children, Black repression seemed restricted to the South, outside the orbit of our immediate experience. As I saw it then, there was no deliberate plot of white against Black. I thought there were two kinds of white folk: good and bad, and the latter were mainly in the South. Most of those I knew in South Omaha were good people. Disillusionment came later in my life.<br />
<br />
The friendly interracial atmosphere of South Omaha was illustrated by the presence of Officer Bingham and Officer Ballou, two Black cops in the town’s small police force. Bingham was a big, Black and jolly fellow. His beat was our neighborhood. Ballou was a tall, slim, ramrod straight and light brown-skinned Black. He was a veteran of the Black Tenth Cavalry. He had fought in the Indian wars against Geronimo and had participated in the chase for Billy the Kid. Ballou was also a veteran of the Spanish- American War. All the kids, Black and white, regarded him with a special awe and respect. Both Black officers were treated as respectable members of the community, liked by the people because they had their confidence. While they wore guns, they never seemed to use them. These cops fought tough characters with fists and clubs, pulling a gun only rarely, and then only in self- defense. It seemed that a large part of their duty was to keep the kids out of mischief.<br />
<br />
“Officer Bingham,” the Bohemian woman across the alley would call, “would you please keep an eye on my boy Frontal. See he don’t make trouble.”<br />
<br />
“Don’t worry, Mrs. Brazda. He’s a good boy.”<br />
“<br />
<br />
Has Haywood been a good boy?”<br />
<br />
“Oh yes, Mrs. Hall. He’s all right.’’And he would stop for a chat.<br />
My sister Eppa, a lad called Willy Starens and I were the only Black kids in the Brown Park Elementary School. My brother Otto had already graduated and was in South Omaha High. Our schoolmates were predominantly Bohemians, with a sprinkling of Irish, German and a few Anglo-Americans. My close childhood chums included two Bohemian lads, Frank Brazda and Jimmy Rehau; an Anglo-Irish kid, Earl Power; and Willy Ziegler, who was of German parentage. We were an inseparable fivesome, in and out of each other’s homes all the time.<br />
<br />
During my first years in school, I was plagued by asthma, and was absent from school many months at a time. The result was that I was a year behind. I finally outgrew this infirmity and became a strong, healthy boy. By the time I reached the eighth grade, I had become one of the best students in my class, sharing this honor with a Bohemian girl, Bertha Himmel. Both of us could solve any problem in arithmetic, both were good at spelling, and at interschool spelling bees our school usually won the first prize. My self-confidence was encouraged by my teachers, all of whom were white and yet uniformly kind and sympathetic.<br />
<br />
Of course, like all kids, I had plenty of fights. But race was seldom involved. Occasionally, I would hear the word “nigger.” While it evoked anger in me, it seemed no more disparaging than the terms “bohunk,” “sheeny,” “dago,” “shanty Irish” or “poor white trash.” All were terms of common usage, interchangeable as slurring epithets on one’s ethnic background, and usually employed outside the hearing of the person in question.<br />
<br />
In contrast to the daily life of the neighborhood, however, the virus of racism was subtly injected into the classroom at the Brown Park School I attended. The five races of mankind illustrated in our geography books portrayed the Negro with the receding forehead and prognathous jaws of a gorilla. There was a complete absence of Black heroes in the history books, supporting the inference that the Black man had contributed nothing to civilization. We were taught that Blacks were brought out of the savagery of the jungles of Africa and introduced to civilization through slavery under the benevolent auspices of the white man.<br />
<br />
In spite of my Father’s submissive attitude, it is to him that I must give credit for scotching this big lie about the Negro’s past. His attitude grew out of his concern for our survival in a hostile environment. He felt most strongly that the Negro was not innately inferior, He perceived that his children must have some sense of self-respect and confidence to sustain them until that distant day when, through “obvious merit and just dessert,” Blacks would receive their award of equality and recognition.<br />
<br />
Father possessed an amazing store of knowledge which he had culled from his readings. He would tell us about the Black civilizations of ancient Egypt, Ethiopia and Cush. He would quote from the Song of Solomon: “I am Black and comely, oh ye daughters of Jerusalem.” He would tell us about Black soldiers in the Civil War; about the massacre of Blacks at Fort Pillow and the battle cry they used thereafter, “Remember Fort Pillow! Remember Fort Pillow!”2 He knew about the Haitian Revolution, the defeat of Napoleon’s Army by Toussaint L’Ouverture, Dessalines and Jean Christophe. He told us about the famous Zulu chief Shaka in South Africa; about Alexandre Dumas, the great French romanticist, and Pushkin, the great Russian poet, who were both Black.<br />
<br />
Father said that he had taught himself to read and write. He had an extensive library, which took up half of one of the walls in our subject. They included such titles as The Decisive Battles of the World The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, and many histories of England, France, Germany and Russia. He had Stanley in Africa, and a number of biographies of famous men, including Napoleon, Caesar and Hannibal (who Father said was a Negro). He had Scott’s Ivanhoe and his Waverly novels; Bulwer Lytton; Alexandre Dumas’ novels and the Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, and Up From Slavery by Booker T. Washington.<br />
<br />
On another wall there was a huge picture of the charge of the Twenty-fifth Black Infantry and the Tenth Cavalry at San Juan Hill, rescuing Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders. There were pictures of Frederick Douglass and, of course, his hero, Booker T. Washington. He would lecture to us on history, displaying his .extensive knowledge. He was a great admirer of Napoleon. He would get into one of his lecturing moods and pace up and down with his hands behind his back before the rapt audience of my sister Eppa and myself. Talking about the Battle of Waterloo, he would say:<br />
<br />
“Wellington was in a tough spot that day. Napoleon was about to whip him; the trouble was Blucher hadn’t shown up.”<br />
<br />
“Who was he, Pa?”<br />
<br />
“He was the German general who was supposed to reinforce Wellington with 13,000 Prussian troops. Wellington was getting awful nervous, walking up and down behind the lines and saying, 4Oh! If Blucher fails to come! Where is Blucher?”<br />
<br />
“Did he Finally get there, Pa?”<br />
<br />
“Yes, son, he finally got there and turned the tide of battle. And if he hadn’t shown up and Napoleon had won, the whole course of history would have been changed.”<br />
<br />
It was through Father that I entered the world of books. I developed an unquenchable thirst to learn about people and their history. I remember going to the town library when I was nine or ten and asking, “Do you have a history of the world for children?” My first love became the historical novel. I loved George Henty’s books; they always dealt with the exploits of a sixteen-year-old during an important historical period. Through Henty’s heroes, I too was with Bonnie Prince Charlie, with Wellington in rite Spanish Peninsula, with Gustavus Adolphus at Lutsen in the Thirty Years War, with Clive in India and Under Drake's Flag around the world. I was also fascinated by romances of the feudal period such as When Knighthood Was in Flower and Ivanhoe. I read Twain’s Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer, and the works of H. Rider Haggard.<br />
<br />
I went through a definite Anglophile stage, in part due to the influence of a Jamaican named Mr. Williams who worked as assistant janitor with my Father. Mr. Williams was a huge Black man with scars all over his face. He was a former stoker in the British Navy. I was attracted by his strange accent and haughty demeanor. Evidently he saw in me an appreciative audience. I would listen with open mouth and wonder at the stories of the strange places he had seen, of his adventures in faraway lands. He was a real British patriot, a Black imperialist, if such was possible.<br />
<br />
He would declare, “The sun never sets on the British Empire,” and then sing “Rule Brittania, Brittania Rule the Waves.” He quoted Napoleon as allegedly saying, “Britain is a small garden, but she grows some bitter weeds,” and “Give me French soldiers and British officers, and I will conquer the world.” I pictured myself as a British sailor, and read Two Years Before the Mast and Battle of Trafalgar.<br />
<br />
“Do you think they would let me join the British Navy?” I asked Mr. Williams.<br />
<br />
“No, my lad,” he answered, “You have to be a British citizen or subject to do that.” I was quite disappointed.<br />
But it was not only British romance that fascinated me. At about the age of twelve I became a Francophile. I read all of Dumas’ novels and quite a number of other novels about France. I had begun to read French history, which to me turned out to be as interesting as the novels and equally romantic. I read about Joan of Arc, the Hundred Years’ War, Francis I, about Catherine de Medici, the Huguenots and Admiral Coligny, the Due de Guise, the massacre of St. Bartholomew Eve or the night of the long knives; then the French Revolution, A Tale of Two Cities, the guillotining of Charlotte Corday and the assassination of Marat.<br />
<br />
Occasionally, the ugly reality of race would intrude upon the dream world of my childhood. I distinctly remember two such occasions. One was when a white family from Arkansas moved across the alley from us. Mr. Faught, the patriarch of the clan, was a typical red-necked peckerwood. He would sit around the store front, chawing tobacco, telling how they treated “niggers” down his way.<br />
<br />
“They were made to stay in their place- -down in the cotton patch—not in factories taking white men’s jobs.”<br />
<br />
As I remember, his racist harangues did not make much of an impression on the local white audience. Apparently at that time there was no feeling of competition in South Omaha because there were so few Blacks. I would also imagine that his slovenly appearance did not jibe with his white supremacist pretensions.<br />
<br />
One day a substitute teacher took over our class. I was about ten years old. The substitute was a Southerner from Arkansas. During history class she started talking about the Civil War. The slaves, she said, did not really want freedom because they were happy as they were. They would have been freed by their masters in a few years anyway. Her villain was General Grant, whom she contrasted unfavorably with General Robert E. Lee.<br />
<br />
“Lee was a gentleman,” she put forth, “But Grant was a cigar-smoking liquor-drinking roughneck.”<br />
<br />
She didn’t like Sherman either, and talked about his “murdering rampage” through Georgia. I wasn't about to take all of this and challenged her.<br />
<br />
“I don’t know about General Grant’s habits, but he did beat Lee. Besides, Lee couldn’t have been much of a gentleman; he owned slaves!”<br />
<br />
Livid with rage, she shouted, “That’s enough —what I could say about you!”<br />
<br />
“Well, what could you say?” I challenged.<br />
She apparently saw that wild racist statements wouldn’t work in this situation, and that I was trying to provoke her to do something like that. She cut short the argument, shouting, “That’s enough”<br />
<br />
“Yes, that’s enough,” I sassed.<br />
During the heated exchange, I felt that I had the sympathy of most of my classmates. After school, some gathered around me and said, “You certainly told her off?”<br />
<br />
When I told Mother she supported me. “You done right, son,” she said.<br />
<br />
But Father was not so sure. “You might have gotten into trouble.”<br />
<br />
I feel now that one of the reasons for my self-confidence during my childhood years, and why the racist notions of innate Black inferiority left me cold, was my older brother Otto. His example belied such claims. He was the most brilliant one in our family, and probably in all of South Omaha. He had skipped a grade both in grade school and in high school, and was a real prodigy. He was a natural poet, and won many prizes in composition. His poem on the charge of the Twenty-fifth Black Infantry and Tenth Cavalry at San Juan Hill was published in one of the Omaha dailies. Otto was praised by all of his teachers. “An unusual boy,” they said, “clearly destined to become a leader of his race.”<br />
<br />
One day, one of his teachers and a Catholic priest called on Mother and Father to talk about Otto’s future. Otto was about fourteen at the time. They suggested that he might be good material for the priesthood, and that there was a possibility of his getting a scholarship for Creighton University, Omaha’s famous Jesuit school. The teacher suggested that if this were agreed to, he should take up Latin. My parents were extremely flattered, despite the fact that they were good Methodists (AME). Even Father, who did not seem ambitious for his children, was impressed.<br />
<br />
But when the proposition was placed before Otto, he vehemently disagreed. He did not want to become a priest nor did he want to study Latin. He wanted, he said, to be an architect! Doctors, dentists, teachers and preachers -these were the professions for an ambitious Black in those days.<br />
<br />
“An architect!” they exclaimed in amazement. “Who ever heard of a Black architect?”<br />
<br />
“Who ever heard of a Black priest?” Otto retorted. (At that time there were only two or three Black priests in the entire U.S.)<br />
<br />
“But Otto,” Mother argued,“you’ll have the support of a lot of prominent white folks. They’ll help you through college.”<br />
<br />
But Otto would have none of it. Undoubtedly, my parents thought that they could finally wear down his opposition and that he would become more amenable in time. They did force him to take Latin, a subject he hated.<br />
<br />
Otto stayed in school, but no longer seemed interested in his studies. He dropped out of school suddenly in his senior year. He was sixteen. He left home and got a job as a bellhop in a hotel in North Omaha’s Black community. This move cut completely the few remaining tics he had with his white age group in South Omaha.<br />
<br />
Otto’s drop-out from high school evidently signified that he had given up the struggle to be somebody in the white world. He had become disillusioned with the white world and therefore sought identity with his own people. During my childhood years, our relationship had never been close. There was, of course, the age gap—he was seven years older. But even in later years, when we were closer and had more in common, we never talked about our childhood. I don’t know why. As a child I had been proud of his academic feats and boasted about them to my friends.<br />
<br />
At the time he left high school Otto was the only Black in South Omaha High and was about to become its first Black graduate. Highly praised by his teachers and popular among his fellow students, he was a real showpiece in the school.<br />
<br />
What caused him to drop out of school in his senior year? Thinking back on it, I don’t believe that it had anything to do with the attempt to make him a priest. I think that he had won that battle a couple of years before. At least, I never heard the matter mentioned again.<br />
<br />
Otto undoubtedly had had high aspirations at one time, as evidenced by his desire to become an architect. Somewhere along the line they disappeared. Perhaps a contributing factor was the accumulating effect of Otto’s malady. On occasion, Mother would remind us that Otto had water on the brain, and that he was different from Eppa and myself. At the time, he seemed smarter than us, more independent and in rebellion against Pa’s lack of encouragement, moral support and his parental authority. Certainly in adult life Otto used to sleep about ten hours a day and very often fell asleep in meetings. He seemed to lack the ability of prolonged concentration, although whatever brain damage he may have suffered never affected the quickness of his mind and ability to grasp the nub of any question or the capacity for leadership which he showed on a number of occasions.<br />
<br />
But more debilitating, probably, than any physical disease was the generation gap of that era—between parents of slave backgrounds and children born free, particularly in the north. Otto’s dropping out of school and his later radical political development were undoubtedly related to a conflict more intense than the ones of today.<br />
<br />
Father was an ardent follower of Booker T. Washington. His ambitions for his sons were very modest, to put it mildly. He undoubtedly would have been satisfied if we could become good law-abiding citizens with stable jobs. He thought of jobs a notch or two above his own station, like a postal employee, a skilled tradesman, or a clerk in the civil service. The offer of a scholarship for the priesthood was, therefore, simply beyond his expectations, and I guess that the old man was deeply disappointed at Otto’s rejection of it.<br />
<br />
Otto was quite independent and would not conform to Father’s idea of discipline. For example, he was completely turned off on the question of religion, and Father could not force him to go to church I don’t remember Otto ever going to church with the family. Father claimed that Otto was irresponsible and wild. As a result, there was mutual hostility between them. The results were numerous thrashings when Otto was young and violent quarrels between them as he grew older. Mother would usually defend Otto. Grandpa Thorpe, himself a strict disciplinarian, would warn Mother: “Hattie, you mark my words, that boy is going to lan’ in the pen.”<br />
<br />
At some point, Otto came to the conclusion that there was no use in continuing his education. He must have felt that it was irrelevant. Opportunities for educated Blacks were few, even in North Omaha’s Black community where there were only a few professionals. In that community there were a few preachers, one doctor, one dentist and one or two teachers. Black businesses consisted of owners of several undertaking establishments, a couple of barber shops and a few pool rooms. The only other Blacks in any sort of middle class positions were a few postal employees, civil service workers, pullman porters and waiters.<br />
<br />
Then too, Otto had passed through the age of puberty and was becoming more and more conscious of his race. Along with the natural detachment and withdrawal from childhood socializing with girls—in his case white girls who were former childhood sweethearts—Otto experienced a withdrawal and non-socialization because of his race. He ended up quite alone because there were not many Black kids his age in South Omaha. There wasn’t much contact with the Black kids from North Omaha either. As a very sensitive person on the verge of manhood, I imagine he began to feel these changes keenly.<br />
<br />
After he dropped out of school in 1908, Otto was soon attracted to the “sportin’ life”...the pool halls and sporting houses of North<br />
Omaha. He wanted to be among Black people; he was anxious to get away from Father. Thus, he left home and got jobs as a bellhop, shoeshine boy, and busboy. He began to absorb a new way of life, stepping fully into the social life of the Black community in North Omaha. He’d evidently heeded the “call of the blood” and gone back to the race. It was not until a few years later, when I had similar experiences, that I understood that Otto had arrived at the first stage in his identity crisis and had gone to where he felt he belonged.<br />
<br />
He would come home quite often, though, flaunting his new clothes, a “box-backed” suit—“fitting nowhere but the shoulders,” high-heeled Stacey Adams button shoes, and a stetson hat. He’d give a few dollars to Mother and some dimes to me and my sister. Sometimes he would bring a pretty girl friend with him. But most of the time, he would bring a young man, Henry Starens, who was a piano player. He played a style popular in those days, later to be known as boogie-woogie, in which the piano was the whole orchestra. He played Ma Rainey’s famous blues, “Make Me a Pallet on Your Floor, Make It Where Your Man Will Never Know,” and the old favorite, “Alabama Bound.”<br />
<br />
'''Alabama Bound'''<br />
<br />
'''I'm Alabama Bound.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, babe, don't leave me here,'''<br />
<br />
'''Just leave a dime for beer.'''<br />
<br />
A boy of ten at the time, I was tremendously impressed. There is no doubt that Otto’s experience served to weaken some of my childish notions about making it in the white world.<br />
<br />
=== HALLEY’S COMET AND MY RELIGION ===<br />
On May 4, 1910, Halley’s Comet appeared flaring down out of the heavens, its luminous tail switching to earth. It was an ominous sight.<br />
<br />
A rash of religious revival swept Omaha. Prophets and messiahs appeared on street comers and in churches preaching the end of the world. Hardened sinners “got religion.” Backsliders renewed their faith. The comet, with its tail moving ever closer to the earth, seemed to lend credence to forecasts of imminent cosmic disaster.<br />
<br />
Both my Mother and Father were deeply religious. Theirs was that “old time religion,” the fire-and-brimstone kind which leaned heavily on the Old Testament. It was the kind that accepted the Bible and all its legends as the literal gospel truth. We children had the “fear of the Lord” drilled into us from early age. My image of God was that of a vengeful old man who demanded unquestioned faith, strict obedience and repentant love as the price of salvation;<br />
<br />
'''I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.'''<br />
<br />
Every Sunday, rain or shine, the family would attend services at the little frame church near the railroad tracks. For me, this was a tortuous ordeal. I looked forward to Sundays with dread. We would spend all of eight hours in church. We would sit through the morning service, then the Sunday school, after which followed a break for dinner. We returned at five for the Young People’s Christian Endeavor and finally the evening service. It was not just boredom. Fear was the dominant emotion, especially when our preacher, Reverend Jamieson, a big Black man with a beautiful voice, would launch into one of his fire-and-brimstone sermons. He would start out slowly and in a low voice, gradually raising it higher he would swing to a kind of sing-song rhythm, holding his congregation rapt with vivid word pictures. They would respond with “Hallelujah! ” “Ain’t it the truth! ” “Preach it, brother!”<br />
<br />
He would go on in this manner for what seemed an interminable time, and would reach his peroration on a high note, winding up with a rafter-shaking burst of oratory. He would then pause dramatically amidst moans, shouts and even screams of some of the women, one or two of whom would fall out in a dead faint. Waiting for them to subside he would then, in a lowered, scarcely audible voice, reassure his flock that it was not yet too late to repent and achieve salvation. All that was necessary was to: “Repent sinners, and love and obey the Lord. Amen.” Someone would then rise and lead off with an appropriate spiritual such as:<br />
<br />
'''Oh, my sins are forgiven and my soul set free-ah,'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, glory Halelua-a-a-a'''<br />
<br />
'''Just let me in the kingdom when the world is all a'fi-ah.'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh Glory Halelu!'''<br />
<br />
'''I don't feel worried, no ways tiahd,'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, glory Halelu!'''<br />
<br />
I remember the family Bible, a huge book which lay on the center table in the front room. The first several pages were blank, set aside for recording the vital family statistics: births, deaths, marriages. The book was filled with graphic illustrations of biblical happenings. Leafing through Genesis (which we used to call “the begats”), one came to Exodus and from there on a pageant of bloodshed and violence unfolded. Portrayed in striking colors were the interminable tribal wars in which the Israelites slew the Mennonites and Pharoah’s soldiers killed little children in march of Moses. There was the great God, Jehovah himself, whitebearded and eyes flashing, looking very much like our old cracker neighbor, Mr. Faught.<br />
<br />
Just a couple of weeks before Halley’s comet appeared, Mother had taken us to see the silent film, Dante’s Inferno, through which I sat with open mouth horror. Needless to say, this experience did not lessen my apprehension.<br />
<br />
The comet continued its descent, its tail like the flaming sword of vengeance. Collision seemed not just possible, but almost certain. What had we poor mortals done to incur such wrath of the Lord?<br />
<br />
My deportment underwent a change. I did all my chores without complaint and helped Mama around the house. This was so unlike me that she didn’t know what to make of it. I overheard her telling Pa about my good behavior and how helpful I had become lately. But I hadn’t really changed. I was just scared. I was simply trying to carry out another one of God’s commandments, “Honor thy lather and thy mother that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.'’<br />
<br />
Then one night, when the whole neighborhood had gathered as usual on the hill to watch the comet, it appeared to have ceased its movement towards the earth. We were not sure, but the next night we were certain. It had not only ceased its descent, but was definitely withdrawing. In a couple more nights, it had disappeared. A wave of relief swept over the town.<br />
<br />
“It’s not true!” I thought to myself. “The fire and brimstone, the leering devils, the angry vengeful God. None of it is true.”<br />
<br />
It was as if a great weight had been lifted from my mind. It was the end of my religion, although I still thought that there was most likely a supreme being. But if God existed, he was nothing like the God portrayed in our family Bible. I was no longer terrified of him. Later, at the age of fourteen or fifteen, I read some of the lectures of Robert G. Ingersoll and became an agnostic, doubting the existence of a god. From there, I later moved to positive atheism.<br />
<br />
Two years later, the great event was the sinking of the Titanic.This was significant in Omaha because one of the Brandeis brothers, owners of the biggest department store in North Omaha, went down with her. In keeping with the custom of Blacks to gloat over the misfortunes of whites, especially rich ones, some Black bard composed the "Titanic Blues":<br />
<br />
'''When old John Jacob As tor left his home,'''<br />
<br />
'''He never thought he was going to die.'''<br />
<br />
'''Titanic fare thee well'''<br />
<br />
'''I say fare thee well.'''<br />
<br />
But disaster was more frequently reserved for the Black community. On Easter Sunday 1913, a tornado struck North Omaha. It ripped a two-block swath through the Black neighborhood, leaving death and destruction in its wake. Among the victims were a dozen or so Black youths trapped in a basement below a pool hall where they had evidently been shooting craps. Mother did not fail to point out the incident as another example of God's wrath. While I was sorry for the youths and their families (some of them were friends of Otto), the implied warning left me cold. My God-fearing days had ended with Halley's Comet.<br />
<br />
Misfortune, however, was soon to strike our immediate family. It happened that summer, in 1913. My Father fled town after being attacked and beaten by a gang of whites on Q Street, right outside the gate of the packing plant. They told him to get out of town or they would kill him.<br />
<br />
I remember vividly the scene that night when Father staggered through the door. Consternation gripped us at the sight. His face was swollen and bleeding, his clothes torn and in disarray. He had a frightened, hunted look in his eyes. My sister Eppa and I were alone. Mother had gone for the summer to work for her employers, rich white folks, at Lake Okoboji, Iowa. <br />
<br />
"What happened?" we asked.<br />
<br />
He gasped out the story of how he had been attacked and beaten.<br />
<br />
"They said they were going to kill me if I didn't get out of town."<br />
<br />
We asked him who "they" were. He said that he recognized some of them as belonging to the Irish gang on Indian Hill, but there were also some grown men.<br />
<br />
"But why, Pa? Why should they pick on you?"<br />
<br />
"Why don't we call the police?"<br />
<br />
"That ain't goin' to do no good. We just have to leave town."<br />
<br />
"But Pa," I said, "how can we? We own this house. We've got friends here. If you tell them, they wouldn't let anybody harm us."<br />
<br />
Again the frightened look crossed his face.<br />
<br />
"No, we got to go."<br />
<br />
"Where, where will we go?"<br />
<br />
"We'll move up to Minneapolis, your uncles Watt and George are there. I'll get work there. I'm going to telegraph your Mother to come home now."<br />
<br />
He washed his face and then went into the bedroom and began packing his bags. The next morning he gave Eppa some money and said, "This will tide you over till your Mother comes. She'll be here in a day or two. I'm going to telegraph her as soon as I get to the depot. I'll send for you all soon."<br />
<br />
He kissed us goodbye and left.<br />
<br />
Only when he closed the door behind him did we feel the full impact of the shock. It had happened so suddenly. Our whole world had collapsed. Home and security were gone. The feeling of safety in our little haven of interracial goodwill had proved elusive. Now we were just homeless "niggers" on the run.<br />
<br />
The crudest blow, perhaps, was the shattering of my image of lather. True enough, I had not regarded him as a hero. Still, however, I had retained a great deal of respect for him. He was undoubtedly a very complex man, very sensitive and imaginative. Probably he had never gotten over the horror of that scene in the cabin near Martin, Tennessee, where as a boy of fifteen he had seen his father kill the Klansman. He distrusted and feared poor whites, especially the native born and, in Omaha, the shanty Irish.<br />
<br />
Mother arrived the next day. For her it was a real tragedy. Our home was gone and our family broken up. She had lived in Omaha for nearly a quarter of a century. She had raised her family there and had built up a circle of close friends. With her regular summer job at Lake Okoboji and catering parties the rest of the year, she had helped pay for our home. Now it was gone. We would be lucky if we even got a fraction of the money we had put into it, not to speak of the labor. Now she was to leave all this. Friends and neighbors would ask why Father had run away.<br />
<br />
Why had he let some poor white trash run him out of town? He had friends there. Ours was an old respected family. He also had influential white patrons. There was Ed Cudahy of the family that owned the packing plant where he worked. The Cudahys had become one of the nation's big three in the slaughtering and meat packing industry. Father had known him from boyhood. There was Mr. Wilkins, general manager at Cudahy's, whom Father had known as an office boy, and who now gave Father all his old clothes.<br />
<br />
A few days later, Mr. Cannon, a railroad man in charge of a buffet car on the Omaha and Minneapolis run and an old friend of the family, called with a message from Father. He said that Father was all right, that he had gotten a job for himself and Mother at the Minneapolis Women's Club. Father was to become caretaker and janitor, Mother was to cater the smaller parties at the club and to assist at the larger affairs. They were to live on the place in a basement apartment.<br />
<br />
The salary was ridiculously small (I think about $60 per month for both of them) and the employers insisted that only one of us children would be allowed to live at the place. That, of course, would be Eppa. He said that Father had arranged for me to live with another family. This, he said, would be a temporary arrangement. He was sure he could find another job, and rent a house where we could all be together again. As for me, Father suggested that since I was fifteen, I could find a part-time job to help out while continuing school. Mr. Cannon said that he was to take me back to Minneapolis with him, and that Mother and Eppa were to follow in a few days.<br />
<br />
With regards to our house, Mr. Cannon said that he knew a lawyer, an honest fellow, who for a small commission would handle its sale. Mother later claimed that after deducting the lawyer's commission and paying off a small mortgage, they only got the paltry sum of $300! This was for a five-room house with electricity and running water.<br />
<br />
The next day, Mr. Cannon took me out to his buffet car in the railroad yards. He put me in the pantry and told me to stay there, and if the conductor looked in: "Don't be afraid, he's a friend of mine." Our car was then attached to a train which backed down to the station to load passengers. I looked out the window as we left Omaha. I was not to see Omaha again until after World War I, when I was a waiter on the Burlington Railroad.<br />
<br />
My childhood and part of my adolescence was now behind me. I felt that I was practically on my own. What did the world hold for me—a Black youth?<br />
<br />
Arriving in Minneapolis, I went to my new school. As I entered the room, the all-white class was singing old darkie plantation songs. Upon seeing me, their voices seemed to take on a mocking, derisive tone. Loudly emphasizing the Negro dialect and staring directly at me, they sang:<br />
<br />
'''"Down in De Caunfiel—HEAH DEM darkies moan'''<br />
<br />
'''All De darkies AM a weeping'''<br />
<br />
'''MASSAHS in DE Cold Cold Ground"'''<br />
<br />
They were really having a ball.<br />
<br />
In my state of increased racial awareness, this was just too much for me. I was already in a mood of deep depression. With the breakup of our family, the separation from my childhood friends, and the interminable quarrels between my Mother and Father (in which I sided with Mother), I was in no mood to be kidded or scoffed at.<br />
<br />
That was my last day in school. I never returned. I made up my mind to drop out and get a full-time job.<br />
<br />
I was fifteen and in the second semester of the eighth grade.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 ==<br />
<br />
=== A Black Regiment in World War I ===<br />
'''On the Negroes this double experience of deliberate and devilish persecution from their own countrymen, coupled with a taste of real democracy and world-old culture, was revolutionizing. They began to hate prejudice and discrimination as they had never hated it before. They began to realize its eternal meaning and complications., .they were filled with a bitter, dogged determination never to give up the fight for Negro equality in America....A new, radical Negro spirit has been born in France, which leaves us older radicals far behind. Thousands of young Black men have offered their lives for the Lilies of France and they return ready to offer them again for the Sunflowers of Afro-America. W.E.B. DuBois, June 1919'''<br />
<br />
Despite my bitter encounter with racism in school, I liked Minneapolis. I was impressed by the beauty of this city with its many lakes and surrounding pine forests. The racial climate in 1913 was not as bad as my early experience in school would indicate, either. Blacks seemed to get along well, especially with the Scandinavian nationalities, who constituted the most numerous ethnic grouping in the city. <br />
<br />
Upon quitting school, I became a part of the small Black community and completely identified with it. I found friends among Black boys and girls of my age group, attended parties, dances, picnics at Lake Minnetonka, and ice skated in the winter time. Here, as in Omaha, a ghetto had not yet fully formed, though I here were the beginnings of one in the Black community on the north side.<br />
<br />
Included in the Black community and among my new friends were a relatively large number of mulattos, the progeny of mixed marriages between Scandinavian women and Black men. This phenomenon dated back to the turn of the century. At that time it was the fashion among wealthy white families to import Scandinavian maids. Many of these families had Black male servants— butlers, chauffeurs, etc.—and the small Black population was preponderantly male. The result was a rash of inter-marriages between the Scandinavian maids and the Black male house servants. The interracial couples formed a society called Manasseh which held well-known yearly balls. As a whole the children of this group were a hot-headed lot and seemed even more racially conscious than the rest of us.<br />
<br />
It was in Minneapolis that I too reached a heightened stage of racial awareness. This was hastened, no doubt, by the tragic events in South Omaha and the fact that I was now an adolescent and there was the problem of girls. I had noticed that it was in the period of pubescence that a Black boy, raised even in communities of relative racial tolerance, was first confronted with the problem of race. It had been so with my brother Otto in Omaha, and now it was so with me.<br />
<br />
During the first year after dropping out of school I worked as a bootblack, barber shop porter, bell hop and busboy, continuing in the last long enough to acquire the rudiments of the waiter's trade. At the age of sixteen, I got a j ob as dining car waiter on the Chicago Northwestern Railway. The first run was also my first trip to the big city, where I had four aunts (my Mother's sisters). All through my childhood my Mother had told stories about her first visit there at the time of the Chicago Exposition. Upon arrival, one of the older waiters on the car, Lon Holliday, took me to see the town. I'm sure he looked forward to showing a young "innocent" the ropes. After a visit to my aunts, he took me to a notorious dive on the Southside. It was the back room of a saloon at Thirty-second and State Street.<br />
<br />
The piano man was playing "boogie woogie" style, popular in those days. The few couples on the floor were "walking the dog," "balling the jack," and so on. Then one of the dancers, a woman, called to the pianist, "Oh, Mr. Johnson, please play 'Those Dirty Motherfuckers.'" He enthusiastically complied and sang a number of verses of the bawdy tune. I almost sank through the floor in embarrassment and even amazement. Lon, who was watching, burst out laughing and he said, "Boy, you ain't seen nothing yet!"<br />
<br />
He then took me to the famous "Mecca Flats" on Federal Street, where a rent party was in process. There he introduced me to a young woman, whom he evidently knew, and slipped her some money, saying, "Take care of my young friend here; be sure you get him back on the car in the morning. We leave for Minneapolis at 10:00 A.M."<br />
<br />
The railroads were a way to see the country and in the months that followed I took advantage of that, working for different lines, on different runs as far west as Seattle. On one run in Montana called the Loop, the dining car shuttled between Great Falls and Butte by way of Helena, stopping at each town overnight. It was known as the "outlaw run" and I soon found out why. It attracted a number of characters wanted by police in other cities, searching for an escape or a temporary hideout.<br />
<br />
While laying over in Butte one night, our chef murdered the parlor car porter—cut his throat while he was sleeping in the parlor car. They had been feuding for days. I went through the parlor car that morning and was the first to see the ghastly sight. The police came, but the chef had disappeared. My enthusiasm for the job was gone. It might have been me, I thought, for I had had a number of arguments with the chef about my orders.<br />
<br />
I quit and headed back to Minneapolis, arriving there shortly after war broke out in Europe in 1914.1 was sixteen and had been avidly following the news, reading of the invasions of Belgium, France, the Battle of the Marne, etc. <br />
<br />
One day, walking along Hennepin Avenue I saw a Canadian recruiting sergeant. He was wearing the uniform of the Princess Pat Regiment, bright red jacket and black kilt. A handsome fellow, I thought, looking like Bonnie Prince Charlie himself. He noticed me looking at him and asked, "You want to join up with the Princess Pat, my lad? We've got a number of Black boys like you in the regiment. You'll find you're treated like anyone else up there. We make no difference between Black and white in Canada."<br />
<br />
Imagining myself in the red jacket and black kilt, I said, "Sure,I'll join."<br />
<br />
Then looking at me closely, he asked, "How old are you?"<br />
<br />
"Eighteen," I lied.<br />
<br />
"Your parents living?"<br />
<br />
"Yes."<br />
<br />
"Well, you've got to get their consent."<br />
<br />
"Oh, they'll agree," I said.<br />
<br />
"They live in the city?"<br />
<br />
"Yes."<br />
<br />
"Well, you come back here tomorrow and bring one of them with you and I'll sign you up."<br />
<br />
"Okay," I said, but I knew that my parents would never agree. And well it was, too, for I later learned that this regiment was among the first victims of the German mustard gas attack at Ypres, and what was left of them was practically wiped out at bloody Paschendale on the Sommes front.<br />
<br />
Life in Minneapolis was beginning to bore me. I was anxious to get back to Chicago, "the big city," so I moved there and stayed with my Aunt Lucy at Forty-third and State. In 1915 my parents, at the urging of my Mother, also moved to Chicago, and I then stayed with them.<br />
<br />
In Chicago I got a job as a busboy at the Tip Top Inn, then considered the finest restaurant in town. It was owned by old man Hieronymous, a famous chef, and was noted for its French cuisine and service. In the trade it was taken for granted that if you had been a waiter at the Tip Top Inn you could work anywhere in the country. After a few months I was promoted to waiter and felt that I had perfected my skills. During the next three years I worked at a number of places: the Twentieth Century Limited, the New York Central's crack train; the Wolverine (Michigan Central); the Sherman House; the old Palmer House; and the Auditorium.<br />
<br />
During this time in Chicago I saw Casey Jones, a Black man and a legendary character known to at least four generations of Black Chicagoans. As I remember, he was partially paralyzed, probably from cerebral palsy. He would go through the streets with trained chickens, which he put through various capers, shouting, "Crabs, crabs, I got them!" He had a defect in his speech which he exploited. The audience would literally fall out at his rendering of the popular sentimental ballad, "The Curse of an Aching Heart":<br />
<br />
'''You made me what I am today,'''<br />
<br />
'''I hope you're satisfied.'''<br />
<br />
'''You dragged and dragged me down until'''<br />
<br />
'''a The heart within me died.'''<br />
<br />
'''Although you're not true,'''<br />
<br />
'''May God bless you,'''<br />
<br />
'''That's the curse of an aching heart!'''<br />
<br />
Then there was the beloved comedian, String Beans, who often appeared at the old Peking Theater at Thirty-first and State Street. The Dolly Sisters also appeared there; they were very famous at the time. Teenan Jones'slush night spot was at Thirty-fifth and State Street. Then at the Panama, another night club, I would listen to Mamie Smith sing "Shimmy-sha-Wobble, That's All," a very popular song and dance at the time.<br />
<br />
Once, when I wanted to go back to Minneapolis to visit, I caught the Pioneer Limited—riding the rods—out of the station on the west side. This was my first experience in hoboing. I rode the rods as far as Beloit, Wisconsin.<br />
<br />
At Beloit I got off, but was afraid to get back on because a yard dick was going around the cars. I stayed there overnight—a fairly cold night as I remember. I met a white man, a "professional" hobo, who took me in tow and told me about the trains leaving in the morning. He said we could catch a train that would pull us right into Minneapolis. It was a passenger train, and we could "ride the blinds in," that is, the space between the two Pullman cars.<br />
<br />
We rode the blinds, reaching La Crosse, Wisconsin. On the way he warned, "You know, there's a bad dick up there in La Crosse. We gotta watch out for him." When the train pulled to a stop in La Crosse both of us hopped off. Other guys were flying out of the train from all sides—from the rods, the blinds, and there were some on top, too. But this notorious yard dick caught us. He was a rough character, and let us know it as he lined us up.<br />
<br />
"Hey, up there!"<br />
<br />
I was at the end of the line of about a dozen guys and was the only Black there. I had my hands in my pocket.<br />
<br />
"Take yer hands outta yer pockets!"<br />
<br />
I took my hands out of my pockets.<br />
<br />
The engine's fireman was looking out, watching all of this. He called to the yard dick, "Say, Jim, let me have that young colored boy over there to slide down coal for me into Minneapolis."<br />
<br />
The dick looked at me and scowled, "All right, you, get up there!"<br />
<br />
He shouted to the fireman, "But see that he works!"<br />
<br />
"I'll see to that; he'll work."<br />
<br />
I scrambled on the engine tender and slid coal all the way to Minneapolis, where I got off at the station.<br />
<br />
Among my new friends in Chicago were several members of the Eighth Illinois, Black National Guard Regiment. They would regale me with tall stories of their exploits on the Mexican border in the summer of 1916 when the regiment took part in a "show of force" against the Mexican Revolution. None of us, of course, knew the real issues involved.<br />
<br />
I remember reading of the exploits of the famous Black Tenth Cavalry Regiment, which was a part of the force sent by General Funston across the border in pursuit of Pancho Villa. They had been ambushed by Villa and a number of them killed. The papers, on that occasion, had been full of accounts of the heroic Black cavalrymen and their valiant white officers. The Eighth, however, had been in the rear near San Antonio, Texas, and saw no action during the abortive campaign.<br />
<br />
Intrigued by their experiences, I joined the Eighth Regiment in the winter of 1917. I was nineteen. The regiment, officered by Blacks from the colonel on down (many of them veterans of the four Black Regular Army regiments), gave me a feeling of pride. They had a high esprit de corps which emphasized racial solidarity. I didn't regard it just as a part of a U.S. Army unit, but as some sort of a big social club of fellow race-men. Still, I knew that we would eventually get into the war. That did not bother me; on the contrary, romance, adventure, travel beckoned. I saw possible escape from the inequities and oppression which was the lot of Blacks in the U.S. I was already a Francophile. I had read and heard about the fairness of the French with respect to the race issue. It seems now, as I look back upon it, that patriotism was the least of my motives. I was avidly following all the news of the war and it seemed certain that the U.S. was going to get involved, despite protestations of President Wilson to the contrary.<br />
<br />
Already the press was whipping up war sentiment. Tin PanAlley joined in with a rash of jingoistic songs: "Don't Bite the Hand That's Feeding You," "Let's All Be American Now," ad nauseum. All this left us cold. However, the song that brought tears to my eyes was "Joan of Arc":<br />
<br />
'''Joan of Arc, Joan of Arc,'''<br />
<br />
'''Do your eyes from the skies see the foe?'''<br />
<br />
'''Can't you see the drooping Fleur de Lys,'''<br />
<br />
'''Can't you hear the tears of Normandy?'''<br />
<br />
'''Joan of Arc, Joan of Arc,'''<br />
<br />
'''Let your spirit guide us through.'''<br />
<br />
'''Awake old France to victory!'''<br />
<br />
'''Joan of Arc, we're calling you.'''<br />
<br />
Truly, nothing was sacred to Tin Pan Alley!<br />
<br />
The Lusitania was sunk; the U.S. declared war in April 1917. Our regiment was federalized on July 25, 1917, and in the late summer we were on our way to basic training at Camp Logan, near Houston, Texas.<br />
<br />
A demagogic promise was widely circulated that things would be better if Blacks fought loyally. For example, there was the statement of President Wilson: "Out of this conflict you must expect nothing less than the enjoyment of full citizenship rights." This propaganda was immediately belied by the mounting wave of new lynchings in the South, which claimed thirty-eight victims in 1917 and fifty-eight in 1918. Worst of all was the East St. Louis riot in September 1917; at least forty Blacks were massacred in a bloody pogrom that lasted several days.<br />
<br />
Then there was the mutiny-riot of the Twenty-fourth Infantry in Houston, Texas, where our regiment was to receive its basic training. Company G of our outfit was already in Houston at the time, having been sent on as an advance detachment to prepare the camp for our occupation. It was through them that I learned exactly what had happened.<br />
<br />
Black soldiers of the Twenty-fourth Infantry, an old Regular Army regiment, had for months been subjected to insults and abuse by Houston police and civilians. The outfit had stationed its military police in Houston, who were, in theory, supposed to cooperate with local police in maintaining law and order among soldiers on leave. Instead, the Black military police found themselves the object of abuse, insults and beatings by local police. This treatment of Black MPs by racist cops was evidently encouraged by the fact that they (the Blacks) were unarmed.<br />
<br />
A report of the special on-the-spot investigator for the NAACP published in the Crisis, its organ, reads:<br />
<br />
'''In deference to the southern feeling against the arming of Negroes and because of the expected cooperation of the City Police Department, members of the provost guard were not armed, thus creating a situation without precedent in the history of this guard. A few carried clubs, but none of them had guns, and most of them were without weapons of any kind. They were supposed to call on white police officers to make arrests. The feeling is strong among the colored people of Houston that this was the real cause of the riot.'''<br />
<br />
'''On the afternoon of August 23, two policemen, Lee Sparks and Rufe Daniels—the former known to the colored people as a brutal bully—entered the house of a respectable colored woman in an alleged search for a colored fugitive accused of crap-shooting. Failing to find him, they arrested the woman, striking and cursing her and forcing her out into the street only partly clad. While they were waiting for the patrol wagon a crowd gathered about the weeping woman who had become hysterical and was begging to know why she was being arrested.'''<br />
<br />
'''In this crowd was a colored soldier, Private Edwards. Edwards seems to have questioned the police officers or remonstrated with them. Accounts differ on this point, but they all agree that the officers immediately set upon him and beat him to the ground with the butts of their six-shooters, continuing to beat and kick him while he was on the ground, and arrested him. In the words of Sparks himself: "I beat that nigger until his heart got right. He was a good nigger when I got through with him."'''<br />
<br />
'''Later Corporal Baltimore, a member of the military police, approached the officers and inquired for Edwards, as it was his duty to do. Sparks immediately opened fire and Baltimore, being unarmed, fled....They followed...beat him up, and arrested him. It was this outrage which infuriated the men of the Twenty-fourth Infantry to the point of revolt.'''<br />
<br />
When word of this outrage reached the camp, feeling ran high. It was by no means the first incident of the kind that had occurred.<br />
<br />
The white officers, feeling that the men would seek revenge, ordered them disarmed. The arms were stacked in a tent guarded by a sergeant. A group of men killed the sergeant, seized their rifles, and under the leadership of Sergeant Vida Henry, an eighteen-year veteran, marched on Houston in company strength.<br />
<br />
When the soldiers left camp their slogan was "On to the Police Station!" They entered town by way of San Felipe Street which ran through the heart of the Black community. The fact that they took this route and avoided the more direct one which lead through a white neighborhood disproved the charge by local newspapers and the police that they were out to shoot up the town and kill all whites. Their target was clearly the Houston cops. On the way to the station they shot every person who looked like a cop.<br />
<br />
Finally meeting resistance, a battle ensued which ended with seventeen whites, thirteen of them policemen, killed. The alarm went out and a whole division of white troops, which was stationed in the camp, was sent in to round up the mutineers. Finally cornered, the men threw down their arms and surrendered, with the exception of Sergeant Vida Henry, who committed suicide rather than be taken. <br />
<br />
The whole battalion of the Twenty-fourth Infantry, including the mutineers, was hurriedly placed aboard a guarded troop train and sent to Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Immediately upon arrival there, those involved were given a drum-head court martial. Thirteen were executed and forty-one others were sentenced to life imprisonment.<br />
<br />
The bodies of all the executed men were sent home to their families for burial. I remember reading of the funeral of Corporal Baltimore in some little town in Illinois.<br />
<br />
Our regiment entrained for Camp Logan with our ardor considerably dampened by these events. Indeed, we left Chicago in an angry and apprehensive mood which lasted all the way to Texas. We passed through East St. Louis in the middle of the night. Those of us who were awake were brooding about the massacre of our kinsmen which had recently taken place there. The regiment traveled in three sections, a battalion each, in old style tourist cars (sort of second-class Pullmans).<br />
<br />
The next morning we arrived in Jonesboro, Arkansas, our first stop on the other side of the Mason-Dixon line. We were in enemy territory. For many of us it was our first time in the South. Jonesboro was a division point—all three sections of the train pulled up on sidings while the engines were being changed and the cars serviced.<br />
<br />
It was a bright, warm and sunny Sunday morning. It seemed like the whole town had turned out at the station platform to see the strange sight of armed Black soldiers. Whites were on one side of the station platform and Blacks on the other. We pulled into the station with the windows open and our 1903 Springfield rifles on the tables in plain view of the crowd.<br />
<br />
We were at our provocative best. We threw kisses at the white girls on the station platform, calling out to them: "Come over here, baby, give me a kiss!" "Look at that pretty redhead over there, ain't she a beaut!" And so forth.<br />
<br />
A passenger train pulled up beside us on the next track. There, peering out the open window, was a real stereotype of an Arkansas red-neck. The sight of him was provocation enough for Willie Morgan, a huge Black in our company who was originally from Mississippi. Morgan was sitting directly across from the white man. He undoubtedly retained bitter memories of insults and persecutions from the past and quickly took advantage of what was perhaps his first opportunity to bait a cracker in his own habitat.<br />
<br />
He reached a big ham-like hand through the window, grabbed the fellow's face and shouted, "What the hell you staring at, you peckerwood motherfucker?" The man pulled back, his hat flew off. Bending down, he recovered it and then moved quickly to the other side of his car, a frightened and puzzled look on his face. Our whole car let out a big roar.<br />
<br />
Then a yard man, walking along the side of the car, asked, "Where are you boys going?"<br />
<br />
"Goin' to see your momma, you cracker son-of-a-bitch!" came the reply.<br />
<br />
The startled man looked up in amazement.<br />
<br />
All of us were hungry. We had been given only a couple of apples for breakfast and now noticed that there were a number of shops and stores in the streets behind the station. I believe our first thought was to buy some food. The vestibule guards would not allow us to take our rifles off the cars, so we left them on our seats and proceeded to the stores in groups. As the stores became crowded, and as the storekeepers were busy serving some of our group, others started to snatch up any article in sight.<br />
<br />
Cases of Coca-Cola, ginger ale and near-beer went back to the cars. The path to the train was strewn with loot dropped by some of the fellows. In the stores, some bought as others stole—this spontaneously evolved pattern was employed in raids on all stores in Jonesboro and at other train stops along the road to Houston.<br />
<br />
The only serious confrontation that took place that day<br />
<br />
involved the group I was with. We crowded into a little store and a fellow named Jeffries, one of my squad buddies, approached the storekeeper who was standing behind the counter. Putting his money down, he demanded a coke. Whereupon the guy said, 'Til serve you one, but y'all can't drink it in heah."<br />
<br />
"Why?" Jeffries asked, innocently.<br />
<br />
"Cause we don't serve niggahs heah."<br />
<br />
Just as we were about to jump him and wreck the place, Jeffries, a comedian, decided to play it straight. He turned to us and said, "Now wait, fellahs, let me handle this. What the man is saying is that you don't know your place."<br />
<br />
Turning to the storekeeper he put his money down and with feigned meekness said, "All right, mister, give me a coke. I know my place, I'll drink it outside."<br />
<br />
"Thank goodness this nigger's got some sense," the storekeeper must have thought as he placed a coke on the counter. Jeffries snatched up the bottle and immediately hit him on the head, knocking him out cold.<br />
<br />
We then proceeded to wreck the place. We took everything in sight. Rushing back to the train, I heard a loud crash—a plate glass window someone had smashed as a parting gift to the niggerhating storekeeper.<br />
<br />
Up to this time we had not seen any of our officers. They had been up front in the first-class Pullmans. Many of them, we suspected, were sleeping off the after effects of the parties held on the eve of our departure. Major Hunt and Captain Hill now appeared and gave orders to the non-coms and the vestibule guards to allow no one else to leave the train.<br />
<br />
We waved goodbye to the Blacks on the station platform. They looked frightened, sad and cowed. We were leaving, but they had to stay and face the wrath of the local crackers. <br />
<br />
The train headed to Texarkana, where the scene was repeated though on a smaller scale. In Texarkana the train stopped only a few minutes and we raided one store near the railroad station. I was the last one out, running to the train with a box of pilfered Havana cigars in my hand. Nearing the train, I passed a couple of local whites talking about the raid. One said to the other, "You see all those niggers taking that man's stuff?"<br />
<br />
"Yeah, I see it."<br />
<br />
"Well, what are we going to do about it?"<br />
<br />
I reached the train just as it was pulling out, relieved not to have been left behind to find out the answer. The next stop was Tyler, deep in the heart of Texas, scene of our most serious confrontation. Here we confronted the law in the person of the county sheriff. Tyler seemed to be a larger town than the others. It was a division point and all three sections pulled up on the sidings. As in Jonesboro, a large crowd had gathered at the station; Blacks on one side, whites on the other. Again, with our guns in view, we started flirting with the white women, throwing kisses at them and so on.<br />
<br />
We were very hungry. There had been some foul-up in logistics so there wasn't any food on the train. All we had that day was a couple of sandwiches and some coffee. We piled off the train and headed for the stores, elbowing whites out of the way. We didn't carry our guns but many of us wore sheathed bayonets.<br />
<br />
Major Hunt finally appeared but he was only able to stop a few of us. By that time most of us were already ransacking the stores in the immediate vicinity of the station. The path back to the station was strewn with bottles of soft drinks, hams, fruits, wrappers from the candy and cigarettes, etc. The major was frantically blowing his whistle and calling the fellows to come back to the cars. Finally we all got back and were eating our pilfered food, drinking our near-beer and soda.<br />
<br />
Suddenly a large white man stepped forward out of the crowd. He wore a khaki uniform, a Sam Brown belt and a Colt forty-five in his holster. He approached Major Hunt and identified himself as the sheriff. (Or he might have been chief of police.) He said he intended to search the train and recover the stolen goods.<br />
<br />
The major, a short, heavy-set Black man, said: "No, you don't. This is a military train. Any searching to be done will be done by our officers."<br />
<br />
"I know," he said, "I want to accompany you."<br />
<br />
"No you don't. You won't set foot on this train."<br />
<br />
The sheriff hesitated and looked around at the crowd of white and Black. It was clearly a bitter pill for him to swallow, having for the first time in his life to take low to a Black man in front of his white constituents, as well as setting a bad example for the Blacks. He pushed the unarmed major aside and walked forward.<br />
<br />
"Come on you peckerwood son-of-a-bitch!" we hollered from the car.<br />
<br />
He approached the vestibule of our car where Jimmy Bland, a mean, grey-eyed and light-skinned Black was on guard.<br />
<br />
"Back! Get back or I'll blow you apart!" Jimmy pushed the sheriff in the belly with the barrel of his rifle. To further impress upon him that the gun was loaded, he threw the bolt and ejected a bullet. The sheriff, who had doubled over from the blow, straightened up. his face ghastly white. He gasped out something to the effect that he was going to report this affair to the government and walked away. We all let out a tremendous roar.<br />
<br />
We arrived in Houston the next day, five days after the mutiny of the Twenty-fourth. We were informed that five dollars would be docked from each man's pay to cover the damage incurred on the trip down. I believe we all felt that it was a small price to pay for the lift in morale that resulted from our forays on the trip.<br />
<br />
We were greeted by our comrades from Company G of our battalion on arriving at Camp Logan. They had been there at the time of the mutiny-riot and gave us a detailed account of what had happened. We expected to be confronted by the hostile white population, but to our surprise, the confrontation with the Twenty-fourth seemed to have bettered the racial climate of this typical Southern town. Houston in those days was a small city of perhaps 100,000 people, not the metropolis it has now become. The whites, especially the police, had learned that they couldn't treat all Black people as they had been used to treating the local Blacks.<br />
<br />
I can't remember a single clash between soldiers and police during our six-month stay in the area. On the contrary, if there were any incidents involving our men, the local cops would immediately call in the military police. There was also a notable improvement in the morale of the local Black population, who were quick to notice the change in attitude of the Houston cops. The cops had obviously learned to fear retaliation by Black soldiers if they committed any acts of brutality and intimidation in the Black community.<br />
<br />
Houston Blacks were no longer the cowed, intimidated people they had been before the mutiny. They were proud of us and it was clear that our presence made them feel better. A warm and friendly relationship developed between our men and the Black community. The girls were especially proud of us. Local Blacks would point out places where some notorious, nigger-hating cop had been killed.<br />
<br />
"See those bullet holes in the telephone pole over there," they'd say. "That's where that bad cop, old Pat Grayson, got his."<br />
<br />
"Those Twenty-fourths certainly were sharpshooters!"<br />
<br />
I occasionally took my laundry to an elderly woman who had known Corporal Baltimore. She told me what a nice young man he was.<br />
<br />
"I hear he was hanged," she said.<br />
<br />
"That's right," I replied.<br />
<br />
Tears came to her eyes and she cluck-clucked. "He left some of his laundry here; you're about his size, you want it?"<br />
<br />
"Yes, I'll take it."<br />
<br />
She handed me several pairs of khaki trousers and some underwear and shirts all washed and starched and insisted that I pay only the cost of the laundry.<br />
<br />
In Camp Logan, our Black Regiment, a part of the Thirty-third Illinois National Guard Division, went into intensive training. We had high esprit de corps. Our officers lost no opportunity to lecture us on the importance of race loyalty and race pride. They went out to disprove the ideas spread by the white brass to the effect that Black soldiers could be good, but only when officered by whites.<br />
<br />
Our solidarity was strengthened when the Army attempted to remove Colonel Charles R. Young from the regiment. Young was the first Black West Point graduate and the highest ranking Black officer in the Regular Army. He wanted to go overseas very badly, but it was quite clear that they did not want a Black officer of his rank over there. He was examined by an Army medical board and found unfit for overseas service. We all knew it was a fraud. It was in all the Black papers and was known by Blacks throughout the country.<br />
<br />
We men didn't let our officers down. We were out to show the whites that not only were we as good in everything as they, but better. In Camp Logan, our regiment held division championships in most of the sports: track, boxing, baseball, etc. We had the highest number of marksmen, sharpshooters and expert riflemen. Of course, there was no socializing between Blacks and whites, but it was clear that we had the respect, if not the friendship, of many of the white soldiers in the division.<br />
<br />
In fact, despite all the efforts of the command, there was a certain degree of solidarity between Black and white soldiers in our division. In Spartanburg, North Carolina, white soldiers from New York came to the defense of their Black fellows of the Fifteenth New York when the latter were attacked by Southern whites. Many of us felt that in the case of a showdown in town with the local crackerdom, we could get support from some of the white members of our division who happened to be around. At least, we felt they would not side with the crackers against us.<br />
<br />
The high morale of the regiment, the new tolerance (at least on the part of the local white establishment), the new spirit of Houston Blacks were all displayed during the parade of our division in downtown Houston. About two months before our departure, we received notice from headquarters that the regiment was to participate in a parade. We were to pass in review before Governor Howden of Illinois, our host governor of Texas, high brass from the War Department and other notables.<br />
<br />
We spent a couple of days getting our clothes and equipment into shape. We washed and starched our khaki uniforms, bleached our canvas leggings snow white, cleaned and polished our rifles and side arms, shined our shoes to a mirror gloss. On the day of the parade, we marched the five miles into town, halting just before we reached the center of the city. We wiped the dust from our rifles and shoes and continued the march.<br />
<br />
Executing perfectly the change from squad formation to platoon front, we entered the main square. With our excellent band playing the Illinois March, we passed the reviewing stand with our special rhythmic swagger which only Black troops could affect. We were greeted by a thunderous ovation from the crowds, especially the Blacks.<br />
<br />
I believe all of Black Houston turned out that day. The next morning, the Houston Post, a white daily, headlined a story about the parade and declared that "the best looking outfit in the parade was the Negro Eighth Illinois."<br />
<br />
Given final leave, we bid good-bye to our girls and friends in Houston. After that, security was clamped down and no one was allowed to leave the camp. A few days later, we boarded the train and were on our way to a port of embarkation. We didn't know where we were headed but suspected it was New York. Instead, five days later, we wound up in Camp Stewart near Newport News, Virginia.<br />
<br />
In Newport News, we barely escaped a serious confrontation with some local crackers and the police. The first batches of our fellows given passes to the town were subjected to the taunts and slurs of the local cops.<br />
<br />
"Why don't you darkies stay in camp? We don't want you downtown making trouble."<br />
<br />
Several fights ensued. Some of the men from our regiment were arrested and others literally driven out of town. They returned to the barracks, some of them badly beaten, and told us what had happened. A repetition of the riot of the Twenty-fourth Infantry at Houston was narrowly averted, as a number of us grabbed our guns and were about to head downtown. We were turned back, however, by our officers, who intervened and pleaded with us to return to our barracks. Among them was Lt. Benote Lee, whom we all loved and respected.<br />
<br />
"Don't play into the hands of these crackers," he said. "We'll be leaving any day now. All they want is to get us in trouble on the eve of our departure."<br />
<br />
"How about our guys who were arrested?" we asked.<br />
<br />
"Don't worry. We'll get them out."<br />
<br />
We returned to the barracks and, sure enough, our comrades were returned the next day, escorted by white MPs. We spent the next days on standby orders, apparently waiting for our ship to arrive. After that, all leaves were cancelled.<br />
<br />
It was on the same day, I believe, that we first learned that we had been separated from our Thirty-third Illinois Division. Henceforth, we were to be known as the 370th Infantry.<br />
<br />
One morning shortly after this, we looked down into the harbor and saw three big ships. We knew then that we would soon be on our way. The following morning the regiment marched down to the dockside to board ship. Yet another incident occurred at the dock. We lined up in company front facing the harbor and halted a few yards from the fence which ran the entire length of the dock.<br />
<br />
Facing us in front of the fence were several groups of loitering white native males, probably dockworkers. They stared at us as if we were some strange species. Our captain apparently wanted to move the company closer to the fence and gave the command, "Forward march." But he "forgot" to call "halt." That was all we needed.<br />
<br />
We were still angry about the beating of our comrades in downtown Newport News a few days before. We marched directly into the whites, closing in on them, cursing and cuffing them with fists and rifle butts, kicking and kneeing them; in short, applying the skills of close order combat we had learned during our basic training. Of course, we didn't want to kill anybody, we just wanted to rough them up a bit.<br />
<br />
We were finally stopped by the excited cries of our officers, "Halt! Halt!" We withdrew, opening up a path through which our victims ran or limped away. Then at the command of "Attention! Right face!" we marched along the dock in columns of two's and finally boarded the ship.<br />
<br />
=== ON TO FRANCE ===<br />
We sailed for France in early April 1918, on the old USS Washington, a passenger liner converted into a troop ship. I have crossed the Atlantic many times since, but I can truthfully say that I have never experienced rougher seas. Our three ships sailed out of Newport News without escort. Of course, we were worried; there were rumors of German submarines. Our anxiety was relieved when in mid-ocean we picked up two escort vessels, one of which was the battle cruiser Covington. When we reached the war zone, about three days out of Brest, a dozen destroyers took over, circling our ships all the way into port.<br />
<br />
It took us sixteen days in all to reach Brest, France, where we arrived on April 22. We were so weak on landing that one-half of the regiment fell out while climbing the hill to the old Napoleon Barracks where we were quartered. Immediately upon our arrival, we were put to work cleaning up ourselves and our equipment, notwithstanding our weakened condition.<br />
<br />
The next morning we passed in review before some U.S. and French big brass. The following day we boarded a train. We crossed the whole of France from east to west and detrained at Granvillars, a village in French Alsace, close to the Swiss frontier. There we found out that we had been brigaded with and were to be an integral part of the French Army. <br />
<br />
The reason we were separated from the white Americans was, as the white brass put it, "to avoid friction." But the American command of General Pershing was not satisfied just to separate us; they tried to extend the long arm of Jim Crow to the French. The American Staff Headquarters, through its French mission, tried to make sure that the French understood the status of Blacks in the United States. Their Secret Information Bulletin Concerning Black American Troops is now notorious, though I did not learn of it until after I had returned from France. The Army of Democracy spoke to its French allies:<br />
<br />
It is important for French officers who have been called upon to exercise command over black American troops, or to live in close contact with them, to have an exact idea of the position occupied by Negroes in the United States. The increasing number of Negroes in the United States (about 15,000,000) would create for the white race in the Republic a menace of degeneracy were it not that an impassable gulf has been made between them....<br />
<br />
Although a citizen of the United States, the black man is regarded by the white American as an inferior being with whom relations of business or service only are possible. The black is constantly being censured for his want of intelligence and discretion, his lack of civic and professional conscience, and for his tendency toward undue familiarity.<br />
<br />
The vices of the Negro are a constant menace to the American who has to repress them sternly. For instance, the black American troops in France have, by themselves, given rise to as many complaints for attempted rape as the rest of the army....<br />
<br />
Conclusion:<br />
<br />
1. We must prevent the rise of any pronounced degree of intimacy between French officers and black officers. We may be courteous and amiable with these last, but we cannot deal with them on the same plane as with the white American officers without deeply wounding the latter. We must not eat with them, must not shake hands or seek to talk or meet with them outside the requirements of military service.<br />
<br />
2. We must not commend too highly the black American troops, particularly in the presence of [white] Americans....<br />
<br />
3. Make a point of keeping the native cantonment population from "spoiling" the Negroes. [White] Americans become greatly incensed at any public expression of intimacy between white women with black men....Familiarity on the part of white women with black men is furthermore a source of profound regret to our experienced colonials, who see in it an overweening menace to the prestige of the white race.<br />
<br />
Apparently this classic statement of U.S. racism was ineffectual with the French troops and people, even though it was supplemented by wild stories circulated by the white U.S. troops. These included the claim that Blacks had tails like monkeys, which was especially told to women, including those in the brothels.<br />
<br />
Our regiment was not sorry to be incorporated into the French military. In fact, most of us thought it was the best thing that could have happened. The French treated Blacks well—that is, as human beings. There was no Jim Crow. At the time, I thought the French seemed to be free of the virulent U.S. brand of racism.<br />
<br />
The American Command not only wanted its front line to be all white, it also wanted all regiment commanders (even those under the French) to be white. Consequently, our Black colonel, Franklin A. Dennison; our lieutenant colonel, James H. Johnson; and two of our majors (battalion commanders) were replaced by white officers. Colonel Dennison was sent back to the States, kicked upstairs, given the rank of brigadier general, and placed in command of the Officer Training Camp for Colored Men at Fort Des Moines, Iowa. Although our first reaction was anger, we became reconciled to the shift.<br />
<br />
Our new white colonel, T. A. Roberts, seemed to be warm, paternalistic and deeply concerned about the welfare of his men. He would often make the rounds of the field kitchens, tasting the food and admonishing the cooks about ill-prepared food. He even gave instructions on how the various dishes should be cooked. Naturally, this made a great hit with the men. Our confidence in him was high because we felt that he was a professional soldier who knew his business.<br />
<br />
I remember the day the new colonel took over. The regiment formed in the village square. Colonel Roberts introduced himself. He seemed quite modest. He said that he was honored to be our new commander and that he knew the record of our regiment dating back to 1892 and its exploits during the Spanish-American War.<br />
<br />
"Since West Point," he said, "I have always served with colored troops—the Ninth and Tenth Cavalry." He then turned to Captain Patton, our Black regiment adjutant. "Captain Patton knows me, he was one of my staff sergeants in the old Tenth Cavalry." Patton nodded.<br />
<br />
The colonel smiled and pointed to our top sergeant. "Over there is Mark Thompson. I remember him when he was company clerk in Troop C of the Tenth Cavalry." He went on to point out a dozen or so officers and non-coms with whom he had served in the Ninth or Tenth Cavalry. "These men will tell you where I stand with respect to the race issue and everything else. We are going into the lines soon and I am sure that the men of this regiment will pile up a record of which your people and the whole of America will be proud."<br />
<br />
The process of integration into the French Army was thorough. The American equipment with which we had trained at home was taken away and we were issued French weapons—rifles, carbines, machine guns, automatic rifles, pistols, helmets, gas masks and knapsacks. We were even issued French rations—with the exception of the wine, which our officers apparently felt we could not handle. We got all the wine we wanted anyway from the French troops. They were issued a liter (about a quart) a day and for a few centimes could buy more at the canteen.<br />
<br />
The regiment was completely reorganized along French lines, with a machine gun company to every battalion. My Company E of the Second Battalion was converted into Machine Gun Company No. 2. We entered a six-week period of intensive training under French instructors to master our new weapons. Our main weapon was the old air-cooled Hotchkiss. And we had to master the enemy's gun, the water-cooled Maxim.<br />
<br />
The period of French training was not an easy one. It was a miserable spring—dark and dreary, and it rained incessantly the whole time we were there. There was a lot of illness—grippe, pneumonia and bronchitis. We lost a number of men, several from our company. The men were in a sullen mood as the time approached for the regiment to move up to the front.<br />
<br />
Disgruntlement was often voiced in the now familiar form of "What are we doing over here? Germans ain't done nothing to us. It's those crackers we should be fighting." While we were lined up in the square one day, our captain took the occasion to comment on these sentiments.<br />
<br />
"Well," he said, "I've been hearing all this stuff about guys saying that they weren't going to fight the Germans. Well, we certainly can't make you fight if you don't want to. But I'll tell you one thing we can and will do is take you up to the front where the Germans are, and you can use your own judgment as to whether you fight them or not."<br />
<br />
In early June 1918, we entered the trenches at the St. Mihiel Salient near the Swiss frontier as a part of the Tenth Division of the French Army under General Mittelhauser. We were intermingled with the French troops in the Tenth Division so that our officers and men might observe and profit by close association with veteran soldiers. At that time St. Mihiel was a quiet sector. Except for occasional shelling, desultory machine gun and rifle fire, nothing much occurred. We lost no men.<br />
<br />
It was here, however, that we made our first acquaintance with two pests—the rat and the louse—whom thereafter were our inseparable companions for our entire stay at the front. Undoubtedly there were more rats than men; there were hordes of them. Regiments and battalions of rats. They were the largest rats I had ever seen. We soon became tired of killing them; it seemed a wasted effort. Some of the rats became quite bold, even impudent. They seemed to say, "I've got as much right here as you have." They would walk along, pick up food scraps and eat them right there in front of you! The dark dug-outs were their real havens. When we slept we would keep our heads covered with blankets as protection against rat bites. This may seem flimsy protection, but we were so conditioned that we would awake at any attempt on the part of a rat to bite through the blanket. I have often wondered why there were so few rat bites. Probably the rats felt that it was not worthwhile fooling with live humans when there were so many dead ones around. We soon got used to the rats and learned to live with them.<br />
<br />
It was the same with the lice. I woke up lousy after my first sleep in a dug-out. My reaction to the pests took the following progression: first, I was besieged by interminable itching, followed by depression. Then I began to lose appetite and weight, finally becoming quite ill. All this was within a period of a few days. Most of the fellows exhibited the same symptoms. <br />
<br />
One might say that our illness was mainly psychological, but it was nonetheless real. Since this was a quiet front, I had no difficulty in getting permission to go back to the rear for a few hours. Foolishly, I thought if I could get cleaned up just once, I would feel a lot better. I got some delousing soap, took a bath and washed my clothes. I then returned to the front, stood machine gun watch and then went into the dug-out for a nap. Needless to say, I woke up lousy again.<br />
<br />
I told my troubles to an old French veteran who had been assigned to my machine gun squad. "Oh, it's nothing! You must forget all about it,' he said. "You'll get used to it. I've been at the front for nearly four years and I've been lousy all the time, except when I was in the hospital or at home on leave."<br />
<br />
I took his advice which was all to the good, because I was not to be rid of these pests until six months later during my sojourn in hospitals at Mantes-sur-Seine and Paris after the Armistice. Even then, it was only a temporary respite, for I was reinfected upon rejoining my regiment at the embarkation port of Brest. After a brief stay with the regiment, I was returned to the hospital, again deloused, only to be reinfected again on the hospital ship returning to the States. I parted company with my last louse at the debarkation hospital at Grand Central Palace in New York City.<br />
<br />
We remained in the St. Mihiel sector about two weeks. We were then withdrawn and moved into a sector in the Argonne Forest near Verdun, site of the great battles of 1916; we arrived there in late July 1918. We were still brigaded with the Tenth French Division. The area around Verdun was a vast cemetery with a half million crosses of those who had perished in that great holocaust, each bearing the legend, Mort Pour La France. <br />
<br />
The Argonne at that time was also a quiet sector. But it was here that we suffered our first casualty, Private Robert M. Lee of Chicago. The incident occurred during machine gun target practice. The first and second line trenches ran along parallel hills about a hundred yards apart. The French had set up a make-shift range in the valley in between the trenches. Behind the gun there was a two or three foot rise in the earth, on which a number of us French and Blacks were sitting, chewing the rag, awaiting our turn at the machine gun. <br />
<br />
Suddenly, there was a short burst of machine gun fire. It was not from our guns. Bullets whizzed over our heads—they seemed to be coming from behind the target. All of us scrambled to get into the communication trench which opened on the valley. Second Lieutenant Binga DesMond, our platoon commander (and the University of Chicago's great sprinting star), fell from the embankment on top of me. Fortunately, he was not hit. But even with his 180 pounds on my back, I am sure I made that ten or fifteen yards to the communication trench, crawling on my hands and knees, as fast as he could have sprinted the distance!<br />
<br />
The fire was coming from behind the target. What obviously had happened was that the Germans had cased the position of our guns and had somehow got around behind the target and waited for a pause in our target practice to open fire on us. We never found out how they did it, for none of us knew the exact topography of the place. The French of course knew it, but they had assured us that the place was safe and that they had been using the range for months.<br />
<br />
We were crouched down, panting, in the communication trench for about five minutes after the German guns ceased fire. The French lieutenant (bless his soul) then sent a French gun crew out to get the gun. To our great surprise they also brought back Robert M. Lee. He was quite dead, with bullets right through the heart. He had evidently been hit by the first burst and had fallen forward in front of the embankment. All of us were deeply saddened by the incident.<br />
<br />
No one spoke as we bore his body back to the rear. He was only nineteen, a very sweet fellow, and he was our first casualty. We buried him down in the valley, beside the graves of those fallen at Verdun. The funeral was quite impressive. He was given a hero's burial, with representatives both from our regiment and our French counterparts. We were especially impressed by the appearance of General Mittelhauser who came down from Division Headquarters to express condolences and appreciation to the Black troops now under his command.<br />
<br />
=== THE SOISSONS SECTOR ===<br />
Despite the fact that we had been in aa quiet sector, it was still the front lines with its daily tensions of anticipated attack. In the middle of August, we were pulled out of the Argonne sector and sent to rest behind the lines near Bar-le-Duc. We were deeply pleased by the hospitality and kindness extended to us by the townspeople there. They invited us into their homes and plied us with food and wine. Half-jokingly they told us to come back after the war and we could have our pick of the girls. As we did throughout our stay in France, we deported ourselves well. For pleasures of the flesh, there were a number of legal houses of prostitution, or “houses of pleasure” as they were called by the French, It was with regret that we left that area.<br />
<br />
By this time, we had become an integral part of the French Army. Along with our French equipment, training and so forth, we had affected the style of the French poilu (doughboy). The flaps of our overcoats were buttoned back in order to give us more leg room while on the march, as was their style. Like the French infantry, we used walking sticks, which helped to ease the burden of our seventy pounds of equipment. French peasants along the road, hearing our strange language and noticing our color, would often mistake us for French colonials. Not Senegalese, who were practically all black but Algerians, Moroccans or Sudanese, We would swing along the road to the tune of our favorite marching song:<br />
<br />
'''My old mistress promised me, Raise a ruckus tonight,'''<br />
<br />
'''When she died she'd set me free, Raise a ruckus tonight.'''<br />
<br />
'''She lived so long her head got bald, Raise a ruckus tonight.'''<br />
<br />
'''She didn’t get to set me free at all, Raise a ruckus tonight!'''<br />
<br />
'''Oh, come along, little children come along, While the moon is shining bright;'''<br />
<br />
'''Get on board on down the river flow, Gonna’ raise a ruckus tonight.'''<br />
<br />
But we had not escaped the long arm of American racism. We were rudely confronted with this reality upon our arrival in a small town on the Compiégne front in the department of Meuse. We entrained here for our next front. The regiment was confronted dramatically with the effects of the racist campaign launched by the American high brass,<br />
<br />
Upon entering the town, the regiment was drawn up in battalion formation in the square, Before being assigned to billets, we were informed by the battalion commander that a Black soldier from a labor battalion had been court martialed and hanged in the very square where we were standing, It had happened just a few weeks before our arrival. His crime was the raping of a village girl. His body had been left hanging there for twenty-four hours, as a demonstration of American justice,<br />
<br />
“As a result,” he told us, “you may find the town population hostile, In case this is so,” the major warned, “you are not to be provoked or to take umbrage at any discourtesies, but are to deport yourselves as gentlemen at all times,” In any case, we were to be there only for a few days, during which time we were to remain close to our barracks, Then, in a lowered voice, he muttered, “This is what i have been told to tell you.”<br />
<br />
We kept close to our billets the first day or so, but then gradually ventured further into town. At first, the townsfolk seemed to be aloof, but the coolness was gradually broken down, probably as a result of our correct deportment, especially our attitude towards the children (with whom we always immediately struck up friendships). Friendly relations were finally established with the villagers. When we asked about the hanging, they shrugged the matter off,<br />
<br />
“So what? That was only one soldier. The others were nice enough,” When asked why they had been so aloof when we first arrived, they said it was the result of the warnings of the white officers. “They didn’t want us to fraternize with the Blacks.”<br />
<br />
Continuing the conversation, they seemed puzzled about why the sentence had been so severe and the body barbarously left exposed in the square. “Trés brutale, trés horrible!” they exclaimed. With regard to the girl, “Ah, she had been raped many times before,” one of them jeered.<br />
<br />
After two weeks of rest, the regiment began to move by stages toward the front lines again. A few days later, we boarded a train consisting of a long line of box-cars. Each car was marked: “Quarante hommes ou huit chevaux.” (Forty men or eight horses.)<br />
<br />
The last couple of months had been quiet and relatively pleasant, with the exception of the Lec incident and the events just related. But now, we felt, we were going into the thick of it. The premonition was confirmed the very next morning when we woke (that is, those of us who had been able to sleep in such crowded conditions),<br />
<br />
We were passing through Chateau-Thierry. There could be no doubt about it, eventhough part of the sign had been blown away and only the word “Thierry” remained. The woods around the station and Belleau Woods, a few miles further on, looked like they had been hit by a cyclone: broken and uprooted trees, gaping shell holes, men from the Graves Registration walking around with crosses, Black Pioneers removing ammunition, All were grim reminders of the great battles that had been fought there by American troops only several weeks before.<br />
<br />
We were on the Soissons front, where we became part of the famous Armée Mangin, General Mangin (le boucher or the butcher as he was called by the French) was commander of the Tenth Army of France, among whom were a number of shock troops; Chausseurs Alpines, Chausseurs d’Afrique (Algerians and Moroccans), Senegalese riflemen and the Foreign Legion. His army was pivotal in breaking the Hindenburg Lineabout Soissons. On this front, we were brigaded with the Fifty-ninth French Division, under the command of General Vincendon.<br />
<br />
We bypassed Thierry and Belleau Woods and detrained at the village of Villers-Cotteréts, the birthplace of Alexandre Dumas. ‘The atmosphere was charged with expectancy, Observation balloons hung like giant sausages on the horizon. Big guns rumbled ominously in the distance, A steady stream of ambulances carrying wounded jammed the roads leading from the front. Obviously a big battle was in progress not too far away. But it turned out that we were not going into that sector. We left the village and marched west to Crépy-en-Valois. Turning north through the Compiégne Forest, we reached the Aisne River at a point near Vie-sur-Aisne and continued on to Resson-le-Long where we established our depot company. The march from the railhead to Resson took about three days. It was a forced march and covered about twenty-five kilometers (fifteen miles) a day.<br />
<br />
This was pretty rough after the restless night we had spent on the crowded train. As one of the company wags observed, “One thing bout these kilomeeters, they sho’ will kill you if you keep on meetin’ “em.”<br />
<br />
Our regiment spent six months in the lines in all. We took part in the fifty-nine day drive of Mangin’s Tenth Army which ended on the day of the Armistice. During that period, one or another of our units was always under fire or fighting. Our toughest battles were at the Death Valley Jump Off near the Aisne Canal, the taking of Mont Singes (Monkey Mountain which was later renamed Hill 370 in honor of our regiment), fighting at a railroad embankment northwest of Guilleminet Farm, and the advance into the Hindenburg Line at the Oise-Aisne Triangle.<br />
<br />
It was in the battles on the Hindenburg Line that we met the strongest enemy resistance and sustained most of our losses. The enemy resistance was broken in these battles and they began a general withdrawal, at first orderly and accompanied by brief rearguard actions. Finally, there was the flight to the Belgian frontier, destroying roads and railroads on orders to impede our advance. After Laon, their flight was so precipitous that we had difficulty maintaining contact. We entered many villages which they had left the day before.<br />
<br />
Our outfit was the first allied troops to enter the fortified city of Laon, wresting it from the Germans after four years of war. We were greeted with tremendous elation by the population, who had lived under German occupation the whole of that period.<br />
<br />
The regiment was highly praised by the French. It won twenty-one Distinguished Service Crosses, sixty-eight Croix de Guerre and one Distinguished Service Medal. In the whole two months’ drive, casualties were 500 killed and wounded-—a total of about one-fifth of the regiment. These casualties were light when compared with those of Black regiments on other fronts. For example, the 37] st Infantry of drafted men lost 1,065 out of 2,384 men in three days’ fighting during the great September defensive on the Compiégne Front. I believe that the German resistance on these other fronts, east and west of Soissons, was more stubborn than on our front.<br />
<br />
All of our Black regiments were fortunate to have been brigaded with the French. In this respect, the American High Command did us a big favor, unintentionally, lam sure. For as far as we were able to observe, the French made no discrimination in the treatment of Black officers and men, with whom they fraternized freely. They regarded us as brothers-in-arms.<br />
<br />
Similarly, the French people in the villages in which we stopped or were stationed were uniformly courteous and friendly, and we made many friends, I must say that we were also on our best behavior. I don’t remember a single incident of misbehavior on the part of our men toward French villagers. The latter were quick to notice this and to contrast our gentlemanly deportment with the rudeness of the white Americans. Many of the white soldiers made no effort to hide their disdain for the French(whom they regarded as inferiors) and commonly referred to them as “frogs.”<br />
<br />
But even as we fought, we were being stabbed in the back by the American High Command. We were not to learn, however, until our return to the States of the slanderous, racist document issued by the American General Staff Headquarters through its brainwashed French Mission (the Secret Information Concerning Black American Troops referred to earlier).<br />
<br />
We learned also that the hanging of the Black soldier on the Compiégne Front was not an isolated incident, but part of a deliberate campaign conducted by higher and lower echelons in the American Command to influence French civilians against Blacks. The campaign focused on the effort to build up the Black rapist scare among them.<br />
<br />
Such was a memorandum issued by headquarters of the Ninety-second Division (a Black division officered largely by whites) on August 21, 1918. Its purpose was to “prevent the presence of colored troops from being a menace to women,” The memorandum read in part:<br />
<br />
On account of increasing frequency of the crime of rape, or attempted rape, in this Division, drastic preventive measures have become necessary... Until further notice, there will be a check of all troops of the 92nd Division every hour daily between reveille and 11 P.M,, with a written record showing how each check was made, by whom, and the result...the one mile limit regulation will be strictly enforced at all times, and no passes will be issued except to men of known reliability.<br />
<br />
This was followed the next day by another memorandum saying that the commander-in-chief of the American Expeditionary Forces “would send the 92nd Division back to the States or break it up into labor battalions as unfit to bear arms in France, if efforts to prevent rape were not taken more seriously.”<br />
<br />
As a result, Dr. Robert R. Moton of Tuskegee was sent by President Wilson and the secretary of war to investigate the charges. He found only one case of rape in the whole division of 15,000 men. Two other men who were from labor battalions in the Ninety-second area were convicted. One of these was hanged, and I’m sure that this was the unfortunate soldier whom we saw on the Compiégne Front. General headquarters was forced to admit that the crime of rape, as later stated by Moton, “was no more prevalent among coloured soliders than among white, or any other soldiers.”<br />
<br />
This whole racist smear of Black troops, I was to conclude later, represented but an extension to France of the anti-Black racist campaign then current in the States, It was designed to maintain Black subjugation and prevent its erosion by liberal racial attitudes of the French. Back in the States, the campaign was marked by an upturn of lynchings during the war years, with thirty-eight Black victims in 1917 and half again that number in the following year. Even then, things were working up to the bloody riots of 1919.<br />
<br />
In contrast to all of this, the appreciation of the French for Black soldiers from the U.S. was shown by the accolade given by the French division commander, General Vincendon, to our regiment. On December 19, 1918, we were transferred from the French Army back to the American Army. On that day, General Order 4785, directed to the Fifty-ninth Division of the Army of France, was read to the officers and men of the 370th. It commended us for our contributions to France. remember being struck by the poetry of the language, it was all beautifully French to me:<br />
<br />
We at first, in September at Mareuil-sur-Ourcg, admitted your fine appearance under arms, the precision of your review, the suppleness of your evolutions that presented to the eye the appearance of silk unrolling its waves...<br />
<br />
Further on in remembering our dead, the communique read:<br />
<br />
The blood of your comrades who fell on the soil of France, mixed with the blood of our soldiers, renders indissoluble the bonds of affection that unite us.<br />
<br />
=== THE ROAD HOME ===<br />
The road back from Soissons lay through the old battlefields where we had fought a couple of months before. Near Anizy-le Chateau there were crosses marking the graves of some of our comrades who had died in the fighting there. We paused before the graves, seeking out those of the comrades we knew. We all had the same thoughts: “What rotten luck that they should die almost in sight of victory.”<br />
<br />
Among the crosses, there was one marked “Sergeant Theodore Gamelin.” Gamelin hadn’t died in combat. 1 remember the incident clearly, We were all lined up in some hastily dug trenches that morning, waiting for the “over the top” signal. The cooks had just distributed reserved rations. These consisted of a half-loaf of French bread (not the crispy white kind, but a coarse grayish loaf baked especially for the troops, which we called “war bread”) and a big bar of chocolate. Somehow, Gamelin had missed out on these rations. Jump-off time was drawing near. He looked around and his eyes fixed upon a private named Brown, who was sitting on the firing step, putting his rations in a knapsack. Now, Private Brown was one of those quiet, meek little fellows. He always took low, was never known to fight. But Brown was the type of man, I have observed, who can become dangerous. This is particularly true in a combat situation where one doesn’t know whether one will live five minutes longer. Gamelin, a big bullying type, an amateur boxer and very unpopular with his men, called to Brown:<br />
<br />
“Give me some of that bread, Brown. I didn’t get my rations.”<br />
<br />
“Now, that’s just too bad, sergeant,” Brown responded, “I’m not going to give you any of this bread. It’s not my fault you missed your rations.”<br />
<br />
Gamelin, with one hand on his pistol, moved as though he were going to seize the bread. Brown had his rifle lying across his lap. He simply raised it and coolly pulled the trigger. The sergeant fell dead!<br />
<br />
The platoon commander heard the commotion and ran to the spot, inquiring about what had happened. The men told him that Gamelin was trying to take Brown’s reserve rations and had made a move toward his pistol. Brown, they said, had shot in self-defense,<br />
<br />
Obviously nothing could be done about Brown in those circumstances. So the lieutenant said, “Consider yourself under arrest, Brown. We will take this matter up after this action.”<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, Brown was killed a few days later, The memory of this incident was on our minds as we viewed Gamelin’s grave, His helmet hung on a cross, which ironically bore the inscription “Sergeant Theodore Gamelin—Mort Pour La France (Died for France), September 1918.”<br />
<br />
Thad gone through six months at the front without a scratch or a day of illness. But as we neared Soissons, I began to feel faint and light-headed, By the time we reached the city, I had developed quite a high fever, It was the period of the first great flu epidemic which wreaked havoc among U.S. troops in France. I reported to the infirmary and lined up with a group of about fifty men. The medical sergeant took our temperatures and then tied tags to our coats. I looked at mine and it read “influenza.” We were evacuated to a field hospital near Soissons, where I remained for about five days. After that, we boarded a hospital train and were told that we were going to the big base hospital in Paris, Now, I liked that.<br />
<br />
I had never seen Paris and was most anxious to visit the famed city before going home. There were two of us in the compartment, another soldier from the regiment and myself, I felt a little drowsy, sol told my compartment mate that I was going to take a little nap and to wake me up when the chow came around, I “awoke” five days later in a French hospital at Mantes-sur-Seine, near Paris.<br />
<br />
They had put me off the train as an emergency case just before Paris. I came out of a coma to find a number of strange people around my bed—nurses who were Catholic nuns, doctors and a number of patients, They were all smiling. “Thank God, young man,” said the doctor, “we thought we were going to lose you. You've been in a coma for five days, but you’re going to be all right now.”<br />
<br />
“Where am I? Is this Paris?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“No, this is Mantes-sur-Seine, close to Paris. They had to put you off here as an emergency case.”<br />
<br />
“What’s wrong with me?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“Qh, you've had a little kidney infection and it has affected your heart.”<br />
<br />
“That sounds bad,” I said.<br />
<br />
“Well, you’re young and have a remarkable constitution. You'll pull through all right—you’re out of danger now,” he assured me.<br />
<br />
I remained in the hospital for about a month, receiving the kindest and most solicitous attention from nurses, doctors and patients. All seemed to regard me as their special charge, No one spoke English, but I got along all right. It was like a crash course in French, They told me I had a beautiful accent. They brought in an old lady to talk English with me, but she bored me to death, Really, my French was better than her English. She came once and didn’t return,<br />
<br />
I was feeling much better when the head sister came to me one evening to tell me I was to leave the next morning for Paris and the American hospital at Neuilly.<br />
<br />
“You've never been to Paris, have you?” she asked.<br />
<br />
“No,” I said. ,<br />
<br />
“Well, you’ve got a treat coming’<br />
<br />
I was filled with great expectations, The next morning, after embracing all my fellow patients and exchanging warm goodbyes with the doctor and sisters, the head nurse (or sister) took me out in front of the hospital where an American ambulance was waiting.<br />
<br />
“Hop in, buddy,” said the driver.<br />
<br />
“Haywood, be sure to write us when you get back to Chicago,” said the sister. “Remember we are your friends and want to know how you are getting along.”<br />
<br />
I promised that I would. As we pulled out, she stood on the road waving a white handkerchief and continued to wave it as long as we were in sight. I never wrote them, hut often thought of them.<br />
<br />
Paris, you wondrous city! I was feeling good that morning as we pulled into the hospital at Neuilly. The hospital was situated on the Avenue Neuilly near the Boulevard de la Grande Armée, only a few blocks from the Arc de Triomphe. It was a veritable palace. I was assigned to a ward in which there were only four guys, three Australians and one white American from Wisconsin. They greeted me and gave mea run-down on the situation. They were having a hall seeing Paris, taking in all the events, theaters, race tracks, boxing and girls, I don’t believe that I saw a real sick man in that hospital. There were some of course, but they must have been secluded in some out of sight wards. We were all convalescents in our ward. A couple were recuperating from wounds received at the front,<br />
<br />
“What do you do for money?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“Oh, we don’t worry about that—-just stick around a while and we'll show you the ropes,”<br />
<br />
Under their tutelage, it didn’t take me long to catch on. At that time there were dozens of rich American women, including a number from the social register in Paris. They were under the auspices of the Red Cross and had taken over the hospital and its patients as their special “war duty.” They would organize excursions, get tickets for shows, sports events, etc. Coming to the hospital in relays, they would leave huge boxes of chocolates and other goodies.<br />
<br />
We were showered with gifts—Gillette razors, Waterman fountain pens, and even some serviceable wrist watches if you asked for them. They would come in waves. Scarcely had one group left when another would come, leaving the same gifts. The guys had it down perfect. They always left one man on watch in the ward. He was there in case the gals would come in while the others were out and receive all the presents and gifts for them. He would point to the three un oceupied beds (there were only five of us in an eight bed ward) and pretend that their occupants were out in the streets. He would suggest that the presents be left for them, also. Old Wisconsin Slim was the real genius in all this, He even hung a couple of crosses over the unoccupied beds to give more substance to the fiction that they were occupied,<br />
<br />
Every morning we would gather all our presents, take them to the gate, and sell them fora good price to the French who gathered there to buy them. We would then return to the ward and divide the “swag.” Razors and fountain pens seemed to be rare in France at that time. The going rate for razors was about ten francs ($2) and for Waterman fountain pens even more. All this was carried out under the benign gaze of the hospital authorities.<br />
<br />
Discipline was lax, almost nonexistent. We could stay out for two days at a time. The attitude seemed to be: let the boys have a good time, they deserve it. Besides, it’s essential for their convalescence, When we would get a little money together (about once a week), we would run out to Montmartre and the famous Rue Pigalle, “Pig Alley,” to see the girls.<br />
<br />
As an old Francophile, I was also interested in French history and culture. I got a guidebook and spent days walking all over Paris, visiting all the historical places about which I had read, mentally reconstructing the events.<br />
<br />
Time was passing rapidly. I had been in the hospital about two months when an administrator called me into his office.<br />
<br />
“Well, Corporal Hall,” he said. “I hope you've been having a good time in Paris.”<br />
<br />
“Oh yes,” I replied.<br />
<br />
“That’s good,” he said, “We're sending you back to your regiment tomorrow.”<br />
<br />
“Where are they?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“They’re in Brest, waiting to embark for the voyage home.”<br />
<br />
The next morning I got on the train at the Gare Ouest and arrived in Brest that evening. In Brest, I strolled around a bit on the waterfront and finally sat down at a sidewalk cafe. I was in no hurry to get back into the old regimental harness, I was about to order a drink when suddenly a big white MP appeared. Glowering at me, he said, “Where’s your pass, soldier?”<br />
<br />
“Here it is. I’ve just got back from the hospital in Paris and I'm going to my outfit up on the hill,” I explained.<br />
<br />
He grabbed it, glanced at it and shouted, “Well, get going up that hill right now. You're not supposed to hang around here.”<br />
<br />
I left without my drink and started climbing the hill to the old Napoleon barracks where we had been eleven months before. It seemed like that had been years ago, so much had been crowded into the brief intervening period.<br />
<br />
T rejoined my outfit. They were living in tents in what seemed to me like a swamp. The weather was miserable, a steady cold rain. The mud was ankle deep. I was greeted warmly by my comrades. I don’t think that more than half the old boys of my company were left. The rest were dead, wounded, or ill in hospitals all over France.<br />
<br />
A couple of bottles of cognac were produced. The guys started reminiscing about what they were going to do when they got home. The news from home was bad. Discrimination and Jim Crow were rampant, worse than before. Blacks were being lynched everywhere. “Now, they want us to go to war with Japan,” observed one of the fellows. (The Hearst newspapers at the time were again raising the specter of the “yellow peril.”)<br />
<br />
“Well,” someone said, “they won’t get me to fight their yellow peril. If it comes to that, I'll join the Japs. They are colored.” There was unanimous agreement on that point.<br />
<br />
I bunked down that night and awoke the next morning with a high fever. I went to the infirmary and again was evacuated to a hospital. I immediately began to worry whether I would be able to return with my outfit. As I was waiting on the side of the road to hitch a ride to the hospital, I heard footsteps behind me. I turned and there was Colonel Roberts, our white commander whom I had not seen for months.<br />
<br />
I started to spring to my feet and salute, but he motioned me to remain seated. “Corporal, you're from our regiment, aren’t you?”<br />
<br />
“Yes, sir,” I said, “I'm sick and going to the hospital.”<br />
<br />
“What’s the matter?”<br />
<br />
“I guess I got the flu.”<br />
<br />
“Well,” he said, “you’re in no condition to walk that distance.” He hailed a passing truck and instructed the driver to take me to the hospital. “Take care, son; we’re going home soon. Try to come hack with us.” That’s the last time I saw Colonel Roberts.<br />
<br />
A month later, while in the hospital, I picked up the Paris edition of the Herald Tribune. The headline read: “The 370th Infantry (the old Eighth Illinois) returns and is given hero’s welcome in victory parade down State Street.” I felt pretty bad, because I could imagine my old Mother standing there waiting for me to pass by, Since I hadn’t written in months, she would probably assume the worst.<br />
<br />
I had been away from the States for quite a while, in free France so to speak, and I had become less used to the American nigger-hating way of life. But I was thrown abruptly back into reality as soon as I crossed the threshold of the American Army hospital in Brest.<br />
<br />
It seemed to be manned by an all Southern staff: doctors, nurses, etc. All of them spoke with broad Southern accents. I was assigned a bed at one end of the ward. When I looked around, I could see only Blacks were in that end. Whites were at the other end. There were no screens, no Jim Crow signs. The Jim Crow was de facto, but nonetheless real. I also noticed that there was a large space between the Black and white sections.<br />
<br />
After a cursory entrance examination, the doctor seemed to think that I didn’t have the flu, and upon hearing my recent medical history, he decided that it was a relapse of the old illness.<br />
<br />
Thad no sooner gotten settled when J heard a nurse bawling out a Black soldier for being so dirty. The poor fellow had just come in from some mud hole like the one in which my regiment was situated, where there was no opportunity to bathe.<br />
<br />
“You don’t see any of our white boys that dirty!” she shouted, her eyes flashing indignantly at what she, a white lady, was forced to put up with, For the first time, it occurred to me that our Black regiment had been put in a worse location than the whites. Now, that’s pretty hard stuff for a front-line veteran to take. If I had been ill when I came in, I was really sick now. I could feel my blood pressure and-fever mount.<br />
<br />
There was a Black sergeant from my outfit in the same ward, He was a tall, dignified and proud looking man, convalescing from a previous illness. He wasn’t a bed patient and was therefore supposed to make his own bed. This he did, but he never seemed to do it to the satisfaction of the nurse, who kept berating him.<br />
<br />
“Make it over, that’s not good enough.”<br />
<br />
“I've already made it, and I’m not going to do it again.”<br />
<br />
“Don’t talk back to me,” she shouted. “Make that bed!”<br />
<br />
“I’m not going to,” he said.<br />
<br />
“You dare disobey my order?” she yelled.<br />
<br />
“I'm a front-line soldier and you don’t have to yell at me.”<br />
<br />
She turned and walked to the office and returned with the ward doctor, a little pip-squeak of a man. Ina stentorian voice he said:<br />
<br />
“Make that bed, soldier.” The sergeant didn’t move. The doctor looked at his watch and said, “I’m giving you two minutes to start making that bed. If you don’t, I’m going to prefer charges against you for disobeying your superior officers.”<br />
<br />
You could see that the proud sergeant was thinking it over and coming to a decision. I could almost read his mind; it seemed that he was thinking that this wasn’t the time to die. He only had a couple more months to go.<br />
<br />
He finally burst into tears, but he got up and made the bed. I’ve seen this sort of situation before, and I feel almost certain that had there been a loaded gun around, the sergeant might have started shooting. It would have been reported in the news as “Another nigger runs amuck.” All of us, including some of the whites, breathed a sigh of relief at this peaceful culmination of what could have been a dangerous incident. At least the nurse never bothered the sergeant after that. Undoubtedly, she sensed the inherent danger of any further provocation.<br />
<br />
After my stay in Paris, I was seized periodically by moods of depression. These deepened and became chronic during my stay at the Brest hospital, especially after witnessing such humiliating incidents. I felt that I could never again adjust myself to the conditions of Blacks in the States after the spell of freedom from racism in France, I did not want to go back and my feeling was shared by many Black soldiers.<br />
<br />
I thought of remaining in France, getting my discharge there and possibly becoming a French citizen. But I did not know how to go about this. Besides, I was ill, and there was my Mother whom! wanted to see again. Probably, some day, if I got well, I would come back—or so I thought as I lay in the hospital at Brest.<br />
<br />
Finally, the day came. We were discharged from the hospital, given casual’s pay (one month’s pay), which in my case amounted to $33, and boarded the ship for home. There was no change in the Jim Crow pattern. We were merely transferred from a Jim Crow hospital to a Jim Crow hospital ship. We Blacks found ourselves quartered in a separate section of the ship. The segregation, however, did not extend to the mess hall or the lavatories (heads). I guess that would have been too much trouble. But the ship’s military command passed up no opportunity to let us know our place.<br />
<br />
For example, on the first day out we were given tickets for mess—~-breakfast, lunch and supper. We were supposed to present them to a checker who stood at the foot of the stairway leading up to the mess hall. A Black soldier who had evidently misplaced his ticket tried to slip by the checker unnoticed, but he was not quick enough. A cracker officer who was standing by the checker hollered: “Hey, Nigger, come back here!”<br />
<br />
The guy kept going and tried to merge into a group of us Blacks who had already passed through. Again the officer shouted, “Nigger, come back here. You, I mean. I mean the tall one over there. That nigger knows who I’m calling.” The soldier finally turned and walked back. Purple with rage, protected by his bars and white skin, the officer said, “Listen, you Black son of a bitch, where is your ticket?” Clearly, the officer had already gauged his man and concluded that there was no fight in him,<br />
<br />
“I couldn’t find it,” said the soldier.<br />
<br />
“Well, why didn’t you say that in the first place instead of tryin’ toslip through heah? Well, you go on back and try to find it. If you can’t, see the sergeant in charge. Don’t evah try that trick again,” said the officer. His anger seemed to ebb and a glow of self-satisfaction spread across his face. He had done his chore for the day. He had put a nigger in his place.<br />
<br />
The seas were rough again. It was a small ship, leased from the Japanese. Most of us were seasick. The sailors were having a ball at our expense, When one of us would rush to the rail to vomit, one of them would holler, “A dollar he comes.”<br />
<br />
One night, the ship tilted sharply and a number of us were thrown out of our bunks, The bunks were in tiers and I was in a top one, I got a pretty hard bump. The next morning on deck the sailors were talking loudly among themselves (for our benefit of course),<br />
<br />
“Gee,” said one, “this is the roughest sea I’ve ever seen. This old pile is about to come apart, The Japs leased us the worst ship they had.”<br />
<br />
“It just might be sabotage,” another one suggested,<br />
<br />
“I hope we make it, but I’m not so sure,” said another,<br />
<br />
Not being seamen, most of us were taking this seriously, A Black soldier turned to me and said, “You know man, after all I’ve been through, if this ship were to sink now almost in sight of home, I would get off and walk the water like the good Lord,”<br />
<br />
Another voice, that of a white sergeant from Florida who had been rather friendly to us: “You know,” he drawled, “this reminds me of old Sam down home.”<br />
<br />
Here it comes, we thought, one of those nigger jokes.<br />
<br />
“He was up theah on the gallows with a rope around his neck and the sheriff said, ‘Well Sam, is there anything you want to say before you die?<br />
<br />
“All T got to say sheriff, said Sam, ‘this sho’ would be a lesson to me,’ ”<br />
<br />
The voyage proceeded uneventfully, with one exception, The gamblers among us were out to get the soldiers’ casual pay. The law of concentration of money into fewer and fewer hands was in process, This was taking place in one of the endless crap games which started in the Bay of Biscay and wound up at Sandy Hook,<br />
<br />
IT never really gambled, even in the Army with room and board guaranteed, If you were broke, you could always borrow some money. The lender knew you couldn’t run out on him. His only risk was that you might become a casualty. But motivated by nothing more than sheer boredom, I got into the game this time.<br />
<br />
After all, what good was $33 going to do me? To my surprise, I hit a streak of luck and over a period of a week in and out of the game, I ran my paltry grub stake up to the tremendous sum of $1200, That was the high point, after which time my luck began to peter out. Nevertheless, I left the ship with $500. It was my last gambling venture,<br />
<br />
That morning, we lined up at the rail as our ship passed Sandy Hook and pulled into New York Harbor, It was my first view of the New York skyline, Overcome with emotion, tears welled up in my eyes, Embarrassed, I looked around and found that I was not alone. The guy next to me was obviously crying,<br />
<br />
Our landing was a memorable one, Ship stacks were blasting, foghorns blowing, bells were ringing and fire boats were sending up great sprays of water, Passengers in ferryboats were waving and shouting greetings.<br />
<br />
Upon docking, we were met by two reception committees of young women. A white one to receive the white soldiers and a Black one to greet us, This time segregation didn’t bother us at all, we were so pleased to see the pretty Black girls, They drew us aside as we came down the gang plank, ushered us into waiting ambulances, and drove us to Grand Central Palace which had been converted into a deharkation hospital, Leaving us in the lobby, they said goodbye and promised to come back soon and show us around.<br />
<br />
A woman from the Red Cross took our home addresses to notify our families of our arrival. We were then escorted into a large room and told to strip off our clothes. Leaving them in the room, we then went through the delousing process. We were sprayed with some sort of chemical and washed off under showers. We were then given pajamas and a bathrobe and shown to our Jim Crow ward.<br />
<br />
The next day, after a physical examination, we were paid off, receiving all of our back pay, In my case, it was for twelve months, amounting to about $450, This, plus the $500 I had won on the ship, seemed to me a small fortune, the largest amount of money I had ever had in my life. J was, so to speak, chafing at the bit, raring to get out and up to famed Harlem.<br />
<br />
On the ship, I had met a Black sergeant named Patterson, who was from the 369th, the old Fifteenth New York. He had also won a considerable sum in the crap game. He suggested that we team up and go to Harlem together. He said he knew his way around there since that was where he lived before he joined the Army.<br />
<br />
After the pay off, we were still without clothes. But a clothing salesman came around to take orders for new uniforms. Patterson and I ordered suits, for which we were measured. In a couple of hours the man was back with two brand new whip cord uniforms with chevrons and service stripes sewed on. We had also ordered shoes, which were promptly delivered, We then sneaked out of the hospital.<br />
<br />
After we banked most of our money downtown, we took the subway up to 125th Street and visited several “Buffet Flats” (a current euphemism for a high-class whorehouse), drinking and looking over the girls. Patterson seemed to be an old friend of all the madams. They greeted him like a long lost brother. We finally wound up in one real classy joint where we stayed for four days, playing sultan-in-a-harem with the girls.<br />
<br />
We returned to the hospital, expecting to be sharply reprimanded and restricted to quarters, but the doctor on his rounds merely asked, “Where have you boys been?” Before we could answer, he simply said, “I suggest that you stick around a day or two, we have some tests to make.”<br />
<br />
From New York, we left for Camp Grant near Rockford, Illinois, where we were demobilized out of the service, I was discharged on April 29, 1919. After a cursory examination, I was pronounced physically fit. “What about my chronic endocarditis and chronic nephritis?” I protested,<br />
<br />
“Oh, you're all right, you’ve overcome it all. You’re young and fit as a fiddle,” the doctor answered me. From Camp Grant I returned home to Chicago to see my parents.<br />
<br />
=== REUNION WITH OTTO ===<br />
Not too long after my discharge, I came home one evening to find Otto. He had just arrived after mustering out of the service at Camp Grant. We were all happy to see him, especially Mother. He showed us his honorable discharge.<br />
<br />
“You know,” he said, “I’m lucky to get this.”<br />
<br />
He then told stories about his harrowing experiences in a stevedore battalion in the South and then in France. The main mass of Black draftees had been relegated to these labor units, euphemistically called “service battalions,” “engineers,” “pioneer infantry,” ete.<br />
<br />
Regardless of education or ability, young Blacks were herded indiscriminately into these stevedore outfits and faced the drudgery and hard’ work with no possibility of promotion beyond the rank of corporal. With few exceptions, the officers were KKK whites, as also were the sergeants. Many of them were plantation riding boss types, especially recruited for these jobs. Southern newspapers openly carried want ads calling for white men who had “experience in handling Negroes,” Black draftees were not only subjected to the drudgery of hard labor, but insults, abuse, and in many cases blows from white officers and sergeants.<br />
<br />
Otto told us his worst experience was in Camp Stewart in Newport News, Virginia, where he was stationed during the terribly cold winter of 1917-18, For a considerable period after their arrival, they were forced to live in tents without floors or stoves. In most cases, they had only a blanket, some not even that.<br />
<br />
New arrivals to the camp were forced to stand around fires outside all night or sleep under trees for partial protection from the weather, For months there were no bathing facilities nor clothing for the men, These conditions were subsequently changed as a result of protests by the men and reports by investigators.<br />
<br />
His outfit landed in the port of St. Lazare, France, and during the great advance participated in the all-out effort to keep the front-lines supplied in the “race to Berlin.” They worked from dawn to nightfall unloading supplies, including all kinds of railroad equipment, engines, tractors and bulldozers. They built and repaired roads, warehouses and barracks. Discipline was strict; guys were thrown in the guardhouse on the most flimsy pretexts. A Black soldier seen on the street with a French woman was likely to be arrested by the MPs. <br />
<br />
“The spirit of St. Lazare,” said one officer, “is the spirit of the South.”<br />
<br />
Needless to say, Otto often found himself in the guard house as a result of fights, AWOLs, etc. How he escaped general court martial or imprisonment I don’t know.<br />
<br />
His outfit was finally moved to the American military base at Le Mans, about a hundred miles from Paris. Things were somewhat better there. There were even a few “reliable” Black corporals who were allowed weekend passes to visit Paris, Otto was assigned to mess duty as a cook,<br />
<br />
When he applied for leave, he was refused, however, “Well, I didn’t intend to come this close to Paris without seeing it,” he said, “so I went AWOL.”<br />
<br />
He did not see much of it, however, before he was arrested by MPs. I was surprised to learn that he had been in Paris during the period that I was in the hospital in Neuilly. Most of his time in the great city was spent in the Hotel St. Anne, the notorious American military jail run by the sadistic Marine captain, “hard-boiled Smith.”<br />
<br />
Here now, bitter and disillusioned, Otto continued his rebellion, It led him first to the Garvey movement where he served for a brief period as an officer in Garvey’s Black Legion, Then in succession, Wobblies, or Industrial Workers of the World ([WW), the African Blood Brotherhood and finally the Communist Party—joining soon after its unity convention in 1921. After returning from the service, Otto stayed at home only a short time and then moved in with some of his new friends.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 ==<br />
<br />
=== Searching for Answers ===<br />
Back home in Chicago, I was soon working again as a waiter on the Michigan Central Railroad. As I have already mentioned, the first day of the bloody Chicago race riot (July 28, 1919) came while I was working on the Wolverine run up through Michigan, When arrived home from work that afternoon, the whole family greeted me emotionally. We were all there except for Otto. The disagreements I had had with my Father in the past were forgotten, Both my Mother and sister were weeping. Everyone was keyed up and had been worrying about my safety in getting from the station to the house.<br />
<br />
Following our brief reunion, I tore loose from the family to find out what was happening outside. I went to the Regimental Armory at Thirty-fifth and Giles Avenue because I wanted to find some of my buddies from the regiment. The street, old Forrest Avenue, had recently been renamed in honor of Lt. Giles, a member of our outfit killed in France. I knew they would be planning an armed defense and I wanted to get in on the action. I found them and they told me of their plans. It was rumored that Irishmen from west of the Wentworth Avenue dividing line were planning to invade the ghetto that night, coming in across the tracks by way of Fifty-first Street. We planned a defensive action to meet them.<br />
<br />
it was not surprising that defensive preparations were under way. There had been clashes before, often when white youths in “athletic clubs” invaded the Black community. These “clubs” were really racist gangs, organized by city ward heelers and precinct captains,<br />
<br />
Once of the guys from the regiment took us to the apartment of a friend, It had a good position overlooking Fifty-first Street near State. Someone had brought a Browning submachine gun; he’d gotten it sometime before, most likely from the Regimental Armory. We didn’t ask where it had come from, or the origin of the 1903 Springfield rifles (Army issue) that appeared. We set to work mounting the submachine gun and set up watch for the invaders, Fortunately for them, they never arrived and we all returned home in the morning, The following day it rained and the National Guard moved into the Black community, so overt raids by whites did not materialize.<br />
<br />
Ours was not the only group which used its recent Army training for self-defense of the Black community. We heard rumors about another group of veterans who set up a similar ambush, On several occasions groups of whites had driven a truck at breakneck speed up south State Street, in the heart of the Black ghetto, with six or seven men in the back firing indiscriminately at the people on the sidewalks,<br />
<br />
The Black veterans set up their ambush at Thirty-fifth and State, waiting in a car with the engine running, When the whites on the truck came through, they pulled in behind and opened up with a machine gun, The truck crashed into a telephone pole at Thirty-ninth Street, most of the men in the truck had been shot down and the others fled, Among them were several Chicago police officers—“off duty,” of course!<br />
<br />
I remember standing before the Angeles Flats on Thirty-fifth and Wabash where the day before four Blacks had been shot by police. It appeared that enraged Blacks had set fire to the building and were attacking some white police officers when the latter fired on them.<br />
<br />
Along with other Blacks, I gloated over the mysterious killing of two Black cops with a history of viciousness in the Black community, They had been found dead in an alley between State and Wabash, Undoubtedly they had been killed by Blacks who had taken advantage of the confusion to settle old scores with these Black enforcers of the white man’s law.<br />
<br />
Bewilderment and shock struck the Black community as well. I had seen Blacks standing before the burned-out buildings of their former homes, trying to salvage whatever possible, Apparent on their faces was bewilderment and anger.<br />
<br />
The Chicago rebellion of 1919 was a pivotal point in my life, Always I had been hot-tempered and never took any insults lying down. This was even more true after the war. I had walked out of a number of jobs because of my refusal to take any crap from anyone, My experiences abroad in the Army and at home with the police left me totally disillusioned about being able to find any solution to the racial problem through the help of the government; for I had seen that official agencies of the country were among the most racist and most dangerous to me and my people.<br />
<br />
I began to see that I had to fight; I had to commit myself to struggle against whatever it was that made racism possible. Racism, which erupted in the Chicago riot—and the bombings and terrorist attacks which preceded it---must be eliminated. My spirit was not unique--it was shared by many young Blacks at that time, The returned veterans and other young militants were all fighting back. And there was a lot to fight against, Racism reached a high tide in the summer of 1919, This was the “Red Summer” which involved twenty-six race riots across the country—“red” for the blood that ran in the streets, Chicago was the bloodiest.<br />
<br />
The holocaust in Chicago was the worst race riot in the nation’s post-war history. But riots took place in such widely separate places as Long View, Texas, Charleston, South Carolina; Elaine, Arkansas, Knoxville, Tennessee, and Omaha, Nebraska. The flareup of racial violence in Omaha, my old home town, followed the Chicago riots by less than two months, It resulted in the lynching of Will Brown, a packing house worker, for an alleged assault on a white woman, When Omaha’s mayor, Edward P. Smith, sought to intervene, he was seized by the mob. They were close to hanging the mayor from a trolley pole when police cut the rope and rushed him to a hospital, badly injured.<br />
<br />
The common underlying cause of riots in most of the northern cities was the racial tension caused by the migration of tens of thousands of Blacks into these centers and the competition for jobs, housing and the facilities of the city. Rather than being at a temporary peak, this outbreak of racism was more like the rising of a plateau—-it never got any higher, but it never really went down, either. Writing in the middle of a riot in Washington, D.C., that summer, the Black poet Claude McKay caught the bitter and belligerent mood of many Blacks:<br />
<br />
'''If we must die, let it not be like hogs'''<br />
<br />
'''Hunted and penned in an inglorious spot,''' <br />
<br />
'''While round us bark the mad and hungry dogs,''' <br />
<br />
'''Making their mock at our accursed lot.'''<br />
<br />
'''if we must die, O let us nobly die'''<br />
<br />
'''So that our precious blood may not be shed'''<br />
<br />
'''Jn vain; then even the monsters we defy'''<br />
<br />
'''Shall be constrained to honor us though dead!'''<br />
<br />
'''* Okinsmen! We must meet the common foe!''' <br />
<br />
'''Though far outnumbered let us show us brave,''' <br />
<br />
'''And for their thousand blows deal one death blow!''' <br />
<br />
'''What though before us lies the open grave?'''<br />
<br />
'''Like men we'll face the murderous, cowardly pack,''' <br />
<br />
'''Pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back!''' <br />
<br />
‘The war and the riots of the “Red Summer” of 1919 left me bitter and frustrated. I felt that I could never again adjust to the situation of Black inequality. But how had it come about? Who was responsible?<br />
<br />
Chicago in the early twenties was an ideal place and time for the education of a Black radical. As a result of the migration of Blacks during World War I, the Chicago area came to have the largest concentration of Black proletarians in the country. It was a major point of contact for these masses with the white labor movement and its advanced, radical sector. In the thirties it was to become a main testing ground for Black and white labor unity.<br />
<br />
The city itself was the core of a vast urban industrial complex. Sprawling along the southeast shore of Lake Michigan, the area includes five Illinois counties and two in Indiana. The latter contains such industrial towns as East Chicago, Gary and Hammond. This metropolitan area contains the greatest concentration of heavy industry in the country.<br />
<br />
By the second half of the twentieth century, it had forged into the lead of the steel-making industry, surpassing the great Monongahela Valley of Pittsburgh in the production of primary metals; including steel mill, refining and non-ferrous metals operations. There was the gigantic U.S. Steel Corporation in Gary, the Inland Steel Company plant in East Chicago and the U.S. Steel South Works, These are now the three largest steel works in the United States. The steel mills of the Chicago area supply more than 14,000 manufacturing plants,<br />
<br />
Chicago was at that time, and remains today, the world’s largest railway center. It ranks first in the manufacture of railroad equipment, including freight and passenger cars, Pullmans, locomotives and specialized rolling stock.<br />
<br />
The core city itself was most famous for its wholesale slaughter and meat packing industry. Chicago was known as the meat capital of the world, or in Carl Sandburg’s more homely terms, “hog butcher for the nation.”<br />
<br />
The city’s colossal wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few men, who comprised the industrial, commercial and financial oligarchy. Among these were such giants as Judge Gary of the mighty U.S. Steel; Cyrus McCormick of International Harvester, the meat packers Philip D, Armour, Gustavus Swift and the Wilson brothers; George Pullman. of the Pullman Works; Rosenwald of Montgomery Ward; General Wood of Sears and Roebuck; the “merchant prince” Marshall Field; and Samuel Insull of utilities. These were the real rulers, Ostensible political power rested in the notoriously corrupt, gangster ridden, county political machine headed by Mayor William Hale (Big Bill) Thompson, who carried on the tradition exposed as early as 1903 by Lincoln Steffens in his book, The Shame of the Cities.<br />
<br />
The glitter and wealth of Chicago’s Gold Coast was based on the most inhuman exploitation of the city’s largely foreign-born working force. A scathing indictment of the horrible conditions in Chicago's meat packing industry was contained in Upton Sinclair’s novel, The Jungle, published in 1910. It was inevitable that the wage slave would rebel, that Chicago should become the scene of some of the nation’s bloodiest battles in the struggle between labor and capital, The first of these clashes was the railroad strike of 1877 which erupted in pitched battles between strikers and federal troops,<br />
<br />
Then in 1886 came the famous Haymarket riot which grew out of a strike for the eight-hour day at the McCormick reaper plant. During a protest rally, a bomb was thrown which killed one policeman and injured six others. ‘This led to the arrest of eight anarchist leaders; four were hanged, one committed suicide or was murdered in his cell, and the others were sentenced to life imprisonment. Obviously being tried and executed simply because they were labor leaders, these innocent men became a cause célebre of international labor, Thousands of visitors made yearly pilgrimages to the city where monuments to the executed men were raised, Haymarket became a rallying word for the eight-hour day. The martyrs were memorialized by the designation of the first of May as International Labor Day. <br />
<br />
Several years later the city was the scene of the great Pullman strike led by Eugene V. Debs and his radical but lily-white American Railway Union, which precipitated a nationwide shutdown of railroads in 1894. Again the federal troops were called in and armed clashes between workers and troops ensued. ‘These battles were merely high points in the city’s long history of labor radicalism. It was the national center of the early anarcho-socialist movements. In 1905, the Industrial Workers of the World (the IWW or Wobblies) was founded there. The IWW maintained its headquarters and edited its paper, Solidarity, there. In 1921, Chicago was to become the site of the founding convention of the Workers (Communist) Party, USA, which maintained its headquarters and the editorial offices of the Daily Worker there from 1923 to 1927.<br />
<br />
Blacks, however, played little or no role in the turbulent early history of the Chicago labor movement. This was so simply because they were not a part of the industrial labor force. Prior to World War I, Blacks were employed mainly in the domestic or personal service occupations, untouched by labor organizations. They were not needed in industry where the seemingly endless tide of cheap European immigrant labor—Irish, Scots, English, Swedes, Germans, Poles, East Europeans and Italians—sufficed to fill the city’s manpower needs.<br />
<br />
The only opportunity Blacks had of entering basic industry was as strikebreakers. Thus, in the early part of the century, Blacks were brought in as strikebreakers on two important occasions, the stockyards strike of 1904 and the city-wide teamsters’ strike in 1905. In the first instance, Blacks were discharged as soon as the strike was broken. After the teamsters’ strike, a relatively large number of Blacks remained. As a result of the defeat of the 1904 strike, the packing houses remained virtually unorganized for thirteen more years, and the animosities which developed toward the Black strikebreakers became a part of the racial tension of the city.<br />
<br />
At the outbreak of World War I, the situation with respect to Chicago’s Black labor underwent a basic change, Now Blacks were needed to fill the labor vacuum caused by the war boom and the quotas on foreign immigration. Chicago's employers turned to the South, to the vast and untapped reservoir of Black labor eager to escape the conditions of plantation serfdom--exacerbated by the cotton crisis, the boll weevil plague and the wave of lynchings. The “great migrations” began and continued in successive waves through the sixties. <br />
<br />
During the war, the occupational status of Blacks thus shifted from largely personal service to basic industry. In the tens of thousands, Blacks flocked to the stockyards and steel mills. During the war, the Black population went from 50,000 to 100,000. Successive waves of Black migration were to bring the Black population to over a million within the next fifty years. Black labor, getting its first foothold in basic industry during the war, had now become an integral part of Chicago’s industrial labor force.4<br />
<br />
With the tapping of this vast reservoir of cheap and unskilled labor, there was no longer any need for the peasantry of eastern and southern Europe. There was, however, a difference between the position of Blacks and that of the European immigrants. The latter, after a generation or two, could rise to higher skilled and better paying jobs, to administrative and even managerial positions. They were able to leave the ethnic enclaves and disperse throughout the city—to become assimilated into the national melting pot, The Blacks, to the contrary, found themselves permanently relegated to a second-class status in the labor force, with a large group outside as a permanent surplus labor pool to be replenished when necessary from the inexhaustible reservoir of Black, poverty-ridden and land-starved peasantry of the South.<br />
<br />
‘The employers now had in hand a new source of cheap labor, the victims of racist proscription, to use as a weapon against the workers’ movement. Indeed, this went hand in hand with the Jim Crow policies of the trade union leaders, who had been largely responsible for keeping Blacks out of basic industry in the first place. <br />
<br />
These labor bureaucrats premised their racism on the doctrine of a natural Black inferiority, The theory of an instinctive animosity between the races was a powerful instrument for an anti-union, anti-working class, divide and rule policy. The use of racial differences was found to be a much more effective dividing instrument than the use of cultural and language differences between various white ethnic groups and the native born. As we know, ethnic conflicts proved transient as the various European nationalities became assimilated into the general population. Blacks, on the other hand, remain to this day permanently unassimilable under the present system.<br />
<br />
Such were conditions in the days when I undertook my search for answers to the question of Black oppression and the road to liberation. Living conditions were pretty rough then, and I had gone back to my old trade of waiting tables in order to make some sort of living.<br />
<br />
But I was restless, moody, short-tempered-—-qualities ill-suited to the trade, Naturally, I had trouble holding a job. My trouble was not with the guests so much as with my immediate superiors; captains, head waiters and dining car stewards, most of whom were white. In less than a month after the Chicago riot, I lost my job on the Michigan Central as a result of a run-in with an inspector.<br />
<br />
The dining car inspectors were a particularly vicious breed. Their job was to see that discipline was maintained and service kept up to par. These inspectors, whom we called company spies, would board the train unexpectedly anywhere along the route, hoping to catch a member of the crew violating some regulation or not giving what they considered proper service. They would then reprimand the guilty party personally, or if the offense was sufficiently serious, would turn him in to the main office to be laid off or fired. Usually the inspector’s word was law from which there was no appeal. The dining car crew had no unions in those days.<br />
<br />
This particular inspector (his name was McCormick) had taken a dislike to me. He had made that clear on other occasions. The feeling was mutual. Perhaps he sensed my independent attitude. He probably felt I was not sufficiently impressed by him and did not care about my job. He was right on both counts. <br />
<br />
He boarded the Chicago-bound train one morning in Detroit, We were serving breakfast. It was just one of those days when everything went wrong. People were lined up at each end of the diner, waiting to be served. Service was slow. The guests were squawking and I was in a mean mood myself. I was cutting bread in the pantry when McCormick peered in and shouted, “Say, Hall, that silver is in terrible condition.”<br />
<br />
The silver! What the hell is this man talking about dirty silver when I’ve got all these people out there clamoring for their breakfast. 2<br />
<br />
“I’ve been noticing you lately,” he continued. “It looks as though you don’t want to work. If you don't like your job why in hell don't you quit?”<br />
<br />
I took that as downright provocation. “Damn you and your job!” I exploded, advancing on him.<br />
<br />
He turned pale and ran out of the pantry. A friend of mine in the crew grabbed me by the wrist.<br />
<br />
“What the hell’s the matter with you, Hall? Are you crazy?” It was only then that I realized that I had been waving the bread knife at the inspector.<br />
<br />
In a few minutes, the brakeman and the conductor came into the pantry. MeCormick brought up the rear,<br />
<br />
“That’s the one,” he said pointing at me.<br />
<br />
Addressing me, the conductor said, “The inspector here says you threatened him with a knife. Is that true?”<br />
<br />
I denied it, stating that I had been cutting bread when the argument started and had a knife in my hand. I wasn’t threatening him with it. My friend (who had grabbed my wrist) substantiated my story.<br />
<br />
“Well,” said the conductor, “you’d better get your things and ride to Chicago in the coach. We don’t want any more trouble here, and the inspector has said he doesn’t want you in the dining car.”<br />
<br />
I went up forward in the coach. I got off the train in Chicago at Sixty-third and Stony Island. I didn’t go to the downtown station, thinking that the cops might be waiting there.<br />
<br />
So much for my job with the Michigan Central.<br />
<br />
I went back to working sporadically in restaurants, hotels and on trains. I didn’t stay anywhere very long. The first job that I regarded as steady was the Illinois Athletic Club, where I remained for several months, 1 was beginning to settle down a little and participate in the social life of the community, attending dances, parties and visiting cabarets. The Royal Gardens, a night club on Thirty-first Street, was one of my favorite hangouts. King Oliver and Louis Armstrong were often featured there. At the Panama, on Thirty-fifth Street between State and Wabash, we went to see our favorite comedians-—Butter Beans and Susie.<br />
<br />
It was on one of these occasions that I met my first wife, Hazel. She belonged to Chicago’s Black social elite, such as it was. Her father had died and her family was on the downgrade. Her mother was left with four children, three girls and a boy, of whom Hazel was the oldest. The other children were still teenagers, and Hazel and her mother had supported them by doing domestic work and catering for wealthy whites. I was twenty-one and she was twenty five.<br />
<br />
Hazel was attractive, a high school graduate. She spoke good English and, as Mother said, “had good manners.” She worked for Montgomery Ward, then owned by the philanthropic Rosenwald family, the first big company to hire Blacks as office clerks. She had a nice singing voice and used to sing around at parties. Her friends were among the Black upper strata and the family belonged to the Episcopal Church on Thirty-eighth and Wabash which at that time was the church of the colored elite. We were married in 1920. I was all decked out in a rented swallowtail coat, striped pants, spats and a derby. The ceremony was impressive. Photos appeared in the Chicago Defender.<br />
<br />
In a short time, the romance wore off. Hazel’s ambition to get ahead in the world, “to be somebody,” clashed with my love of freedom. I soon had visions of myself, a quarter century hence-making mortgage payments on a fancy house, installments on furniture, and trapped in a drab, lower middle-class existence, surrounded by a large and quarrelsome family.<br />
<br />
The worst of it was having to put up with being kicked around on the job and taking all that crap from headwaiters and captains. I had been working at the Athletic Club for several months before I got married. Then nobody had bothered me. When I asked for time off to get married, the white headwaiter and the captain seemed delighted. “Sure Hall, that’s fine. Congratulations, Take a couple of weeks off.”<br />
<br />
Upon my return, I immediately felt a change in their attitude, Now that I was married, they felt they had me where they wanted me. They became more and more demanding. One day at lunch I had some difficulty getting my orders out of the kitchen, and the guests were complaining—not an unusual occurrence in any restaurant. Instead of helping me out and calming down the guests, or seeing what the hang-up was in the kitchen, the captain started shouting at me in front of the guests. “What’s the matter with you, Hall? Why don’t you bring these people’s orders?”<br />
<br />
“Can’t you see that I’m tied up in the kitchen?” I said. “Why don’t you go out and see the chef instead of hollering at me!”<br />
<br />
All puffed up, he yelled out, “Don’t give me any of your lip or I'll snatch that badge off you!”<br />
<br />
I jerked my badge off, threw both badge and side towel into his face, and shouted, “Take your badge and shove it!”<br />
<br />
I was moving on him when a friend of mine, Johnson, a waiter at the next station, jumped between us, I turned away, walked down the steps, through the kitchen and into the dressing room. Johnson followed me into the dressing room a few minutes later. “Hurry up and get out of here. They’re calling the cops.” I changed and left.<br />
<br />
My marriage went down the drain along with the job. That was a period of post-war crisis. Jobs were hard to find, and especially so for me since I had been blacklisted from several places because of my temper. 1 was no longer the same man that Hazel married, and the truth of the matter was that I wanted it that way. Her hangups were typical of Black aspirants for social status—strivers, we called them-—-who never really doubted the validity of the prejudice from which they suffered. Hazel slavishly accepted white middle class values. I, on the other hand, was looking around trying to figure out how best to maladjust<br />
<br />
=== MY REBELLION ===<br />
For me, the break-up of our marriage in the spring of 1920 destroyed my last ties with the old conventional way of life. I was completely disenchanted with the middle class crowd into which Hazel was trying to draw me. But more important, I not only rejected the status quo, I was determined to do something about it--to make my rebellion count.<br />
<br />
I sought answers to a number of questions: What was the nature of the forces behind Black subjugation? Who were its main beneficiaries? Why was racism being entrenched in the north in this period? How did it differ from the South? Could the situation be altered and, if so, what were the forces for change and the program?<br />
<br />
l renewed my search for a way to go, pressed by a driving need for a world view which would provide a rational explanation of society and a clue to securing Black freedom and dignity. My search was to continue during what must have been the most virulent and widespread racist campaign in U.S. history, The forces of racist bigotry unleashed during the riots of the “Red Summer” of 1919 were still on the march through the twenties. Indeed, they had intensified and extended their campaign. <br />
<br />
The whole country seemed gripped in a frenzy of racist hate. Anti-Black propaganda was carried in the press, in magazine articles, literature and in theater. D.W. Griffith’s obscene movie, The Birth of a Nation, which glorified the Ku Klux Klan and pictured Blacks as depraved animals, was shown to millions.5 Thomas Dickson’s two novels, The Klansman (upon which Griffith’s picture was based) and The Leopard's Spots (an earlier book on the theme of the white man’s burden) were best sellers. Racist demagogues of the stripe of “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman of South Carolina, Vardeman of Mississippi, and “Cotton” Ed Smith of South Carolina, were in demand on northern lecture platforms.<br />
<br />
Closely behind the trumpeters of race-hate rode their cavalry, A revived Ku Klux Klan now extended to the north and made its appearance in twenty-seven states.6 This organization, embracing millions, headed the list of a whole rash of super-patriotic groups who were anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, anti-foreign-born and anti-Black. The apostles of white, Anglo-Saxon and Nordic supremacy included in their galaxy of ethnic outcasts Asians (the “yellow peril”), Latin Americans and other foreign-born from southern and eastern Europe. Their hate propaganda pitted Protestants against Catholics, Christians against Jews, native against foreign-born, and all against the Blacks, upon whom was fixed the stigma of inherent and eternal inferiority.<br />
<br />
It seemed as though the prophets of the “lost cause” were out to reverse their military defeat at Appomattox by the cultural subversion of the north. That they were receiving encouragement by powerful northern interests was self-evident. Tin Pan Alley added its contribution to the attack with a spate of Mammy songs, and along the same vein, “That’s Why Darkies Were Born”:<blockquote>'''Someone had to pick the cotton,''' <br />
<br />
'''Someone had to plant the corn,'''<br />
<br />
'''Someone had to slave and be able to sing,''' <br />
<br />
'''That's why darkies were born.'''<br />
<br />
'''Though the balance is wrong,'''<br />
<br />
'''Sull your faith must be strong,'''<br />
<br />
'''Accept your destiny brothers, listen to me.'''</blockquote>A main objective of the racist assault was the academic establishment. The old crude forms of racist propaganda proved inadequate in an age of advancing science. The hucksters of race hate conducted raids upon the sciences, especially upon the new disciplines-—anthropology, ethnology and psychology--in an attempt to establish a scientific foundation for the race myth.<br />
<br />
The new “science of race” evolved and flourished during the period, Spadework for this grotesque growth had been done in the middle of the last century by the Frenchman, Count Arthur D. Gobineau, in his work, The Inequality of the Human Races (1851-1853), It was carried on by his disciple, the Englishman turned German, Houston Chamberlain, who asserted that racial mixture was a natural crime. In the U.S, early efforts in this field were the works of Knott and Glidden. Also, there was Ripley's Races of Mankind.<br />
<br />
Carrying on in this pseudo-scientific tradition during the war and postwar years were the popular theorists Lathrop Stoddard, The Rising Tide of Color: Against White World Supremacy (1923) and Madison Grant, The Passing of a Great Race: The Racial Basis of European History (1916). The cornerstone of this pseudo-scientific structure was Social Darwinism which was an attempt to subvert Darwin’s theory of evolution and arbitrarily apply natural selection in plant and animal society to human society. According to the Social Darwinists, led by Herbert Spencer, the British sociologist, history was a continuous struggle for existence between races. In this struggle, the Nordic, Anglo-Saxon, or Aryan civilizations naturally survived as the fittest.<br />
<br />
The racists had a field day in history, long the area in which the heroes of the “lost cause” had their greatest, most effective concentration. They had held chairs in some of the nation’s most prestigious universities—Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Harvard, etc, Among such historians was William Archibald Dunning, who during his long tenure at Columbia miseducated generations of students by his distortions of the Reconstruction, Civil War and slave periods.7<br />
<br />
In the academic world this pseudoscience of racism held sway with only a few open challengers. The latter seemed to be isolated voices in the wilderness, as the counter-offensive was slow in getting underway. In anthropology there was Franz Boaz’s antiracist thrust, Mind of Primitive Man. This was written in 1911, and not widely known at the time. The works of his students and colleagues-—-most notably Melville Hershovitz, The Myth of the Negro Past, Jane Weltfish, Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead and Otto Klineburg-—-were not to appear until the next decade.<br />
<br />
In history, the movement for revision was then decades away. It only became a trend with the Black Revolt of the sixties, Black scholars had pioneered the reexamination: W.E.B. DuBois, his tour de force, Black Reconstruction, and the epilogue, “Propaganda of History,” which contained a bitter indictment of the white historical establishment, was not to appear until the mid-thirties. J.A. Rogers, popular Black historian, had not yet appeared on the scene, Young Carter Woodson, who had founded his Association for the Study of Negro History in 1915, only began to publish the Journal of Negro History in 1916. His own important historical works were yet to come. <br />
<br />
‘Thus, from its tap-roots in the Southern plantation system, the anti-Black virus had spread throughout the country, shaping the pattern of Black-white relationships in the industrial urban north as well. The dogma of the inherent inferiority of Blacks had permeated the national consciousness to become an integral part of the American way of life. Racist dogma, first a rationale for chattel slavery and then plantation peonage, was now carried over to the north as justification for a new system of de facto segregation.<br />
<br />
Black subjugation, city-style Jim Crow, became fixed by the twenties, and continues up to the present day. Its components were the residential segregation of the ghetto with its inferior education, slums and the second class status of Black workers in the labor force where they were relegated to the bottom rung of the occupational ladder and prevented by discrimination from moving into better skills and higher paid jobs.<br />
<br />
Although its purpose was not clear to me then, I later realized that the virulent racism of the period served to justify and bulwark the structure of Black powerlessness which was developing in every northern city where we had become a sizable portion of the work force,<br />
<br />
At the time the racist deluge simply revealed great gaps in my own education and knowledge. I knew that the propaganda was a tissue of lies, but I felt the need for disproving them on the basis of scientific fact. I rejected racism—the lie of the existence in nature of superior and inferior races--and its concomitant fiction of intuitive hostility between races. For one thing, it ran counter to my own background of experience in Omaha.<br />
<br />
Religion as an explanation for the riddles of the universe I had rejected long before. I knew that our predicament was not the result of some divine disposition and therefore that racial oppression was neither a spiritual or natural phenomenon. It was created by man, and therefore must be changed by man, How? Well, that was the question to be explored. I had only a smattering of knowledge of natural and social sciences, much of which I had gathered through reading the lectures of Robert G. Ingersoll. It was through him that I discovered Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution through natural selection.<br />
<br />
Armed with a dictionary and a priori knowledge gleaned from Ingersoll’s popularizations, I was able to make my way through Origin of the Species. Darwin showed the origin of the species to be a result of the process of evolution and not the mysterious act of a divine creation. Here at last was a scientific refutation of religious dogma. I had at last found a basis for my atheism which had before been based mainly upon practical knowledge.<br />
<br />
Continuing my search, I found myself attracted to other social iconoclasts or image-destroyers, and to their attacks upon established beliefs. I remember staying up all night reading Max Nordau’s Conventional Lies of Our Civilization, being thrilled by his castigation of middle class hypocrisy, prejudices and philistinism. Moving on to the contemporary scene, I discovered H.L. Mencken, “The Sage of Baltimore,” and his “smart set” crowd.<br />
<br />
For a short while, I was an avid reader of the Mercury which he helped to establish in 1920 as a forum for his views, I was particularly delighted by his critical potshots at some of the most sacred cultural cows of what he called “the American Babbitry,” “boobocracy,” “anthropoid majority’--Menckenian sobriquets for middle class commoners. Mencken enjoyed a brief popularity among young Black radicals of the day who saw in his searing diatribes against WASP cultural idols ammunition with which to blast the claims of white supremacists. The novelty soon wore off as it became clear that Mencken’s type of iconoclasm posed no real challenge to the prevailing social structure, In fact, it was reactionary. He sought to replace destroyed idols with even more reactionary oncs, as I soon found out. <br />
<br />
Mencken’s philosophical mentor was none other than the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, prophet of the superman, of the aristocratic minority destined to rile over the unenlightened hoardes of Untermenschen—-the “perenially and inherently unequal majority of mankind.” Most Blacks then, including myself, who flirted with Mencken never accepted him fully. The one exception was George Schuyler of the Pittsburgh Courier, who took Mencken's snobbery and reactionary politics and made a career of them which has lasted for forty years.<br />
<br />
What confused me most were the contentions of the Social Darwinists, who claimed to be the authentic continuators of Darwin’s theories. Darwin had not dealt with the question of race per se, But it had seemed to me that his theory of evolution precluded the myth of race. How could Darwin's theory which had helped me finally and irrevocably throw aside the veil of mysticism and put the understanding of the descent of man within my grasp—how could this be used as an endorsement of racism? Perhaps I had been wrong? Was I reading into Darwin more than, what he implied?<br />
<br />
It was my brother Otto who finally cleared me up on this point. He and I were running in different circles, but we would meet from time to time and exchange notes. Otto pointed out that Social Darwinists had distorted Darwin by mechanically transferring the laws of existence among plants and animals to the field of social and human relations. Human society had its own laws, he asserted. Ah, what were those laws? That was the subject that I wanted to explore.<br />
<br />
“You ought to quit reading those bourgeois authors and start reading Marx and Engels,” Otto told me, suggesting also that I read Henry Lewis Morgan’s Ancient Society and the works of Redpath. ’<br />
<br />
About this time I got a job as a clerk at the Chicago Post Office. I heard that jobs were available and that veterans were given preference. Following the advice of friends, I approached S.L. Jackson of the Wabash Avenue YMCA, who at that time was a Black Republican stalwart with connections in the Madden political machine. Jackson gave me a note to some Post Office official in charge of employment. I passed the civil service examination, in which veterans were given a ten percent advantage, and was employed as a substitute clerk.<br />
<br />
The Post Office job in those days carried considerable prestige. It was almost the only clerical job open to Blacks. Postal workers, along with waiters, Pullman porters and tradesmen, were traditionally considered a part of the Black middle class. A number of prominent community leaders came from this group. Many officers of the old Eighth Illinois were postal employees, a good percentage of them mail-carriers.<br />
<br />
The Post Office became a refuge for poor Black students and unemployed university graduates, For some of the latter it was a sort of way-station on the road to their professional careers. Others remained, settling for regular Post Office careers. But even here opportunities were limited. Blacks held only a few supervisory positions, as advancement depended solely on the discretion of the white postmaster.<br />
<br />
On the job I found the work extremely boring. It consisted of standing before a case eight hours a night, sorting mail. All substitutes were relegated to the night shift. It took years to get on the day shift which was preempted by the veteran employees: On the other hand, I found the company of my new young fellow workers very stimulating.<br />
<br />
In those days the organization of Black postal employees was the Phalanx Forum. Before the war, the organization had played an important political and social role in the community. It was dominated by the conservative crowd of social climbers and political aspirants, who were the most active group among postal employees and had close ties with the local Republican machine.<br />
<br />
Their leadership was completely incffective with respect to the job issues of Black rank-and-file employees, and it had little or no influence over the younger group of new employees, which included many veterans and students. The gap between the old, conservative crowd and the new, youthful element was sharp. Among the latter a radical sentiment was growing.<br />
<br />
I was immediately attracted to this group among whom I was to find friends who seemed to be impelled by the same motivations as myself-—to find new answers to the problems afflicting our people. Most of those with whom I fraternized considered the postal job as temporary, a step to other careers. Our interest at the time, therefore, was not so much with the immediate economic or onthe-job needs of Black postal workers, but with the “race problem” generally. The drive for unionization of postal employees was to come later.<br />
<br />
The issue to which we addressed ourselves was the current campaign of white racist propaganda: how to counter it on the basis of scientific truth. We saw the network of racist lies as clearly aimed at justifying Black subjugation and destroying our dignity as a people. On this question we had long, endless discussions on the job while sorting mail, at rest, during lunch breaks and on Sundays when some of us would meet. I soon identified with what I considered the more vocal segment. Among our group of aspirant intellectuals there was a medical student, a couple of law students, a dentist (whom we all called “Doc”), students of education and some intellectually oriented workers like myself. On one Sunday when we had gathered, it was suggested, I think by Joc Mabley, that we organize ourselves as an informal discussion group, and that our purpose would be to answer the racist lies on the basis of scientific truth. The idea was instantly agreed upon.<br />
<br />
The discussion circle was loosely organized, not more than a dozen participants in all, and bent on finding answers. The moving spirits of the group were John Heath, Joe Mabley and “Doc.”<br />
<br />
Heath was a tall, light-complexioned man with high cheekbones. He was a graduate student in the field of education, anda man whose sterling character and keen intellect we all respected. Then there was Joc Mabley, a brilliant, small Black man. He had large velvety eyes and was a college dropout. He was married and had a family-—two or three children—and had settled down to a regular Post Office job, He and Doe were the only regular postal workers in our group—the rest of us being suhstitutes. Doc had set up an office on the Southside and was trying hard to build upa clientele while working night shifts.<br />
<br />
Originally we had planned to meet every Sunday at noon as the most convenient time for the fellows on our shift. The meeting places were to alternate between the homes or apartments of the members. When we got to procedure, the group would choose a topic of discussion and ask for volunteers or assign a member to make introductory reports, He would then have a week to prepare the report, Our original plans included the eventual organization of a forum in which the issues of the day could be debated, and the holding of social affairs. All of this proved to be too ambitious, We found it impractical to have weekly meetings and finally agreed that twice a month was more feasible. The forum idea never got off the ground.<br />
<br />
Among us I think we had most of the answers on the question of race, that is, to all but the big lie, the onc that was most convincing to the white masses and is the cornerstone on which the whole structure stood or fell: the assertion that Blacks have no history.<br />
<br />
A leading formulator of the lie at that time was John Burgess, professor of political science and history at Columbia University:<blockquote>T'''he claim that there is nothing in the color of the skin from the point of view of political ethics is a great sophism. A black skin means membership in a race of men which has never of itself’ succeeded in subjecting passion to reason, has never, therefore, created any civilization of any kind.'''</blockquote>We wanted to refute the slanders on the basis of scientific truth. For this, we needed more ammunition and better weapons, particularly in the field of history. It was ahout this time that I met George Wells Parker, a brilliant young Black graduate student from Omaha’s Creighton University. I was introduced to him by my brother Otto, who had known him in Omaha. He was in Chicago to visit relatives and to conduct research for his dissertation. His major was history, I believe. We found him a virtual storehouse of knowledge on the race question, especially Black history. His major objective in life was apparently to refute the prevalent racist lies and to huild Black dignity and pride, He possessed wide knowledge and seemed to have read everything.<br />
<br />
Parker called our attention to the writings of the great anthropologist Franz Boas; the Egyptologist Virchow; to Max Mueller (philologist who formulated the Aryan myth and then rejected it); to the Frenchman Jean Finot; to Sir Harry Johnstone (British authority on African history); and to the Italian Giuseppe Serg and his theory of the Mediterranean races, arefutation of the Aryan mythology. Proponents of this myth claimed all civilizations—Indian, Near East, Egyptians—as Aryan, One wonders why the Chinese were left out, but then that would have been too palpable a fraud! It was Parker who called our attention to Herodotus (ancient Greek historian) who had described the Egyptians of his time (around 400 B.C.) as “Black and with woolly hair.”<br />
<br />
Otto and I introduced Parker to friends and acquaintances, and I, of course, to our discussion circle. He spoke before numerous groups. Everywhere there was hunger for his knowledge. Weeven brought him before the Bugs Club Forum in Washington Park, where he led a discussion on the race question. <br />
<br />
This brilliant young man returned to Omaha to resume his studies. The next winter he was dead. We heard it was the result of a mental breakdown. Thus was a brilliant career cut short and a potentially great scholar lost. Surviving, I believe, was only one brief paper and some notes.<br />
<br />
=== GARVEY’S BACK TO AFRICA MOVEMENT ===<br />
But time and tide did not stand still to wait for our answers to the social problems of the day, or for the results of our intellectual researches. While we sought arguments with which to counter the racist thrust, the masses were forging their own weapons. Their growing resistance was finally to erupt on the political scene in the grcatest mass movement of Blacks since Reconstruction,<br />
<br />
Great masses of Blacks found the answer in the Back to Africa program of the West Indian Marcus Garvey. Under his aegis this movement was eventually diverted from the encmy at home into utopian Zionistic channels of peaceful return to Africa and the establishment of a Black state in the ancestral land.<br />
<br />
The organizational course of the movement was Garvey’s Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA). He first launched this organization in Jamaica, British West Indies, in 1914. Coming to the USA, he founded its first section in New York City in 1917. The organization grew rapidly during the war and the immediate post-war period, At its height in the early twenties, it claimed a membership of half a million. While estimates of the organization's membership vary-—from half a million to a million—it was the largest organization in the history of U.S. Blacks. There can be no doubt that its influence extended to millions who identified wholly or partially with its programs.<br />
<br />
What in Garvey’s program attracted these masses?<br />
<br />
Garvey was a charismatic leader and in that tradition best articulated the sentiments and yearnings of the masses of Black people. In his UNIA he also created the vehicle for their organization, Equally important, he was a master at understanding how to use pageantry, ritual and ceremony to provide the Black peasantry with psychological relief from the daily burdens of their oppression. His apparatus included such high sounding titles as potentate, supreme deputy potentate, knights of the Nile, knights of distinguished service, the order of Ethiopia, the dukes of Nigeria and Uganda. There were Black gods and Black angels and a flag of black, red and green: “Black for the race, Red for their blood and Green for their hopes.”<br />
<br />
The movement’s program was fully outlined in the historic Declaration of Rights of the Negro Peoples of the World, adopted at the first convention of the organization in New York City August 13, 1920. In the manner of the Nation of Islam and its publication Muhammad Speaks (Bilalian News), the program of Garvey combined a realistic assessment of the conditions facing Blacks with a fantasy and mystification about the solution. Along with the Back to Africa slogan, the document contained a devastating indictment of the plight of the Black peoples in the United States. Expressing the militancy of its delegates, it called for opposition to the incquality of wages betwecn Blacks and whites, it protested their cxclusion from unions, their deprivation of land, taxation without representation, unjust military service, and Jim Crow laws.<br />
<br />
Anticipating the Black Power Revolt of the sixties, the document called for “complete control of our social institutions without the interference of any other race or races.” Reflecting the rising worldwide anti-colonial movement of the period, it called for self-determination of peoples and repudiated the loosely formed League of Nations, declaring its decisions “null and void as far as the Blacks were concerned because it seeks to deprive them of their independence.” This latter point was in reference to the assignment of mandates to European powers over African territories wrested from the Germans.<br />
<br />
Through this atmosphere of militancy, expressing the desire of the masses to defend their rights at home, ran the incongruent theme of Back to Africa. Declared Garvey:<blockquote>'''Being satisfied to drink of the dregs from the cup of human progress will not demonstrate our fitness as a people to exist alongside others, but when of our own initiative we strike out to build industries, governments, and ultimately empires (sic), then and only then, will we as a race prove to our Creator and to man in general that we are fit to survive and capable of shaping our own destiny.'''<br />
<br />
'''Wake up, Africa! Let us work toward the one glorious end of a free, redeemed, and mighty nation. Let Africa be a bright star among the constellation of nations.'''</blockquote>Who were Garvey’s followers?<br />
<br />
Garvey's Zionistic message was beamed mainly to the submerged Black peasantry, especially its uprooted vanguard, the new migrants in such industrial centers as New York City, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago and St. Louis. These masses made up the rank and file of the movement. They were embittered and disillusioned by racist terror and unemployment, and saw in Garvey’s program of Back to Africa the fulfillment of their yearnings for land and freedom to be guaranteed by a government of their own.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, Garveyism was the trend of a section of the ghetto lower middle classes, small businessmen, shopkeepers, property holders who were pushed to the wall, ruined or threatened with ruin by the ravages of the post-war crisis, Also attracted to Garveyism were the frustrated and unemployed Black intelligentsia: professionals, doctors, lawyers with impoverished clientele, storefront preachers who had followed their flocks to the promised land of the north, and poverty stricken students.<br />
<br />
Garveyism reflected the desperation of these strata before the ruthless encroachments of predatory white corporate interests upon their already meager markets. It reflected an attempt by them to escape from the sharpening racist oppression, the terror of race riots, the lynchings, economic and social frustrations. It was from these strata that the movement drew its leadership cadres.<br />
<br />
The immediate pecuniary interests of this element were expressed in the form of ghetto enterprises, the organization of a whole network of cooperative enterprises, including grocery stores, laundries, restaurants, hotels and printing plants. The most ambitious was the Black Star Steamship Line. Several ships were purchased and trade relations were established with groups in the West Indies and Africa, including the Republic of Liberia.<br />
<br />
The New York City division comprised a large segment of the intensely nationalistic West Indian immigrants. West Indians were prominent in the leadership, in Garvey's close coterie, and in the organization’s inner councils. There can be no doubt of the considerable influence of this element on the organization. But the attempt on the part of some writers to brand the movement as a foreign import with no indigenous roots is superficial and without foundation in fact. It is clear that Garveyism had both a social and economic base in Black society of the twenties. Nor was Garvey’s nationalism a new trend among Blacks—nationalist currents had repeatedly emerged, going back even before the Civil War.<br />
<br />
A key role in the movement was also played by deeply disillusioned Black veterans who had fought an illusory battle to “make the world safe for democracy” only to return to continued and even harsher slavery. Veterans were involved in the setting up of the skeleton army for the future African state, and in such paramilitary organizations as the Universal African Legion, the Universal Black Cross Nurses, the African Motor Corps and the Black Eagle Flying Corps. Many Black radicals—even some socialistically inclined—were swept into thé Garvey movement, attracted by its militancy.<br />
<br />
Despite his hostility toward local communists, Garvey seemed to regard the Soviet experience with some favor-at least in the early years of his movement. This probably reflected the sentiments of many of his followers. As late as 1924, in an editorial in the Negro World, he publicly mourned the passing of Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union, calling him “probably the world’s greatest man between 1917 and ...1924.” On that occasion, he sent a cable to Moscow “expressing the sorrow and condolence of the 400,000,000 Negroes of the world.”<br />
<br />
‘The Garvey movement revealed the wide rift between the policies of the traditional upper class of the NAACP and associates, and the life needs of the sorely oppressed people. It represented a mass rejection of the policies and programs of this leadership, which during the war had built up false hopes and now offered no tangible proposals for meeting the rampant anti-Black violence and joblessness of the post-war period. This mood was expressed by Garvey, who denounced the whole upper class leadership, claiming that they were motivated solely by the drive for assimilation and banked their hopes for equality on the support of whites—all classes of whom, he contended, were the Black man’s enemy. The policy of this leadership, he maintained, was a policy of compromise.<br />
<br />
It was in these conditions that Garvey, as thespokesman for the new ghetto petty bourgeoisie, seized leadership of the incipient Black revolt and diverted it into the blind alley of utopian escapism.<br />
<br />
My contact with the movement was limited. [ had never seen Garvey. I had missed his appearance in 1919 at the Eighth Regiment Armory. I never visited the organization’s Liberty Hall headquarters. In Chicago, the movement seemed to spring up overnight, I first took serious notice of it in 1920. I listened to its orators on street corners, watched its spectacular parades through the Southside streets, The black, red and green flag of the movement was carried at the head of the parade. The parades were lively and snappy; marching were the African Legion and the Universal Black Cross Nurses in their spotless white uniforms and white veils, All marched in step with a band. It was quite impressive, but to me it was unreal and had little or no relevance to the actual problems that confronted Blacks.<br />
<br />
From the first, the Garvey movement met heavy opposition in Chicago, The powerful Chicago Defender, edited by Robert S. Abbott, took the lead. If not the world’s greatest weekly as its masthead proclaimed, it had great influence among Chicago and Sofithern Blacks, due to its role in promoting the migration to the north. It was widely read in the South where a daily newspaper of Athens, Georgia, called it “the greatest disturbing element that has yet entered Georgia.” The Defender was relentless in its attack, throwing scorn and contempt on the movement and Garvey himself.<br />
<br />
In addition to The Defender’s attacks, the so-called Abyssinia Affair in the summer of 1920 served to discredit the movement. The Star Order of Ethiopia and Ethiopian Missionaries to Abyssinia was an extremist split off from Chicago’s UNIA branch. The leaders of the group held a parade and rally on Thirty-fifth and Indiana. Speakers clad in loud African costume called upon the crowd to return to their African ancestral land.<br />
<br />
To show their scorn for the U.S., they burned an American flag, and when white policemen sought to intervene, the Abyssinians shot and killed two white men and wounded a third. This incident was blown up in the white press as an armed rebellion of Blacks. It was condemned on ali sides in the Black community and by its leaders, including the editors of The Defender, who helped authorities in capturing the Abyssinian dissidents.<br />
<br />
Despite its repudiation by the official Garvey organization, the Abyssinian affair served to muddy the Garvey image in Chicago. I was working on the New York Central at the time and heard a graphic account of the affair from my aunts when I arrived intown the next day. They lived right around the corner on Indiana Avenue.<br />
<br />
Despite the hostile Black press and the Abyssinian affair, the UNIA grew. At its height, it claimed a Chicago membership of 9,000 devoted followers. This is probably exaggerated, but there is no doubt that the sympathizers numbered in the tens of thousands.<br />
<br />
Our Sunday discussion group underestimated the significance of the Garvey movement and the strength it was later to reveal. We regarded it as a transient phenomenon. We applauded some of the cultural aspects of the movement—Garvey’s emphasis on race pride, dignity, self-reliance, his exultation of things Black. This was all to the good, we felt. However, we rejected in its entirety the Back to Africa program as fantastic, unreal and a dangerous diversion which could only lead to desertion of the struggle for our rights in the USA. This was our country, we strongly felt, and Blacks should not waive their just claims to equality and justice in the land to whose wealth and greatness we and our forefathers had made such great contributions.<br />
<br />
Finally, we could not go along with Garvey’s idea about inherent racial antagonisms between Black and white. This to us seemed equivalent to ceding the racist enemy one of his main points. While it is true that I personally often wavered in the direction of race against race, I was not prepared to accept the idea as a philosophy. It did not jibe with my experience with whites.<br />
<br />
While rejecting Garvey’s program, our ideas for a viable alternative were still vague and unformed. The most important effect the Garvey movement had on us was that it put into clear focus the questions to which we sought answers.<br />
<br />
Who were the enemies of the Black freedom struggle? While Garvey claimed the cntire white race was the enemy, it did not escape us that he was inconsistent, being soft on white capitalists. His main target was clearly white labor and the trade union movement. According to Garvey:<blockquote>'''It seems strange and a paradox, but the only convenient friend the Negro worker or laborer has, in America, at the present time, is the white capitalist. The capitalist being selfish---seeking only the largest profit out of labor-—is willing and glad to use Negro labor wherever possible on a scale “reasonably” below the standard white union wage....but, if the Negro unionizes himself to the level of the white worker... the choice and preference of employment is given to the white worker...'''<br />
<br />
'''If the Negro takes my advice he will organize by himself and always keep his scale of wage a little lower than the whites until he is able to become, through proper leadership, his own employer; by doing so he will keep the good will of the white employer and live a little longer under the present scheme of things.'''</blockquote>There was no doubt that Garvey was voicing the sentiments of the vast mass of new migrant workers. And it was not that we had any compunction about strikebreaking in industries from which Blacks were barred. In fact, that had been one of the ways Blacks broke into industries such as stockyards and steel. We were also keenly aware of the Jim Crow policies of the existing trade union leadership and of the anti-Black prejudices rampant among white workers. But in casting Blacks permanently into the role of strikebreakers, Garvey was helping to further divide an already polarized situation and playing into the hands of businessmen, bankers, factory owners and the reactionary leadership of the trade unions,<br />
<br />
My own experience with unions in the waiters’ trade was bad. Old waiters would tell us how in the first part of the century they had listened to the siren call of white union leaders. They had gone out on strike, ostensibly to better their conditions, only to find their jobs immediately taken by whites. This had been quite a serious blow because at that time, Black waiters had had jobs in most of the best hotels and in a number of fine restaurants. It is therefore understandable that in 1920, we Black waiters felt not the slightest pang of conscience in taking over the jobs of white waiters on strike at the Marygold Gardens (the old Bismark Gardens) on the Northside, one of the swankiest night spots in Chicago, It was also probably the best waiter’s job in town; in fact, so good that some of the German captains who remained on the job used to drive to and from work in Cadillacs. The strike was broken after several months, and Blacks were turned out.<br />
<br />
Strikebreaking to me was not a philosophy or principle as Garvey contended, but an expedient forced upon Blacks by the Jim Crow policies of the bosses and the unions.<br />
<br />
Even as Garvey was putting forward such views, times were beginning to change. Large numbers of Blacks had been brought into industry during the war and had joined unions, especially in steel and the packing houses. A new industrial unionism was developing and raising the slogan of Black and white labor unity.<br />
<br />
My sister Eppa’s experiences in 1919 at Swift Packing Company were a case in point, She was one of the first Black women to join the union during the organizing drive of the Stockyards Labor Council, which was headed by two communists-—-William Z. Foster and Jack Johnstone. The drive was supported by John Fitzpatrick, chairman of the Chicago Federation of Labor and a bitter foe of the Jim Crow machine of Samuel Gompers’ AFL. Despite inevitable racial tensions fostered by the employers, Eppa had seen the basic unity of interest between all workers and felt strongly that the union was the best place to fight for the interests of Black workers.<br />
<br />
In looking back at our study of the Garvey movement, it must be evaluated in light of the fact that it was our first confrontation with nationalism as a mass movement. Our mistake, which I was to find out later through my own experience and study of nationalist movements, resulted from the failure to understand the contradictory nature of the nationalism of oppressed peoples. This contradiction or dualism was inherent in the inter-class character of these movements once they assume a popular mass form.<br />
<br />
‘They comprise various classes and social groupings with conflicting interests, tendencies and motives, all gathered under the unifying banner of national liberation, each with its own concept of that goal and how it should be attained. These conflicts, at first submerged, surface as the movement develops.<br />
<br />
‘They are expressed in two main currents (tendencies) within the movement. First of all, there is the nationalism which reflects the interests of the basic masses~-workers and peasants—-determined to fight for liberation against the oppressor of the nation. Then there is the nationalism of the Black bourgeoisie who, while at time in conflict with the white oppressors, tend toward compromise and accommodation to protect their own weak position.<br />
<br />
From the very beginning this dualism was reflected in the Garvey movement. A highly vocal and aggressively dominant current within the movement was the drive of the small business, professional and intellectual elements for a Black controlled economy. They sought fulfillment of this goal through withdrawal to Africa where they envisioned establishment of their own State, their right to exploit their own masses free from the overwhelming competition of dominant white capital. (A historical example of this can be seen in Liberia.) They thought they could accomplish this, presumably with the acquiescence of the American white rulers, and even the active support of some.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, there was a grass-roots nationalism of the masses, the uprooted, dispossessed soil-tillers of the South; their poverty-ridden counterparts in the slum ghettos of the cities. ‘These masses saw in the Black nationalist state fulfillment of their age-old yearnings for land, equality and freedom through power in their own hands to guarantee and protect these freedoms. It was this indigenous, potentially revolutionary nationalism that Garvey diverted with his Back to Africa slogan.<br />
<br />
We failed to recognize the objective conflict of interests between these class components of the movement, equating the social and political aims of the ghetto nationalists, the bourgeoisie, to that of the masses~-condemning the whole as reactionary, escapist and utopian.<br />
<br />
These were the internal contradictions upon which the movement was to flounder and finally collapse. They were brought to a head by the subsiding of the post-war economic depression, the ushering in of the “boom,” and subsequent easing of the plight of Blacks, the partial adjustment of migrants to their new environment and their partial absorption into industry.<br />
<br />
The main contradiction inherent in the Garvey movement from its very beginning had been the conflict between the needs of the masses to defend and advance their rights in the USA and the fantastic Back to Africa schemes of the Garvey leadership. Garvey’s emphasis on these fantastic schemes reflected his resolution of the conflict in favor of business interests and against the interests of the masses. The resources and energy of the organization were increasingly diverted to support racial business enterprises such as the Black Star Line and the Negro Factories Corporation. The concentration on selling stock for the Black Star Steamship Line by the UNIA leadership from 1921 on neglected the immediate needs of the masses and began to erode the base of support.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, Garvey’s response to the crisis in the movement exposed the dangerously reactionary logic of a program based upon complete separation of the races and its acceptance of the white racist doctrine of natural racial incompatibility. Pursuing the logic of this idea against the backdrop of the organization's decline inevitably drove Garvey into an alliance of expediency with the most rabid segregationists and race bigots of the period.<br />
<br />
Thus, in 1922, Garvey sought the support of Edward Young Clark, the imperial giant of the Ku Klux Klan. This “meeting of the minds” between Garvey and the Klan was not fortuitous. It was an open secret that it took place on the basis of Garvey’s agreement to soft-pedal the struggle for equality in the U.S. in return for help in the settlement of Blacks in Africa. This ideological kinship arose from the mutual acceptance of the racist dogma of natural incompatibility of races, race purity and so forth.<br />
<br />
In 1924 Garvey went so far seeking support for his Back to Africa program as to invite John Powell, organizer of the AngloSaxon Clubs, and other prominent racists to speak at UNIA headquarters. Garvey also publicly praised the KKK. According to W.E.B. DuBois, the Kian issued circulars defending Garvey and declared that the opposition to him was from the Catholic Church. In the late thirties, Senator Bilbo of Mississippi introduced a bill to deport thirteen million Blacks to Africa and received the support of the remnants of the Garvey organization.<br />
<br />
The final curtain was to drop on the Garvey episode with the failure of the Black Star Linc. The movement was torn by factionalism and splits, with some of the leadership and remaining rank and file demanding that the domestic fight for equal rights be emphasized over the Back to Africa scheme of Garvey. The internal struggle drove many out of the organization and others into a multitude of splinter groups, each a variation of Garveyism itself. Taking advantage of this disarray, the government moved in.<br />
<br />
In 1925, Garvey was framed on charges of using the mail to defraud in connection with the sale of stocks for the Black Star Line and was sent to the Atlanta federal prison for two years. He was deported to the West Indies upon release from prison. This debacle marked the end of Garveyism as an important mass movement, although the offshoots continued to exist in numbers of smaller groups advocating Garvey’s theory.<br />
<br />
At the time, I had taken Garvey’s peculiar brand as representing nationalism in general and had simply rejected the whole ideology as a foreign import with no roots in the conditions of U.S. Blacks, Seeing only the negative features of nationalism in the UNIA, I was blind to the progressive and potentially revolutionary aspects which were to prove so important in my own later development.<br />
<br />
Thus, the great movement that Garvey built passed into history. But nationalism, as a mass trend, persisted in the Black freedom struggle. Existing side by side with the assimilationist trend, it was eclipsed by the latter in so-called normal times while flaring up in times of stress and crisis.<br />
<br />
The Garvey movement was the U.S. counterpart of the vast upsurge of national and colonial liberation struggles which swept the world during the war and post-war period. In this period, masses of Blacks had come to consider themselves as an oppressed nation. Garvey’s ability to capture leadership of this nationalist upsurge by default was the result of the immaturity of the revolutionary forces, Black and white. The collapse of the Garvey movement proved conclusively that the petty bourgeois ghetto nationalist current, left to itself, led only to a hopeless blind alley. Unfortunately the forces which could give Black nationalism revolutionary content and direction were only in the process of formation.<br />
<br />
The Black working class and its spokesmen had not yet arrived on the scene as an independent force in the Black community and, therefore, was not capable of challenging either the assimilationist leadership of the NAACP or the ghetto nationalism of Garvey. Its counterparts among radical, class-conscious white labor were waging an uphill fight against the Jim Crow-minded AFL bureaucracy led by the Gompers machine. ‘These radical sections of white labor were not yet clear as to the significance of the Black freedom struggle as a revolutionary force in its own right and regarded it simply as a part of the general labor question. Coalescence of these two forces was then a decade away, destined not to take place until the crisis of the thirties.<br />
<br />
The preceding analysis is hindsight. I didn't realize the significance of Garvey’s movement until a few years later, when, as a student in Moscow, I was assigned to a commission to prepare a resolution on the Negro question in the USA for the Sixth Congress of the Communist International in 1928. It was in the course of these discussions that I came to the recognition of nationalism as an authentic and potentially revolutionary trend in the movement.<br />
<br />
The assimilationist programs of the NAACP had been easy to reject. Garvey was somewhat more difficult. But while the Garvey movement was forcing me to a consideration of nationalism (which at the time I also rejected) I could not help but notice the other political developments of the period.<br />
<br />
Most conspicuous was the concerted and vicious attack being carried out against white radicals and the trade union movement. The same forces appeared to be behind the Palmer raids of 1919 and 1920, behind the wave of racism and behind the violent union and strike busting which took place. The foreigners who were being deported, the radicals who were imprisoned and the workers throughout the country who were attacked by Pinkerton “private armies,” were white as well as Black. In Chicago, the strikes at the stockyards and the steel mills in the area particularly attracted my attention.<br />
<br />
For me, the Garvey movement, the racists’ assault and the attacks on labor and the radical movement sharpened my political perceptions. The racial fog lifted and the face and location of the enemy was clearly outlined. I began to see that the main beneficiaries of Black subjugation also profited from the social oppression of poor whites, native and foreign-born.<br />
<br />
The enemy was those who controlled and manipulated the levers of power; they were the super-rich, white moneyed interests who owned the nation’s factories and banks, and thus controlled its wealth, They were known by many names: the corporate elite; the industrial, financial (and robber) barons; ete. Chicago was the home base of a significant segment of this ruling class. <br />
<br />
Here the chain of command was clear: on the political side, it extended from city hall down to the lowliest wardheeler and precinct captain and was tied in at all levels with organized crime, On the economic side, it was represented by such employer organizations as the Chicago Chamber of Commerce, by trade associations and by top management in the giant industrial plants, railroads, big commercial establishments, banks, utilities and insurance firms, Their chain of command extended down to the foremen and department heads, and on-the-job supervisors. <br />
<br />
These levers of power also controlled education, the media, the arts and all law enforcement agencies, both military and police, At the bottom of this pyramid and hearing its weight were the working people who toiled in the steel mills, the packing plants, the railway yards, and the thousands of other sweatshops. Lowliest among these were the Blacks, pushed to the very bottom by the “divide and rule” policy of the corporate giants and their henchmen, and the complimentary Jim Crow policies and practices of the AFL trade union bureaucracy.<br />
<br />
=== PASSAGES ===<br />
Our postal discussion circle, which had held together scarcely three months, was breaking up. Heath, our chairman and recognized leader, was leaving. He had played the greatest role in keeping the group together. Now he had taken a job at some college in Virginia, his native state.<br />
<br />
Differences had already developed in the group, and with Heath gone, the possibilities for reconciling them seemed slim. These differences, as I recall, were not of a political or ideological nature. ‘They were seldom expressed in the open, but were reflected in the opposition of some members to proposals for enlarging the group and moving it into the outside political arena. This opposition evidently reflected the desire of some members to retain the group as a narrow discussion circle with membership restricted by tacit understanding to those whom they, considered their intellectual peers. It seemed to me they sought to reduce it to a sort of elitist mutual admiration society. As a result of this sectarian attitude, the group hardly grew beyond its original membership of a dozen or so.<br />
<br />
There was no doubt, though, that our association had been mutually beneficial. All of us had grown in political understanding and awareness. But up to the time of Heath’s departure, we had advanced no program for putting our newly acquired political understanding into practice. Our original plans for the organization of a forum to debate the issues of the day never got off the ground. We had not developed a program for involvement in the struggles of the community, nor, for that matter, in the immediate on-the-job problems of Black postal employees. We never even got around to deciding on a name for the group. One suggestion, that we call ourselves the “New Negro Forum,” was never acted upon.<br />
<br />
Heath, Mabley, Doe and myself were beginning to feel the pull from the outside, the need for a broader political arena of activity, to play a more active role in the community. We were the ones who most often attended radical forums and lectures and kept abreast of what was going on in the Southside community. We often went to the Bugs Club in Washington Park (Chicago’s equivalent of London's Hyde Park), and the Dill Pickle Club on the Northside which was run by the anarchist Jack Jones.<br />
<br />
Heath had gone. Mabley refused the chairmanship, pleading that he was tied down by his family and could not take on additional responsibilities. Doe refused to accept the honor; he was similarly tied down by his job and dental practice. But the real reason for their refusal, which they were to confide to me later, was that they had lost confidence in the group. Without Heath, they saw no future role for it. Like myself, they were attracted to the broader movement, I also declined, giving as my excuse that I was quitting the Post Office in a few days and was going back to my old job on the railroad. A chairman pro-tem was chosen; I don’t remember who.<br />
<br />
I continued my reading along the lines which Otto had suggested. Among the books I read were Henry Morgan’s Ancient Society (which Engels had used as the basis for Origins of the Family), Gustavus Meycr’s History of the Great American Fortunes, John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook the World and Jack London’s The Iron Heel.<br />
<br />
I also kept abreast of world events, reading about Lenin and Trotsky in revolutionary Russia. I followed the post-war colonial rebellions of Sun Yat-sen’s China, Gandhi in India, Ataturk in Turkey, the rebellion of the Riff tribes in Morocco led by Abdul Krim. There were rumblings in black Africa—strikes and demonstrations against colonial oppression. One heard such names as Kadelli and Gumede of the South African National Congress, and of Sandino in Nicaragua who fought the U.S. Marines for many years,<br />
<br />
My fect were getting itchy. I was fed up with the Post Office and the excruciatingly monotonous nature of the work. At the same time, the night shift cramped my social life as well as my growing need for broader political activity. I quit the job without regret.<br />
<br />
Soon after, I started work as a waiter on the Santa Fe’s Chief, the company’s crack train running to Los Angeles. It was an eightday run: three days to the coast, with a two-day layover in Los Angeles and three days back. Our crew would make three trips a month, and a layover one trip (eight days) in Chicago. This schedule gave me approximately twelve free days a month in Chicago---time enough for both political and social life. It was a hard job, but good money for those days and exciting after the drab routine of the Post Office.<br />
<br />
Los Angeles, “Sweet Los,” as we used to call it. The Santa Fe boys, all “big spenders,” were very popular with the girls. A bevy would show up to meet us at the station every trip.<br />
<br />
I was to remain on that run three years, which up to that time was the longest I had ever remained on one job. Upon my return from the first trip, I called Mabley and he informed me that he thought the discussion circle had dissolved. Only one or two guys showed up at the next scheduled meeting, and the pro-tem chairman himself was absent. It was dead.<br />
<br />
My political development continued nevertheless, The runs on the Santa Fe gave ample time for discussion with my fellow crew members. Most of them, though somewhat older, were as aware as those at the Post Office with whom I had worked. I also continued to read, now studying The Communist Manifesto, Engels’ Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, and Marx’s Value, Price and Profit.<br />
<br />
The first stage of my political search was near an end. In the years since I had mustered out of the Army, I had come from being a disgruntled Black ex-soldier to being a self-conscious revolutionary looking for an organization with which to make revolution.<br />
<br />
For three years I had listened in lecture halls, at rallies and in Washington Park to a spate of orators each claiming to meet the challenge of the times. They included the great “people’s lawyer” Clarence Darrow; Judge Fisher of the reform movement; the socialist leader Victor Berger and sundry other members of his party; the anarchist Ben Reichman, Ben Fletcher, the Black IWW orator and organizer, and assorted Garveyites. Although some had their points—for example, the fighting spirit and sincerity of the IWW impressed me-—I rejected them all.<br />
<br />
In the spring of 1922, I approached my brother Otto, whom I knew had joined the Workers (Communist) Party shortly after its inception in 1921. I told him that I wanted to join the Party.<br />
<br />
The fact that Otto was in the Party and had advised me from time to time on my reading had undoubtedly influenced my decision, I had a generally favorable impression of the Black communists I knew; men like Otto, the Owens brothers and Edward Doty. I was also impressed by whites like Jim Early, Sam Hammersmark, Robert Minor and his wife, Lydia Gibson. What added great weight to my favorable impression of the communists, however, was their political identity with the successful Bolshevik Revolution.<br />
<br />
At the time it happened, I had been taken totally unaware of its significance, I first heard of it during an incident that occurred in France in August 1918. My regiment, while marching into positions on the Soissons sector, had paused fora rest. On one side of the road there was a high barbed wire fence and behind it loitered groups of soldiers in strange uniforms. Upon closer observation, it became clear that they were prisoners. They spoke in a strange tongue, but we understood from their gestures that they were asking for cigarettes, A number of us immediately responded, offering them some from our packs.<br />
<br />
When we asked who they were, one of them replied in halting English that they were Russian Cossacks. He explained that their division, which had been fighting on the western front, had been withdrawn from the lines, disarmed and placed in quarantine, They were considered unreliable, he said, because of the revolution in Russia. At the time, I was not even sure of the meaning of the word revolution—some kind of civil disorder I conjectured. Giving the matter no further thought, we resumed our march. It was not until I had returned from France that I began reading about the Russian Revolution. From then on, I followed its course, and despite the distorted view in the U.S. press, its significance slowly dawned on me.<br />
<br />
Here, I felt, was a tangible accomplishment and real power. Along with other Black radicals, I was impressed-—just as a later generation came to look at China, Cuba and Vietnam as models of successful struggle against tyranny, colonialism and oppression.<br />
<br />
Thus, I was particularly attracted to the communists. True, the Party was largely white in its racial composition, with only a handful of Black members. I felt, nevertheless, that it comprised the best and most sincerely revolutionary and internationally minded elements among white radicals,and therefore formed the basis for the revolutionary unity of Blacks and whites. This was so, I believed, because it was a part of a world revolutionary movement uniting Chinese, Africans and Latin Americans with Europeans and North Americans through the Third Communist International.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks had destroyed the czarist rule, established the first workers’ state, and breached the world system of capitalism over a territory comprising more than one-sixth of the earth’s surface. Most impressive as far as Blacks were concerned was that the revolution had laid the basis for solving the national and racial questions on the basis of complete freedom for the numerous nations, colonial peoples and minorities formerly oppressed by the czarist empire. Moscow had now become the focus of the colonial revolution. In the turbulence of those days, there seerned every reason to think that the energy unleashed in Russia would carry the revolution throughout the world.<br />
<br />
In the U.S., the deluge of lies and distortions by the media, the red baiting, the Palmer raids, had not been able to hide this monumental achievement of the Russian Bolsheviks. The uninformed Black man in the street could reason that a phenomenon that evoked such fear and hatred on the part of the white supremacist rulers “couldn't be all bad.” As for me, the socialist victory confirmed my belief in the Bolshevik variety of socialism as a way out for U.S. Blacks.<br />
<br />
I found the theory behind this achievement all there in Lenin’s State and Revolution. He developed and applied the theories of Marx and Engels on the role of the state and the dictatorship of the proletariat. This work was the single most important book I had read in the entire three years of my political search and was decisive in leading me to the Communist Party. In this work, Lenin clarified the nature of the state and the means by which to overthrow it. His approach seemed practical and realistic; it was no longer just abstract theory.<br />
<br />
Using Origins of the Family as a departure point, Lenin demystified and desanctified the myth of the state in capitalist society as an impartial monitor of human affairs. Rather, he exposed the state in capitalist society--and its apparatus of military, police, courts and prisons—as an instrument of ruling class domination, a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
It thus followed that the job of forcibly replacing the state power of the dominant class with that of the proletariat was the paramount and indispensable task of socialist revolution. As far as I could seé, the Soviet example appeared to offer a completely clear solution to the problems facing American workers, both Black and white. I saw the elimination of racism and the achievement of complete equality for Blacks as an inevitable by product of a socialist revolution in the United States, It was at this point that I became fully resolved to make my own personal commitment to the fight for a socialist United States.<br />
<br />
The first part of my odyssey was over.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
=== An Organization of Revolutionaries ===<br />
Otto was pleased when I first told him of my desire to join the Party in the summer of 1922. He said that he had known that that i had been ready to join for some time, but he suggested that i should wait a while before joining. When I asked why, he told me about an unpleasant situation that had arisen in the Party’s Southside branch.<br />
<br />
Most of the few Black members were concentrated in this English-speaking branch, but it seemed that a number of recent Black recruits had dropped out. They resented the paternalistic attitude displayed toward them by some of the white comrades who, Otto said, treated Blacks like children and seemed to think that the whites had all the answers, It was only a temporary situation, he assured me. The matter had been taken up before the Party District Committee; if it was not resolved there, they would take it to the Central Committee.<br />
<br />
“And if you don’t get satisfaction there?” I queried.<br />
<br />
“Well, then there’s the Communist International!” he teplied emphatically. “It’s as much our Party as it is theirs.”<br />
<br />
I was properly impressed by his sincerity and by the idea that we could appeal our case to the “supreme court” of international communism, which included such luminaries as the great Lenin.<br />
<br />
‘The Blacks who had remained in the Party had decided not to bring any new members into the branch until the matter was satisfactorily settled. I was rather surprised to hear all of this.<br />
<br />
Clearly, membership in the Party did not automatically free whites from white supremacist ideas. Nor, for that matter, did it free Blacks from their distrust of whites. Throughout my lifetime, I found that interracial solidarity--even in the Communist Party— required a continuous ideological struggle.<br />
<br />
Otto suggested that until the matter was cleared up I should join the African Blood Brotherhood. The ABB was a secret, all-Black, revolutionary organization to which some of the Black Party members belonged---including Otto. I later learned that the matter of white paternalism was eventually resolved to the satisfaction of the Black comrades. I don’t recall the details; I think that Arne Swabeck (the district organizer) or Robert Minor from the Central Committee finally came down and lectured the branch on the evils of race prejudice and threatened disciplinary action to the point of expulsion of comrades guilty of bringing bourgeois social attitudes into the Party.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, I took Otto’s advice and joined the African Blood Brotherhood. He took me to see Edward Doty, then commander of the Brotherhood’s Chicago Post. Vouched for by Otto and Doty, I was taken to a meeting of the membership committee and went through the induction ceremonies. This consisted of an African fraternization ritual requiring the mixing of blood between the applicant and one of the regular members. The organization took its name from this ritual. Doty performed the ceremony; he pricked our index fingers with a needlc (I hoped it was sterilized!) and when drops of blood appeared, he rubbed them together.<br />
<br />
Now a Blood Brother, I proceeded to take the Oath of Loyalty which contained a clause warning that divulging of any of the secrets of the organization was punishable by death. I was deeply impressed by all this; the atmosphere of great secrecy appealed to my romantic sense. There were two degrees of membership; one was automatically conferred upon joining and the second, which I took a few days later, involved the performance of some service for the organization. In my case, as I recall, it was a trivial task—-the selling of a dozen or so copies of its magazine, The Crusader.<br />
<br />
At the time that I joined the African Blood Brotherhood, I knew little about the organization other than the fact that it wasin some way associated with the Communist Party. I do remember having read a copy or two of The Crusader before I joined the group.<br />
<br />
Some of the history of the ABB I got from Otto and other post members, but most of it I found out much later when I met and worked with Cyril P. Briggs, the original founder of the group. The African Blood Brotherhood was founded in New York City in 1919 by a group of Black radicals under the leadership of Briggs. A West Indian (as were most of the founders), he was a former editor of the Amsterdam News, a Black New York newspaper. He quit in disagrcement over policy with the owner, who attempted to censor his anti-war editorials. Briggs’s own magazine. The Crusader, was established in 1919. The Brotherhood was organized around the magazine with Briggs as its executive head presiding over a supreme council.<br />
<br />
The group was originally conceived as the African Blood Brotherhood “for African liberation and redemption” and was later broadened to “for immediate protection and ultimate liberation of Negroes everywhere.” As it was a secret organization, it never sought broad membership. National headquarters were in New York. Its size never exceeded 3,000. But its influence was many times greater than this; the Crusader at one time claimed a circulation of 33,000.' There was also The Crusader News Service which was distributed to two hundred Black newspapers.<br />
<br />
Briggs, his associates--Richard B. Moore, Grace Campbell and others—-and The Crusader were among the vanguard forces for the New Negro movement, an ideological current which reflected the new mood of militancy and social awareness of young Blacks of the post-war period. In New York, the New Negro movement also included the radical magazine, The Messenger, edited by Chandler Owen and A. Philip Randolph, and The Emancipator, edited by W.A. Domingo. Many of the groups were members of the Socialist Party or close to it politically. They espoused “economic radicalism,” an over-simplificd interpretation of Marxism which, nevertheless, enabled them to see the economic and social roots of racial subjugation. Historically, theirs was the first serious attempt by Blacks to adopt the Marxist world view and the theory of class struggle to the problems of Black Americans.<br />
<br />
Within this broad grouping, however, there were differences which emerged later. Briggs was definitely a revolutionary nationalist; that is, he saw the solution of the “race problem” in the establishment of independent Black nation-states in Africa, the Caribbean and the United States, In America, he felt this could be achieved only through revolutionizing the whole country. This meant he saw revolutionary white workers as allies. These were elements of a program which he perceived as an alternative to Garvey’s plan of mass exodus.<br />
<br />
A self-governing Black state on U.S. soil was a novel idea for which Briggs sent up trial balloons in the form of editorials in the Amsterdam News in 1917, of which he was then editor. Shortly after the entrance of the United States into World War I, he wrote an editorial entitled “Security of Life for Poles and Serbs—Why Not for Colored Americans?”<br />
<br />
Briggs, however, had no definite idea for the location of the future “colored autonomous state,” suggesting at various times Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California or Nevada: Later, after President Wilson had put forth his fourteen points in January 1918, Briggs equated the plight of Blacks in the United States to nations occupied by Germany and demanded:<br />
<br />
'''With what moral authority or justice can President Wilson demand that eight million Belgians be freed when for his entire first term and to the present moment of his second term he has not lifted a finger for justice and liberty for over TEN MILLION colored people, a nation within a nation, a nationality oppressed and jim-crowed, yet worthy as any other people of a square deal or failing that, a separate political existence?'''<br />
<br />
He continued this theme in The Crusader. One year after the founding of the Brotherhood, Briggs shifted from the idea of a Black state on U.S. soil to the advocacy of a Black state in Africa, South America or the Caribbean, where those Blacks who wanted to could migrate. In this, he was undoubtedly on the defensive, giving ground to the overwhelming Garvey deluge then sweeping the national Black community. In 1921, Briggs was to link the struggle for equal rights of U.S. Blacks with the establishment of a Black state in Africa and elsewhere:<br />
<br />
Just as the Negro in the United States can never hope to win equal rights with his white neighbors until Africa is liberated and a strong Negro state (or states) erected on that continent, so, too, we can never liberate Africa unless, and until, the American Section of the Negro Race is made strong enough to play the part for a free Africa that the Irish in America now play for a free Ireland.<br />
<br />
The Brotherhood rejected Garvey’s racial separatism. They knew that Blacks needed allies and tied the struggle for equal rights to that of the progressive section of white labor. In the 1918-1919 elections, the Brotherhood supported the Socialist Party candidates, The Crusader and the ABB were ardent supporters of the Russian Revolution; they saw it as an opportunity for Blacks to identify with a powerful international revolutionary movement. It enabled them to overcome the isolation inherent in their position as a minority people in the midst of a powerful and hostile white oppressor nation. Thus, The Crusader called for an alliance with the Bolsheviks against race prejudice. In 1921, the magazine made its clearest formulation, linking the struggles of Blacks and other oppressed nations with socialism:<blockquote>'''The surest and quickest way, then, in our opinion, to achieve the salvation of the Negro is to combine the two most likely and feasihle propositions, viz.: salvation for all Negroes through the establishment of a strong, stable, independent Negro State (along the lines of our own race genius) in Africa and elsewhere: and salvation for all Negroes (as well as other oppressed people) through the establishment of a Universal Socialist Co-operative commonwealth.'''</blockquote>The split in the world socialist movement as a result of the First World War led to the formation of the Third (Communist) International in 1919. This split was reflected in the New Negro movement as well. Randolph and Owens, the whole Messenger crowd, remained with the social democrats of the Second International who were in opposition to the Bolshevik revolution. Members of The Crusader group--Briggs, Moore and others gravitated toward the Third International and eventually joined its American affiliate, the Communist Party. They were followed in the next year or two by Otto Hall, Lovett Fort-Whiteman and others.<br />
<br />
The decline of the African Blood Brotherhood in the early twenties and its eventual demise coincided with the growing participation of its leadership in the activities of the Communist Party. By 1923-24, the Brotherhood had ceased to exist as an autonomous, organized cxpression of the national revolutionary trend. Its leading members became communists or close sympathizers and its posts served as one of the Party’s recruiting grounds for Blacks.<br />
<br />
I first met Briggs upon my return from Russia in 1930. We were to strike up a lasting friendship--one that went beyond the comradeship of the Party and which extended over more than three decades, until his death in 1967. Throughout those years, we were associated on numerous projects and found ourselves on the same side of many political issues.<br />
<br />
When I first met Briggs, he conformed to the impression that I had been given of him: a tall, impressive-looking man—so light in complexion that he was often mistaken for white. He had a large head and bushy black eyebrows. He was a man possessed of great physical and moral courage, which I was to observe on many occasions. Briggs also had a fiery temper, which was usually controlled in the case of comrades or friends.<br />
<br />
He had one outstanding physical defect--he was a heavy stutterer. He stuttered so much that it often took him several scconds to get out the first word of a sentence, When he took the floor at meetings we would all listen attentively; no one would interrupt him because we knew he always had something important and pertinent to say. While he spoke we would cast our eyes down and look away from him to avoid making him feel self-conscious, though he never seemed to be.<br />
<br />
We noticed that he stuttered less when he was angry, One such occasion was when Garvey rejected Briggs’s offer of cooperation. The wily Garvey saw through the maneuver for what it was-—an attempt by Briggs to gain a position from which he could better attack him. Garvey lashed out at Briggs, calling him a “white man trying to pass himself off as a Negro.”<br />
<br />
Friends told me that this attack sent Briggs into such a rage that he mounted a soapbox at Harlem's 135th Strect and Lenox Avenue and assailed Garvey for two hours without a stutter, branding him a charlatan and a fraud. Not content with this verbal lashing of his enemy, Briggs hauled Garvey into court on the charge of defamation of character. He won the case, forcing Garvey to make a public apology and pay a fine of one dollar.<br />
<br />
Briggs’s real forte, however, was as a kecn polemicist, a veritable master of invective. His speech handicap was a pity, because aside from the stutter he had all the qualities of a good orator. Closely associated with Briggs was Richard B. Moore, a fine orator who did much public speaking for the ABB.<br />
<br />
What were the reasons for the decline of the ABB and its eventual absorption by the Communist Party? Why did Briggs fail to develop the program for Black self-determination in the USA? In the fifties, I had a series of talks with Briggs and asked his opinion on these questions.<br />
<br />
His overall appraisal of the role of the Brotherhood was that it was a forerunner of the contemporary national revolutionary trend and a very positive thing. “Of course, we didn’t stop Garvey,” he said, but “we were beginning to develop a revolutionary alternative. We did put a crimp in his sails,” Briggs added.<br />
<br />
For a while, the ABB had been a rallying center for left opposition to Garvey. Its membership included class-conscious Black workers and revolutionary intcllectuals and drew membership from both disillusioned Garveyites and radicals who never took to Garvey’s program in the first place. The main reason for de-emphasizing the idea of Black nationhood in the United States, Briggs stated, was the unfavorable relationship of forces then existing.<br />
<br />
Garvey, with his Back to Africa program, had preempted the leadership of the mass movement and corralled most of the militants. His hold over the masses was strengthened by the anti-Black violence of the Red Summer of 1919. This gave further credence to Garvey’s contention that the U.S. was a white man’s country where Blacks could never achieve equality. Indeed, for these masses, his program for a Black state in Africa to which American Blacks could migrate seemed far less utopian than the idea of a Black state on U.S. soil.<br />
<br />
As for the South, Briggs did not feel that such a region of entrenched racism could be projected realistically as a territorial focus of a Black nationalist state. It would not have been so accepted by the masses who were in flight from the area. For himself, he reasoned, the very idea of self-determination in the United States presupposed the support of white revolutionaries. That meant a revolutionary crisis in the country as a whole, and in that day no such prospect was in sight. In fact, white revolutionary forces were then small and weak, the target of the vicious anti-red drives of the government and employers.<br />
<br />
In other words, he felt that Black self-determination in the United States was an idea whose time had not yet come. The communists didn’t have all the answers, and neither did we, Briggs indicated. Whites, as well as a number of Black radicals, undoubtedly underestimated the national element; socialism alone was seen as the solution. Briggs was impressed, however, by the sincerity and revolutionary ardor of the communists and by the fact that they were a detachment of Lenin’s Third Communist International. He felt that the future of the revolution in the United States and of Black liberation lay in multinational communist leadership.<br />
<br />
Though the ABB ceased to exist as an organized, independent expression of the national revolutionary current, the tendency itself remained, awaiting the further maturing of its main driving force, the Black proletariat. By the end of the decade, the national revolutionary sentiment was to find expression in the program of the Communist Party.<br />
<br />
By the time I joined the Brotherhood’s Chicago post in the summer of 1922, The Crusader had dropped much of its original national revolutionary orientation. Although I was then unaware of it, Briggs and the supreme council were presiding over the absorption of the organization into the Communist Party.<br />
<br />
In Chicago, the decline of the organization was slower than elsewhere, Perhaps this was because it had a strong base among Black building-tradesmen, plumbers, electricians and bricklayers. Edward Doty, a plumber by trade, was simultaneously the ABB post commander and a leader and founder of the American Consolidated Trades Council (ACTC). The council was a federation of independent Black unions and groups in the building trades industry who had formed their own unions forthe double purpose of protecting Black workers on the job and counteracting the discriminatory policies of the white AFL craft unions dominant in the field.<br />
<br />
Doty, a tall, muscular man, was born in Mobile, Alabama, and had come north in 1912 at the age of seventeen, According to him, most of the Black steamfitters and plumbers had learned their trades in the stockyards during the industrial boom and labor shortage that accompanied World War I. Some, however, had gotten their training at Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. Active in the Brotherhood along with Doty were such outstanding leaders of the Black workers’ struggle as Herman Dorsey (an electrician) and Alexander Dunlap (a plumber).<br />
<br />
Besides the tradesmen, other members of the ABB post included a number of older radicals such as Alonzo Isabel, Norval Allen, Gordon Owens, H.V. Phillips, Otto Hall and several others. Together with Doty, they made up the communist core of the Brotherhood. <br />
<br />
My experiences in the ABB marked my first association with Black communists. I had met some of them before, at forums and lectures; I had heard Owens speak at the Bugs Club and Dill Pickle forums, but I had never worked together with any of them before.” ‘They were mostly workers from the stockyards and other industries. One or two, like myself, were from the service trades. Like Otto, several of them had previously been in the Garvey movement. There was no doubt that they represented a politically advanced section of the Black working class. They were the types who today would be called “political activists,” the people who kept abreast of the issues in the Southside community and participated in local struggles.<br />
<br />
I was interested to learn their backgrounds and how they had come to the revolutionary movement. I found that some of them had been among Chicago's first Marxist-oriented Black radicals and had been associated with the Free Thought Society. This society was formed immediately after the war and held regular forums. I believe its leader and founder was a young man named Tibbs. He was one of the earliest of Chicago’s Black radicals. A victim of police harassment and persecution, Tibbs was arrested during the Palmer raids in 1919 and spent several years in jailona fake charge of stealing automobile tires. This continual perseeution reduced his political effectiveness, which was as the authorities intended.<br />
<br />
In 1920, members of the Free Thought Society took an active part in the campaign of the Independent Non-Partisan League, sponsored by The Whip and its editors. This coalition ran a full slate of candidates in the Republican primary of that year, in which they challenged the old guard Republicans of the second ward Republican organization as well as the so-called New People’s Movement of Oscar DePriest.’<br />
<br />
The election platform called for abolition of all discrimination, for public ownership of utilities, civil service reform, women’s suffrage, children’s welfare service and “organization of labor into one union.” While they were not successful in turning back the Republican old guard, the campaign resulted in appreciable gains for some of the league’s candidates,<br />
<br />
At that time, the main efforts of the ABB were directed at mobilizing community support for the Black ACTC tradesmen. While retaining a secret character, its members participated as individuals in campaigns on local issues. They collaborated with the Trade Union Education League (TUEL) of which Doty was a member, in its drive to organize the stockyards. The TUEL supported the demands of the ACTC. At that time, it was led by William Z. Foster and Jack Johnstone. Later to become the Trade Union Unity League, it was a gathering of the revolutionary and progressive forces within trade unions to fight against the reactionary labor bureaucracy and their collaborationist policies and Jim Crowism.<br />
<br />
Other members of the Brotherhood participated in the cainpaign against high rents that was waged in the Southside community. This was a fight in which a white Party member, Bob Minor, and his wife, Lydia Gibson, played leading roles.<br />
<br />
I found my experience in the Brotherhood both stimulating and rewarding. In addition to learning a lot from the communists with whom I was associated, it was here I forged my first active association with Black industrial workers. I found them literate, articulate and class conscious, a proud and defiant group which had been radicalized by. the struggles against discriminatory practices of the unions and employers. They understood the meaning of solidarity and the need for militant organization to obtain their objectives. In this, they were quite different from the people with whom I had been associated at the post office, as well as writers whom I so commonly found to be stamped with a hustler mentality. Doty and his followers in the Trades Council were pioneers in the struggle for the rights of Black workers, a struggle which has continued over half a century and remains unfinished to this day.<br />
<br />
‘The older tradesmen finally fought their way into the unions, the electricians in 1938 and the plumbers in 1947. In the early fifties, Doty became the first Black officer in the plumbers’ union. But these gains were only token! The bars are still up against Blacks and other minority workers seeking jobs in the ninety billion dollar-a-year industry.<br />
<br />
=== THE YOUNG COMMUNIST LEAGUE ===<br />
My sojourn in the African Blood Brotherhood was brief about six months. I felt the need to move on. My original goal was the Communist Party. While I was in the ABB, the problem of white chauvinism in the Southside branch had been cleared up. Joining the Party was no longer a problem, after all, the Brotherhood had been but a stopover.<br />
<br />
I was about to apply for admission when H.V. Phillips asked me to join the Young Workers (Communist) League, the youth division of the Communist Party. Phillips, I learned, was a member of the district and national committees of the League. When I told him I was just about to join the Party, he said: “That’s all right, but youre a young fellow and should be among the youth. Besides, more of us Blacks are needed in the League.”<br />
<br />
I thought the matter over. “Why not? It’s all the same, they’re all communists.”<br />
<br />
The next day Phillips took me to meet John Harvey, a white youth who was district organizer of the League. Harvey told me that I had been highly recommended to them by Phillips and others. He expressed delight at my decision to join and said that it fit right in with their plans since they were anxious to move forward with work among Black youth, but were handicapped by the faet that they had only a few Black members.<br />
<br />
I expressed doubt that I could be considered a youth at the age of twenty-five.<br />
<br />
They replied that there were a number of members my age and older in the organization. All that was needed, they assured me, was for one to have the “youth angle.”<br />
<br />
“What is that?” I asked.<br />
<br />
“Oh, that simply means the ability to understand youth and their problems and to be able to communicate with them.”<br />
<br />
I was not sure I had all of these qualities, but the proposition appealed to me, So I joined the YCL in the winter of 1923. The League at that time was a close-knit fraternity of idealistic and dedicated young people determined to build a new world for future generations. When we sang the Youth International at meetings, we actually felt ourselves to be as the song proclaimed, “the youthful guardsmen of the proletariat.”<br />
<br />
The organization was small, with only several hundred members. As I recall, Phillips and myself were the only Blacks. I was still working on the Santa Fe and on layovers I spent most of the time getting acquainted with my new comrades, attending classes, meetings and social gatherings. I was impressed by what seemed to me to be a high level of political development and by their use of Marxist terminology. It made me keenly aware of my own sketchy knowledge of Marxism and the revolutionary movement and spurred me to close the gap. A partial explanation for their political sophistication, I felt, was the fact that a large number of them, perhaps a majority, were “red diaper” babies—their parents being old revolutionaries, either members of the Party or its supporters. On the whole, they were a spirited, intelligent group, and as far as I could discern exhibited not a trace of race prejudice. Many went on to become leaders of the Party.<br />
<br />
There was our district organizer, John Harvey, a lanky youth and one of the few WASPs; Max Shachtman, a brilliant young orator and editor of the League’s theoretical organ, the Young Worker, who was later to become first a Trotskyist and then a rabid, professional anti-communist. There was Valeria Meltz, an able young leader, and her brother; their ethnie background was Russian-American, as was that of Jim Sklar (Keller). His brothers Gus and Boris were old stalwarts in the Russian Federation and were well known. There was also Nat Kaplan (Ganley) and Gil Green. Gil was about sixteen at the time; we used to call him “the kid.” He went on to become national chairman of the YCL and later a national leader in the Party. I met a number of the League's national leaders: Johnny Williamson, a Scottish-American and national secretary, Herbert Zam, Sam Darcy, Marty Abern, Phil Herbert and others, many of whom were to become national leaders of the Party.<br />
<br />
There was no searcity of places for meetings or for social affairs. We were on friendly terms with Jane Addams and her people at Hull House, where we sometimes met. Other times we used the halls of various language groups. We participated in and supported the activities of the Anti-Imperialist League, headed by Manny Gomez, the Party’s Latin American specialist. The main eampaign at the time: was against the invasion of Nicaragua by the U.S. Marines.<br />
<br />
I was particularly impressed by Bob Mazut, a young Russian representative of the Young Communist International (YCI) to the League, A small, dark-complected and soft-spoken young man, Mazut hailed from Soviet Georgia, His mild manner belied his impressive background, Only twenty-five when I met him, he had fought in the Revolution and Civil War, first as a Red Partisan and then in the Red Army, in which he advanced to the rank of colonel. He spoke what we called “political English,” and we were always amused by some of his expressions. For example, | remember how we used to kid Mazut about his being sweet on a certain girl comrade, “She likes you very much,” someone would say, “but she’s a little overawed by you.”<br />
<br />
He replied very seriously, “How can I liquidate her suspicions of me?”<br />
<br />
He took particular interest in me. I believe Phillips and I were the first Blacks he had ever really known and for us he was the first real Soviet communist we had met. I asked questions about Russia and told him I wanted to go there and see it for myself. “You undoubtedly will,” he said in a matter-of-fact tone, as if the matter were settled,<br />
<br />
On one occasion he told me of a discussion he had had on the eve of his departure from Russia, Zinoviey, then president of the Communist International, had asked him to look closely into the Afro-American question in the United States, and to see if he could find any confirmation for his belief and that of other Russian leaders that the right of self-determination was the appropriate slogan for Black rebellion. Zinoviev added that he had long believed that the question would become the “Achilles heel of American imperialism,” I told Mazut that I liked the part about the “Achilles heel,” but I didn’t feel that the slogan of self-determination was applicable for U.S. Blacks, It was my understanding that the principle had to do with nations, and Blacks were not a national but a racial minority. To me, it smacked of Garvey’s separatism,<br />
<br />
Mazut nevertheless raised the question of self-determination for discussion in a meeting of the Chicago District Committe of the YCL. Desirous of getting the committee’s reaction to the question, he was literally shouted down by the white comrades, “Blacks are Americans,” they said. “They want equality, not separation.” Phillips and I, the only Black members of the committee, were non-committal, And that was the end of that, They did not pursue the matter further.<br />
<br />
In order to move forward in work with Black youth, we struck upon the idea of organizing an interracial youth forum on the Southside. The organizing committee consisted of Chi (Dum Ping), a Chinese student at the University of Chicago; a young woman official of the colored YMCA; Phillips, a white League member; and myself, During this period, J was still working on the Santa Fe, but on my layovers | devoted all my time to the forum. We had rented a small hall, decorated it and got out our publicity—leaflets, posters and an‘ad in the Chicago Defender, Our first speaker was to be John Harden, a Black radical orator, It was our first effort at mass work among young Blacks and with our youthful enthusiasm, we were certain of success. But the venture proved to be abortive.<br />
<br />
I can still remember our shock when we came to our mecting place to find it wrecked. Furniture was smashed, posters ripped from the walls. There was no doubt in our minds that this was the work of the police who had unleashed their stool pigeons against us. Some of our non-communist friends dropped out, and the project collapsed. The idea of a forum was abandoned---temporarily, we hoped. A less ambitious plan was then agrced to.<br />
<br />
If we could enlarge our cadres by a few more Blacks, we thought, we would have a better base from which to approach mass work. It was therefore suggested that Phillips and I approach some of our acquaintances and try to recruit them directly into the League. I eliminated my waiter friends, all of whom were too old, and approached one of my former colleagues, a postal worker, who had been in our study circle and whom I considered a likely prospect. I remember that he sat very quictly while I delivered a long lecture on the League’s program and activities and the need to get support among Black youth.<br />
<br />
Finally interrupting me, he blurted out, “I’m sorry, Hall, but I find being Black trouble enough, but to be Black and red at the same time, well that’s just double trouble, and when you mix in the whites, why that’s triple trouble.”<br />
<br />
At first I was rather shocked by his off-hand rebuff, considering it to be an expression of cynical opportunism. I felt that he had backslid, even from his position at the post office, but he continued in a more serious tone. Apparently he felt a deep distrust for whites and their motives. He regarded the YCL as just another organization of white “do-gooders” and saw me as their captive Negro. When I interrupted to say something about socialism, he cut me short. He said that he too was for socialism as a final solution, but that was a long way off and he would not put it beyond the whites in the United States to distort socialism in a manner in which they could remain top dogs. In any case, he believed Blacks would have to be on guard. In the meantime, he believed Blacks should retain their own organizations under their own leadership. Alliances, yes—but we ourselves must decide the terms and conditions, he said.<br />
<br />
Our exchange had gotten off on the wrong foot. I was deeply chagrined by his charge that I was a captive of the whites and that the League was a white organization. For me, that meant that he felt that I was a “white folks’ nigger.” As I recall, I retorted by calling him a Black racialist who saw everything in terms of Black and white.<br />
<br />
“Why not?” he replied. “Being a Negro, how else should I see things?”<br />
<br />
After this flare-up, our tempers cooled off and we continued our discussion in calmer tones. But I was definitely on the defensive, trying to explain why I was in the League and that it was not an organization of white “do-gooders” as he had charged. It was a revolutionary, interracial vanguard organization, I asserted. Sure, we only had a few Blacks now, but our numbers would grow, I argued.<br />
<br />
He was still skeptical and repeated that he was for socialism, but a special road toward this goal he felt was necessary for Black Americans, under their own leadership and organization.<br />
<br />
“Do you mean a Black party?” I queried.<br />
<br />
“Why not?” he rejoined. “It might be necessary as a safeguard for our interests.”<br />
<br />
I had no answers to his position. There was a logic to it which I hadn't thought about.<br />
<br />
We finally parted on friendly terms, promising to keep in touch. I left, realizing that I’d come out the worst in our exchange. I felt that I had failed in my first effort to recruit a good Black man to the League and that we still had some study to do with regards to Black nationalism.<br />
<br />
My friend had been, as I recalled, a bitter critic of Garvey, and therefore assumed that he was hostile to Black nationalism. But now it seemed that he expressed some of Garvey’s racial separatism. Thinking the matter over, I finally camc to the conclusion that the main reason for my inability to counter his arguments was that I sensed that they contained a good measure of truth. What was most disturbing was the sense that his position was less isolated from the masses of Blacks than was my own.<br />
<br />
Up to that point, I had failed to understand the contradictory nature of Black nationalism. I had rejected it totally as a reactionary bourgeois philosophy which, in the conditions of the U.S., had found its logical expression in Garvey’s Back to Africa program. It was therefore a diversion from the struggle for economic, social and political equality-—-the true goal of Blacks in the United States. The fight for equality, I felt, was revolutionary in that it was unattainable within the framework of U.S. capitalist society. Nationalism, moreover, was divisive and played into the hands of the reactionary racists. This, of course, did not exclude the acceptance of some of its features, such as race pride and selfreliance, which were not inconsistent with, but an essential element in, the fight for equality.<br />
<br />
While rejecting nationalism, I also rejected the bourgeois assimilationist position of the NAACP and its associates, and their blind acceptance of white middle class values and culture. What confused me were attempts to amalgamate what I felt were two mutually contradictory elements-—--socialism and the class struggle on the one hand, and nationalism on the other. Or was the contradiction more apparent than real, I wondered. My friend’s nationalism did not go to the point of advocacy of a separate Black nation, He demanded only autonomy in leadership and organization of the Black freedom movement. Was this inconsistent with the concept of equality and class unity? Had not Blacks the right to formulate their conditions for unity? For me, this was the first time I had encountered these questions.<br />
<br />
I attempted to reflect on my short experience in the YCL. Was there not a basis for Black distrust of even white revolutionaries? ‘The situation in the League was not as idyllic as I had first thought. There was a certain underestimation of the importance of the Black struggle against discrimination and for equal rights among both the youth and the adults of the communist movement. Behind that, I sensed there was a feeling that the Black struggle was not itself really revolutionary, but was sort of a drag on the “pure” class struggle.<br />
<br />
This was no doubt a legacy of the old Socialist Party, Evensuch a revolutionary as Debs had said: <blockquote>'''“We have nothing special to offer the Negro, and we cannot make separate appeals to all the races, The Socialist Party is the party of the working-class, regardless of color.” And regarding the Afro-American question: “Social equality, forsooth ... is pure fraud and serves to mask the real issue, which is not social equality, but economic freedom.” “The Socialist platform has not a word in reference to ‘social equality.’ ”'''</blockquote>Evidently, there were a number of theoretical matters still to be cleared up on the question of the struggle for Black equality and freedom.<br />
<br />
I joined the Party itself in the spring of 1925, recruited by Robert Minor, with the consent of the League. I had quit the Santa Fe the summer before, and, totally committed to the communist cause, I then decided to devote more time to the work and to eventually becoming a professional revolutionary. I took extra jobs on weekends and worked banquets and an occasional extra trip on the road. I was living at home with my Mother, Father and sister, who had an infant child, David. All were employed, with my Mother accepting occasional catering jobs.<br />
<br />
Minor, whom I had known for some time, was a reconstructed white Southerner from Texas, a direct descendant of Sam Houston (first Governor of the Lone Star State), He was a former anarchist and one of the great political cartoonists of his day. His powerful cartoons were carried in the Sz. Louis Post-Dispatch, and later on in the old Masses (a cultural magazine of the left) and in the Daily Worker. Among his many talents, he was a journalist of no small ability. Having travelled widely in Europe as a news correspondent during the First World War, Minor had visited Russia during the revolutionary period and had met and spoken with Lenin.<br />
<br />
With these impressive credentials, he was now a member of the Party’s Central Committee and responsible for its Negro work. This was understood as an interim assignment, eventually to be taken over by a Black comrade as soon as one could be developed to fill the position. The person then being groomed for the job was Lovett Fort-Whiteman, who was then in Russia taking a crash course in communist leadership. He had been an associate of Briggs on The Crusader and also worked with Randolph and Owens on The Messenger. Later, as I recall, his selection was the cause for some disgruntlement among the Black comrades.<br />
<br />
Why was Fort-Whiteman chosen in preference to such wellknown and capable Blacks as Richard B. Moore, Otto Huiswood or Cyril P. Briggs, all of whom had revolutionary records superior to Fort-Whiteman’s? At that time, there were no Blacks on the Central Committee, and even when Fort-Whiteman returned from Russia in 1925 to take charge of Afro-American work, Minor remained responsible to the Central Committee. While not as flamboyant as Fort-Whiteman, these Black leaders had records comparable to, or better than, those of many whites on the Central Committee.<br />
<br />
Be that as it may, of all the white comrades, Minor was best fitted for the assignment because of his wide knowledge of and close interest in the question. His intense hatred of his Southern racist background came through in some of the most powerful cartoons of the day. He had wide acquaintances among Black middle class intellectuals. Bob and his wife Lydia had turned their Southside apartment into a virtual salon where Black and white friends would gather to discuss the issues of the day. There I met various Black notables, including Dean Pickens, national field secretary of the NAACP, and Abraham Harris, then secretary of the Minneapolis Urban League. Harris would later become Chairman of the Economies Department of Howard University, and then a full professor of the same subject at the University of Chicago.<br />
<br />
=== THE FOURTH CONVENTION OF THE CPUSA ===<br />
It was the period immediately before the Fourth National Convention of the Communist Party. The factional fight was at its height, with the Party split between two warring camps: the Ruthenberg-Pepper group vs. the Foster-Bittelman group. The atmosphere was rife with charges and counter-charges of “right opportunism” and “left sectarianism.” This factionalism had spilled over into the League, which reflected the alignments then current within the Party.<br />
<br />
I had stood aloof from these factions, as I did not clearly understand the issues. The question of Blacks did not seem to be directly involved. I assumed it was a clash mainly between personalities and narrow group interests, and did not reflect political principles. Each side accused the other of responsibility for the “Farmer-Labor fiasco” which left the Party isolated in its first major attempt to form a united front. I could sce no differences among the factions on the question of bolshevization of the Party.<br />
<br />
The Comintern had recently called upon the Party to bolshevize its ranks. Among other things, this called for the reorganization of the Party on the basis of shop and street units, and the elimination of the foreign language clubs as federated organizations within the Party. These clubs remained close to the Party, however, and followed its leadership.<br />
<br />
I was inclined to favor the Ruthenberg-Pepper group because most of the Party’s Black members--Doty, Elizabeth Griffin, Alonzo Isabel, Otto and my sister Eppa—were in that group. This, I suspected, was partly due to the influence of Bob Minor and Lydia Gibson—their work on the Southside in the tenants’ struggle of 1924, their support of Doty’s Consolidated Trades Council, and their consistent advocacy in the Party of the importance of work among Blacks. (Most of this occurred after I had Ieft the ABB and joined the YCL.)<br />
<br />
Upon joining the Party, I immediately became part of the Ruthenberg group. Under Minor’s tutelage, I was to undergo intensive indoctrination. According to the Ruthenberg faction, Foster, Bittelman, Jack Johnstone and their allies(Cannon, Dunne and Shachtman) were opportunist, narrow-minded trade unionists lacking in Marxist theory and hence in the ability to lead a Marxist party. They said that Foster’s group, which possessed a majority of the delegates, was out to steamroll the convention and toss Ruthenberg, Pepper and Lovestone out of the leadership.<br />
<br />
For most of us, the clincher was that the Foster group lacked the confidence of the Communist International. This latter charge, it seemed to me, was confirmed by the decisions of the Fourth Party Convention the following summer, I was a delegate to this convention from the YCL. I was to witness the intervention of the Cl in the person of its on-the-spot representative, Comrade Green (Gusev), an old Bolshevik friend and co-worker of Lenin and Stalin. For obvious security reasons, only the leaders of both factions had direct contact with him. His job was to suppress factionalism and to unite the Party on the basis of the Comintern line. I must say that he tackled this task with an expertise that was remarkable to behold.<br />
<br />
First, he set up what was called a Parity Committee, composed of an equal number of top leaders of both factions, with himself as a neutral chairman. Since the two factions were evenly represented on the committee, his was the deciding vote. I remember that there was widespread speculation among the delegates as to which faction he would support. We didn’t have long to wait.<br />
<br />
The convention had been in session about a week. The atmosphere was charged, passions inflamed, a split seemed imminent. Indeed, our caucus leaders had difficulty in preventing a walkout by some of the more hot-headed members. A message finally arrived in the form of a cable from the CI (which undoubtedly was sent at Gusev’s urging). The cable was presented to the Parity Committee by Gusev. It demanded that “under no circumstances” should the Foster majority “be allowed to suppress the Ruthenberg group... because,” it went on to say, “the Ruthenberg group is more loyal to the decisions of the Communist International and stands closer to its views. It has the majority or strong minority in most districts and the Foster group uses excessively mechanical and ultra-factional methods,” It further demanded that the Ruthenberg group “get not less than forty percent of the Central Executive Committee” and insisted as “an ultimatum” to the majority “that Ruthenberg retains post of Secretary...categorically insist upon Lovestone’s Central Executive Committee membership...demand retention by Ruthenberg group of co-editorship on central organ,”<br />
<br />
The results were greeted with great jubilation by our group. Foster refused to accept the majority of the incoming Central Committee under these circumstances (in which his loyalty was questioned) and ceded leadership to the Ruthenberg group. The result was that the Ruthenberg-Pepper group retained key positions on the new Central Committee--Ruthenberg as general secretary, Lovestone as organizational secretary, Bedacht as agitprop head.<br />
<br />
Despite factionalism, the convention marked a step forward in the work among Blacks, Although its decisions threw no new light on the question, the platform adopted did contain the most elaborate statement the Party had thus far made.<br />
<br />
It subscribed to full equality in the relationship between Black and white workers, It advocated the right to vote, abolition of Jim Crowism in law and custom, including segregation and intermarriage laws. The main thrust of the program, however, was directed towards building Black and white labor unity on the job and in the union, Toward this end the platform asserted that:<blockquote>'''Our Party must work among the unorganized Negro workers destroying whatever prejudice may exist against trade unions, which has been cultivated by white capitalists..(and) the Negro petty-bourgeoisie... Our Party must make itself the foremost spokesman for the real abolition of all discrimination of the as yet largely unorganized Negro workers in the same union with the white workers on the same basis of equality of membership, equality of right to employment in all branches of work and equality of pay.'''</blockquote>The Party called for the inclusion of Black workers in the existing unions. It came out against racial separatism and dual unionism, but it declared its intention to organize Blacks into separate unions wherever they were barred from existing organizations and to use the separation as a battering ram against Black exclusion. Emphasizing the relationship between these partial demands and ultimate goals, the platform declared that the accomplishment of the above aims was not an end in itself and that on the contrary, it was the struggle for their accomplishment that was even more important: <blockquote>'''In the course of the struggle with such demands we will demonstrate...that these aspirations can be realized only as a result of the successful class struggle against capitalism and with the establishment of the rule of the working class in the Soviet form.'''</blockquote>It must be remembered that by this time the attempts to infiltrate the Garvey movement had proven unsuccessful and that the African Blood Brotherhood, the sole revolutionary Black organization in the field, had been dissolved. To meet the necd for an organizational vehicle to put our program into effect, the Party and the Trade Union Educational League sponsored the American Negro Labor Congress (ANLC). <br />
<br />
In the meantime, Lovett Fort-Whiteman, our man in Moscow, returned to head up the Negro work and to prepare the launching of the ANLC. H.V. Phillips, Edwards, Doty and I were assigned to the organizing committce for the congress, drafting and circulating the call, and approaching organizations for delegates. As I remember, most of the Blacks in the Party were assigned to work on the congress. Otto was not involved in these activities, as immediately after the Fourth Party Convention, he had left for Moscow with the first batch of Black students. <br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman was truly a fantastic figure. A brown-skinned man of medium height, Fort-Whiteman’s high cheekbones gave him somewhat of an Oriental look. He had affected a Russian style of dress, sporting a robochka (a man’s long belted shirt) which came almost to his knees, ornamental belt, high boots and a fur hat. Here was a veritable Black Cossack who could be seen sauntering along the streets of Southside Chicago. Fort-Whiteman was a graduate of Tuskegec and, as I understood, had had some training as an actor, He had been a drama critic for The Messenger and for The Crusader. There was no doubt that he was a showman; he always seemed to be acting out a part he had chosen for himself.<br />
<br />
Upon his return from the Soviet Union, he held a number of press conferences in which he delineated plans for the American Negro Labor Congress, and as a Black communist fresh from Russia, he made good news copy.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman had taken responsibility for lining up enter tainment for the opening night of the congress. Characteristically, with his Russian affectations, he arranged for a program of Russian ballet and theater. The rest of us didn’t question what he was doing, and the incongruity of the program didn’t occur to us until the opening night.<br />
<br />
The mecting took place in a hall on Indiana Avenue near Thirty~ first Street, in the midst of the Black ghetto, When I arrived it was packed—-perhaps 500 people or so. Inside, I was suddenly attracted by a commotion at the door. Asa member of the steering committee, I walked over to see what was the matter. Something was amiss with the “Russian ballet” which was about to enter the hall. A young blonde woman in the “ballet” had been shocked by the complexion of most of the audience, which she had apparently expected to be of another hue. Loudly, in a broad Texas accent, she exclaimed, “Ah’m not goin’ ta dance for these niggahs!”<br />
<br />
Somebody shouted, “Throw the cracker bitches out!” and the “Russian” dance group hurriedly left the hall.<br />
<br />
The Russian actors remained to perform a one-act Pushkin play. They, at least, were genuine Russians from the Russian Federation, But alas, it was in Russian. Of itself, the play was undoubtedly interesting, but its relevance to a Black workers’ congress was, to say the least, unclear. Although Pushkin was a Black man, he wrote as a Russian, and the characters portrayed were Russian. More significant, however, and perhaps an indication of our sectarian approach, was the fact that no Black artist appeared on the program.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman made the keynote speech outlining the purposes and tasks of the congress. He was a passable orator and received a good response. Otto Huiswood, an associate of Briggs and one of the first Blacks to join the Party, also spoke. Richard B. Moore brought the house down with an impassioned speech which reached its peroration in Claude McKay's poem, “If We Must Die.” I was spellbound by Moore; I had never heard such oratory.<br />
<br />
That night, Phillips and I left the hall in high spirits. In fact, I was literally walking on air. At last, I felt, we were about to get somewhere in our work among Blacks. Phillips, a bit more sober than I, remarked, “Let’s wait and sec the report of the credentials committee.”<br />
<br />
His caution was justified, for the big letdown came the following morning. The first working session of the congress convened with about forty Black and white delegates, mainly communists and close sympathizers, The crowd of 500 at the opening night rally had been mainly community people. I think it was Phillips who remarked that there was hardly a face in the working session that he didn’t recognize; most participants, sadly, were from the Chicago arca.<br />
<br />
The organizing committee had prepared draft resolutions for the congress to consider. As we had anticipated a much larger turnout, we had made plans for a credentials committee, resolutions committee, etc. But in light of the small attendance, these resolutions and preparations took on an Alice-in-Wonderland quality. For example, according to the constitution, the group’s purpose was to “unify the efforts...of all organizations of Negro workers and farmers as well as organizations composed of both Negro and white workers and farmers."<br />
<br />
Despite our efforts and work, the ANLC never got off the ground. Few local units were formed, resolutions and plans were never carried into action. Only its official paper, the Negro Champion, subsidized by the Party, continued for several years. Among the post-mortems undertaken on the organization was the one made by James Ford in his book, The Negro and the Democratic Front, He commented that “for the period of its existence, it (the ANLC) was almost completely isolated from the basic masses of the Negro people." Disappointment and disillusionment followed and personal differences surfaced among our group. The fact was that the congress had failed, and with it, the first efforts to build a left-led united front among Blacks.<br />
<br />
There was a natural tendency to find seapegoats for the failure. Moore and Huiswood, the able delegates from New York, seemed to have come to Chicago witha chip on their shoulders. They made no attempt to hide their contempt for Fort-Whiteman, whom they had known in New York. They openly alluded to him as “Minor’s man Friday.” At the time, I was a bit shocked at what I felt was an attempt to malign these comrades. This was especially true of Bob Minor, whom I regarded with respect and affection. He was sort of a father figure to me.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman, on the other hand, was still an unknown quantity. My feelings about him were rather mixed. I was both repelled and fascinated by the excessive flamboyance of the man. But much later, I recalled overhearing a conversation between him and Minor during the preparations for the congress. Minor informed Fort-Whiteman that Ben Fletcher, the well-known Black IWW Leader, had expressed a desire to participate in the congress, It was evident that Bob was pleased by the response of such an important Black labor leader. Fletcher, as an IWW organizer, had played a leading role in the successful organization of Philadelphia longshoremen, His attendance would undoubtedly have attracted other Blacks in the labor movement.<br />
<br />
Fort-Whiteman, however, vehemently opposed the idea and exclaimed, “I don’t want to work with him; I know him. He’s the kind of fellow who'll try to take over the whole show.” That ended the discussion; Fletcher was not invited. .<br />
<br />
I didn’t know Fletcher at the time, but as I reflected back onthe incident some time later, it was clear to me that had he been allowed to participate, Fort-Whiteman would have been overshadowed. I was too new to pass judgment on Fort-Whiteman’s qualifications, but I did wonder why he was chosen over such stalwarts as Moore and Huiswood. Huiswood, as a delegate to the Fourth Congress of the Comintern in 1922, was the first Black American to attend a congress of that body. (Claude McKay was also a special fraternal delegate to that congress.) Together with other delegates, Huiswood visited Lenin and became the first Black man to meet the great Bolshevik. He later became the first Black to serve as a candidate member of the Executive Committee of the Communist International.<br />
<br />
On the whole, I was very optimistic during my early years in the Party—confident we were building the kind of party that would eventually triumph over capitalism.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 5 ==<br />
<br />
=== A Student in Moscow ===<br />
Otto’s delegation of Black students to the Soviet Union caused quite a stir in the States. The FBI kept an eye on their activities and, in late summer 1925, their departure was sensationalized in the New York Times.! The article attributed a statement to Lovett Fort-Whiteman to the effect that he had sent ten Blacks to the Soviet Union to study bolshevism and prepare for careers in the communist “diplomatic service.” The article concluded with a statement calling for action against such “subversive activity.”<br />
<br />
At the time, we all felt that any Black applying for a passport would be subjected to close scrutiny. Therefore, when I learned that I too would soon be studying in Moscow, I applied for a first names of my Mother (Harriet) and Father (Haywood). This name was to stick with me the rest of my life.<br />
<br />
Several weeks after I received my passport, I heard the FBI had been making inquiries about me. By that time, I had become known as one of the founders of the ANLC. Therefore, as the time for my departure drew near, I hid out at the home of comrades on Chicago's Westside until arrangements were made. I went to the national office of the Communist Party, then in Chicago, and was informed by Ruthenberg or Lovestone that I should get ready to leave, Political credentials, typed on silk, were sewn into the lining of my coat sleeve. In order to avoid going through the port of New York, I left by way of Canada.<br />
<br />
In the manner of the old Underground Railroad, I was passed on from one set of comrades to the next: from Detroit, Rudy Baker, the district organizer, forwarded me on to the Canadian Party headquarters in Toronto where Jim MacDonald and Tim Buck were in charge. They sent me on to Montreal where comrades housed me and booked passage for me to Hamburg, Germany. Boarding ship in Quebec in the late spring of 1926, I sailed on the Canadian Pacific liner, the old Empress of Scotland. From Hamburg, I took a train to Berlin, arriving on a Saturday afternoon,<br />
<br />
Thad the address of Hazel Harrison the wife of a Chicago friend of mine who was a concert pianist studying in Berlin, where she had had her professional debut. (Years later, she was to head the Music Department at Howard University.) At that time, she was living at a boarding house near the Kurfurstendamm and I stopped there for the remainder of the weekend.<br />
<br />
This was the first time I had been in Berlin, Germany was then emerging from post-war crisis, during which currency inflation had reached astronomical heights, resulting in the virtual expropriation of a large section of the middle class. It was common to see shabbily dressed men still trying to keep up appearances by wearing starched white collars under their patched clothing,<br />
<br />
The owners of the boarding house, two middle-aged widows who were friends of Hazel’s, showed me a trunk filled with paper notes—-old German marks which were now worthless. This had probably represented a life’s savings.<br />
<br />
Hazel and her two friends took me out to the Tiergarten—the famous Berlin Zoo. I was attracted by the sight of three lion cubs that had been mothered by a German police dog. The cubs were getting big, and it was clear that the “mother” was no longer able to control them. We watched for some time, fascinated. I turned around and realized that there was a crowd around us. At first I thought they were looking at the cubs, but then it became clear that Hazel and I were the center of attention. Blacks were rare in Berlin in those days-—there were only half a dozen or so, mostly from the former German colonies of the Cameroons.<br />
<br />
Monday morning I took a cab to the headquarters of the German Party, at Karl Marx House on Rosenthallerstrasse. It was a dour, fortress-like structure, with high walls surrounding the main building which was set in the middle. I entered into the anteroom just inside the walls, in which there were a number of sturdy looking young men lounging around. When I came in, they jumped up and stood eyeing me suspicously.<br />
<br />
They were unarmed, but I knew their weapons were within arms’ reach, This was a symbol of the times for it was not long after the Beer Hall Putsch of Hitler’s brownshirts in Munich, and the battle for the streets of Berlin had already begun. I presented my credentials to a man named Walters, who was undoubtedly the head of security.<br />
<br />
It was on this occasion that I first met Ernst Thaelmann, a former Hamburg longshoreman and then leader of the German Communist Party. He was passing through the gate and Walters stopped him and introduced us. Thaelmann spoke fairly good English (probably acquired in his work as a seaman) and we chatted. a while. He asked after Foster, Ruthenberg and others. Wishing me good luck, he passed on his way.<br />
<br />
Walters gave me some spending money and arranged for me to stay with some German comrades, a young couple who had an elaborate apartment. The husband ran a haberdashery store on Friedrichstrasse and was a commander in the Rote Front (the red front)---the para-military organization which the communists had organized for defense of workers against the fascists.<br />
<br />
One day while walking down the Kurfurstendamm, I saw a cabaret billboard advertising the Black jazz band of Leland and Drayton and their Charleston dancers. It was a well-known band back. in the States. I had little money, but I couldn’t resist the temptation to stop in and hear them. I sat down at a table and ordered a beer. ‘To my dismay, the waiter said they didn’t sell beer, just wine. So | took the wine card and chose the cheapest bottle I could find.<br />
<br />
A number of band members and dancers came over to my table and asked where I was going. When I told them I was a student going to Moscow, they said they had just returned from a six-month tour in Russia, They were the first Black jazz group that had gone to the Soviet Union. I asked if they had met Otto and the other Black students there. Yes, they had met them all and they had had good times together. So we all sat down to exchange news.<br />
<br />
As we talked, I began to worry about the bill, and said I was low on money. “Oh, don’t worry about that,” someone said and ordered more wine. But when it came time to pay for the drinks, I got stuck with the whole tab and had to walk several miles across town to get home.<br />
<br />
After a month in Berlin, my visa came through. I was on my way to Stettin, a city on the Baltic Sea which bordered Poland and where I boarded a small Soviet ship. After three days of some of the roughest seas I have ever experienced, we landed in Leningrad. It was April 1926, and we were already in the season of the “white nights,” when daylight lasted until late into the evening.<br />
<br />
As we entered the Gulf of Finland the following morning, we passed the naval fortress of Kronstadt about twenty miles out from Leningrad (the site of the anti-Soviet mutiny of 1920). The ship finally docked in Leningrad. Upon landing, I presented my visa and passport to the authorities, Addressing me in English, a man in civilian dress said, “Oh, you’re going to the Comintern school in Moscow?”<br />
<br />
“Yes,” I replied.<br />
<br />
He immediately took me in charge and got my baggage through customs. I assumed he was a member of the security police. We left the customs building and got into an old beat-up Packard. As we drove away from the docks, he informed me that the Moscow train would not leave until eight that evening. He put me up at a hotel where I could rest and go out to see the city.<br />
<br />
Leningrad (old St. Petersburg) was built by Czar Peter the Great in the sixteenth century and now renamed for the architect of the new socialist society. As I walked down the now famous Nevsky Prospekt, I thought of John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook the World, trying to recapture some of the dramatic scenes in that classic. I passed the Peter and Paul Fortress and then the Winter Palace---once the home of the czars and now a museum of the people. The storming of the Winter Palace in 1917 had been the crucial event in the taking of St. Petersburg by the Bolsheviks.<br />
<br />
The people I saw passing me on the street were plainly dressed. Many of the men wore the traditional robochka and high boots; others were in European dress. Most people were dressed neatly, though shabhily, and all appeared to be well-fed. They were bright and cheerful, It seemed they went ahout with a purpose—a sharp contrast to the atmosphere of hopelessness that had pervaded Berlin, People in Leningrad looked at me---and I looked at them. By this time, I had become used to being stared at and took it as friendly curiosity. After all, a Black man was seldom seen in those parts.<br />
<br />
After several hours, I returned to my hotel. My friend from the security police showed up promptly at seven with my train ticket and took me to the station to put me on the train to Moscow. Filled with excitement and anticipation, I got little sleep on the train and awoke early to see the Russian landscape flowing by my window— pine forests, groves of birch trees and swamps. I was in the midst of the great Russian steppes.<br />
<br />
When we arrived in Moscow at Yaroslavsky Station, some of my traveling companions hailed a droshky and told the driver to take me to the Comintern.<br />
<br />
Moscow at last! We drove from the station into the vast sprawling city--once the capital of old Russia and now of the new. It was a bright, sunny morning and the sun glistened off the golden church domes in the “city of a thousand churches.” It seemed a maze of narrow, cobblestone streets, intersected by broad boulevards. While Leningrad had been a distinctly European city, Moscow seemed a mixture of the Asiatic and the European—a bizarre and strange combination to me, but a cheerful one. Moscow was more Russian than the cosmopolitan Leningrad. Crowds swarmed in the streets in many different styles of dress.<br />
<br />
We arrived at the Comintern, which was housed in an old eighteenth century structure on Ulitsa Komintern near the Kremlin, across the square from Staraya Konyushnya (the old stables of the czar). I paid the driver and entered the building. The guard at the door checked my credentials and directed me upstairs to a small office on the third floor. After producing my bonafides, I was told to take a seat, to wait for my comrades who would soon becoming for me.<br />
<br />
About half an hour later, Otto and another Black man entered the room. I was overjoyed at the sight of him and his friend, who turned out to be a fellow student, Harold Williams. We embraced Russian style, and I began to feel more at home in this strange jand.<br />
<br />
Otto asked about the family. An expression of sadness crossed his face, however, when I asked him about the rest of the Black students, He then informed me of Jane Golden’s serious illness. She was at that moment in a uremic coma from a kidney ailment and was not expected to live. Her husband was at her side at the hospital. (Though both were from Chicago, I had not met them before.)<br />
<br />
The situation had saddened the whole Black student body, and for that matter, the whole school. In the course of her brief sojourn, Jane had become very popular. Otto described her in glowing terms—a real morale booster, whose spirit had helped all of them through the period of initial adjustment.<br />
<br />
I was impressed. Here was a Black woman, not a member of the Communist Party, who had so easily become accustomed to the new Soviet socialist society. It seemed to me that there must be thousands of Black women like her in the U.S.<br />
<br />
After we had greeted each other, we caught a droshky over to the school in order that I might register officially. In the course of the ride, the driver lashed his horse and cursed at him. I asked Otto what he was saying, and he gave a running translation: “Get up there, you son-of-a-bitch. I feed you oats while I myself eat black bread! Your sire was no good, you bastard, your momma was no good too!” This verbal and physical abuse, Otto told me, was typical of most Russian droshky drivers.<br />
<br />
We finally arrived at the school administration which was housed in another old seventeenth century structure, built before the Revolution. It had been a finishing school for daughters of the aristocracy. Before that, it had been a boys’ school where, rumor has it, the great Pushkin had studied.<br />
<br />
Otto introduced me to the university rector with what sounded to my untrained ear like fluent Russian. We then went to the office of the chancellor, where I was duly registered. I was now a student at the Universitet Trydyashchiysya Vostoka Imeni Stalina (the University of the Toilers of the East Named for Stalin)---Russian acronym KUTVA, Otto and I then walked to the dormitory a few blocks away where I met the other two Black students, Bankole and Farmer,<br />
<br />
We all immediately took a streetcar to the hospital which was located on the other side of the Moscow River. There we were met by Golden and some other students who informed us that Jane Golden had just passed away that morning, Golden seemed to be in a state of shock and the doctors had given him some sedatives. We went into the hospital morgue to view her body. Bankole broke down in uncontrollable tears, I learned afterwards that Jane had been a close friend—a kind of mother to him during the period of his adjustment to this new land.<br />
<br />
We took Golden home to the dormitory. The school collective and its leaders immediately took over the funeral arrangements. The body lay in state in the school auditorium for twenty-four hours, during which time the students thronged past.<br />
<br />
The funeral was held the following day and the whole school turned out. The cortege seemed a mile long as it flowed past Tverskaya towards the cemetery. The students would not allow the casket to be placed upon the cart, but organizing themselves in relays every fifty yards, insisted on carrying it the distance of several miles on their shoulders,<br />
<br />
A good portion of the American colony in Moscow was assembled at the cemetery. The chairman of the school collective, a young Georgian, delivered a stirring eulogy at the graveside. One of the students who was standing next to me made a running translation sotto voce which went something like this:<br />
<br />
The first among her race to come to the land of socialism...in search of freedom for her oppressed peoples, former slaves... to find out how the Soviets had done it. We were happy to receive her and her comrades...condolences to her bereaved husband, our Comrade Golden, and to the rest of the Negro Students,..the whole university has suffered a great loss. Rest in peace, Jane Golden. You were with us only a short time, but all of us have benefitted from your presence and comradeship,<br />
<br />
Turning to Golden, he said:<br />
<br />
We Soviet people and comrades of oppressed colonial and dependent countries must carry on. We pledge our undying support to the cause of your people’s freedom. Long live the freedom fight of our Negro brothers in America! Long live the Soviet Union and its Communist Party, beacon light of the struggle for freedom of all oppressed peoples.<br />
<br />
Golden had borne himself well at the graveside, but we didn't want him to return to his room in the students’ dormitory, which would only remind him of his grievous loss. So we went to the apartment of MacCloud, an old Wobbly friend of ours from Philadelphia, who had attended the funeral and who lived in the Zarechnaya District, across the river. He was a close friend of Big Bill Haywood and had followed the great working class leader to the Soviet Union, There we tried to drown our sorrows in good old Russian vodka, which was in plentiful supply.<br />
<br />
Jane Golden’s funeral and the school collective’s response to her death made a profound impression on me, Through these events, crammed into the first three days of my stay in the Soviet Union, I came to know something about my fellow students and the new socialist society into which I had entered<br />
<br />
=== THE BOLSHEVIKS FIGHT FOR EQUALITY OF NATIONS ===<br />
KUTVA was a unique university. At the time I entered, its student body represented more than seventy nationalities and ethnic groups. It was founded by the Bolsheviks for the special purpose of training cadre from the many national and ethnic groups within the Soviet Union—the former colonial dependencies of the czarist empire—and also to train cadres from colonies and subject nations outside the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
The school was divided into two sections-—inner and outer. At the inner section there were Turkmenians, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Bashkirs, Yakuts, Chuvashes, Kazaks, Kalmucks, Buryat-Mongols and Inner and Outer Mongolians from Soviet Asia. From the Caucasus there were Azerbaidzhanis, Armenians, Georgians,<br />
<br />
Abkhazians and many other national and ethnic groups I had never heard of before, There were Tartars from the Crimea and the Volga region,<br />
<br />
The national and ethnic diversity found within the Soviet Union is hard to imagine. The Revolution had opened up many areas, for example through the Trans-Caucasus Road, and as late as 1928, the existence of new groups was still being “discovered.” These nationalities were all former colonial dependencies of the czars and were referred to as the “Soviet East,” “peoples of the East,” and “borderland countries,” The inner section comprised the main and largest part of the student body in the university.<br />
<br />
We Blacks were of course part of the outer section at the school. It included Indians, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, Persians, Egyptians, Arabs and Palestinian Jews from the Middle East, Arabs from North Africa, Algerians, Moroccans, Chinese and several Japanese (hardly a colonial people, but as revolutionaries, identified with the East).<br />
<br />
The Chinese, several hundred strong, comprised the largest group of the outer section, This was obviously because China, bordering on the USSR, was in the first stage of its own antiimperialist revolution, a revolution receiving direct material and political support from the Soviet Union. While KUTVA trained the communist cadres from China, there was also the Sun Yat-sen University, just outside of Moscow, which trained cadres for the Kuomintang.<br />
<br />
Among its students was the daughter of the famous Christian general, Chang Tso-lin, Several Chinese, including Chiang Kaishek’s son, studied in Soviet military schools during this period. A number of the Chinese students from KUTVA were massacred by Chiang’s troops at the Manchurian border when they returned to China shortly after Chiang’s bloody betrayal of the revoiution in 1927, Otto told me that a former girlfriend of his was among this group. As I remember, there were no Latin Americans at KUTVA during the time I was there, and the sole black African was Bankole, The student body was continually expanding, however, and later included many students from these and other areas.<br />
<br />
We students studied the classic works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. But unlike the past schooling we had known, this whole body of theory was related to practice. Theory was not regarded as dogma, but as a guide to action.<br />
<br />
In May 1925, Stalin had delivered an historic speech at the school, outlining KUTV A’s purpose and its main task. His lecture was the subject of continuous discussion and study. It was our introduction to the Marxist theory on the national question and its development by Lenin and Stalin.<br />
<br />
How did the Bolsheviks transform a territory embracing onesixth of the earth’s surface—known as the “prison-house of nations” under the Czar-—into a family of nations, a free union of peoples? What was the policy pursued by the Soviets which enabled them to forge together more than a hundred different stages of social development into such extraordinary unity of effort for the building of a multinational socialist state—the kind of unity that enabled them to win the civil war within and to defeat the intervention of seventeen nations, including the United States, from without.<br />
<br />
The starting point for us was to understand that the formation of peoples into nations is an objective law of social development around which the Bolsheviks, particularly Lenin and Stalin, had developed a whole body of theory. According to this theory, a nation is an historically constituted stable community of people, based on four main characteristics; a common territory, a common economic life, a common language and a common psychological makeup (national character) manifested in common features in a national culture, Since the development of imperial ism, the liberation of the oppressed nations has become a question whose final resolution would only come through proletarian revolution.<br />
<br />
The guiding principle of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on the national question was to bring about the unity of the laboring masses of the various nationalities for the purpose of waging a joint struggle—first to overthrow czarism and imperialism, and then to build the new society under a working class dictatorship. The accomplishment of the latter required the establishment of equality before the law for all nationalities —with no special privileges for any one people-—and the right of the colonies and subject nations to separate.<br />
<br />
This principle was incorporated into the law of the land in the Declaration of Rights of the People of Russia, passed a few days after the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks. Of course, the declaration of itself did not eliminate national inequality, which as Stalin had observed, “rested on economic inequality, historically formed.” To eliminate this historically based economic and cultural inequality imposed by the czarist regimes upon the former oppressed nations, it was required that the more developed nations assist these formerly oppressed nations and peoples to catch up with the Great Russians in economic and cultural development,<br />
<br />
In pursuance of this aim, the new government was organized on a bicameral basis. One body was chosen on the basis of population alone, the other, the Council of Nationalities, consisted of representatives from each of the national territorial units.the autonomous Soviet republics, autonomous regions and national areas, Any policy in regard to the affairs of these formerly oppressed nations could be carried through only with the approval of the Council of Nationalities. The Communist Party, through its members, was involved in both bodies and worked to see that its policy of full equality and the right of self-determination was implemented,<br />
<br />
As this theory was put into practice, we learned that national cultures could be expressed with a proletarian (socialist) content and that there was no antagonistic contradiction, under socialism, between national cultures and proletarian internationalism. Under the Soviets, the languages and other national characteristics of the many nationalities were developed and strengthened with the aim of drawing the formerly oppressed nationalities into full participation in the new society. Thus, the Bolsheviks upheld the principle of “proletarian in content, national in form.” Through this policy, they hoped to draw all nationalities together, acquainting each with the achievements of the others, leading to a truly universal culture, a joint product of all humanity.<br />
<br />
This is in sharp contrast to imperialism’s policy of forcibly arresting and distorting the free development of nations in order to maintain their economic and cultural backwardness as an essential condition for the extraction of superprofits. Thus, the oppressed nations can achieve liberation only through the path of revolutionary struggle to overthrow imperialism and in alliance with the working class of the oppressor nations. Stalin, proceeding from the experience and practice of the Soviet Union, emphasized the need for the formation and consolidation of a united revolutionary front between the working class of the West and the rising revolutionary movements of the colonies.--a united front based on a struggle against a common enemy. The precondition for forming such unity is that the proletariat of the oppressor nations gives:<blockquote>'''direct and determined support to the liberation movement of the oppressed peoples against the imperialism of its “own country,” for “no nation can be free if it oppresses other nations.” (Engels)... This support implies the advocacy, defense and implementation of the slogan of the right of nations to secession, to independent existence as states'''.</blockquote>Without this cooperation of peoples based on mutual confidence and fraternal interrelations, it will be impossible to establish the material basis for the victory of socialism.<br />
<br />
The test of all this theory was being proven in practice in the Soviet Union. The experience of the Bolsheviks demonstrably proved to us that socialism offered the most favorable conditions for the full development of oppressed nations and peoples.<br />
<br />
At the time of the Revolution, there were many nationalities within the borders of the Soviet Union in which the characteristics of nationhood had not yet fully matured, and in fact had been suppressed by the czars. It was the Soviet system itself which became a powerful factor in the consolidation of these nationalities into nations, as socialist industry and collective farming created the economic basis for this consolidation.<br />
<br />
I observed this firsthand in the Crimea and the Caucasus during my visits there in the summers of 1927 and 1928. The language and culture which had been stifled under the czarist regime were now being developed. The language of the Crimean people was a Turko-Tartar language, but before the Revolution, almost all education, such as there was, was in the Russian language. Now there were schools established which used the native language. Otto and other students made similar observations when they traveled to different areas of the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, | was having my own problems with the Russian language. On first hearing it, the language had sounded most strange to me. I could hardly understand a word and wondered if I would ever be able to master it. As the youngest Black American, I applied myself seriously to its study. The first hurdle was the Cyrillic alphabet—-its uniquely different characters intimidated me. But the crash course at KUTVA, lasting about an hour and a half per day, soon broke down this initial barrier.<br />
<br />
In addition, I studied on my own for a couple of hours each day. I would set out to memorize twenty new words a day, Then at night, | would write them out on a sheet of paper and pin them above the mirror in my room. I would then go over them again in the morning while shaving, and during the day I would make sure to use them in conversation with the Russians.<br />
<br />
English grammar had always seemed irrelevant to me, but I soon came to appreciate the logic of Russian grammar. In fact, I learned most of my English grammar through the study of Russian. Its rules were consistent and understandable. ‘The language soon ceased to be mysterious and revealed itself as being beautifully and simply constructed. In six months | was able to read Pravda with the help of a dictionary.<br />
<br />
=== KUTVA: STRUCTURE AND STUDIES ===<br />
The school structure was fairly complicated, but, as I saw it, thoroughly democratic. There was the collective, the general body which ineluded everybody in the school—from the rector, faculty, students, clerical and maintenance workers to the scrubwoman. The leading body of the collective was the bureau—-composed of representatives clected by the various groups in the university. There was also a Communist Party organization which played the leadership role at all levels.<br />
<br />
Originally established by the Council of Nationalities, KUTVA was now a Party school, administered by the Educational Department (AGITPROP) of the Central Committee of the CPSU. There was a direct representative of the Party, called a “Party strengthener,” in the school administration, Together with the rector and a representative of the students, he was part of the “troika” which constituted the top leadership of the school.<br />
<br />
Students had the rights of citizens, voting and participating in local elections, The school discussed and dealt with all the issues which Soviet workers and peasants discussed at their work places. As with all students who pursued courses in higher education in the Soviet Union, we at KUTVA received full room and board, clothes and a small stipend for spending money. There was, of course, no tuition, We used to attend workers’ cultural clubs and do volunteer work, like working Saturdays to help build the Moscow subways. Education for us was not an ivory tower, but a true integration into the Soviet society, where we received firsthand knowledge from our experiences.<br />
<br />
The curriculum (which was a three-year course) was based on Marxism-Leninism; that is, the teachings of Marx and Engels as developed by Lenin. It included dialectical and historical materialism, the Marxist world concept; the Marxist theory of class struggle as the motive force of human events, the economic doctrines of Marx: value and surplus value, as a key to understanding history by revealing the economic law of motion of modern capitalist societies, Lenin’s analysis of imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism; theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat and its Soviet state form; the problems of socialist construction; Lenin’s theory on the peasant question-—the alliance of workers and peasants as the base for Soviet power; the national and colonial questions; and the role of the party as vanguard of the proletariat. We also studied the specifie history of the CPSU.<br />
<br />
Our favorite teacher was Endré Sik, who taught courses on Leninism and the history of the Soviet Party. Sik was a striking young man. His distinguishing feature was a large shock of white hair, unusual for a manso young---he was probably in his thirties. He was soft-spoken and modest. We all loved Sik; he was an outgoing person who radiated warmth.<br />
<br />
Sik was a Hungarian, a politieal refugee living in Russia, He had been a soldier in the Austro-Hungarian Army during the First World War. Captured by the Russians, he was converted to Bolshevism while in a Russian prison camp. On his release, he had gone baek to Hungary and participated in the short-lived (133 days) Hungarian Soviet government of 1919 of Béla Kun, Withthe defeat of the Béla Kun government, Sik—along with hundreds of other revolutionaries—fled to the Soviet Union. Hungarian exiles made up one of Moscow’s largest foreign colonies. In Moscow, Sik pursued an academic career. He was a graduate of the Institute of Red Professors and like many Hungarian intellectuals, he was multilingual.<br />
<br />
For all his good nature, Sik seemed tired and harassed. He was teaching in many schools, in addition to activity in the Hungarian community. Seven years after the defeat of the Hungarian Soviet, the exiled revolutionaries were bitterly divided and factionalized, laying blame on each other for the failure of the revolution,<br />
<br />
Sik beeame deeply interested in the question of Blacks in the United States and undertook a serious study of the question. He read all the books available and also asked the Black students at KUTVA to join with him. Unfortunately for our personal relationship, Sik and I were to find ourselves on opposite sides of the fenee in the discussion of Black Americans which took place at the Sixth Congress of the Communist International in June 1928.<br />
<br />
Our teacher of Marxist economics was a young man by the name of Rubenstein, a Russian economist in the Gosplan (Governmental Planning Commission). The star pupil in that class turned out to be our modest friend Golden. Golden, who had known nothing about Marxism before eoming to the Soviet Union, was able to grasp the intricacies of Marx’s Capital and Value, Price and Profit seemingly without effort.<br />
<br />
A class that stands out in my memory was one on how tomakea revolution, to seize power onee the situation was ripe. This course eonsisted of a series of Jeetures by a young Red Army officer. He had been a heroie figure in the Moscow uprising of 1917 and the subsequent seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in that city. A tall, handsome young man of bourgeois background, he had been a lieutenant in the army of the Kerensky government. Like many other soldiers, he had been won over by the Bolsheviks on the basis of their demands, which reflected the needs of the people. peace, bread and land. To him, the Moscow uprising against Kerensky, led by the Bolsheviks, was a model for the coming seizure of power in the big cities of the capitalist world.<br />
<br />
He had a large map of Moscow on the wall and would use it to illustrate how it had been done. The eall for the uprising, he said, had come to the Moseow Communist Party by telephone from Leningrad, where the revolutionary workers, sailors and army under the leadership of Lenin had overthrown the Kerensky government and seized power in that eity.<br />
<br />
In Moscow, the Party organization, already prepared, issued a call to the people for an uprising. His regiment, stationed on the outskirts of the eity, together with red guards (workers’ militia), responded and began to march towards the center of the city. The White Guardists were concentrated in the Arbot and in the Kremlin, Here he pointed out, in Russian and other European cities, the working class districts were centered around factories on the outskirts of the city and Moseow was cireled by workers suburbs. Together with defected units of other regiments and with red guards, they marehed towards Moscow’s central area, whence fighting spread throughout the city--even into the trans-Moscow district. The reds finally wiped out the White Guardist strongholds, and the Kremlin, which had changed hands two times before in the fighting, finally surrendered,<br />
<br />
Moscow was ours!<br />
<br />
=== CLASSMATES AT KUTVA ===<br />
Beeausc of the language problem, we students from outside the Soviet Union were subdivided into three main language groups: English, French and Chinese. English and French were the dominant languages of the many colonial areas represented at the university. Spanish was later added when Latin American students began to arrive. In addition to ourselves, the English-speaking group included East Indians, Koreans, Japanese and Indonesians. I had many close friends in this latter group.<br />
<br />
One of the most interesting and brilliant was an Indian student by the name of Sakorov. (They all took Russian names because of the severe repression which they faced back home.) A former machinist in a Detroit auto plant, Sakorov had been sent to the school by the American Party.<br />
<br />
Originally from Bombay, Sakorov had gone to sea on a British ship at the age of twelve and had been subjected to very oppressive conditions his whole career at sea. He eventually jumped ship in Baltimore and wound up working in an auto plant in Detroit. Of all the group of students, he was the closest to us Blacks, He knew first hand the plight of Blacks in the United States, and as a dark skinned Indian, he had experienced much of the same type of racial abuse while there, After he left the school, he returned to India, where he became one of the founders of the Indian Communist Party.<br />
<br />
Later, more Indian students were to come, including one sixteen year old—a tall, lanky boy who took the name of Volkoy. He had been born in California; his parents were Sikhs who had migrated to the U.S. and worked as agricultural workers in the Imperial Valley of California. They were part of a foreign contingent of the Ghadr Party, a revolutionary nationalist party of Sikhs which had been organized in 1916. The Party would pick out young men to be future leaders; Volkov was chosen and sent to Japan for education and stayed there a year. Then he was sent to study in the Soviet Union, perhaps by the Japanese Party. He spoke Japanese and English.<br />
<br />
Among the Indian students was a group of about half a dozen Sikhs, former professional soldiers, survivors of the Hong Kong massacre of 1926. On the pretext of quelling an “imminent mutiny,” the British colonel of the regiment stationed in Hong Kong had called the unarmed Sikh soldiers into the regimental square and turned machine guns on them. (All regiments in the Indian Army included a British machine gun company as a safeguard against mutiny.) Several hundred were killed or wounded. As I understood it, the massacre was engineered to quell the protests over conditions which were being raised by members of the Ghadr Party and its supporters.<br />
<br />
The group who arrived in Moscow were among the few who escaped over the walls; they had fled to Shanghai where they were taken in charge by M.N. Roy, an Indian and then Comintern representative to China. Roy sent them to Moscow. These students, some of them older grey-bearded men, had spent their whole lives in the British Indian Army, They represented a special problem for the school, because most of them had had very little education of any kind. They were not brought into our class, but were put into a special group under the tutelage of Volkov, Sakorov and other of the regular Indian students,<br />
<br />
It was my good fortune to meet many of these Indian students again in 1942, when I was in Bombay as a merchant seaman, Most of them were leading figures in the Indian revolutionary movement. Sakorov had been a defendant in one of the Merut trials, having been charged with “conspiracy against the king,” Since his return to India, he had spent eleven years in prison. Nada, another former schoolmate, was president of the Indian Friends of the Soviet Union and very active among the students and youth,<br />
<br />
There were several Koreans and Japanese at the school, and two Indonesians. I remember Dirja particularly well. A Dutcheducated Indonesian intellectual, he was an old revolutionary who had spent many years in prison. There was another Indonesian, a young man (whose name I cannot recall), who later emerged as a communist leader and was killed in the Indonesian revolt of 1946.<br />
<br />
Kemal Pasha (a party name conferred on him by Sakorov) was a grey-eyed Moroccan from the Riffian tribe of Abdul Krim, I met Kemal Pasha again in Paris during the Spanish Civil War. There were also two whites in the group-June Kroll, then the wife of an American communist leader, Carl Reeves; and Max Halff, a young English lad of Russian-Jewish parentage.<br />
<br />
=== BLACKS IN MOSCOW ===<br />
We students were a fairly congenial lot and in particular I got to know the other Black students quite well. Golden was a handsome, jet-Black man; a former Tuskegee student and a dining car waiter, He was not a member of the Communist Party, but was a good friend of Lovett Fort-Whiteman, head of the Party's Afro-American work.<br />
<br />
Golden told me that his coming to the Soviet Union had been accidental. He had run into Fort-Whiteman, a fellow student at Tuskegee, on the streets of Chicago, Fort-Whiteman had just returned from Russia and was dressed in a Russian blouse and hoots.<br />
<br />
As Golden related it: “I asked Fort-Whiteman what the hell he was wearing, Had he come off the stage and forgotten to change clothes? He informed me that these were Russian clothes and that he had just returned from that country.”<br />
<br />
Golden at first thought it was a put-on, but became interested as Fort-Whiteman talked about his experiences. “Then out of the blue, he asks me if I want to go to Russia as a student. At first, I thought he was kidding, but man, I would have done anything to get off those dining cars! I was finally convinced that he was serious. ‘But I’m married,’ I told him. ‘What about my wife? ‘Why, bring her along too!’ he replied. He took me to his office at the American Negro Labor Congress, an impressive set-up with a secretary, and I was convinced, Fort-Whiteman gave me money to get passports, and the next thing I knew, a couple of weeks later we were on the boat with Otto and the others on the way to Russia. And here I am now.”<br />
<br />
He had a keen sense of humor and kidded the rest of us a lot, particularly Otto, His Southern accent carried over into Russian, and we teased him about being the only person who spoke Russian with a Mississippi accent,<br />
<br />
Then there was Bankole, an African who spent most of his time with the Black Americans. He was an Ashanti, from the Gold Coast (now Ghana) and his family was part of the African elite.<br />
<br />
The son of a wealthy barrister, his family had sent him to London University to study journalism, From there, he had gone to Carnegie Tech in Pittsburgh.<br />
<br />
He had been on the road to becoming a perennial student and had planned to continue at McGill University in Montreal, but was recruited to the Young Communist League in Pittsburgh. In the States, he was confronted with a racism more blatant than any he had met before. I gathered that this had struck him sharply and had been largely responsible for his move to the left,<br />
<br />
My brother Otto had become sort of a character in the school, He was popular among the students, who immediately translated his pseudonym “John Jones” into the Russian “Ivan Ivanovich,” Otto had ahsolutely no tolerance for red tape, and he had hecome a mortal enemy of the apparatchiki (petty bureaucrats) in the school. He had built a reputation for making their lives miserable, and when they saw him coming, they would huddle in a corner; “Here comes Ivan Ivanovich. Ostorozhno (watch out)! Bolshoi skandal budyet (this guy will make a big scandal)!”<br />
<br />
Harold Williams of Chicago was a West Indian and former seaman in the British merchant marine, He had adopted the name of Dessalines, one of the three leaders of the Haitian revolution of the 1790s. Williams had little formal education and some difficulty in grasping theory, but was instinctively a class-conscious guy.<br />
<br />
Finally, there was Mahoney, whose name in the USSR was Jim Farmer. Farmer was a steelworker from East Liverpool, Ohio, a Communist Party member and had played a leading role in local struggles in the steel mills.<br />
<br />
There were only eight of us Blacks in a city of 4,500,000 people. In addition to the six students, there were also two Black American women who had long residence (since before the Revolution) in Moscow.<br />
<br />
I only knew one of the women, Emma Harris. We first met on the occasion of the death of Jane Golden. Emma was a warm, outgoing and earthy middle-aged woman, originally from Georgia. It was evident that she had once been quite handsome—of the type that in the old days we called a “teasin’ brown.” Emma had first come to Moscow as a member of a Black song and dance group, a lowly hoofer in the world of cheap vaudeville. Having been deserted by its manager, the group was left stranded in Moscow.<br />
<br />
While the others had evidently made their way back to the States, Emma had decided to stay. She had liked the country. Here, being Black wasn’t a liability, but on the contrary, a definite asset, With her drive and ambition to be “somebody,” Emma parlayed this asset into a profitable position. She married a Russian who installed her, it seems, as a madam of a house of prostitution. It was no ordinary house, she once explained to me. “Our clients were the wealthy and nobility.” To the former hoofer, this was status.<br />
<br />
Such was Emma’s situation in November 1917, when the Russian Bolsheviks and Red Guards moved in from the proletarjan suburbs of Moscow to capture the bourgeois inner city and the Kremlin. During some mopping-up operations, Emma’s house was raided by the Cheka (the security police). A bunch of White Guardists had holed up there and the whole group was arrested, including Emma. They were taken to the Lubyanka Prison and some of the more notorious White Guardists were summarily executed.<br />
<br />
Emma remained in a cell for a few days. Finally she was called up before a Cheka official. He told her that they were looking into her case. Many of the people who had been arrested at her place were counter-revolutionaries and conspirators against the new Soviet state, and some had been shot. Emma disclaimed knowledge of any conspiracy and stated that she was engaged in “legitimate” business and had nothing to do with the politics of her clients.<br />
<br />
“You know the only reason we didn’t shoot you was because you are a Negro woman,” the official said. To her surprise, he added, “You are free to go now. I advise you to try to find some useful work. Keep out of trouble.”<br />
<br />
When we met Emma, she had become a textile worker. She lived with a young Russian woman--also a textile worker, whom I suspected was a reformed prostitute—in a two-room apartment in an old working class district near Krasnaya Vorota (Red Gate). Soon after the first Black students arrived, she sought them out and grected them like long lost kinfolk.<br />
<br />
At least once a month, we students would pool part of the small stipends we reccived and give Emma money to shop for and prepare some old home cooking for us. On these occasions, she would regale us with stories from her past life. At times one could detect a fleeting expression of sadness, of nostalgia, for her old days of affluence. One could see that she had never become fully adjusted to the new life under the Soviets. While not openly hostile, it was clear that she was not an ardent partisan of the new regime. Knowing our sentiments, she avoided political discussion and kept her views to herself. Our feelings toward her were warmest when we first arrived, but as we developed more ties with the Russians, we went by to see her less often. But we did continue to visit her periodically; she was a sort of mother figure for us, and we all felt sorry for her. She was getting old and often expressed a desire to return to the States. She was finally able to return home after World War II.<br />
<br />
Needless to say, Blacks attracted the curiosity of the Muscovites. Children followed us in the streets. If we paused to grect a (riend, we found ourselves instantly surrounded by curious crowds-—unabashedly staring at us. Once, while strolling down Tverskaya, Otto and I stopped to greet a white American friend and immediately found ourselves surrounded by curious Russians. It was a friendly curiosity which we took in stride. A young Russian woman stepped forward and began to upbraid and lecture the crowd.<br />
<br />
“Why are you staring at these people? They're human beings the same as us. Do you want them to think that we’re savages? Era ne kulturnya! (That is uncultured!)” The last was an epithet and in those days a high insult.<br />
<br />
“Eta ne po-Sovietski! (It’s not the Soviet way!)” she scolded them,<br />
<br />
At that point, someone in the crowd calmly responded: “Well, citizeness, it’s a free country, isn’t it?”<br />
<br />
We were not offended, but amused. We understood all this for what it was.<br />
<br />
There was one occasion when Otto, Farmer, Bankole and I were walking down Tverskaya. Bankole, of course, stood out—attracting more attention than the rest of us with his English cut Savile Row suit, monocle and cane—a black edition of a British aristocrat. We found ourselves being followed by a group of Russian children, who shouted: “Jass Band....Jass Band!”<br />
<br />
Otto, Farmer and I were amused at the incident and took it in stride. Bankole, however, shaking with rage at the implication, jerked around to confront them. His monocle fell off as he shouted: “Net Jass Band! Net Jass Band!” As he spoke, he hit his cane on the ground for emphasis.<br />
<br />
Evidently, to these kids, a jazz band was not just a group of musicians, but a race or tribe of people to which we must belong. They obviously thought we were with Leland and Drayton, the musicians I had met in Berlin, They had been a big hit with the Muscovites. We pulled Bankole away, “C'mon man, cut it out, ‘They don’t mean anything.”<br />
<br />
In the Soviet Union, remnants of national and racial prejudices from the old society were attacked by education and law. It was a crime to give or receive direct or indirect privileges, or to exercise discrimination because of race or nationality. Any manifestation of racial or national superiority was punishable by law and was regarded as a serious political offense, a social crime.<br />
<br />
During my entire stay in the Soviet Union, I encountered only one incident of racial hostility, It was on a Moscow streetear. Several of us Black students had boarded the car on our way to spend an evening with our friend MacCloud. It was after rush hour and the car was only about half filled with Russian passengers. As usual, we were the objects of friendly curiosity. At one stop, a drunken Russian staggered aboard. Seeing us, he muttered (but loud enough for the whole car to hear) something about “Black devils in our country.”<br />
<br />
A group of outraged Russian passengers thereupon seized him and ordered the motorman to stop the ear. It was a citizen's arrest, the first I had ever witnessed. “How dare you, you scum, insult people who are the guests of our country!”<br />
<br />
What then occurred was an impromptu, on-the-spot meeting, where they debated what to do with the man. I was to see many of this kind of “meeting” during my stay in Russia.<br />
<br />
It was decided to take the culprit to the police station which, the conductor informed them, was a few blocks ahead, Upon arrival there, they hustled the drunk out of the car and insisted that we Blacks, as the injured parties, come along to make the charges.<br />
<br />
At first we demurred, saying that the man was obviously drunk and not responsible for his remarks. “No, citizens,” said a young man (who had done most of the talking), “drunk or not, we don’t allow this sort of thing in our country. You must come with us to the militia (police) station and prefer charges against this man.”<br />
<br />
‘The car stopped in front of the station. The poor drunk was hustled off and all the passengers came along. The defendant had sobered up somewhat by this time and began apologizing before we had even entered the building. We got to the commandant of the station.<br />
<br />
The drunk swore that he didn’t mean what he'd said. “I was drunk and angry about something else. I swear to you citizens that I have no race prejudice against those Black gospoda (gentlemen).”<br />
<br />
We actually felt sorry for the poor fellow and we accepted his apology. We didn’t want to press the matter.<br />
<br />
“No,” said the commandant, “we'll keep him overnight. Perhaps this will be a lesson to him<br />
<br />
=== BIG BILL HAYWOOD ===<br />
In addition to the students at KUTVA and the two Black women, there was a sizeable American colony in Moscow during my stay there. There were political representatives of the Communist Party USA to the Comintern, the Profintern, the Crestintern and to the departments, bureaus and secretaries of these organizations—holding jobs as translators, stenographers and researchers <br />
<br />
Soviet cultural and publishing organizations also employed U.S, citizens, and in addition to the political groups, there were a number of technical and skilled workers who came as specialists to work for the new Soviet state. I got to know a number of the Americans during my stay, both official reps and others in the colony.<br />
<br />
Big Bill Haywood was perhaps the most famous of these. He was organizer and founder of the IWW, and a great friend of all Blacks in Moscow. At the time I met him he was in his late fifties and quite ill, suffering from diabetes. Physically, he was only the shell of the man he had once been. He called himself a political refugee from American capitalism, As a sick man, he had fled the U.S. to avoid a ten-year frame-up prison sentence which he knew he would never have survived, Bill was blind in one eye, over which he wore a black patch. I had imagined the loss of his eye had happened in a fight with company or police thugs and was rather disappointed to learn that it was the result of a childhood accident.<br />
<br />
In the Soviet Union he had participated in the organization of the Kuzbas Colony. This project was to reopen and operate industry in the Kuznetsk Basin in the Urals, closed during the Civil War period. The colony was located about a thousand miles from Moscow in an area of enormous coal deposits, vital to socialist industrialization. The district, with its mines and deserted chemical plants, had been established by the Soviet government as an autonomous colony. Big Bill had brought a number of American skilled workers, many of whom were old Wobblies, to reopen the plants and mines,<br />
<br />
Big Bill became a member of the CPUSA at its founding convention in 1921, and while in the Soviet Union he was a member of the CPSU. Bill and his devoted wife, a Russian office worker, lived in the Lux Hotel---a Comintern hostelry.<br />
<br />
His room had become a center for the gathering of American radicals, especially old Wobblies passing through or working in the Soviet Union. Here they would gather on a Saturday night and reminisce about old times and discuss current problems. Often a bunch of us Black students were present, Sometimes these sessions would carry on all night until Sunday morning. There were only a few chairs in the room, and Bill would sit in a huge armchair surrounded by people sitting on the floor. For us Blacks, listening to Big Bill was like a course on the American labor movement. He was a bitter enemy of racism, which he saw as the mainstay of capitalist domination over the U.S. working class, a continuous brake on labor unity, This attitude was reflected in the preamble of the IWW constitution, he told us, It read: “No working man or woman shall be excluded from membership in unions because of creed or color.” This was borne out in practice,<br />
<br />
The IWW was the first labor organization in modern times to invade the South and break down racial barriers in that benighted region. He recounted his experiences in the organizing drives among Southern lumber workers in Louisiana and Texas. This resulted in the organization of the Brotherhood of Timber Workers in 1910, an independent union in the lumber camps of Louisiana, Texas and Arkansas, At its height this union had 25,000 members, half of them Black.<br />
<br />
Big Bill described how the IWW broke down discrimination at the first convention of this union, He had come from the national IWW office to speak to the convention. They were all white, he said, and he inquired why no colored men were present. He was told that the Louisiana state law prohibited meetings of Black and white—the Negro brothers were meeting in another hall nearby. Bill recalled that he then told them: “Damn the law! It’s the law of the lumber bosses. Its objective is to defeat you and to keep you divided and you're not going to get anywhere by obeying the dictates of the bosses. You've got to meet together.” And the latter is exactly what they did, he told us.<br />
<br />
I remember that a few days after one of these gatherings we telephoned to tell him that we were coming over, only to learn from his wife that he had had a stroke and was in the Kremlin hospital. She said that he was getting along OK, but couldn’t see visitors. After several weeks he returned home. Still weak, he received many of his friends, and many of the delegates to the Fourth Congress of the Profintern which was in Moscow at the time. Big Bill had been a leading participant in this organization since its inception.<br />
<br />
Then suddenly, he was back in the hospital, where he died May 18, 1928. The whole American colony turned out for the funeral. There were delegations from the Russian Communist Party, of which he was a member, and from the various international organizations in which he had played a role. The Fourth Congress of the RILU adjourned its sessions, and representatives of trade unions from all over the world attended the funeral.<br />
<br />
I'm sure for all us Black students, our meeting and friendship with this great man were among the most memorable experiences of our stay in Moscow, A stalwart son of the American working class, Bill’s life and battles represented its best traditions. To Blacks, he was a man who would not only stand up with you, but if need be, go down with you. This was the iron test in the fight against the common enemy, U.S, capitalism. Big Bill obviously understood from his own experience the truth of the Marxian maxim that in the U.S., “labor in the white skin can never be free as long as in the Black it is branded.”<br />
<br />
=== Ina ===<br />
I first met my second wife, Ekaterina—-Ina—in December 1926, We were both at a party at the home of Rose Bennett, a British woman who had married M. Petrovsky (Bennett), the chairman of the Anglo-American Commission of the Comintern and formerly Cl representative to Great Britain,<br />
<br />
Ina was one of a group of ballet students whom Rose had invited to meet some of us KUTVA students, She was a small young woman of nineteen or twenty, shy and retiring, and sat off removed from the party. After that party, we met several times, and she told me about herself,<br />
<br />
She was born in Vladikavkaz (in northern Caucasus), the daughter of the mayor of the town, It was one of those towns that was taken and re-taken during the Civil War, one time by the whites, then by the reds. On one occasion when the town fell to the reds, her father was accused of collaborating with the whites, The reds came and arrested him and she never saw him again, Ina was about eleven at the time; she later learned that her father had been executed,<br />
<br />
Her uncle was a famous artist in Moscow and after her father’s execution they went there to live. Ina told me of her trip to Moscow at the height of famine and a typhus epidemic; they rode in freight cars several days through the Ukraine, and saw people dying along the road. Her uncle took charge of them and got them an apartment on Malaya Bronaya. He investigated the case of her father and discovered that a mistake had been made, and her father was posthumously exonerated. As a sort of compensation, she and her mother were regarded as “social activists,” and Ina entered school to study ballet. She later transferred from the ballet school to study English in preparation for work as a translator. We lived together in the spring of 1927 and got married the following fall, after my return from the Crimea.<br />
<br />
In January 1927, I was stunned by the news of the death of my Mother. One morning, when I was at Ina’s house, Otto burst in. Overcome by emotion, he could hardly talk, but managed to blurt out, “Mom’s dead!” He had a letter from our sister Eppa, with a clipping of Mother’s obituary from the Chicago Defender.<br />
<br />
Under the headline “Funeral of Mrs. Harriet Hall,” was her picture and an article which described her, a domestic worker, asa “noted club woman.” She had been a member of the Black Eastern Star and several other lodges and burial societies. The article mentioned that she was survived by her husband, daughter and two sons, the latter in Moscow.<br />
<br />
I was overcome with grief and guilt at not being home. Deeply shocked, I had always assumed that I would return to see Mother again, Born a slave, her world had been confined to the midwest and upper South, She had once told me, “Son, I sure would like to see the ocean,” and I had glibly promised, “Oh, I'll take you there someday, Momma.” I felt that I had been her favorite; | was the responsible one, and yet I hadn’t been able to do what I had promised, Worse yet, I wasn’t even there when she died. It took me some time to get over the shock.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
=== Trotsky’s Day in Court ===<br />
Apart from our academic courses, we received our first tutelage in Leninism and the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the heat of the inner-party struggle then raging between Trotsky and the majority of the Central Committee led by Stalin. We KUTVA students were not simply bystanders, but were active participants in the struggle. Most of the students—and all of our group from the U.S,—-were ardent supporters of Stalin and the Central Committee majority.<br />
<br />
It had not always been thus. Otto told me that in 1924, a year before he arrived, a majority of the students in the school had been supporters of Trotsky. Trotsky was making a play for the Party youth, in opposition to the older Bolshevik stalwarts, With his usual demagogy, he claimed that the old leadership was betraying the revolution and had embarked on a course of “Thermidorian reaction," In this situation, he said, the students and youth were “the Party’s truest barometer,”<br />
<br />
But by the time the Black American students arrived, the temporary attraction to Trotsky had been reversed. The issues involved in the struggle with Trotsky were discussed in the school, They involved the destiny of socialism in the Soviet Union. Which way were the Soviet people to go? What was to be the direction of their economic development? Was it possible to build a socialist economic system? These questions were not only theoretical ones, but were issues of life and death. The economic life of the country would not stand still and wait while they were being debated.<br />
<br />
The Soviet working class, under the leadership of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, had vanquished capitalism over one-sixth of the globe; shattered its economic power; expropriated the capitalists and landlords; converted the factories, railroads and banks into public property; and was beginning to build a state-owned socialist industry. The Soviet government had begun to apply Lenin’s cooperative plans in agriculture and begun to fully develop a socialist economic system. This colossal task had to be undertaken by the workers in alliance with the masses of working peasantry.<br />
<br />
From the October Revolution through 1921, the economic system was characterized by War Communism. Basic industry was nationalized, and all questions were subordinated to the one of meeting the military needs engendered by the civil war and the intervention of the capitalist countries.<br />
<br />
But by 1921, the foreign powers who had attempted to overthrow the Soviets had largely been driven from Russia’s borders, It was then necessary to orient the economy toward a peace-time situation. The NEP (New Economic Policy) formulated at the Tenth Party Congress in 1921 was the policy designed to guide the transition from War Communism to the building of socialism. It replaced a system of surplus appropriation with a tax in kind which would be less of a burden on the peasantry, The NEP was a temporary retreat from socialist forms: smaller industries were leased to private capital to run; peasants were allowed to sell their agricultural surplus on free markets, central control over much of the economy was lessened. All of this was necessary to have the economy function on a peace-time basis, It was a measure designed to restore the exchange of commodities between city and country which had been so greatly disrupted by the civil war and intervention. It was a temporary retreat from the attack on all remnants of capitalism, a time for the socialist state to stabilize its base area, to gather strength for another advance. A year later at the Eleventh Party Congress, Lenin declared that the retreat was ended and called on the Party to “prepare for an offensive on private capital.” <br />
<br />
Lenin was incapacitated by a series of strokes in 1923 and couldno longer participate in the active leadership of the Party. It was precisely at this time, taking advantage of Lenin's absence, that Trotsky made his bid for leadership in the Party. Trotsky had consistently opposed the NEP and its main engineer, Lenin— attacking the measures designed to appease the peasantry and maintain the coalition between the peasants and the workers,<br />
<br />
From late 1922 on, Trotsky made a direct attack on the whole Leninist theory of revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. He denied the possibility (and necessity) of building socialism in one country, and instead characterized that theory as an abandonment of Marxist principles and a betrayal of the revolutionary movement. He postulated his own theory of “permanent revolution,” and contended that a genuine advance of socialism in the USSR would become possible only as a result of a socialist victory in the other industrially developed states.<br />
<br />
While throwing around a good deal of left-sounding rhetoric, Trotsky’s theories were thoroughly defeatist and class-collaborationist. For instance, in the postscript to Program for Peace, written in 1922, he contended that “as long as the hourgeoisie remains in power in the other European countries, we shall be compelled, in our struggle against economic isolation, to strive for agreement with the capitalist world; at the same time it may be said with certainty that these agreements may at best help us to mitigate some of our economic ills, to take one or another step forward, but real progress of a socialist economy in Russia will become possible only after the victory of the proletariat in the major European countries.”<br />
<br />
At the base of this defeatism was Trotsky’s view that the peasantry would be hostile to socialism, since the proletariat would “have to make extremely deep inroads not only into feudal but also into bourgeois property relations.” Thus Trotksy contended that the working class would:<blockquote>'''come into hostile collision not only with all the bourgeois groupings which supported the proletariat during the first Stages of its revolutionary struggle, but also with the broad masses of the peasaniry with whose assistance it came into power. The contradictions in the position of a workers’ government in a backward country with an overwhelmingly peasant population could be solved only ...in the arena of the world proletarian revolution.'''</blockquote>Therefore, it would not be possible to build socialism in a backward, peasant country like Russia. The mass of peasants would exhaust their revolutionary potential even before the revolution had completed its bourgeois democratic tasks—the breakup of the feudal landed estates and the redistribution of the land among the peasantry. This line, which underestimated the role of the peasantry, had been put forward by Trotsky as early as 1915 in his article “The Struggle for Power.” There he claimed that imperialism was causing the revolutionary role of the peasantry to decline and downgraded the importance of the slogan “Confiscate the Landed Estates.”<br />
<br />
As it was pointed out in our classes, Trotsky portrayed the peasantry as an undifferentiated mass. He made no distinction between the masses of peasants who worked their own land (the muczhiks) and the exploiting strata who hired labor (the kulaks). His conclusions openly contradicted the strategy of the Bolsheviks, developed by Lenin, of building the worker-peasant alliance as the basis for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Further, they were at complete variance with any realistic economic or social analysis.<br />
<br />
Trotsky’s entire position reflected a lack of faith in the strength and resources of the Soviet people, the vast majority of whom were peasants. Since it denied the revolutionary potential of the peasantry, the success of the revolution could not come from internal forces, but had to depend on the success of proletarian revolutions in the advanced nations of Western Europe. In the absence of such revolutions, the revolutionary process within the Soviet Union itself would have to be held in abeyance, and the proletariat, which had seized power with the help of the peasantry, would have to hold state power in conflict,with all other classes.<br />
<br />
Behind Trotsky’s revolutionary rhetoric was a simplistic socialdemocratic view which regarded the class struggle for socialism as solely labor against capital. This concept of class struggle did no regard the struggle of peasant against landlord, or peasant against the Czar, as a constituent part of the struggle for socialism. This was reflected as early as 1905, in Trotsky’s slogan, “No Czar, but a Workers’ Government,” which, as Stalin had said, was “the slogan of revolution without the peasantry.”<br />
<br />
Given the state of the revolutionary forces at the time, the position was dangerously defeatist. For instance, 1923 marked a period of recession for the revolutionary wave in Europe; it was a year of defeat for communist movements in Germany, Italy, Poland and Bulgaria. What then, Stalin asked, is left for our revolution? Shall it “vegetate in its own contradictions and rot away while waiting for the world revolution”? To that question, Trotsky had no answer. Stalin’s reply was to build socialism in the Soviet Union. The Soviet working class, allied with the peasantry, had vanquished its own bourgeoisie politically and was fully capable of doing the job economically and building up a socialist society.<br />
<br />
Stalin’s position did not mean the isolation of the Soviet Union. The danger of capitalist restoration still existed and would exist until the advent of classless society. The Soviet people understood that they could not destroy this external danger by their own efforts, that it could only be finally destroyed as a result of a victorious revolution in at Icast several of the countries of the West. The triumph of socialism in the Soviet Union could not be final as long as the external danger existed. Therefore, the success of the revolutionary forces in the capitalist West was a vital concern of the Soviet people.<br />
<br />
Trotsky’s scheme of permanent revolution downgraded not only the peasantry as a revolutionary force, but also the national liberation movements of oppressed peoples within the old Czarist Empire. Thus, in “The Struggle for Power,” he wrote that “imperialism does not contrapose the bourgeois nation to the old regime, but the proletariat to the bourgeois nation.”<br />
<br />
While Trotsky de-emphasized the national colonial question in the epoch of imperialism, Lenin, on the other hand, stressed its new importance. “Imperialism,” said Lenin, means the progressively mounting oppression of the nations of the world by a handful of Great Powers; it means a period of wars between the latter to extend and consolidate the oppression of nations.”<br />
<br />
It was not until sometime later that I was able to fully grasp the implications of Trotsky’s concept of permanent revolution on the international scene. The most dramatic example was in Spain during the Spanish Civil War, 1936-39. The Trotskyist organivation had infiltrated the anarchist movement in Catalonia and incited revolt against the Loyalist government under the slogans of “Socialist Republic” and “Workers’ Government.” The Loyalist government, headed by Juan Negrin, a liberal Republican, was a coalition of all democratic parties. It included socialists, communists, liberal Republicans and anarchists—all in alliance against fascist counter-revolution led by Franco and backed by Hitler and Mussolini. The attempted coup against the Loyalist Government was typical of the Trotskyist attempts to short-circuit the bourgeois-democratic stage of the revolutionary process. The result was a “civil war within a civil war” and, had their strategy succeeded, it would have split the democratic coalition—effec~ tively giving aid to the fascists.<br />
<br />
In the United States I was to witness how Trotsky’s purist concept of class struggle led logically to a denial of the struggle for Black liberation as a special feature of the class struggle, revolutionary in its own right. As a result, American Trotskyists found themselves isolated from that movement during the great upsurge of the thirties. But all this was to come later.<br />
<br />
At the time I was at KUTVA, Trotskyism had not yet emerged as an important tendency on the international scene. | did not foresee its future role as a disruptive force on the fringes of the international revolutionary movement. At that point, I wasn’t clear myself on a number of these theoretical questions. It was somewhat later when my understanding of the national and colonial question-—-particularly the Afro-American question— deepened, that the implications of Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution became fully obvious to me.<br />
<br />
We students felt that Trotsky’s position denigrated the achievement of the Soviet Revolution. We didn’t like his continual harping about Russia’s backwardness and its inability to build socialism, or his theory of permanent revolution. The Soviet Union was an inspiration for all of us, a view confirmed by our experience in the country. Everything we could see defied Trotsky’s logic,<br />
<br />
His writings were readily available throughout the school, and the issues of the struggle were constantly on the agenda in our collective. These were discussed in our classes, as they were in factories, schools and peasant organizations throughout the country,<br />
<br />
About once a month the collective would meet and a report would be given by Party representatives-.-sometimes local, some+ times from the rayon (region of the city) and Moscow district, and sometimes from the Central Committee itself, They would report on the latest developments in the inner-party struggles—Trotsky’s and Lenin's views on the question of the peasantry; the NEP, how it had proved its usefulness and how it was now being phased out; Trotsky’s position on War Communism and Party rules; the dictatorship of the proletariat, and whether it could be a dictatorship in alliance with the peasantry or one over the peasantry. An open discussion would be held after the report. By that time the Trotskyists at KUTVA had dwindled to a small group of bitter-enders.<br />
<br />
The struggle raged over a period of five years (1922-27) during which time the Trotsky bloc had access to the press and Trotsky’s works were widely circulated for everyone to read. Trotsky was not defeated by bureaucratic decisions or Stalin’s control of the Party apparatus—as his partisans and Trotskyite historians claim. He had his day in court and finally lost because his whole position flew in the face of Soviet and world realities, He was doomed to defeat because his views were incorrect and failed to conform to objective conditions, as well as the needs and interests of the Soviet people.<br />
<br />
It was my great misfortune to be out of the dormitory when the Black students were invited to attend a session of the Seventh Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, then meeting in the Kremlin in the late fall of 1926, I was out in the street at the time and couldn’t be found, so they went without me. I missed a historic occasion, my only chance to have seen Trotsky in action. I was bitterly disappointed. When I arrived back at the dormitory, Sakorov, my Indian friend, told me where they had gone. Returning in the early hours of the morning, they found me waiting for them. They described the session and the stellar performance of Trotsky.<br />
<br />
Stalin made the report for the Russian delegation. Trotsky then asked for two hours to defend his position; he was given one. He spoke in Russian, and then personally translated and delivered his speech in German and then in French. In all, he held the floor for about three hours.<br />
<br />
Otto said it was the greatest display of oratory he had ever heard. But despite this, Trotsky and his allies (Zinoviev and Kamenev) suffered a resounding defeat, obtaining only two votes out of the whole body. The delegates from outside the Soviet Union didn’t accept Trotsky’s view that socialism in one country was a betrayal of the revolution. On the contrary, the success of the Soviet Union in building socialism was an inspiration to the international revolution,<br />
<br />
Otto told me that this point was made again and again in the course of the discussion. Ercoli (Togliatti), the young leader of the Italian Party, summed it up well a few days later when he defended the achievements of the Russian Party and revolution as “the strongest impetus for the revolutionary forces of the world.”<br />
<br />
The American Party united across factional lines in support of Stalin, The Trotsky opposition, already defeated within the Soviet Union, was now shattered internationally. From there on out, it was downhill for Trotsky. I witnessed Trotsky’s opposition bloc degenerate from an unprincipled faction within the Party to a counter-revolutionary conspiracy against the Party and the Soviet state. We learned of secret, illegal meetings held in the Silver Woods outside Moscow, the establishment of factional printing presses~all in violation of Party discipline. Their activities reached a high point during the November 7, 1927 anniversary of the Revolution.<br />
<br />
At that Tenth Anniversary, Trotsky’s followers attempted to stage a counter-demonstration in opposition to the traditional celebration. I remember vividly the scene of our school contingent marching on its way to Red Square. As we passed the Hotel Moscow, Trotskyist leaflets were showered down on us, and orators appeared at the windows of the hotel shouting slogans of “Down with Stalin.”<br />
<br />
They were answered with catcalls and booing from the crowds in the streets below. We seized the leaflets and tore them up. This attempt to rally the people against the Party was a total failure and struck no responsive chord among the masses. It was equivalent to rebellion and this demonstration was the last overt act of the Trotskyist opposition.<br />
<br />
During the next month Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev were expelled---along with seventy-five of their chief supporters. They, along with the lesser fry, were sent in exile to Siberia in Central Asia. Trotsky was sent to Alma Alta in Turkestan from where, in 1929, he was allowed to go abroad, first to Turkey and eventually to Mexico.<br />
<br />
Later, many of Trotsky’s followers criticized themselves and were accepted back into the Party, But among them was a hard core of bitter-enders, who “criticized” themselves publicly only in order to continue the struggle against Stalin’s leadership from within the Party, Their bitterness fed on itself and they emerged later in the thirties as part of a conspiracy which wound up onthe side of Nazi Germany.<br />
<br />
Throughout this whole struggle, we Black students at the school had been ardent supporters of the position of Stalin and the Central Committee. Most certainly we were Stalinists--whose policies we saw as the continuation of Lenin’s. Those today who use the term “Stalinist” as an epithet evade the real question: that is, were Stalin and the Central Committee correct? I believe history has proven that they were correct.<br />
<br />
=== RUTHENBERG’S DEATH ===<br />
In March 1927, the American community in Moscow was shocked by the news of the death of Ruthenberg, general secretary of the CPUSA. His death came suddenly, from a ruptured appendix. His last request had been that he be buried in the Kremlin walls in Moscow—a request acceded to by the Russian Communist Party, His ashes were carried to Moscow by J. Louis Engdahl, a member of the Central Committee of the U.S. Party.<br />
<br />
The Moscow funeral was impressive. The procession entered Red Square led by a detachment of Red Cavalry. The square was crowded with thousands of Soviet workers, including the entire work force of the Ruthenberg Factory, which had been named in his honor.<br />
<br />
We half dozen Black students, together with other members of the American colony, marched into the square immediately behind the urn, We followed it until we stood directly in front of the Lenin Mausoleum. On top of the mausoleum was the speakers’ platform, There stood Bukharin, who had recently succeeded Zinoviev as head of the Communist International: Béla Kun, leader of the abortive Hungarian Soviet of 1919; Sen Katayama, the veteran Japanese Communist; and others.<br />
<br />
Bukharin delivered the main eulogy, followed by several speakers. Suddenly I noticed Bukharin whispering to Robert Minor, who was standing beside him. Bukharin pointed down towards our group of Blacks who were gathered below the mausoleum.<br />
<br />
As Minor came down the steps toward us, I was a bit apprehensive, anticipating his mission. Sure enough, addressing my brother Otto, he said, “Comrade Bukharin wants one of the Negro comrades to say a few words.”<br />
<br />
Otto pointed at me and said, “Let Harry speak.”<br />
<br />
I felt trapped, not wanting to start an argument on such a solemn occasion, I reluctantly agreed to speak. and followed Minor back up the steps of the mausoleum, Béla Kun, a polished orator, was speaking, I was to follow. I tried to gather my thoughts, but I was not much of a speaker and certainly not prepared,<br />
<br />
Generalities did not come easy to me, and besides, I hadn’t really known Ruthenberg, I had only met him formally on the occasion of my departure for Moscow when he had shaken my hand and wished me luck. But what could I say about him, specifically in relation to the Blacks?<br />
<br />
I stood there amidst this array of internationally famous revolutionary leaders, and as I looked down on the thousands of faces in Red Square, panic suddenly seized me. Here was my turn to speak, but I found myself unable to utter a coherent sentence.<br />
<br />
I remember saying something about “our great lost leader.” This being my first experience in front of a mike, the words seemed to come back and hit me in the face. Finally, after a minute or two of floundering around | said, “That's all!” and turned away from the mike in disgust and humiliation. The words “that’s all” resounded through the square loud and clear, to my further discomfiture.<br />
<br />
And then came the moment for the translation. The translator was a young Georgian named Tival, one of Stalin’s secretaries. He was one of those people who speak half a dozen languages fluently, Tival got right into the job of translation, assuming an orator’s stance. He had a strong roaring voice, surprising for one of such diminutive stature.<br />
<br />
Swinging his arms, apparently emphasizing points that I was supposed to have made, I must admit that he made a pretty good speech for me. Speaking two or three times longer than my two minutes of rambling, he ‘preceded each point by emphasizing, “Tovarishch Haywood skazal” (Comrade Haywood said).<br />
<br />
The next morning, I went to the school cafeteria for breakfast, And there sat our little group of Black students. Golden had them laughing at something. He saw me and waved the day’s copy of Pravda. The headline was “Pokhorony Tovarishcha Ruthenberga” (Funeral of Comrade Ruthenberg).<br />
<br />
Golden began reading with a straight face, but using that peculiar language of his--Russian with a Mississippi accent. The article quoted from the main speeches and went on to say, Tovarishch Harry Haywood, Americanski Negr, tozhe bystupal (Negro American comrade Harry Haywood also stepped forward with a speech).”<br />
<br />
And Golden read one paragraph after another of the speech Tival gave for me, each paragraph starting with “Tovarishch Haywood skazal...Tovarishch Haywood skazal...Tovarisheh Haywood skazal.”<br />
<br />
Finally Golden looked up from that paper at me, and he said, “Man, you know you ain’t skazaled a goddamned thing!”<br />
<br />
Back home in the U.S., the death of Ruthenberg had signalled another flareup in the factional struggle within the Party. Following the intervention of the Cl at the Fourth Party Convention, there was a period of uneasy peace between the factions. But now a struggle for succession to Ruthenberg’s position as general secretary was raging hot and heavy.<br />
<br />
Lovestone, who had been organizational secretary, was supported by the Ruthenberg stalwarts—-Max Bedacht, Ben Gitlow and John Pepper. Since Ruthenberg’s death, Lovestone (as heir apparent) had pre-empted the interim job of acting secretary. In opposition, William W. Weinstone was the candidate supported by the Foster-Cannon bloc which included Alexander Bittelman and Jack Johnstone.<br />
<br />
Weinstone had formerly been a member of the Ruthenberg faction, but following Ruthenberg’s death, he sought the position of general secretary himself. His move offered an opportunity for the Foster-Cannon group to oppose Lovestone, whom they bitterly detested, with a candidate they believed had more of a chance of winning than did one of their old stalwarts.<br />
<br />
We Blacks in Moscow were isolated from much of this struggle. We were sort of observers from the sidelines, and with the exception of Otto (who had entered the Party immediately after its founding convention), we didn’t have any of the old factional loyalties or political axes to grind. We generally favored the Ruthenberg leadership, although we could hardly be called ardent supporters.<br />
<br />
Ruthenberg’s leadership had been endorsed by the CI, which gave his followers credence in our view. But Lovestone was something else again. On this, even Otto agreed. Lovestone had a reputation for being a factionalist par excellence, involved in the dirty infighting that took place. He was regarded as a hatchet man for the Ruthenberg group.<br />
<br />
None of us in Moscow could discern any principled political differences between the two groups on the question uppermost in our minds-—the question of Black liberation. Though we had not yet fully succeeded in relating our newly acquired Marxist-Leninist perspective to the question of Blacks in the U.S., we were sure— and our studies had confirmed---that Blacks were a potentially powerful revolutionary force in the struggle against U.S. capital, Clearly the common enemy could not be defeated without a revolutionary alliance of Blacks and the class-conscious elements of the working class, It was crucial to us that Party policy be directed towards consummating that alliance. We felt, however, that both factions underestimated the revolutionary potential of Blacks and we were determined not to allow ourselves to become a political football between the two.<br />
<br />
There had been no progress in this area since the folding of the American Negro Labor Congress in 1925, The collapse of the ANLC for us confirmed the Party’s isolation from the Black thasses, According to James Ford, a young Black Party leader, there were only about fifty Blacks in the Party at this time.<br />
<br />
Something was definitely wrong, At the time, we were inclined to attribute the Party’s shortcomings simply to an underestimation of the importance of Afro-American work. We were not, at that point, able to discern any theoretical tendencies within the Party which served to rationalize this underestimation, We felt it was due simply to hangovers of racial prejudices of white Party members and leaders.<br />
<br />
In Moscow, we had been in constant communication with Black comrades in the U.S. We had, in fact, set ourselves up as a sort of unofficial lobby to keep the situation with respect to Blacks continuously before the attention of the Russians and other Comintern leaders. They, for the most part, were sympathetic to our grievances.<br />
<br />
In May 1927, Jay Lovestone (while still acting secretary of the Party) showed up in Moscow at the CI’s Eighth Plenum. During his stay, he invited us Black students to his room at the Lux Hotel to give us an informal report on the Party’s work among Blacks. He had heard, of course, of our discontent and wanted to mollify us. He also knew that the question was coming up for serious discussion at the Sixth Congress of the Communist International, which was to take place the following year. There was no doubt he was out to mend his political fences.<br />
<br />
I had my first close look at the man when we gathered in his room. He tried to give us the impression of being very frank and self-critical, He said the Party leadership, involved in factional struggles, had neglected Black struggles, had neglected AfroAmerican work, an “important phase” of the Party’s activities. But this factional phase had now at long last come to a close and the Party (under his leadership) had now hegun seriously to tackle the job of overcoming this tremendous lag in the work.<br />
<br />
He told us that Otto Huiswood had been placed on the Central Committee and assigned as organizer for the Buffalo (western New York) district, We thought it was about time! Richard B. Moore had been placed as New England organizer for the International Labor Defense, “I cite this,” Lovestone said, “only as an earnest example of the determination of the Central Committee to remedy our default on this most important question.”<br />
<br />
Assuming a modest air, he turned to me and said, “Last but not least, we have decided that you, Harry, as one of our bright young Negroes, are to be transferred to the Lenin School. We've had our eye on you, Harry, for some time.”<br />
<br />
I was delighted at this news. The Lenin School had been established only the year before (1926) as a select training school for the development of leading cadres of the parties in the Communist International. But though I was delighted, I was also suspicious of the man, his cold eyes belied the warmth and modesty he tried to express. It seemed like a bid to buy me out. Otto, however, seemed to have been impressed.<br />
<br />
Though Lovestone was a teetotaler, he had a big bottle of vodka in his room for us students. He had brought us presents-—-which was true of most visitors from the States. It was understood that a visitor would not return to the U.S. with extra things that the students in Moscow could use. Most people, and Lovestone was no exception, came prepared with things to give away. During the course of the evening, Otto had seized a few pair of socks, and Lovestone had given him a tin of pipe tobacco (and cigarettes for us all). As we were leaving, Otto looked over Lovestone’s shoes.<br />
<br />
“Say, Jay,” he said, “you and me wear the same size shoes, don’t we? You got another pair with you?”<br />
<br />
“Sure, Otto, sure,” said Lovestone, and produced an extra pair.<br />
<br />
On our way home, walking down Tverskaya Boulevard towards the dormitory, we exchanged our impressions of the evening. Golden started off: “Oh, he’s full of crap. There’s no sincerity in the man.”<br />
<br />
Otto responded, “I think you’re wrong, Golden, I think you're wrong.”<br />
<br />
Golden said, “I saw his eyes. That’s something you didn’t see, Otto. You had too much vodka. You know I’ve always told you to go light on it—-you know you can’t handle the stuff, You remember what Vesey’s lieutenant said when the slaves rebelled in Virginia: “Beware of those wearing the old clothes of the master, for they will betray you!’ ”<br />
<br />
I never saw Otto so furious! He turned on Golden with his fists clenched, but thought better of it. Golden was too big, I laughed, and he turned towards me, but I was his brother, At that moment a drunk Russian staggered into view and suddenly bumped into him.<br />
<br />
Otto let his fist go and knocked the poor man down. There was a great commotion and a crowd of Russians gathered around. Some Chinese students from our school were across the street, and thinking we were being attacked by “hooligans,” rushed to our defense. We helped the man to his feet and, in the confusion, attempted to explain to the crowd what had happened. Otto said he had thought the drunk was attacking him, and it was thus that we managed to pass the thing off and return to our dorm.<br />
<br />
Lovestone was a consummate factionalist, utterly uninhibited by scruples or principles. He finally won out in the struggle to succeed Ruthenberg, but the mantle of Ruthenberg fit him poorly; the cloven hoof was always visible. His victory was aided by the ineptitude of the Foster-Cannon-Weinstone bloc, which made several tactical blunders (of which Lovestone took full advantage). Lovestone’s friendship with Bukharin was perhaps a factor in his victory, Nikolai Bukharin had succeeded Zinoviev as the president of the Comintern. He was an erstwhile ally of Stalin in the struggle against the Trotskyist “Left” and was later to emerge as a leader of the right deviation within the Soviet Party and the Communist International. As head of the Comintern, he already had begun to line up forces for his next battle which was to break out following the Sixth Congress of the CI in 1928. His man in the U.S. was none other than Jay Lovestone.<br />
<br />
As I have indicated, we KUTVA students in Mosccow were removed from much of the bitterness of the post-Ruthenberg struggle, and at the time, were not fully aware of its intensity. I was to be filled in with a blow-by-blow account of what went on at home by some of my classmates at the Lenin School, which | entered the following autumn.<br />
<br />
=== VACATION IN THE CRIMEA ===<br />
The month of August, vacation time, drew near. Our group of Black students split up and all of us (with the exception of Bankole) left Moscow, Bankole was reluctant to leave his Russian girl friend and remained in the city. Golden’s girl friend, a pretty Kazakhstanian girl, took him home to meet her people in Kazakhstan, an autonomous republic in southwest Asia, inhabited by a Turko-Mongolian people.<br />
<br />
As for myself, I asked for and received permission to spend my vacation in the Crimea. At the Chancellor’s office, I was given money, a railroad ticket and a document entitling me to stay one month at a rest home in Yalta. I was on my own and for the first time since my arrival fourteen months before, I was separated from my fellow Black students, But I had no misgivings. By this time, I had acquired a considerable knowledge of the country and had overcome the main hurdles in the language and could speak and read Russian with some fluency. In fact, I looked forward to my journey with pleasurable expectations, I was not to be disappointed.<br />
<br />
The Autonomous Republic of Crimea is a square-shaped peninsula jutting out into the Black Sea. At that time, it was one of the two Tartar autonomous republics; the other was Tartaria, on the Volga. I immediately fell in love with the country——its lush subtropical climate and its people. The Tartars were a darkskinned Mongolic people, descendants of the Golden Horde of Genghis Khan. When I arrived in Sevastopol, the largest city and seaport, I was struck by the dazzling brilliance of the sun against the pastel-colored buildings, the deep blue of the sea and the verdant Crimean mountains rising behind the city. Tall and stately cypress trees lined the streets. It was a busy seaport; all types of shipping could be found in the harbor from small fishing boats to Black Sea passenger liners and ocean-going freighters of the Soviet trading fleet,<br />
<br />
As a history buff, I stopped over for a couple of days to take in the historic sites of the city and its environs, There was the Panarama, a life-like display graphically depicting the battle of Sevastopol during the Crimean War, 1854-66. (The war was fought mainly on the Crimean peninsula between Russian forces on the one hand; British, French and Turkish allies on the other.). In this battle, the allies sought to knock out the strong Russian naval base in Sevastopol through an invasion by land and bombardment by sea. The Russians lost the war, but Sevastopol remained Russian.<br />
<br />
I drove out to Balaklava, a small village nestling on the sea a few miles southeast of Sevastopol, the scene of the disastrous charge of the British “Light Brigade,” led by Lord Cardigan and immortalized by Tennyson in his poem. Looking at the scene brought back memories of childhood school days when our class recited Tennyson’s poem aloud. I stood on Voronsov Heights overlooking the Valley of Death into which rode the six hundred. I walked over the grounds and viewed the graves of the victims of this blunder of the British officer caste. Fourteen years later, Sevastopol was to be the site of one of the most destructive and bloody battles of World War II.<br />
<br />
My automobile ride to Yalta, about sixty kilometers further along the coast, was not only exciting, but in some parts, a frightening experience. It was mostly along a narrow road, cut out of the side of mountains, on which two cars could barely pass. In some places, one could look down to what appeared to me to be a sheer drop of two or three thousand feet into the sea below, The chauffeurs driving powerful Packards, Cadillacs and Espano-Swiss sped along the road with its many curves at breakneck speed. The obvious fact that they were expert drivers was not enough to allay my fears nor those of the other passengers.<br />
<br />
Nearing Yalta, we passed Lavadaya, a beautiful palace built by an Italian architect during the reign of Alexander the Third. It was situated on a high cliff overlooking the sea. Later, it became the summer home of Czar Nicholas II. Now, under the Soviets, it had been converted into a rest home for local peasant leaders. The palace later housed President Roosevelt and Premier Churchill during the Yalta conference in 1945,<br />
<br />
At last I arrived in Yalta, center of the great Crimean resort area which extended along the coast and behind which rose the Crimean Mountains. Yalta was a town of rest homes and sanitaria, mostly owned by Soviet trade unions, I was put up at a rest home which mainly housed employees of the Moscow city administration.<br />
<br />
Immediately after registering, I put on my bathing trunks and donned the gorgeous Ashanti robe which Bankole had lent meand stepped out for a dip in the sea. I stepped out into the main street which ran alongside the seashore and headed for the beach. Although many of the Tartars of the area were dark-skinned, Blacks were rarely seen, even in these southern climes.<br />
<br />
As I passed along I could hear remarks like, “Kak khorosho zagorelsya (How beautifully sunburnt he is)!” It was a remark I was to hear often. It was good natured, and I sensed in it a trace of envy.<br />
<br />
The crowds were mainly vacationers from the north, who after the long, weary and cold sub-arctic winters of central Russia had fled to this semi-tropical paradise to soak up a little sunshine. Here they formed a cult of sun-worshippers bent on acquiring a suntan to display upon their return home.<br />
<br />
A crowd of small boys followed me out to the public beach a few blocks away. Perhaps they associated me with some of the South Sea Island characters they had seen in movies and waited expectantly for an exhibition of my aquatic skills. I doffed my gorgeous robe and stepped into the water, walked out a few feet and sat down. I tumed to see expressions of amazement, disappointment, and even pity, Their bewilderment was quite natural, for I myself had never met a Russian who didn't know how to swim, These children regarded swimming to be a natural human attribute; to them, an adult who couldn't swim was regarded as sort of a cripple.<br />
<br />
One day, while walking to the beach in Yalta, | was approached by a uniformed officer of the OGPU (federal police), “Bonjour, camarade, vous étes Sénégalais?” he asked in French.<br />
<br />
He seemed a bit surprised when I responded in Russian, telling him that I was an American Black and a student at KUTVA in Moscow.<br />
<br />
He said that he had noticed me several times on the streets and wondered if I were Senegalese, He had fought beside Senegalese riflemen during the world war. His Cossack regiment, he explained, was a part of a small Russian expeditionary force sent to fight with the French Army on the Western Front.<br />
<br />
I told him that I had also fought in the war with an American Black regiment and how | had seen Russian troops in a prison camp on my way to the Soissons front in the late summer of 1918. I asked him if he had been in that camp.<br />
<br />
He shrugged and said that it was quite possible. “They scattered us around in a number of camps; they didn’t want too many of us together in one place,” he said.<br />
<br />
“Our Russian force,” he went on, “was small and had no real military significance.” It had been sent by the Czar as a demonstration of solidarity and friendship between Russia and Francesort of a morale booster for the French people.<br />
<br />
“Be that as it may,” he said, “it didn’t boost our morale any to be there. In France, we fought in some of the toughest battles in the war, on the Champagne front and the Marne salient, and we suffered heavy casualties. Our fellows were homesick and confused, and didn’t know what they were fighting for so far away from Mother Russia.<br />
<br />
“There was much grumbling and always an undercurrent of discontent, All of this was heightened towards the latter part of the war by the bad news of Russian defeats on the Eastern Front. This all came to a head with the news of the fall of the Czar. Shortly after that we were withdrawn from the front by the French, as an unreliable element. Behind the lines, we were surrounded and disarmed by Senegalese troops, and quite a number who resisted were killed or wounded. To say that we were ‘unreliable’ was an understatement; by that time, we were downright mutinous!”<br />
<br />
The Bolshevik Party had active nuclei in the regiments. “I myself was a member of the Party,” said my new-found friend. “We followed the course of the Revolution through French newspapers and were able to glean the truth behind their distortions. We also had contact with some of the French left-socialists and with Bolshevik exiles before they returned home after the outbreak of the February Revolution. After the Armistice was signed, we were sent to Morocco and eventually Soviet ships came to take us to Odessa and home.<br />
<br />
“The French used the Senegalese against us,” he said. “We learned later of a mutiny among the Senegalese troops in which they were shot up and disarmed by the French Blue Devils.” I had just been reading André Barbusse and was surprised to learn how widespread mutiny had been in the French Army.<br />
<br />
“Well, c’est la guerre,” he said, “especially so an imperialist war. After all, what interest had the Senegalese in defending French imperialism? What interest did we Russian workers and muzhiks (peasants) have in fighting the Czar’s wars?”<br />
<br />
We parted, with both of us wanting to meet again, but he had to leave town that evening and I never saw him again.<br />
<br />
Often, we visited the local vineyards and wine cellars and tasted the local wines. It was wine country and Crimean wines were of the first quality, from the sweet ports, tokays and muscatels, to the dry red and white wines. On these outings there was always someone who had a guitar or accordion, and we sat late into the nights singing Russian folk songs and gypsy romans (love songs).<br />
<br />
The Crimea was not just a vacationers’ haven, although tourism occupied a large place in its economy. At that time, the economy was mainly agricultural. Vineyards were constantly expanding in the mountain valleys along the southern coast. Tobacco of fine quality was grown, and there was also an important fishing industry. On the east coast of the peninsula near Kerch, there was an area of rich iron ore deposits and mines. This was to serve as the basis for the construction of the gigantic Kerch metallurgical, chemical and engineering works, contemplated in the first five year plan. It was a plan which sought to quadruple the basic capital of the republic.<br />
<br />
With the renaissance of national cultures which accompanied the Soviet policy on the national question, the Turkic language spoken by the Tartars—which I understood was closely related to; modern Turkish—was being revived and taught in schools, A Latinized alphahet was introduced, replacing the old Arabic script. Tartar literature and culture flourished through this encouragement.<br />
<br />
I met the Party secretary for the county, a young Tartar who took me to visit a kolkhoz (collective farm), a vineyard in this case. A hundred or more peasant families were in the collective, all winegrowers. As in all collective farms, its members were required to sell a definite amount to the government at fixed prices and were allowed to sell the surplus on the free markets.<br />
<br />
Each family had a special plot of land which they cultivated for their own food supply. The chairman of the collective was a huge Ukrainian fellow, who showed us around and explained the wine growing process. The cultivation of grapes and making of the wine required special knowledge, which the government supplied.<br />
<br />
The members of the collective used up-to-date wineries owned by the state and managed by expert vintners. There I was to view the intricate process of wine-making, the pressing of the grapes, the fermenting process and the bottling itself. As I remember, this particular collective specialized in dry wines—both red and white. The Crimeans insisted that their wines were as good as the French. Not being a connoisseur, I wouldn’t know, but all I can say is that they tasted good to me.<br />
<br />
When I returned to Moscow in the fall, Otto told me of the discovery he had made on one of his trips to the southern region of the Caucasus. He had originally gone there on the invitation of one of our fellow students, a young woman from the Abkhazian Republic, a part of Georgia. After meeting some of us, she commented that they too had some Black folk down near her area in a village not very far from Sukhum, the capital of the republic on the Black Sea.<br />
<br />
She invited Otto down to visit the region over his summer vacation, and there he met the people. He described them as being of definite black ancestry—notwithstanding a history of intertarriage with the local people. But the starsata (old man) of the tribe was Black beyond a doubt. His story went some generations back, when he and the others joined the Turkish army as Numidian mercenaries from the Sudan. After several forays into this region they deserted the Army and had settled there. The starsata himself had been in the Czar’s Cavalry with the Dikhi (wild) Division of the Caucasus Cossacks.<br />
<br />
‘The people in the village wanted to know what was happening to “our brothers over the mountains.” Otto related to them the troubles we had gone through, described the travels “over the mountains and across the hig sea.” As the evening wore on and the local hrandy was consumed, toast after toast was drunk to “our little brother from over the hills.” Otto descrihed to them the conditions of Blacks in the U.S.—the lynchings, racism and brutality. Incensed, a few jumped up and pulled out their daggers. “You should make a revolution.”<br />
<br />
“Why don’t you revolt?”<br />
<br />
“Why do you put up with it?”<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
We were not the only ones surprised to learn about this group; it was news to the Russians in Moscow too! Several of these tribesmen later visited Moscow as a result of Otto’s visit. <br />
<br />
== Chapter 7 ==<br />
<br />
=== The Lenin School ===<br />
Following my summer in the Crimea, I returned to Moscow in the fall of 1927 to attend the Lenin School. The school was located off the Arbot on what is now called Ambassadors’ Row, a few blocks down the inner ring of boulevards from the KUTVA dormitories.<br />
<br />
The Lenin School, which was set up by the Comintern, opened in Moscow in May 1926, The plans for the school, formally called the International Lenin Course, had been reported on the previous year by Béla Kun, then head of the Educational (Agitprop) Department of the Comintern, Accordingly, the school was to train sixty to seventy qualified students both in theoretical and practical subjects, which included observations of Soviet trade unions and collective farm work, It offered a full three‘year course and a short course of one year.<br />
<br />
It was a school of great prestige and influence within the international communist movement, Its students, mainly party functionaries of district and section level and some secondary national Icaders who could be spared for the period of study, were generally at a higher level of political development than the students at KUTVA.<br />
<br />
I was the first Black to be assigned to the school, Others followed later; including H.V. Phillips in 1928, Leonard Patterson in the thirties, and Nzula—a Zulu intellectual and national secretary of the South African Communist Party.<br />
<br />
The American students who entered the Lenin School in the fall of 1927 were an impressive lot, They included prominent Party leaders from the national and district level. Outstanding in the group was Charles Krumbcin, a member of the Central Commitice of the Party and formerly in charge of trade union work in Chicago and district organizer for Chicago. A steamfitter by trade and a charter member of the Party, he was one ofa group of young trade unionists who made up the Chicago Party leadership in the twenties. They were the best representatives of the radical tradition of that city’s labor movement. <br />
<br />
Modesty and honesty were hallmarks of Charlie’s character, and he was a man of exceptional organizational and administrative ability. He was a founder of the Trade Union Education League (TUEL) and played a key role in the Chicago Federation of Labor. We developed a close and lasting friendship, and I learned a lot from him about Party history and the background of the revolutionary movement in the United States.<br />
<br />
Margaret Cowl, Charlie's wife, was a capable Party leader and organizer. She had worked in the TUEL and was recognized particularly for her leadership in the struggle for unity of Pennsylvania’s anthracite coal miners in 1927. Later she was to head up the Party’s Women’s Commission and play an active role in the movement for a Woman’s Charter, a broad united front movement launched in 1936 which asserted the rights of women to full equality in all spheres of activity. Margaret also energetically mobilized support for the struggles of women wage workers in the needle trades, textile, electrical and other industries.<br />
<br />
Joseph Zack had emigrated to the U.S. from Eastern Europe shortly after the First World War. Active in the first communist organization in New York, he had been section organizer of Yorktown and served on the Party’s Trade Union Commission. Zack was one of Foster’s leading trade union cadres in New York and had also been one of the first New York Party members assigned to work among Blacks, He was a bitter enemy of Lovestone, but was also critical of Foster. In 1932, he was expelled from the Party for refusing to abide by democratic centralism and by the forties had become an informant for the Dies Committee on Un-American Propaganda Activities.<br />
<br />
Morris Childs, a Chicagoan, was a leader in trade union and Party work. He became Illinois D.O. in the thirties at the same time that I was chairman of the Cook County Committee and secretary of the Southside region. While at the Lenin School, he served as the representative of the American students to the School Bureau.<br />
<br />
Rudy Baker, a Yugoslav comrade who later became D.O. in Pittsburgh and in Detroit, and Lena Davis (Sherer), a good friend of mine who was organizational secretary for New York in the thirties, were also at the school. All of these students were members of the Foster group. As far as I can recall, the sole Lovestone supporter in our class was Gus Sklar of Chicago, a leader in the Russian Federation.<br />
<br />
Poor Gus was alone in the midst of Fosterites, and it must have been an unhappy experience for him. When Lovestone was expelled from the Party in 1929, Gus remained in the Soviet Union and never returned to the U.S. He served as an officer in the Red Army and was killed in the defense of Moscow during the Second World War.<br />
<br />
The American students at the Lenin School were all experienced leaders of the U.S. Party, One might ask why so many were spared from U.S. work at a time when the Party’s position among the masses was so weak.<br />
<br />
Actually, these students were victims of Lovestone’s purge of the Party apparatus following his victory at the Fifth Party Convention in 1927. Part of Lovestone’s strategy was to weaken his opposition on the home front by “exiling” some of its leaders to the Lenin School. His plan backfired however. In Moscow, these “exiles,” as they jokingly called themselves, were to become an effective lobby against Lovestone both in the Comintern and in the CPSU. The political winds were changing.<br />
<br />
From the ashes of the defeated Trotskyist “left ” rose an equally dangerous, organized and secret rightist opposition headed by none other than Lovestone’s patron in the Comintern, Nikolai Bukharin. On the home front, this rightist opposition had its social base among the capitalists, the landlords and the kulaks (upper peasantry) and pushed a line that would have lopsidedly developed industry along consumer lines, to the detriment of the vast masses of Soviet people. Internationally, Bukharin greatly underestimated the war danger and the potentially revolutionary situation then developing on a world scale. At the same time, he greatly overestimated the strength and resiliency of imperialism.<br />
<br />
The Lenin School students helped to legitimize the antiLovestone struggle in the U.S. Party by linking it up with the fight against the right deviation, then only in its incipient stage, The Lenin School was to become a strong point in the fight against this danger.<br />
<br />
There were several other American students who had entered the Lenin School the year before. This group included Clarence Hathaway, Tom Bell, Max Salzman and Car! Reeves (the son of Mother Bloor). Of this group, Hathaway had the most imposing credentials. A machinist from Minneapolis and one of the leading people in the Trade Union Education League, Hathaway proved to be a valuable asset in the Party’s trade union work.<br />
<br />
He was a fine organizer and speaker, particularly effective in debates, and combined these talents with a good grasp of Marxist-Leninist theory. Clearly destined for top leadership in the Party, he later served as D.O. of the New York District, became an editor of the Daily Worker and a member of the Political Bureau. Tom Bell, Hathaway’s close friend, remained in the Soviet Union, married a Russian woman and died sometime before World War Il.<br />
<br />
William Kruse of Chicago was the principal Lovestonite in the school. For a brief period he filled in as acting rep from the Party to the Comintern in the absence of a permanent Party rep. Later, he was D,O. in Chicago under Lovestone’s leadership and was expelled from the Party with Lovestone in 1929.<br />
<br />
The students were organized at the school by language groups, as we had been at KUTVA. In this case, the languages were English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Russian and, later, Chinese. The whole school was a collective, comprising students, teachers, administrators and employees, The leading body was the Party Bureau, which included delegates from the various groups, including the employees. All students transferred membership from their home party to the CPSU, and were directly subject to its discipline. Party meetings were held about once a month.<br />
<br />
Our rector was a handsome, energetic woman named Kursanova. She was a leading communist educator and was married to the old Bolshevik propagandist and CC member, E. Yaroslavsky. She was about forty at the time and had an impressive background, including civil war experiences as a machine-gunner in a detachment of Siberian partisans. Kursanova had also been a delegate to the Bolshevik Conference in April 1917 which adopted Lenin’s famous April Theses.<br />
<br />
In addition to the Americans, others in the English-speaking section included British, Irish, Australians, a New Zealander, two Chinese, two Japanese and two Canadians—Leslie Morris and Stewart Smith, The British group included Springhall, Tanner, Black (a Welshman), Margaret Pollitt and George Brown. My special friend among the British was Springhall, known to all as “Springy,” with whom I roomed at the Lenin School.<br />
<br />
Springy was a British naval veteran of the First World War. He had come from a poor family and his parents had chosen him fora naval career. This latter act, it seemed, was a common practice among British lower class families with several sons. At the age of twelve, therefore, he had been “given” to His Majesty's Navy to be trained as a sailor, He served through the First World War and after the Armistice was involved in a mutiny or near-mutiny among members of the fleet who protested being sent to Leningrad to intervene against the Bolshevik Revolution. At the time, Springy was about twenty-one years old. As a result of the mutiny, he was cashiered from the Navy. Apparently, the admiralty was deterred from taking any harsher measures against the mutineers because of the widespread sympathy their action had evoked among British workers.<br />
<br />
Springy was popular with everybody, particularly among the women on the technical staff. After leaving the Lenin School, he returned to England where he rose rapidly in Party leadership. He also fought in Spain as a member of the Fifteenth International Brigade and was wounded at Jarama.<br />
<br />
At the beginning of World War II, he served as organizational secretary of the British Party. During the early stages of the war, Springy was charged by the Churchill government with subversive activity among the armed forces. This was during the period prior to the German invasion of the Soviet Union, when the war was still an imperialist war and we communists opposed it.<br />
<br />
There was no defense against the charge of subversion in wartime England, and Springy was sentenced to seven years in prison, After his release, he went to China, where he did editorial work on English language publications until his death from cancer in 1953. Springy died in a Moscow hospital, where he had been sent by his Chinese comrades to make sure that everything possible could be done to save him. His ashes were returned to China and interred with a memorial stone in the Revolutionary Martyrs’ Cemetery outside Peking.<br />
<br />
Springy introduced me to the gifted English writer, historian and Marxist scholar, Ralph Fox. A promising young theoretician, Fox was then researching material for one of his books at the Marx-Engels Institute. He died at the age of thirty-seven, fighting the fascists on the Cordova Front during the Spanish Civil War. By the end of his brief life span, he had already published a tremendous body of work.<br />
<br />
I got a lot out of my friendship with Fox. Profiting greatly from his wide-ranging knowledge, I often consulted him on theoretical and political questions which arose during my stay at the school.<br />
<br />
Springy and I were frequent visitors at the apartment of Fox and his wife Midge. It was there that I first met Karl Radek. A Polish expatriate, he had been an active leader in the Polish Social Democratic Party and a member of the Zimmerwald Left (those internationalists who broke off from the Second International in 1915 and were instrumental in founding the Third International). In 1915-16, Radek—along with Rosa Luxemburg—publicly disagreed with Lenin on the question of self-determination of subject nations. Radek later changed his position and fully united with the Bolshevik point of view in 1917.<br />
<br />
Radek was part of the group that returned with Lenin to Russia via Germany in the famous “sealed coach.” He was a member of the Bolshevik Central Committee and Politburo. At the time that I met him in 1928, Radek was still under a shadow politically. He had been a leading member of the Trotsky-Zinoviev opposition and was expelled from the CPSU along with the other leaders of the bloc at the Sixteenth Congress of the CPSU in December 1927. Exiled to the Urals, he publicly repudiated his earlier position and was readmitted to the Party a few months later in 1928. He was assigned as editor of Izvestia and later became the chief foreign affairs commentator in the leading Soviet papers, He was also a member of the Soviet delegation to the Comintern.<br />
<br />
Radek, as I remember him, was a little man, appearing to be somewhat of a dandy in his English tweed jacket, plus-fours and cane, But to me, the most striking thing about him was his beard. It stretched from ear to ear, under his chin and cheeks, giving him a simian look.<br />
<br />
His English, though accented, was fluent, When we first met, he immediately engaged me in a conversation about conditions of Blacks in the United States, which branched off into questions of Black literature, writers and the Harlem Renaissance. To my amazement, it was clear that he knew more about the latter subject than I did. I was embarrassed when he asked my opinion about certain Black writers with whom he was familiar but whom I had never even read. I found out later that Claude MeKay had been a sort of a protégé of Radek’s during the poet’s stay in the Soviet Union,<br />
<br />
In 1937, along with several others in the Trotskyite “Left Opposition,” Radek was convicted of treason, of acting as an “agency” of German and Italian fascism and giving assistance to those who might invade the Soviet Union. He was sent to prison where he died in the forties.<br />
<br />
Springy introduced me to many other young Britons in Moscow: such men as William Rust, who later became editor of the British Worker, Walter Tapsell, editor of the Young Worker; and George Brown. Both Brown and Tapsell were in my brigade in the Spanish Civil War and were killed in battle. Brown was killed at Brunete while I was there.<br />
<br />
Our English-speaking section at the Lenin School included five young Irishmen, all members of the Irish Workers League, a communist-oriented group organized by Big Jim Larkin in 1923. It seems that the Irish Communist Party, founded in 1921 by Young Roderick Connolly (son of James Connolly), had collapsed. I was told that its failure was due to a lack of Marxist-Leninist theory and the inability of its members to relate their views on socialism to the specific conditions in Ireland. But there was certainly no lack of revolutionary enthusiasm and motivation among the young people I met at the Lenin School, some of whom had been members of the Irish Communist Party. The group had been sent to the Lenin School as a step towards rebuilding the Irish Party.<br />
<br />
All five were protégés of the famous Irish revolutionary, Big Jim Larkin—most definitely a man of action and organization, not of theory. A tall, bulky man with a huge, hawk-like nose and bushy eyebrows, Larkin was one of the most colorful figures of the Irish labor movement. From his base among Dublin dockworkers, his activities as a labor leader had ranged over three continents~-from the British Isles, to Argentina, to the U.S.—and at the time that I met him, spanned more than three decades. He had been a founding member of the U.S. Party and was a member of both the Executive Committees of the Communist International and the Red International of Labor Unions (RILU or the Profintern). He was often in Moscow, where I saw him frequently.<br />
<br />
The Irish students came from the background of the 1916 Easter Rebellion and the revolutionary movement reflected in the lives of men like Larkin and James Connolly. Among them were Sean Murray and James Larkin, Jr. (Big Jim's son). All of them had been active in the post-war independence and labor struggles. I was closest to Murray, the oldest of the group, who was a roommate of mine.<br />
<br />
This was my first encounter with Irish revolutionaries and their experiences excited me. As members of oppressed nations, we had a lot in common. I was impressed by their idealism and revolutionary ardor and their implacable hatred of Britain’s imperialist rulers, as well as for their own traitors. But what impressed me most about them was their sense of national pride—not of the chauvinistic variety, but that of revolutionaries aware of the international importance of their independence struggle and the role of Irish workers.<br />
<br />
Then too, they were a much older nation. Their fight against Britain had at that time been going on for 750 years. They were fond of quoting the observations of Marx and Engels on the Irish movement, such as Marx’s letter to Engels in which he said: “English reaction in England had its roots in the subjugation of Ireland.” Another favorite was: “No nation can be free if it oppresses other nations.”!<br />
<br />
But most of all, they liked to point out Lenin’s defense of the Easter Uprising in his reply to Karl Radek, who had called the rebellion a putsch and discounted the significance of the struggle of small nations in the epoch of imperialism. Lenin admonished Radek, stating that “a struggle capable of going to the lengths of insurrection and street fighting, of breaking down the iron discipline of the army and martial law,” on the doorstep of the imperialist metropolis itself, would be a blow against imperialism more significant than that in a remote colony.<br />
<br />
I was shortly to find these observations applicable to the liberation movement of U.S. Blacks. As a result of my association with the Irish, I became deeply intcrested in the Irish question, seeing in it a number of parallels to U.S. Blacks. In retrospect, I am certain that this interest heightened my receptivity to the idea of a Black nation in the United States. <br />
<br />
=== TEACHERS AND CLASSES ===<br />
The teaching method at the school was a combination of lectures and discussions. About once a week the instructor would give a lecture to the entire English-speaking group, all twenty-five or thirty of us. Readings would be assigned, and when material was not available in English, it would be translated especially for us. I had one advantage in this regard because by this time I could read Russian fluently. Following the iccture, the instructor would delineate a number of sub-topics. Several days later, we would all get together again and one person from each group would report on its work. The instructors were often available for consultation during the time the groups were discussing and researching their topics.<br />
<br />
There were no grades given, nor were there any examinations. At the end of the term we would have evaluation sessions, where everyone met and discussed each other’s work, including that of the teachers. It was a process of comradely criticism and self-criticism.<br />
<br />
I found the classes exciting and challenging and the students on the whole sharp and on a high political level. I was under pressure to keep up. The English in general seemed to be a notch above most of us in political economy. This, I believe, was due to the existence of a large number of Labour Party schools which were spread throughout Britain.<br />
<br />
Our instructor for Marxist political economy was Alexandrov, an economist for the Gosplan, the state planning agency. In our class, he was often challenged on some aspect of Marxian economics, He would often have sharp exchanges with one of the British students, I believe it was Black, over differences in interpretations of Marxian economics,<br />
<br />
Black was a perfect foil for Alexandrov, who scemed to enjoy these tilts and invited the whole class to participate. Summing up the discussion, Alexandroy would brand Black’s position as “undialectical, mechanistic, and rooted in vulgar economism and Fabianism.” Black was stubborn, however, and prodded by Alexandrov, kept up his critical attitude for the whole first term, It was only during the evaluations at the end of the term that Black conceded that some of his positions had been in error,<br />
<br />
Perhaps the most prominent among my teachers was Ladislaus Rudas, a noted Hungarian Marxist philosopher and scholar. Like many Hungarian intellectuals, he spoke several languages fluently. He had been a leader of the short-lived Hungarian Soviet and had come to Moscow along with Béla Kun and the other Hungarian refugees. He taught historical and dialectical materialism and his class was one of the most interesting, It prescnted history, my favorite subject, but with a different content: a Marxist-Leninist interpretation, portraying not just the role of individuals but of classes.<br />
<br />
We had lengthy discussions on the French Revolution; the petty bourgeois dictatorship under Robespierre and the Jacobins; Saint Just and the extreme left, the Thermidor and Napoleon— “the man on the white horse.” The English Revolution and Cromwell, the Levellers, the Long Parliament. The Dutch revolution and Prince Egmont. We had extended discussions on the American revolutions---the War of Independence, the Civil War and Reconstruction.<br />
<br />
These discussions brought out our lack of knowledge of our own U.S, history; there was a complete absence of materials which presented U.S. history from a Marxist standpoint. All I can remember is the so-called Marxist analysis in the works of James Oneal (The Workers in American History) and A.M. Simons’s Social Forces in American History.<br />
<br />
The former I never read, but the work by Simons stands out in my memory for its gratuitous slur on U.S. Blacks, Simons claimed that the Black man did not revolt against slavery during the Civil War: “His inaction in time of crisis, his failure to play any part in the struggle that broke his shackles, told the world that he was not of those who to free themselves would strike a blow.”<br />
<br />
I had read about the slave revolts of Gabriel, Nat Turner, and John Brown’s heroic raid on Harper’s Ferry with his band of whites, free Blacks and escaped slaves. I knew of the role of Black soldiers in the Civil War who had to overcome the opposition of the Union Army in order to fight. Simons’s book skipped over all of this,<br />
<br />
I had come across Charles and Mary Beard’s The Rise of American Civilization, The Beards were economic determinists who had characterized the Civil War as the Second American Revolution. The idea seemed novel at the time, all of which points up how widespread had been the distortion of the period by U.S. bourgeois historians.<br />
<br />
My sub-group, which included Springy and the Irishman Sean Murray, had chosen the Civil War and the Reconstruction period as our subject, with myself as the reporter. Our group had long discussions, after which we consulted Rudas, who by that time had evidently done some homework of his own on the matter. He called our attention to the writings of Marx and Engels, their correspondence on the Civil War, and Mary’s series of articles in the New York Herald Tribune. After the discussions, I submitted a paper to the class, which evoked considerable discussion. On the whole it was well-received by my fellow classmates and commended by Rudas.<br />
<br />
Perhaps our most interesting and stimulating course was on Leninism and the history of the CPSU, taught by the historian I. Mintz. A former Red Army officer, he was at the time assigned to work on a history of the CPSU. Mintz was a young Ukrainian Jew, a soft-spoken and mild-mannered little man. He had a way of illustrating his subject through his own personal experiences during the Revolution and the Civil War in the Ukraine. His appearance contrasted sharply with his role and bloody experiences in the battle for the Ukraine. His was a thrilling story, involving a meteoric rise from leader of partisans to commander of a Red Army brigade. They had fought against a whole array of anti-Soviet and interventionist forces: the White Guardist Deniken; the Cossack Hepmans, Kornilov and Kaledin; Makhno’s anarchists (who were sometimes with and sometimes against the Red Army); General Petlura and sundry gangs of marauders and pogromists; and the remnants of the German garrisons in the Ukraine.<br />
<br />
In connection with our studies of the Bolshevik agrarian policy during the Civil War, Mintz told us of his involvement in the settling of the question of land redistribution in a Ukrainian district. This district had been reconquered by his Red Army unit from Denikin in the early winter of 1920. He gave us a general rundown of the agrarian situation at the time, the class forces in the countryside, their shifting alignment during the course of the Revolution, and the evolution of Bolshevik agrarian policy.<br />
<br />
Kerensky’s provisional government had done nothing to solve the agrarian problem, to relieve the land hunger of the masses of peasantry. Though Kerensky’s program had promised confiscation of the big estates, once in power, the government reneged on even that level of reform.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks exhorted the peasants to await the decision of the Constituent Assembly. Thus, at the time of the outbreak of the Revolution, the vast majority of the cultivatable land was still concentrated in the estates of the big landlords. The peasantry, constituting four-fifths of the population of the old Czarist Empire, was composed of three different strata. The well-to-do peasant not only owned enough land to support himself in good fashion, but also often hired labor to work his land. This group comprised only about four to five percent of the total. The poor peasant was without sufficient land to support himself and his family and often hired himself out as a laborer to the landlord or to a well-to-do peasant. The landless peasant subsisted entirely from the sale of his labor to the landlord or well-to-do peasant.<br />
<br />
Under the slogan “Land, Bread and Peace,” the Bolsheviks cgmbined the seizure of power in the cities with the land revolution underway in the countryside. Allied with the Social Revolutionaries (SRs), the traditional party of the peasantry, the land was taken over in two phases, The first phase, nationalization and confiscation, was incorporated in the Land Decree of the All Russian Congress of Soviets, November 8, 1917. This stamped the seal of governmental endorsement on the land seizures and called for their extension.<br />
<br />
In September 1917, Lenin declared Bolshevik support for the land program of the SRs, while pointing out that only a proletarian revolution could put even this program into practice. The SR program called for equal distribution of land among the peasants while the Bolsheviks favored collective, and eventually state-owned farms. But since the SR program represented the understanding of the majority of peasants, Lenin’s policy was to resolve this difference by “teaching the masses, and in turn learning from the masses, the practical expedient measures for bringing about such a transition.”<br />
<br />
The day after seizing power, the Bolsheviks put this policy into practice with their November 8, 1917, Decree on Land which made the SR program into law. Within three weeks, the SRs' left wing—representing the poorer peasants—had split from the rest of the party and entered a coalition government with the Bolsheviks. In the following years, Lenin held to the basie position he stated when presenting the November 8 decree:<blockquote>'''As a democratic government, we cannot ignore the decision of the masses of the people, even though we may disagree with it. In the fire of experience, applying the decree in practice, and carrying it out locally, the peasants will themselves realize where the truth lies... We must be guided by experience, we must allow complete freedom to the creative faculties of the masses.'''</blockquote>It was against this background that Mintz related some of his experiences in the Ukraine. He told us that the Party in the Ukraine had not fully grasped the lessons of the agrarian revolution in Great Russia. He spoke of one occasion when his outfit had attempted to arbitrarily carry out the collectivization of all the big estates in territory occupied by their division of the Red Army; their efforts met with the stiff resistance of the local peasants, even though the peasants supported Soviet power.<br />
<br />
The peasants insisted on the redistribution of all the estates, breaking them up among the individual peasant families, rather than taking over the large estates collectively, This occurred during the fall months of 1919, on the eve of Denikin’s final defeat, when Soviet power in the form of an “independent Ukrainian Republic” was about to be established.<br />
<br />
It was a time when Lenin, in order to allay anti-Russian distrust and suspicion among the Ukrainian peasantry, had insisted that certain concessions be made. Both Russian and Ukrainian were to be used on an equal footing, and attempts to push back the Ukrainian language to a secondary status were to be denounced. Lenin demanded that all officials in the new republic be able to speak Ukrainian and called for the distribution of large farms among the peasants. State farms were to be created “in strictly limited numbers and of limited size and in each casein conformity with the instruments of the surrounding peasantry.”<br />
<br />
Despite this, Mintz said, many of us Ukrainian Bolsheviks tended to downplay the nationality element in our own country. “In my own case, I had long since ceased to consider myself a Jew.” Most of them were what was called at that time “abstract internationalists”; super-internationalists who, in the name of internationalism, renounced the national element in the struggle of the Ukrainian masses.<br />
<br />
“But we were not alone in this deviation,” Mintz told us. “Although Lenin’s policy was eventually adopted by the Central Executive Committee, it was sharply opposed by leading Ukrainian Bolsheviks such as Rakovsky and Manuilsky. What it finally came down to, in the case of our army division, was that as a result of the opposition of the peasants in the area, we were foreed to give up our plan for collectivization; we thus had to settle for having only one of the estates being set aside as a Soviet farm.”<br />
<br />
The first part of each summer at the Lenin School was spent in practical work that related to our studies. In the course of my practical work program in the early summer of 1928, I had my first close-up ohservation of the peasant question in the USSR. I visited a peasant village in an agricultural district to talk with the people and make observations. Though hardly more than 100 versts (about 66 miles) from Moscow, it was truly in “darkest Russia,” a provincial place, isolated from the city. Few inhabitants had been as far away as Moscow.<br />
<br />
After taking a train to the nearest station, I then had to take a droshky another twenty versts to the county seat. Arriving in the morning, I was let down in the middle of the village square. I looked around to get my bearings, and in no time at all, a crowd had gathered to stare at me.<br />
<br />
‘The crowd grew larger by the minute; it seemed as if the whole village had turned out in the square, I could overhear remarks: “Who is he?”<br />
<br />
“Why is he so Black?”<br />
<br />
“What nice teeth!”<br />
<br />
“Look, his palms are white!”<br />
<br />
“He seems sympatichno,” remarked some.<br />
<br />
Someone else who perhaps had done a little reading said, “Oh, he’s probably from Africa. There the sun is so hot that people who have lived there for thousands of years become black.” The crowd seemed to accept this explanation.<br />
<br />
I stuck out my hand to a young man standing nearby. “Zdravstvuyte,” I said. “Could you direct me to the town committee?” He seemed to be surprised that I could speak Russian, but getting himself together, he directed me toa building across the square.<br />
<br />
“Who are you? Where did you come from?” the young man asked.<br />
<br />
“I'm an American Negro from the United States,” I replied.<br />
<br />
Someone in the crowd remarked, “I told you he was of the Negro tribe.” <br />
<br />
Someone else spoke up, “I thought all people in the United States were white.” <br />
<br />
That gave me the chance to get off on my international propaganda spiel, and I jumped right in. “Oh no,” I replied. “There are twelve million Blacks in the U.S.—ahout one-tenth of the population.” I went on to tell them about Blacks inthe South, and the modern-day remnants of the plantation system: sharecropping, Jim Crow and lynch terror.<br />
<br />
Someone remarked, “Oh, Like it was with us under the old regime.” Many of the villagers nodded their heads in agreement with this.<br />
<br />
Just then I noticed an old woman with a cane, slowly making her way through the crowd toward where I was. The young people gave way before her, in deference to her age. When she reached the center, I watched the changes in expression on her old wrinkled face as she gazed at me. First it registered amazement at such a sight; then comprehension when she had “cased” the whole situation,<br />
<br />
Then she spit on the ground and slammed her cane down, “Idite domoi! Go home!” she told me. “Wash your face! You should be ashamed of yourself, trying to fool the people around here!” Waving her cane at me, she then turned scornfully away. In all her ninety-odd years, she had never before seen a Black man!<br />
<br />
=== TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION ===<br />
The first time I met Stalin was at a social gathering in the Kremlin during the World Congress of the Friends of the Soviet Union. The congress coincided with the Tenth Anniversary celebrations in the fall of 1927. The congress sessions were held at the Dom Soyusov (House of the Trade Unions), It was the greatest international gathering I had ever witnessed. There were probably more than one thousand delegates, representing countries from six continents, The most impressive delegation was the huge one (about one hundred people) from China which was headed by the young and beautiful widow of Sun Yat-sen. (Today she is vice-chairman of the National People’s Republic of China.) <br />
<br />
I was surprised and delighted to meet my old friend Chi (Dum Ping), a former Chinese student at the University of Chicago with whom I had worked in the organization of the ill-fated Interracial Youth Forum on the Southside in 1924. He had since gone back to China and was now one of the translators for the Chinese delegation. It was Chi who introduced me to Madame Sun Yatsen. She spoke English with an American accent, which was not surprising since she had been educated in the United States.<br />
<br />
Among the other notables we were to meet were the young Cuban revolutionary, Antonio Mella, later murdered in Mexico City by Machado’s assassins. He was a tall, wiry youth, who always had a guitar slung over his back. There was Henri Barbusse, a pale, wan man, a victim of tuberculosis, He was a great literary figure in France and wrote a biography of Stalin. There was the american novelist Theodore Dreiser, father of American realism who was there with his secretary, Ruth Epperson Kennel, a young American woman. <br />
<br />
A special friend of us Black students was Josiah Gumede, the elderly president of the African National Congress and a descendant of Zulu chiefs. We took him in charge. Every morning we would call for him at his room at the National Hotel on Tverskaya (now Gorky Street) and escort him to the congress sessions. We also accompanied him on the rounds of parties held by the various delegations. He must have been about sixty at the time, but was big, strong and healthy and never seemed to tire.<br />
<br />
The gala occasion for the whole congress was the Evening of National Culture, It consisted of an elaborate pageant of folk dances from the various Soviet republics and autonomous regions. The dancers were all in their traditional costumes, a striking array of color and diversity. On this occasion, our Soviet hosts went all out for their foreign guests.<br />
<br />
The hall in the Dom Soyusov had been converted into a huge banquet room. We were seated before tables loaded with various kinds of liquor, including of course, the best vodka and zakuskas; appetizers of all kinds—cheeses, herrings, caviar, cold sturgeon and cold meats. Then came dinner, from soup to dessert.<br />
<br />
The banquet finally ended. Most of us were in somewhat of a stupor from food and drink, Our group, which included our teacher Sik, was leaving the hall amidst the din of a thousand people talking and laughing. On our way out we stopped and chatted with numerous delegates.<br />
<br />
Gumede was the chief attraction; he had given a stirring speech at a session of the congress a few days before. As I recall, we were nearing the door when we were stopped and greeted by the old Cossack cavalryman, Marshall Budenny. He was a short, powerful, bow-legged man, with a large ferocious black mustache. He was also in a merry mood.<br />
<br />
“Tell the chief,” he said, grasping Gumede’s hand, “that we stand ready to come to his support anytime he needs us!”<br />
<br />
“Thank you, thank you,” beamed Gumede.<br />
<br />
At that moment, someone approached us, I believe it was Tival, Stalin’s seeretary, and informed us that we were invited to a party in the Kremlin.<br />
<br />
We walked the short distance across the square to the Kremlin. Once within the Kremlin walls, we were guided into one of the old palaces and then taken upstairs to a small hall. It was a longroom with an arched ceiling reaching almost to the floors on the sides. It looked to me as though it could have been a throne room of one of the old czars.<br />
<br />
There were perhaps fifty people in the room. In the center there was a large table loaded with the traditional zakuskas, fruits and drinks. It was sort of a buffet; chairs were not directly at the table but rather were along the walls on each side.<br />
<br />
There in the center on one side was Stalin, with a number of people seated beside him, He rose, shook our hands, and after we were introduced, welcomed us, “Be our guests.” He was a short, thick-set man, as T remember, dressed in a neat tan suit with a military collar and boots shined to glisten.<br />
<br />
He motioned us to the vacant chairs on the other side of the room. On that side were a number of folk dancers and musicians, presumably participants in the earlier festivities, Somebody introduced Gumede as an African Zulu chief from the congress, and the dancers probably thought we were all from the same tribe. Gumede, however, was the center of attention, surrounded by the daricers, who insisted on being photographed with him.<br />
<br />
They gathered around him—a couple sitting on his lap and others behind him with their arms around him, Stalin, observing all this from the other side of the room, seemed amused. Later on, Stalin got up, bid us all good-night and walked out. As I remember, it was quite a relaxed evening with no political discussion. We left shortly after Stalin departed and were driven home by a chauffeur from the Kremlin car pool.<br />
<br />
Another version of this occasion was given, I believe by Sik, who insisted that Otto had danced with Stalin that evening. I don’t doubt Sik’s word, but I certainly don’t remember seeing it. Otto didn’t remember the incident either, But I do know that in Russia it was not uncommon for one man to dance with another on festive occasions, As I recall, the hall became more crowded, and I was attracted by a group of folk dancers who offered to help us students with our Russian,<br />
<br />
Afterwards Sik kept reminding Otto, “Don’t you remember, Otto, you asked Stalin to dance, and you danced around the hall with him several times, That was a memorable occasion; how could you forget it?”<br />
<br />
As for Gumede, he returned home a firm supporter of the Soviet Union. Everywhere he went, he gave glowing reports of his visit there. In January 1928, he told an ANC rally that “I have seen the new world to come, where it has already begun. I have been to the new Jerusalem."<br />
<br />
One day in December, Otto called me and said he had inst gotten a call to pick up a young Black woman, Maude White, who was to be a student at KUTVA. She was waiting at the station. He asked me if I'd like to go along and I readily agreed, looking forward with pleasure to meeting this woman—the first Black woman since Jane Golden to study in the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
We rented a droshky and proceeded to the station. It was a cold winter night, the temperature was somewhere around thirty-five below zero. When we got there, we saw the young Black woman, She was about nineteen, standing in the unheated station, she was a strikingly pretty, brown-skinned woman with huge dark eyes.<br />
<br />
She had on a seal skin coat, silk stockings and pumps, and by time we got there she was practically hysterical with the cold. "Get me out of here,” she shouted. Otto and I looke at each other, both thinking the same thing—we're going to have a rough time with this one. <br />
<br />
We couldn't have been more wrong. Maude got right into the swing of things at school. She was a very popular suger ae stayed in Moscow for three years. We later learned that she ha been a school teacher before coming to Moscow, On returning to the States, she became an outstanding Party cadre and a life-long friend of mine.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 8 ==<br />
<br />
=== Self-Determination: The Fight for a Correct Line ===<br />
Towards the end of 1927, Nasanov returned to the Soviet Union after a sojourn in the United States as the representative of the Young Communist International. I had known him briefly in the States before my departure for Russia. Nasanov was one of a group of YCI workers who had been sent on missions to several countries. He had considerable experience with respect to the national and colonial question and was considered an expert on these matters.<br />
<br />
Nasanov's observations had convinced him that U.S. Blacks were essentially an oppressed nation whose struggle for equality would ultimately take an autonomous direction and that the content of the Black liberation movement was the completion of the agrarian and democratic revolution in the South—a struggle which was left unresolved by the Civil War and betrayal of Reconstruction. Therefore, it was the duty of the Party to channel the movement in a revolutionary direction by raising and supporting the slogan of the right of self-determination for Afro-Americans in the Black Belt, the area of their greatest concentration.<br />
<br />
Upon his return, Nasanov sought me out and it was he, I believe, who first informed me that I had been elected to the National Committee of the YCL back in the States. In the months ahead, we were to become close friends. Through him, I met a number of YCI people, mostly Soviet comrades who held the same position as Nasanov did on the national question. They seemed to be pushing to have the matter reviewed at the forthcoming Sixth Congress of the Comintern. And as it later became clear to me, they were anxious to recruit at least one Black to support their position.<br />
<br />
As I have indicated before, the position was not entirely new to me. I was present at the meeting of the YCL District Committee in Chicago in 1924 when Bob Mazut (then YCI rep to the U.S.), at the behest of Zinoviev, had raised the question of self-determination At that time, he had been shouted down by the white comrades. (See Chapter Four.)<br />
<br />
Sen Katayama had told us Black KUTVA students that Lenin had regarded U.S. Blacks as an oppressed nation and referred us to his draft resolution on the national and colonial question which was adopted by the Second Congress of the Comintern in 1920. Otto and other Black students had also told me that they got a similar impression from their meeting with Stalin at the Kremlin shortly after their arrival in the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
All of this seemed tentative to me. No one had elaborated the position fully and Nasanoy was the first person I met who attempted to argue it definitively. But all of these arguments, and especially Nasanov’s prodding, set me to thinking and confronted me with the need to apply concretely my newly-acquired Marxist-Leninist knowledge on the national-colonial question to the condition of Blacks in the United States,<br />
<br />
To me, the idea of a Black nation within U.S. boundaries seemed far-fetched and not consonant with American reality. I saw the solution through the incorporation of Blacks into U.S. society on the basis of complete equality, and only socialism could bring this to pass. There was no doubt in my mind that the path to freedom for us Blacks led directly to socialism, uncluttered by any interim stage of self-determination or Black political power. The unity of Black and white workers against the common enemy, U.S. capitalism, was the motor leading toward the dual goal of Black. freedom and socialism.<br />
<br />
I felt that it was difficult enough to build this unity, without adding to it the gratuitous assumption of a non-existent Black nation, with its implication of a separate state on U.S. soil. To do so, I felt, was to create new and unnecessary roadblocks to the already difficult path to Black and white unity.<br />
<br />
Socialism, I reasoned, was not in contradiction to the movement for Black cultural identity, expressed in the cultural renaissance of the twenties and in Garvey’s emphasis on race pride and history (which I regarded as one of the positive aspects of that movement), Socialism for U.S. Blacks did not imply loss of cultural identity any more than it did for the Jews of the Soviet Union, among whom I had witnessed the proliferation of the positive features of Jewish culture—theater, literature and language.<br />
<br />
The Jews were not considered a nation because they were not concentrated in any definite territory; they were regarded as a national minority and Birobidzhan was set aside as a Jewish autonomous province. Such a bolstering of self-respect, dignity and self-assertion on the part of a formerly oppressed minority people was a necessary stage in the development of a universal culture which would amalgamate the best features of all national groups. This was definitely the policy of the Soviet Union with regard to formerly oppressed nationalities and ethnic groups.<br />
<br />
Like the Jews, I reasoned, the position of U.S. Blacks was that of an oppressed race, though at the time I am sure I would have been hard-pressed to define precisely what was meant by that phrase. The main factor in the oppression of Jews under the Czar had been the religious factor; the main factor with U.S, Blacks was race. Blacks lacked some of the essential attributes of a nation which had been defined by Stalin in his classic work, Marxism and the National Question.<br />
<br />
Most assuredly, one could argue that among Blacks there existed elements of a special culture and also a common language (English). But this did not add up to a nation, I reasoned. Missing was the all-important aspect of a national territory. Even if one agreed that the Black Belt, where Blacks were largely concentrated, rightfully belonged to them, they were in no geographic position to assert their right of self-determination.<br />
<br />
I could see many analogies between the national problem in the old Czarist Empire and the problem of U.S. Blacks, but the analogy floundered on this question of territory. For the subject nations of the old Czarist Empire were situated either on the border of the oppressing Great Russian nation or were completely outside it. But American Blacks were set down in the very midst of the oppressing white nation, the strongest capitalist power on earth. Faced with this, it was no wonder that most nationalist movements up until then had taken the road of a separate state outside the United States. How then could one convince U.S. Blacks that the right of self-determination was a realistic program?<br />
<br />
Nasanov and his young friends answered my arguments over the course of a series of discussions and were quick to pick out the flaws in my position, They contended that I was guilty of an ahistoric approach with respect to the elements of nationhood. Certainly, some of the attributes of a nation were weakly developed in the case of U.S. Blacks. But that was the case with most oppressed peoples precisely because the imperialist policy of national oppression is directed towards artificially and forcibly retaining the economic and cultural backwardness of the colonial peoples as a condition for their super-exploitation. My mistake had been to ignore Lenin’s dictum that in the epoch of imperialism it was essential to differentiate between the oppressor and the oppressed nations,<br />
<br />
They further contended that I had presented the matter as though self-determination were solely a question for Blacks. | had therefore separated the Black rebellion from the struggle for socialism in the United States. In fact, it was a constituent part of the latter struggle or, more precisely, a special phase of the struggle of the American working class for socialism.<br />
<br />
My argument added up to a defense of the current position of the U.S. Party, albeit I had embellished the position somewhat against Nasanov's criticisms. Up to this point, the Black students had not challenged the Party’s line on Afro-American work, We reasoned that the Party’s default in the work among Blacks was not the result of an incorrect line, but came from a failure to carry out in practice its declared line. We believed that this failure was due to an underestimation of the importance of work among Blacks, which came from an underestimation of the revolutionary potential of the struggle of the Black masses for equality. All this resulted from the persistence of remnants of white racist ideology vathin the ranks of the Party, including some of its leadership.<br />
<br />
Nasanoy and some of his friends agreed with us that the American CP did underestimate the revolutionary potential of the Black struggle for equality. But, they maintained, this underestimation came from a fundamentally incorrect social-democratic line, rather than from white chauvinism, They said that I had stood the whole matter on its head: I had presented the incorrect policies as the result of subjective white chauvinist attitudes; whereas, they pointed out that the white chauvinist attitudes persisted precisely because the Party’s line was fundamentally incorrect in that it denied the national character of the question.<br />
<br />
“Our American comrades seem to think that only the direct struggle for socialism is revolutionary,” they told me, “and that the national movement detracts from that struggle and is therefore reactionary.” This, they pointed out, was an American version of the “pure proletarian revolution” concept; they referred me to Lenin’s polemic against Radek on the question of self-determination.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks also criticized my formulation of the matter as primarily a race question. To call the matter a race question, they said, was to fall into the bourgeois liberal trap of regarding the fight for equality as primarily a fight against racial prejudices of whites. This slurred over the economic and social roots of the question and obscured the question of the agrarian democratic revolution in the South, which was pivotal to the struggle for Black equality throughout the country. They pointed out that it was wrong to counterpose the struggle for equality to the struggle for self-determination. For in fact, in the South, self-determination for Blacks (political power in their own hands) was the guarantee of equality.<br />
<br />
=== HISTORY OF THE QUESTION IN THE COMINTERN ===<br />
In these discussions with my young friends, which extended over the course of several months, I became keenly aware of the gaps in my understanding of Marxist-Leninist theory on the national-colonial question. I was to find, as Nasanov and others had indicated, that the idea of Blacks as an oppressed nation was not new in the Comintern. Though Stalin was undoubtedly the person pushing the position at the time, it had not originated with him, but with Lenin himself.<br />
<br />
It first appeared in Lenin’s “Draft Theses on the National Colonial Question” which he submitted to the Second Congress of the Comintern in 1920. The draft, which was later adopted, called upon the communist parties to “render direct aid to the revolutionary movements among the dependent and underprivileged nations (for example, Ireland, the American Negroes, etc.) and in the colonies.<br />
<br />
Some have argued that Lenin’s reference to U.S. Blacks as a subject nation was merely a tentative deduction. When he submitted his draft, he asked the delegates for opinions and suggestions on fifteen points, one of which was “Negroes in America."<br />
<br />
It was recorded, however, that the Colonial Commission of the congress, which Lenin himself headed and in which Sen Katayama was a leading member, held lengthy discussions on the question of U.S, Blacks. <br />
<br />
John Reed, the American author, was a delegate and participated in the discussion, apparently in opposition to Lenin’s formulations. In fact, he made two speeches, one in the commission and one to the congress, contending that the problem of U.S. Blacks was that of “both a strong race movement and a strong proletarian workers’ movement which is rapidly developing in class consciousness.” Equating all national movements among Blacks to Garvey’s Back to Africa separatism, he contended that “a movement which struggles for a separate national existence has no success among the Negroes, like the ‘Back to Africa’ movement, for example.....” and that Blacks “consider themselves above all Americans, they feel at home in the United States. This makes the tasks of communists very much easier."<br />
<br />
But despite Reed’s objections, the reference to American Blacks as an oppressed nation remained in the resolution as finally adopted. For Lenin’s thesis was not something spun out of thin air, but was the result of a serious study of the question. This is clear from his work “New Data on the Laws Governing the Development of Capitalism in Agriculture,” which spoke about the United States,<br />
<br />
In this work, published in 1915 (and based on the U.S. Census of 1910), Lenin viewed the question of Blacks in the South as one of an uncompleted agrarian and bourgeois democratic revolution, He drew attention to the remarkable similarity between the economic positions of the South’s Black tenants and the emancipated serfs in theagrarian centers of Russia, pointing out that both groups were not tenants in the European civilized sense, but “...semi-slaves, share-croppers...”<br />
<br />
Emphasizing the absence of elementary democratic rights among Blacks, he alluded to the South as “the most stagnant area, where the masses are subjected to the greatest degradation and oppression...a kind of prison where (these ‘emancipated’ Negroes) are hemmed in, isolated, and deprived of fresh air.” These kinds of conditions, the lot of the vast majority of U.S. Blacks, undoubtedly led Lenin to conclude that their movement for “emancipation” would take a national revolutionary direction.<br />
<br />
Conclusive proof of Lenin’s thinking at the time with respect to U.S. Blacks can be found in an uncompleted work written in 1917 though not available until 1935. The work, “Statistics and Sociology,” was begun in the early part of 1917, but was interrupted by the February Revolution and never resumed. <br />
<br />
In the section of the manuscript referring to U.S. Blacks, he drew a clear distinction between their positions and that of the foreign-born immigrants, that is between the white foreign-born assimilables and the Black unassimilables.<blockquote>'''In the United States, the Negroes (and also the Mulattos and Indians) account for only 11.1 per cent. They should be classed as an oppressed nation, for the equality won in the Civil War of 1861-1865 and guaranteed by the Constitution of the republic was in many respects increasingly curtailed in the chief Negro areas (the South) in connection with the transition from the progressive, pre-monopoly capitalism of 1860-1870 to the reactionary, monopoly capitalism (imperialism) of the new era."'''</blockquote>Whereas with the white foreign-born immigrants, Lenin observed that the speed of development of capitalism in America has “produced a situation in which vast national differences are speedily and fundamentally, as nowhere else in the world, smoothed out to form a single ‘American nation.’ <br />
<br />
All of this shows that the idea that U.S. Blacks comprise an oppressed nation was neither a temporary nor tentative formulation on Lenin’s part. <br />
<br />
Despite the thesis of the Second Congress, Reed’s views reflecting as they did the position of the young American Party-— were to persist in the U.S. without serious challenge through the Fifth Congress of the Comintern. The Third Congress of 1921 recorded no discussion with respect to the character of the problem. <br />
<br />
The Fourth Congress in 1922 also did not seriously discuss the point. This mecting, however, marked the first appearance of Black delegates to the Comintern. They were Otto Huiswood as regular Party delegate, and the poet Claude McKay as a special fraternal delegate. It was also the first congress to set up a Negro Commission, and extended discussions took place on the thesis brought in by the commission which characterized the position of U.S. Blacks as an aspect of the colonial question. It stressed the special role of American Blacks in support of the liberation struggles of Africa, Central and South America and the Caribbean. <br />
<br />
The thesis of the Fourth Congress did add a new, international dimension to the question, but it did not challenge the Party's basic anti-self-determination position. This position was stressed in a speech by Huiswood (Billings) which called the Afro-American question “another phase of the racial and colonial question,’ an essentially economic problem which was “intensified by the friction which exists between the white and black races,"<br />
<br />
The discussion of the character of the question came up in the Fifth Congress in 1924, this time in connection with the Draft Program of the Communist International. For the first time since the Second Congress, the discussion centered directly on the character of the question as an oppressed nation and the appropriateness of the slogan of the right of self-determination.<br />
<br />
August Thalheimer (the German head of the Commission on the Draft Program) reported that “the slogan of the right of self-determination cannot solve all national questions,” Such is the case in the United States, “where there is an extraordinarily mixed population” and where the “race question” is also involved. Therefore, he pointed out, “the Program Commission was of the opinion that the slogan of right of self-determination must be supplemented by another slogan: ‘Equal Rights for all Nationalities and Races."<br />
<br />
Representing the U.S. at the Fifth Congress, John Pepper supported this anti-self-determination position. According to him, the United States was a country in which the different nationalities could not be separated. Self-determination was not appropriate; Blacks in the U.S, did not want it. “They do not want to set up a separate state inside the U.S.A.,” and they wish to remain inside the U.S,, not leave it for Africa. To the demand of “social equality,” he held that “we should change these words to the following: full equality in every respect.”<br />
<br />
Lovett Fort-Whiteman, the sole Black delegate, apparently supported Pepper’s position and gave his standard speech (which I was to hear a number of times in the States), He stressed the racial aspect of the problem and called for a special communist approach to Blacks.<br />
<br />
There appeared to be no opposition to the draft program, but, after all, it was only the first version. The program in its final form was to be discussed and adopted at the Sixth Congress. Apparently Zinoviev and others in the CI leadership were not satisfied with the formulation that had rejected self-determination for U.S. Blacks. Zinoviev had instructed Bob Mazut to investigate the question while on his assignment to the U.S., immediately following the congress.<br />
<br />
Such was the situation following the Fifth Congress. The question can be raised as to why the U.S. Party’s position was not seriously challenged during this whole period and why the proponents in the Comintern of the self-determination thesis failed to press for their position.<br />
<br />
Their reluctance in this regard, I presume, was because they did not want to push their position against the unanimous opposition of the American Party, including its Black members. After all, the Comintern was a voluntary union of communist parties which operated under democratic-centralism. It was not the policy of the Comintern leadership to arbitrarily force positions on member parties. <br />
<br />
=== 1928; A REEXAMINATION OF THE QUESTION ===<br />
How are we to account then for the renewed interest in the Afro-American question among certain influential leaders of the Comintern on the eve of the Sixth Congress? Why the drive to re open the question? The answer lies in the changed world situation: the sharpened crisis of the world capitalist system, consequent on the breakdown of partial capitalist stabilization, the beginning of a deepening economic depression in Europe; and the continued upsurge of the colonial revolutions in China, India and Indonesia,<br />
<br />
These harbingers of the new period were pointed out by Stalin at the Fifteenth Congress of the CPSU in early December 1927, in which he referred to the “collapsing stabilization” of capitalism. <br />
<br />
It was to be a period of revolutionary struggle. In order to lead these struggles, an attack on right opportunism was required in the practice and work of the communist parties. It was a period in which the national and colonial question was to acquire a new urgency. The CI paid special attention to the fight against those views which liquidated or downplayed the importance of the question. In this context, the Comintern felt that the establishment of a revolutionary line on the Afro-American question was key if the CPUSA was to lead the joint struggle of the Black and white working masses in the coming period.<br />
<br />
The low status of the CP’s Negro work itself was another factor pressing for a radical policy review. There had been no progress in this work, despite the prodding of the Comintern. As already mentioned, the highly touted American Negro Labor Congress had failed to even get off the ground.<br />
<br />
In a speech at the Sixth Congress, James Ford counted nineteen communications from the Comintern to the U.S, Party on Negro work, none of which had been put into effect or brought before the Party. He further observed that “we have no more than 50 Negroes in our Party, out of the 12 million Negroes in America." <br />
<br />
All of these factors strengthened the determination of the Comintern to make the Sixth Congress the arena for a drastic reevaluation of work and policy in this area.<br />
<br />
In the winter of 1928, preparations were already afoot for the Sixth Congress which was to convene the following summer. The Anglo-American Secretariat of the CI set up a special subcommitteee on the Negro question which would prepare a draft resolution for the official Negro Commission of the Congress.<br />
<br />
As I recall, the subcommittce consisted of Nasanov and five students: four Blacks (including my brother Otto and myself) and one white student, Clarence Hathaway, from the Lenin School, In addition, there were some ex-officio members: Profintern rep Bill Dunne and Comintern rep Bob Minor, They seldom attended our sessions. James Ford, who was then assigned to the Profintern, also attended some sessions.<br />
<br />
Our subcommittee met and broke the subject down into topics; each of us accepted one as his assignment to research and report on to the committee as a whole. The high point in the discussion was the report of my brother Otto on Garvey’s Back to Africa movement. In his report, he concluded that the nationalism expressed in that movement had no objective base in the economic, social and political conditions of U.S. Blacks. It was, he asserted, a foreign importation artificially grafted onto the freedom movement of U.S, Blacks by the West Indian nationalist, Garvey.<br />
<br />
U.S. Blacks, Otto concluded, were not an oppressed nation but an oppressed racial minority. The long-range goal of the movement was not the right of self-determination but complete economic, social and political equality to be won through a revolutionary alliance of Blacks and class-conscious white labor in a joint struggle for socialism against the common enemy, U.S. capitalism.<br />
<br />
Up to that point, I was still not certain as regarded tbe applicability of the right of self-determination to the problems of Blacks in the U.S., but my misgivings about the slogan had been shaken somewhat by the series of discussions I had had with my Russian friends. Otto, in his report, had merely restated the CP’s current position. But somehow, against the background of our discussion of the Garvey movement, the inadequacy of that position stood out like a sore thumb. Otto, however, had done more than simply restate the position; he brought out into the open what had been implicit in the Party’s position all along. That is, that any type of nationalism among Blacks was reactionary.<br />
<br />
This view, it occurred to me, was the logical outcome of any position which saw only the “pure proletarian” class struggle as the sole revolutionary struggle against capitalism. The Party had traditionally considered the Afro-American question as that of a persecuted racial minority. They centered their activity almost exclusively on Blacks as workers and treated the question as basically a simple trade union matter, underrating other aspects of the struggle. The struggle for equal rights was seen as a diversion that would obscure or overshadow the struggle for socialism.<br />
<br />
But how could one wage a fight against white chauvinism from that position? I thought at the time that viewing everything in light of the trade union question would lead to a denial of the revolutionary potential of the struggle of the whole people for equality. Otto’s rejection of nationalism as an indigenous trend brought these points out sharply in my mind.<br />
<br />
In the discussion, I pointed out that Otto's position was not merely a rejection of Garveyism but also a denial of nationalism as a legitimate trend in the Black freedom movement, I felt that it amounted to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. With my insight sharpened by previous discussions, I argued further that the nationalism reflected in the Garvey movement was not a foreign transplant, nor did it spring full-blown from the brow of Jove. On the contrary, it was an indigenous product, arising from the soil of Black super-exploitation and oppression in the United States, It expressed the yearnings of millions of Blacks for a nation of their own.<br />
<br />
As I pursued this logic, a totally new thought occurred to me, and for me it was the clincher. The Garvey movement is dead, I reasoned, but not Black nationalism. Nationalism, which Garvey diverted under the slogan of Back to Africa, was an authentic trend, likely to flare up again in periods of crisis and stress. Sucha movement might again fall under the leadership of utopian visionaries who would seek to divert it from the struggle against the main enemy, U.S. imperialism, and on to a reactionary separatist path. The only way such a diversion of the struggle could be forestalled was by presenting a revolutionary alternative to Blacks.<br />
<br />
To the slogan of “Back to Africa,” I argued, we must counterpose the slogan of “right of self-determination here in the Deep South.” Our slogan for the U.S, Black rebellion therefore must be the “right of self-determination in the South, with full equality throughout the country,” to be won through revolutionary alliance with politically conscious white workers against the common enemy-—-U.S. imperialism,<br />
<br />
Nasanov was seated across the table from me during this discussion and, elated at my presentation, he demonstratively rose to shake my hand. I was the first American communist (with perhaps the exception of Briggs) to support the thesis that U.S. Blacks constituted an oppressed nation.<br />
<br />
The next day, Nasanov and I submitted a resolution to the subcommittee incorporating our views. We couldn't get a majority but we had Hathaway’s support, as I remember. It was agreed that the resolution be submitted to the Anglo-American Secretariat as the views of those who subscribed to it, and those who disagreed with it would present their own views.<br />
<br />
The only really persistent opposition in the subcommittee, as I remember, came from Otto; the other students were somewhat ambivalent on the question. I attributed much of this to Sik’s influence, since he had already begun to develop his position which held that the question of U.S. Blacks was a “race” question and that Blacks should not demand seif-determination, but simply full social and political equality. His theories were later used by the Lovestoncites and others who opposed the self-determination position.<br />
<br />
Once my hesitations were overcome, the whole theory fell logicatly into place. Here is the full analysis as I came to understand it. The thesis that called for the right of selfdetermination is supported by a serious economic-historical analysis of U.S. Blacks.<br />
<br />
The evolution of American Blacks as an oppressed nation was begun in slavery. In the final analysis, however, it was the result of the unfinished bourgeois democratic revolution of the Civil War and the betrayal of Reconstruction through the Hayes-Tilden (Gentiemen’s) Agreement of 1877.<br />
<br />
This betrayal was followed by withdrawal of federal troops and the unleashing of counter-revolutionary terror, including the massacre of thousands of Blacks and the overthrow of the Reconstruction governments which had been based on an alliance of Blacks, poor whites and carpetbaggers. The result was that the Black freedmen, deserted by their former Republican allies, were left without land. Their newly-won rights were destroyed with the abrogation of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and they were thrust back upon the plantations of their former masters in a position but little removed from chattel bondage.<br />
<br />
The revolution had stopped short of a solution to the crucial land question, there was neither confiscation of the big plantations of the former slaveholding class, nor distribution of the land among the Negro freedmen and poor whites. It was around this issue of land for the freedmen that the revolutionary democratic wave of Radical Reconstruction beat in vain and finally broke.<br />
<br />
The advent of imperialism, the epoch of trusts and monopolies at the turn of the century, froze the Blacks in their post-Reconstruction position; landless, semi-slaves in the South. It blocked the road to fusion of Blacks and whites into one nation on the basis of equality and put the final seal on the special oppression of Blacks. The path towards equality and freedom via assimilation was foreclosed by these events, and the struggle for Black equality thenceforth was ultimately bound to take a national revolutionary direction.<br />
<br />
Under conditions of imperialist and racist oppression, Blacks in the South were to acquire all the attributes of a subject nation. They are a people set apart by a common ethnic origin, economically interrelated in various classes, united by a common historical experience, reflected in a special culture and psychological makeup. The territory of this subject nation is the Black Belt, an area encompassing the Deep South, which, despite massive outmigrations, still contained (and does to this day) the country’s largest concentration of Blacks.<br />
<br />
Thus, imperialist oppression created the conditions for the eventual rise ofa national liberation movement with its base in the South. The content of this movement would be the completion of the agrarian democratic revolution in the South; that is, the right of self-determination as the guarantee of complete equality throughout the country.<br />
<br />
This new analysis defined the status of Blacks in the north as an unassimilable national minority who cannot escape oppression by fleeing the South. The shadow of the plantation falls upon them throughout the country, as the semi-slave relations in the Black Belt continually reproduce Black inequality and servitude in all walks of life.<br />
<br />
There are certain singular features of the submerged Afro-American nation which differentiate it from other oppressed nations and which have made the road towards national eonsciousness and identity difficult and arduous. Afro-Americans are not only “a nation within a nation,” but a captive nation, suffering a colonial-type oppression while trapped within the geographic bounds of one of the world’s most powerful imperialist countries.<br />
<br />
Blacks were forced into the stream of U.S. history in a peculiar manner, as chattel slaves, and are victims of an excruciatingly destructive system of oppression and persecution, due not only to the economic and social survivals of slavery, but also to its ideological heritage, racism.<br />
<br />
The Afro-American nation is also unique in that it is a new nation evolved from a people forcibly transplanted from their original African homeland. A people comprised of various tribal and linguistic groups, they are a product not of their native African soil, but of the conditions of their transplantation.<br />
<br />
The overwhelming, stifling factor of race, the doctrine of inherent Black inferiority perpetuated by ruling class ideologues, has sunk deep into the thinking of Americans. It has become endemic, permeating the entire structure of U.S. life. Given this, Blacks could only remain permanently unabsorbed in the new world’s “melting pot.”<br />
<br />
The race factor has also left its stigma on the consciousness of the Black nation, creating a powerful mystification about Black Americans which has served to obscure their objective status as an oppressed nation. It has twisted the direction of the Afro-American liberation movement and scarred it while still in its embryonic state.<br />
<br />
Although the objective base for equality and freedom via direct integration was foreclosed by the defeat of Reconstruction andthe advent of the U.S. as an imperialist power, bourgeois assimilationist illusions were continued into the new era. They were nurtured and kept alive by the nascent Black middle class and the liberal detachment of the white bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Conditions, however, were maturing for the rise of a mass nationalist movement. This movement was to burst with explosive force upon the political scene in the period following World War I, with the rise of the Garvey movement. The potentially revolutionary movement of Black toilers was diverted into utopian reactionary channels of a peaceful return to Africa.<br />
<br />
The period of bourgeois democratic revolutions in the United States ended with the defeat of democratic Reconstruction. The issue of Black freedom was carried over into the epoch of imperialism. Its full solution postponed to the next stage of human progress, socialism. The question has remained and become the most vulnerable area on the domestic front of U.S. capitalism, its “Achilles heel”—a major focus of the contradictions in U.S. society.<br />
<br />
Blacks, therefore, in the struggle for national liberation and the entire working class in its struggle for socialism are natural allies. The forging of this alliance is enhanced by the presence of a growing Black industria} working class. with direct and historical connections with white labor.<br />
<br />
This new line established that the Black freedom struggle is a revolutionary movement in its own right, directed against the very foundations of U.S. imperialism, with its own dynamic pace and momentum, resulting from the unfinished democratic and land revolutions in the South. It places the Black liberation movement and the class struggle of U.S. workers in their proper relationship as two aspects of the fight against the common enemy—U.S. capitalism, It elevates the Black movement to a position of equality in that battle.<br />
<br />
The new theory destroys forever the white racist theory traditional among class-conscious white workers which had relegated the struggle of Blacks to a subsidiary position in the revolutionary movement. Race is defined as a device of national oppression, a smokescreen thrown up by the class enemy, to hide the underlying economic and social conditions involved in Black oppression and to maintain the division of the working class.<br />
<br />
The new theory was to sensitize the Party to the revolutionary significance of the Black liberation struggle. During the crisis of the thirties, a significant segment of radicalized white workers would come to see the Blacks as revolutionary allies.<br />
<br />
The struggle for this position had now begun; there remained its adoption by the Comintern and its final acceptance by the U.S. Party. Our draft resolution, which summed up these points, was turned over to Petrovsky (Bennett), Chairman of the AngloAmerican Secretariat. He seemed quite pleased with it, expressed his agreement and suggested some minor changes. He agreed to submit it to the Negro Commission at the forthcoming Sixth Congress.<br />
<br />
I continued to work with Nasanov on preparations for the congress. By that time, we had become quite a team. Our next project was the South African question, a question which also fell under the jurisdiction of the Anglo-American Secretariat.<br />
<br />
We were assigned to work with James La Guma, a South African Colored comrade who had come to Moscow to attend the Tenth Anniversary celebrations and stayed on to discuss with the ECCI and the Anglo-American Secretariat the problems of the South African Party. Specifically, we were to draft a new resolution on the question, restating and elaborating the Comintern line of an independent Native South African Republic, (The word “Native” was in common usage at the time of the Sixth Congress, though today it is considered derogatory and has been replaced with Black republic or Azania.) <br />
<br />
=== SOUTH AFRICA ===<br />
This line, formulated the year before with the cooperation of La Guma during his first visit to the Soviet Union in the spring of 1927, had been rejected by the leadership of the South African Party.<br />
<br />
La Guma, as I recall, was a young brown-skinned man of Malagasy and French parentage. In South Africa, this placed him in the Colored category, a rung above the Natives on the racial ladder established by the white supremacist rulers. Colored persons were defined as those of mixed blood, including descendants of Javanese slaves, mixed in varying degrees with European whites.<br />
<br />
La Guma, however, identified completely with the Natives and their movement. He had been general secretary of the ICU (Industrial and Commercial Union, the federation of Native trade unions) and also secretary of the Capetown branch of the ANC. Later, after his expulsion from the ICU by the red-baiting clique of Clements Kadalie (a Native social democrat), La Guma became secretary of the non-European trade union federation in Cape town.<br />
<br />
La Guma was the first South African communist I had ever met. I was delighted and impressed with him and was to find, in the course of our brief collaboration, striking parallels between the struggles of U.S. Blacks for equality and those of the Native South Africans. In both countries, the white leadership of their respective parties underestimated the revolutionary potential of the Black movement,<br />
<br />
La Guma had made his first trip to Moscow the year before. He and Josiah Gumede, president of the ANC, had come as delegates to the inaugural conference of the League Against Imperialism which had convened in Brussels, Belgium, in February 1927. Gumede attended as a delegate from the ANC, while La Guma was a delegate from the South African Communist Party. It was La Guma’s first international gathering, and he had the opportunity to meet with leaders from colonial and semi-colonial countries and discuss the South African question with them. Madame Sun Yat-sen and Pandit Nehru were among those present, The conference adopted the resolutions of the South African delegates on the right of self-determination through the complete overthrow of imperialism. The general resolutions of the congress proclaimed: “Africa for the Africans, and their full freedom and equality with other races and the right to govern Afriea.”<br />
<br />
After Brussels, La Guma went on a speaking tour to Germany, after which he came to Moscow. Although the Brussels conference had called for the right of self-determination, it left unanswered many specific questions that are raised by that slogan. Were the Natives in South Africa a nation? What was to be done with the whites?<br />
<br />
La Guma was to find the answer to these questions in Moscow, where he consulted with ECCI leaders, including Bukharin, who was then president of the Comintern. He participated with ECCI leaders in the formulation of a resolution on the South Afriean question, calling for the return of the land to the natives and for “an independent native South African republic as a stage towards a workers’ and peasants’ republic with full, equal rights for all races.”<br />
<br />
La Guma returned to South Africa with the resolution in June 1927, Gumede also arrived home in the same month. But the resolution was received hostilely by Bunting and was rejected by the South African Party leadership at its annual conference in December 1927.<br />
<br />
Bunting was a British lawyer who had come to South Africa some years before. An early South African socialist and a founder of the Communist Party, he was the son of a British peer. As Bunting later commented, he nearly used up the small fortune he had inherited in the support of Party work and publications.<br />
<br />
Bunting and his followers insisted that the South African revolution, unlike those in the colonies, was a direct struggle for socialism without any intermediary stages. To the Comintern slogan of a “Native South African Republic,” Bunting counterposed the slogan of a “Workers’ and Peasants’ Republic.” This concept of “pure proletarian revolution” was an echo of what we had found in the U.S. Party with respect to Blacks. But here, the error stood out grotesquely given the reality of the South African situation with its overwhelming Native majority.<br />
<br />
it was against this background that La Guma and Gumede left to go to Moscow to attend the Tenth Anniversary celebrations, and the Congress of the Friends of the Soviet Union. La Guma apparently was not in Moscow on that oceasion; he was probably out on a tour of the provinces. Both he and Gumede travelled widely during their visit to the Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
Our purpose at this time was to develop and clarify the line laid down in the resolution formulated the previous year. Our draft, with few changes, was adopted by the Sixth Congress of the Comintern and the ECCI.<br />
<br />
As already noted, Bunting had put forward the slogan of a South African “Workers’ and Peasants’ Government.” Bunting’s formulation denied the colonial character of South Africa, He failed, therefore, to see the inherent revolutionary nature of the Natives’ struggle for emancipation.<br />
<br />
As opposed to this, our resolution began with a definition of South Africa as “a British dominion of the colonial type” whose colonial features included:<br />
<br />
1, The country was exploited by British imperialism, with the participation of the South African white bourgeoisie (British and Boer), with British capital occupying the principal economic position.<br />
<br />
2. The overwhelming majority of the population were Natives and Colored (five million Natives and Colored, with one and a half million whites, according to the 1921 Census).<br />
<br />
3. Natives, who held only one-eighth of the land, were almost completely landless, the great bulk of their land having been expropriated by the white minority.<br />
<br />
4, The “great difference in wages and material conditions of the white and black proletariat,” and the widespread corruption of the white workers by the racist propaganda and ideology of the imperialists.<br />
<br />
These features, we held, determined the character of the South African revolution which, in its first stage, would be a struggle of Natives and non-European peoples for independence and land. As the previous resolution had done, our draft (in the form adopted by the Sixth Congress and the ECCI) held that as a result of these canditions, in order to lead and influence that movement, communists—black and white—must put forth and fight for the general political slogan of “an independent Native South African Republic as a stage towards a workers’ and peasants’ republic, with full, equal rights for all races, black, coloured and white.”<br />
<br />
“South Afriea is a black country,” the resolution went onto say, with a mainly black peasant population, whose land had been expropriated by the white colonizers. Therefore, the agrarian question lies at the foundation of the revolution. The black peasantry, in alliance with and under the leadership of the working class, is the main driving foree. Thus, along with the slogan of a “Native Republic,” the Party must place the slogan “return of the land to the Natives.”<br />
<br />
This latter formulation does not appear in the resolution as finally adopted. Instead, it includes the following two formulations:<br />
<br />
1. Whites must accept the “correct principle that South Africa belongs to the native population.”<br />
<br />
2. “The basic question in the agrarian situation in South Africa is the land hunger of the blacks and . . . their interest is of prior importance in the solution of the agrarian question.”<br />
<br />
With the new resolution completed, La Guma returned to South Africa. In the year since the first resolution, the opposition to the line had intensified and had already come to a head at the December Party Congress—-even before La Guma’s return.<br />
<br />
Bunting put forward his position in a fourteen page document in the early part of 1928. He equated the nationalism of the Boer minority to the nationalism of the Natives and justified his opposition to nationalism on the basis that all national movements were subject to capitalist corruption, and, in the case of South Afriea, a national movement among Natives “would probably only accelerate the fusion, in opposition to it, of the Dutch and British imperialists." Since it would thus only consolidate the forees against it, it was not to be supported.<br />
<br />
Bunting not only underrated nationalism, he played on the whites’ fear of it and raised the specter of blacks being given free reign, with a resulting campaign to drive the whites into thesea. He was echoing the specter that was haunting whites who remembered the song of the Xhosas:<blockquote>'''To chase the white men from the earth''' <br />
<br />
'''And drive them to the sea.'''<br />
<br />
'''The sea that cast them up at first'''<br />
<br />
'''For Ama Xhosa’s curse and bane''' <br />
<br />
'''Howls for the progeny she nursed'''<br />
<br />
'''To swallow them again.'''</blockquote>According to Bunting, the elimination of whites seemed to be implied in the slogan of a “Native Republic.” He regarded the phrase “safeguards for minorities ” as having little meaning, since whites would assume that the existing injustices would be reversed; that, in effect, blacks would do to them what they had been handing out for so long.<br />
<br />
While Bunting had held that all nationalism was reactionary, La Guma distinguished between the revolutionary nationalism of the Natives and the “nationalism” of the Boers (which in reality was simply a quarrel between sections of the ruling class), He argued that the communists must not hold back on the revolutionary demands of the Natives in order to pacify the white workers who are still “saturated with an imperialist ideology” and conscious of the privileges they enjoy at the Natives’ expense. <br />
<br />
Bunting held that the road to socialism would be traveled under white leadership; to La Guma, the securing of black rights was the first step to be taken, As the Simonses described it, “First establish African majority rule, he argued, and unity, leading to socialism, would follow.” La Guma called on communists to “build up a mass party based upon the non-European masses,” put forward the slogan of a Native Republic and thus destroy the traditional subservience to whites among Africans. This argument continued up through the Sixth Congress.<br />
<br />
=== MY STAY IN THE CAUCASUS ===<br />
In the middle of April 1928, I left Moscow for a stay in the Caucasus. The winter had been one of those long, cold, dark Moscow winters, Snow was still on the ground in April, Over the whole season, I had been plagued by recurrent seizures of grippe. Between the demands of school and the preparations for the Sixth Congress, it had been a winter of intense activity, Undoubtedly, this had contributed to my inability to shake off the illness. By the spring, I was pretty run down. <br />
<br />
The school doctor detected a slight anemia and recommended a month in a rest home. So, I was shipped off to Kislovodsk, a famous health resort in the northern Caucasus. I traveled south and east, across the Ukrainian steppe, where spring had already come to Rostov-on-Don, the administrative center for the northerm Caucasus region, Then on to Mincralny Vody (Mineral Water), the gateway to the Caucasus and a major railroad junction. I changed there for Kislovodsk, a short distance further towards the mountains.<br />
<br />
Stepping off the train in Kislovodsk in early morning, I felt better at my first breath of fresh mountain air. The city was located in the foothills on the northern range of the Caucasus. Its mineral springs were famed for their medicinal properties, especially for coronary patients. Formerly a famous watcring-place for the wealthy, it was now enjoyed by all the Soviet people. Kislovodsk was the source of the famous Narzan water which cost forty or fifty kopeks a bottle in Moscow. Here it bubbled from the ground in numerous springs, and you could drink all you wanted.<br />
<br />
Checking in at the sanitarium, I was assigned to a room shared by three others-—two workers and a Party functionary from Tbilisi named Kolya Tsereteli. Kolya was a tall, handsome, swarthy young man. He cut quite a figure in his long Georgian robochka, soft leather boots, high astrakhan cap and ornamental belt, complete with kinjal (dagger). He immediately took me in charge and became my constant companion during my stay there. <br />
<br />
After I had been examined by a doctor who prescribed daily baths, Kolya took me around on a sightseeing tour. The sun was coming up over the parks, cypress trees and places for open air concerts.<br />
<br />
After several weeks, I felt much better and was soon chafing at the bit, bored with the regimen and eager to return to Moscow, At this point Kolya suggested that we might try to arrange my accompanying him to his home in Tbilisi (hot springs) and stay for a week before returning to Moscow. I was delighted and had no difficulty in getting both my release from the sanitarium and permission from the school to make the trip.<br />
<br />
Tbilisi--the Florence of the Caucasus—was a beautiful modern city, stretching for miles along both sides of the Kura River. Ithad spacious avenues lined by stately cypress trees; handsome buildings and apartments, a magnificent cathedral, its great central dome flanked by four cupolas, framed against a background of the mountains of the mighty Caucasus chain, with Mount David rising 2,500 fect above the city.<br />
<br />
It was a mixed population of mainly Georgians, Armenians, Jews and some Turko-Tartars. Kolya explained that there actually were more Armenians than Georgians living there in the capital of Georgia! He went on to tell me that in the Caucasus, ethnic groups often overlapped their national boundaries as finally constituted. This was particularly so in the case of the Armenians, who were the victims of genocidal persecution and dispersal by Turkey. As a result, there were more Armenians in Azerbaidzhan and Georgia than in the Armenian Republic itself.<br />
<br />
In the old days, Georgian nationalism was directed more against the Armenians than against the Russians. The Armenians had a larger merchant class. They dominated commerce and were an obstacle to the growth of the weak Georgian bourgeoisie who retaliated by whipping up national animosity against the Armenians. Hence, national hatred was often directed against rival national groups rather than against the dominant Czarist power, and the Czarist government exploited these animosities fully.<br />
<br />
The area was known for bloody battles between the various ethnic groups, But all that ended with the revolution, Kolya said, and with the establishment of the Trans-Caucasian Federation. based on national equality and voluntary consent. <br />
<br />
Within the federation, which was composed of three republics (Georgia, Azerbaidzhan and Armenia), the Georgian republic had three minority distriets; Abkhazia and Azaria as autonomous republics, and Yugo-Osetia as an autonomous region, National languages and cultures were flourishing under the new regime.<br />
<br />
“As you will see, here in Tbilisi we have Georgian, Armenian and Russian theaters,” Kolya told me.<br />
<br />
Kolya hailed an izvozchik and we rode to his apartment, located on one of the broad tree-lined avenues of the city. Arriving there, we were happily greeted by his family, His wife, an attractive young schoolteacher, received me warmly and told me that Kolya had written her about me. They had two beautiful children, a boy of about three and a girl about five. They seemed fascinated with my appearance and couldn't take their eyes off me. I was undoubtedly the first Black man they had ever seen. <br />
<br />
On being told by Kolya to “shake hands with the black uncle,” the boy hesitantly extended his little hand. ,<br />
<br />
I took it and gently shook it. When he withdrew it, he looked at his hand to see whether some of the black had come off and seemed rather surprised that it hadn’t.<br />
<br />
“No, it won’t come off,” I said, and we all laughed. I had experienced this reaction from Russian children in Moscow, and it never failed to amuse me.<br />
<br />
The Tseretelis lived in a clean and neatly-furnished three-room apartment on the second floor of the building, with a balcony over the sidewalk. As if reading my thoughts, Kolya said, “Don’t worry, we all usually sleep in one room; the other is for my brother who stays here with us. He is out of town, so you can stay in his room.”<br />
<br />
Kolya was anxious to cheek in at the Party office where he worked, so we left our baggage and walked to his office a short distance away. I was interested in the people we passed. They looked better dressed than the Russians back in Moscow, their costumes were gayer. Perhaps it was due to the milder climate,<br />
<br />
Kolya served as the deputy secretary of the Agitprop Department of the Tbilisi Committee of the Communist Party. He introduced me to his fellow workers in the department; they all seemed glad to see him and remarked how well he looked after his rest. They were speaking Georgian; Kolya asked them to speak in Russian in deference to me, They all seemed to be multilingual. Kolya, I knew, besides his native Georgian, spoke Russian, Armenian and some French. The comrades insisted on calling a conference. Like most Party officials, they were well-informed on both domestic and international questions and were an educated audience.<br />
<br />
They asked me my impressions of their country, and they also had questions about the situation in the United States, about the conditions of Blacks. Kolya told them that I was a student at the Lenin School in Moscow and that formerly I had been at KUTVA. They knew about KUTVA as they too had sent students there. They were interested in the work I had done in preparation for the forthcoming Sixth Congress, and they were familiar with Stalin's report to the Fifteenth Party Congress from that December, where he described the international situation. They asked me questions about the international situation and the war danger and we exchanged opinions.<br />
<br />
Kolya explained that I was only going to bein town for acouple of days. It was Friday then, and I was scheduled to leave on Sunday. As I remember, we took a car from the pool and two or three people from the office accompanied us on a sightseeing tour along the banks of the river.<br />
<br />
We returned to Kolya’s home where his wife had a delicious big meal waiting for us: shashlik, fruits and pastries. We sat up until late that night telling stories.<br />
<br />
The next day we saw a number of places of interest, bathed in the famous hot sulfur springs, went up to the summit of Mount David and saw the old church on the mountain, which dated back centuries, and the mausoleum of famous Georgian poets and patriots. All in all we spent a very enjoyable weekend together.<br />
<br />
On Sunday, Kolya and his wife took me to the station and put me on the train for Moscow. Three days later I was back home. I saw Kolya once again when he was on a visit to Moscow and I took him out to dinner.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 9 ==<br />
<br />
=== Sixth Congress of the Comintern: A Blow Against the Right ===<br />
The Sixth World Congress of the Comintern, held in Moscow in July and August of 1928, was a historic turning point in the world communist movement. Early in July the first U.S. delegates arrived, anxious to get the “lay of the land” and to scout the political situation in the capital of world revolution. As I recall, Lovestone’s group staked out headquarters at the Lux Hotel, while the Foster-Cannon opposition gathered at the Bristol, a short distance further up the street.<br />
<br />
A number of us from the Lenin School were on hand when our comrades in the Foster group arrived. We got together to talk with a number of them, though Foster, Cannon and Bittelman were not present. They were anxious to get a report on the situation in the Soviet Party: Which leaders were involved in the right opposition? What was Bukharin doing? Where did he stand?<br />
<br />
We gave them a rundown on the situation as we saw it. The issues in the discussion included industrialization, the five-year plan, collectivization, the drive against the Kulaks and the war danger.<br />
<br />
We told them about disagreements in the CPSU. There was talk of a hidden right faction involving such leaders as Rykov, Tomsky and possibly Bukharin. Thus far, however, there were only rumors and speculations. The fight was not yet out in the open, but was confined to the Politburo and the Central Committee. A plenum of the Central Committee had been called on the eve of the Sixth Congress and was at that moment in session. We told them that we could undoubtedly find out at the congress if there were any new developments,<br />
<br />
On their part, our fellow oppositionists ran down the latest developments in the inner-Party struggle at home. We already knew of the findings of a special American Commission which had been set up at the Eighth Plenum of the CI in May 1927. The commission’s final resolution had called for the unconditional abolition of all factionalism. Both sides ignored the resolution. however, as the most vicious factionalism continued in the Party. At the Fifth Convention of the CPUSA in the fall of 1927, the Lovestone-Pepper bunch were able to out-maneuver the Foster-Cannon opposition and win control of the organizational apparatus.<br />
<br />
Firmly in the saddle of power and riding high, their support came from the belief on the part of the membership that the Lovestone group had the endorsement of the Comintern—a myth assiduously cultivated by the Lovestone cohorts. They were playing a deceitful game of double-bookkeeping, both with respect to the Comintern as well as to the membership at home. Their method was to give lip service to the fight against the right danger. while in practice undermining its application and attempting to pin the label of “right” on the opposition. Typical of this duplicity was their sabotage of the line of the Red International of Labor Unions’ (RILU) Fourth Congress, which had called for the formation of the new unions in industries and areas where the workers were unorganized.<br />
<br />
In the U.S., the new upsurge in class struggle, combined wit refusal of the AFL craft-type union caters to ieee ie majority of industrial workers, demanded that the communists take the lead and organize the unions themselves. ;<br />
<br />
At this point in the discussion it was pointed out that Foster himself was still not clear on the question of the formation of the new unions. Other members of the grouping admitted that they had also vacillated on the question when it was first raised—after the decisions of the Fourth RILU Congress-—but it appeared that they now had a better grasp of the matter.<br />
<br />
On the question of the estimate of the international situation, they pointed out that their record was clear, whereas the leadership definitely underestimated the economic crisis and radicalization of the workers. They admitted that they were late in pressing the question of independent unions, but now they had finally decided to launch textile, mining and needle trades industrial unions. Lovestone had jumped on the bandwagon at the last minute as a loud trumpeter of the “new unions” line in an attempt to clear his record before the World Congress.<br />
<br />
On the whole, our comrades were full of fight and optimistic at the outcome of placing their case before the World Congress. They seemed sure that they would get a favorable hearing. The strategy was to expose the Lovestone-Pepper leadership as the embodiment of the right danger in the U.S. Party and to explode the myth of their Comintern support, thus laying the basis for the victory of the opposition at the next Party convention. This strategy was pressed at the numerous caucus meetings of the opposition bloc which I attended before and during the congress.<br />
<br />
But all was not well within the ranks of the opposition; that much was evident at the first meeting of our caucus. Foster, the leader of the minority, came under sharp attack for his vacillation on the question of the new unions from his immediate co-workers, Bittelman, Cannon, Browder and Johnstone. Foster had not been alone in his resistance to the new policy. Most of the members of the minority had vacillated on, if not openly resisted, the decisions of the Ninth Plenum and of the Fourth Congress of the RILU on this question.<br />
<br />
But Foster had been the most stubborn, clinging to the old policy based on the organized workers, rather than the unorganized, which placed main emphasis on work within the old reactionary-dominated AFL unions. This policy, which Lozovsky had caricatured as “dancing a quadrille,..around the AFL and its various unions,” regarded the organization of unions independent of the AFL as “dual unionism”--a heresy left over from the days of the IWW.<br />
<br />
Just a month before, in the May Plenum of the CC of the CPUSA, Foster had written a trade union resolution which was supported by Lovestone, While it called for the building of independent textile and miners’ unions, it still reflected many illusions as to the gains communists could make within the AFL. Foster could not bring himself to fully criticize his earlier mistakes, which left Lovestone free to use Foster as a cover for his rightist position.<br />
<br />
All of this was bad for the minority; it blurred the image that it sought to present to the congress—that of consistent fighters against the right danger. There was a heated exchange at the first meeting of the minority caucus. As I recall, Foster contended that he had not in principle been against the new turn, but against those who interpreted it as a signal for desertion of the work in the old unions, It was clear that at this point Foster had lost leadership (at least temporarily) of his own group. Bittelman was chosen to make the report for the minority in the American Commission of the congress,<br />
<br />
With tempers still frayed, we passed on to a brief exchange on the Afro-American question and the proposed new line on self-determination, which they all knew was coming up for fulldress discussion at the congress. I gave a brief outline of the position and how I had been led to it by the study of the Garvey movement.<br />
<br />
Then someone raised the inevitable question, Wouldn't this be construed as an endorsement of Black separation? Does it not conflict with the struggle against segregation?<br />
<br />
Foster objected to that implication, maintaining that selfdetermination didn’t necessarily mean separation. He drew an analogy to our trade union policy with respect to Blacks, He pointed out the necessity to fight for the organization of Blacks and whites in one union and against all segregation, But in unions where Jim Crow bars exclude Blacks, Foster said, we support their right to organize their own separate unions, In such situations, the organization of Black unions should be regarded as a step toward eventual unity and not an advocacy of separation.<br />
<br />
It was evident that Foster had studied the question and was attempting to relate it to his own practical experience. While his analogy was oversimplified, he was clearly taking a correct stand.<br />
<br />
Bittelman, as I recall, seemed the clearest of all. Perhaps this was as a result of his Russian revolutionary background and some acquaintance with the Bolshevik policy on the national question. He pointed out the necessity of making a distinction between the right of separation and separation itself. Separation or independence is only one of the options; there were various forms of federation as Soviet experience had shown. The central question was one of building unity of Black and white workers against U.S. capitalism and this could be achieved only by recognition of the right of self-determination.<br />
<br />
I was happy about the support given to the position by Foster and Bittelman, As the main theoretician of the minority, Bittelman had a great deal of influence. Certainly there was unclarity among the caucus members, but by and large I was favorably impressed by this first airing of the question. After all, I reasoned, the proposed new line did represent a radical shift from past policy. There seemed to be a modesty among these people and a sincere desire to give the matter a full hearing.<br />
<br />
I felt that on the whole my comrades were an honest lot, Despite factional considerations, they were motivated by the overriding desire to achieve clarity on a question which up to that point had frustrated the Party’s best efforts.<br />
<br />
In the caucus meetings, I had my first close-up view of some of the leaders with whom I was to work in the future. Mostly from the midwest, with genuine roots in the American labor tradition, they were a pretty impressive bunch. Most had broad mass experience—especially in the trade union field. The roots of the Lovestone group were much more grounded among former functionaries and propagandists of the Socialist Party.<br />
<br />
William Z. Foster, leader of the minority bloc, was also the leader in the Party’s trade union work. A self-educated man, he had worked at a number of trades, including longshoreman, seaman, lumberjack, street-car conductor and railroad worker Born in Massachusetts, he spent his early childhood in Philadelphia and came into prominence as a trade union leader in Chicago.<br />
<br />
He had been a left socialist, then, for a brief period, joined with the Wobblies. He soon clashed with them on the issue of dual unionism. Foster himself opted for the French syndicalist policy of boring from within the established unions. He joined the Communist Party in the summer of 1921 and brought an entire group of trade unionists with him.<br />
<br />
In Chicago, Foster was deeply involved in trade union work. He had served as business agent for the Brotherhood of Railroad Car Men of America; was a founder of the TUEL; initiated the nationwide drive to organize the stockyard workers in 1917; and was leader of the 1919 steel strike, the attempt to organize 365,000 steelworkers. It was in this strike that he became a nationally known left trade union figure.<br />
<br />
The first time I saw Foster in action was at the Fourth Party Convention in Chicago in the summer of 1925. I remember him angrily pacing with clenched fists back and forth across the platform behind Ruthenberg as the latter berated him from the rostrum. Here in the caucus, he was again an angry man, but under the lashing of his friends and co-factionalists.<br />
<br />
Jack Johnstone, a Scotsman, still had the Scot’s burr in his Speech. An ex-Wobbly and close co-worker of Foster, he had been one of the young radical Chicago trade unionists. A member of the Chicago Federation of Labor from the Painters Union, Johnstone was a leader in the TUEL. I had met him at the Fourth RILU Congress. His name was familiar to me because of his role as a leader in the organization of the Chicago stockyard workers in which my sister had been involved. Johnstone was the organizer of the drive for the Chicago Federation of Labor and later became secretary of the Chicago Stockyards Council with 55,000 white and Black members.<br />
<br />
On the eve of the 1919 riots, he had helped to organize a parade of white stockyard unionists through the Southside in solidarity with the Black workers. I had the pleasure of working with Johnstone later in Pittsburgh and in Chicago, where he was industrial organizer for the district. He was a quiet, unassuming guy with a wry sense of humor.<br />
<br />
Earl Browder of Wichita, Kansas, served his ideological apprenticeship as a radical trade unionist in the socialist and cooperative movements. Arrested in 1917 on charges of defying the draft law, he spent three years in the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas.<br />
<br />
I had known Browdcr briefly in Moscow while he was rep to the Profintern, before he went on a two year mission to the Far East for that organization. We KUTVA students would often visit him at his room in the Lux Hotel where he would play checkers with Golden, who usually won. He told us that when he was at Leavenworth, he had met a number of former members of the Black Twenty-fourth Infantry who had been involved in the mutiny-riot in Houston, Texas, in the summer of 1917. He told us that they often played baseball together in prison. <br />
<br />
At the time, Browder seemed to me to be a quiet, modest, unassuming man. But at this caucus mecting, something had happened which seemed to have transformed him into a “new’ Browder. Though long associated with Foster, he now seemed bent on not only asserting his independence, but on establishing his own claim to leadership.<br />
<br />
At one point in the heated discussion on trade union policy, he exclaimed sarcastically: “You expect to get the support of the Comintern, but you're all divided among yourselves! There’s a Cannon group, a Bittelman Group, a Foster Group—well, I'm for the Browder Group!”<br />
<br />
No one seemed to take his remark seriously, but less than a year later Browder was to emerge as secretary of the Party.<br />
<br />
James P. Cannon was also from Kansas—a tall, raw-boned midwesterner of Irish descent. He came from the same trade union background as the other caucus leaders; he had been a traveling organizer for the Wobblies and an editor of a number of labor papers. Hc was a supporter of Trotsky, although he didn’t admit it at the congress. Later he split from the Party and helped form the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party. <br />
<br />
Bil} Dunne was a man of impressive credentials. Raised in Minnesota, Dunne entered the trade union movement as an electrician. Then in Butte, Montana, during World War I, he edited the Butte Daily Bulletin (official organ of the Montana Federation of Labor and the Butte Central Labor Council).<br />
<br />
Dunne had been secretary of a local of electricians, vice-president of the Montana Federation of Labor and a member of the state legislature (on the Democratic ticket, which in Butte was labor controlled). He helped organize the Socialist Party Branch of Butte and brought it into the Communist Labor Party in 1919.<br />
<br />
I got to know Bill quite well; he was in the Soviet Union for some months before the Sixth Congress as a Profintern rep. I first met him through Clarence Hathaway, and both were associated with the Cannon sub-group. Bill was familiar with the emerging line on self-determination and supported it. He had written a number of articles on Black workers in the mid-twenties.<br />
<br />
To me, he was the most colorful figure in our caucus anda man of unusual brilliance. Keen-witted, sharp in debate, he had an extraordinary sense of humor. Of Irish and French-Canadian parentage, Bill was short and heavy-set, with black bushy eyebrows. He cut a romantic figure onthe streets of Moscow in his Georgian rabochka and sheathed dagger at his waist. I had aclose friendship with Bill which lasted over a number of years.<br />
<br />
Alexander Bittelman was a Russian Jew who had emigrated to the United States when in his early twenties. A little fellow. Bittelman was both ascetic and scholarly. He had been in the socialist movement in Russia and continued on in his political work in the U.S. A serious Marxist student, Bittelman was the main theoretician for the Foster group.<br />
<br />
=== THE LOVESTONE CAUCUS ===<br />
The Lovestone-Pepper caucus was meeting at the same time. They too were mapping out plans for the battle on the floor of the congress. Lovestone also had his troubles—most involved the shedding of his opportunist reputation for that of “crusader against the right danger.”<br />
<br />
Most of the “big guns” were on the scene: Lovestone, Pepper, Weinstone and Wolfe. Gitlow, Bedacht and others were left at home as caretakers; Gitlow ostensibly to carry on the Party’s election campaign (in which he was vice-presidential candidate).<br />
<br />
While I was the only Black in the minority caucus, the Lovestone-Pepper caucus claimed the allegiance, if not the ardent support, of a number of leading Black comrades. In the nine months since the convention, the Lovestone-Pepper leadership had attempted to patch its fences in the work among Blacks. Otto Huiswood, now a member of the Central Committee and district organizer in Buffalo, was the first Black district organizer. Richard B. Moore was assigned to the International Labor Defense, and Cyril P. Briggs was editor of The Crusader News Service, which was subsidized by the Party.<br />
<br />
But none of these could be called ardent supporters of Lovestone. They were all dissatisfied with the status of Afro-American work, which was reflected in the small number of Black cadre in the Party. In general, it was still difficult to draw a hard and fast distinction between the factions on questions concerning Afro-American work.<br />
<br />
Blacks in the Lovestone delegation included H.V. Phillips and Fort-Whiteman (both directly from the United States) and students from the graduating group at KUTVA—Otto, Farmer and Williams (Golden had already left for home). The group also included William L. Patterson, the young attorney who had worked with the Party on the Sacco-Vanzetti case and who had been sent to KUTVA just before the congress.<br />
<br />
James Ford, who worked in the Profintern and was to become an outstanding Party leader in the thirties, stood aloof from both groups as I remember. His sympathies seemed to be with the Foster-Cannon opposition, however.<br />
<br />
Among the Blacks attending the congress, I was the only one supporting the new line on self-determination. The others insisted that “it was a race question, not a national question,” implying that the solution lay through assimilation under socialism. Probing deeper, I found that most were hung up on a purist and non-Marxist concept of the class struggle which ruled out all strivings towards nationality and Black identity as divisive, running counter to internationalism and Black and white unity.<br />
<br />
It was an American version of the “pure proletarian revolution” concept; a domestic manifestation of the old deviation in the socialist and communist movements against which Lenin, Stalin and others had fought in the development of the Bolshevik policy on the national and colonial question.<br />
<br />
Recalling that I myself had held the same view just a few months back, I felt that the resistance of Blacks in the Party to self-determination would be overcome through exposure in the discussions at the congress of the proposed new line. I had no doubt that they would come to see, as I had, the grand irony of a situation in which we Blacks, who so vociferously complained about our white comrades underestimating the revolutionary significance of the Afro-American question, were guilty of the same sin. For the revolutionary significance of the struggle for Black rights lay precisely in the recognition of its character as essentially that of the struggle of an oppressed nation against U.S. imperialism,<br />
<br />
At this point, the opposition to the idea of Black self-determination was to receive theoretical support from an unexpected source, This opposition came from Professor Sik, my old teacher at KUTVA, who was still teaching the Black students there, Sik contended that bourgeois race ideology, which fostered racial prejudices, was the prime factor in the oppression of U.S. Blacks. Therefore, their fight for equal rights should be regarded not as that of an oppressed nation striving for equality via self-determination but, on the contrary, as the fight of an oppressed racial minority (similar to the Jews under cezarism) for assimilation as equals into U.S. society. <br />
<br />
Sik undoubtedly thought that he was presenting original views, but stripped of their pseudo-Marxist phraseology, they were the old bourgeois-liberal reformist views. He slurred over the socioeconomic factors that lay at the base of the question, factors which call for the completion of the agrarian-democratic revolution in the South, His perspective divested the Black movement of its independent revolutionary thrust, reducing it to a bourgeois liberal opposition to race prejudice.<br />
<br />
However, Sik’s thesis continued to be used as a crutch for the right opposition over the next year or so; it appeared in the Communist International (organ of the Comintern) in the midst of the Sixth World Congress. But the pressure for a turn to the left in this work was to flush it out into the open along with other right-wing views on the question. <br />
<br />
Foremost among these were the views of Jay Lovestone. His view of Southern Blacks as a “reserve of capitalist reaction’ provided a theoretical rationale for the Party’s chronic underestimation of the question. This was clear in his report to the Fifth Party Convention in which he contended that: <blockquote>'''The migration of Negroes from the South to the North is another means of proletarianization, consequently the existence of this group asa reserve of capitalist reaction is likewise being undermined.'''</blockquote>Lovestone held that the masses of Blacks in the South become potentially revolutionary only through migration to the industrial centers in the north and participation in class struggle along with white workers. This viewpoint, which was later to become a cornerstone for his theory of “American exceptionalism,” was first outlined in his report for the Fifth Convention of the Party and again in his report in the Daily Worker in February 1928. But these articles passed unnoticed at the time. It was only on the eve of the Sixth World Congress and under the pressure of the new line that we became alerted to Lovestone’s views.<br />
<br />
The general meeting of the American delegation took place the day before the opening of the congress. All factions were represented but, as I recall, there were no fireworks. By that time, lines were clearly drawn and neither faction was trying to convince the other. On our part, we were saving our ammunition for the battle on the floor of the congress and its commissions.<br />
<br />
Apparently there had been some objections in the Lovestone group to the proposed new line on self-determination. To mollify these people, Lovestone stated that he stood for the right of self-determination of oppressed peoples everywhere, surely he said, no communist could oppose this right. I assumed that he regarded the slogan as some sort of showcase principle; something to be declared but which did not commit its advocates to any special line of action. Lovestone knew which way the wind was blowing and was clearly trying to straddle the fence on the issue.<br />
<br />
The delegates at this meeting were assigned to the various commissions; there was no struggle over the assignments as it was understood that all commissions had to include members of both factions. These commissions included the American Negro/ South African Commission, Colonial Commission, Trade Union Commission, and Program Commission.<br />
<br />
=== THE SIXTH WORLD CONGRESS ===<br />
On July 17, 1928, 532 delegates representing fifty-seven parties and nine organizations assembled in the Hall of Trade Unions. The delegation from the United States was a large one— twenty-nine delegates, including twenty voting and nine advisor delegates. The Sixth Congress convened under the slogan of "War Against the Right Danger and the Rightist Conciliators.”<br />
<br />
The period since the February plenum of the Comintern had been marked by the emergence of a clearly defined right opportunist deviation in most of the parties, They advanced the perspective of continuous capitalist recovery and the easing of the class struggle. In the realm of tactics this meant a continuation of the old “united front from above” and a reliance on social reformist trade union leaders. In the U.S., the right was to find its ease exponents in the Lovestone-Pepper leadership, which emphesized the strength of U.S. capitalism and its ability to postpone the crisis.<br />
<br />
A right opposition had also begun to develop in the CPSU, headed by Bukharin; Rykov, chairman of the Council of People's Commissions; and Tomsky, heading the Soviet Trade Unions. This group opposed the programs of the Stalinist majority of the Central Committee with respect to the goals of the new Five Year Plan, which called for intensified industrialization, collectivization, and the drive against the kulaks. The right deviation inthe CPSU and in the other parties of the Comintern had a common source—overestimation of the strength of world capitalism. The congress was faced with the need to answer these critics by deepening its analysis of the period and by spelling out more clearly the policy flowing from it.<br />
<br />
In the Soviet Party, the disagreement had come to a head prior to its plenum of July 1928, which adjourned just before the Sixth Congress. The differences, however, were hushed up by a resolution unanimously adopted by both groups which stated that there were no differences in the leadership of the CPSU. The agreement undoubtedly expressed the desire of the Soviet leadership to keep the congress from becoming an arena for discussion of Soviet problems before they had been finally thrashed out within their own Party.<br />
<br />
The delegates, however, were not unaware of the struggle in the Soviet Party. They gathered in an atmosphere charged with rumor and speculation about differences within the CPSU. The questions in our minds were: Who represented the right danger in the CPSU, the leading Party of the CI? What was the role of Bukharin? What had been the outcome of the discussions in the plenum of the CPSU? How would the congress be affected? We did not have long to wait for answers to these questions. Differences developed over sections of Bukharin’s ''Report on the International Situation and Tasks of the Comintern''.<br />
<br />
In his report which was distributed on July 18, at the second session of the congress, Bukharin analyzed the post-World War I international situation, dividing it into three periods. He defined the first (1917-1923) as one of revolutionary upsurge; the second (1924-1927) as a period of partial stabilization of capitalism; and the third (1928 on) as one of capitalist reconstruction. Bukharin made no clear distinction between the second and third periods; the latter was simply a continuation of the second. According to his characterization, there was nothing new at the present time to shake capitalist stabilization. On the contrary, capitalism was continuing to “reconstruct itself.”<br />
<br />
On this question Bukharin was challenged by his own Soviet delegation which submitted a series of twenty amendments to the thesis. These characterized the third period as one in which partial stabilization was coming to an end. Later, in his criticism of Bukharin’s position, Stalin pointed out the decisive importance of a correct estimate of the third period. The question involved here was: “Are we passing through a period of decline of the revolutionary movement...or are we passing through a period when the conditions are maturing for a new revolutionary upsurge, a period of preparation of the working class for future class battles? It is on this that the tactical line of the Communist Parties depends"<br />
<br />
At first, all of this was somewhat confusing to us. In his opening report Bukharin had himself declared the right deviation the greatest danger” to the Comintern. But in his characterization of the third period as one of virtual capitalist recovery he had adopted the main thesis of the right. He had also put himself in the awkward position of being rejected by his own delegation. But as Stalin was later to point out, it was his own fault for failing to discuss his report in advance with the Soviet delegation, as was customary. Instead he distributed his report to all delagations simulataniously. <br />
<br />
In accordance with our battle plan to expose to Lovestone leadership as the embodiment of the right deviation in the American Party, our caucus took the offensive. Even before the discussion on Bukharin’s report began, our minority had submitted a document entitled “The Right Danger and the American Party.” It was signed by J.W. Johnstone, M. Gomez, W.F Dunne, J.P. Cannon, W.Z. Foster, A. Bittelman and G Siskind. <br />
<br />
The document contained a bill of particulars in which we sought to point out that the rightist tendencies and mistakes of the Lovestone-Pepper leadership added up to a right line.<br />
<br />
Our attack, however, was hobbled by blemishes in the stateside record of our own caucus. At that point it would have been hard to discern any principled political differences between the majority or minority, Nevertheless, differences were developing on the estimation of the third period and U.S. imperialism.<br />
<br />
Pepper and Lovestone exaggerated the might of U.S. impetialism and spoke only of the weakness of the U.S. labor movement and the class struggle in this country. But the minority had also wavered on the question of building independent trade unions, the logical follow-through of the correct estimate of the objective situation in terms of practical policy.<br />
[[Category:Library]]<br />
[[Category:Library works by Harry Haywood]]<br />
[[Category:Library works about the United States of America]]<br />
[[Category:Library works about the Soviet Union]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Communist_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America&diff=63646Communist Party of the United States of America2024-03-03T22:39:15Z<p>RedCustodian: /* Bachtell period */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Infobox political party|name=Communist Party of the United States of America|logo=CPUSA.png|founded=September 1, 1919|abbreviation=CPUSA|leader1_title=Co-chairs|leader1_name=[[Joe Sims]]<br>Rossana Cambron|founder=[[C. E. Ruthenberg]]|newspaper=''[[People's World]]''|youth_wing=[[Young Communist League USA]]|membership_year=1944|membership=80,000|political_orientation=[[Marxism–Leninism]] (de jure)<br>[[Bill of Rights Socialism]]<br>[[Revisionism]]<br>[[Reformism]] (de facto)<br>[[Patriotic Socialism]]<br>'''Historical:'''<br>[[Browderism]]<br>[[Nationalism|USA nationalism]]|website=https://www.cpusa.org/}}{{Communist parties}}<br />
<br />
The '''Communist Party of the United States of America''' ('''CPUSA''') is a [[communist party]] in the [[United States of America|United States]] currently under a [[Revisionism|revisionist]] and [[Opportunism|opportunist]] leadership.<ref>{{News citation|journalist=John Bachtell, chairman of PCUSA until 2019|date=2014-06-23|title=Elections, the state, reform and revolution|url=http://www.politicalaffairs.net/elections-the-state-reform-and-revolution/|newspaper=Political Affairs|archive-url=|archive-date=|retrieved=|quote=The CPUSA has long said the transition to US socialism will be much more prolonged and complex. [...] Just like the socialist society we envision - peaceful, humane and democratic – so too must be the path as it will shape every aspect of the new society.<br><br>[...]<br><br>Marx and Engels foresaw the possibility of peaceful transition particularly under conditions of the democratic or bourgeois republic. [...] Even Lenin initially thought a peaceful transition to workers' and peasants' power in Russia would be possible as a result of the crisis brought on by WWI, but the armed intervention of western imperialist powers changed the course of history.}}</ref><ref>{{News citation|journalist=John Bachtell, chairman of CPUSA until 2019|date=2018-04-25|title=Marxism a vibrant philosophical outlook, says CPUSA leader|url=https://www.cpusa.org/article/marxism-a-vibrant-philosophical-outlook-says-cpusa-leader/|newspaper=CPUSA Blog|archive-url=|archive-date=|retrieved=|quote=Non-violent peaceful resistance is a very important form of struggle. <br><br>[...]<br><br>It will be what we call a democratic path. One that utilizes the electoral arena but also other democratic venues where we’re constantly trying to expand our right}}</ref><ref>[[Essay:On the Webbite Tendency in CPUSA|On the Webbite Tendency in CPUSA]]: Essay by anonymous CPUSA Party member, published by [[Comrade:Jucheguevara|Jucheguevara]]</ref><ref name=":32">{{Web citation|author=Gaius Gracchus|newspaper=[[The Red Clarion]]|title=A True Accounting of the CPUSA In Its Members Own Words|date=2024-02-22|url=https://clarion.unity-struggle-unity.org/2024-02-22-cpusa-hypocrisy/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240301215326/https://clarion.unity-struggle-unity.org/2024-02-22-cpusa-hypocrisy/|archive-date=2024-03-01}}</ref> It was established in 1919 after a split from the [[Socialist Party of America]]. <br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
<br />
=== Formation ===<br />
On July 28, many members of the Socialist Party of America, including [[C. E. Ruthenberg]], [[Louis Fraina]], and [[Bertram D. Wolfe]], decided to split and form a new party.<ref>{{Citation|author=Jacob A. Zumoff|year=2014|title=The Communist International and US Communism, 1919–1929|chapter=The Formation of the Communist Party, 1912–21|page=40–44|pdf=https://discord.com/channels/691004496142401606/735427621982306364/948686196433899560|city=Boston|publisher=Global Oriental and Hotei Publishing}}</ref><br />
<br />
After being expelled from the Socialist Party of America's convention, the Michigan group of the Socialist Party formed the Communist Party of America on September 1, 1919. The Communist Party soon had a membership of 58,000. Another smaller party was formed from this split, the [[Communist Labor Party of America|Communist Labor Party]]. The CPA decided not to cooperate with non-revolutionary parties.<ref name=":0">{{Citation|author=[[William Z. Foster]]|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=The Formation of the Communist Party (1919-1921)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-twelve-formation-of-communist.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
At the request of the Comintern, the CPA and CLP merged to form the CPUSA in 1919. The early CPUSA had two factions: the former CPA led by Ruthenberg and the former CLP led by [[Jay Lovestone]]. Many members of the [[African Blood Brotherhood]] also went on to join the party, including [[Harry Haywood]].<ref name=":32" /><br />
<br />
==== Palmer Raids ====<br />
On October 16, 1919, the police raided the headquarters of the CLP in Cleveland and arrested its leadership. In New York City, 700 police raided meetings celebrating the anniversary of the [[Russian revolution of 1917|October Revolution]]. During the night of January 6, 1920, President [[Woodrow Wilson]] authorized Attorney General [[A. Mitchell Palmer]] to carry out raids in 70 cities that led to approximately 10,000 arrests. Much of the leadership of the communist parties was arrested and over 500 people were deported. As a result of the [[Palmer Raids]], the membership of the CPA dropped from 60,000 to 10,000. In May 1920, the CPA and CLP combined to form the United Communist Party of America.<ref name=":0" /><br />
<br />
In August 1922, the government raided a party convention being held in Bridgman, [[Michigan]].<ref>{{Citation|author=William Z. Foster|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=The Communists and the Capitalist Offensive (1919-1923)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-fourteen-communists-and.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
The majority of party members were foreign-born and the party ran 27 publications in almost 20 languages.<ref name=":3">{{Citation|author=William Z. Foster|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=Building the Party of the New Type (1919-1929)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-nineteen-building-party-of-new.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== Anti-Lovestone struggle ===<br />
Lovestone's faction believed capitalism was stronger in the USA than in any other country and believed the party should wait for capitalism to decay instead of taking action.<ref name=":32" /><br />
<br />
In October 1928, the CPUSA expelled about 100 [[Trotskyism|Trotskyists]] led by [[James Cannon]] and [[Max Shachtman]]. They went on to found the [[Socialist Workers Party (United States)|Socialist Workers' Party]]. In June 1929, following the sixth congress of the Comintern, the party expelled the group of [[Right-opportunism|right-oppositionists]] led by Jay Lovestone.<ref name=":3" /><br />
<br />
=== Great Depression ===<br />
In October 1929, a major economic crisis known as the [[Great Depression]] began. 17 million workers became unemployed and basic industrial production dropped by 50%. During the first four years of the Depression, party membership increased from under 10,000 to 18,000.<br />
<br />
On March 6, 1930, the CPUSA organized a demonstration of over a million workers and unemployed. In [[New York City]], the demonstration was met with 25,000 police and firemen.<ref name=":1">{{Citation|author=William Z. Foster|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=The Communist Party and the Great Economic Crisis (1929-1933)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-twenty-communist-party-and.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
The Seventh National Convention of the CPUSA was held in New York City in 1930 with 306 delegates. Party leaders, including [[William Z. Foster]], did not participate because they were in jail after attempting to present the demands of the [[Unemployment|unemployed]] to Mayor [[Jimmy Walker]].<ref>{{Citation|author=Marxists Internet Archive|year=2009|title=Communist Party of the United States of America (1919–1946)|chapter=The Communist Party, USA|publisher=|mia=https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/eam/cpa/communistparty.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
In 1932, William Z. Foster ran for president and received over 100,000 votes.<ref name=":1" /> During the early 1930s, the party considered [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Roosevelt]] a fascist and opposed working with the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrats]].<ref name=":32" /><br />
<br />
=== Browder period ===<br />
<br />
==== Initial opportunism ====<br />
In opposition to Foster, Browder encouraged forming a people's front with Roosevelt and believed working with the bourgeoisie was the only way to stop fascism.<ref name=":32" /><br />
<br />
==== Second World War ====<br />
The CPUSA was initially opposed to U.S. involvement in the [[Second World War]] but changed its position after [[German Reich (1933–1945)|Nazi Germany]] attacked the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]]. 15,000 party members fought against [[fascism]] during the war. While many communist men were fighting in the war, women increased their share of leadership in the party and four women were elected to the National Committee. <br />
<br />
In 1943, Communist [[Peter V. Cacchione]] was elected to City Council in the [[State of New York|New York]] municipal elections. At the same time, [[Benjamin J. Davis Jr.]] became the first Black communist to be elected to public office. By 1944, the party had 80,000 members.<br />
<br />
General Secretary [[Earl Browder]] made an opportunist error and assumed that the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|United Kingdom]] and United States would support the communist movement because they had agreed to help the Soviet Union in the war.<ref>{{Citation|author=William Z. Foster|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=The Communists in the War (1941-1945)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-twenty-nine-communists-in-war.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
In 1944, Browder briefly dissolved the CPUSA. Due to the intervention of the [[French Communist Party|PCF]], the party was reestablished and Browder was purged.<ref name=":32" /><br />
<br />
==== Postwar period ====<br />
In 1947, the party affirmed the line that the [[African diaspora in the United States|African diaspora]] has a right to full nationhood,<ref name=":4" /> a position that Browder had rejected.<ref name=":32" /><br />
<br />
In the 1948 presidential election, the CPUSA supported the [[Progressive Party]], led by [[Henry A. Wallace]], which had been created in 1948. The Progressive Party received 1,158,000 votes in the election.<ref name=":4" /><br />
<br />
In July 1948, the USA brought indictments against 12 of 13 National Board members under the [[Smith Act]], including William Z. Foster, Eugene Denis, Benjamin Davis, and [[Gus Hall]]. 11 of the 12 defendants received five-year sentences.<ref name=":0233">{{Citation|author=Albert Szymanski|year=1984|title=Human Rights in the Soviet Union|chapter=The Land of the Free|page=175–176|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceazdmtb2y3qq27fve5ib3gk7uv2unt6ae2xss74xmfpur7k5uhl5m?filename=Albert%20Szymanski%20-%20Human%20Rights%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union_%20Including%20Comparisons%20with%20the%20U.S.A.-Zed%20Books%20Ltd.%20%281984%29.pdf|city=London|publisher=Zed Books Ltd|isbn=0862320186|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=C597B1232D9EA6B0F3DCB438D7E15A81}}</ref><br />
<br />
The CPUSA opposed the [[Korean War]] and [[Syngman Rhee]]'s puppet government in [[Republic of Korea|South Korea]] as well as the U.S. puppet states in [[Taiwan Province]] and [[Republic of Vietnam (1955–1975)|South Vietnam]]. On June 29, 1951, the CPUSA held the [[People's Congress for Peace]] in [[Chicago]]. The congress had 5,000 delegates, including 1,500 Black delegates and over 1,600 women.<ref name=":4">{{Citation|author=William Z. Foster|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=The Communist Party and the "Cold War" (1945-1951)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-thirty-three-communist-party.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== Hall period ===<br />
During the [[Cuban Missile Crisis]], the CPUSA took the side of the U.S bourgeois government by attempting to impose "international inspections" on [[Republic of Cuba|Cuba]].<ref name=":5">{{Web citation|newspaper=Renmin Ribao|title=A Comment On The Statement Of The CPUSA|date=March 8, 1963|url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:A_Comment_On_The_Statement_Of_The_CPUSA|quote=As for revolutionary Cuba, you say that you support her five demands for safeguarding her independence and sovereignty, but on the other hand you try to impose “international inspection” on her.<br />
<br />
Why don’t these leaders of the CPUSA stop and consider: What is the difference between your present embellishment of U.S. imperialism and Browder’s revisionism?<br />
<br />
if they combat the corrosive influence of the bourgeoisie and the poison of reformism in the working-class movement and eliminate the revisionist influence of the Lovestones and Browders from their ranks}}</ref><br />
<br />
In aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the CPUSA was accused by the [[Communist Party of China|CPC]] of breaking Communist solidarity by not only siding against Cuba, slandering the CPC and its positions regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis, but also of "prettifying U.S Imperialism", breaking from Marxism-Leninism, and pledging loyalty to the Bourgeois government of the [[United States of America|U.S]]. The CPC described the General Secretary Gus Hall as being no different than Earl Browder<ref name=":5" /> and that the influence of both Browder and Jay Lovestone permeated the CPUSA.<ref name=":5" /><br />
<br />
=== Modern era ===<br />
<br />
==== Webb period ====<br />
In a 2002 Club Educational Study Guide published on the CPUSA website, they claimed that "... the people of Israel, Jewish and Arab, also have a right to their own independent state",<ref>{{Web citation|author=Communist Party USA|newspaper=cpusa.org|title=Club Educational Study Guide: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict|date=2002-04-26|url=https://cpusa.org/materials/club-educational-study-guide-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/|archive-url=https://archive.ph/nTMvB}}</ref> effectively claiming "Israel" has a right to exist, which is contrary to the one-state solution [of Palestine] supported by most ruling communist parties.<br />
<br />
In 2008, before he became national chairman, [[Joe Sims]] published an article titled ''Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism'' in Political Affairs,<ref>{{Web citation|author=Joe Sims|newspaper=Political Affairs|title=Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism|date=2008-08-05|url=https://paeditorsblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/ten-worst-and-best-ideas-of-marxism.html?m=1|archive-url=https://archive.ph/KFAe4}}</ref> a magazine associated with the party that he is now the editor of. His article has been criticised as denouncing core principles of [[Marxism]] and has raised questions as to how someone so hostile to Marxism could become national chairman of a communist party. Conversely, the article has also been defended as satire by CPUSA members.<br />
<br />
==== Bachtell period ====<br />
In 2015, the then national chairman, John Bachtell admitted that he was active in both Obama presidential campaigns and even served as precinct captain for the latter's senatorial campaign, describing him as a "progressive."<ref>{{Web citation|author=Hamilton Nolan|newspaper=Gawker|title=Mistakes Were Made: A Talk With the Head of the Communist Party USA|date=2015-08-17|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150823143643/https://gawker.com/talking-politics-with-the-head-of-the-communist-party-u-1723918251|archive-date=2015-08-17|retrieved=2024-03-03|quote=I was really active in both Obama campaigns. Actually I was his precinct captain for his Senate campaign in Illinois.}}</ref> At the 31st National Convention, John Bachtell was replaced by Rossana Cambron and Joe Sims as co-chairs of the CPUSA, while Bachtell took up new roles with Long View Publishing Co. the publisher of ''People’s World'' eventually became its president.<ref>{{Web citation|author=John Wojcik And C.J. Atkins|newspaper=People's World|title=U.S. Communists elect new leaders to begin party’s second century|date=2019-06-25|url=https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/u-s-communists-elect-new-leaders-to-begin-partys-second-century/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190626012827/https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/u-s-communists-elect-new-leaders-to-begin-partys-second-century/|archive-date=2019-06-26|retrieved=2024-03-03}}</ref> <br />
<br />
The CPUSA published an article promoting and endorsing voting for [[Hillary Clinton]] in the 2016 presidential elections against [[Donald Trump]]. The article went on to promote the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] as a whole due to the claiming that they have the support of [[LGBT+]] people, racial minorities, and women.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Cameron Orr|newspaper=CPUSA|title=Defeating Trump: A strategy for uniting progressive forces|date=2016-11-08|url=https://www.cpusa.org/article/defeating-trump-a-strategy-for-uniting-progressive-forces/|archive-url=https://archive.ph/wip/88g5a|retrieved=2023-12-01}}</ref><br />
<br />
==== Sims period ====<br />
In 2022, an anonymous party member published a criticism of the party's leadership for isolating itself from the rank and file.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Anonymous CPUSA member|newspaper=ProleWiki|title=On the Webbite Tendency in CPUSA|date=2022-07-07|url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Essay:On_the_Webbite_Tendency_in_CPUSA}}</ref> In it, the member decries the Webbite tendency -- named after ex-national chairman Sam Webb from 2000 to 2014, who enacted policies to purge out the Marxist-Leninist elements within the party and wanted to abandon the word ''communism'' from the party's name -- and which, the member believes, survives to this day in the CPUSA.<br />
<br />
As President of Long View Publishing, Bachtell used Nazi rhetoric and propaganda of the "Holodomor" to denounce Stalin.<ref>{{Web citation|author=John Bachtell|title=It includes the Stalin years during Soviet times, e.g. Holomodor.|date=2023-09-12|url=https://twitter.com/johnbachtell/status/1701958692009050400|archive-url=https://archive.ph/62urX|archive-date=2024-03-03|retrieved=2024-03-03|quote=}}</ref><br />
<br />
The CPUSA has significantly promoted the [[Maki (political party)|Israeli Communist Party]], even going as far to state, “Long live the Communist Party of [[Israel]]!” in a statement adopted by the CPUSA National Committee a month after [[Operation Flood of Al-Aqsa]].<ref>{{Web citation|author=CPUSA National Commitee|newspaper=CPUSA|title=A ceasefire is the first step toward peace and liberation|date=2023-12-11|url=https://cpusa.org/article/a-ceasefire-is-the-first-step-toward-peace-and-liberation/|archive-url=https://archive.ph/wip/O0YND|retrieved=2023-12-20}}</ref> The Israeli Communist Party has denounced [[Hamas]] several times in the midst of the Operation, promoting settler-colonial views.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Communist Party of Israel|newspaper=Maki|title=Sexual Violence Perpetrated by Hamas Must be Investigated as Crimes Against Humanity|date=2023-11-27|url=https://maki.org.il/en/?p=31397}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|author=Communist Party of Israel|newspaper=Maki|title=Human Rights Organizations, MK Cassif Raise a Clear Voice Against the Harming of Civilians|date=2023-10-16|url=https://maki.org.il/en/?p=31270|retrieved=2023-12-20}}</ref><br />
<br />
== Structure ==<br />
<br />
=== National level ===<br />
National conventions of the CPUSA are held once every four years. They may be postponed by a 75% vote of the National Committee or special conventions may be held with a 40% vote of the National Committee or a majority vote of all state and district committees. The national convention can amend the party constitution with a majority vote.<br />
<br />
At the national convention, a new National Committee is elected. The National Committee meets at least three times a year and can amend the party constitution with a 75% vote in addition to a majority vote of the majority of state and district committees.<ref name=":2">{{Citation|author=30th National Convention|year=2014|title=Constitution of the Communist Party of the United States of America|title-url=https://www.cpusa.org/party_info/cpusa-constitution/}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== District level ===<br />
The National Committee of the CPUSA can establish state and district organizations. District organizations may cover multiple states or parts of states. State and district conventions meet once every four years, before the National Convention does. Additional state/district conventions can be called with a one-third vote of the State/District Committee or upon the request of clubs representing a third of the state or district's party membership. The State/District Committee meets at least four times a year, or three times a year in districts covering large geographic areas.<ref name=":2" /><br />
<br />
=== Club level ===<br />
Clubs are the smallest organizations of the CPUSA and represent local communities or workplaces. Club conventions meet once a year and elect a chair. Additional officers may also be elected depending on the club's size.<ref name=":2" /><br />
<br />
== Districts ==<br />
The CPUSA website has a list of districts with contact information:<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=Communist Party USA|title=Contact|url=https://www.cpusa.org/contact/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220707000105/https://www.cpusa.org/contact/|archive-date=2022-07-07|retrieved=2022-08-08}}</ref><br />
<br />
* Arizona<br />
* Colorado<br />
* Connecticut<br />
* Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware<br />
* Florida<br />
* Georgia<br />
* Hawaii<br />
* Illinois<br />
* Indiana<br />
* Maine<br />
* Maryland<br />
* Massachusetts<br />
* Michigan<br />
* Minnesota and the Dakotas<br />
* Missouri/Kansas<br />
* New Jersey<br />
* New Mexico<br />
* New York<br />
* North Carolina<br />
* Ohio<br />
* Oklahoma<br />
* Oregon<br />
* San Francisco Bay Area<br />
* South Carolina<br />
* Southern California<br />
* Texas<br />
* Virginia<br />
* Washington (state)<br />
* Washington, D.C.<br />
* Western Pennsylvania<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
* ''[[Library:Black Bolshevik|Black Bolshevik]]''<br />
* ''[[Library:History of the Communist Party of the United States|History of the Communist Party of the United States]]''<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
[[Category:Communist parties]]<br />
[[Category:Communist Party USA]]<br />
[[Category:Statesian communist parties]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Communist_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America&diff=63643Communist Party of the United States of America2024-03-03T21:59:02Z<p>RedCustodian: /* Modern era */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Infobox political party|name=Communist Party of the United States of America|logo=CPUSA.png|founded=September 1, 1919|abbreviation=CPUSA|leader1_title=Co-chairs|leader1_name=[[Joe Sims]]<br>Rossana Cambron|founder=[[C. E. Ruthenberg]]|newspaper=''[[People's World]]''|youth_wing=[[Young Communist League USA]]|membership_year=1944|membership=80,000|political_orientation=[[Marxism–Leninism]] (de jure)<br>[[Bill of Rights Socialism]]<br>[[Revisionism]]<br>[[Reformism]] (de facto)<br>[[Patriotic Socialism]]<br>'''Historical:'''<br>[[Browderism]]<br>[[Nationalism|USA nationalism]]|website=https://www.cpusa.org/}}{{Communist parties}}<br />
<br />
The '''Communist Party of the United States of America''' ('''CPUSA''') is a [[communist party]] in the [[United States of America|United States]] currently under a [[Revisionism|revisionist]] and [[Opportunism|opportunist]] leadership.<ref>{{News citation|journalist=John Bachtell, chairman of PCUSA until 2019|date=2014-06-23|title=Elections, the state, reform and revolution|url=http://www.politicalaffairs.net/elections-the-state-reform-and-revolution/|newspaper=Political Affairs|archive-url=|archive-date=|retrieved=|quote=The CPUSA has long said the transition to US socialism will be much more prolonged and complex. [...] Just like the socialist society we envision - peaceful, humane and democratic – so too must be the path as it will shape every aspect of the new society.<br><br>[...]<br><br>Marx and Engels foresaw the possibility of peaceful transition particularly under conditions of the democratic or bourgeois republic. [...] Even Lenin initially thought a peaceful transition to workers' and peasants' power in Russia would be possible as a result of the crisis brought on by WWI, but the armed intervention of western imperialist powers changed the course of history.}}</ref><ref>{{News citation|journalist=John Bachtell, chairman of CPUSA until 2019|date=2018-04-25|title=Marxism a vibrant philosophical outlook, says CPUSA leader|url=https://www.cpusa.org/article/marxism-a-vibrant-philosophical-outlook-says-cpusa-leader/|newspaper=CPUSA Blog|archive-url=|archive-date=|retrieved=|quote=Non-violent peaceful resistance is a very important form of struggle. <br><br>[...]<br><br>It will be what we call a democratic path. One that utilizes the electoral arena but also other democratic venues where we’re constantly trying to expand our right}}</ref><ref>[[Essay:On the Webbite Tendency in CPUSA|On the Webbite Tendency in CPUSA]]: Essay by anonymous CPUSA Party member, published by [[Comrade:Jucheguevara|Jucheguevara]]</ref><ref name=":32">{{Web citation|author=Gaius Gracchus|newspaper=[[The Red Clarion]]|title=A True Accounting of the CPUSA In Its Members Own Words|date=2024-02-22|url=https://clarion.unity-struggle-unity.org/2024-02-22-cpusa-hypocrisy/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240301215326/https://clarion.unity-struggle-unity.org/2024-02-22-cpusa-hypocrisy/|archive-date=2024-03-01}}</ref> It was established in 1919 after a split from the [[Socialist Party of America]]. <br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
<br />
=== Formation ===<br />
On July 28, many members of the Socialist Party of America, including [[C. E. Ruthenberg]], [[Louis Fraina]], and [[Bertram D. Wolfe]], decided to split and form a new party.<ref>{{Citation|author=Jacob A. Zumoff|year=2014|title=The Communist International and US Communism, 1919–1929|chapter=The Formation of the Communist Party, 1912–21|page=40–44|pdf=https://discord.com/channels/691004496142401606/735427621982306364/948686196433899560|city=Boston|publisher=Global Oriental and Hotei Publishing}}</ref><br />
<br />
After being expelled from the Socialist Party of America's convention, the Michigan group of the Socialist Party formed the Communist Party of America on September 1, 1919. The Communist Party soon had a membership of 58,000. Another smaller party was formed from this split, the [[Communist Labor Party of America|Communist Labor Party]]. The CPA decided not to cooperate with non-revolutionary parties.<ref name=":0">{{Citation|author=[[William Z. Foster]]|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=The Formation of the Communist Party (1919-1921)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-twelve-formation-of-communist.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
At the request of the Comintern, the CPA and CLP merged to form the CPUSA in 1919. The early CPUSA had two factions: the former CPA led by Ruthenberg and the former CLP led by [[Jay Lovestone]]. Many members of the [[African Blood Brotherhood]] also went on to join the party, including [[Harry Haywood]].<ref name=":32" /><br />
<br />
==== Palmer Raids ====<br />
On October 16, 1919, the police raided the headquarters of the CLP in Cleveland and arrested its leadership. In New York City, 700 police raided meetings celebrating the anniversary of the [[Russian revolution of 1917|October Revolution]]. During the night of January 6, 1920, President [[Woodrow Wilson]] authorized Attorney General [[A. Mitchell Palmer]] to carry out raids in 70 cities that led to approximately 10,000 arrests. Much of the leadership of the communist parties was arrested and over 500 people were deported. As a result of the [[Palmer Raids]], the membership of the CPA dropped from 60,000 to 10,000. In May 1920, the CPA and CLP combined to form the United Communist Party of America.<ref name=":0" /><br />
<br />
In August 1922, the government raided a party convention being held in Bridgman, [[Michigan]].<ref>{{Citation|author=William Z. Foster|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=The Communists and the Capitalist Offensive (1919-1923)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-fourteen-communists-and.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
The majority of party members were foreign-born and the party ran 27 publications in almost 20 languages.<ref name=":3">{{Citation|author=William Z. Foster|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=Building the Party of the New Type (1919-1929)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-nineteen-building-party-of-new.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== Anti-Lovestone struggle ===<br />
Lovestone's faction believed capitalism was stronger in the USA than in any other country and believed the party should wait for capitalism to decay instead of taking action.<ref name=":32" /><br />
<br />
In October 1928, the CPUSA expelled about 100 [[Trotskyism|Trotskyists]] led by [[James Cannon]] and [[Max Shachtman]]. They went on to found the [[Socialist Workers Party (United States)|Socialist Workers' Party]]. In June 1929, following the sixth congress of the Comintern, the party expelled the group of [[Right-opportunism|right-oppositionists]] led by Jay Lovestone.<ref name=":3" /><br />
<br />
=== Great Depression ===<br />
In October 1929, a major economic crisis known as the [[Great Depression]] began. 17 million workers became unemployed and basic industrial production dropped by 50%. During the first four years of the Depression, party membership increased from under 10,000 to 18,000.<br />
<br />
On March 6, 1930, the CPUSA organized a demonstration of over a million workers and unemployed. In [[New York City]], the demonstration was met with 25,000 police and firemen.<ref name=":1">{{Citation|author=William Z. Foster|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=The Communist Party and the Great Economic Crisis (1929-1933)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-twenty-communist-party-and.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
The Seventh National Convention of the CPUSA was held in New York City in 1930 with 306 delegates. Party leaders, including [[William Z. Foster]], did not participate because they were in jail after attempting to present the demands of the [[Unemployment|unemployed]] to Mayor [[Jimmy Walker]].<ref>{{Citation|author=Marxists Internet Archive|year=2009|title=Communist Party of the United States of America (1919–1946)|chapter=The Communist Party, USA|publisher=|mia=https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/eam/cpa/communistparty.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
In 1932, William Z. Foster ran for president and received over 100,000 votes.<ref name=":1" /> During the early 1930s, the party considered [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Roosevelt]] a fascist and opposed working with the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrats]].<ref name=":32" /><br />
<br />
=== Browder period ===<br />
<br />
==== Initial opportunism ====<br />
In opposition to Foster, Browder encouraged forming a people's front with Roosevelt and believed working with the bourgeoisie was the only way to stop fascism.<ref name=":32" /><br />
<br />
==== Second World War ====<br />
The CPUSA was initially opposed to U.S. involvement in the [[Second World War]] but changed its position after [[German Reich (1933–1945)|Nazi Germany]] attacked the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]]. 15,000 party members fought against [[fascism]] during the war. While many communist men were fighting in the war, women increased their share of leadership in the party and four women were elected to the National Committee. <br />
<br />
In 1943, Communist [[Peter V. Cacchione]] was elected to City Council in the [[State of New York|New York]] municipal elections. At the same time, [[Benjamin J. Davis Jr.]] became the first Black communist to be elected to public office. By 1944, the party had 80,000 members.<br />
<br />
General Secretary [[Earl Browder]] made an opportunist error and assumed that the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|United Kingdom]] and United States would support the communist movement because they had agreed to help the Soviet Union in the war.<ref>{{Citation|author=William Z. Foster|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=The Communists in the War (1941-1945)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-twenty-nine-communists-in-war.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
In 1944, Browder briefly dissolved the CPUSA. Due to the intervention of the [[French Communist Party|PCF]], the party was reestablished and Browder was purged.<ref name=":32" /><br />
<br />
==== Postwar period ====<br />
In 1947, the party affirmed the line that the [[African diaspora in the United States|African diaspora]] has a right to full nationhood,<ref name=":4" /> a position that Browder had rejected.<ref name=":32" /><br />
<br />
In the 1948 presidential election, the CPUSA supported the [[Progressive Party]], led by [[Henry A. Wallace]], which had been created in 1948. The Progressive Party received 1,158,000 votes in the election.<ref name=":4" /><br />
<br />
In July 1948, the USA brought indictments against 12 of 13 National Board members under the [[Smith Act]], including William Z. Foster, Eugene Denis, Benjamin Davis, and [[Gus Hall]]. 11 of the 12 defendants received five-year sentences.<ref name=":0233">{{Citation|author=Albert Szymanski|year=1984|title=Human Rights in the Soviet Union|chapter=The Land of the Free|page=175–176|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceazdmtb2y3qq27fve5ib3gk7uv2unt6ae2xss74xmfpur7k5uhl5m?filename=Albert%20Szymanski%20-%20Human%20Rights%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union_%20Including%20Comparisons%20with%20the%20U.S.A.-Zed%20Books%20Ltd.%20%281984%29.pdf|city=London|publisher=Zed Books Ltd|isbn=0862320186|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=C597B1232D9EA6B0F3DCB438D7E15A81}}</ref><br />
<br />
The CPUSA opposed the [[Korean War]] and [[Syngman Rhee]]'s puppet government in [[Republic of Korea|South Korea]] as well as the U.S. puppet states in [[Taiwan Province]] and [[Republic of Vietnam (1955–1975)|South Vietnam]]. On June 29, 1951, the CPUSA held the [[People's Congress for Peace]] in [[Chicago]]. The congress had 5,000 delegates, including 1,500 Black delegates and over 1,600 women.<ref name=":4">{{Citation|author=William Z. Foster|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=The Communist Party and the "Cold War" (1945-1951)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-thirty-three-communist-party.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== Hall period ===<br />
During the [[Cuban Missile Crisis]], the CPUSA took the side of the U.S bourgeois government by attempting to impose "international inspections" on [[Republic of Cuba|Cuba]].<ref name=":5">{{Web citation|newspaper=Renmin Ribao|title=A Comment On The Statement Of The CPUSA|date=March 8, 1963|url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:A_Comment_On_The_Statement_Of_The_CPUSA|quote=As for revolutionary Cuba, you say that you support her five demands for safeguarding her independence and sovereignty, but on the other hand you try to impose “international inspection” on her.<br />
<br />
Why don’t these leaders of the CPUSA stop and consider: What is the difference between your present embellishment of U.S. imperialism and Browder’s revisionism?<br />
<br />
if they combat the corrosive influence of the bourgeoisie and the poison of reformism in the working-class movement and eliminate the revisionist influence of the Lovestones and Browders from their ranks}}</ref><br />
<br />
In aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the CPUSA was accused by the [[Communist Party of China|CPC]] of breaking Communist solidarity by not only siding against Cuba, slandering the CPC and its positions regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis, but also of "prettifying U.S Imperialism", breaking from Marxism-Leninism, and pledging loyalty to the Bourgeois government of the [[United States of America|U.S]]. The CPC described the General Secretary Gus Hall as being no different than Earl Browder<ref name=":5" /> and that the influence of both Browder and Jay Lovestone permeated the CPUSA.<ref name=":5" /><br />
<br />
=== Modern era ===<br />
In 2008, before he became national chairman, [[Joe Sims]] published an article titled ''Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism'' in Political Affairs,<ref>{{Web citation|author=Joe Sims|newspaper=Political Affairs|title=Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism|date=2008-08-05|url=https://paeditorsblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/ten-worst-and-best-ideas-of-marxism.html?m=1|archive-url=https://archive.ph/KFAe4}}</ref> a magazine associated with the party that he is now the editor of. His article has been criticised as denouncing core principles of [[Marxism]] and has raised questions as to how someone so hostile to Marxism could become national chairman of a communist party. Conversely, the article has also been defended as satire by CPUSA members.<br />
<br />
In 2015, the then national chairman, John Bachtell admitted that he was active in both Obama presidential campaigns and even served as precinct captain for the latter's senatorial campaign, describing him as a "progressive" <ref>{{Web citation|author=Hamilton Nolan|newspaper=Gawker|title=Mistakes Were Made: A Talk With the Head of the Communist Party USA|date=2015-08-17|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150823143643/https://gawker.com/talking-politics-with-the-head-of-the-communist-party-u-1723918251|archive-date=2015-08-17|retrieved=2024-03-03|quote=I was really active in both Obama campaigns. Actually I was his precinct captain for his Senate campaign in Illinois.}}</ref>. At the 31st National Convention, John Bachtell was replaced by Rossana Cambron and Joe Sims as co-chairs of the CPUSA, while Bachtell took up new roles with Long View Publishing Co. the publisher of ''People’s World'' eventually became its president.<ref>{{Web citation|author=John Wojcik And C.J. Atkins|newspaper=People's World|title=U.S. Communists elect new leaders to begin party’s second century|date=2019-06-25|url=https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/u-s-communists-elect-new-leaders-to-begin-partys-second-century/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190626012827/https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/u-s-communists-elect-new-leaders-to-begin-partys-second-century/|archive-date=2019-06-26|retrieved=2024-03-03}}</ref> Bachtell used Nazi rhetoric and propaganda of the "Holodomor" to denounce Stalin<ref>{{Web citation|author=John Bachtell|title=It includes the Stalin years during Soviet times, e.g. Holomodor.|date=2023-09-12|url=https://twitter.com/johnbachtell/status/1701958692009050400|archive-url=https://archive.ph/62urX|archive-date=2024-03-03|retrieved=2024-03-03|quote=}}</ref>. <br />
<br />
The CPUSA published an article promoting and endorsing voting for [[Hillary Clinton]] in the 2016 presidential elections against [[Donald Trump]]. The article went on to promote the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] as a whole due to the claiming that they have the support of [[LGBT+]] people, racial minorities, and women.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Cameron Orr|newspaper=CPUSA|title=Defeating Trump: A strategy for uniting progressive forces|date=2016-11-08|url=https://www.cpusa.org/article/defeating-trump-a-strategy-for-uniting-progressive-forces/|archive-url=https://archive.ph/wip/88g5a|retrieved=2023-12-01}}</ref><br />
<br />
In 2022, an anonymous party member published a criticism of the party's leadership for isolating itself from the rank and file.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Anonymous CPUSA member|newspaper=ProleWiki|title=On the Webbite Tendency in CPUSA|date=2022-07-07|url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Essay:On_the_Webbite_Tendency_in_CPUSA}}</ref> In it, the member decries the Webbite tendency -- named after ex-national chairman Sam Webb from 2000 to 2014, who enacted policies to purge out the Marxist-Leninist elements within the party and wanted to abandon the word ''communism'' from the party's name -- and which, the member believes, survives to this day in the CPUSA.<br />
<br />
The CPUSA has significantly promoted the [[Maki (political party)|Israeli Communist Party]], even going as far to state, “Long live the Communist Party of [[Israel]]!” in a statement adopted by the CPUSA National Committee a month after [[Operation Flood of Al-Aqsa]].<ref>{{Web citation|author=CPUSA National Commitee|newspaper=CPUSA|title=A ceasefire is the first step toward peace and liberation|date=2023-12-11|url=https://cpusa.org/article/a-ceasefire-is-the-first-step-toward-peace-and-liberation/|archive-url=https://archive.ph/wip/O0YND|retrieved=2023-12-20}}</ref> The Israeli Communist Party has denounced [[Hamas]] several times in the midst of the Operation, promoting settler-colonial views.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Communist Party of Israel|newspaper=Maki|title=Sexual Violence Perpetrated by Hamas Must be Investigated as Crimes Against Humanity|date=2023-11-27|url=https://maki.org.il/en/?p=31397}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|author=Communist Party of Israel|newspaper=Maki|title=Human Rights Organizations, MK Cassif Raise a Clear Voice Against the Harming of Civilians|date=2023-10-16|url=https://maki.org.il/en/?p=31270|retrieved=2023-12-20}}</ref><br />
<br />
In a 2002 Club Educational Study Guide published on the CPUSA website, they claimed that "... the people of Israel, Jewish and Arab, also have a right to their own independent state",<ref>{{Web citation|author=Communist Party USA|newspaper=cpusa.org|title=Club Educational Study Guide: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict|date=2002-04-26|url=https://cpusa.org/materials/club-educational-study-guide-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/|archive-url=https://archive.ph/nTMvB}}</ref> effectively claiming "Israel" has a right to exist, which is contrary to the one-state solution [of Palestine] supported by most ruling communist parties.<br />
<br />
== Structure ==<br />
<br />
=== National level ===<br />
National conventions of the CPUSA are held once every four years. They may be postponed by a 75% vote of the National Committee or special conventions may be held with a 40% vote of the National Committee or a majority vote of all state and district committees. The national convention can amend the party constitution with a majority vote.<br />
<br />
At the national convention, a new National Committee is elected. The National Committee meets at least three times a year and can amend the party constitution with a 75% vote in addition to a majority vote of the majority of state and district committees.<ref name=":2">{{Citation|author=30th National Convention|year=2014|title=Constitution of the Communist Party of the United States of America|title-url=https://www.cpusa.org/party_info/cpusa-constitution/}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== District level ===<br />
The National Committee of the CPUSA can establish state and district organizations. District organizations may cover multiple states or parts of states. State and district conventions meet once every four years, before the National Convention does. Additional state/district conventions can be called with a one-third vote of the State/District Committee or upon the request of clubs representing a third of the state or district's party membership. The State/District Committee meets at least four times a year, or three times a year in districts covering large geographic areas.<ref name=":2" /><br />
<br />
=== Club level ===<br />
Clubs are the smallest organizations of the CPUSA and represent local communities or workplaces. Club conventions meet once a year and elect a chair. Additional officers may also be elected depending on the club's size.<ref name=":2" /><br />
<br />
== Districts ==<br />
The CPUSA website has a list of districts with contact information:<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=Communist Party USA|title=Contact|url=https://www.cpusa.org/contact/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220707000105/https://www.cpusa.org/contact/|archive-date=2022-07-07|retrieved=2022-08-08}}</ref><br />
<br />
* Arizona<br />
* Colorado<br />
* Connecticut<br />
* Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware<br />
* Florida<br />
* Georgia<br />
* Hawaii<br />
* Illinois<br />
* Indiana<br />
* Maine<br />
* Maryland<br />
* Massachusetts<br />
* Michigan<br />
* Minnesota and the Dakotas<br />
* Missouri/Kansas<br />
* New Jersey<br />
* New Mexico<br />
* New York<br />
* North Carolina<br />
* Ohio<br />
* Oklahoma<br />
* Oregon<br />
* San Francisco Bay Area<br />
* South Carolina<br />
* Southern California<br />
* Texas<br />
* Virginia<br />
* Washington (state)<br />
* Washington, D.C.<br />
* Western Pennsylvania<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
* ''[[Library:Black Bolshevik|Black Bolshevik]]''<br />
* ''[[Library:History of the Communist Party of the United States|History of the Communist Party of the United States]]''<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
[[Category:Communist parties]]<br />
[[Category:Communist Party USA]]<br />
[[Category:Statesian communist parties]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Communist_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America&diff=63642Communist Party of the United States of America2024-03-03T21:48:32Z<p>RedCustodian: /* Modern era */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Infobox political party|name=Communist Party of the United States of America|logo=CPUSA.png|founded=September 1, 1919|abbreviation=CPUSA|leader1_title=Co-chairs|leader1_name=[[Joe Sims]]<br>Rossana Cambron|founder=[[C. E. Ruthenberg]]|newspaper=''[[People's World]]''|youth_wing=[[Young Communist League USA]]|membership_year=1944|membership=80,000|political_orientation=[[Marxism–Leninism]] (de jure)<br>[[Bill of Rights Socialism]]<br>[[Revisionism]]<br>[[Reformism]] (de facto)<br>[[Patriotic Socialism]]<br>'''Historical:'''<br>[[Browderism]]<br>[[Nationalism|USA nationalism]]|website=https://www.cpusa.org/}}{{Communist parties}}<br />
<br />
The '''Communist Party of the United States of America''' ('''CPUSA''') is a [[communist party]] in the [[United States of America|United States]] currently under a [[Revisionism|revisionist]] and [[Opportunism|opportunist]] leadership.<ref>{{News citation|journalist=John Bachtell, chairman of PCUSA until 2019|date=2014-06-23|title=Elections, the state, reform and revolution|url=http://www.politicalaffairs.net/elections-the-state-reform-and-revolution/|newspaper=Political Affairs|archive-url=|archive-date=|retrieved=|quote=The CPUSA has long said the transition to US socialism will be much more prolonged and complex. [...] Just like the socialist society we envision - peaceful, humane and democratic – so too must be the path as it will shape every aspect of the new society.<br><br>[...]<br><br>Marx and Engels foresaw the possibility of peaceful transition particularly under conditions of the democratic or bourgeois republic. [...] Even Lenin initially thought a peaceful transition to workers' and peasants' power in Russia would be possible as a result of the crisis brought on by WWI, but the armed intervention of western imperialist powers changed the course of history.}}</ref><ref>{{News citation|journalist=John Bachtell, chairman of CPUSA until 2019|date=2018-04-25|title=Marxism a vibrant philosophical outlook, says CPUSA leader|url=https://www.cpusa.org/article/marxism-a-vibrant-philosophical-outlook-says-cpusa-leader/|newspaper=CPUSA Blog|archive-url=|archive-date=|retrieved=|quote=Non-violent peaceful resistance is a very important form of struggle. <br><br>[...]<br><br>It will be what we call a democratic path. One that utilizes the electoral arena but also other democratic venues where we’re constantly trying to expand our right}}</ref><ref>[[Essay:On the Webbite Tendency in CPUSA|On the Webbite Tendency in CPUSA]]: Essay by anonymous CPUSA Party member, published by [[Comrade:Jucheguevara|Jucheguevara]]</ref><ref name=":32">{{Web citation|author=Gaius Gracchus|newspaper=[[The Red Clarion]]|title=A True Accounting of the CPUSA In Its Members Own Words|date=2024-02-22|url=https://clarion.unity-struggle-unity.org/2024-02-22-cpusa-hypocrisy/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240301215326/https://clarion.unity-struggle-unity.org/2024-02-22-cpusa-hypocrisy/|archive-date=2024-03-01}}</ref> It was established in 1919 after a split from the [[Socialist Party of America]]. <br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
<br />
=== Formation ===<br />
On July 28, many members of the Socialist Party of America, including [[C. E. Ruthenberg]], [[Louis Fraina]], and [[Bertram D. Wolfe]], decided to split and form a new party.<ref>{{Citation|author=Jacob A. Zumoff|year=2014|title=The Communist International and US Communism, 1919–1929|chapter=The Formation of the Communist Party, 1912–21|page=40–44|pdf=https://discord.com/channels/691004496142401606/735427621982306364/948686196433899560|city=Boston|publisher=Global Oriental and Hotei Publishing}}</ref><br />
<br />
After being expelled from the Socialist Party of America's convention, the Michigan group of the Socialist Party formed the Communist Party of America on September 1, 1919. The Communist Party soon had a membership of 58,000. Another smaller party was formed from this split, the [[Communist Labor Party of America|Communist Labor Party]]. The CPA decided not to cooperate with non-revolutionary parties.<ref name=":0">{{Citation|author=[[William Z. Foster]]|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=The Formation of the Communist Party (1919-1921)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-twelve-formation-of-communist.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
At the request of the Comintern, the CPA and CLP merged to form the CPUSA in 1919. The early CPUSA had two factions: the former CPA led by Ruthenberg and the former CLP led by [[Jay Lovestone]]. Many members of the [[African Blood Brotherhood]] also went on to join the party, including [[Harry Haywood]].<ref name=":32" /><br />
<br />
==== Palmer Raids ====<br />
On October 16, 1919, the police raided the headquarters of the CLP in Cleveland and arrested its leadership. In New York City, 700 police raided meetings celebrating the anniversary of the [[Russian revolution of 1917|October Revolution]]. During the night of January 6, 1920, President [[Woodrow Wilson]] authorized Attorney General [[A. Mitchell Palmer]] to carry out raids in 70 cities that led to approximately 10,000 arrests. Much of the leadership of the communist parties was arrested and over 500 people were deported. As a result of the [[Palmer Raids]], the membership of the CPA dropped from 60,000 to 10,000. In May 1920, the CPA and CLP combined to form the United Communist Party of America.<ref name=":0" /><br />
<br />
In August 1922, the government raided a party convention being held in Bridgman, [[Michigan]].<ref>{{Citation|author=William Z. Foster|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=The Communists and the Capitalist Offensive (1919-1923)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-fourteen-communists-and.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
The majority of party members were foreign-born and the party ran 27 publications in almost 20 languages.<ref name=":3">{{Citation|author=William Z. Foster|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=Building the Party of the New Type (1919-1929)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-nineteen-building-party-of-new.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== Anti-Lovestone struggle ===<br />
Lovestone's faction believed capitalism was stronger in the USA than in any other country and believed the party should wait for capitalism to decay instead of taking action.<ref name=":32" /><br />
<br />
In October 1928, the CPUSA expelled about 100 [[Trotskyism|Trotskyists]] led by [[James Cannon]] and [[Max Shachtman]]. They went on to found the [[Socialist Workers Party (United States)|Socialist Workers' Party]]. In June 1929, following the sixth congress of the Comintern, the party expelled the group of [[Right-opportunism|right-oppositionists]] led by Jay Lovestone.<ref name=":3" /><br />
<br />
=== Great Depression ===<br />
In October 1929, a major economic crisis known as the [[Great Depression]] began. 17 million workers became unemployed and basic industrial production dropped by 50%. During the first four years of the Depression, party membership increased from under 10,000 to 18,000.<br />
<br />
On March 6, 1930, the CPUSA organized a demonstration of over a million workers and unemployed. In [[New York City]], the demonstration was met with 25,000 police and firemen.<ref name=":1">{{Citation|author=William Z. Foster|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=The Communist Party and the Great Economic Crisis (1929-1933)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-twenty-communist-party-and.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
The Seventh National Convention of the CPUSA was held in New York City in 1930 with 306 delegates. Party leaders, including [[William Z. Foster]], did not participate because they were in jail after attempting to present the demands of the [[Unemployment|unemployed]] to Mayor [[Jimmy Walker]].<ref>{{Citation|author=Marxists Internet Archive|year=2009|title=Communist Party of the United States of America (1919–1946)|chapter=The Communist Party, USA|publisher=|mia=https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/eam/cpa/communistparty.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
In 1932, William Z. Foster ran for president and received over 100,000 votes.<ref name=":1" /> During the early 1930s, the party considered [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Roosevelt]] a fascist and opposed working with the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrats]].<ref name=":32" /><br />
<br />
=== Browder period ===<br />
<br />
==== Initial opportunism ====<br />
In opposition to Foster, Browder encouraged forming a people's front with Roosevelt and believed working with the bourgeoisie was the only way to stop fascism.<ref name=":32" /><br />
<br />
==== Second World War ====<br />
The CPUSA was initially opposed to U.S. involvement in the [[Second World War]] but changed its position after [[German Reich (1933–1945)|Nazi Germany]] attacked the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]]. 15,000 party members fought against [[fascism]] during the war. While many communist men were fighting in the war, women increased their share of leadership in the party and four women were elected to the National Committee. <br />
<br />
In 1943, Communist [[Peter V. Cacchione]] was elected to City Council in the [[State of New York|New York]] municipal elections. At the same time, [[Benjamin J. Davis Jr.]] became the first Black communist to be elected to public office. By 1944, the party had 80,000 members.<br />
<br />
General Secretary [[Earl Browder]] made an opportunist error and assumed that the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|United Kingdom]] and United States would support the communist movement because they had agreed to help the Soviet Union in the war.<ref>{{Citation|author=William Z. Foster|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=The Communists in the War (1941-1945)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-twenty-nine-communists-in-war.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
In 1944, Browder briefly dissolved the CPUSA. Due to the intervention of the [[French Communist Party|PCF]], the party was reestablished and Browder was purged.<ref name=":32" /><br />
<br />
==== Postwar period ====<br />
In 1947, the party affirmed the line that the [[African diaspora in the United States|African diaspora]] has a right to full nationhood,<ref name=":4" /> a position that Browder had rejected.<ref name=":32" /><br />
<br />
In the 1948 presidential election, the CPUSA supported the [[Progressive Party]], led by [[Henry A. Wallace]], which had been created in 1948. The Progressive Party received 1,158,000 votes in the election.<ref name=":4" /><br />
<br />
In July 1948, the USA brought indictments against 12 of 13 National Board members under the [[Smith Act]], including William Z. Foster, Eugene Denis, Benjamin Davis, and [[Gus Hall]]. 11 of the 12 defendants received five-year sentences.<ref name=":0233">{{Citation|author=Albert Szymanski|year=1984|title=Human Rights in the Soviet Union|chapter=The Land of the Free|page=175–176|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceazdmtb2y3qq27fve5ib3gk7uv2unt6ae2xss74xmfpur7k5uhl5m?filename=Albert%20Szymanski%20-%20Human%20Rights%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union_%20Including%20Comparisons%20with%20the%20U.S.A.-Zed%20Books%20Ltd.%20%281984%29.pdf|city=London|publisher=Zed Books Ltd|isbn=0862320186|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=C597B1232D9EA6B0F3DCB438D7E15A81}}</ref><br />
<br />
The CPUSA opposed the [[Korean War]] and [[Syngman Rhee]]'s puppet government in [[Republic of Korea|South Korea]] as well as the U.S. puppet states in [[Taiwan Province]] and [[Republic of Vietnam (1955–1975)|South Vietnam]]. On June 29, 1951, the CPUSA held the [[People's Congress for Peace]] in [[Chicago]]. The congress had 5,000 delegates, including 1,500 Black delegates and over 1,600 women.<ref name=":4">{{Citation|author=William Z. Foster|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=The Communist Party and the "Cold War" (1945-1951)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-thirty-three-communist-party.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== Hall period ===<br />
During the [[Cuban Missile Crisis]], the CPUSA took the side of the U.S bourgeois government by attempting to impose "international inspections" on [[Republic of Cuba|Cuba]].<ref name=":5">{{Web citation|newspaper=Renmin Ribao|title=A Comment On The Statement Of The CPUSA|date=March 8, 1963|url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:A_Comment_On_The_Statement_Of_The_CPUSA|quote=As for revolutionary Cuba, you say that you support her five demands for safeguarding her independence and sovereignty, but on the other hand you try to impose “international inspection” on her.<br />
<br />
Why don’t these leaders of the CPUSA stop and consider: What is the difference between your present embellishment of U.S. imperialism and Browder’s revisionism?<br />
<br />
if they combat the corrosive influence of the bourgeoisie and the poison of reformism in the working-class movement and eliminate the revisionist influence of the Lovestones and Browders from their ranks}}</ref><br />
<br />
In aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the CPUSA was accused by the [[Communist Party of China|CPC]] of breaking Communist solidarity by not only siding against Cuba, slandering the CPC and its positions regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis, but also of "prettifying U.S Imperialism", breaking from Marxism-Leninism, and pledging loyalty to the Bourgeois government of the [[United States of America|U.S]]. The CPC described the General Secretary Gus Hall as being no different than Earl Browder<ref name=":5" /> and that the influence of both Browder and Jay Lovestone permeated the CPUSA.<ref name=":5" /><br />
<br />
=== Modern era ===<br />
In 2008, before he became national chairman, [[Joe Sims]] published an article titled ''Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism'' in Political Affairs,<ref>{{Web citation|author=Joe Sims|newspaper=Political Affairs|title=Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism|date=2008-08-05|url=https://paeditorsblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/ten-worst-and-best-ideas-of-marxism.html?m=1|archive-url=https://archive.ph/KFAe4}}</ref> a magazine associated with the party that he is now the editor of. His article has been criticised as denouncing core principles of [[Marxism]] and has raised questions as to how someone so hostile to Marxism could become national chairman of a communist party. Conversely, the article has also been defended as satire by CPUSA members.<br />
<br />
In 2015, the then national chairman, John Bachtell admitted that he was active in both Obama presidential campaigns and even served as precinct captain for the latter's senatorial campaign, describing him as a "progressive" <ref>{{Web citation|author=Hamilton Nolan|newspaper=Gawker|title=Mistakes Were Made: A Talk With the Head of the Communist Party USA|date=2015-08-17|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150823143643/https://gawker.com/talking-politics-with-the-head-of-the-communist-party-u-1723918251|archive-date=2015-08-17|retrieved=2024-03-03|quote=I was really active in both Obama campaigns. Actually I was his precinct captain for his Senate campaign in Illinois.}}</ref>. At the 31st National Convention, John Bachtell was replaced by Rossana Cambron and Joe Sims as co-chairs of the CPUSA, while Bachtell took up new roles with Long View Publishing Co. the publisher of ''People’s World'' eventually became its president.<ref>{{Web citation|author=John Wojcik And C.J. Atkins|newspaper=People's World|title=U.S. Communists elect new leaders to begin party’s second century|date=2019-06-25|url=https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/u-s-communists-elect-new-leaders-to-begin-partys-second-century/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190626012827/https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/u-s-communists-elect-new-leaders-to-begin-partys-second-century/|archive-date=2019-06-26|retrieved=2024-03-03}}</ref> Bachtell used Nazi rhetoric and propaganda of the "Holodomor" to denounce Stalin<ref>{{Web citation|author=John Bachtell|date=2023-09-12|url=https://twitter.com/johnbachtell/status/1701958692009050400|archive-url=https://archive.ph/62urX|archive-date=2024-03-03|retrieved=2024-03-03|quote=Actually, the Ukrainian struggle for national independence agaist Russian colonialism goes back to the mid 1800s. It includes the Stalin years during Soviet times, e.g. Holomodor.}}</ref>. <br />
<br />
The CPUSA published an article promoting and endorsing voting for [[Hillary Clinton]] in the 2016 presidential elections against [[Donald Trump]]. The article went on to promote the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] as a whole due to the claiming that they have the support of [[LGBT+]] people, racial minorities, and women.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Cameron Orr|newspaper=CPUSA|title=Defeating Trump: A strategy for uniting progressive forces|date=2016-11-08|url=https://www.cpusa.org/article/defeating-trump-a-strategy-for-uniting-progressive-forces/|archive-url=https://archive.ph/wip/88g5a|retrieved=2023-12-01}}</ref><br />
<br />
In 2022, an anonymous party member published a criticism of the party's leadership for isolating itself from the rank and file.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Anonymous CPUSA member|newspaper=ProleWiki|title=On the Webbite Tendency in CPUSA|date=2022-07-07|url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Essay:On_the_Webbite_Tendency_in_CPUSA}}</ref> In it, the member decries the Webbite tendency -- named after ex-national chairman Sam Webb from 2000 to 2014, who enacted policies to purge out the Marxist-Leninist elements within the party and wanted to abandon the word ''communism'' from the party's name -- and which, the member believes, survives to this day in the CPUSA.<br />
<br />
The CPUSA has significantly promoted the [[Maki (political party)|Israeli Communist Party]], even going as far to state, “Long live the Communist Party of [[Israel]]!” in a statement adopted by the CPUSA National Committee a month after [[Operation Flood of Al-Aqsa]].<ref>{{Web citation|author=CPUSA National Commitee|newspaper=CPUSA|title=A ceasefire is the first step toward peace and liberation|date=2023-12-11|url=https://cpusa.org/article/a-ceasefire-is-the-first-step-toward-peace-and-liberation/|archive-url=https://archive.ph/wip/O0YND|retrieved=2023-12-20}}</ref> The Israeli Communist Party has denounced [[Hamas]] several times in the midst of the Operation, promoting settler-colonial views.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Communist Party of Israel|newspaper=Maki|title=Sexual Violence Perpetrated by Hamas Must be Investigated as Crimes Against Humanity|date=2023-11-27|url=https://maki.org.il/en/?p=31397}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|author=Communist Party of Israel|newspaper=Maki|title=Human Rights Organizations, MK Cassif Raise a Clear Voice Against the Harming of Civilians|date=2023-10-16|url=https://maki.org.il/en/?p=31270|retrieved=2023-12-20}}</ref><br />
<br />
In a 2002 Club Educational Study Guide published on the CPUSA website, they claimed that "... the people of Israel, Jewish and Arab, also have a right to their own independent state",<ref>{{Web citation|author=Communist Party USA|newspaper=cpusa.org|title=Club Educational Study Guide: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict|date=2002-04-26|url=https://cpusa.org/materials/club-educational-study-guide-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/|archive-url=https://archive.ph/nTMvB}}</ref> effectively claiming "Israel" has a right to exist, which is contrary to the one-state solution [of Palestine] supported by most ruling communist parties.<br />
<br />
== Structure ==<br />
<br />
=== National level ===<br />
National conventions of the CPUSA are held once every four years. They may be postponed by a 75% vote of the National Committee or special conventions may be held with a 40% vote of the National Committee or a majority vote of all state and district committees. The national convention can amend the party constitution with a majority vote.<br />
<br />
At the national convention, a new National Committee is elected. The National Committee meets at least three times a year and can amend the party constitution with a 75% vote in addition to a majority vote of the majority of state and district committees.<ref name=":2">{{Citation|author=30th National Convention|year=2014|title=Constitution of the Communist Party of the United States of America|title-url=https://www.cpusa.org/party_info/cpusa-constitution/}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== District level ===<br />
The National Committee of the CPUSA can establish state and district organizations. District organizations may cover multiple states or parts of states. State and district conventions meet once every four years, before the National Convention does. Additional state/district conventions can be called with a one-third vote of the State/District Committee or upon the request of clubs representing a third of the state or district's party membership. The State/District Committee meets at least four times a year, or three times a year in districts covering large geographic areas.<ref name=":2" /><br />
<br />
=== Club level ===<br />
Clubs are the smallest organizations of the CPUSA and represent local communities or workplaces. Club conventions meet once a year and elect a chair. Additional officers may also be elected depending on the club's size.<ref name=":2" /><br />
<br />
== Districts ==<br />
The CPUSA website has a list of districts with contact information:<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=Communist Party USA|title=Contact|url=https://www.cpusa.org/contact/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220707000105/https://www.cpusa.org/contact/|archive-date=2022-07-07|retrieved=2022-08-08}}</ref><br />
<br />
* Arizona<br />
* Colorado<br />
* Connecticut<br />
* Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware<br />
* Florida<br />
* Georgia<br />
* Hawaii<br />
* Illinois<br />
* Indiana<br />
* Maine<br />
* Maryland<br />
* Massachusetts<br />
* Michigan<br />
* Minnesota and the Dakotas<br />
* Missouri/Kansas<br />
* New Jersey<br />
* New Mexico<br />
* New York<br />
* North Carolina<br />
* Ohio<br />
* Oklahoma<br />
* Oregon<br />
* San Francisco Bay Area<br />
* South Carolina<br />
* Southern California<br />
* Texas<br />
* Virginia<br />
* Washington (state)<br />
* Washington, D.C.<br />
* Western Pennsylvania<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
* ''[[Library:Black Bolshevik|Black Bolshevik]]''<br />
* ''[[Library:History of the Communist Party of the United States|History of the Communist Party of the United States]]''<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
[[Category:Communist parties]]<br />
[[Category:Communist Party USA]]<br />
[[Category:Statesian communist parties]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Communist_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America&diff=63641Communist Party of the United States of America2024-03-03T20:54:24Z<p>RedCustodian: /* Hall period */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Infobox political party|name=Communist Party of the United States of America|logo=CPUSA.png|founded=September 1, 1919|abbreviation=CPUSA|leader1_title=Co-chairs|leader1_name=[[Joe Sims]]<br>Rossana Cambron|founder=[[C. E. Ruthenberg]]|newspaper=''[[People's World]]''|youth_wing=[[Young Communist League USA]]|membership_year=1944|membership=80,000|political_orientation=[[Marxism–Leninism]] (de jure)<br>[[Bill of Rights Socialism]]<br>[[Revisionism]]<br>[[Reformism]] (de facto)<br>[[Patriotic Socialism]]<br>'''Historical:'''<br>[[Browderism]]<br>[[Nationalism|USA nationalism]]|website=https://www.cpusa.org/}}{{Communist parties}}<br />
<br />
The '''Communist Party of the United States of America''' ('''CPUSA''') is a [[communist party]] in the [[United States of America|United States]] currently under a [[Revisionism|revisionist]] and [[Opportunism|opportunist]] leadership.<ref>{{News citation|journalist=John Bachtell, chairman of PCUSA until 2019|date=2014-06-23|title=Elections, the state, reform and revolution|url=http://www.politicalaffairs.net/elections-the-state-reform-and-revolution/|newspaper=Political Affairs|archive-url=|archive-date=|retrieved=|quote=The CPUSA has long said the transition to US socialism will be much more prolonged and complex. [...] Just like the socialist society we envision - peaceful, humane and democratic – so too must be the path as it will shape every aspect of the new society.<br><br>[...]<br><br>Marx and Engels foresaw the possibility of peaceful transition particularly under conditions of the democratic or bourgeois republic. [...] Even Lenin initially thought a peaceful transition to workers' and peasants' power in Russia would be possible as a result of the crisis brought on by WWI, but the armed intervention of western imperialist powers changed the course of history.}}</ref><ref>{{News citation|journalist=John Bachtell, chairman of CPUSA until 2019|date=2018-04-25|title=Marxism a vibrant philosophical outlook, says CPUSA leader|url=https://www.cpusa.org/article/marxism-a-vibrant-philosophical-outlook-says-cpusa-leader/|newspaper=CPUSA Blog|archive-url=|archive-date=|retrieved=|quote=Non-violent peaceful resistance is a very important form of struggle. <br><br>[...]<br><br>It will be what we call a democratic path. One that utilizes the electoral arena but also other democratic venues where we’re constantly trying to expand our right}}</ref><ref>[[Essay:On the Webbite Tendency in CPUSA|On the Webbite Tendency in CPUSA]]: Essay by anonymous CPUSA Party member, published by [[Comrade:Jucheguevara|Jucheguevara]]</ref><ref name=":32">{{Web citation|author=Gaius Gracchus|newspaper=[[The Red Clarion]]|title=A True Accounting of the CPUSA In Its Members Own Words|date=2024-02-22|url=https://clarion.unity-struggle-unity.org/2024-02-22-cpusa-hypocrisy/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240301215326/https://clarion.unity-struggle-unity.org/2024-02-22-cpusa-hypocrisy/|archive-date=2024-03-01}}</ref> It was established in 1919 after a split from the [[Socialist Party of America]]. <br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
<br />
=== Formation ===<br />
On July 28, many members of the Socialist Party of America, including [[C. E. Ruthenberg]], [[Louis Fraina]], and [[Bertram D. Wolfe]], decided to split and form a new party.<ref>{{Citation|author=Jacob A. Zumoff|year=2014|title=The Communist International and US Communism, 1919–1929|chapter=The Formation of the Communist Party, 1912–21|page=40–44|pdf=https://discord.com/channels/691004496142401606/735427621982306364/948686196433899560|city=Boston|publisher=Global Oriental and Hotei Publishing}}</ref><br />
<br />
After being expelled from the Socialist Party of America's convention, the Michigan group of the Socialist Party formed the Communist Party of America on September 1, 1919. The Communist Party soon had a membership of 58,000. Another smaller party was formed from this split, the [[Communist Labor Party of America|Communist Labor Party]]. The CPA decided not to cooperate with non-revolutionary parties.<ref name=":0">{{Citation|author=[[William Z. Foster]]|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=The Formation of the Communist Party (1919-1921)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-twelve-formation-of-communist.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
At the request of the Comintern, the CPA and CLP merged to form the CPUSA in 1919. The early CPUSA had two factions: the former CPA led by Ruthenberg and the former CLP led by [[Jay Lovestone]]. Many members of the [[African Blood Brotherhood]] also went on to join the party, including [[Harry Haywood]].<ref name=":32" /><br />
<br />
==== Palmer Raids ====<br />
On October 16, 1919, the police raided the headquarters of the CLP in Cleveland and arrested its leadership. In New York City, 700 police raided meetings celebrating the anniversary of the [[Russian revolution of 1917|October Revolution]]. During the night of January 6, 1920, President [[Woodrow Wilson]] authorized Attorney General [[A. Mitchell Palmer]] to carry out raids in 70 cities that led to approximately 10,000 arrests. Much of the leadership of the communist parties was arrested and over 500 people were deported. As a result of the [[Palmer Raids]], the membership of the CPA dropped from 60,000 to 10,000. In May 1920, the CPA and CLP combined to form the United Communist Party of America.<ref name=":0" /><br />
<br />
In August 1922, the government raided a party convention being held in Bridgman, [[Michigan]].<ref>{{Citation|author=William Z. Foster|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=The Communists and the Capitalist Offensive (1919-1923)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-fourteen-communists-and.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
The majority of party members were foreign-born and the party ran 27 publications in almost 20 languages.<ref name=":3">{{Citation|author=William Z. Foster|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=Building the Party of the New Type (1919-1929)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-nineteen-building-party-of-new.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== Anti-Lovestone struggle ===<br />
Lovestone's faction believed capitalism was stronger in the USA than in any other country and believed the party should wait for capitalism to decay instead of taking action.<ref name=":32" /><br />
<br />
In October 1928, the CPUSA expelled about 100 [[Trotskyism|Trotskyists]] led by [[James Cannon]] and [[Max Shachtman]]. They went on to found the [[Socialist Workers Party (United States)|Socialist Workers' Party]]. In June 1929, following the sixth congress of the Comintern, the party expelled the group of [[Right-opportunism|right-oppositionists]] led by Jay Lovestone.<ref name=":3" /><br />
<br />
=== Great Depression ===<br />
In October 1929, a major economic crisis known as the [[Great Depression]] began. 17 million workers became unemployed and basic industrial production dropped by 50%. During the first four years of the Depression, party membership increased from under 10,000 to 18,000.<br />
<br />
On March 6, 1930, the CPUSA organized a demonstration of over a million workers and unemployed. In [[New York City]], the demonstration was met with 25,000 police and firemen.<ref name=":1">{{Citation|author=William Z. Foster|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=The Communist Party and the Great Economic Crisis (1929-1933)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-twenty-communist-party-and.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
The Seventh National Convention of the CPUSA was held in New York City in 1930 with 306 delegates. Party leaders, including [[William Z. Foster]], did not participate because they were in jail after attempting to present the demands of the [[Unemployment|unemployed]] to Mayor [[Jimmy Walker]].<ref>{{Citation|author=Marxists Internet Archive|year=2009|title=Communist Party of the United States of America (1919–1946)|chapter=The Communist Party, USA|publisher=|mia=https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/eam/cpa/communistparty.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
In 1932, William Z. Foster ran for president and received over 100,000 votes.<ref name=":1" /> During the early 1930s, the party considered [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Roosevelt]] a fascist and opposed working with the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrats]].<ref name=":32" /><br />
<br />
=== Browder period ===<br />
<br />
==== Initial opportunism ====<br />
In opposition to Foster, Browder encouraged forming a people's front with Roosevelt and believed working with the bourgeoisie was the only way to stop fascism.<ref name=":32" /><br />
<br />
==== Second World War ====<br />
The CPUSA was initially opposed to U.S. involvement in the [[Second World War]] but changed its position after [[German Reich (1933–1945)|Nazi Germany]] attacked the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]]. 15,000 party members fought against [[fascism]] during the war. While many communist men were fighting in the war, women increased their share of leadership in the party and four women were elected to the National Committee. <br />
<br />
In 1943, Communist [[Peter V. Cacchione]] was elected to City Council in the [[State of New York|New York]] municipal elections. At the same time, [[Benjamin J. Davis Jr.]] became the first Black communist to be elected to public office. By 1944, the party had 80,000 members.<br />
<br />
General Secretary [[Earl Browder]] made an opportunist error and assumed that the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|United Kingdom]] and United States would support the communist movement because they had agreed to help the Soviet Union in the war.<ref>{{Citation|author=William Z. Foster|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=The Communists in the War (1941-1945)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-twenty-nine-communists-in-war.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
In 1944, Browder briefly dissolved the CPUSA. Due to the intervention of the [[French Communist Party|PCF]], the party was reestablished and Browder was purged.<ref name=":32" /><br />
<br />
==== Postwar period ====<br />
In 1947, the party affirmed the line that the [[African diaspora in the United States|African diaspora]] has a right to full nationhood,<ref name=":4" /> a position that Browder had rejected.<ref name=":32" /><br />
<br />
In the 1948 presidential election, the CPUSA supported the [[Progressive Party]], led by [[Henry A. Wallace]], which had been created in 1948. The Progressive Party received 1,158,000 votes in the election.<ref name=":4" /><br />
<br />
In July 1948, the USA brought indictments against 12 of 13 National Board members under the [[Smith Act]], including William Z. Foster, Eugene Denis, Benjamin Davis, and [[Gus Hall]]. 11 of the 12 defendants received five-year sentences.<ref name=":0233">{{Citation|author=Albert Szymanski|year=1984|title=Human Rights in the Soviet Union|chapter=The Land of the Free|page=175–176|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceazdmtb2y3qq27fve5ib3gk7uv2unt6ae2xss74xmfpur7k5uhl5m?filename=Albert%20Szymanski%20-%20Human%20Rights%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union_%20Including%20Comparisons%20with%20the%20U.S.A.-Zed%20Books%20Ltd.%20%281984%29.pdf|city=London|publisher=Zed Books Ltd|isbn=0862320186|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=C597B1232D9EA6B0F3DCB438D7E15A81}}</ref><br />
<br />
The CPUSA opposed the [[Korean War]] and [[Syngman Rhee]]'s puppet government in [[Republic of Korea|South Korea]] as well as the U.S. puppet states in [[Taiwan Province]] and [[Republic of Vietnam (1955–1975)|South Vietnam]]. On June 29, 1951, the CPUSA held the [[People's Congress for Peace]] in [[Chicago]]. The congress had 5,000 delegates, including 1,500 Black delegates and over 1,600 women.<ref name=":4">{{Citation|author=William Z. Foster|year=1952|title=History of the Communist Party of the United States|title-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/|chapter=The Communist Party and the "Cold War" (1945-1951)|chapter-url=http://williamzfoster.blogspot.com/2013/01/chapter-thirty-three-communist-party.html}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== Hall period ===<br />
During the [[Cuban Missile Crisis]], the CPUSA took the side of the U.S bourgeois government by attempting to impose "international inspections" on [[Republic of Cuba|Cuba]].<ref name=":5">{{Web citation|newspaper=Renmin Ribao|title=A Comment On The Statement Of The CPUSA|date=March 8, 1963|url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:A_Comment_On_The_Statement_Of_The_CPUSA|quote=As for revolutionary Cuba, you say that you support her five demands for safeguarding her independence and sovereignty, but on the other hand you try to impose “international inspection” on her.<br />
<br />
Why don’t these leaders of the CPUSA stop and consider: What is the difference between your present embellishment of U.S. imperialism and Browder’s revisionism?<br />
<br />
if they combat the corrosive influence of the bourgeoisie and the poison of reformism in the working-class movement and eliminate the revisionist influence of the Lovestones and Browders from their ranks}}</ref><br />
<br />
In aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the CPUSA was accused by the [[Communist Party of China|CPC]] of breaking Communist solidarity by not only siding against Cuba, slandering the CPC and its positions regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis, but also of "prettifying U.S Imperialism", breaking from Marxism-Leninism, and pledging loyalty to the Bourgeois government of the [[United States of America|U.S]]. The CPC described the General Secretary Gus Hall as being no different than Earl Browder<ref name=":5" /> and that the influence of both Browder and Jay Lovestone permeated the CPUSA.<ref name=":5" /><br />
<br />
=== Modern era ===<br />
In 2008, before he became national chairman, [[Joe Sims]] published an article titled ''Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism'' in Political Affairs,<ref>{{Web citation|author=Joe Sims|newspaper=Political Affairs|title=Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism|date=2008-08-05|url=https://paeditorsblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/ten-worst-and-best-ideas-of-marxism.html?m=1|archive-url=https://archive.ph/KFAe4}}</ref> a magazine associated with the party that he is now the editor of. His article has been criticised as denouncing core principles of [[Marxism]] and has raised questions as to how someone so hostile to Marxism could become national chairman of a communist party. Conversely, the article has also been defended as satire by CPUSA members.<br />
<br />
The CPUSA published an article promoting and endorsing voting for [[Hillary Clinton]] in the 2016 presidential elections against [[Donald Trump]]. The article went on to promote the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] as a whole due to the claiming that they have the support of [[LGBT+]] people, racial minorities, and women.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Cameron Orr|newspaper=CPUSA|title=Defeating Trump: A strategy for uniting progressive forces|date=2016-11-08|url=https://www.cpusa.org/article/defeating-trump-a-strategy-for-uniting-progressive-forces/|archive-url=https://archive.ph/wip/88g5a|retrieved=2023-12-01}}</ref><br />
<br />
In 2022, an anonymous party member published a criticism of the party's leadership for isolating itself from the rank and file.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Anonymous CPUSA member|newspaper=ProleWiki|title=On the Webbite Tendency in CPUSA|date=2022-07-07|url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Essay:On_the_Webbite_Tendency_in_CPUSA}}</ref> In it, the member decries the Webbite tendency -- named after ex-national chairman Sam Webb from 2000 to 2014, who enacted policies to purge out the Marxist-Leninist elements within the party and wanted to abandon the word ''communism'' from the party's name -- and which, the member believes, survives to this day in the CPUSA.<br />
<br />
The CPUSA has significantly promoted the [[Maki (political party)|Israeli Communist Party]], even going as far to state, “Long live the Communist Party of [[Israel]]!” in a statement adopted by the CPUSA National Committee a month after [[Operation Flood of Al-Aqsa]].<ref>{{Web citation|author=CPUSA National Commitee|newspaper=CPUSA|title=A ceasefire is the first step toward peace and liberation|date=2023-12-11|url=https://cpusa.org/article/a-ceasefire-is-the-first-step-toward-peace-and-liberation/|archive-url=https://archive.ph/wip/O0YND|retrieved=2023-12-20}}</ref> The Israeli Communist Party has denounced [[Hamas]] several times in the midst of the Operation, promoting settler-colonial views.<ref>{{Web citation|author=Communist Party of Israel|newspaper=Maki|title=Sexual Violence Perpetrated by Hamas Must be Investigated as Crimes Against Humanity|date=2023-11-27|url=https://maki.org.il/en/?p=31397}}</ref><ref>{{Web citation|author=Communist Party of Israel|newspaper=Maki|title=Human Rights Organizations, MK Cassif Raise a Clear Voice Against the Harming of Civilians|date=2023-10-16|url=https://maki.org.il/en/?p=31270|retrieved=2023-12-20}}</ref><br />
<br />
In a 2002 Club Educational Study Guide published on the CPUSA website, they claimed that "... the people of Israel, Jewish and Arab, also have a right to their own independent state",<ref>{{Web citation|author=Communist Party USA|newspaper=cpusa.org|title=Club Educational Study Guide: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict|date=2002-04-26|url=https://cpusa.org/materials/club-educational-study-guide-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/|archive-url=https://archive.ph/nTMvB}}</ref> effectively claiming "Israel" has a right to exist, which is contrary to the one-state solution [of Palestine] supported by most ruling communist parties.<br />
<br />
== Structure ==<br />
<br />
=== National level ===<br />
National conventions of the CPUSA are held once every four years. They may be postponed by a 75% vote of the National Committee or special conventions may be held with a 40% vote of the National Committee or a majority vote of all state and district committees. The national convention can amend the party constitution with a majority vote.<br />
<br />
At the national convention, a new National Committee is elected. The National Committee meets at least three times a year and can amend the party constitution with a 75% vote in addition to a majority vote of the majority of state and district committees.<ref name=":2">{{Citation|author=30th National Convention|year=2014|title=Constitution of the Communist Party of the United States of America|title-url=https://www.cpusa.org/party_info/cpusa-constitution/}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== District level ===<br />
The National Committee of the CPUSA can establish state and district organizations. District organizations may cover multiple states or parts of states. State and district conventions meet once every four years, before the National Convention does. Additional state/district conventions can be called with a one-third vote of the State/District Committee or upon the request of clubs representing a third of the state or district's party membership. The State/District Committee meets at least four times a year, or three times a year in districts covering large geographic areas.<ref name=":2" /><br />
<br />
=== Club level ===<br />
Clubs are the smallest organizations of the CPUSA and represent local communities or workplaces. Club conventions meet once a year and elect a chair. Additional officers may also be elected depending on the club's size.<ref name=":2" /><br />
<br />
== Districts ==<br />
The CPUSA website has a list of districts with contact information:<ref>{{Web citation|newspaper=Communist Party USA|title=Contact|url=https://www.cpusa.org/contact/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220707000105/https://www.cpusa.org/contact/|archive-date=2022-07-07|retrieved=2022-08-08}}</ref><br />
<br />
* Arizona<br />
* Colorado<br />
* Connecticut<br />
* Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware<br />
* Florida<br />
* Georgia<br />
* Hawaii<br />
* Illinois<br />
* Indiana<br />
* Maine<br />
* Maryland<br />
* Massachusetts<br />
* Michigan<br />
* Minnesota and the Dakotas<br />
* Missouri/Kansas<br />
* New Jersey<br />
* New Mexico<br />
* New York<br />
* North Carolina<br />
* Ohio<br />
* Oklahoma<br />
* Oregon<br />
* San Francisco Bay Area<br />
* South Carolina<br />
* Southern California<br />
* Texas<br />
* Virginia<br />
* Washington (state)<br />
* Washington, D.C.<br />
* Western Pennsylvania<br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
<br />
* ''[[Library:Black Bolshevik|Black Bolshevik]]''<br />
* ''[[Library:History of the Communist Party of the United States|History of the Communist Party of the United States]]''<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
[[Category:Communist parties]]<br />
[[Category:Communist Party USA]]<br />
[[Category:Statesian communist parties]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Big_Bill_Haywood&diff=63640Big Bill Haywood2024-03-03T20:43:10Z<p>RedCustodian: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Message box/Copiedfromwiki}}<br />
<br />
'''William Dudley Haywood''' (also known as '''Big Bill Haywood'''; February 4, 1869 – May 18, 1928) was a founding member and leader of the [[Industrial Workers of the World]] (IWW) and a member of the executive committee of the [[Socialist Party of America]] before being expelled by Opportunists<ref name=":0">{{Citation|author=William D. Haywood|year=1929|title=Original: Bill Haywood’s Book<br />
Electronic: BIG BILL HAYWOOD<br />
The Autobiography of William D. Haywood.|chapter=“Article 2, Section 6”|quote=It was submitted to a referendum vote and I was recalled from the National Executive Committee. I had been a member of the Socialist Party since its inception, but had paid no dues into the organization since I had been recalled as a member of the National Executive Committee.<br />
<br />
Compare the Article 2, Section 6 amendment to the Socialist Party constitution, the forerunner of the Criminal Syndicalism laws, with a typical criminal syndicalism law.<br />
<br />
It was a base, libelous, uncalled-for charge made by Berger against the Industrial Worker. He knew that the I.W.W. had never advocated murder as propaganda, he knew that it had never advocated theft as a means of acquiring the capitalists’ property, he knew that the organization which he was slurring was Marxian in its concept.|city=New York|publisher=Original: International Publishers Co, original<br />
Electronic: NightHawk Books}}</ref>. He blamed the executive committee of the SPA for influencing Reactionary law of the [[United States of America|Statesian Government]], with the SPA's amendments to Party constitution forbidding direct action, which in his view lead to the Criminal Syndicalism laws<ref name=":0" />. During the first two decades of the 20th century, Haywood was involved in several important labor battles, including the Colorado Labor Wars, the Lawrence Textile Strike, and other textile strikes in Massachusetts and New Jersey.<br />
<br />
Haywood was an advocate of industrial unionism, a labor philosophy that favors organizing all workers in an industry under one union, regardless of the specific trade or skill level; this was in contrast to the craft unions that were prevalent at the time, such as the AFL. He believed that workers of all ethnicitic groups should be united, and favored direct action over political action.<br />
<br />
Haywood was often targeted by prosecutors due to his support for violence. An attempt to prosecute him in 1907 for his alleged involvement in the murder of Frank Steunenberg failed, but in 1918 he was one of 101 IWW members jailed for anti-war activity during the First Red Scare. He was sentenced to twenty years. In 1921, while out of prison during an appeal of his conviction, Haywood fled to the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]], where he spent the remaining years of his life.<br />
<br />
Despite the impression of Haywood being uneducated and uninterested in theory, Haywood actually took the effort to educate himself in classical literature, Revolutionary writings and most critically, the writings of Marx and Engels<ref>{{Citation|author=William D. Haywood|year=1929|title=Original: Bill Haywood’s Book<br />
Electronic: BIG BILL HAYWOOD<br />
The Autobiography of William D. Haywood.|chapter=Undesirable Citizens|quote=A part of the time I spent in the Ada County jail was the most quiet, peaceful period of my life. I have never enjoyed myself better than the first months I was there. It was my first real opportunity to read. There I went through Buckle’s History of Civilization, and extended my acquaintance with Voltaire. I read many English classics, Tristram Shandy, the Sentimental Journey, Carlyle and others on the French Revolution, much revolutionary literature, Marx and Engels.|city=New York|publisher=Original: International Publishers Co, original<br />
Electronic: NightHawk Books}}</ref>. Haywood even described the IWW of his time as being fundamentally "Marxian" in nature.<ref name=":0" /></div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Big_Bill_Haywood&diff=63639Big Bill Haywood2024-03-03T20:39:48Z<p>RedCustodian: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Message box/Copiedfromwiki}}<br />
<br />
'''William Dudley Haywood''' (also known as '''Big Bill Haywood'''; February 4, 1869 – May 18, 1928) was a founding member and leader of the [[Industrial Workers of the World]] (IWW) and a member of the executive committee of the [[Socialist Party of America]] before being expelled by Opportunists. He blamed the executive committee of the SPA for influencing Reactionary law of the [[United States of America|Statesian Government]], with the SPA's amendments to Party constitution forbidding direct action, which in his view lead to the Criminal syndicalism laws<ref>{{Citation|author=William D. Haywood|year=1929|title=Original: Bill Haywood’s Book<br />
Electronic: BIG BILL HAYWOOD<br />
The Autobiography of William D. Haywood.|chapter=“Article 2, Section 6”|quote=It was submitted to a referendum vote and I was recalled from the National Executive Committee. I had been a member of the Socialist Party since its inception, but had paid no dues into the organization since I had been recalled as a member of the National Executive Committee.|city=New York|publisher=Original: International Publishers Co, original<br />
Electronic: NightHawk Books}}</ref>. During the first two decades of the 20th century, Haywood was involved in several important labor battles, including the Colorado Labor Wars, the Lawrence Textile Strike, and other textile strikes in Massachusetts and New Jersey.<br />
<br />
Haywood was an advocate of industrial unionism, a labor philosophy that favors organizing all workers in an industry under one union, regardless of the specific trade or skill level; this was in contrast to the craft unions that were prevalent at the time, such as the AFL. He believed that workers of all ethnicitic groups should be united, and favored direct action over political action.<br />
<br />
Haywood was often targeted by prosecutors due to his support for violence. An attempt to prosecute him in 1907 for his alleged involvement in the murder of Frank Steunenberg failed, but in 1918 he was one of 101 IWW members jailed for anti-war activity during the First Red Scare. He was sentenced to twenty years. In 1921, while out of prison during an appeal of his conviction, Haywood fled to the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]], where he spent the remaining years of his life.<br />
<br />
Despite the impression of Haywood being uneducated and uninterested in theory, Haywood actually took the effort to educate himself in classical literature, Revolutionary writings and most critically, the writings of Marx and Engels<ref>{{Citation|author=William D. Haywood|year=1929|title=Original: Bill Haywood’s Book<br />
Electronic: BIG BILL HAYWOOD<br />
The Autobiography of William D. Haywood.|chapter=Undesirable Citizens|quote=A part of the time I spent in the Ada County jail was the most quiet, peaceful period of my life. I have never enjoyed myself better than the first months I was there. It was my first real opportunity to read. There I went through Buckle’s History of Civilization, and extended my acquaintance with Voltaire. I read many English classics, Tristram Shandy, the Sentimental Journey, Carlyle and others on the French Revolution, much revolutionary literature, Marx and Engels.|city=New York|publisher=Original: International Publishers Co, original<br />
Electronic: NightHawk Books}}</ref>. Haywood even described the IWW of his time as being fundamentally "Marxian" in nature.</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Big_Bill_Haywood&diff=63638Big Bill Haywood2024-03-03T20:37:39Z<p>RedCustodian: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Message box/Copiedfromwiki}}<br />
<br />
'''William Dudley Haywood''' (also known as '''Big Bill Haywood'''; February 4, 1869 – May 18, 1928) was a founding member and leader of the [[Industrial Workers of the World]] (IWW) and a member of the executive committee of the [[Socialist Party of America]] before being expelled by Opportunists. He blamed the executive committee of the SPA for influencing Reactionary law of the [[United States of America|Statesian Government]], with the SPA's amendments to Party constitution forbidding direct action, which in his view lead to the Criminal syndicalism laws<ref>{{Citation|author=William D. Haywood|year=1929|title=Bill Haywood’s Book, original <br />
<br />
BIG BILL HAYWOOD<br />
The Autobiography of William D. Haywood, electronic.|chapter=“Article 2, Section 6”|quote=It was submitted to a referendum vote and I was recalled from the National Executive Committee. I had been a member of the Socialist Party since its inception, but had paid no dues into the organization since I had been recalled as a member of the National Executive Committee.|city=New York|publisher=International Publishers Co, original<br />
NightHawk Books, electronic}}</ref>. During the first two decades of the 20th century, Haywood was involved in several important labor battles, including the Colorado Labor Wars, the Lawrence Textile Strike, and other textile strikes in Massachusetts and New Jersey.<br />
<br />
Haywood was an advocate of industrial unionism, a labor philosophy that favors organizing all workers in an industry under one union, regardless of the specific trade or skill level; this was in contrast to the craft unions that were prevalent at the time, such as the AFL. He believed that workers of all ethnicitic groups should be united, and favored direct action over political action.<br />
<br />
Haywood was often targeted by prosecutors due to his support for violence. An attempt to prosecute him in 1907 for his alleged involvement in the murder of Frank Steunenberg failed, but in 1918 he was one of 101 IWW members jailed for anti-war activity during the First Red Scare. He was sentenced to twenty years. In 1921, while out of prison during an appeal of his conviction, Haywood fled to the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]], where he spent the remaining years of his life.<br />
<br />
Despite the impression of Haywood being uneducated and uninterested in theory, Haywood actually took the effort to educate himself in classical literature, Revolutionary writings and most critically, the writings of Marx and Engels<ref>{{Citation|author=William D. Haywood|year=1929|title=Original: Bill Haywood’s Book<br />
Electronic: BIG BILL HAYWOOD<br />
The Autobiography of William D. Haywood.|chapter=Undesirable Citizens|quote=A part of the time I spent in the Ada County jail was the most quiet, peaceful period of my life. I have never enjoyed myself better than the first months I was there. It was my first real opportunity to read. There I went through Buckle’s History of Civilization, and extended my acquaintance with Voltaire. I read many English classics, Tristram Shandy, the Sentimental Journey, Carlyle and others on the French Revolution, much revolutionary literature, Marx and Engels.|city=New York|publisher=Original: International Publishers Co, original<br />
Electronic: NightHawk Books}}</ref>. Haywood even described the IWW of his time as being fundamentally "Marxian" in nature.</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Big_Bill_Haywood&diff=63637Big Bill Haywood2024-03-03T20:34:29Z<p>RedCustodian: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Message box/Copiedfromwiki}}<br />
<br />
'''William Dudley Haywood''' (also known as '''Big Bill Haywood'''; February 4, 1869 – May 18, 1928) was a founding member and leader of the [[Industrial Workers of the World]] (IWW) and a member of the executive committee of the [[Socialist Party of America]] before being expelled by Opportunists. He blamed the executive committee of the SPA for influencing Reactionary law of the [[United States of America|Statesian Government]], with the SPA's amendments to Party constitution forbidding direct action, which in his view lead to the Criminal syndicalism laws<ref>{{Citation|author=William D. Haywood|year=1929|title=Bill Haywood’s Book, original <br />
<br />
BIG BILL HAYWOOD<br />
The Autobiography of William D. Haywood, electronic.|chapter=“Article 2, Section 6”|quote=It was submitted to a referendum vote and I was recalled from the National Executive Committee. I had been a member of the Socialist Party since its inception, but had paid no dues into the organization since I had been recalled as a member of the National Executive Committee.|city=New York|publisher=International Publishers Co, original<br />
NightHawk Books, electronic}}</ref>. During the first two decades of the 20th century, Haywood was involved in several important labor battles, including the Colorado Labor Wars, the Lawrence Textile Strike, and other textile strikes in Massachusetts and New Jersey.<br />
<br />
Haywood was an advocate of industrial unionism, a labor philosophy that favors organizing all workers in an industry under one union, regardless of the specific trade or skill level; this was in contrast to the craft unions that were prevalent at the time, such as the AFL. He believed that workers of all ethnicitic groups should be united, and favored direct action over political action.<br />
<br />
Haywood was often targeted by prosecutors due to his support for violence. An attempt to prosecute him in 1907 for his alleged involvement in the murder of Frank Steunenberg failed, but in 1918 he was one of 101 IWW members jailed for anti-war activity during the First Red Scare. He was sentenced to twenty years. In 1921, while out of prison during an appeal of his conviction, Haywood fled to the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]], where he spent the remaining years of his life.<br />
<br />
Despite the impression of Haywood being uneducated and uninterested in theory, Haywood actually took the effort to educate himself in classical literature, Revolutionary writings and most critically, the writings of Marx and Engels. Haywood even described the IWW of his time as being fundamentally "Marxian" in nature.</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:How_to_Be_a_Good_Communist&diff=63633Library:How to Be a Good Communist2024-03-03T19:40:22Z<p>RedCustodian: /* The Self-Cultivation of Communists and the Revolutionary Practice of the Masses */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Library work|title=How to Be a Good Communist|author=Liu Shaoqi|written in=1939}}<br />
<br />
Comrades,<br />
<br />
The question I shall discuss us how members of the [[Communist Party of China|Communist Party]] should cultivate and temper themselves. It may not be unprofitable to the building and consolidation of the Party to take up this question at this present time.<br />
<br />
== Why Communists Must Undertake Self-Cultivation ==<br />
Why must Communists undertake to cultivate themselves?<br />
<br />
In order to live, person must wage a struggle against nature and make use of nature to produce [[Materialism|material]] values. At all times and under all conditions, his [[production]] of material things is social in character. It follows that when men engage in production at any [[Mode of production|stage of social development]], they have to enter into certain [[relations of production]] with one another. In their ceaseless struggle against nature, men ceaselessly change nature and simultaneously change themselves and their mutual relations. Men themselves, their social relations, their form of social organization and consciousness were all different from what they are today, and in the future they will again be different.<br />
<br />
Humanity and human society are in process of [[Historical materialism|historical development]]. When human society reached a certain historical stage, [[Social class|classes]] and [[class struggle]] emerged. Every member of a [[class society]] exists as a member of a given class and lives in given conditions of class struggle. Man’s social being determines his consciousness. In class society the ideology of the members of each class reflects a different position and different class interests. The class struggle constantly goes on among these classes with their different positions, interests and ideologies. Thus it is not only in the struggle against nature but in the struggle of social classes that men change nature, change society and at the same time change themselves.<br />
<br />
[[Karl Marx|Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]] said:<blockquote>Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary, an alteration that can only take place in a practical movement, a ''[[Proletarian revolution|revolution]]''; the revolution is necessary, therefore, not only the [[Bourgeoisie|ruling class]] cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because [[Proletariat|the class ''overthrowing'' it]] can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>That is to say, the proletariat must conscientiously go through long periods of social revolutionary struggles and, in such struggles change society and change itself.<br />
<br />
We should therefore see ourselves as in need of change and capable of being changed. We should not look upon ourselves as immutable, perfect and sacrosanct, as persons who need not and cannot be changed. When we pose the task of remoulding ourselves in social struggle, we are not demeaning ourselves; the objective laws of social development demand it. Unless we do so, we cannot make progress, or fulfill the task of changing society.<br />
<br />
We Communists are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history; to day the changing of society and the world rests upon us and we are the driving force in this change. It is by unremitting struggle against [[Counterrevolution|counter-revolutionaries]]<sup>3</sup> that we Communists change society and the world, and at the same time ourselves.<br />
<br />
When we say Communists must remould themselves by waging struggles in every sphere against the counter-revolutionaries,<sup>3</sup> we mean that it is through such struggles that they must seek to make progress and must enhance their revolutionary quality and ability. An immature revolutionary has to go through a long process of revolutionary tempering and self-cultivation, a long process of remoulding, before he cam become a mature and seasoned revolutionary who can grasp and skillfully apply the laws of revolution. For in the first place, a comparatively immature revolutionary, born and bred in the old society, carries with him the remnants of the various ideologies of that society (including its prejudices, habits and traditions), and in the second he has not been through a long period of revolutionary activity. Therefore he does not yet have a really thorough understanding of the enemy, of the people or of the laws of social development and revolutionary struggle. In order to change this state of affairs, besides learning from past revolutionary experience (the practice of our predecessors), he must themself participate in contemporary revolutionary practice, and in this revolutionary practice and struggle against all kinds of counter revolutionaries,<sup>3</sup> he must bring his conscious activity into full play and work hard at study and self-cultivation. Only so can he acquire deeper experience and understanding of the laws of social development and revolutionary struggle, acquire a really thorough understanding of the enemy and the people, discover his wrong ideas, habits and prejudices and correct them, and thus raise the level of his political consciousness, cultivate his revolutionary qualities and improve his revolutionary methods. Hence, in order to remould themself and raise his owl level, a revolutionary must take part in revolutionary practice from which he must on no account isolate themself. Moreover, he must strive to conduct self-cultivation and study in the course of practice. Otherwise, it will still be impossible for him to make progress.<br />
<br />
For example, several Communists take part in a revolutionary mass struggle together and engage in revolutionary practice under roughly the same circumstances and conditions. It is possible that the effect of the struggle on these Party members will not be at all uniform. Some will make very rapid progress and some who used to lag behind will even forge ahead of others. Other Party members will advance very slowly. Still others will waver in the struggle and, instead of being pushed forward by revolutionary practice, will fall behind. Why?<br />
<br />
Or take another example. Many members of our Party were on the [[Long March]]; it was a severe process of tempering for them, and the overwhelming majority made very great progress indeed. But the Long March had the opposite effect on certain individuals in the Party. After having been on the Long March they began to shrink before arduous struggles, and some of them even planned to back out or to run away and later, succumbing to outside allurements, actually deserted the revolutionary ranks. Many Party members took part in the Long March together, and yet its impact and results varied very greatly. Again, why?<br />
<br />
Basically speaking, these phenomena are reflections of our revolutionary ranks of the class struggle in society. Our Party members differ in quality because they differ in social background and have come under different social influences. They differ in their attitude, stand and comprehension in relation to the revolutionary practice, and consequently they develop in different directions in the course of revolutionary practice. This can clearly be seen in your institute as well. You all receive the same education and training here, and yet because you differ in quality and experience, in degree of effort and self-cultivation, you may obtain different of even contrary results. Hence, subjective effort and self-cultivation in the course of revolutionary struggle are absolutely essential, indeed, indispensable for a revolutionary in remoulding themself and raising his own level.<br />
<br />
Whether he joined the revolution long ago or just recently, every Communist who wants to become a good politically mature revolutionary must undergo a long period of tempering in revolutionary struggle, must steel themself in mass revolutionary struggles and all kinds of difficulties and hardships, must sum up the experience gained through practice, make great efforts in self-cultivation, raise his ideological level, heighten his ability and never loose sense of what is new. For only thus can he turn themself into a politically staunch revolutionary of high quality.<br />
<br />
[[Confucius]] said “At fifteen, my mind was bent on learning. At thirty, I could think for myself. At forty, I was no longer perplexed. At fifty, I knew the decree of Heaven. At sixty, my ear was attuned to the truth. At seventy, I can follow my heart’s desire without transgressing what is right.”<sup>4</sup> Here the [[Feudalism|feudal]] philosopher was referring to his own process of self-cultivation; he did not consider themself to have been born a “sage”.<br />
<br />
[[Mencius]], another feudal philosopher, said that no one had fulfilled a “great mission” and played a role in history without first undergoing a hard process of tempering, a process which “exercises his mind with suffering and toughens his sinews and bones with toil, exposes his body to hunger, subjects him to extreme poverty, thwarts his under-takings and thereby stimulates his mind, tempers his character and adds to his capacities”.<sup>5</sup> Still more so must Communists give attention to tempering and cultivating themselves in revolutionary struggles, since they have the historically unprecedented “great mission” of changing the world.<br />
<br />
Our Communist self-cultivation is the kind essential to proletarian revolutionaries. It must not be divorced from revolutionary practice or from the actual revolutionary movements of the labouring masses, and especially of the proletarian masses.<br />
<br />
Comrade [[Mao Zedong]] has said:<blockquote>Discover the truth through practice, and again through practice verify and develop the truth. Start from perceptual knowledge and actively develop it into rational knowledge; then start from rational knowledge and actively guide revolutionary practice to change both the subjective and the objective world. Practice, knowledge, again practice and again knowledge. This form repeats itself in endless cycles, and with each cycle the content the content of practice and knowledge rises to a higher level. Such is the whole of the dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge, and such is the dialectical-materialist theory of the unity of knowing and doing.<sup>6</sup></blockquote>Our Party members should temper themselves and intensify their self-cultivation not only in the hardships, difficulties and reverses of revolutionary practice, but also in the course of smooth, successful and victorious revolutionary practice. Some members of our Party cannot stand the plaudits of success and victory; they let victories turn their heads, become brazen, arrogant, and bureaucratic and may even vacillate, degenerate and become corrupted, completely loosing their original revolutionary quality. Individual instances of this kind are not uncommon among our Party members. The existence of such a phenomenon in the Party calls for our comrades’ sharp attention.<br />
<br />
In past ages, before the proletarian revolutionaries appeared on the scene, practically all [[Revolution|revolutionaries]] became corrupted and degenerated with the achievement of victory. They lost their original revolutionary spirit and became obstacles to the further development of the revolution. [[Republic of China|China]]’s [[History of China|history]] over the past century, or to speak of more recent times, over the past fifty years, has shown us that many bourgeois and [[Petty bourgeoisie|petty-bourgeois]] revolutionaries in the past and by the nature of earlier revolutions. Before the [[Russian revolution of 1917|Great October Socialist Revolution]] in [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1991)|Russia]], all revolutions throughout history invariably ended in the suppression of the rule of one [[Exploitation|exploiting]] class by that of another. Thus, once they themselves became the ruling class, these revolutionaries lost their revolutionary quality and turned round to [[Oppression|oppress]] the exploited masses; this was the inexorable law.<br />
<br />
But such can never be the case with the proletarian revolution and with the Communist Party. The proletarian revolution is a revolution to abolish all exploitation, oppression and classes. The Communist Party represents the proletariat which is itself exploited but does not exploit others and which can therefore carry the revolution through to the end finally abolish all exploitation and sweep away all the corruption and rottenness in human society. The proletariat is able to build a strictly organized and disciplined party and set up a centralized and at the same time democratic state apparatus, and through the Party and this state apparatus, it is able to lead the masses of the people in waging unrelenting struggle against all corruption and rottenness and in ceaselessly weeding out of the Party and the state organs all those elements that have become [[Corruption|corrupt]] and degenerate (whatever high office they may hold), thereby preserving the purity of the Party and the state apparatus. This outstanding feature of the proletarian revolution and of the [[Vanguard party|proletarian revolutionary party]] did not and could not exist in earlier revolutions and revolutionary parties. Members of our Party must be clear on this point, and—particularly when the revolution is successful and victorious and when they themselves enjoy the ever greater confidence and support of the masses—they must sharpen their vigilance, intensify their self-cultivation in proletarian ideology and always preserve their pure proletarian revolutionary character so that they will not fall into the rut of earlier revolutionaries who degenerated in the hour of success.<br />
<br />
Tempering and self-cultivation in revolutionary practice and tempering and self-cultivation in proletarian ideology are important for every Communist, especially after the seizure of political power. The Communist Party did not drop from heaven but was born out of the Chinese society. Every member of the Communist party has come from this society, is living in it today and is constantly exposed to its seamy side. It is not surprising then that Communists, whether they are of proletarian or non-proletarian origin and whether they are old or new members of the Party, should carry with them to a greater or lesser the thinking and habits of the old society. In order to preserve our purity as vanguard fighters of the proletariat and to enhance our revolutionary quality and working ability that is essential for every Communist to work hard to temper and cultivate themself in every respect.<br />
<br />
These are the reasons why Communists must undertake self-cultivation. I shall now discuss the criteria for Communist self-cultivation.<br />
<br />
== Be Worthy Pupils of Marx and Lenin ==<br />
The constitution of the party stipulates that membership is open to any member who accepts the Programme and [[Library:Constitution of the Communist Party of China (2022)|Constitution of the Party]]<ref group="ProleWiki 2.">At the time of writing, this would have been the [[Constitution of the Communist Party of China (1928)|1928 Constitution]].</ref> organizations, pays membership dues and works in one of the Party organizations. No one can be a Party member unless he fulfills these requirements. But no Communist should rest content with being a Party member who merely fulfills the minimum requirements; as laid down in the Party Constitution, he should strive to make progress ceaselessly raise the level of his political consciousness and diligently study [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxism-Leninism]], as manifested throughout their lives.<br />
<br />
Engels said of Marx:<blockquote>...Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being, to contribute to the liberation of the modern proletariat, which he was the first to make conscious of its own position and of its needs, conscious of the needs of its emancipation. Fighting was his element. And he fought with a passion, a tenacity and a success such as few could rival.<sup>1</sup></blockquote>Engels also said of Marx:<blockquote>None of us has the breadth of vision with which he, whenever it was necessary to act quickly, did the right thing and tackled the decisive issue.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>[[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] said concerning the necessity of our learning from the example of [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]]:<blockquote>Remember, love and study Ilyich, our teacher, our leader. Fight and defeat our enemies, home and foreign—in the way that Ilyich taught us. Build the new society, the new way of life, the new culture in the way that Ilyich taught us. Never refuse to do the little things, for from the little things are built the big things—that is one of Ilyich's important behests.<sup>3</sup></blockquote>On another occasion Stalin said:<blockquote>The electors, the people, must demand that their deputies should remain equal to their tasks, that in their work they should not sink to the level of political philistines, that in their posts definite as Lenin was, that they should be as fearless in battle and as merciless towards the complicated and some danger or other looms on the horizon, that they should be as free from all requiring a comprehensive orientation and a comprehensive weighing of all the pros and cons as Lenin did.<sup>4</sup></blockquote>These are the concise characterizations of Marx by Engels and of Lenin by Stalin. That is how all members of our Party should learn from the thinking and qualities of Marx and Lenin and strive to be their worthy pupils.<br />
<br />
Some say that the that the thinking and qualities of such great revolutionary geniuses as the founders of Marxism-Leninism cannot be acquired and that it is impossible to raise one's thinking and qualities to their high level. They regard the founders of Marxism-Leninism as born geniuses , as mysterious beings. Is such a view correct? I think not.<br />
<br />
True enough, the average Party comrade is far from possessing the great gifts and profound scientific knowledge of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, and most of our comrades cannot attain to their deep and broad erudition in the theory of proletarian revolution. But it is perfectly possible for our comrades to grasp the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism, cultivate the style of Marx and Lenin in work and in struggle, constantly heighten their revolutionary quality and become statesmen of the type of Marx and Lenin, if they really have the will. Take a really conscious and consistent stand as vanguard fighters of the proletariat, really acquire the communist world outlook, never isolate themselves from the current deep and great revolutionary movement of the proletariat and all the labouring masses, and exert themselves in study, self-tempering and self-cultivation.<br />
<br />
There is a saying of Menicus: "Everybody can be a Yao or a Shun."<sup>5</sup> I think that was well said. Every Communist should keep his feet on the ground, seek the truth from the facts, work hard at tempering themself, work conscientiously at self-cultivation and do his best to improve his own thinking and quality. He should not regard the thinking and qualities of such great revolutionaries as the founders of Marxism-Leninism as beyond his reach, give up and be afraid to advance. For if he does so, he will become a "political philistine", a piece of "rotten wood that cannot be carved".<br />
<br />
We should of course adopt a correct attitude towards learning from the qualities of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and towards the learning of Marxism-Leninism itself. Otherwise it is impossible to learn anything, let alone to learn it well. In fact, there are different kinds of people in our ranks with different attitudes towards such learning.<br />
<br />
These are people who, when studying Marx and Lenin, fail to get to the essence of Marxism-Leninism, but only learn its terms and phrases superficially. Although they read Marxist-Leninist literature, they are unable to use its principles and conclusions as a guide to action and apply them to concrete, practical problems in real life. They are content ton learn isolated principles and conclusions by rote, and even to style themselves as "[[Dogmatism|the genuine]]" Marxist-Leninists; but they are certainly not genuine Marxist-Leninists and their actions and methods are diametrically opposed to Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
We have had not a few people of this type in the Communist Party of China. We had certain representatives of dogmatism at one time who were even worse. These people knew absolutely nothing about Marxism-Leninism and could only babble Marxist-Leninist phraseology, and yet they regarded themselves as China's Marx or China's Lenin, posed as such in the Party and had the impudence to require that our Party members should revere them as Marx and Lenin are revered, support them as "the leaders" and accord them loyalty and devotion. They went so far as to appoint themselves "the leaders" without being chosen, climbed into positions of authority, issued orders to the Party like [[Patriarchy|patriarchs]], tried to lecture our Party, abused everything in the Party, wilfully attacked and punished our Party members and pushed them around. Those people had no sincere desire to study Marxism-Leninism or fight for the realization of communism—they were just careerists in the Party, termites in the communist movement. Such people were bound to be opposed and eventually unmasked and discarded by the rank and file. And indeed they were discarded by our Party members. But can we say with full confidence that no such people will reappear in our Party? No, we cannot yet say no.<br />
<br />
Then there are people of exactly the opposite kind. They see themselves above all as pupils of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, conscientiously study the theory of Marxism-Leninism and strive to grasp its essence and spirit. They look up to the noble character and proletarian revolutionary qualities of the founders, and in the course of revolutionary struggles they conscientiously carry on self-cultivation and examine themselves to see if their handling of affairs, their dealings with people and their own behaviour conform to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism. They are well read in Marxism-Leninism but at the same time they make a special effort to investigate and analyse living reality, to study the characteristics of their own time and all aspects of the situation facing the proletariat of their own country, and to integrate the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the revolution in their own country. They do not content themselves with memorizing Marxist-Leninist principles and conclusions, but take a firm Marxist-Leninist stand learn the Marxist-Leninist method and act accordingly, giving spirited guidance in every revolutionary struggle, and thus they transform reality and at the same time transform themselves. Every one of their actions without exception is guided by the general principals of Marxism-Leninism and is devoted to the victory of the proletarian cause, the liberation of the nation and all humanity, and the triumph of Communism.<br />
<br />
The attitude of these people is the only correct one. It is the one attitude towards studying Marxism-Leninism and learning from the qualities of its founders that will enable us to become communist proletarian revolutionaries of the Marx and Lenin type.<br />
<br />
A person who really takes pain to cultivate themself and to be a faithful pupil of the founders of Marxism-Leninism will lay special stress on maintaining the Marxist-Leninist stand and using the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint and method to solve the problems arising in the revolutionary movement lead by the proletariat, as the founders of Marxism-Leninism did. He will give no thought whatsoever to his own position or fame in the Party, nor will he ever claim to be a Marx or a Lenin, nor require nor expect others to have the same high respect for him as for Marx or Lenin, for he does not think he has any right to do so. Yet such a person will enjoy the considered respect and support of the mass of the Party members just because he acts in this way, because he is always honest and loyal, brave and firm, and shows great ability in the revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
Of course it is not easy to model ourselves on the founders of Marxism-Leninism and to be their faithful and worthy pupils. But we can become their faithful and worthy pupils if we are strong-willed and determined to fight hard for the cause of communism, if we diligently study Marxism-Leninism amid the great revolutionary struggles of the masses and are good at summing up experience and if we temper and cultivate ourselves in every respect and devote our whole lives to the proletarian communist cause.<br />
<br />
=== ProleWiki annotations ===<br />
<references group="ProleWiki 2." /><br />
<br />
== The Self-Cultivation of Communists and the Revolutionary Practice of the Masses ==<br />
In order to become faithful and worthy pupils of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, we must engage in all round self-cultivation in the course of the great and protracted revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and the masses. We must engage in self-cultivation in the Marxist-Leninist theory; self cultivation in applying the Marxist-Leninist stand, view point and method to the study and handling of all problems; self-cultivation in proletarian ideology and morality; self-cultivation in upholding unity in the Party, practising criticism and self-criticism and observing discipline; self cultivation in developing the style of hard work and persistent struggle; self-cultivation in building close ties with the masses; self cultivation in various branches of scientific knowledge, etc. We are all members of the Communist Party and therefore we must all without exception carry on self-cultivation in these respects. However, since Party members differ from one another in political consciousness, experience of struggle, field of work, cultural level and in the conditions in which they work, it is natural that comrades should differ to some extent in the various aspects of self-cultivation to which they must pay special attention of which they must stress.<br />
<br />
When Zeng Zi, in ancient times, said, "I reflect on myself three times a day,"<sup>1</sup> he was discussing self-examination. The ''Book of Odes'' in the famous lines, "As knife and file make smooth the bone, as jade is wrought by chisel and stone", <sup>2</sup> referred to the need for help and criticism among friends. What all this shows is that very hard work and very earnest self-cultivation are essential if one is to make progress. But the "self-cultivation" perused by many people in the past was generally [[Idealism|idealistic]], formalistic, abstract and divorced from social practice. They exaggerated the role of subjective intentions, thinking that so long as they had "good will" in the abstract, they could transform reality, society and themselves. Of course this is absurd. Our self-cultivation cannot be done that way. We are revolutionary materialists; our self-cultivation cannot be separated from the revolutionary practices of the masses.<br />
<br />
For us it is most important to never divorce ourselves from the current revolutionary struggle of the masses, but to identify ourselves with it, in order to study, sum up and apply the revolutionary experience of the past. This means that we must cultivate and temper ourselves in revolutionary practice and that in turn our self-cultivation and tempering are undertaken solely for the sake of the people and of revolutionary practice. It means that we must modestly learn the Marxist-Leninist stand, viewpoint and method, learn from the noble proletarian quality of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and apply all this in our practice, in our words and deeds, our daily life and work, constantly correcting or eliminating anything in our ideology contrary to it and strengthening our own proletarian communist ideology and character. It means that we should listen modestly to the opinions and criticisms of our Party comrades and of the masses, make a careful study of the practical problems in our life and work, carefully sum up and draw lessons from our experience in work, and that, in the light of all this, we should ascertain whether our understanding of Marxism-Leninism and our use of the Marxist-Leninist method are correct and check up on our shortcomings and mistakes so as to overcome them and improve our work. Furthermore, on the basis of new experience we should ascertain whether there are any individual conclusions or aspects of Marxism-Leninism that need supplementing, enriching and developing. In short, we must integrate the universal truth of Marxism- Leninism with the concrete practice of the revolution.<br />
<br />
This is the method of self-cultivation for us communists. It is entirely different from those methods of self-cultivation which are idealistic and divorced from the revolutionary practice of the masses.<br />
<br />
In order to persevere in this Marxist-Leninist method of cultivation, we must resolutely oppose and thoroughly eradicate one of the worst vices bequeathed to us by the old society in the field of education and study, namely, the separation of theory from practice. In the old society many people who studied thought it unnecessary, or even impossible to act upon what they had learned, and though they wrote and spoke abundantly of justice and morality, in fact they were out and out scoundrels. Although the [[Kuomintang]] [[Reactionary|reactionaries]] memorize the "Three People's Principles"<sup>3</sup> and recite [[Sun Yat-sen]]'s Testament,<sup>4</sup> in actual fact they bleed the people white with [[Tax|taxes]], practice corruption and slaughter, oppress the masses, are opposed to "[[Anti-imperialism|those nations who treat us as equals]]", and go as far as to compromise with or surrender to the [[Empire of Japan (1868–1947)|national enemy]]. An old ixucai<sup>5</sup> once told me that of all the teachings of Confucius he was able to observe only this one, "For him no food can ever be too dainty and no minced meat too fine"<sup>5</sup> and that he could not observe the rest and had never intended to. Since that is what these people are like, why do they run schools and study the "teachings of the sages"? They are after advancement and money, use the "teachings of the sages" to oppress the exploited, and deceive the people by paying lip service to justice and morality. This is typical of the attitude of the exploiting classes of the old society towards the sages they "worship". Needless to say, when we Communists study Marxism-Leninism an all that is best in our national heritage, we must never adopt such an attitude. What we learn we must practice. Being proletarian revolutionaries who are honest and pure in purpose, we cannot be untrue to ourselves, to the people, or to those who went before us. This is an outstanding characteristic as well as a great merit of Communists.<br />
<br />
Is it possible that the old society's separation of theory from practice can have no influence on us? No, it is not! It is true that none of you students are studying Marxism-Leninism for the sake of advancement and money and or oppressing the exploited. Yet is it possible to maintain that none of you ever entertains the idea that your thoughts, words, deeds and life do not necessarily have to be guided by Marxist-Leninist principles or that you do not intend to put all the principles that you have learned into practice? Is it possible that none of you ever thinks of studying Marxism-Leninism or going deeper into the theory as a means of getting ahead in life, of showing off and becoming famous? I cannot guarantee that none of you thinks along these lines. That kind of thinking runs counter to Marxism-Leninism and to the basic Marxist-Leninist principle of the integration of theory and practice. Certainly we must study theory, but we must also practice what we learn. And it is for the sake of practice, of the Party, of the people, and of the victory of the revolution that we study theory.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<blockquote>The great strength of Marxism-Leninism lies precisely in its integration with the concrete revolutionary practice of all countries. For the Communist Party of China, it is a matter of learning to apply the theory of Marxism-Leninism to the specific circumstances of China. For the Chinese Communists who are part of the great Chinese nation, flesh of its flesh and blood of its blood, any talk about Marxism in isolation from China's characteristics is merely Marxism in the abstract, Marxism in a vacuum. Hence to apply Marxism concretely in China so that its every manifestation has an indubitable Chinese character, i.e., to apply Marxism in the light of China's specific characteristics, becomes a problem which it is urgent for the whole Party to understand and solve. Foreign stereotypes must be abolished, there must be less singing of empty, abstract tunes, and dogmatism must be laid to rest; they must be replaced by the fresh, lively Chinese style and spirit which the common people of China love.<sup>6</sup></blockquote>Our comrades must study the theory of Marxism-Leninism by following the method Comrade Mao Zedong speaks of here.<br />
<br />
== The Unity of Theoretical Study and Ideological Self-Cultivation ==<br />
We Communists must not separate our study of theory from our ideological self-cultivation. We must remould ourselves and temper our proletarian ideology not only in the practice of revolution but in the study of Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
The view is current among some members of our Party that a firm and purely proletarian stand is irrelevant to a Party member's understanding a and mastery of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism. They believe that one can thoroughly understand and genuinely master the Marxist-Leninist theory and method even though one's proletarian stand may not be very firm and one's ideology not very pure (i.e., it may be tainted with the remnants of non-proletarian ideas). They believe that the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism can be mastered merely through book learning. This view is wrong.<br />
<br />
Marxism-Leninism is the science of proletarian revolution, the science by which the working class builds socialism and communism. It can be thoroughly understood and mastered only by those who have a firm proletarian stand and who have made the ideals of the proletariat their own. Without a firm proletarian stand and pure proletarian ideals it is impossible for anyone to thoroughly understand or master the science of Marxism-Leninism. The science of Marxism-Leninism is of little of no use to anyone who is not a genuine revolutionary, who is not a proletarian revolutionary to the core, who does not want to bring about socialism and communism throughout the world and emancipate all humanity, to anyone who does not want revolution or is unwilling to carry it through to the end and wants to stop half-way.<br />
<br />
We often come across very fine Party members from the working class who are not well grounded in Marxist-Leninist theory and who may not do so well as others in an examination in which Marxist-Leninist works and formulations have to be quoted from memory. Yet in studying Marxism-Leninism, provided it is explained to them in language they understand, they generally show much keener interest and far greater comprehension than some Party members from the [[intelligentsia]]. For example, the section in Capital concerning surplus value is difficult for some Party members, but not for those from the working class. The reason is that in the process of production and of struggle against the capitalists, the workers come to know all too well how the capitalists calculate wages and working hours, exploit the workers for profit and oppress them. Therefore, they generally understand Marx's theory of surplus value more profoundly than do some Party members from other classes. When we say that many Party members from the working class are readier to accept Marxism-Leninism, we do not, of course mean that their class-background makes them born Marxist-Leninists. We mean that provided they study Marxist-Leninist theory modestly and diligently and have a real grasp of the method of seeking the truth from the facts, those comrades who have a firm and purely proletarian stand and are free from personal prejudice of other blemishes are certain to be keener and more correct than the others in their observation and handling of practical problems. In the struggle, too, these comrades will prove more able to discern the truth and will uphold it more courageously and unhesitatingly.<br />
<br />
Also, we come across many Party members of non-proletarian origin who differ in their development owing to their differing attitudes towards the relation between Marxist-Leninist study and ideological self-cultivation. Generally speaking, when they join the revolution such people do not have a firm and clear-cut proletarian stand, are not very correct or pure in their ideology, and to a greater of lesser extent carry over various non-proletarian ideas from the old society. Obviously these ideas come into direct conflict with the principles of Marxism-Leninism, and since the people take different attitudes, the results of the conflict differ. In studying Marxism-Leninism, some people correctly combine theoretical study with their ideological self-cultivation, using Marxist-Leninist principles to fight and overcome whatever is backward in their thinking. In this way thy achieve a more truly proletarian stand and a more undiluted proletarian ideology, and learn how to apply Marxist-Leninist principles to the solution of practical problems. We have many such Party members. Others, however, go the opposite way; they have a lot of old junk accumulated in their heads and many stubborn habits, prejudices and selfish desires, but the lack of determination to remould themselves. In studying Marxism-Leninism they do not make use of its principles to criticize and repudiate whatever is backward in their own ideology, but employ it as a weapon to further their own private ends, and this is carried to the point where the principles of Marxism-Leninism are so distorted by their old prejudices that these people can neither reach a correct understanding of these principles nor grasp the spirit and essence of Marxism-Leninism. When they handle practical problems in the course of revolutionary struggle, the habits and prejudices which they have brought with them from the old society and their individualistic calculations led them to think in terms of personal gain or loss, to be hesitant and vacillating and incapable of going deeply into things in a free untrammelled way or of courageously upholding the truth , and they conceal or distort the truth unintentionally, or even deliberately.<br />
<br />
These people are absolutely incapable of guiding their lives by the principals of Marxism-Leninism, and hence incapable of dealing with practical problems promptly, correctly and realistically according to these principles; sometimes they even adopt a negative attitude when practical problems have already been correctly solved according to these principals by the Party organization, or by comrades other than themselves. Such things are neither rare nor unusual, but are quite common.<br />
<br />
Thus we can say that it is impossible for a Party member who lacks a clear-cut firm proletarian stand and a correct, purely proletarian ideology to achieve a thorough understanding and real mastery of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism as a weapon in the revolutionary struggle. In other words a Party member must have the noble stand of the proletariat in order to become versed in Marxist-Leninist theory.<br />
<br />
At the same time, we should add that no Party member can maintain a proletarian stand and express a proletarian ideology concretely in every revolutionary struggle unless he studies the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism diligently and guides his thinking and action accordingly.<br />
<br />
There are some Party members who think it quite enough to have revolutionary firmness and to fight bravely, and that it does not matter much whether they study and undertake self-cultivation in Marxist-Leninist theory. Some comrades even think that a good class origin or a good personal class status is all that is needed to make them vanguard proletarian fighters, thus obviating the need to study Marxism-Leninism. There are other comrades who never study it earnestly in the course of work or struggle, though they generally admit the importance of theory. All such attitudes are obviously wrong.<br />
<br />
The theory of Marxism-Leninism is our weapon for studying every phenomenon and dealing with every question, and especially for studying all social phenomena and dealing with all social questions.. If we do not know how to wield the weapon of Marxist-Leninist theory, we shall be unable correctly to understand and deal with the problems confronting us in the revolutionary struggle and shall be in danger of loosing our bearings and departing from the revolutionary proletarian stand, or even, whether consciously or unconsciously, of becoming opportunists of one kind or another, captives and yes-men of the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Revolutionary firmness and courage in the struggle are precious qualities which every Communist must possess. Besides these qualities, Communists must have the ability to find the right way to conduct the revolution and carry on the struggle in different historical periods and under different conditions of struggle, if they are to win the victory for the revolution and realize the highest ideal of communism. Only by applying Marxism-Leninism can we correctly solve such important questions in the revolutionary struggle as the question of whom to rely upon, whom to unite with and whom to overthrow, the question of who are our direct allies, who is the main enemy and who are the secondary enemies, the question of rallying all possible allies, including even secondary enemies under certain conditions, to defeat the main enemy, and the question of making timely changes in strategy and tactics to meet changing situations. Without mastering the weapon of Marxism-Leninism and attaining a high degree of self-cultivation in Marxist-Leninist theory, we cannot possibly maintain a firm, correct proletarian stand on every important question in the revolutionary struggle, or formulate the policies which are most advantageous to the cause of the proletarian revolution or champion the overall, long term interests of the proletarian revolutionary struggle amid the complex situations and sharp changes, when it is necessary for us to make detours and turns.<br />
<br />
Consider, for instance, our Party's experience in carrying out the policy of the national [[united front]] against Japan. Before the Incident of July 7. 1937,<sup>1</sup> certain comrades did not understand that the [[contradiction]] between the Chinese nation and Japanese [[imperialism]] had become the principal one while the contradictions among the different classes and political groups within the country had become secondary. As a result, they opposed the Party's policy of forming a national united front against Japan. of uniting all [[Patriotism|patriotic]] classes, strata, political parties and social groupings for joint resistance, and especially of uniting with the Kuomintang to fight Japan. Although these comrades thought they were taking a firm proletarian stand in opposing the Party's correct policy, they actually departed from it and plunged into "closed-doorism" and [[sectarianism]]. Had we acted in accordance with their wrong views, the proletariat and its political party would have been unable to unite and lead all the patriotic classes, strata, parties and social groupings for the purpose of defeating Japanese imperialism; instead, the forces of the Anti-Japanese National United Front would have been weakened and the proletariat and its political party would have been isolated to the detriment of the struggle to resist Japan and save China. After the July 7th Incident, when our Party had formed the Anti-Japanese National United front with the Kuomintang, certain comrades went to the other extreme, maintaining that since the Kuomintang had joined in the resistance to Japan, there was hardly any distinction between it and the Communist Party. They adopted a policy of capitulation by appeasing the big [[landlord]] and big bourgeois classes and the Kuomintang. and opposed the Party's policy of upholding its independence within the united front. While they over estimated the strength of and placed undue trust in the Kuomintang, on which they pinned all their hopes for resisting Japan and saving China, they had no confidence in the strength of the Communist Party and the people, did not place their hopes on the Communist Party and therefore did not dare freely to expand the Party and the anti-Japanese people's revolutionary forces and to resolutely fight against the Kuomintang's policy of opposing and restricting the Communist Party. The comrades with this approach styled themselves as the true representatives of the proletariat, but in essence their policy would have made the proletariat a vassal or an appendage of the bourgeoisie, and would have caused the proletariat to loose the leadership of the Anti-Japanese National United Front. These "Left" and Right mistakes are both striking examples of the failure to take a firm proletarian stand and to identify the correct path for advancing the revolutionary cause when major changes are occurring in the political situation.<br />
<br />
The proletariat cannot just emancipate itself alone; it must fight for the emancipation of [[The people|all the working people]], the emancipation of the nation and of all humanity, for only thus can it fully emancipate itself. The proletariat must rid the whole of human society of exploitation, oppression and class struggle once and for all, for only thus can it genuinely and finally emancipate itself. Hence a firm proletarian stand must be sharply differentiated from "closed-doorism' and sectarianism. In waging struggles the proletariat and its political party must establish close ties with the masses of working people, form revolutionary alliances with other revolutionary classes and parties and lead the working masses and all their allies forward together; they must represent the interests of more than ninety per cent of the population of the country. To have a firm proletarian stand is to represent at all times and in all circumstances the highest interests of the overwhelming majority of the people, which, we must understand, are also the highest class interests of the proletariat. On the other hand, a firm proletarian stand must be sharply differentiated from all appeasement and capitulation. In waging revolutionary struggles the proletariat and its political party must draw clear lines of distinction not only between themselves and the landlord class and the bourgeoisie but also between themselves and the revolutionary democrats of the petty bourgeoisie, and must even make some distinction between themselves and the masses of working people. In the revolutionary struggle they must at all times firmly maintain their independence and be free from any bourgeois or other non-proletarian class influence. In every stage of the development of the revolutionary struggle they must combine the interests of the part with the interests of the whole and immediate interests with ling-term interests. As Marx and Engels said of Communists:<blockquote>1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.<br />
<br />
2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>During his struggle to organize a political party of the proletariat at the end of the 19th century, Lenin said:<blockquote>The consciousness of the masses and of the workers cannot be genuine [[class consciousness]], unless the workers learn to observe from concrete, and above all from topical (current), political facts and events, every other social class and all manifestations of the intellectual, ethical and political life of these classes; unless they learn to apply in practice the materialist analysis and the materialist estimate of all aspects of the life and activity of all classes, strata and groups of the population.<sup>3</sup></blockquote>Further:<blockquote>The [[Russian Social Democratic Labor Party|Social-Democrat]]'s ideal should not be a [[Trade union|trade-union]] secretary, but a tribune of the people, able to react to every manifestation of tyranny and oppression, no matter where it takes place, no matter what stratum of class of people it affects; he must be able to generalize all these manifestations to produce a single picture of police violence and capitalist exploitation; he must be able to take advantage of every event, however small, in order to explain his [[Socialism|socialist]] convictions and [[Democracy|democratic]] demands to all and everyone the world-historic significance of the proletariat's struggle for emancipation.<sup>4</sup></blockquote>To fulfill the requirements cited by Lenin in these two passages, we Communists must of course unceasingly take part in the revolutionary practice and thus increase our perceptual knowledge and accumulate practical experience. But it must be pointed out, perceptual knowledge and practical experience alone are not sufficient. As Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<blockquote>Fully to reflect a thing in its totality, to reflect its essence, to reflect its inherit laws, it is necessary through the exercise of thought to reconstruct the rich data of sense perception, discarding the dross and selecting the essential, eliminating the false and retaining the true, proceeding from the one to the other and from the outside to the inside, in order to form a system of concepts and theories—it is necessary to make a leap from perceptual to rational knowledge.<sup>5</sup></blockquote>Therefore, while engaged in revolutionary practice, we must most conscientiously study the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism.<blockquote>The theory of Marxism-Leninism is the summing-up of the experience of the international working-class movement; it is a theory formulated in revolutionary practice and in turn serving revolutionary practice. If only we study this theory, apply it and master it in close conjunction with revolutionary practice, we shall be able to understand the inner connections of the changes taking place all around us and to know how and in what direction the various classes are now moving and will soon move, and we shall be able to determine our line of action and shall confidence in the future of the revolutionary movement.</blockquote>It is precisely because the theory of Marxism-Leninism plays such a great role that Lenin said, "The role of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory."<sup>6</sup> Members of the Communist Party must closely link their study of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism with their own ideological self-cultivation and self-tempering; they must never divorce one from the other.<br />
<br />
Time and again Comrade Mao Zedong has emphasised the tremendous importance of cultivating oneself in the theory of Marxism-Leninism. He has said:<blockquote>From the Marxist viewpoint, theory is important, and its importance is fully expressed in Lenin's statement, "Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." But Marxism emphasises the importance of theory precisely and only because it can guide action.<sup>5</sup></blockquote>Comrade Mao Zedong has constantly urged all Party members who have some capacity for study to study Marxist-Leninist theory, study the actual conditions of the movement, study Chinese and world history and learn to guide their actions by Marxist-Leninist theory and also help to educate comrades with a lower cultural and theoretical level. The whole Party should at times bear in mind this injunction of Comrade Mao Zedong's.<br />
<br />
== The Cause of Communism is the Greatest and Most Arduous Undertaking in Human History ==<br />
Now let us continue with our discussion of ideological self-cultivation by Communist Party members.<br />
<br />
What does ideological self-cultivation mean? Fundamentally, in my opinion, it means that every Party member should use proletarian ideology to combat whatever non-proletarian ideas he has, use the communist world outlook he has and use the principle of the supremacy of the interests of the proletariat, the people and the Party to combat his individualism.<br />
<br />
This struggle is one of conflicting ideologies, and it reflects the class struggle in society. For a Party member, the result of this struggle should be that the proletarian ideology overcomes and ultimately eliminates any non-communist world outlook and that ideas based on the general interests and aims of the Party, of the revolution and of the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity overcome and ultimately eliminate all individualism. If the opposite happens, that is, if the latter prevails over the former, the comrade concerned will retrogress and may even loose his qualifications as a member of the Communist Party. For a Communist that would be a terrible and dangerous thing to happen.<br />
<br />
We Communist Party members temper ourselves ideologically in struggles of all kinds inside and outside the Party, constantly sum up and learn from experience gained in revolutionary practice, and examine our own ideas to see whether they fully conform to Marxism-Leninism and the interests of the struggle for the emancipation of the proletariat. It is through such study, reflection and self-examination that we eliminate all remnants of incorrect ideas and nip in the bud any ideas inconsistent with the interests of communism.<br />
<br />
As you know, a man's words and actions are guided by his ideology. And a man's ideology is inseparable from his world outlook. The only world outlook for members of the Communist Party is the communist world outlook. This world outlook is the philosophical system of the proletariat and also our communist methodology.. All this has been abundantly discussed in Marxist-Leninist literature, and especially in the philosophical works of the founders. As you have studied it, I shall not go into it today. Here I shall only talk briefly of our communist cause, of what it is and how Party members should advance it.<br />
<br />
What is our most fundamental duty as Party members? It is to achieve communism. As far as the Communist Parties of different countries are concerned, in each country it is for the Communist Party and the people there to transform it by their own efforts, and in that way the whole world will be transformed step by step into a communist world. Will the communist world be good? We all know it will be. In that world there will be no exploiters of oppressors, no landlords and capitalists, no imperialists and fascists, nor will there be any oppressed and exploited people, or any of the darkness, ignorance and backwardness resulting from the system of exploitation. In such a society the production of both material and moral values will develop and flourish mightily and will meet the varied needs of all its members. By then all humanity will consist of unselfish, intelligent, highly cultured and skilled communist workers; mutual assistance and affection will prevail among men and there will be no such irrationalities as mutual suspicion and deception, mutual injury, mutual slaughter and war. It will of course be the best, the most beautiful and the most advanced society in human history. Who can deny that such a society is good? But can this good communist society be built? We say that it can and will be. Marxist-Leninist theory has explained this scientifically and beyond all doubt. A factual testimony has been provided by the victory of the Great October revolution and the successes in socialist construction in the Soviet Union. Our duty is constantly to advance the cause socialism and communism in accordance with the laws of development of human society, so as to make socialist and communist society a reality as soon as possible. This is our ideal.<br />
<br />
However, the cause of socialism and communism still faces powerful enemies who must be thoroughly and finally defeated in every field; only then will the socialist and communist society be brought into being. Victory for the communist cause can only be won through long and arduous struggle. Without it there can be no victory. This struggle, of course, is not an "accidental" social phenomenon or an invention of certain Communists as some people assert. It is inevitable in the development of class society; it is unavoidable class struggle. The birth of the Communist Party and the fact that Communists participate, organize and guide this struggle are also inevitable phenomena conforming with the laws of social development. The imperialists, [[Fascism|fascists]] and landlords—in short, all exploiters and oppressors—are oppressing and exploiting the overwhelming majority of the people of the world to such an extent that the people are hardly able to survive and have to unite and fight against this exploitation and oppression, because they cannot exist, much less make progress in any other way. This struggle, therefore, is natural and unavoidable.<br />
<br />
On the one hand, we must understand that communism is the greatest cause in human history, which will eliminate exploitation and classes once and for all, emancipate humanity and bring humanity into a world of happiness, radiating with beauty, such as it has never known before. But on the other hand, we must also understand that the cause of communism is the most arduous undertaking in all history; that only through protracted, bitter and torturous struggle will we be able to defeat all the exploiting classes; and that for a long time after our victory we shall patiently have to carry out social and economic, ideological and cultural transformation, for only thus will all the influences, conventions and habits of the exploiting classes be eliminated from among the people, and only thus will a new social and economic system, a new communist culture and code of social morality be built up.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party will defiantly win final victory by relying on the proletariat and the masses of the exploited and oppressed people an by using Marxism-Leninism to guide the revolutionary struggle of the masses and propel society towards the great goal of communism. The reason is that the historical laws of social development make the progress of human society towards communism inevitable; that latent in the proletariat and the other exploited and oppressed masses of the world lie extremely powerful revolutionary energies which, once mobilized, united and organized, can triumph over all the reactionary forces of the exploiting classes and imperialism; and that the Communist Party and the proletariat are the new and rising forces and whatever is new and rising is invincible. This has been fully demonstrated by the history of the world communist movement and the Communist Party of China. The present situation is as follows. Socialism has already won a great victory in the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]], or on one sixth of the earth's surface; militant Communist Parties armed with the theory of Marxism-Leninism have been organized in many countries; the world communist movement is rapidly growing and developing; and the forces of the proletariat and the other exploited and oppressed masses of the world are being rapidly mobilized and united in the course of incessant struggles. The communist movement is already organized as a mighty and invincible world force. Beyond all doubt the communist cause will continue to develop and advance, and will win final and complete victory. However, we should also realize that the international reaction and the exploiting classes are yet stronger than we are, that they are temporarily superior in many fields and that only by protracted, torturous and bitter struggles can we defeat them.<br />
<br />
In a society in which [[Private property|private ownership of the means of production]] has existed for thousands of years, the exploiting classes through their rule have built up great power in all fields and have grabbed everything under the sun. Their long rule has given rise to backwardness, ignorance, selfishness, mutual suspicion and deception, mutual injury and slaughter in human society, which have persisted down the ages. It has exerted a most pernicious influence on the exploited masses and on other members of society. This is the inevitable result of the efforts of the exploiting classes to preserve their class interests and rule. For they cannot maintain their ruling position unless they keep the exploited masses and the colonial peoples backward, unorganized and divided. Hence, in order to achieve victory we must not only conduct a stern struggle against the exploiting classes but also carry on a struggle against their long-standing influence among the masses and the backward ideas and other backward phenomena found among the masses, for only thus can we enhance their political consciousness and unite them to defeat the exploiting classes. Here is the difficulty in the course of achieving communism. Comrades! If the masses were all politically conscious, united, free from the influence of the exploiting classes and free from backwardness, as some people imagine them to be, what would be so difficult about the revolution?<br />
<br />
Not only does this influence of the exploiting classes exist before the victory of the revolution, but it survives for a very long time after when the exploiting classes have been ejected from their ruling position. Think how torturous is the process and how arduous are the work and struggle that are needed to vanquish the exploiting classes and their influence among the people once and for all, to emancipate and change all humanity, to transform myriads of small commodity producers, finally to abolish all classes and gradually to transform humanity that has lived in class society for thousands of years and been influenced by all kinds of old customs and conventions until it becomes communist humanity, intelligent and unselfish, and with a high level of culture and skill!<br />
<br />
Lenin said:<blockquote>The abolition of classes means not only driving out landlords and capitalists—that we accomplished with comparative ease—it also means abolishing the small commodity producers, and they cannot be driven out, or crushed; we must live in harmony with them; they can (and must) be remoulded and re-educated only by very prolonged, slow, cautious organizational work. They encircle the proletariat on every side with a petty-bourgeois atmosphere, which permeates and corrupts the proletariat and causes constant relapses among the proletariat into petty-bourgeois spinelessness, disunity, individualism, alternate moods of exaltation and dejection. The strictest centralization and discipline are required within the political party of the proletariat in order to counteract this, in order that the organizational role of the proletariat (and that is its principle role) may be exercised correctly, successfully, victoriously....The force of habit of millions and tens of millions is a most terrible force....It is a thousand times easier to vanquish the centralized big bourgeoisie than to "vanquish" the millions and millions of small owners; yet they, by their ordinary, everyday, imperceptible, elusive, demoralizing activity, achieve the very results which the bourgeoisie need and which tend to restore the bourgeoisie.<sup>1</sup></blockquote>He also said:<blockquote>...the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by its overthrow (even if only in one country), and whose power lies not only in the strength of international capital, in the strength and durability of the international connections of the bourgeoisie, but also in the force of habit, in the strength of small production. For all these reasons the dictatorship of the proletariat is essential, and victory over the bourgeoisie is impossible without a long, stubborn and war of life and death, a war demanding perseverance, discipline, firmness, indomitableness and unity of will.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>Hence the proletariat has a very difficult task to perform even after the victory of the revolution. The proletarian revolution differs from all other revolutions in history. Bourgeois revolutions, for example, are largely completed with the seizure of state power. But for the proletariat, victory and political emancipation are only the beginning of the revolution, and a tremendous amount of work remains to be done after the victory, after the seizure of state power.<br />
<br />
The cause of communism is needed a "hundred years' task", as the saying goes, and it defiantly cannot be accomplished at one stroke. In different countries this undertaking has to go through different stages, and different enemies must be defeated, before a communist society can gradually be established. Take the case of our own country. China is still in the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and our enemies are imperialism, which perpetuates aggression against China, and the feudal and comprador forces, which are in collusion with imperialism. Only when we have defeated these enemies can we complete the bourgeois-democratic revolution in our country. Then, after the victory of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, it will still be necessary to make the socialist revolution and to carry on socialist transformation and socialist construction for a long period, and only so will the gradual transition to communist society be possible.<br />
<br />
Since the ultimate goal of our struggle is the achievement of communism, it is naturally our duty as Communists to overcomes all the difficulties arising in the process.<br />
<br />
Since the communist cause is so great and arduous an undertaking, some people who seek social progress are still sceptical and not convinced that communism can be realized. They do not believe that under the leadership of the proletariat and its party the human race can develop and transform itself into a communist humanity of the highest quality and that all the difficulties in the process of revolution and construction can be overcome. Either they do not forsee the difficulties or they become pessimistic and disappointed when confronted with them, and there are even Party members who waver and desert the communist ranks.<br />
<br />
We communists should be men of the boldest vision and revolutionary determination. Every Party member should gladly and solemnly shoulder the task of realizing communism, a task greater and more arduous than any in human history. We clearly see the difficulties in the process of realising communism, but at the same time we clearly understand that they cam undoubtedly be overcome by arousing millions of people to the revolutionary action, and no difficulties will ever daunt us. We have the masses of the people to rely on, and we have full confidence that a substantial part of the work of building communism will be accomplished in our town time and that the whole of this magnificent undertaking will be triumphantly completed by the coming generations. The heroes of no other class in history could possibly have had this great communist ideal and boldness of vision. In this respect we have every reason for pride.<br />
<br />
I recall the instance of the western European bourgeois biographer<sup>3</sup> who interviewed Comrade Stalin during a visit to the Soviet Union and brought up the comparisons between historical personalities. Comrade Stalin told him that Lenin was like the ocean while Czar [[Peter I Romanov|Peter the Great]] was only a drop in the ocean. Such is the place in history a proletarian leader of the communist cause occupies, compared with that of a leader in the cause of the landlord and the rising mercantile classes. From this comparison we can see how truly great is a leader who fights for the triumph of communism and the cause of the emancipation of humanity and how paltry is one who fights for the cause of the exploiting classes.<br />
<br />
We Communist Party members must have the highest goals in our struggle and the highest ideals, while at the same time we must have a practical spirit and do real practical work. Such are the characteristics distinguishing us as Communists. If all a person has is great and lofty ideas without having a practical spirit or doing real practical work, he is not a good Party member but only a dreamer, a prattler or a pedant. On the other hand, whoever is interested only in practical work but lacks great and lofty communist ideals is not a good Communist either, but just a routine plodder. Only by combining the great and lofty ideals of communism with real practical work and practical spirit can one be a good Communist. This standard for a good Communist has often been stressed by Comrade Mao Zedong, the leader of our Party.<br />
<br />
The communist ideal is beautiful, while the reality of the existing capitalist world is ugly. This is precisely why the overwhelming majority of the people demand the changing of that reality and why it must be changed. In order to change the world we must not divorce ourselves from reality, disregard it or escape from it, nor must we surrender to ugly reality. We must face reality squarely, study and understand it, live and grow in it, fight against the ugly reality and transform it, so that we can gradually realize our ideal. Hence we members of the communist Party must initiate and press ahead with our great communist task of changing the world, beginning with our immediate surroundings, with the people immediately around us and such work as we can immediately undertake. Here we should criticize those young comrades who frequently make the mistake of wanting to escape from or disregarding reality. It is good that they have lofty ideals, but they often complain about their place of work and the kind of work they are given. They are always looking for some "ideal" place or job so that they can "change the world" with ease. But no such place and no such job exist, except in their dreams.<br />
<br />
The cause of communism is our life work. Throughout our lives, our every activity is exclusively devoted to it and to nothing else.<br />
<br />
== A Party Member's Personal Interests Must be Unconditionally Subordinated to the Interests of the Party ==<br />
Personal interests must be subordinated to the Party's interests, the interests of the local Party organization to those of the entire Party, the interests of the part to those of the whole, and temporary to long-term interests. This is a Marxist-Leninist principle which must be followed by every Communist.<br />
<br />
A Communist must be clear about the correct relationship between personal and Party interests.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party is the political party of the proletariat and has no interests of its own other than those of the emancipation of the proletariat. The final emancipation of the proletariat will also inevitably be the final emancipation of all humanity. Unless the proletariat emancipates all working people and all nations—unless it emancipates humanity as a whole—it cannot fully emancipate itself. The cause of the emancipation of the proletariat is identical with and inseparable from the cause of the emancipation of all working people, all oppressed nations and all humanity. Therefore, the interests of the Communist Party are the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity, are communism and social progress.. When a Party member<nowiki>''</nowiki>s personal interests are subordinated to those of the Party, they are subordinated to the interests of the emancipation of the class and the nation, and those of communism and social progress.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<br />
<br />
At no time and in no circumstances should a Communist place his personal interests first; he should subordinate to the interests of the nation and of the masses. Hence selfishness, slacking, corruption, seeking the limelight are most contemptible, while selflessness, working with all one's energy, whole hearted devotion to public duty, and quiet hard work will command respect.<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
The test of a Party member's loyalty to the Party, the revolution, the cause of communism is whether or not he can subordinate his personal interests absolutely and unconditionally to the interests of the Party whatever the circumstances.<br />
<br />
At all times and all questions a party member should give first consideration to the interests of the Party as a whole and put them in the foremost and place personal matters and interests second. The supremacy of the Party's interests is the highest principle that must govern the thinking and actions of the members of our Party. In accordance with this principle, every Party member must completely identify his personal interests with those of the Party both in his thinking and in his actions of the members of our Party both in his thinking and in his actions. He must be able o yield to the interests of the Party without any hesitations or reluctance and sacrifice his personal interests what ever of the two are at variance. Unhesitating readiness to sacrifice personal interests and even one's life, for the Party and for the proletariat and for the emancipation of the nation and of all humanity—this is one expression of what we usually describe as "Party spirit", "Party sense" or "sense of organization'. It is the highest expression of communist morality, of the principled nature of the party of the proletariat and of the purest proletarian class consciousness.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party should not have personal aims which are independent of the Party interests. Their personal aims must harmonize with the Party's interests. If the aim they set for themselves is to study Marxist-Leninist theory, to develop their ability in work, to establish revolutionary organizations and to lead the masses in successful revolutionary struggles—if their aim is more is to do more for the Party—then this personal aim harmonizes with the interests of the Party. The Party needs many such members and cadres. Apart from this aim, Party members should have no independent personal motives such as attaining position of fame, or playing the individual hero; otherwise they will depart from the interests of the Party and may even become careerists within the Party.<br />
<br />
If a Party member thinks only of the communist interests and aims of the Party, is really selfless and has no personal aims and considerations divorced from those of the Party, and he ceaselessly raises the level of his political consciousness through revolutionary practice and through the study of Marxism-Leninism, then the following ensues.<br />
<br />
First, he has a high communist morality. Taking a clear-cut, firm proletarian stand, he is able to show loyalty to and love for all comrades, all revolutionaries and working people, help them unreservedly and act towards them as equals, and he will never allow themself to hurt a single one of them for his own interests. He is able to feel for others, place themself in their position and be considerate of them. On the other hand, he is able to wage resolute struggle against the pernicious enemies of humanity and persevere in the fight for the interests of the Party, the proletariat and the emancipation of the nation and all humanity. "He is the first to worry and the last to enjoy themself".<sup>2</sup> Whether in the Party of among the people, he is the first to suffer hardship and the last to enjoy comfort; he compares themself with others not with respect to the material enjoyment but to the amount of work done for the revolution and the spirit of hard endurance in the struggle. In times of adversity he steps forward boldly, and in times of difficulty he does his duty to the full. He has such revolutionary firmness and integrity that "neither riches nor honours can corrupt him, neither [[poverty]] nor lowly condition can make him swerve from principle, neither threats nor force can bend him".<sup>3</sup><br />
<br />
Second, he has the greatest revolutionary courage. Having no selfish motives, he has nothing to fear. Having done nothing to give themself a guilty conscience, he can lay bare and courageously correct his mistakes and short comings, which are like "an eclipse of the sun or the moon".<sup>4</sup> Because he has the courage of righteous conviction, he never fears the truth, courageously upholds it, spreads it and fights for it. Even if it is temporarily to his disadvantage and if, in upholding the truth, he suffers blows of all kinds, is censured by most other people and so finds themself in temporary (and honourable) isolation, even to the point where he may give up his life, he will still breast the waves to uphold the truth and will never drift with the tide.<br />
<br />
Third, he learns how best to grasp the theory of Marxism-Leninism. He is able to apply them in keenly observing problems and in knowing and changing reality. Because he takes a clear-cut, firm proletarian stand and is tempered in Marxism-Leninism, he is free from personal apprehensions and self-interest, so that there is no impediment to his observation of things or distortion of his understanding of the truth. He seeks the truth from the facts, and he tests all theories and distinguishes what is true from what is false in revolutionary practice.<br />
<br />
Fourth, he is the most sincere, most candid and happiest of men. Because he has no private axe to grind, nothing to conceal from the Party and nothing he cannot tell others, he has no problems of personal gain or loss and no personal anxieties other than for the interests of the Party and the revolution. Even when he is working on his own without supervision and therefore has the opportunity to do something bad, he is just as "watchful over themself when he is alone"<sup>5</sup> and does not do anything harmful. His work bears examination and he is not afraid having it checked. He does not fear criticism and at the same time is able to criticize others with courage and sincerity.<br />
<br />
Fifth, he has the greatest self-respect and self-esteem. For the sake of the Party and the revolution he can be most forbearing and tolerant towards comrades and can suffer wrong in the general interest, even enduring misunderstanding and humiliation without bitterness if the occasion so demands. No personal aims lead him to flatter anyone or to desire flattery from others. When it comes to personal matters, he knows how to conduct themself and has no need to humble themself in order to get help from others. He knows how to take good care of themself in the interests of the Party and the revolution and how to strengthen both his grasp of theory and his practical effectiveness. But when it is necessary to swallow humiliations and bear a heavy load for some important purpose in the cause of the Party and the revolution, he can take on the most difficult and vital tasks without the slightest reluctance, never passing the difficulties to others.<br />
<br />
A member of the Communist Party should possess the finest and highest human virtues and take a clear-cut and firm Party and proletarian stand (that is, possess Party spirit and class spirit). Ours is a fine morality precisely because it is proletarian and communist. It is founded not on the protection of the interests of individuals or of the exploiting few, but on those of the great proletariat and the great mass of working people, of the cause of the final emancipation of all humanity, and the liberation of the whole world from the calamities of capitalism, and the building of a happy and beautiful communist world—t is a morality founded on the Marxist-Leninist theory of scientific communism. As we Communists see it, nothing can be more worthless or indefensible than to sacrifice oneself in the interests of an individual or a small minority. But it is the worthiest and most just thing in the world to sacrifice oneself for the Party, for the proletariat, for the emancipation of the nation and all humanity, for social progress and for the highest interests of the overwhelming majority of the people. Indeed, countless members of the Communist Party have looked death calmly in the face and made the ultimate sacrifice without the slightest hesitation. Most Communists consider it a matter of course to die for the sake of the cause, to lay down their lives for justice, when that is necessary. This does not stem from any revolutionary fanaticism or hunger for fame but from their scientific understanding of social development and their deep political consciousness. There is no morality in class society to compare with this high communist morality. The universal morality which supposedly transcends class is sheer deceptive nonsense and in fact a morality designed to protect the interests of the exploiting few. Such a concept of morality is always idealist. It is only we communists who build our morality on the scientific basis of historical materialism and proclaim its purpose to be the protection of the interests of the proletariat in the struggle for the emancipation of itself and all humanity.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party represents the general and long-range interests of the proletariat and all humanity in their struggle for emancipation; the Party's interests are the concentrated expression of this cause. One must never regard the communist Party as a narrow clique, like the guild perusing the interests of its members. Anyone who does so is no Communist.<br />
<br />
A Party member has interests of his own, which may be inconsistent with or even run counter to the interests of the Party in certain circumstances. Should this happen, it is incumbent on him to sacrifice his personal interests and unconditionally subordinate them to the interests of the Party; under no pretence or excuse may he sacrifice the Party's interests by clinging to his own. At all times and in all circumstances, he should fight heart and soul for the Party's interests and for the Party's development, regarding every success and victory won by the Party and the proletariat as his very own. Every Party member should strive to increase his effectiveness and ability in the service of the people. But this must be done in the fight for the advancement, success and victory of the Party's cause, and there must be no striving for individual development divorced from the fight to advance the Party's cause. The facts prove that only by complete devotion in the fight for the advancement, success and victory of the Party's cause can a Party member heighten his effectiveness and ability and that he cannot possibly make progress of heighten his ability in any other way. Hence a Party member can and must completely merge his personal interests with those of the Party.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party are no ordinary people but the awakened vanguard fighters of the proletariat. They must conscientiously represent the class interests and class ideology of the proletariat. Therefore, their personal interests must never project beyond those of the party and the proletariat. It is all the more necessary for each cadre and leader of the Party to be a living embodiment of the general interests of the Party and the proletariat and to merge his personal interests completely in their general interests and aims. In present-day China, it is the proletariat that best represents the interests of national liberation, and therefore our Party members must be worthy champions of the interests of the nation as a whole.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party must subordinate personal to Party interests and are required to sacrifice them to party interests if necessary. But this by no means implies that our Party does not recognise, or brushes aside, the personal interest of its members or that it wants to wipe out their individuality. Party members do have their personal problems to attend to, and, moreover, they should develop themselves according to their individual inclinations and aptitudes. Therefore, so long as the interests of the Party are not violated, a Party member can have his private and family life and develop his individual inclinations and aptitudes. At the same time, the Party will use every possibility to help members develop their individual inclinations and aptitudes in conformity with its interests, furnish them with suitable work and working conditions and commend and reward them. As far as possible, the Party will attend to and safeguard its members' essential interests; for example,, it will give them the opportunity to study and to acquire an education, it will help them cope with health and family problems and, when necessary, it will even give up some of its work in order to preserve comrades working under the rule of reaction. But all this has no other purpose than the overall interests of the Party. For the fulfillment of its tasks the Party must ensure that members have the conditions necessary for life, work and education so that they can perform their tasks with enthusiasm and without worry. Comrades in responsible Party positions must bear all this in mind when they deal with Party members' problems.<br />
<br />
To sum up, on his side, each Party member should completely submit themself to the interests of the Party and self-sacrificingly devote themself to the public duty. He should forego all personal aims and private considerations which conflict with the Party's interests. He should not think of themself all the time, make endless personal demands on the Party or blame the Party for not promoting or rewarding him. Whatever the circumstances, he should study hard, try to make progress, be courageous in struggle and make ceaseless efforts to raise the level of his political consciousness and his understanding of Marxism-Leninism, so as to be able to contribute more to the Party and the revolution. On their side all Party organizations and comrades in responsible positions, in dealing with the problems of Party members, should see how they work, live and study. and enable them to work better for the Party, ceaselessly develop themselves and raise their level in the course of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. In particular, attention should be paid to comrades who are really selfless and who serve the people well. Only so, through combined attention and effort by both sides can the interests of the Party be well served.<br />
<br />
== Examples of Wrong Ideology in the Party ==<br />
In the light of what has been said, we can see that if an understanding of communism and a correct correlation between personal and Party interests are taken as the standard for evaluating Party members and cadres, many measure up to it and can serve as models, but some do not yet measure up to this standard and still have various wrong ideas to some degree or other. It may not be amiss if I outline these wrong ideas for our comrades' attention.<br />
<br />
What are fundamentally the wrong ideas to be found among comrades in our Party?<br />
<br />
First. The people joining our Party not only differ in in class origin and personal class status but also carry with them aims and motives of every description. Many, of course, join the Party in order to bring about communism and attain the great goal of the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity, but some do so for other reasons and with other aims. For example, some comrades of peasant background used to think that communism meant "expropriation of local tyrants and distribution of the land". When they first joined, they had no understanding of the real meaning of communism. Today, quite a number of people join the Party chiefly because it is resolute in resisting Japan and advocates the Anti-Japanese National United Front. Others join our ranks because they admire the communist Party for its good reputation or because they realize in a vague way that it can save China. Still others are seeking a future for themselves, chiefly because they have no other way out—they have no fixed occupation, are out of work, lack the means of study, or want to escape from family bondage or forced marriage, etc. A few even join because they count on the Party to get their taxes reduced, or because they hope to "make their mark" some day, or because their relatives or friends have brought them in, etc. Naturally, such comrades do not have a clear-cut and stable communist world outlook, do not understand the greatness of the communist cause and the difficulties besetting it, and lack a firm proletarian stand point. Naturally too, some of them will waver or change somewhat in certain circumstances at certain critical turning points. Since they bring all sorts of ideas with them into the Party, it is most important that they should be educated and should train and temper themselves. Otherwise they cannot become revolutionary fighters of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, there is no terrible problem here. After all, it is not a bad thing that people turn to the Communist Party, enter it seeking a way out of their predicament and approve of its policy. They are not mistaken in coming to us. We welcome them—everyone except for enemy agents, traitors, careerists and ambitious climbers. Provided they accept and are ready to abide by the Party's Programme and Constitution, work in one of the Party's organizations and pay membership dues, they may be admitted into the Communist Party. As for deeping their study and understanding of communism and the Partys Programme and Constitution, they can do so after joining the Party and can temper and train themselves in revolutionary struggle on the basis of what they learn; in this way they have every possibility of becoming very good Communists. Indeed, for most people it is impossible to have a proufound understanding of communism and the Party's Programme and Constitution before joining the Party. That is why we can only prescribe acceptance, and not a thorough understanding of the Partys Programme and Constitution as a condition for admission. Although many people do not have a thorough understanding of communism before joining, it is possible for them to become active fighters in the communist and revolutionary movements of the time. They can become politically conscious Communists provided they study hard after joining the Party. Furthermore, our Party Constitution stipulates that members are free to withdraw form the Party (there is no freedom of admission). Any member is free to notify the Party that he is withdrawing from it if he lacks a profound belief in communism, or cannot live a strict Party life, or for any other reason, and the Party gives him the freedom to withdraw. It will do nothing against him unless he gives away Party secrets or engages in wrecking activities against the Party after he leaves. As for careerists and spies who have wormed their way into the Party, of course they have to be expelled. Only thus can we preserve the purity of our Party.<br />
<br />
Second. Fairly strong [[individualism]] and selfishness are still to be found in some members of our Party.<br />
<br />
The individualism expresses itself as follows. Some people habitually place their personal interests above those of the Party when it comes to practical matters; they are preoccupied with personal gain and loss and always calculate in terms of personal interests; they abuse the public trust, turning their Party work to private advantage of one kind or another; or they attack comrades they dislike and wreak private vengeance, on high-sounding pretexts of principle or Party interests. When it comes to status, material benefits and other questions affecting everyday life, they invariably try to get more than others, compare themselves with those at the top, diligently strive after greater personal benefits and crow when they get them. But when it comes to work, they like to compare themselves with those who are less capable. When there hard hardships to beat they make themselves scarce. In times of danger they want to run away. When it comes to orderlies they always want more. Their living quarters must be of the best, and they want to show off and bask in the Party's glory. They want to grab all the good things of life, but when it comes to the "unpleasant things", they think these are for others. The heads of such people are stuffed with the ideology of the exploiting classes. They believe that "every person is for themself or that Heaven and Earth will destroy him", person is a "selfish animal", and "no one in the world is genuinely unselfish, unless he is a simpleton or an idiot". They even use such exploiting class rubbish to justify their own selfishness and individualism. There are such people in our Party.<br />
<br />
This type of self-seeking individualism often manifests itself inside the Party in unprincipled quarrelling, factional struggle, sectarianism and departmentalism; it manifests itself in disrespect for and willful violation of Party discipline. Most unprincipled struggles originate in personal interests. Those who go in for factional struggle and are given to sectarianism usually place their own individual interests or the interests of a small minority, above those of the Party. Often, in their unprincipled factional struggles they deliberately undermine Party organization and discipline, making unprincipled and sometimes calculated attacks on certain people, while contracting unprincipled friendships to avoid giving offence, to cover up for one another, to sing each other's praises, etc.<br />
<br />
Departmentalism within the Party arises chiefly because some comrades only see the interest of the part, i.e., the work of their own department of locality, and fail to see the interests of the whole, i.e., the interests of the entire Party and the work of other departments and localities. Politically and ideologically, this resembles the guild outlook. Not all comrades who make the mistake of departmentalism are necessarily prompted by individualism, but people with an individualist ideology usually make the mistake of departmentalism.<br />
<br />
Third. Conceit, the idea of individualistic heroism, ostentatiousness, etc., are still to be found, to a greater or lesser extent, in the minds of quite a few Party comrades.<br />
<br />
The first consideration of people with such notions is their position in the Party. They like to show off and to have people sing their praises and flatter them. They are ambitious, they like to cut a dash, to claim credit for themselves and to get the limelight, and they like to keep everything in their own hands and lack a democratic style of work. They are extremely vain and unwilling to immerse themselves in hard work or do routine or technical jobs. They are arrogant, and whenever they accomplish something they throw their weight about, become overbearing and try to domineer, and they do not treat others as equals in a modest and friendly way. They are complacent, talk down to and lecture people and order others about, and they are always trying to tread on people's necks; they do not learn modestly from others, particularly from the masses, and do not accept even well-grounded opinions and criticisms. They can bear promotion but not demotion, they can bear fair weather but not foul, and they cannot bear being misunderstood or wronged. As their baleful yearning for fame has not yet been uprooted they try to dress themselves up as "great men" and "heroes" in the communist movement and stop at nothing to gratify their desire. When they fail to achieve this object, or when they are misunderstood or wronged there is a danger that they will vacillate. Quite a number of people have vacillated and left our Party for such reasons in the course of its history. Exploiting class ideas still linger in the minds of such people, who fail to understand the greatness of the cause of communism and who lack the communist breadth of vision.<br />
<br />
Communists must not be in the least complacent or arrogant. Granted that some comrades are very capable, have done some good work and have to their credit considerable achievements which may be reckoned "great" and on which they might well preen themselves (for example, our army comrades who have led thousands and tens of thousands of men in battle and won victories, or the leaders of our Party and mass work in various places who have brought about fairly significant changes in the situation). Yet after all, how great are these achievements compared with the communist cause as a whole?<br />
<br />
And for persons with a communist world outlook, what is there worth preening oneself about in these achievements?<br />
<br />
For a Communist to do his work properly and well is no more than his duty. He should guard against complacency and arrogance and do his best to make no mistakes, or as few as possible.<br />
<br />
What is there in personal position for a Communist to bother about? No one's position is higher than an emperor's, and yet what is an emperor compared with a fighter in the cause of communism? Is he not just "a drop in the ocean" as Comrade Stalin put it? So what is there in personal position worth bothering or bragging about?<br />
<br />
Yes, we need countless communist heroes and many mass leaders of great prestige in our Party and in the communist movement. At present we really have too few of them and have yet to train and temper large numbers of good communist revolutionary leaders and heroes in all fields. This is indeed very important for our cause and must not be neglected. Whoever takes it lightly is ignorant of how to advance the cause of communism. Its advancement requires that we should greatly enhance the revolutionary spirit of enterprise among our Party members and bring their vitality into full play. We have to admit that so far we have not done enough in this respect. This is shown, for instance, by the fact that some Party members do not study hard and have little interest in politics and theory. Therefore, while we are opposed to individualistic heroism and ostentatiousness , we are certainly not opposed to a spirit of enterprise in the Party members. The desire to make progress in the interests of the people is the most precious quality in a Communist. But the communist, proletarian spirit of enterprise is entirely different from the individualist "spirit of enterprise". The former means seeking truth, upholding it and fighting for it with the greatest effectiveness. It is progressive and opens up unlimited prospects of development, while the latter offers no prospects even for the individual, for people with an individualist ideology are usually driven by their personal interest into deliberately brushing aside, covering up or distorting the truth.<br />
<br />
Our comrades must understand that genuine leaders and heroes in the communist movement are never individualistic, nor are they ever self-styled or self-appointed. Anyone who styles themself a leader or reaches after leadership can never become a leader of the Party. The rank and file of our Party will not make leaders of people who are prone to conceit, individualistic heroism, ostentatiousness, personal ambition and vanity. No member of our Party has any right to demand that the rank and file should support or keep him as a leader. Only those who are entirely selfless and devoted to the Party, only those with an excellent communist morality and fine communist qualities, who have grasped the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism, who have considerable practical ability, who can direct Party work correctly and who study hard and make constant progress can win the trust of the Party and the confidence and support of the rank and file, and so become leaders and heroes in the communist movement.<br />
<br />
Our comrades must also understand that a member, or a leader and hero, whoever he may be, can only do part of the work, can only carry part of the responsibility, in the communist movement. The communist cause is an undertaking which requires the collective efforts of tens of millions of people over a long period of time and which cannot be encompassed by any one individual alone. Even such great men as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin could only perform part of the work needed by the communist cause. The cause for which they worked requires the joint effort and sustained labour of tens of millions of us. We ordinary Communists are also doing part of the work of the communist cause and carrying part of the responsibility. Of course, our part is much smaller than that of Marx, Engles, Lenin or Stalin. Nevertheless, we have a small part. Big or small, it is all part of the great cause. Therefore, if only we do our part of the work well, we can consider that we have done our duty. Naturally we should try our best to do more, but if we cannot and can only do a little, that is also useful and just as honourable. In any case, we should at least not hamper the progress of the communist cause, but should do our part, whether big of small, and perform our work well, be it heavy or light; that is the correct attitude for every member of our Party. Comrades who are unwilling to undertake technical work think that it stifles their talents, that it prevents them from becoming famous (actually it does not, as witness the technical worker [[Alexei Stakhanov|Stakhanov]]<sup>1</sup> and from giving full play to their abilities and that it kills some of the enterprising spirit which all Communists should have. This view is wrong. Technical work occupies a very important place in our Party work, and comrades engaged in it are doing their share in the communist cause no less than comrades engaged in other jobs. The proper attitude for a Communist is to do whatever work the Party requires of him and do it happily and well, whether it suits his inclinations of not.<br />
<br />
Naturally, in assigning work to members, the Party organization and the responsible Party comrades should, as far as possible, take their individual inclinations and aptitudes into consideration, develop their strong points and stimulate their zeal to go forward. However, no Communist must refuse a Party assignment on the grounds of personal preference.<br />
<br />
Fourth, A small number of comrades are deeply imbued with the ideology of the exploiting classes. They are usually unscrupulous in dealing with comrades and in handling problems inside the Party, and are utterly devoid of the great and sincere proletarian communist spirit of mutual help and solidarity.<br />
<br />
People with this ideology always want to climb over the heads of others in the Party and, to this end, resort to attacking others and doing them harm. They are jealous of those more capable than themselves. They always try to pull down those who are moving ahead of them. They cannot bear playing second fiddle and think only of themselves and never of others. When other comrades are suffering difficulties of setbacks, they gloat or secretly rejoice and have no comradely sympathy at all. They even scheme to injure comrades "drop on one who has fallen into a well", and take advantage of comrades' weaknesses and difficulties to attack and harm them. They "crawl through any crack" and exploit and exacerbate any weakness in Party organization and work for their personal advantage.. They love to stir up trouble in the Party, speak ill of others behind their backs and engage in intrigues in order to sow dissension between comrades. They love to join in any unprincipled dispute that may occur in the Party and take great interest in unprincipled quarrels. They are especially active in stirring up and aggravating such quarrels when the Party is in difficulties. In short, they are thoroughly crooked and lack all integrity. Would it not be absurd to describe such people as being able to grasp the Marxist-Leninist theory and method and give expression to proletarian ideology? It is only too clear that all they express is the ideology of the declining exploiting classes.<br />
<br />
All exploiters must do harm to other people in order to expand. To increase their wealth, or to avoid bankruptcy in an economic crisis, bigger capitalists must squeeze many smaller capitalists out of existence and drive countless workers to starvation. To enrich themselves, landlords must exploit peasants and deprive many of them of their land. In order to expand, fascist Germany, Italy and Japan must devastate other countries; they have subjugated Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Abyssinia<sup>2</sup> and are committing aggression against China. Exploiters always harm and ruin other people as a necessary precondition for their own expansion; their happiness is founded on the suffering of others. Among the exploiters, therefore, genuine firm unity, genuine mutual help, and genuine human sympathy are impossible; they inevitably engage in intrigues and underhand activities in order to ruin others. Yet they have to lie and pose as saints and pillars of justice before the people. Such are the distinguishing characteristics of all declining exploiting classes. These person be models of "fine" ethical conduct for the exploiters, but they are most criminal from the point of view of the proletariat and the masses.<br />
<br />
The proletariat is the complete antithesis of the exploiting classes. It does not exploit others but is itself exploited. There is no conflict of basic interests within its ranks or between it and the other oppressed and exploited working people. Far from needing to harm other working people or impede their development for the sake of its own development and emancipation, the proletariat most forge the closest unity with them in the common struggle. If the proletariat is to emancipate itself, it must at the same time emancipate all other working people and emancipate all humanity. There can be no such thing as the separate emancipation of a single worker or section of workers. The proletariat must carry the cause of the emancipation of humanity through to the end, fighting step by step for the liberation of all humanity, and there can be no giving up or compromising half-way.<br />
<br />
As a result of this objective position occupied by the proletariat, the ideology of the politically conscious workers is the diametrical opposite of that of the exploiters. Communists are vanguard fighters of the proletariat, who arm themselves with Marxism-Leninism and are ruthless towards the people's enemies but never towards the toilers, their class brothers and comrades. They differentiate clearly and sharply between the attitudes and methods to be adopted against the enemy and those to be adopted towards their comrades and friends. They cherish great and sincere friendship, warmth and sympathy for other members of their own class and for all oppressed and exploited working people, towards whom they show a fine spirit of mutual help, firm unity and genuine equality. They are absolutely opposed to privileges of any kind for anyone, consider it impermissible to think in terms of privilege for themselves, and would deem it unthinkable and even a disgrace, to occupy a privileged position among the people. If they themselves are to develop and improve status, they must develop others and improve the status of all the working people at the same time. They are anxious not to fall behind, whether ideologically or politically or in their work, and they have a sturdy spirit of enterprise, but at the same time they esteem, cherish and support those who are ahead of them in these respects and, without any jealousy, do their best to learn from them. They are deeply concerned with the sufferings and privations of their own class and of all working people, they are concerned with all the struggles of the working people for emancipation anywhere in the world, regarding every victory or defeat for the working people anywhere as their own victory of defeat, and therefore displaying the greatest solidarity. They consider it wrong to be indifferent to the struggle of the working and oppressed people for liberation and criminal to gloat over their set-backs They cherish their own comrades and brothers, whose weaknesses and mistakes they criticize frankly and sincerely (and this shows genuine affection); in matters of principle they never gloss over and accommodate, let alone encourage mistakes (to accommodate or even to encourage others' mistakes does not betoken genuine affection for one's comrades). They do everything possible to help comrades overcome weaknesses and correct mistakes and never exploit or aggravate these weaknesses and mistakes to get comrades into trouble, let alone cause the mistakes to develop beyond correction. Not harbouring any desire to settle old scores, they can return good for evil to their own comrades and brothers and help them straighten themselves out. They can be strict with themselves and lenient with others. The stand they take is firm, strict and principled, their attitude is frank, upright and responsible, they do not give way on matters of principle, they do not tolerate anyone who harms the Party, they do not permit anyone to insult them and are particularly contemptuous of adulation and flattery as contrary to all principle. They oppose all unprincipled struggles; they do not let themselves become involved in such struggles and are not swayed or affected by irresponsible or casual criticism made behind their backs as to depart from principle, become incapable of thinking calmly or lose their composure. Such are the proletarian qualities in the most concentrated, exemplary and concrete form. These qualities represent everything of integrity in present-day society. Indeed it is the Communist Party that represents human integrity. We must foster and enhance such proletarian integrity and overcome all that is crooked and evil.<br />
<br />
Fifth. Pettiness, fussing over trifles and ignoring the general interest are faults still prevalent among some Party members. These comrades lack the nature and breadth of vision of Communists and are blind to the bigger things; they relish only the immediate and petty. They do not take much interest in the great problems and events in the Party and the revolution, but are always fussing over the merest trifles about which they enter into ponderous and endless arguments and become highly disturbed. Such people are also easily led by the nose when they receive some small favour or kindness. They have the petty-mindedness characteristic of small rural producers.<br />
<br />
There are other people who do not seem to have a clear-cut and definite attitude in their Party life, people who shift and hedge. They are actually of two kinds; for one kind the question is one of understanding and for the other, of moral character. The latter are always opportunistic in their personal behaviour, curry favour with all sides and try to please everybody. They tailor their words to the person and the circumstances, tack with the wind and show no principle whatsoever. Such are their characteristics. Sometimes, they wait and see what will suit the occasion, like the bat in Aesop's Fables,<sup>3</sup> and then move over to the winning side. Such-double faced creatures, who are neither fish nor fowl, are not altogether unknown in our ranks. They have the traits of the old-fashioned merchant. In addition, there are some individuals who, unable to resist the lure of the old society's exploiting classes, with their glittering world, their money and their women, begin to waver, go wrong and eventually to betray the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
Finally, the ideology of some of our Party comrades often reflects the impetuosity and vacillation of the petty-bourgeoisie and the destructiveness of the lumpen-proletariat and certain bankrupt peasants, but I shall not go into this question here.<br />
<br />
To sum up, our Party represents the great and powerful proletarian communist ideology, but it must be noted that all kinds of non-proletarian ideology—including even the ideology of the declining exploiting classes—are still reflected to a greater or lesser degree in the minds of certain comrades. At times such ideology is dormant in the Party, revealing itself only in insignificant matters of everyday life; but at other times it becomes active, systematically revealing itself in a whole variety of questions of Party principle, in major political questions and in problems of inner Party struggle. Certain sections of links in the Party organization may come to be dominated and corroded by such erroneous ideology, and in extreme cases in may even temporarily dominate key links in the Party leadership, as in the periods when people like [[Chen Duxiu]]<sup>4</sup> and [[Zhang Guotao]]<sup>5</sup> were in control. In normal periods, however, it is held in check by the correct proletarian ideology. These are all manifestations within the Party of the struggle between the proletarian and non-proletarian ideology. Similarly with some individual Party members. At times what is wrong in their ideology lies dormant and under control, but at other times it may grow and even dominate their actions. This is a manifestation among individual Party members of the contradiction and struggle between proletarian and non-proletarian ideology. For our Party members, ideological self-cultivation means that they must conscientiously use the proletarian ideology and the communist world outlook to overcome and eliminate all the various kinds of incorrect, non-proletarian ideology.<br />
<br />
== The Source of Wrong Ideology in Our Party ==<br />
The Communist Party, representing the brightest and most progressive aspects of contempory human society, is the bearer and disseminator of Marxism-Leninism, the acme of human thought. The most politically conscious, progressive and developed people in the world, people with the highest sense of morality and justice, are gathered in the communist Parties, fighting unswervingly against all the forces of darkness and for the bright future and final emancipation of humanity. The Communist Party of China is one of the best Communist Parties in the world. Guided by our leader Comrade Mao Zedong, our Party is armed with the powerful weapon of Marxist-Leninist theory and, at the same time, is carrying forward the fine traditions of progressive thinkers and revolutionaries in Chinese history. It represents the most progressive and brightest aspects of Chinese society, and the finest sons and daughters of the Chinese nation are gathered within its organized ranks. It has been fighting the forces of darkness in Chinese society for a long time, has gone through an arduous process of tempering and has accumulate rich experience in revolutionary struggle. In all this we Communists can justly take pride. There is every ground for absolute confidence that we shall finally be successful and victorious. However, we cannot say yet that everything in our organization is perfect, or that there are no shortcomings and faults. Nor can we say that our ranks are free from unsound and even bad elements, who might be quite capable of any sort of nastiness. In other words, our glorious Party contains some undesirable phenomena, some dark spots which I have already enumerated.<br />
<br />
Now when a family acquires an ugly son-in-law or daughter-in-law, it can not always keep him or her away from the guests. Even if we wanted to do so by taking the attitude of trying to "conceal the family shame", it would be impossible to hide such unpleasantness. The masses of the people are in constant contact with our Party, sympathisers come here to visit us and people who look up to us including many young men and women, come here to study or to join our Party. When they arrive, besides the progressive, fine and attractive things and "members of the family", they will naturally see the ugly sons- or daughters-in-law who might publicly say or do something unpleasant or make a spectacle of themselves, to the perplexity or our guests and new Party members. The newcomers may ask, "Does not the Communist Party stand for all that is just? Are Communists not the finest people? Why are there still such bad people and ugly things in the Communist Party? How strange!" Before joining the Party, some young comrades were bitterly dissatisfied with existing society, saw no way out and turned to the Communist Party as to a beacon of light. They thought that everything would be satisfactory and would work out well once they joined. Yet after doing so, or after arriving in our revolutionary base area, they find there are shortcomings and mistakes in the Party, too, and in real life not everything is satisfactory (much that would satisfy them would not be in the interests of the revolution and the Party), and so they feel reality is not entirely as they pictured it, and some begin to have doubts and feel puzzled. They ask, "Why are such things to be found in the Communist Party as well?" Before coming to Yan'an or before enrolling in the Anti-Japanese Military and Political College, some people imagined Yan'an and the College would live up to their dreams, but after their arrival and enrollment they do not find everything to their satisfaction and are perplexed. They ask, "How can such things happen even in Yan'an and the Anti-Japanese College?" And failing to find answers, some even become pessimistic and disheartened.<br />
<br />
Their questions should alert our Party members and cadres and be a lesson to them so that they will give serious attention to guiding and taking care of all new Party members and all who are moving in our direction and to ensuring they are not adversely affected. But, quite apart from this, we should explain things clearly to comrades inside and outside the Party.<br />
<br />
Why are there still such undesirable things in our splendid Party? The reason, I think, is rather simple. Our Party has not fallen from the skies, but has grown out of Chinese society. In general, our Party consists of the finest sons and daughters of our country, the vanguard of the Chinese proletariat, but they come from all strata of the old society, and in China today there still exists exploiting classes and the influence of these classes—selfishness, intrigue, bureaucracy and various types of filth. We have many excellent Party members who are not easily affected by such influences. But it is so strange that certain members bring some of the filth of the old society with them into our Party of reflect it there? Is it so strange that a person that has just crawled out of the mud is covered with slime? Of course not. It is only to be expected. It would be strange and indeed incredible, if the ranks of the Communist Party were absolutely free from such filth. It may be said that so long as such filth exists in society, so long as classes and exploiting class influences exist in society, there is bound to be some filth in the Communist Party. It is precisely because there is such filth in society, and in the Party, that it is the duty of the communist Party to change existing society, and it is necessary for Communists to remould, cultivate and temper themselves. In addition to carrying on a struggle in society at large against everything evil and backward,, it is imperative for us to carry on a struggle inside the Party against every social evil and backward influence as mirrored in the Party by vacillating and unsteady elements. This is the source of inner-Party contradiction and struggle. Through struggle, both inside and outside the Party, we seek to change society and gradually rid it of its evils and backwardness, and at the same time seek to perfect our Party and remould our Party members, and to resolve our inner-Party contradictions, so that our Party and its membership will become healthier and stronger.<br />
<br />
Stalin said:<blockquote>The source of the contradiction within the proletarian parties lies in two circumstances.</blockquote>What are these circumstances?<br />
<br />
They are firstly the pressure exerted by the bourgeoisie and bourgeois ideology on the proletariat and its party in the conditions of the class struggle—a pressure to which the least stable strata of the proletariat, and hence the least stable strata of the proletarian party, not infrequently succumb. It must not be thought that the proletariat is completely isolated from society, that it stands outside society. The proletariat is a part of society, connected with its diverse strata by numerous threads. But the party is a part of the proletariat Hence the Party cannot be exempt from connections with, and from the influence of, the diverse sections of the bourgeois society The pressure of the bourgeoisie and its ideology on the proletariat and its party finds expression in the fact that bourgeois ideas, manners, customs and sentiments not infrequently penetrate the proletariat and its party through definite strata of the proletariat that are in one way or another connected with bourgeois society.<br />
<br />
They are, secondly, the heterogeneity of the working class, the existence of a different strata within the working class....<br />
<br />
One stratum is the main mass of the proletariat, its core, its permanent part, the mass of "pure blooded" proletarians, who have long broken off connection with the capitalist class. This stratum of the proletariat is the most reliable bulwark of Marxism.<br />
<br />
The second stratum consists of new comers from non-proletarian classes—from the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie or the intelligencia. These are former members of other classes who have only recently merged with the proletariat and brought with them into the working class their customs, their habits, their waverings and their vacillations. This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for all sorts of anarchist, semi-anarchist and "ultra-Left" groups.<br />
<br />
The third stratum, lastly, consists of the labour aristocracy, the upper stratum of the working class, the most well-to-do portion of the proletariat, with its propensity for compromise with the bourgeoisie, its predominant inclination to adapt itself to the powers that be, and its anxiety go "get on in life". This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for outright reformists and opportunists.<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
Here we see the source of the various kinds of non-proletarian ideology and the various errors, shortcomings and undesirable phenomena that exist in our proletarian party. Here, indeed, is the source of the various contradictions that are present in our Party.<br />
<br />
== Attitudes Towards Wrong Ideology in the Party and Towards Inner-Party Struggle ==<br />
The influences exerted by the exploiting classes and the petty bourgeoisie, the existence of different strata within the working class and the differences in the class background of our Party members give rise to different ideas among them, to certain differences in viewpoints, habits and sentiments, in world outlook and moral values, and differences in the way they look at and think about things in general and the problems of the revolution in particular.<br />
<br />
Some people in our Party are able to view issues as developing and interrelated, but others habitually view them statistically and in isolation. The former are able to grasp matters comprehensively and objectively and hence to draw correct conclusions that can serve us as correct guide lines to action. As for the latter, some of them only see or over emphasize this side of a thing, while others only see and over emphasize the other side; both fail to view problems comprehensively and objectively in accordance with the laws of the development and interrelationship of objective phenomena, and both take a one-sided, subjective view of problems. Hence, they are unable to arrive at correct conclusions or chart the right course for our actions.<br />
<br />
The differences among Party members in their approach to problems lead to different ways of handling problems, to divergences and controversies are bound to become especially acute at turning points in the revolution, or when the struggle grows in intensity and hardship mount.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the crux of the matter is not whether there are differences of thought and opinion within the Party, since such differences always exist. The crux of the matter is how to resolve contradictions, settle differences and overcome all kinds of incorrect, non-proletarian thinking. Obviously, it is only through inner-Party struggle that such contradictions can be resolved, differences settled and incorrect thinking overcome. As Engels put it, “In the long run the contradictions are never slurred over, but always fought out.”<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
Different people hold different views and take different attitudes with regard to shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in our Party.<br />
<br />
People of one kind do not or will not see shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in our Party, but blindly believe that there is scarcely anything wrong in it; hence they relax their vigilance and slacken their struggle their struggle against these phenomena. People of another kind see nothing, or hardly anything, except these undesirable phenomena and fail to see how correct and glorious our Party is; hence they become pessimistic and loose confidence, or they become alarmed and bewildered in the face of such phenomena. The views of both are wrong and one-sided. Our view is different.. On the one hand, we know we know that our Party is the political party of the proletariat, the most progressive and revolutionary party in China. On the other, we know clearly that there are still shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena, major and minor in our Party. Moreover, we clearly understand their source and how to correct and gradually eliminate them, and we are making constant efforts to temper ourselves, improve our work and wage the necessary struggles in order to promote the progress of the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
Since people differ in their class stand and their views, they take different attitudes towards what is undesirable in our Party. One attitude is that of alien class and hostile elements who have wormed their way into our Party. A second attitude is that of Party members who lack a firm proletarian stand and have a wrong way of thinking. A third is that of Party members who firmly uphold the principles of Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
The alien class and hostile elements who have worked their way into the Party are glad of its shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena. Gleefully seeking their opportunity, they use every possible means to exploit and magnify some of these undesirable phenomena for the purpose of wrecking our Party. Sometimes they even make a pretence of opposing certain mistakes and supporting the Party line in order to cause an opposite kind of mistake to be committed. People with the second type of attitude fall into the following distinct categories:<br />
<br />
1. Some Party members sympathize with and accept certain erroneous ideas, or follow the bad example of certain people in the Party, so as to further their personal ends and desires. They consider the existence of certain short comings and mistakes in the Party to be to their advantage and therefore, whether intentionally or unintentionally, aggravate these failings and exploit them. This is the attitude of careerists of bad characters in the Party.<br />
<br />
2. Some Party members do nothing about the shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party and allow them to grow. They just muddle along and are unwilling to fight these evils. They fear inner-Party struggle and self-criticism, considering them harmful to the Party, or they are insensitive or shut their eyes to the undesirable things, or they are perfunctory and compromising in the struggle against them. This is the attitude taken by Communists who have a weak sense of duty towards the Party, are extremely liberalistic, or are guilty of bureaucracy.<br />
<br />
3. The attitude of some Party members towards these shortcomings and mistakes and towards those comrades who have incorrect ideas is one of “bitter hatred and gall”. They lightly sever all relations with comrades who have committed some mistake and whom they attempt to expel from the Party outright. If they fail in this and need rebuffs, they give up and become pessimistic and down-hearted, or they keep aloof, “preserve their purity” and even put a great distance between themselves and the Party. This extreme attitude is also shown in some comradesÕ mechanical conception of inner-Party struggle and self-criticism. People with this attitude believe that inner-Party struggle must be launched under any and all circumstances—the more frequently and bitterly, the better. They magnify every trifle into a matter of “principle” and brand every tiny fault with such labels as political opportunism. They do not carry on inner-Party struggle properly and specifically in accordance with the objective needs and objective laws of development, but instead “struggle” mechanically, subjectively and violently, regardless of the consequences. This is the attitude taken by Party members who do not understand the source of inner-Party contradictions, who lack skill in dealing with inner-Party differences and who have a mechanical conception of inner-Party struggle. For a time, this extreme attitude towards inner-Party struggle was exploited by the “Left” opportunists in the Party. They intensified mechanical and excessive struggles to the point of deliberately hunting for “targets of struggle” within the Party, deliberately creating inner-Party struggles, punishing comrades by abusing Party disciplinary measures and even employing against them measures applicable to struggles outside the Party; and it was by such “struggles” and “disciplinary measures” that they tried to push the work ahead.<br />
<br />
The attitude we should adopt is the proletarian Marxist-Leninist one. Contrary to the erroneous attitudes described above, we advocate the following.<br />
<br />
1. First of all, get to know the various phenomena, ideas, views and opinions in the Party and distinguish those which are correct and beneficial to the interests of the Party and the revolution from those which are not, or, in the case of a dispute in which both sides are wrong, perceive this and be able to point out the correct view or opinion. After sober analysis and consideration, decide on a clear-cut attitude and take a correct stand. Do not follow blindly or drift with the tide.<br />
<br />
2. Profit by every good example, promote and spread a spirit of integrity in the Party and vigorously support all correct views and opinions. Do not follow any bad examples or be influenced by any wrong ideas.<br />
<br />
3. Do not take a liberalistic attitude or flinch from any necessary inner-Party struggle. Carry on an irreconcilable struggle in the Party against ideas and views which are wrong in principle and against all other undesirable phenomena, so that we can constantly move to overcome them; they should never be allowed to develop unchecked to the detriment of the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
4. Do not take a mechanical and extreme attitude. Properly combine irreconcilability and clarity in matters of principle with flexibility and patient persuasion in methods of struggle; in thecourse of prolonged struggles, educate, criticize, temper and remould comrades who have committed errors but who are not incorrigible. Such inner-Party ideological struggles on matters of principle as are necessary at different periods should be waged in a concrete and proper way; inner-Party struggles should not be waged indiscriminatingly, subjectively,, mechanically or on shadowy pretexts. Do not become “struggle addicts”.<br />
<br />
5. Strengthen the unity and discipline of the Party and enhance its prestige through inner-Party struggle. Organizational penalties, ranging all the way to expulsion, should be applied to the incorrigible elements of the Party. We should regard it as our supreme duty to safeguard the Party’s unity, preserve the purity of its ideology and consolidate its organization.<br />
<br />
Such is the attitude of all good Communists in the Party and indeed the only correct Marxist-Leninist attitude.<br />
<br />
It is not strange that our enemies should seek to make use of our every shortcoming and mistake to undermine our Party. Besides constantly sharpening our vigilance, we should do everything possible to give the enemy as little opportunity as possible to exploit shortcomings and mistakes in the Party whenever they occur; this is the duty of every comrade who cherishes the Party. If a Party member ignores this consideration in inner-Party struggle, if he only seeks to vent his feelings, or goes to the length of joining up with bad elements instead of rejecting their assistance, or even makes use of outside forces to help him attain some private ends within the Party, he will be making an unpardonable breach of discipline.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party should be the embodiment of correct ideology and should follow good examples in the Party; they should not follow but oppose wrong ideas and bad examples. But what actually happens is that some comrades that are generally correct in their ideology and follow good examples, sometimes reflect certain wrong ideas and follow certain bad examples. Other comrades seem to find it easy to learn from bad but hard to learn from good, and this merits our serious attention. When mistakes occur in the Party, they are apt to encourage or aggravate them, intentionally of unintentionally. In inner-Party struggles they are apt to take the wrong side or to go along with whichever side is currently in vogue., irrespective of right and wrong. These comrades will hardly make progress unless they receive strict criticism and rigorous tempering.<br />
<br />
Of course comrades who adopt a liberalistic or bureaucratic attitude towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomenon inside the Party are also wrong. This, I think should be quite clear to you as students of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism. For in the Party building course which you have studied, the necessity of self-criticism and ideological struggle within the Party is clearly and thoroughly discussed; you can go into it again, and I need not well on the matter further. However, I do want to point out that quite a few comrades have this liberalistic attitude. We often do not have enough really responsible and sincere criticism and self-criticism conducted in keeping with the Party’s organizational principles, for the purpose of exposing, correcting and eliminating the undesirable phenomena in the Party, and more particularly we do not have enough criticism from below and self-criticism, both of which would be greatly encouraged. On the other hand, there is quite a lot of criticism that is irresponsible and not in keeping with the Party’s organizational principles, of talking behind peopleÕs backs and gossip about this or that person or thing. Both are manifestations of liberalism in the Party. They show that some of the comrades are insufficiently mature politically and are not courageous enough in revolutionary struggle; they also indicate that inner-Party democracy has not been properly developed. Some comrades dare not dispense with face-saving, and fear to offend others lest they themselves incur complaints and counter-criticism. They would rather leave the shortcomings and mistakes alone, taking the attitude of “getting by” and “the less trouble the better”, but at the same time they talk about comrades behind their backs. All this harms the Party and does it no good. Irresponsible criticism and talk are not likely to overcome the shortcomings and mistakes in the party but will lead to unprincipled disputes and disunity. We stand for inner-Party criticism and self-criticism which is responsible and beneficial to the Party and is in keeping with its organizational principles.<br />
<br />
Shortcomings and mistakes exist in the Party and so do incorrect non-proletarian ideas. Any of these may at certain times develop into a trend, giving rise to differences of principle and imparing the PartyÕs unity of action. Hence it is impossible to educate the Party, the proletariat and the masses correctly if we do not unfold criticism and self-criticism, constantly expose and correct short comings and mistakes, overcome wrong ideas and conduct inner-Party struggle to resolve inner-Party differences, but instead take a compromising attitude and follow a “middle” line, or try to muddle through in inner-Party struggle.<br />
<br />
Liberalism in inner-Party struggle is manifested in yet another way. Thus when a dispute breaks out in the Party, many comrades put aside their work and indulge in aimless debate for days and months on end or let themselves go without restraint; as a result, the unity of the Party becomes the looser, Party discipline is weakened, the Party’s prestige is impaired and our militant Party organizations turn into debating societies. Such things have occurred more than once in certain Party organizations. They have absolutely nothing in common with the kind of criticism and self-criticism we advocate. We need criticism and self-criticism, not in order to impair the Party’s prestige, undermine its discipline and weaken its leadership, but in order to promote the Party’s prestige, consolidate its discipline and strengthen its leadership.<br />
<br />
Hence, it is wrong to adopt a liberalistic or bureaucratic attitude towards the various shortcomings and mistakes in the Party. In order to fight against all undesirable phenomena and resolve differences, we must promote criticism and self-criticism and conduct inner-Party struggle correctly. Only then can the party be strengthened, grow and advance.<br />
<br />
Comrades who take an extreme attitude in inner-Party struggle are also wrong.<br />
<br />
The extreme attitude is the exact antithesis of the liberalistic attitude. It arises because these comrades fail to understand that wrong ideas in the Party have deep social roots and cannot possibly be eliminated at one stroke. At various times and in varying degrees, many of our Party comrades may reflect certain incorrect ideas existing in society and may commit some mistakes in their work under the influence of non-proletarian ideologies; no comrade can entirely avoid this. If the Party were to refuse to retain or tolerate all comrades who reflect non-proletarian ideologies in some degree, or who have committed some mistakes and yet are not incorrigible, and were to reject them categorically and even expel them, then the tasks of educating the comrades and consolidating the Party’s organization would be nonexistent. Were our Party to follow such an extreme policy, the comrades promoting such actions would eventually have to be expelled themselves. In particular, these comrades fail to understand that the achievement of communism involves the tremendous and difficult task of transforming all humanity into the selfless citizenry of a communist society, the task of converting men with their many weaknesses into communists with a high level of culture through a long process of tempering and education in the course of struggle. If they did understand this, then they would understand that our Party has the important and constant duty of educating and remoulding people who are already members but whose ideology is not wholly proletarian.<br />
<br />
Naturally, the education and remoulding of such Party members is a most arduous task requiring prolonged and patient effort. Yet if we are unwilling to tackle this difficult task and shrink from it, how can we talk about changing the world and all humanity? Since we are determined to undertake, and not to shrink from, the unprecedentedly arduous task of changing the world and all humanity, what other task in the world today can daunt us? Party members who have the communist world outlook are dauntless, fear no difficulty or hardship, and understand that the process of development is torturous. Comrades who take an extreme attitude do not understand that the achievement of communism is an arduous and torturous task, they fear difficulties and crave a straight road, they want to eliminate everything unpleasant at one stroke and leap immediately into the world of their ideals. Thinking and acting in this way, they inevitably run their heads against a brick wall. And after banging and bruising their heads, they quite often become disheartened and loose their confidence in the future of communism. Thus they swing between extremes, from “Left” to “Right”, thereby revealing the essence of their non-proletarian ideology. It is regrettable that this erroneous, extreme attitude towards inner-Party shortcomings and mistakes should still be found to a greater or lesser extent among quite a few comrades, although it is harmful to the Party, to other comrades and to themselves.<br />
<br />
Inner-Party struggle is necessary not because we are subjectively addicted to struggle or partial to dispute, but because inner-Party differences of principle do arise in the growth of the Party and in the proletarian struggle. When they occur, “contradictions can be overcome only by means of a struggle for definite principles, for definite aims of the struggle, for definite methods of waging the struggle leading to the desired aim.”<sup>2</sup> Compromise is of no avail here. This means that when a dispute has developed into one of principle which can only be resolved through struggle, we should unflinchingly wage inner-Party struggle in order to resolve it. It does not mean that we should make a big fuss over small matters, conduct inner-Party struggle with stony faces and never compromise even on routine and on questions of a purely practical nature. “One can, and one should agree to any compromise with dissenters in the party on questions of current policy,, on questions of a purely practical nature.”<sup>3</sup><br />
<br />
When opportunist ideas and differences of principle arise in the Party, we must, of course, wage struggles to overcome those ideas and errors of principle. This defiantly does not mean that when there are no differences of principles and no opportunist ideas in the Party, we should deliberately magnify into “differences of principle” divergences of opinion among comrades on questions of a purely practical nature.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said: “The Party must on the one hand wage a serious struggle against erroneous thinking, and on the other give the comrades who have committed errors ample opportunity to wake up. This being the case, excessive struggle is obviously inappropriate.”<sup>4</sup><br />
<br />
It is necessary to make severe criticism of, or even to apply organizational penalties to, those comrades who, after committing opportunist mistakes or other mistakes of principle, turn a deaf ear to persuasion and Party criticism, wilfully and obstinately cling to their errors and resist Party policy, or double-faced in their attitude. But if these comrades do not cling to their mistakes but are willing to correct them and give up their previous point of view after sober discussion, persuasion and criticism, or if they coolly ponder over their mistakes or soberly discuss them with other comrades, we should welcome every small sign of progress on their part and not subject them to penalties undiscriminatingly. In criticism and inner-Party struggle, it is not true that the more stony-faced we are the better, or that the more comrades we punish the better; our highest aim is to educate the erring comrades to the best effect, help them to correct their mistakes, educate the entire membership and consolidate the Party.<br />
<br />
The “Left” opportunists are clearly wrong in their attitude towards inner-Party struggle. According to these almost hysterical people, any peace in the Party was intolerable—even peace based on complete unanimity on matters of principle an on the Party line. Even in the absence of any differences of principle in the Party, they deliberately hunted out targets, dubbed some comrades “opportunist” and set them up as “straw men” to shoot at in inner-Party struggle. They thought that such erroneous struggle and such shooting at “straw men” were the magic formula for developing the Party and achieving victory in the revolutionary fight of the proletariat. They considered that to stir up trouble out of nothing or to deliberately concoct inner-Party struggle was the only “Bolshevik” way. Of course, this is not serious and earnest inner-Party struggle; rather it is a mockery of the Party and the perverting of inner-Party struggle, which is a most serious matter, into a frivolous game. The advocates of such action are not Bolsheviks at all but are either people who are well-nigh incorrigible or careerists exploiting the name “Bolshevik”.<br />
<br />
We have been discussing the attitude to be adopted towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party. It is by combating all that is bad inside and outside the Party that we change the world and humanity and at the same time perfect the Party and remould ourselves. Inner-Party struggle is a reflection within the Party of existing contradictions in society between classes and between old and new. The Party tempers, develops and consolidates itself in the class struggle outside the Party (i.e., in the revolutionary struggles of the masses of the people) and simultaneously becomes consolidated and united through struggle inside the Party, and is therefore able to give more systematic, correct and effective leadership to the revolutionary struggle of the masses. Hence it would be utterly wrong, advantageous to the enemy, contrary to the laws of development of the class struggle and incompatible with our basic thesis of transformation of the world and humanity through struggle, if we were to adopt a liberal attitude towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party by flossing over internal differences of principle, covering up inner-Party contradictions, evading inner-Party struggle and just muddling along. Similarly, it would be wrong to isolate the struggle inside the Party from the class struggle outside the Party or the revolutionary movement of the masses and thus turn inner-Party struggle into empty talk. In fact, it is impossible to temper, develop and consolidate the party in isolation from the revolutionary struggle of the masses. However, it would be equally wrong and contrary to the laws of development of the Party, if we were to carry matters to the other extreme and adopt an extreme attitude towards all comrades who have shortcomings or have committed errors but who are not irredeemable, or if we were to fail to distinguish between them and the enemy, conducting mechanical and excessive inner-Party struggles against them and wilfully fabricating such struggles. We should not break with comrades who have committed errors but who are nevertheless loyal. Rather, we should show concern and sympathy for them, persuade and educate them and help them temper and reform themselves in struggle. We should not castigate or expel them unless they persist in their mistakes and prove incorrigible.<br />
<br />
Although there are still some shortcomings and mistakes, some isolated minor evils in our Party, we are fully confident that with the advance of the working-class movement we can and will get rid of them through the great revolutionary struggles of the masses. The history of nearly two decades of struggle and glorious progress by the Communist Party of China and the worldwide development of the working-class movement, thoroughly convince us of this.<br />
<br />
Inner-Party struggle is an indispensable component of the revolutionary struggle as a whole. Our comrades should therefore temper and cultivate themselves both in struggles outside the Party and in the struggle on two fronts inside the Party. Among many Party comrades, however, there is still no genuinely profound appreciation of such inner-Party struggle, and there is insufficient tempering and self-cultivation. This is manifested not only in the frequent unprincipled struggles carried on by some comrades but also in the fact that certain comrades, including even some with a fairly long history of militant struggle, cannot stand being criticized of misjudged. When fighting the counter-revolution, they never waver, complain or feel dejected, however ruthless the struggle, however bitter the conditions and however vicious the enemy’s blows. Yet in inner-Party struggle they cannot stand being criticized, attacked, misjudged or wronged, or tolerate even a single unpleasant word. Or they suspect people of making pointed allusions to them, and so they complain and feel very dejected. We must really five this kind of thing our attention.<br />
<br />
It must be stated that on the whole these comrades are very good because they wage resolute struggle against the counter-revolutionaries and look upon the Party as a most affectionate mother. After going out to fight hard battles against the counter-revolutionaries they should receive encouragement, consolation and caresses, and not blows and wrongs, when they return to their great mother’s embrace. It is only natural for them to expect such treatment. However, they fail to take one point into account, or fully into account—that our Party still has shortcomings and faults and that there are inner-Party struggles which every comrade must take part in. Our Party criticises and combats shortcomings and faults not because it is unfeeling but because such action is unavoidable in the course of revolutionary struggle. It is necessary for comrades in the course of inner-Party struggle to receive well founded criticism, for it is helpful to them, to the other comrades and to the whole Party. On the other hand, it is also unavoidable that at times some comrades will receive unfounded criticisms or be attacked on certain matters, or will even be wrongly judged and disciplined. Failing to allow for this, they become shocked and feel most miserable and dejected when it occurs.<br />
<br />
In this connection, it is my opinion that every Party member should pay attention to uniting with his comrades, be sincere and open,, refrain from hurting others by thoughtless or sarcastic remarks and, in particular, refrain from irresponsibly criticizing comrades behind their backs. The proper attitude to any comrade’s mistakes is sincerely to remonstrate with him and criticize him to his face., out of concern for the comrade and a desire to be of help. All of us, and especially those in more responsible positions, must bear this in mind.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, it is my opinion that comrades should be mentally prepared for inner-Party struggle, should open-mindedly accept all well-grounded criticism and be able to endure misunderstandings or attacks, or even unfairness and injustice; in particular, they should not get upset or excited over irresponsible and unjustified criticism or rumours. As far as irresponsible misjudgement and criticism are concerned—that is, excluding properly conducted criticism among comrades or through the Party organization—one can try and clear the matter up or offer some explanation when necessary, but if that does not help, one might just as well let others say what they please, provided there is nothing wrong in one’s thinking and behaviour. Let us remember the Chinese sayings: “Who never gossips about others behind their backs or is never the subject of gossip?” and “Never mind the storm, just sit tight in the fishing boat.” No one in this world can entirely avoid being misunderstood, but misunderstandings can always be cleared up sooner or later. We should be able to endure misunderstandings and should never allow ourselves to be dragged into unprincipled struggle; at the same time, we should be always vigilant and keep watch over our own thoughts and actions.<br />
<br />
That is to say, we should take care not to use words that wound other comrades and should be able to stand injurious language from others.<br />
<br />
We are radically opposed to unprincipled disputes in the Party. Since they are unprincipled, they are useless and harmful to the Party, and there is generally little of right or wrong, or good or bad, about them. In such unprincipled struggles, therefore, there is no point in passing judgement as to who is right and who is wrong, or estimating who is better and who is worse, because that is impossible. All we can do is radically to oppose struggles of that kind and ask the comrades involved unconditionally to stop them and get back to principles. This is the policy we should adopt towards unprincipled disputes and struggles. But what is to be done if unprincipled disputes do arise and if many of them get tangled up with struggles over principle? What should be done if such disputes knock at our door and we get dragged into them? All we can do in that case is, again, to put the stress on the questions of principle and avoid stressing those not involving any principle. Basing ourselves on the policy outlined here, we should handle such unprincipled disputes strictly and ourselves stand firm on the principle from beginning to end, refusing to be dragged into the unprincipled disputes. When something does go wrong to you, do not throw back something wrong at him. Always stand by the right to oppose the wrong. Some of our comrades find it very difficult to act in this way, which shows why special attention to self-tempering and self-cultivation is necessary.<br />
<br />
Let me briefly sum up the points discussed.<br />
<br />
The aim of ideological self-cultivation by members of the Communist party is to temper themselves to become staunch and utterly devoted members and cadres of the Party who make constant progress and serve as examples for others. What is required of us is the following:<br />
<br />
1. To build up our communist world outlook and a firm Party and proletarian class standpoint through the study of Marxism-Leninism and participation in the revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
2. To examine our own thinking and behaviour, to correct all erroneous ideas and at the same time to judge questions and judge other comrades on the basis of our communist world outlook and our firm Party and proletarian class standpoint.<br />
<br />
3. Always to adopt a correct attitude and appropriate methods in the struggle against erroneous ideology in the Party, and especially against the erroneous ideology which affects the current revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
4. To keep a firm control over ourselves in thought, speech and action, especially to take a firm standpoint and adhere to correct principles with regard to political ideas, statements and activities which are related to the current revolutionary struggle. In addition, it is as well to be careful even over “trifles” (in one's personal life, attitude, etc.). But as for making demands on other comrades, apart from matters of principle and major political questions, we should not be too severe or fault finding over “trifles”.<br />
<br />
In my opinion, the above is what we mean, fundamentally, when we talk about ideological self-cultivation by members of the Communist Party.<br />
[[Category:Library works by Liu Shaoqi]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:How_to_Be_a_Good_Communist&diff=63632Library:How to Be a Good Communist2024-03-03T19:30:38Z<p>RedCustodian: /* Be Worthy Pupils of Marx and Lenin */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Library work|title=How to Be a Good Communist|author=Liu Shaoqi|written in=1939}}<br />
<br />
Comrades,<br />
<br />
The question I shall discuss us how members of the [[Communist Party of China|Communist Party]] should cultivate and temper themselves. It may not be unprofitable to the building and consolidation of the Party to take up this question at this present time.<br />
<br />
== Why Communists Must Undertake Self-Cultivation ==<br />
Why must Communists undertake to cultivate themselves?<br />
<br />
In order to live, person must wage a struggle against nature and make use of nature to produce [[Materialism|material]] values. At all times and under all conditions, his [[production]] of material things is social in character. It follows that when men engage in production at any [[Mode of production|stage of social development]], they have to enter into certain [[relations of production]] with one another. In their ceaseless struggle against nature, men ceaselessly change nature and simultaneously change themselves and their mutual relations. Men themselves, their social relations, their form of social organization and consciousness were all different from what they are today, and in the future they will again be different.<br />
<br />
Humanity and human society are in process of [[Historical materialism|historical development]]. When human society reached a certain historical stage, [[Social class|classes]] and [[class struggle]] emerged. Every member of a [[class society]] exists as a member of a given class and lives in given conditions of class struggle. Man’s social being determines his consciousness. In class society the ideology of the members of each class reflects a different position and different class interests. The class struggle constantly goes on among these classes with their different positions, interests and ideologies. Thus it is not only in the struggle against nature but in the struggle of social classes that men change nature, change society and at the same time change themselves.<br />
<br />
[[Karl Marx|Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]] said:<blockquote>Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary, an alteration that can only take place in a practical movement, a ''[[Proletarian revolution|revolution]]''; the revolution is necessary, therefore, not only the [[Bourgeoisie|ruling class]] cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because [[Proletariat|the class ''overthrowing'' it]] can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>That is to say, the proletariat must conscientiously go through long periods of social revolutionary struggles and, in such struggles change society and change itself.<br />
<br />
We should therefore see ourselves as in need of change and capable of being changed. We should not look upon ourselves as immutable, perfect and sacrosanct, as persons who need not and cannot be changed. When we pose the task of remoulding ourselves in social struggle, we are not demeaning ourselves; the objective laws of social development demand it. Unless we do so, we cannot make progress, or fulfill the task of changing society.<br />
<br />
We Communists are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history; to day the changing of society and the world rests upon us and we are the driving force in this change. It is by unremitting struggle against [[Counterrevolution|counter-revolutionaries]]<sup>3</sup> that we Communists change society and the world, and at the same time ourselves.<br />
<br />
When we say Communists must remould themselves by waging struggles in every sphere against the counter-revolutionaries,<sup>3</sup> we mean that it is through such struggles that they must seek to make progress and must enhance their revolutionary quality and ability. An immature revolutionary has to go through a long process of revolutionary tempering and self-cultivation, a long process of remoulding, before he cam become a mature and seasoned revolutionary who can grasp and skillfully apply the laws of revolution. For in the first place, a comparatively immature revolutionary, born and bred in the old society, carries with him the remnants of the various ideologies of that society (including its prejudices, habits and traditions), and in the second he has not been through a long period of revolutionary activity. Therefore he does not yet have a really thorough understanding of the enemy, of the people or of the laws of social development and revolutionary struggle. In order to change this state of affairs, besides learning from past revolutionary experience (the practice of our predecessors), he must themself participate in contemporary revolutionary practice, and in this revolutionary practice and struggle against all kinds of counter revolutionaries,<sup>3</sup> he must bring his conscious activity into full play and work hard at study and self-cultivation. Only so can he acquire deeper experience and understanding of the laws of social development and revolutionary struggle, acquire a really thorough understanding of the enemy and the people, discover his wrong ideas, habits and prejudices and correct them, and thus raise the level of his political consciousness, cultivate his revolutionary qualities and improve his revolutionary methods. Hence, in order to remould themself and raise his owl level, a revolutionary must take part in revolutionary practice from which he must on no account isolate themself. Moreover, he must strive to conduct self-cultivation and study in the course of practice. Otherwise, it will still be impossible for him to make progress.<br />
<br />
For example, several Communists take part in a revolutionary mass struggle together and engage in revolutionary practice under roughly the same circumstances and conditions. It is possible that the effect of the struggle on these Party members will not be at all uniform. Some will make very rapid progress and some who used to lag behind will even forge ahead of others. Other Party members will advance very slowly. Still others will waver in the struggle and, instead of being pushed forward by revolutionary practice, will fall behind. Why?<br />
<br />
Or take another example. Many members of our Party were on the [[Long March]]; it was a severe process of tempering for them, and the overwhelming majority made very great progress indeed. But the Long March had the opposite effect on certain individuals in the Party. After having been on the Long March they began to shrink before arduous struggles, and some of them even planned to back out or to run away and later, succumbing to outside allurements, actually deserted the revolutionary ranks. Many Party members took part in the Long March together, and yet its impact and results varied very greatly. Again, why?<br />
<br />
Basically speaking, these phenomena are reflections of our revolutionary ranks of the class struggle in society. Our Party members differ in quality because they differ in social background and have come under different social influences. They differ in their attitude, stand and comprehension in relation to the revolutionary practice, and consequently they develop in different directions in the course of revolutionary practice. This can clearly be seen in your institute as well. You all receive the same education and training here, and yet because you differ in quality and experience, in degree of effort and self-cultivation, you may obtain different of even contrary results. Hence, subjective effort and self-cultivation in the course of revolutionary struggle are absolutely essential, indeed, indispensable for a revolutionary in remoulding themself and raising his own level.<br />
<br />
Whether he joined the revolution long ago or just recently, every Communist who wants to become a good politically mature revolutionary must undergo a long period of tempering in revolutionary struggle, must steel themself in mass revolutionary struggles and all kinds of difficulties and hardships, must sum up the experience gained through practice, make great efforts in self-cultivation, raise his ideological level, heighten his ability and never loose sense of what is new. For only thus can he turn themself into a politically staunch revolutionary of high quality.<br />
<br />
[[Confucius]] said “At fifteen, my mind was bent on learning. At thirty, I could think for myself. At forty, I was no longer perplexed. At fifty, I knew the decree of Heaven. At sixty, my ear was attuned to the truth. At seventy, I can follow my heart’s desire without transgressing what is right.”<sup>4</sup> Here the [[Feudalism|feudal]] philosopher was referring to his own process of self-cultivation; he did not consider themself to have been born a “sage”.<br />
<br />
[[Mencius]], another feudal philosopher, said that no one had fulfilled a “great mission” and played a role in history without first undergoing a hard process of tempering, a process which “exercises his mind with suffering and toughens his sinews and bones with toil, exposes his body to hunger, subjects him to extreme poverty, thwarts his under-takings and thereby stimulates his mind, tempers his character and adds to his capacities”.<sup>5</sup> Still more so must Communists give attention to tempering and cultivating themselves in revolutionary struggles, since they have the historically unprecedented “great mission” of changing the world.<br />
<br />
Our Communist self-cultivation is the kind essential to proletarian revolutionaries. It must not be divorced from revolutionary practice or from the actual revolutionary movements of the labouring masses, and especially of the proletarian masses.<br />
<br />
Comrade [[Mao Zedong]] has said:<blockquote>Discover the truth through practice, and again through practice verify and develop the truth. Start from perceptual knowledge and actively develop it into rational knowledge; then start from rational knowledge and actively guide revolutionary practice to change both the subjective and the objective world. Practice, knowledge, again practice and again knowledge. This form repeats itself in endless cycles, and with each cycle the content the content of practice and knowledge rises to a higher level. Such is the whole of the dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge, and such is the dialectical-materialist theory of the unity of knowing and doing.<sup>6</sup></blockquote>Our Party members should temper themselves and intensify their self-cultivation not only in the hardships, difficulties and reverses of revolutionary practice, but also in the course of smooth, successful and victorious revolutionary practice. Some members of our Party cannot stand the plaudits of success and victory; they let victories turn their heads, become brazen, arrogant, and bureaucratic and may even vacillate, degenerate and become corrupted, completely loosing their original revolutionary quality. Individual instances of this kind are not uncommon among our Party members. The existence of such a phenomenon in the Party calls for our comrades’ sharp attention.<br />
<br />
In past ages, before the proletarian revolutionaries appeared on the scene, practically all [[Revolution|revolutionaries]] became corrupted and degenerated with the achievement of victory. They lost their original revolutionary spirit and became obstacles to the further development of the revolution. [[Republic of China|China]]’s [[History of China|history]] over the past century, or to speak of more recent times, over the past fifty years, has shown us that many bourgeois and [[Petty bourgeoisie|petty-bourgeois]] revolutionaries in the past and by the nature of earlier revolutions. Before the [[Russian revolution of 1917|Great October Socialist Revolution]] in [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1991)|Russia]], all revolutions throughout history invariably ended in the suppression of the rule of one [[Exploitation|exploiting]] class by that of another. Thus, once they themselves became the ruling class, these revolutionaries lost their revolutionary quality and turned round to [[Oppression|oppress]] the exploited masses; this was the inexorable law.<br />
<br />
But such can never be the case with the proletarian revolution and with the Communist Party. The proletarian revolution is a revolution to abolish all exploitation, oppression and classes. The Communist Party represents the proletariat which is itself exploited but does not exploit others and which can therefore carry the revolution through to the end finally abolish all exploitation and sweep away all the corruption and rottenness in human society. The proletariat is able to build a strictly organized and disciplined party and set up a centralized and at the same time democratic state apparatus, and through the Party and this state apparatus, it is able to lead the masses of the people in waging unrelenting struggle against all corruption and rottenness and in ceaselessly weeding out of the Party and the state organs all those elements that have become [[Corruption|corrupt]] and degenerate (whatever high office they may hold), thereby preserving the purity of the Party and the state apparatus. This outstanding feature of the proletarian revolution and of the [[Vanguard party|proletarian revolutionary party]] did not and could not exist in earlier revolutions and revolutionary parties. Members of our Party must be clear on this point, and—particularly when the revolution is successful and victorious and when they themselves enjoy the ever greater confidence and support of the masses—they must sharpen their vigilance, intensify their self-cultivation in proletarian ideology and always preserve their pure proletarian revolutionary character so that they will not fall into the rut of earlier revolutionaries who degenerated in the hour of success.<br />
<br />
Tempering and self-cultivation in revolutionary practice and tempering and self-cultivation in proletarian ideology are important for every Communist, especially after the seizure of political power. The Communist Party did not drop from heaven but was born out of the Chinese society. Every member of the Communist party has come from this society, is living in it today and is constantly exposed to its seamy side. It is not surprising then that Communists, whether they are of proletarian or non-proletarian origin and whether they are old or new members of the Party, should carry with them to a greater or lesser the thinking and habits of the old society. In order to preserve our purity as vanguard fighters of the proletariat and to enhance our revolutionary quality and working ability that is essential for every Communist to work hard to temper and cultivate themself in every respect.<br />
<br />
These are the reasons why Communists must undertake self-cultivation. I shall now discuss the criteria for Communist self-cultivation.<br />
<br />
== Be Worthy Pupils of Marx and Lenin ==<br />
The constitution of the party stipulates that membership is open to any member who accepts the Programme and [[Library:Constitution of the Communist Party of China (2022)|Constitution of the Party]]<ref group="ProleWiki 2.">At the time of writing, this would have been the [[Constitution of the Communist Party of China (1928)|1928 Constitution]].</ref> organizations, pays membership dues and works in one of the Party organizations. No one can be a Party member unless he fulfills these requirements. But no Communist should rest content with being a Party member who merely fulfills the minimum requirements; as laid down in the Party Constitution, he should strive to make progress ceaselessly raise the level of his political consciousness and diligently study [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxism-Leninism]], as manifested throughout their lives.<br />
<br />
Engels said of Marx:<blockquote>...Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being, to contribute to the liberation of the modern proletariat, which he was the first to make conscious of its own position and of its needs, conscious of the needs of its emancipation. Fighting was his element. And he fought with a passion, a tenacity and a success such as few could rival.<sup>1</sup></blockquote>Engels also said of Marx:<blockquote>None of us has the breadth of vision with which he, whenever it was necessary to act quickly, did the right thing and tackled the decisive issue.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>[[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] said concerning the necessity of our learning from the example of [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]]:<blockquote>Remember, love and study Ilyich, our teacher, our leader. Fight and defeat our enemies, home and foreign—in the way that Ilyich taught us. Build the new society, the new way of life, the new culture in the way that Ilyich taught us. Never refuse to do the little things, for from the little things are built the big things—that is one of Ilyich's important behests.<sup>3</sup></blockquote>On another occasion Stalin said:<blockquote>The electors, the people, must demand that their deputies should remain equal to their tasks, that in their work they should not sink to the level of political philistines, that in their posts definite as Lenin was, that they should be as fearless in battle and as merciless towards the complicated and some danger or other looms on the horizon, that they should be as free from all requiring a comprehensive orientation and a comprehensive weighing of all the pros and cons as Lenin did.<sup>4</sup></blockquote>These are the concise characterizations of Marx by Engels and of Lenin by Stalin. That is how all members of our Party should learn from the thinking and qualities of Marx and Lenin and strive to be their worthy pupils.<br />
<br />
Some say that the that the thinking and qualities of such great revolutionary geniuses as the founders of Marxism-Leninism cannot be acquired and that it is impossible to raise one's thinking and qualities to their high level. They regard the founders of Marxism-Leninism as born geniuses , as mysterious beings. Is such a view correct? I think not.<br />
<br />
True enough, the average Party comrade is far from possessing the great gifts and profound scientific knowledge of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, and most of our comrades cannot attain to their deep and broad erudition in the theory of proletarian revolution. But it is perfectly possible for our comrades to grasp the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism, cultivate the style of Marx and Lenin in work and in struggle, constantly heighten their revolutionary quality and become statesmen of the type of Marx and Lenin, if they really have the will. Take a really conscious and consistent stand as vanguard fighters of the proletariat, really acquire the communist world outlook, never isolate themselves from the current deep and great revolutionary movement of the proletariat and all the labouring masses, and exert themselves in study, self-tempering and self-cultivation.<br />
<br />
There is a saying of Menicus: "Everybody can be a Yao or a Shun."<sup>5</sup> I think that was well said. Every Communist should keep his feet on the ground, seek the truth from the facts, work hard at tempering themself, work conscientiously at self-cultivation and do his best to improve his own thinking and quality. He should not regard the thinking and qualities of such great revolutionaries as the founders of Marxism-Leninism as beyond his reach, give up and be afraid to advance. For if he does so, he will become a "political philistine", a piece of "rotten wood that cannot be carved".<br />
<br />
We should of course adopt a correct attitude towards learning from the qualities of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and towards the learning of Marxism-Leninism itself. Otherwise it is impossible to learn anything, let alone to learn it well. In fact, there are different kinds of people in our ranks with different attitudes towards such learning.<br />
<br />
These are people who, when studying Marx and Lenin, fail to get to the essence of Marxism-Leninism, but only learn its terms and phrases superficially. Although they read Marxist-Leninist literature, they are unable to use its principles and conclusions as a guide to action and apply them to concrete, practical problems in real life. They are content ton learn isolated principles and conclusions by rote, and even to style themselves as "[[Dogmatism|the genuine]]" Marxist-Leninists; but they are certainly not genuine Marxist-Leninists and their actions and methods are diametrically opposed to Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
We have had not a few people of this type in the Communist Party of China. We had certain representatives of dogmatism at one time who were even worse. These people knew absolutely nothing about Marxism-Leninism and could only babble Marxist-Leninist phraseology, and yet they regarded themselves as China's Marx or China's Lenin, posed as such in the Party and had the impudence to require that our Party members should revere them as Marx and Lenin are revered, support them as "the leaders" and accord them loyalty and devotion. They went so far as to appoint themselves "the leaders" without being chosen, climbed into positions of authority, issued orders to the Party like [[Patriarchy|patriarchs]], tried to lecture our Party, abused everything in the Party, wilfully attacked and punished our Party members and pushed them around. Those people had no sincere desire to study Marxism-Leninism or fight for the realization of communism—they were just careerists in the Party, termites in the communist movement. Such people were bound to be opposed and eventually unmasked and discarded by the rank and file. And indeed they were discarded by our Party members. But can we say with full confidence that no such people will reappear in our Party? No, we cannot yet say no.<br />
<br />
Then there are people of exactly the opposite kind. They see themselves above all as pupils of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, conscientiously study the theory of Marxism-Leninism and strive to grasp its essence and spirit. They look up to the noble character and proletarian revolutionary qualities of the founders, and in the course of revolutionary struggles they conscientiously carry on self-cultivation and examine themselves to see if their handling of affairs, their dealings with people and their own behaviour conform to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism. They are well read in Marxism-Leninism but at the same time they make a special effort to investigate and analyse living reality, to study the characteristics of their own time and all aspects of the situation facing the proletariat of their own country, and to integrate the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the revolution in their own country. They do not content themselves with memorizing Marxist-Leninist principles and conclusions, but take a firm Marxist-Leninist stand learn the Marxist-Leninist method and act accordingly, giving spirited guidance in every revolutionary struggle, and thus they transform reality and at the same time transform themselves. Every one of their actions without exception is guided by the general principals of Marxism-Leninism and is devoted to the victory of the proletarian cause, the liberation of the nation and all humanity, and the triumph of Communism.<br />
<br />
The attitude of these people is the only correct one. It is the one attitude towards studying Marxism-Leninism and learning from the qualities of its founders that will enable us to become communist proletarian revolutionaries of the Marx and Lenin type.<br />
<br />
A person who really takes pain to cultivate themself and to be a faithful pupil of the founders of Marxism-Leninism will lay special stress on maintaining the Marxist-Leninist stand and using the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint and method to solve the problems arising in the revolutionary movement lead by the proletariat, as the founders of Marxism-Leninism did. He will give no thought whatsoever to his own position or fame in the Party, nor will he ever claim to be a Marx or a Lenin, nor require nor expect others to have the same high respect for him as for Marx or Lenin, for he does not think he has any right to do so. Yet such a person will enjoy the considered respect and support of the mass of the Party members just because he acts in this way, because he is always honest and loyal, brave and firm, and shows great ability in the revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
Of course it is not easy to model ourselves on the founders of Marxism-Leninism and to be their faithful and worthy pupils. But we can become their faithful and worthy pupils if we are strong-willed and determined to fight hard for the cause of communism, if we diligently study Marxism-Leninism amid the great revolutionary struggles of the masses and are good at summing up experience and if we temper and cultivate ourselves in every respect and devote our whole lives to the proletarian communist cause.<br />
<br />
=== ProleWiki annotations ===<br />
<references group="ProleWiki 2." /><br />
<br />
== The Self-Cultivation of Communists and the Revolutionary Practice of the Masses ==<br />
In order to become faithful and worthy pupils of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, we must engage in all round self-cultivation in the course of the great and protracted revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and the masses. We must engage in self-cultivation in the Marxist-Leninist theory; self cultivation in applying the Marxist-Leninist stand, view point and method to the study and handling of all problems; self-cultivation in proletarian ideology and morality; self-cultivation in upholding unity in the Party, practising criticism and self-criticism and observing discipline; self cultivation in developing the style of hard work and persistent struggle; self-cultivation in building close ties with the masses; self cultivation in various branches of scientific knowledge, etc. We are all members of the Communist Party and therefore we must all without exception carry on self-cultivation in these respects. However, since Party members differ from one another in political consciousness, experience of struggle, field of work, cultural level and in the conditions in which they work, it is natural that comrades should differ to some extent in the various aspects of self-cultivation to which they must pay special attention of which they must stress.<br />
<br />
When Zeng Zi, in ancient times, said, "I reflect on myself three times a day,"<sup>1</sup> he was discussing self-examination. The ''Book of Odes'' in the famous lines, "As knife and file make smooth the bone, as jade is wrought by chisel and stone, <sup>2</sup> referred to the need for help and criticism among friends. What all this shows is that very hard work and very earnest self-cultivation are essential if one is to make progress. But the "self-cultivation" perused by many people in the past was generally [[Idealism|idealistic]], formalistic, abstract and divorced from social practice. They exaggerated the role of subjective intentions, thinking that so long as they had "good will" in the abstract, they could transform reality, society and themselves. Of course this is absurd. Our self-cultivation cannot be done that way. We are revolutionary materialists; our self-cultivation cannot be separated from the revolutionary practices of the masses.<br />
<br />
For us it is most important to never divorce ourselves from the current revolutionary struggle of the masses, but to identify ourselves with it, in order to study, sum up and apply the revolutionary experience of the past. This means that we must cultivate and temper ourselves in revolutionary practice and that in turn our self-cultivation and tempering are undertaken solely for the sake of the people and of revolutionary practice. It means that we must modestly learn the Marxist-Leninist stand, viewpoint and method, learn from the noble proletarian quality of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and apply all this in our practice, in our words and deeds, our daily life and work, constantly correcting or eliminating anything in our ideology contrary to it and strengthening our own proletarian communist ideology and character. It means that we should listen modestly to the opinions and criticisms of our Party comrades and of the masses, make a careful study of the practical problems in our life and work, carefully sum up and draw lessons from our experience in work, and that, in the light of all this, we should ascertain whether our understanding of Marxism-Leninism and our use of the Marxist-Leninist method are correct and check up on our shortcomings and mistakes so as to overcome them and improve our work. Furthermore, on the basis of new experience we should ascertain whether there are any individual conclusions or aspects of Marxism-Leninism that need supplementing, enriching and developing. In short, we must integrate the universal truth of Marxism- Leninism with the concrete practice of the revolution.<br />
<br />
This is the method of self-cultivation for us communists. It is entirely different from those methods of self-cultivation which are idealistic and divorced from the revolutionary practice of the masses.<br />
<br />
In order to persevere in this Marxist-Leninist method of cultivation, we must resolutely oppose and thoroughly eradicate one of the worst vices bequeathed to us by the old society in the field of education and study, namely, the separation of theory from practice. In the old society many people who studied thought it unnecessary, or even impossible to act upon what they had learned, and though they wrote and spoke abundantly of justice and morality, in fact they were out and out scoundrels. Although the [[Kuomintang]] [[Reactionary|reactionaries]] memorize the "Three People's Principles"<sup>3</sup> and recite [[Sun Yat-sen]]'s Testament,<sup>4</sup> in actual fact they bleed the people white with [[Tax|taxes]], practice corruption and slaughter, oppress the masses, are opposed to "[[Anti-imperialism|those nations who treat us as equals]]", and go as far as to compromise with or surrender to the [[Empire of Japan (1868–1947)|national enemy]]. An old ixucai<sup>5</sup> once told me that of all the teachings of Confucius he was able to observe only this one, "For him no food can ever be too dainty and no minced meat too fine"<sup>5</sup> and that he could not observe the rest and had never intended to. Since that is what these people are like, why do they run schools and study the "teachings of the sages"? They are after advancement and money, use the "teachings of the sages" to oppress the exploited, and deceive the people by paying lip service to justice and morality. This is typical of the attitude of the exploiting classes of the old society towards the sages they "worship". Needless to say, when we Communists study Marxism-Leninism an all that is best in our national heritage, we must never adopt such an attitude. What we learn we must practice. Being proletarian revolutionaries who are honest and pure in purpose, we cannot be untrue to ourselves, to the people, or to those who went before us. This is an outstanding characteristic as well as a great merit of Communists.<br />
<br />
Is it possible that the old society's separation of theory from practice can have no influence on us? No, it is not! It is true that none of you students are studying Marxism-Leninism for the sake of advancement and money and or oppressing the exploited. Yet is it possible to maintain that none of you ever entertains the idea that your thoughts, words, deeds and life do not necessarily have to be guided by Marxist-Leninist principles or that you do not intend to put all the principles that you have learned into practice? Is it possible that none of you ever thinks of studying Marxism-Leninism or going deeper into the theory as a means of getting ahead in life, of showing off and becoming famous? I cannot guarantee that none of you thinks along these lines. That kind of thinking runs counter to Marxism-Leninism and to the basic Marxist-Leninist principle of the integration of theory and practice. Certainly we must study theory, but we must also practice what we learn. And it is for the sake of practice, of the Party, of the people, and of the victory of the revolution that we study theory.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<blockquote>The great strength of Marxism-Leninism lies precisely in its integration with the concrete revolutionary practice of all countries. For the Communist Party of China, it is a matter of learning to apply the theory of Marxism-Leninism to the specific circumstances of China. For the Chinese Communists who are part of the great Chinese nation, flesh of its flesh and blood of its blood, any talk about Marxism in isolation from China's characteristics is merely Marxism in the abstract, Marxism in a vacuum. Hence to apply Marxism concretely in China so that its every manifestation has an indubitable Chinese character, i.e., to apply Marxism in the light of China's specific characteristics, becomes a problem which it is urgent for the whole Party to understand and solve. Foreign stereotypes must be abolished, there must be less singing of empty, abstract tunes, and dogmatism must be laid to rest; they must be replaced by the fresh, lively Chinese style and spirit which the common people of China love.<sup>6</sup></blockquote>Our comrades must study the theory of Marxism-Leninism by following the method Comrade Mao Zedong speaks of here.<br />
<br />
== The Unity of Theoretical Study and Ideological Self-Cultivation ==<br />
We Communists must not separate our study of theory from our ideological self-cultivation. We must remould ourselves and temper our proletarian ideology not only in the practice of revolution but in the study of Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
The view is current among some members of our Party that a firm and purely proletarian stand is irrelevant to a Party member's understanding a and mastery of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism. They believe that one can thoroughly understand and genuinely master the Marxist-Leninist theory and method even though one's proletarian stand may not be very firm and one's ideology not very pure (i.e., it may be tainted with the remnants of non-proletarian ideas). They believe that the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism can be mastered merely through book learning. This view is wrong.<br />
<br />
Marxism-Leninism is the science of proletarian revolution, the science by which the working class builds socialism and communism. It can be thoroughly understood and mastered only by those who have a firm proletarian stand and who have made the ideals of the proletariat their own. Without a firm proletarian stand and pure proletarian ideals it is impossible for anyone to thoroughly understand or master the science of Marxism-Leninism. The science of Marxism-Leninism is of little of no use to anyone who is not a genuine revolutionary, who is not a proletarian revolutionary to the core, who does not want to bring about socialism and communism throughout the world and emancipate all humanity, to anyone who does not want revolution or is unwilling to carry it through to the end and wants to stop half-way.<br />
<br />
We often come across very fine Party members from the working class who are not well grounded in Marxist-Leninist theory and who may not do so well as others in an examination in which Marxist-Leninist works and formulations have to be quoted from memory. Yet in studying Marxism-Leninism, provided it is explained to them in language they understand, they generally show much keener interest and far greater comprehension than some Party members from the [[intelligentsia]]. For example, the section in Capital concerning surplus value is difficult for some Party members, but not for those from the working class. The reason is that in the process of production and of struggle against the capitalists, the workers come to know all too well how the capitalists calculate wages and working hours, exploit the workers for profit and oppress them. Therefore, they generally understand Marx's theory of surplus value more profoundly than do some Party members from other classes. When we say that many Party members from the working class are readier to accept Marxism-Leninism, we do not, of course mean that their class-background makes them born Marxist-Leninists. We mean that provided they study Marxist-Leninist theory modestly and diligently and have a real grasp of the method of seeking the truth from the facts, those comrades who have a firm and purely proletarian stand and are free from personal prejudice of other blemishes are certain to be keener and more correct than the others in their observation and handling of practical problems. In the struggle, too, these comrades will prove more able to discern the truth and will uphold it more courageously and unhesitatingly.<br />
<br />
Also, we come across many Party members of non-proletarian origin who differ in their development owing to their differing attitudes towards the relation between Marxist-Leninist study and ideological self-cultivation. Generally speaking, when they join the revolution such people do not have a firm and clear-cut proletarian stand, are not very correct or pure in their ideology, and to a greater of lesser extent carry over various non-proletarian ideas from the old society. Obviously these ideas come into direct conflict with the principles of Marxism-Leninism, and since the people take different attitudes, the results of the conflict differ. In studying Marxism-Leninism, some people correctly combine theoretical study with their ideological self-cultivation, using Marxist-Leninist principles to fight and overcome whatever is backward in their thinking. In this way thy achieve a more truly proletarian stand and a more undiluted proletarian ideology, and learn how to apply Marxist-Leninist principles to the solution of practical problems. We have many such Party members. Others, however, go the opposite way; they have a lot of old junk accumulated in their heads and many stubborn habits, prejudices and selfish desires, but the lack of determination to remould themselves. In studying Marxism-Leninism they do not make use of its principles to criticize and repudiate whatever is backward in their own ideology, but employ it as a weapon to further their own private ends, and this is carried to the point where the principles of Marxism-Leninism are so distorted by their old prejudices that these people can neither reach a correct understanding of these principles nor grasp the spirit and essence of Marxism-Leninism. When they handle practical problems in the course of revolutionary struggle, the habits and prejudices which they have brought with them from the old society and their individualistic calculations led them to think in terms of personal gain or loss, to be hesitant and vacillating and incapable of going deeply into things in a free untrammelled way or of courageously upholding the truth , and they conceal or distort the truth unintentionally, or even deliberately.<br />
<br />
These people are absolutely incapable of guiding their lives by the principals of Marxism-Leninism, and hence incapable of dealing with practical problems promptly, correctly and realistically according to these principles; sometimes they even adopt a negative attitude when practical problems have already been correctly solved according to these principals by the Party organization, or by comrades other than themselves. Such things are neither rare nor unusual, but are quite common.<br />
<br />
Thus we can say that it is impossible for a Party member who lacks a clear-cut firm proletarian stand and a correct, purely proletarian ideology to achieve a thorough understanding and real mastery of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism as a weapon in the revolutionary struggle. In other words a Party member must have the noble stand of the proletariat in order to become versed in Marxist-Leninist theory.<br />
<br />
At the same time, we should add that no Party member can maintain a proletarian stand and express a proletarian ideology concretely in every revolutionary struggle unless he studies the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism diligently and guides his thinking and action accordingly.<br />
<br />
There are some Party members who think it quite enough to have revolutionary firmness and to fight bravely, and that it does not matter much whether they study and undertake self-cultivation in Marxist-Leninist theory. Some comrades even think that a good class origin or a good personal class status is all that is needed to make them vanguard proletarian fighters, thus obviating the need to study Marxism-Leninism. There are other comrades who never study it earnestly in the course of work or struggle, though they generally admit the importance of theory. All such attitudes are obviously wrong.<br />
<br />
The theory of Marxism-Leninism is our weapon for studying every phenomenon and dealing with every question, and especially for studying all social phenomena and dealing with all social questions.. If we do not know how to wield the weapon of Marxist-Leninist theory, we shall be unable correctly to understand and deal with the problems confronting us in the revolutionary struggle and shall be in danger of loosing our bearings and departing from the revolutionary proletarian stand, or even, whether consciously or unconsciously, of becoming opportunists of one kind or another, captives and yes-men of the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Revolutionary firmness and courage in the struggle are precious qualities which every Communist must possess. Besides these qualities, Communists must have the ability to find the right way to conduct the revolution and carry on the struggle in different historical periods and under different conditions of struggle, if they are to win the victory for the revolution and realize the highest ideal of communism. Only by applying Marxism-Leninism can we correctly solve such important questions in the revolutionary struggle as the question of whom to rely upon, whom to unite with and whom to overthrow, the question of who are our direct allies, who is the main enemy and who are the secondary enemies, the question of rallying all possible allies, including even secondary enemies under certain conditions, to defeat the main enemy, and the question of making timely changes in strategy and tactics to meet changing situations. Without mastering the weapon of Marxism-Leninism and attaining a high degree of self-cultivation in Marxist-Leninist theory, we cannot possibly maintain a firm, correct proletarian stand on every important question in the revolutionary struggle, or formulate the policies which are most advantageous to the cause of the proletarian revolution or champion the overall, long term interests of the proletarian revolutionary struggle amid the complex situations and sharp changes, when it is necessary for us to make detours and turns.<br />
<br />
Consider, for instance, our Party's experience in carrying out the policy of the national [[united front]] against Japan. Before the Incident of July 7. 1937,<sup>1</sup> certain comrades did not understand that the [[contradiction]] between the Chinese nation and Japanese [[imperialism]] had become the principal one while the contradictions among the different classes and political groups within the country had become secondary. As a result, they opposed the Party's policy of forming a national united front against Japan. of uniting all [[Patriotism|patriotic]] classes, strata, political parties and social groupings for joint resistance, and especially of uniting with the Kuomintang to fight Japan. Although these comrades thought they were taking a firm proletarian stand in opposing the Party's correct policy, they actually departed from it and plunged into "closed-doorism" and [[sectarianism]]. Had we acted in accordance with their wrong views, the proletariat and its political party would have been unable to unite and lead all the patriotic classes, strata, parties and social groupings for the purpose of defeating Japanese imperialism; instead, the forces of the Anti-Japanese National United Front would have been weakened and the proletariat and its political party would have been isolated to the detriment of the struggle to resist Japan and save China. After the July 7th Incident, when our Party had formed the Anti-Japanese National United front with the Kuomintang, certain comrades went to the other extreme, maintaining that since the Kuomintang had joined in the resistance to Japan, there was hardly any distinction between it and the Communist Party. They adopted a policy of capitulation by appeasing the big [[landlord]] and big bourgeois classes and the Kuomintang. and opposed the Party's policy of upholding its independence within the united front. While they over estimated the strength of and placed undue trust in the Kuomintang, on which they pinned all their hopes for resisting Japan and saving China, they had no confidence in the strength of the Communist Party and the people, did not place their hopes on the Communist Party and therefore did not dare freely to expand the Party and the anti-Japanese people's revolutionary forces and to resolutely fight against the Kuomintang's policy of opposing and restricting the Communist Party. The comrades with this approach styled themselves as the true representatives of the proletariat, but in essence their policy would have made the proletariat a vassal or an appendage of the bourgeoisie, and would have caused the proletariat to loose the leadership of the Anti-Japanese National United Front. These "Left" and Right mistakes are both striking examples of the failure to take a firm proletarian stand and to identify the correct path for advancing the revolutionary cause when major changes are occurring in the political situation.<br />
<br />
The proletariat cannot just emancipate itself alone; it must fight for the emancipation of [[The people|all the working people]], the emancipation of the nation and of all humanity, for only thus can it fully emancipate itself. The proletariat must rid the whole of human society of exploitation, oppression and class struggle once and for all, for only thus can it genuinely and finally emancipate itself. Hence a firm proletarian stand must be sharply differentiated from "closed-doorism' and sectarianism. In waging struggles the proletariat and its political party must establish close ties with the masses of working people, form revolutionary alliances with other revolutionary classes and parties and lead the working masses and all their allies forward together; they must represent the interests of more than ninety per cent of the population of the country. To have a firm proletarian stand is to represent at all times and in all circumstances the highest interests of the overwhelming majority of the people, which, we must understand, are also the highest class interests of the proletariat. On the other hand, a firm proletarian stand must be sharply differentiated from all appeasement and capitulation. In waging revolutionary struggles the proletariat and its political party must draw clear lines of distinction not only between themselves and the landlord class and the bourgeoisie but also between themselves and the revolutionary democrats of the petty bourgeoisie, and must even make some distinction between themselves and the masses of working people. In the revolutionary struggle they must at all times firmly maintain their independence and be free from any bourgeois or other non-proletarian class influence. In every stage of the development of the revolutionary struggle they must combine the interests of the part with the interests of the whole and immediate interests with ling-term interests. As Marx and Engels said of Communists:<blockquote>1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.<br />
<br />
2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>During his struggle to organize a political party of the proletariat at the end of the 19th century, Lenin said:<blockquote>The consciousness of the masses and of the workers cannot be genuine [[class consciousness]], unless the workers learn to observe from concrete, and above all from topical (current), political facts and events, every other social class and all manifestations of the intellectual, ethical and political life of these classes; unless they learn to apply in practice the materialist analysis and the materialist estimate of all aspects of the life and activity of all classes, strata and groups of the population.<sup>3</sup></blockquote>Further:<blockquote>The [[Russian Social Democratic Labor Party|Social-Democrat]]'s ideal should not be a [[Trade union|trade-union]] secretary, but a tribune of the people, able to react to every manifestation of tyranny and oppression, no matter where it takes place, no matter what stratum of class of people it affects; he must be able to generalize all these manifestations to produce a single picture of police violence and capitalist exploitation; he must be able to take advantage of every event, however small, in order to explain his [[Socialism|socialist]] convictions and [[Democracy|democratic]] demands to all and everyone the world-historic significance of the proletariat's struggle for emancipation.<sup>4</sup></blockquote>To fulfill the requirements cited by Lenin in these two passages, we Communists must of course unceasingly take part in the revolutionary practice and thus increase our perceptual knowledge and accumulate practical experience. But it must be pointed out, perceptual knowledge and practical experience alone are not sufficient. As Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<blockquote>Fully to reflect a thing in its totality, to reflect its essence, to reflect its inherit laws, it is necessary through the exercise of thought to reconstruct the rich data of sense perception, discarding the dross and selecting the essential, eliminating the false and retaining the true, proceeding from the one to the other and from the outside to the inside, in order to form a system of concepts and theories—it is necessary to make a leap from perceptual to rational knowledge.<sup>5</sup></blockquote>Therefore, while engaged in revolutionary practice, we must most conscientiously study the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism.<blockquote>The theory of Marxism-Leninism is the summing-up of the experience of the international working-class movement; it is a theory formulated in revolutionary practice and in turn serving revolutionary practice. If only we study this theory, apply it and master it in close conjunction with revolutionary practice, we shall be able to understand the inner connections of the changes taking place all around us and to know how and in what direction the various classes are now moving and will soon move, and we shall be able to determine our line of action and shall confidence in the future of the revolutionary movement.</blockquote>It is precisely because the theory of Marxism-Leninism plays such a great role that Lenin said, "The role of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory."<sup>6</sup> Members of the Communist Party must closely link their study of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism with their own ideological self-cultivation and self-tempering; they must never divorce one from the other.<br />
<br />
Time and again Comrade Mao Zedong has emphasised the tremendous importance of cultivating oneself in the theory of Marxism-Leninism. He has said:<blockquote>From the Marxist viewpoint, theory is important, and its importance is fully expressed in Lenin's statement, "Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." But Marxism emphasises the importance of theory precisely and only because it can guide action.<sup>5</sup></blockquote>Comrade Mao Zedong has constantly urged all Party members who have some capacity for study to study Marxist-Leninist theory, study the actual conditions of the movement, study Chinese and world history and learn to guide their actions by Marxist-Leninist theory and also help to educate comrades with a lower cultural and theoretical level. The whole Party should at times bear in mind this injunction of Comrade Mao Zedong's.<br />
<br />
== The Cause of Communism is the Greatest and Most Arduous Undertaking in Human History ==<br />
Now let us continue with our discussion of ideological self-cultivation by Communist Party members.<br />
<br />
What does ideological self-cultivation mean? Fundamentally, in my opinion, it means that every Party member should use proletarian ideology to combat whatever non-proletarian ideas he has, use the communist world outlook he has and use the principle of the supremacy of the interests of the proletariat, the people and the Party to combat his individualism.<br />
<br />
This struggle is one of conflicting ideologies, and it reflects the class struggle in society. For a Party member, the result of this struggle should be that the proletarian ideology overcomes and ultimately eliminates any non-communist world outlook and that ideas based on the general interests and aims of the Party, of the revolution and of the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity overcome and ultimately eliminate all individualism. If the opposite happens, that is, if the latter prevails over the former, the comrade concerned will retrogress and may even loose his qualifications as a member of the Communist Party. For a Communist that would be a terrible and dangerous thing to happen.<br />
<br />
We Communist Party members temper ourselves ideologically in struggles of all kinds inside and outside the Party, constantly sum up and learn from experience gained in revolutionary practice, and examine our own ideas to see whether they fully conform to Marxism-Leninism and the interests of the struggle for the emancipation of the proletariat. It is through such study, reflection and self-examination that we eliminate all remnants of incorrect ideas and nip in the bud any ideas inconsistent with the interests of communism.<br />
<br />
As you know, a man's words and actions are guided by his ideology. And a man's ideology is inseparable from his world outlook. The only world outlook for members of the Communist Party is the communist world outlook. This world outlook is the philosophical system of the proletariat and also our communist methodology.. All this has been abundantly discussed in Marxist-Leninist literature, and especially in the philosophical works of the founders. As you have studied it, I shall not go into it today. Here I shall only talk briefly of our communist cause, of what it is and how Party members should advance it.<br />
<br />
What is our most fundamental duty as Party members? It is to achieve communism. As far as the Communist Parties of different countries are concerned, in each country it is for the Communist Party and the people there to transform it by their own efforts, and in that way the whole world will be transformed step by step into a communist world. Will the communist world be good? We all know it will be. In that world there will be no exploiters of oppressors, no landlords and capitalists, no imperialists and fascists, nor will there be any oppressed and exploited people, or any of the darkness, ignorance and backwardness resulting from the system of exploitation. In such a society the production of both material and moral values will develop and flourish mightily and will meet the varied needs of all its members. By then all humanity will consist of unselfish, intelligent, highly cultured and skilled communist workers; mutual assistance and affection will prevail among men and there will be no such irrationalities as mutual suspicion and deception, mutual injury, mutual slaughter and war. It will of course be the best, the most beautiful and the most advanced society in human history. Who can deny that such a society is good? But can this good communist society be built? We say that it can and will be. Marxist-Leninist theory has explained this scientifically and beyond all doubt. A factual testimony has been provided by the victory of the Great October revolution and the successes in socialist construction in the Soviet Union. Our duty is constantly to advance the cause socialism and communism in accordance with the laws of development of human society, so as to make socialist and communist society a reality as soon as possible. This is our ideal.<br />
<br />
However, the cause of socialism and communism still faces powerful enemies who must be thoroughly and finally defeated in every field; only then will the socialist and communist society be brought into being. Victory for the communist cause can only be won through long and arduous struggle. Without it there can be no victory. This struggle, of course, is not an "accidental" social phenomenon or an invention of certain Communists as some people assert. It is inevitable in the development of class society; it is unavoidable class struggle. The birth of the Communist Party and the fact that Communists participate, organize and guide this struggle are also inevitable phenomena conforming with the laws of social development. The imperialists, [[Fascism|fascists]] and landlords—in short, all exploiters and oppressors—are oppressing and exploiting the overwhelming majority of the people of the world to such an extent that the people are hardly able to survive and have to unite and fight against this exploitation and oppression, because they cannot exist, much less make progress in any other way. This struggle, therefore, is natural and unavoidable.<br />
<br />
On the one hand, we must understand that communism is the greatest cause in human history, which will eliminate exploitation and classes once and for all, emancipate humanity and bring humanity into a world of happiness, radiating with beauty, such as it has never known before. But on the other hand, we must also understand that the cause of communism is the most arduous undertaking in all history; that only through protracted, bitter and torturous struggle will we be able to defeat all the exploiting classes; and that for a long time after our victory we shall patiently have to carry out social and economic, ideological and cultural transformation, for only thus will all the influences, conventions and habits of the exploiting classes be eliminated from among the people, and only thus will a new social and economic system, a new communist culture and code of social morality be built up.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party will defiantly win final victory by relying on the proletariat and the masses of the exploited and oppressed people an by using Marxism-Leninism to guide the revolutionary struggle of the masses and propel society towards the great goal of communism. The reason is that the historical laws of social development make the progress of human society towards communism inevitable; that latent in the proletariat and the other exploited and oppressed masses of the world lie extremely powerful revolutionary energies which, once mobilized, united and organized, can triumph over all the reactionary forces of the exploiting classes and imperialism; and that the Communist Party and the proletariat are the new and rising forces and whatever is new and rising is invincible. This has been fully demonstrated by the history of the world communist movement and the Communist Party of China. The present situation is as follows. Socialism has already won a great victory in the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]], or on one sixth of the earth's surface; militant Communist Parties armed with the theory of Marxism-Leninism have been organized in many countries; the world communist movement is rapidly growing and developing; and the forces of the proletariat and the other exploited and oppressed masses of the world are being rapidly mobilized and united in the course of incessant struggles. The communist movement is already organized as a mighty and invincible world force. Beyond all doubt the communist cause will continue to develop and advance, and will win final and complete victory. However, we should also realize that the international reaction and the exploiting classes are yet stronger than we are, that they are temporarily superior in many fields and that only by protracted, torturous and bitter struggles can we defeat them.<br />
<br />
In a society in which [[Private property|private ownership of the means of production]] has existed for thousands of years, the exploiting classes through their rule have built up great power in all fields and have grabbed everything under the sun. Their long rule has given rise to backwardness, ignorance, selfishness, mutual suspicion and deception, mutual injury and slaughter in human society, which have persisted down the ages. It has exerted a most pernicious influence on the exploited masses and on other members of society. This is the inevitable result of the efforts of the exploiting classes to preserve their class interests and rule. For they cannot maintain their ruling position unless they keep the exploited masses and the colonial peoples backward, unorganized and divided. Hence, in order to achieve victory we must not only conduct a stern struggle against the exploiting classes but also carry on a struggle against their long-standing influence among the masses and the backward ideas and other backward phenomena found among the masses, for only thus can we enhance their political consciousness and unite them to defeat the exploiting classes. Here is the difficulty in the course of achieving communism. Comrades! If the masses were all politically conscious, united, free from the influence of the exploiting classes and free from backwardness, as some people imagine them to be, what would be so difficult about the revolution?<br />
<br />
Not only does this influence of the exploiting classes exist before the victory of the revolution, but it survives for a very long time after when the exploiting classes have been ejected from their ruling position. Think how torturous is the process and how arduous are the work and struggle that are needed to vanquish the exploiting classes and their influence among the people once and for all, to emancipate and change all humanity, to transform myriads of small commodity producers, finally to abolish all classes and gradually to transform humanity that has lived in class society for thousands of years and been influenced by all kinds of old customs and conventions until it becomes communist humanity, intelligent and unselfish, and with a high level of culture and skill!<br />
<br />
Lenin said:<blockquote>The abolition of classes means not only driving out landlords and capitalists—that we accomplished with comparative ease—it also means abolishing the small commodity producers, and they cannot be driven out, or crushed; we must live in harmony with them; they can (and must) be remoulded and re-educated only by very prolonged, slow, cautious organizational work. They encircle the proletariat on every side with a petty-bourgeois atmosphere, which permeates and corrupts the proletariat and causes constant relapses among the proletariat into petty-bourgeois spinelessness, disunity, individualism, alternate moods of exaltation and dejection. The strictest centralization and discipline are required within the political party of the proletariat in order to counteract this, in order that the organizational role of the proletariat (and that is its principle role) may be exercised correctly, successfully, victoriously....The force of habit of millions and tens of millions is a most terrible force....It is a thousand times easier to vanquish the centralized big bourgeoisie than to "vanquish" the millions and millions of small owners; yet they, by their ordinary, everyday, imperceptible, elusive, demoralizing activity, achieve the very results which the bourgeoisie need and which tend to restore the bourgeoisie.<sup>1</sup></blockquote>He also said:<blockquote>...the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by its overthrow (even if only in one country), and whose power lies not only in the strength of international capital, in the strength and durability of the international connections of the bourgeoisie, but also in the force of habit, in the strength of small production. For all these reasons the dictatorship of the proletariat is essential, and victory over the bourgeoisie is impossible without a long, stubborn and war of life and death, a war demanding perseverance, discipline, firmness, indomitableness and unity of will.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>Hence the proletariat has a very difficult task to perform even after the victory of the revolution. The proletarian revolution differs from all other revolutions in history. Bourgeois revolutions, for example, are largely completed with the seizure of state power. But for the proletariat, victory and political emancipation are only the beginning of the revolution, and a tremendous amount of work remains to be done after the victory, after the seizure of state power.<br />
<br />
The cause of communism is needed a "hundred years' task", as the saying goes, and it defiantly cannot be accomplished at one stroke. In different countries this undertaking has to go through different stages, and different enemies must be defeated, before a communist society can gradually be established. Take the case of our own country. China is still in the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and our enemies are imperialism, which perpetuates aggression against China, and the feudal and comprador forces, which are in collusion with imperialism. Only when we have defeated these enemies can we complete the bourgeois-democratic revolution in our country. Then, after the victory of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, it will still be necessary to make the socialist revolution and to carry on socialist transformation and socialist construction for a long period, and only so will the gradual transition to communist society be possible.<br />
<br />
Since the ultimate goal of our struggle is the achievement of communism, it is naturally our duty as Communists to overcomes all the difficulties arising in the process.<br />
<br />
Since the communist cause is so great and arduous an undertaking, some people who seek social progress are still sceptical and not convinced that communism can be realized. They do not believe that under the leadership of the proletariat and its party the human race can develop and transform itself into a communist humanity of the highest quality and that all the difficulties in the process of revolution and construction can be overcome. Either they do not forsee the difficulties or they become pessimistic and disappointed when confronted with them, and there are even Party members who waver and desert the communist ranks.<br />
<br />
We communists should be men of the boldest vision and revolutionary determination. Every Party member should gladly and solemnly shoulder the task of realizing communism, a task greater and more arduous than any in human history. We clearly see the difficulties in the process of realising communism, but at the same time we clearly understand that they cam undoubtedly be overcome by arousing millions of people to the revolutionary action, and no difficulties will ever daunt us. We have the masses of the people to rely on, and we have full confidence that a substantial part of the work of building communism will be accomplished in our town time and that the whole of this magnificent undertaking will be triumphantly completed by the coming generations. The heroes of no other class in history could possibly have had this great communist ideal and boldness of vision. In this respect we have every reason for pride.<br />
<br />
I recall the instance of the western European bourgeois biographer<sup>3</sup> who interviewed Comrade Stalin during a visit to the Soviet Union and brought up the comparisons between historical personalities. Comrade Stalin told him that Lenin was like the ocean while Czar [[Peter I Romanov|Peter the Great]] was only a drop in the ocean. Such is the place in history a proletarian leader of the communist cause occupies, compared with that of a leader in the cause of the landlord and the rising mercantile classes. From this comparison we can see how truly great is a leader who fights for the triumph of communism and the cause of the emancipation of humanity and how paltry is one who fights for the cause of the exploiting classes.<br />
<br />
We Communist Party members must have the highest goals in our struggle and the highest ideals, while at the same time we must have a practical spirit and do real practical work. Such are the characteristics distinguishing us as Communists. If all a person has is great and lofty ideas without having a practical spirit or doing real practical work, he is not a good Party member but only a dreamer, a prattler or a pedant. On the other hand, whoever is interested only in practical work but lacks great and lofty communist ideals is not a good Communist either, but just a routine plodder. Only by combining the great and lofty ideals of communism with real practical work and practical spirit can one be a good Communist. This standard for a good Communist has often been stressed by Comrade Mao Zedong, the leader of our Party.<br />
<br />
The communist ideal is beautiful, while the reality of the existing capitalist world is ugly. This is precisely why the overwhelming majority of the people demand the changing of that reality and why it must be changed. In order to change the world we must not divorce ourselves from reality, disregard it or escape from it, nor must we surrender to ugly reality. We must face reality squarely, study and understand it, live and grow in it, fight against the ugly reality and transform it, so that we can gradually realize our ideal. Hence we members of the communist Party must initiate and press ahead with our great communist task of changing the world, beginning with our immediate surroundings, with the people immediately around us and such work as we can immediately undertake. Here we should criticize those young comrades who frequently make the mistake of wanting to escape from or disregarding reality. It is good that they have lofty ideals, but they often complain about their place of work and the kind of work they are given. They are always looking for some "ideal" place or job so that they can "change the world" with ease. But no such place and no such job exist, except in their dreams.<br />
<br />
The cause of communism is our life work. Throughout our lives, our every activity is exclusively devoted to it and to nothing else.<br />
<br />
== A Party Member's Personal Interests Must be Unconditionally Subordinated to the Interests of the Party ==<br />
Personal interests must be subordinated to the Party's interests, the interests of the local Party organization to those of the entire Party, the interests of the part to those of the whole, and temporary to long-term interests. This is a Marxist-Leninist principle which must be followed by every Communist.<br />
<br />
A Communist must be clear about the correct relationship between personal and Party interests.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party is the political party of the proletariat and has no interests of its own other than those of the emancipation of the proletariat. The final emancipation of the proletariat will also inevitably be the final emancipation of all humanity. Unless the proletariat emancipates all working people and all nations—unless it emancipates humanity as a whole—it cannot fully emancipate itself. The cause of the emancipation of the proletariat is identical with and inseparable from the cause of the emancipation of all working people, all oppressed nations and all humanity. Therefore, the interests of the Communist Party are the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity, are communism and social progress.. When a Party member<nowiki>''</nowiki>s personal interests are subordinated to those of the Party, they are subordinated to the interests of the emancipation of the class and the nation, and those of communism and social progress.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<br />
<br />
At no time and in no circumstances should a Communist place his personal interests first; he should subordinate to the interests of the nation and of the masses. Hence selfishness, slacking, corruption, seeking the limelight are most contemptible, while selflessness, working with all one's energy, whole hearted devotion to public duty, and quiet hard work will command respect.<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
The test of a Party member's loyalty to the Party, the revolution, the cause of communism is whether or not he can subordinate his personal interests absolutely and unconditionally to the interests of the Party whatever the circumstances.<br />
<br />
At all times and all questions a party member should give first consideration to the interests of the Party as a whole and put them in the foremost and place personal matters and interests second. The supremacy of the Party's interests is the highest principle that must govern the thinking and actions of the members of our Party. In accordance with this principle, every Party member must completely identify his personal interests with those of the Party both in his thinking and in his actions of the members of our Party both in his thinking and in his actions. He must be able o yield to the interests of the Party without any hesitations or reluctance and sacrifice his personal interests what ever of the two are at variance. Unhesitating readiness to sacrifice personal interests and even one's life, for the Party and for the proletariat and for the emancipation of the nation and of all humanity—this is one expression of what we usually describe as "Party spirit", "Party sense" or "sense of organization'. It is the highest expression of communist morality, of the principled nature of the party of the proletariat and of the purest proletarian class consciousness.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party should not have personal aims which are independent of the Party interests. Their personal aims must harmonize with the Party's interests. If the aim they set for themselves is to study Marxist-Leninist theory, to develop their ability in work, to establish revolutionary organizations and to lead the masses in successful revolutionary struggles—if their aim is more is to do more for the Party—then this personal aim harmonizes with the interests of the Party. The Party needs many such members and cadres. Apart from this aim, Party members should have no independent personal motives such as attaining position of fame, or playing the individual hero; otherwise they will depart from the interests of the Party and may even become careerists within the Party.<br />
<br />
If a Party member thinks only of the communist interests and aims of the Party, is really selfless and has no personal aims and considerations divorced from those of the Party, and he ceaselessly raises the level of his political consciousness through revolutionary practice and through the study of Marxism-Leninism, then the following ensues.<br />
<br />
First, he has a high communist morality. Taking a clear-cut, firm proletarian stand, he is able to show loyalty to and love for all comrades, all revolutionaries and working people, help them unreservedly and act towards them as equals, and he will never allow themself to hurt a single one of them for his own interests. He is able to feel for others, place themself in their position and be considerate of them. On the other hand, he is able to wage resolute struggle against the pernicious enemies of humanity and persevere in the fight for the interests of the Party, the proletariat and the emancipation of the nation and all humanity. "He is the first to worry and the last to enjoy themself".<sup>2</sup> Whether in the Party of among the people, he is the first to suffer hardship and the last to enjoy comfort; he compares themself with others not with respect to the material enjoyment but to the amount of work done for the revolution and the spirit of hard endurance in the struggle. In times of adversity he steps forward boldly, and in times of difficulty he does his duty to the full. He has such revolutionary firmness and integrity that "neither riches nor honours can corrupt him, neither [[poverty]] nor lowly condition can make him swerve from principle, neither threats nor force can bend him".<sup>3</sup><br />
<br />
Second, he has the greatest revolutionary courage. Having no selfish motives, he has nothing to fear. Having done nothing to give themself a guilty conscience, he can lay bare and courageously correct his mistakes and short comings, which are like "an eclipse of the sun or the moon".<sup>4</sup> Because he has the courage of righteous conviction, he never fears the truth, courageously upholds it, spreads it and fights for it. Even if it is temporarily to his disadvantage and if, in upholding the truth, he suffers blows of all kinds, is censured by most other people and so finds themself in temporary (and honourable) isolation, even to the point where he may give up his life, he will still breast the waves to uphold the truth and will never drift with the tide.<br />
<br />
Third, he learns how best to grasp the theory of Marxism-Leninism. He is able to apply them in keenly observing problems and in knowing and changing reality. Because he takes a clear-cut, firm proletarian stand and is tempered in Marxism-Leninism, he is free from personal apprehensions and self-interest, so that there is no impediment to his observation of things or distortion of his understanding of the truth. He seeks the truth from the facts, and he tests all theories and distinguishes what is true from what is false in revolutionary practice.<br />
<br />
Fourth, he is the most sincere, most candid and happiest of men. Because he has no private axe to grind, nothing to conceal from the Party and nothing he cannot tell others, he has no problems of personal gain or loss and no personal anxieties other than for the interests of the Party and the revolution. Even when he is working on his own without supervision and therefore has the opportunity to do something bad, he is just as "watchful over themself when he is alone"<sup>5</sup> and does not do anything harmful. His work bears examination and he is not afraid having it checked. He does not fear criticism and at the same time is able to criticize others with courage and sincerity.<br />
<br />
Fifth, he has the greatest self-respect and self-esteem. For the sake of the Party and the revolution he can be most forbearing and tolerant towards comrades and can suffer wrong in the general interest, even enduring misunderstanding and humiliation without bitterness if the occasion so demands. No personal aims lead him to flatter anyone or to desire flattery from others. When it comes to personal matters, he knows how to conduct themself and has no need to humble themself in order to get help from others. He knows how to take good care of themself in the interests of the Party and the revolution and how to strengthen both his grasp of theory and his practical effectiveness. But when it is necessary to swallow humiliations and bear a heavy load for some important purpose in the cause of the Party and the revolution, he can take on the most difficult and vital tasks without the slightest reluctance, never passing the difficulties to others.<br />
<br />
A member of the Communist Party should possess the finest and highest human virtues and take a clear-cut and firm Party and proletarian stand (that is, possess Party spirit and class spirit). Ours is a fine morality precisely because it is proletarian and communist. It is founded not on the protection of the interests of individuals or of the exploiting few, but on those of the great proletariat and the great mass of working people, of the cause of the final emancipation of all humanity, and the liberation of the whole world from the calamities of capitalism, and the building of a happy and beautiful communist world—t is a morality founded on the Marxist-Leninist theory of scientific communism. As we Communists see it, nothing can be more worthless or indefensible than to sacrifice oneself in the interests of an individual or a small minority. But it is the worthiest and most just thing in the world to sacrifice oneself for the Party, for the proletariat, for the emancipation of the nation and all humanity, for social progress and for the highest interests of the overwhelming majority of the people. Indeed, countless members of the Communist Party have looked death calmly in the face and made the ultimate sacrifice without the slightest hesitation. Most Communists consider it a matter of course to die for the sake of the cause, to lay down their lives for justice, when that is necessary. This does not stem from any revolutionary fanaticism or hunger for fame but from their scientific understanding of social development and their deep political consciousness. There is no morality in class society to compare with this high communist morality. The universal morality which supposedly transcends class is sheer deceptive nonsense and in fact a morality designed to protect the interests of the exploiting few. Such a concept of morality is always idealist. It is only we communists who build our morality on the scientific basis of historical materialism and proclaim its purpose to be the protection of the interests of the proletariat in the struggle for the emancipation of itself and all humanity.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party represents the general and long-range interests of the proletariat and all humanity in their struggle for emancipation; the Party's interests are the concentrated expression of this cause. One must never regard the communist Party as a narrow clique, like the guild perusing the interests of its members. Anyone who does so is no Communist.<br />
<br />
A Party member has interests of his own, which may be inconsistent with or even run counter to the interests of the Party in certain circumstances. Should this happen, it is incumbent on him to sacrifice his personal interests and unconditionally subordinate them to the interests of the Party; under no pretence or excuse may he sacrifice the Party's interests by clinging to his own. At all times and in all circumstances, he should fight heart and soul for the Party's interests and for the Party's development, regarding every success and victory won by the Party and the proletariat as his very own. Every Party member should strive to increase his effectiveness and ability in the service of the people. But this must be done in the fight for the advancement, success and victory of the Party's cause, and there must be no striving for individual development divorced from the fight to advance the Party's cause. The facts prove that only by complete devotion in the fight for the advancement, success and victory of the Party's cause can a Party member heighten his effectiveness and ability and that he cannot possibly make progress of heighten his ability in any other way. Hence a Party member can and must completely merge his personal interests with those of the Party.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party are no ordinary people but the awakened vanguard fighters of the proletariat. They must conscientiously represent the class interests and class ideology of the proletariat. Therefore, their personal interests must never project beyond those of the party and the proletariat. It is all the more necessary for each cadre and leader of the Party to be a living embodiment of the general interests of the Party and the proletariat and to merge his personal interests completely in their general interests and aims. In present-day China, it is the proletariat that best represents the interests of national liberation, and therefore our Party members must be worthy champions of the interests of the nation as a whole.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party must subordinate personal to Party interests and are required to sacrifice them to party interests if necessary. But this by no means implies that our Party does not recognise, or brushes aside, the personal interest of its members or that it wants to wipe out their individuality. Party members do have their personal problems to attend to, and, moreover, they should develop themselves according to their individual inclinations and aptitudes. Therefore, so long as the interests of the Party are not violated, a Party member can have his private and family life and develop his individual inclinations and aptitudes. At the same time, the Party will use every possibility to help members develop their individual inclinations and aptitudes in conformity with its interests, furnish them with suitable work and working conditions and commend and reward them. As far as possible, the Party will attend to and safeguard its members' essential interests; for example,, it will give them the opportunity to study and to acquire an education, it will help them cope with health and family problems and, when necessary, it will even give up some of its work in order to preserve comrades working under the rule of reaction. But all this has no other purpose than the overall interests of the Party. For the fulfillment of its tasks the Party must ensure that members have the conditions necessary for life, work and education so that they can perform their tasks with enthusiasm and without worry. Comrades in responsible Party positions must bear all this in mind when they deal with Party members' problems.<br />
<br />
To sum up, on his side, each Party member should completely submit themself to the interests of the Party and self-sacrificingly devote themself to the public duty. He should forego all personal aims and private considerations which conflict with the Party's interests. He should not think of themself all the time, make endless personal demands on the Party or blame the Party for not promoting or rewarding him. Whatever the circumstances, he should study hard, try to make progress, be courageous in struggle and make ceaseless efforts to raise the level of his political consciousness and his understanding of Marxism-Leninism, so as to be able to contribute more to the Party and the revolution. On their side all Party organizations and comrades in responsible positions, in dealing with the problems of Party members, should see how they work, live and study. and enable them to work better for the Party, ceaselessly develop themselves and raise their level in the course of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. In particular, attention should be paid to comrades who are really selfless and who serve the people well. Only so, through combined attention and effort by both sides can the interests of the Party be well served.<br />
<br />
== Examples of Wrong Ideology in the Party ==<br />
In the light of what has been said, we can see that if an understanding of communism and a correct correlation between personal and Party interests are taken as the standard for evaluating Party members and cadres, many measure up to it and can serve as models, but some do not yet measure up to this standard and still have various wrong ideas to some degree or other. It may not be amiss if I outline these wrong ideas for our comrades' attention.<br />
<br />
What are fundamentally the wrong ideas to be found among comrades in our Party?<br />
<br />
First. The people joining our Party not only differ in in class origin and personal class status but also carry with them aims and motives of every description. Many, of course, join the Party in order to bring about communism and attain the great goal of the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity, but some do so for other reasons and with other aims. For example, some comrades of peasant background used to think that communism meant "expropriation of local tyrants and distribution of the land". When they first joined, they had no understanding of the real meaning of communism. Today, quite a number of people join the Party chiefly because it is resolute in resisting Japan and advocates the Anti-Japanese National United Front. Others join our ranks because they admire the communist Party for its good reputation or because they realize in a vague way that it can save China. Still others are seeking a future for themselves, chiefly because they have no other way out—they have no fixed occupation, are out of work, lack the means of study, or want to escape from family bondage or forced marriage, etc. A few even join because they count on the Party to get their taxes reduced, or because they hope to "make their mark" some day, or because their relatives or friends have brought them in, etc. Naturally, such comrades do not have a clear-cut and stable communist world outlook, do not understand the greatness of the communist cause and the difficulties besetting it, and lack a firm proletarian stand point. Naturally too, some of them will waver or change somewhat in certain circumstances at certain critical turning points. Since they bring all sorts of ideas with them into the Party, it is most important that they should be educated and should train and temper themselves. Otherwise they cannot become revolutionary fighters of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, there is no terrible problem here. After all, it is not a bad thing that people turn to the Communist Party, enter it seeking a way out of their predicament and approve of its policy. They are not mistaken in coming to us. We welcome them—everyone except for enemy agents, traitors, careerists and ambitious climbers. Provided they accept and are ready to abide by the Party's Programme and Constitution, work in one of the Party's organizations and pay membership dues, they may be admitted into the Communist Party. As for deeping their study and understanding of communism and the Partys Programme and Constitution, they can do so after joining the Party and can temper and train themselves in revolutionary struggle on the basis of what they learn; in this way they have every possibility of becoming very good Communists. Indeed, for most people it is impossible to have a proufound understanding of communism and the Party's Programme and Constitution before joining the Party. That is why we can only prescribe acceptance, and not a thorough understanding of the Partys Programme and Constitution as a condition for admission. Although many people do not have a thorough understanding of communism before joining, it is possible for them to become active fighters in the communist and revolutionary movements of the time. They can become politically conscious Communists provided they study hard after joining the Party. Furthermore, our Party Constitution stipulates that members are free to withdraw form the Party (there is no freedom of admission). Any member is free to notify the Party that he is withdrawing from it if he lacks a profound belief in communism, or cannot live a strict Party life, or for any other reason, and the Party gives him the freedom to withdraw. It will do nothing against him unless he gives away Party secrets or engages in wrecking activities against the Party after he leaves. As for careerists and spies who have wormed their way into the Party, of course they have to be expelled. Only thus can we preserve the purity of our Party.<br />
<br />
Second. Fairly strong [[individualism]] and selfishness are still to be found in some members of our Party.<br />
<br />
The individualism expresses itself as follows. Some people habitually place their personal interests above those of the Party when it comes to practical matters; they are preoccupied with personal gain and loss and always calculate in terms of personal interests; they abuse the public trust, turning their Party work to private advantage of one kind or another; or they attack comrades they dislike and wreak private vengeance, on high-sounding pretexts of principle or Party interests. When it comes to status, material benefits and other questions affecting everyday life, they invariably try to get more than others, compare themselves with those at the top, diligently strive after greater personal benefits and crow when they get them. But when it comes to work, they like to compare themselves with those who are less capable. When there hard hardships to beat they make themselves scarce. In times of danger they want to run away. When it comes to orderlies they always want more. Their living quarters must be of the best, and they want to show off and bask in the Party's glory. They want to grab all the good things of life, but when it comes to the "unpleasant things", they think these are for others. The heads of such people are stuffed with the ideology of the exploiting classes. They believe that "every person is for themself or that Heaven and Earth will destroy him", person is a "selfish animal", and "no one in the world is genuinely unselfish, unless he is a simpleton or an idiot". They even use such exploiting class rubbish to justify their own selfishness and individualism. There are such people in our Party.<br />
<br />
This type of self-seeking individualism often manifests itself inside the Party in unprincipled quarrelling, factional struggle, sectarianism and departmentalism; it manifests itself in disrespect for and willful violation of Party discipline. Most unprincipled struggles originate in personal interests. Those who go in for factional struggle and are given to sectarianism usually place their own individual interests or the interests of a small minority, above those of the Party. Often, in their unprincipled factional struggles they deliberately undermine Party organization and discipline, making unprincipled and sometimes calculated attacks on certain people, while contracting unprincipled friendships to avoid giving offence, to cover up for one another, to sing each other's praises, etc.<br />
<br />
Departmentalism within the Party arises chiefly because some comrades only see the interest of the part, i.e., the work of their own department of locality, and fail to see the interests of the whole, i.e., the interests of the entire Party and the work of other departments and localities. Politically and ideologically, this resembles the guild outlook. Not all comrades who make the mistake of departmentalism are necessarily prompted by individualism, but people with an individualist ideology usually make the mistake of departmentalism.<br />
<br />
Third. Conceit, the idea of individualistic heroism, ostentatiousness, etc., are still to be found, to a greater or lesser extent, in the minds of quite a few Party comrades.<br />
<br />
The first consideration of people with such notions is their position in the Party. They like to show off and to have people sing their praises and flatter them. They are ambitious, they like to cut a dash, to claim credit for themselves and to get the limelight, and they like to keep everything in their own hands and lack a democratic style of work. They are extremely vain and unwilling to immerse themselves in hard work or do routine or technical jobs. They are arrogant, and whenever they accomplish something they throw their weight about, become overbearing and try to domineer, and they do not treat others as equals in a modest and friendly way. They are complacent, talk down to and lecture people and order others about, and they are always trying to tread on people's necks; they do not learn modestly from others, particularly from the masses, and do not accept even well-grounded opinions and criticisms. They can bear promotion but not demotion, they can bear fair weather but not foul, and they cannot bear being misunderstood or wronged. As their baleful yearning for fame has not yet been uprooted they try to dress themselves up as "great men" and "heroes" in the communist movement and stop at nothing to gratify their desire. When they fail to achieve this object, or when they are misunderstood or wronged there is a danger that they will vacillate. Quite a number of people have vacillated and left our Party for such reasons in the course of its history. Exploiting class ideas still linger in the minds of such people, who fail to understand the greatness of the cause of communism and who lack the communist breadth of vision.<br />
<br />
Communists must not be in the least complacent or arrogant. Granted that some comrades are very capable, have done some good work and have to their credit considerable achievements which may be reckoned "great" and on which they might well preen themselves (for example, our army comrades who have led thousands and tens of thousands of men in battle and won victories, or the leaders of our Party and mass work in various places who have brought about fairly significant changes in the situation). Yet after all, how great are these achievements compared with the communist cause as a whole?<br />
<br />
And for persons with a communist world outlook, what is there worth preening oneself about in these achievements?<br />
<br />
For a Communist to do his work properly and well is no more than his duty. He should guard against complacency and arrogance and do his best to make no mistakes, or as few as possible.<br />
<br />
What is there in personal position for a Communist to bother about? No one's position is higher than an emperor's, and yet what is an emperor compared with a fighter in the cause of communism? Is he not just "a drop in the ocean" as Comrade Stalin put it? So what is there in personal position worth bothering or bragging about?<br />
<br />
Yes, we need countless communist heroes and many mass leaders of great prestige in our Party and in the communist movement. At present we really have too few of them and have yet to train and temper large numbers of good communist revolutionary leaders and heroes in all fields. This is indeed very important for our cause and must not be neglected. Whoever takes it lightly is ignorant of how to advance the cause of communism. Its advancement requires that we should greatly enhance the revolutionary spirit of enterprise among our Party members and bring their vitality into full play. We have to admit that so far we have not done enough in this respect. This is shown, for instance, by the fact that some Party members do not study hard and have little interest in politics and theory. Therefore, while we are opposed to individualistic heroism and ostentatiousness , we are certainly not opposed to a spirit of enterprise in the Party members. The desire to make progress in the interests of the people is the most precious quality in a Communist. But the communist, proletarian spirit of enterprise is entirely different from the individualist "spirit of enterprise". The former means seeking truth, upholding it and fighting for it with the greatest effectiveness. It is progressive and opens up unlimited prospects of development, while the latter offers no prospects even for the individual, for people with an individualist ideology are usually driven by their personal interest into deliberately brushing aside, covering up or distorting the truth.<br />
<br />
Our comrades must understand that genuine leaders and heroes in the communist movement are never individualistic, nor are they ever self-styled or self-appointed. Anyone who styles themself a leader or reaches after leadership can never become a leader of the Party. The rank and file of our Party will not make leaders of people who are prone to conceit, individualistic heroism, ostentatiousness, personal ambition and vanity. No member of our Party has any right to demand that the rank and file should support or keep him as a leader. Only those who are entirely selfless and devoted to the Party, only those with an excellent communist morality and fine communist qualities, who have grasped the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism, who have considerable practical ability, who can direct Party work correctly and who study hard and make constant progress can win the trust of the Party and the confidence and support of the rank and file, and so become leaders and heroes in the communist movement.<br />
<br />
Our comrades must also understand that a member, or a leader and hero, whoever he may be, can only do part of the work, can only carry part of the responsibility, in the communist movement. The communist cause is an undertaking which requires the collective efforts of tens of millions of people over a long period of time and which cannot be encompassed by any one individual alone. Even such great men as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin could only perform part of the work needed by the communist cause. The cause for which they worked requires the joint effort and sustained labour of tens of millions of us. We ordinary Communists are also doing part of the work of the communist cause and carrying part of the responsibility. Of course, our part is much smaller than that of Marx, Engles, Lenin or Stalin. Nevertheless, we have a small part. Big or small, it is all part of the great cause. Therefore, if only we do our part of the work well, we can consider that we have done our duty. Naturally we should try our best to do more, but if we cannot and can only do a little, that is also useful and just as honourable. In any case, we should at least not hamper the progress of the communist cause, but should do our part, whether big of small, and perform our work well, be it heavy or light; that is the correct attitude for every member of our Party. Comrades who are unwilling to undertake technical work think that it stifles their talents, that it prevents them from becoming famous (actually it does not, as witness the technical worker [[Alexei Stakhanov|Stakhanov]]<sup>1</sup> and from giving full play to their abilities and that it kills some of the enterprising spirit which all Communists should have. This view is wrong. Technical work occupies a very important place in our Party work, and comrades engaged in it are doing their share in the communist cause no less than comrades engaged in other jobs. The proper attitude for a Communist is to do whatever work the Party requires of him and do it happily and well, whether it suits his inclinations of not.<br />
<br />
Naturally, in assigning work to members, the Party organization and the responsible Party comrades should, as far as possible, take their individual inclinations and aptitudes into consideration, develop their strong points and stimulate their zeal to go forward. However, no Communist must refuse a Party assignment on the grounds of personal preference.<br />
<br />
Fourth, A small number of comrades are deeply imbued with the ideology of the exploiting classes. They are usually unscrupulous in dealing with comrades and in handling problems inside the Party, and are utterly devoid of the great and sincere proletarian communist spirit of mutual help and solidarity.<br />
<br />
People with this ideology always want to climb over the heads of others in the Party and, to this end, resort to attacking others and doing them harm. They are jealous of those more capable than themselves. They always try to pull down those who are moving ahead of them. They cannot bear playing second fiddle and think only of themselves and never of others. When other comrades are suffering difficulties of setbacks, they gloat or secretly rejoice and have no comradely sympathy at all. They even scheme to injure comrades "drop on one who has fallen into a well", and take advantage of comrades' weaknesses and difficulties to attack and harm them. They "crawl through any crack" and exploit and exacerbate any weakness in Party organization and work for their personal advantage.. They love to stir up trouble in the Party, speak ill of others behind their backs and engage in intrigues in order to sow dissension between comrades. They love to join in any unprincipled dispute that may occur in the Party and take great interest in unprincipled quarrels. They are especially active in stirring up and aggravating such quarrels when the Party is in difficulties. In short, they are thoroughly crooked and lack all integrity. Would it not be absurd to describe such people as being able to grasp the Marxist-Leninist theory and method and give expression to proletarian ideology? It is only too clear that all they express is the ideology of the declining exploiting classes.<br />
<br />
All exploiters must do harm to other people in order to expand. To increase their wealth, or to avoid bankruptcy in an economic crisis, bigger capitalists must squeeze many smaller capitalists out of existence and drive countless workers to starvation. To enrich themselves, landlords must exploit peasants and deprive many of them of their land. In order to expand, fascist Germany, Italy and Japan must devastate other countries; they have subjugated Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Abyssinia<sup>2</sup> and are committing aggression against China. Exploiters always harm and ruin other people as a necessary precondition for their own expansion; their happiness is founded on the suffering of others. Among the exploiters, therefore, genuine firm unity, genuine mutual help, and genuine human sympathy are impossible; they inevitably engage in intrigues and underhand activities in order to ruin others. Yet they have to lie and pose as saints and pillars of justice before the people. Such are the distinguishing characteristics of all declining exploiting classes. These person be models of "fine" ethical conduct for the exploiters, but they are most criminal from the point of view of the proletariat and the masses.<br />
<br />
The proletariat is the complete antithesis of the exploiting classes. It does not exploit others but is itself exploited. There is no conflict of basic interests within its ranks or between it and the other oppressed and exploited working people. Far from needing to harm other working people or impede their development for the sake of its own development and emancipation, the proletariat most forge the closest unity with them in the common struggle. If the proletariat is to emancipate itself, it must at the same time emancipate all other working people and emancipate all humanity. There can be no such thing as the separate emancipation of a single worker or section of workers. The proletariat must carry the cause of the emancipation of humanity through to the end, fighting step by step for the liberation of all humanity, and there can be no giving up or compromising half-way.<br />
<br />
As a result of this objective position occupied by the proletariat, the ideology of the politically conscious workers is the diametrical opposite of that of the exploiters. Communists are vanguard fighters of the proletariat, who arm themselves with Marxism-Leninism and are ruthless towards the people's enemies but never towards the toilers, their class brothers and comrades. They differentiate clearly and sharply between the attitudes and methods to be adopted against the enemy and those to be adopted towards their comrades and friends. They cherish great and sincere friendship, warmth and sympathy for other members of their own class and for all oppressed and exploited working people, towards whom they show a fine spirit of mutual help, firm unity and genuine equality. They are absolutely opposed to privileges of any kind for anyone, consider it impermissible to think in terms of privilege for themselves, and would deem it unthinkable and even a disgrace, to occupy a privileged position among the people. If they themselves are to develop and improve status, they must develop others and improve the status of all the working people at the same time. They are anxious not to fall behind, whether ideologically or politically or in their work, and they have a sturdy spirit of enterprise, but at the same time they esteem, cherish and support those who are ahead of them in these respects and, without any jealousy, do their best to learn from them. They are deeply concerned with the sufferings and privations of their own class and of all working people, they are concerned with all the struggles of the working people for emancipation anywhere in the world, regarding every victory or defeat for the working people anywhere as their own victory of defeat, and therefore displaying the greatest solidarity. They consider it wrong to be indifferent to the struggle of the working and oppressed people for liberation and criminal to gloat over their set-backs They cherish their own comrades and brothers, whose weaknesses and mistakes they criticize frankly and sincerely (and this shows genuine affection); in matters of principle they never gloss over and accommodate, let alone encourage mistakes (to accommodate or even to encourage others' mistakes does not betoken genuine affection for one's comrades). They do everything possible to help comrades overcome weaknesses and correct mistakes and never exploit or aggravate these weaknesses and mistakes to get comrades into trouble, let alone cause the mistakes to develop beyond correction. Not harbouring any desire to settle old scores, they can return good for evil to their own comrades and brothers and help them straighten themselves out. They can be strict with themselves and lenient with others. The stand they take is firm, strict and principled, their attitude is frank, upright and responsible, they do not give way on matters of principle, they do not tolerate anyone who harms the Party, they do not permit anyone to insult them and are particularly contemptuous of adulation and flattery as contrary to all principle. They oppose all unprincipled struggles; they do not let themselves become involved in such struggles and are not swayed or affected by irresponsible or casual criticism made behind their backs as to depart from principle, become incapable of thinking calmly or lose their composure. Such are the proletarian qualities in the most concentrated, exemplary and concrete form. These qualities represent everything of integrity in present-day society. Indeed it is the Communist Party that represents human integrity. We must foster and enhance such proletarian integrity and overcome all that is crooked and evil.<br />
<br />
Fifth. Pettiness, fussing over trifles and ignoring the general interest are faults still prevalent among some Party members. These comrades lack the nature and breadth of vision of Communists and are blind to the bigger things; they relish only the immediate and petty. They do not take much interest in the great problems and events in the Party and the revolution, but are always fussing over the merest trifles about which they enter into ponderous and endless arguments and become highly disturbed. Such people are also easily led by the nose when they receive some small favour or kindness. They have the petty-mindedness characteristic of small rural producers.<br />
<br />
There are other people who do not seem to have a clear-cut and definite attitude in their Party life, people who shift and hedge. They are actually of two kinds; for one kind the question is one of understanding and for the other, of moral character. The latter are always opportunistic in their personal behaviour, curry favour with all sides and try to please everybody. They tailor their words to the person and the circumstances, tack with the wind and show no principle whatsoever. Such are their characteristics. Sometimes, they wait and see what will suit the occasion, like the bat in Aesop's Fables,<sup>3</sup> and then move over to the winning side. Such-double faced creatures, who are neither fish nor fowl, are not altogether unknown in our ranks. They have the traits of the old-fashioned merchant. In addition, there are some individuals who, unable to resist the lure of the old society's exploiting classes, with their glittering world, their money and their women, begin to waver, go wrong and eventually to betray the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
Finally, the ideology of some of our Party comrades often reflects the impetuosity and vacillation of the petty-bourgeoisie and the destructiveness of the lumpen-proletariat and certain bankrupt peasants, but I shall not go into this question here.<br />
<br />
To sum up, our Party represents the great and powerful proletarian communist ideology, but it must be noted that all kinds of non-proletarian ideology—including even the ideology of the declining exploiting classes—are still reflected to a greater or lesser degree in the minds of certain comrades. At times such ideology is dormant in the Party, revealing itself only in insignificant matters of everyday life; but at other times it becomes active, systematically revealing itself in a whole variety of questions of Party principle, in major political questions and in problems of inner Party struggle. Certain sections of links in the Party organization may come to be dominated and corroded by such erroneous ideology, and in extreme cases in may even temporarily dominate key links in the Party leadership, as in the periods when people like [[Chen Duxiu]]<sup>4</sup> and [[Zhang Guotao]]<sup>5</sup> were in control. In normal periods, however, it is held in check by the correct proletarian ideology. These are all manifestations within the Party of the struggle between the proletarian and non-proletarian ideology. Similarly with some individual Party members. At times what is wrong in their ideology lies dormant and under control, but at other times it may grow and even dominate their actions. This is a manifestation among individual Party members of the contradiction and struggle between proletarian and non-proletarian ideology. For our Party members, ideological self-cultivation means that they must conscientiously use the proletarian ideology and the communist world outlook to overcome and eliminate all the various kinds of incorrect, non-proletarian ideology.<br />
<br />
== The Source of Wrong Ideology in Our Party ==<br />
The Communist Party, representing the brightest and most progressive aspects of contempory human society, is the bearer and disseminator of Marxism-Leninism, the acme of human thought. The most politically conscious, progressive and developed people in the world, people with the highest sense of morality and justice, are gathered in the communist Parties, fighting unswervingly against all the forces of darkness and for the bright future and final emancipation of humanity. The Communist Party of China is one of the best Communist Parties in the world. Guided by our leader Comrade Mao Zedong, our Party is armed with the powerful weapon of Marxist-Leninist theory and, at the same time, is carrying forward the fine traditions of progressive thinkers and revolutionaries in Chinese history. It represents the most progressive and brightest aspects of Chinese society, and the finest sons and daughters of the Chinese nation are gathered within its organized ranks. It has been fighting the forces of darkness in Chinese society for a long time, has gone through an arduous process of tempering and has accumulate rich experience in revolutionary struggle. In all this we Communists can justly take pride. There is every ground for absolute confidence that we shall finally be successful and victorious. However, we cannot say yet that everything in our organization is perfect, or that there are no shortcomings and faults. Nor can we say that our ranks are free from unsound and even bad elements, who might be quite capable of any sort of nastiness. In other words, our glorious Party contains some undesirable phenomena, some dark spots which I have already enumerated.<br />
<br />
Now when a family acquires an ugly son-in-law or daughter-in-law, it can not always keep him or her away from the guests. Even if we wanted to do so by taking the attitude of trying to "conceal the family shame", it would be impossible to hide such unpleasantness. The masses of the people are in constant contact with our Party, sympathisers come here to visit us and people who look up to us including many young men and women, come here to study or to join our Party. When they arrive, besides the progressive, fine and attractive things and "members of the family", they will naturally see the ugly sons- or daughters-in-law who might publicly say or do something unpleasant or make a spectacle of themselves, to the perplexity or our guests and new Party members. The newcomers may ask, "Does not the Communist Party stand for all that is just? Are Communists not the finest people? Why are there still such bad people and ugly things in the Communist Party? How strange!" Before joining the Party, some young comrades were bitterly dissatisfied with existing society, saw no way out and turned to the Communist Party as to a beacon of light. They thought that everything would be satisfactory and would work out well once they joined. Yet after doing so, or after arriving in our revolutionary base area, they find there are shortcomings and mistakes in the Party, too, and in real life not everything is satisfactory (much that would satisfy them would not be in the interests of the revolution and the Party), and so they feel reality is not entirely as they pictured it, and some begin to have doubts and feel puzzled. They ask, "Why are such things to be found in the Communist Party as well?" Before coming to Yan'an or before enrolling in the Anti-Japanese Military and Political College, some people imagined Yan'an and the College would live up to their dreams, but after their arrival and enrollment they do not find everything to their satisfaction and are perplexed. They ask, "How can such things happen even in Yan'an and the Anti-Japanese College?" And failing to find answers, some even become pessimistic and disheartened.<br />
<br />
Their questions should alert our Party members and cadres and be a lesson to them so that they will give serious attention to guiding and taking care of all new Party members and all who are moving in our direction and to ensuring they are not adversely affected. But, quite apart from this, we should explain things clearly to comrades inside and outside the Party.<br />
<br />
Why are there still such undesirable things in our splendid Party? The reason, I think, is rather simple. Our Party has not fallen from the skies, but has grown out of Chinese society. In general, our Party consists of the finest sons and daughters of our country, the vanguard of the Chinese proletariat, but they come from all strata of the old society, and in China today there still exists exploiting classes and the influence of these classes—selfishness, intrigue, bureaucracy and various types of filth. We have many excellent Party members who are not easily affected by such influences. But it is so strange that certain members bring some of the filth of the old society with them into our Party of reflect it there? Is it so strange that a person that has just crawled out of the mud is covered with slime? Of course not. It is only to be expected. It would be strange and indeed incredible, if the ranks of the Communist Party were absolutely free from such filth. It may be said that so long as such filth exists in society, so long as classes and exploiting class influences exist in society, there is bound to be some filth in the Communist Party. It is precisely because there is such filth in society, and in the Party, that it is the duty of the communist Party to change existing society, and it is necessary for Communists to remould, cultivate and temper themselves. In addition to carrying on a struggle in society at large against everything evil and backward,, it is imperative for us to carry on a struggle inside the Party against every social evil and backward influence as mirrored in the Party by vacillating and unsteady elements. This is the source of inner-Party contradiction and struggle. Through struggle, both inside and outside the Party, we seek to change society and gradually rid it of its evils and backwardness, and at the same time seek to perfect our Party and remould our Party members, and to resolve our inner-Party contradictions, so that our Party and its membership will become healthier and stronger.<br />
<br />
Stalin said:<blockquote>The source of the contradiction within the proletarian parties lies in two circumstances.</blockquote>What are these circumstances?<br />
<br />
They are firstly the pressure exerted by the bourgeoisie and bourgeois ideology on the proletariat and its party in the conditions of the class struggle—a pressure to which the least stable strata of the proletariat, and hence the least stable strata of the proletarian party, not infrequently succumb. It must not be thought that the proletariat is completely isolated from society, that it stands outside society. The proletariat is a part of society, connected with its diverse strata by numerous threads. But the party is a part of the proletariat Hence the Party cannot be exempt from connections with, and from the influence of, the diverse sections of the bourgeois society The pressure of the bourgeoisie and its ideology on the proletariat and its party finds expression in the fact that bourgeois ideas, manners, customs and sentiments not infrequently penetrate the proletariat and its party through definite strata of the proletariat that are in one way or another connected with bourgeois society.<br />
<br />
They are, secondly, the heterogeneity of the working class, the existence of a different strata within the working class....<br />
<br />
One stratum is the main mass of the proletariat, its core, its permanent part, the mass of "pure blooded" proletarians, who have long broken off connection with the capitalist class. This stratum of the proletariat is the most reliable bulwark of Marxism.<br />
<br />
The second stratum consists of new comers from non-proletarian classes—from the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie or the intelligencia. These are former members of other classes who have only recently merged with the proletariat and brought with them into the working class their customs, their habits, their waverings and their vacillations. This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for all sorts of anarchist, semi-anarchist and "ultra-Left" groups.<br />
<br />
The third stratum, lastly, consists of the labour aristocracy, the upper stratum of the working class, the most well-to-do portion of the proletariat, with its propensity for compromise with the bourgeoisie, its predominant inclination to adapt itself to the powers that be, and its anxiety go "get on in life". This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for outright reformists and opportunists.<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
Here we see the source of the various kinds of non-proletarian ideology and the various errors, shortcomings and undesirable phenomena that exist in our proletarian party. Here, indeed, is the source of the various contradictions that are present in our Party.<br />
<br />
== Attitudes Towards Wrong Ideology in the Party and Towards Inner-Party Struggle ==<br />
The influences exerted by the exploiting classes and the petty bourgeoisie, the existence of different strata within the working class and the differences in the class background of our Party members give rise to different ideas among them, to certain differences in viewpoints, habits and sentiments, in world outlook and moral values, and differences in the way they look at and think about things in general and the problems of the revolution in particular.<br />
<br />
Some people in our Party are able to view issues as developing and interrelated, but others habitually view them statistically and in isolation. The former are able to grasp matters comprehensively and objectively and hence to draw correct conclusions that can serve us as correct guide lines to action. As for the latter, some of them only see or over emphasize this side of a thing, while others only see and over emphasize the other side; both fail to view problems comprehensively and objectively in accordance with the laws of the development and interrelationship of objective phenomena, and both take a one-sided, subjective view of problems. Hence, they are unable to arrive at correct conclusions or chart the right course for our actions.<br />
<br />
The differences among Party members in their approach to problems lead to different ways of handling problems, to divergences and controversies are bound to become especially acute at turning points in the revolution, or when the struggle grows in intensity and hardship mount.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the crux of the matter is not whether there are differences of thought and opinion within the Party, since such differences always exist. The crux of the matter is how to resolve contradictions, settle differences and overcome all kinds of incorrect, non-proletarian thinking. Obviously, it is only through inner-Party struggle that such contradictions can be resolved, differences settled and incorrect thinking overcome. As Engels put it, “In the long run the contradictions are never slurred over, but always fought out.”<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
Different people hold different views and take different attitudes with regard to shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in our Party.<br />
<br />
People of one kind do not or will not see shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in our Party, but blindly believe that there is scarcely anything wrong in it; hence they relax their vigilance and slacken their struggle their struggle against these phenomena. People of another kind see nothing, or hardly anything, except these undesirable phenomena and fail to see how correct and glorious our Party is; hence they become pessimistic and loose confidence, or they become alarmed and bewildered in the face of such phenomena. The views of both are wrong and one-sided. Our view is different.. On the one hand, we know we know that our Party is the political party of the proletariat, the most progressive and revolutionary party in China. On the other, we know clearly that there are still shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena, major and minor in our Party. Moreover, we clearly understand their source and how to correct and gradually eliminate them, and we are making constant efforts to temper ourselves, improve our work and wage the necessary struggles in order to promote the progress of the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
Since people differ in their class stand and their views, they take different attitudes towards what is undesirable in our Party. One attitude is that of alien class and hostile elements who have wormed their way into our Party. A second attitude is that of Party members who lack a firm proletarian stand and have a wrong way of thinking. A third is that of Party members who firmly uphold the principles of Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
The alien class and hostile elements who have worked their way into the Party are glad of its shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena. Gleefully seeking their opportunity, they use every possible means to exploit and magnify some of these undesirable phenomena for the purpose of wrecking our Party. Sometimes they even make a pretence of opposing certain mistakes and supporting the Party line in order to cause an opposite kind of mistake to be committed. People with the second type of attitude fall into the following distinct categories:<br />
<br />
1. Some Party members sympathize with and accept certain erroneous ideas, or follow the bad example of certain people in the Party, so as to further their personal ends and desires. They consider the existence of certain short comings and mistakes in the Party to be to their advantage and therefore, whether intentionally or unintentionally, aggravate these failings and exploit them. This is the attitude of careerists of bad characters in the Party.<br />
<br />
2. Some Party members do nothing about the shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party and allow them to grow. They just muddle along and are unwilling to fight these evils. They fear inner-Party struggle and self-criticism, considering them harmful to the Party, or they are insensitive or shut their eyes to the undesirable things, or they are perfunctory and compromising in the struggle against them. This is the attitude taken by Communists who have a weak sense of duty towards the Party, are extremely liberalistic, or are guilty of bureaucracy.<br />
<br />
3. The attitude of some Party members towards these shortcomings and mistakes and towards those comrades who have incorrect ideas is one of “bitter hatred and gall”. They lightly sever all relations with comrades who have committed some mistake and whom they attempt to expel from the Party outright. If they fail in this and need rebuffs, they give up and become pessimistic and down-hearted, or they keep aloof, “preserve their purity” and even put a great distance between themselves and the Party. This extreme attitude is also shown in some comradesÕ mechanical conception of inner-Party struggle and self-criticism. People with this attitude believe that inner-Party struggle must be launched under any and all circumstances—the more frequently and bitterly, the better. They magnify every trifle into a matter of “principle” and brand every tiny fault with such labels as political opportunism. They do not carry on inner-Party struggle properly and specifically in accordance with the objective needs and objective laws of development, but instead “struggle” mechanically, subjectively and violently, regardless of the consequences. This is the attitude taken by Party members who do not understand the source of inner-Party contradictions, who lack skill in dealing with inner-Party differences and who have a mechanical conception of inner-Party struggle. For a time, this extreme attitude towards inner-Party struggle was exploited by the “Left” opportunists in the Party. They intensified mechanical and excessive struggles to the point of deliberately hunting for “targets of struggle” within the Party, deliberately creating inner-Party struggles, punishing comrades by abusing Party disciplinary measures and even employing against them measures applicable to struggles outside the Party; and it was by such “struggles” and “disciplinary measures” that they tried to push the work ahead.<br />
<br />
The attitude we should adopt is the proletarian Marxist-Leninist one. Contrary to the erroneous attitudes described above, we advocate the following.<br />
<br />
1. First of all, get to know the various phenomena, ideas, views and opinions in the Party and distinguish those which are correct and beneficial to the interests of the Party and the revolution from those which are not, or, in the case of a dispute in which both sides are wrong, perceive this and be able to point out the correct view or opinion. After sober analysis and consideration, decide on a clear-cut attitude and take a correct stand. Do not follow blindly or drift with the tide.<br />
<br />
2. Profit by every good example, promote and spread a spirit of integrity in the Party and vigorously support all correct views and opinions. Do not follow any bad examples or be influenced by any wrong ideas.<br />
<br />
3. Do not take a liberalistic attitude or flinch from any necessary inner-Party struggle. Carry on an irreconcilable struggle in the Party against ideas and views which are wrong in principle and against all other undesirable phenomena, so that we can constantly move to overcome them; they should never be allowed to develop unchecked to the detriment of the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
4. Do not take a mechanical and extreme attitude. Properly combine irreconcilability and clarity in matters of principle with flexibility and patient persuasion in methods of struggle; in thecourse of prolonged struggles, educate, criticize, temper and remould comrades who have committed errors but who are not incorrigible. Such inner-Party ideological struggles on matters of principle as are necessary at different periods should be waged in a concrete and proper way; inner-Party struggles should not be waged indiscriminatingly, subjectively,, mechanically or on shadowy pretexts. Do not become “struggle addicts”.<br />
<br />
5. Strengthen the unity and discipline of the Party and enhance its prestige through inner-Party struggle. Organizational penalties, ranging all the way to expulsion, should be applied to the incorrigible elements of the Party. We should regard it as our supreme duty to safeguard the Party’s unity, preserve the purity of its ideology and consolidate its organization.<br />
<br />
Such is the attitude of all good Communists in the Party and indeed the only correct Marxist-Leninist attitude.<br />
<br />
It is not strange that our enemies should seek to make use of our every shortcoming and mistake to undermine our Party. Besides constantly sharpening our vigilance, we should do everything possible to give the enemy as little opportunity as possible to exploit shortcomings and mistakes in the Party whenever they occur; this is the duty of every comrade who cherishes the Party. If a Party member ignores this consideration in inner-Party struggle, if he only seeks to vent his feelings, or goes to the length of joining up with bad elements instead of rejecting their assistance, or even makes use of outside forces to help him attain some private ends within the Party, he will be making an unpardonable breach of discipline.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party should be the embodiment of correct ideology and should follow good examples in the Party; they should not follow but oppose wrong ideas and bad examples. But what actually happens is that some comrades that are generally correct in their ideology and follow good examples, sometimes reflect certain wrong ideas and follow certain bad examples. Other comrades seem to find it easy to learn from bad but hard to learn from good, and this merits our serious attention. When mistakes occur in the Party, they are apt to encourage or aggravate them, intentionally of unintentionally. In inner-Party struggles they are apt to take the wrong side or to go along with whichever side is currently in vogue., irrespective of right and wrong. These comrades will hardly make progress unless they receive strict criticism and rigorous tempering.<br />
<br />
Of course comrades who adopt a liberalistic or bureaucratic attitude towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomenon inside the Party are also wrong. This, I think should be quite clear to you as students of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism. For in the Party building course which you have studied, the necessity of self-criticism and ideological struggle within the Party is clearly and thoroughly discussed; you can go into it again, and I need not well on the matter further. However, I do want to point out that quite a few comrades have this liberalistic attitude. We often do not have enough really responsible and sincere criticism and self-criticism conducted in keeping with the Party’s organizational principles, for the purpose of exposing, correcting and eliminating the undesirable phenomena in the Party, and more particularly we do not have enough criticism from below and self-criticism, both of which would be greatly encouraged. On the other hand, there is quite a lot of criticism that is irresponsible and not in keeping with the Party’s organizational principles, of talking behind peopleÕs backs and gossip about this or that person or thing. Both are manifestations of liberalism in the Party. They show that some of the comrades are insufficiently mature politically and are not courageous enough in revolutionary struggle; they also indicate that inner-Party democracy has not been properly developed. Some comrades dare not dispense with face-saving, and fear to offend others lest they themselves incur complaints and counter-criticism. They would rather leave the shortcomings and mistakes alone, taking the attitude of “getting by” and “the less trouble the better”, but at the same time they talk about comrades behind their backs. All this harms the Party and does it no good. Irresponsible criticism and talk are not likely to overcome the shortcomings and mistakes in the party but will lead to unprincipled disputes and disunity. We stand for inner-Party criticism and self-criticism which is responsible and beneficial to the Party and is in keeping with its organizational principles.<br />
<br />
Shortcomings and mistakes exist in the Party and so do incorrect non-proletarian ideas. Any of these may at certain times develop into a trend, giving rise to differences of principle and imparing the PartyÕs unity of action. Hence it is impossible to educate the Party, the proletariat and the masses correctly if we do not unfold criticism and self-criticism, constantly expose and correct short comings and mistakes, overcome wrong ideas and conduct inner-Party struggle to resolve inner-Party differences, but instead take a compromising attitude and follow a “middle” line, or try to muddle through in inner-Party struggle.<br />
<br />
Liberalism in inner-Party struggle is manifested in yet another way. Thus when a dispute breaks out in the Party, many comrades put aside their work and indulge in aimless debate for days and months on end or let themselves go without restraint; as a result, the unity of the Party becomes the looser, Party discipline is weakened, the Party’s prestige is impaired and our militant Party organizations turn into debating societies. Such things have occurred more than once in certain Party organizations. They have absolutely nothing in common with the kind of criticism and self-criticism we advocate. We need criticism and self-criticism, not in order to impair the Party’s prestige, undermine its discipline and weaken its leadership, but in order to promote the Party’s prestige, consolidate its discipline and strengthen its leadership.<br />
<br />
Hence, it is wrong to adopt a liberalistic or bureaucratic attitude towards the various shortcomings and mistakes in the Party. In order to fight against all undesirable phenomena and resolve differences, we must promote criticism and self-criticism and conduct inner-Party struggle correctly. Only then can the party be strengthened, grow and advance.<br />
<br />
Comrades who take an extreme attitude in inner-Party struggle are also wrong.<br />
<br />
The extreme attitude is the exact antithesis of the liberalistic attitude. It arises because these comrades fail to understand that wrong ideas in the Party have deep social roots and cannot possibly be eliminated at one stroke. At various times and in varying degrees, many of our Party comrades may reflect certain incorrect ideas existing in society and may commit some mistakes in their work under the influence of non-proletarian ideologies; no comrade can entirely avoid this. If the Party were to refuse to retain or tolerate all comrades who reflect non-proletarian ideologies in some degree, or who have committed some mistakes and yet are not incorrigible, and were to reject them categorically and even expel them, then the tasks of educating the comrades and consolidating the Party’s organization would be nonexistent. Were our Party to follow such an extreme policy, the comrades promoting such actions would eventually have to be expelled themselves. In particular, these comrades fail to understand that the achievement of communism involves the tremendous and difficult task of transforming all humanity into the selfless citizenry of a communist society, the task of converting men with their many weaknesses into communists with a high level of culture through a long process of tempering and education in the course of struggle. If they did understand this, then they would understand that our Party has the important and constant duty of educating and remoulding people who are already members but whose ideology is not wholly proletarian.<br />
<br />
Naturally, the education and remoulding of such Party members is a most arduous task requiring prolonged and patient effort. Yet if we are unwilling to tackle this difficult task and shrink from it, how can we talk about changing the world and all humanity? Since we are determined to undertake, and not to shrink from, the unprecedentedly arduous task of changing the world and all humanity, what other task in the world today can daunt us? Party members who have the communist world outlook are dauntless, fear no difficulty or hardship, and understand that the process of development is torturous. Comrades who take an extreme attitude do not understand that the achievement of communism is an arduous and torturous task, they fear difficulties and crave a straight road, they want to eliminate everything unpleasant at one stroke and leap immediately into the world of their ideals. Thinking and acting in this way, they inevitably run their heads against a brick wall. And after banging and bruising their heads, they quite often become disheartened and loose their confidence in the future of communism. Thus they swing between extremes, from “Left” to “Right”, thereby revealing the essence of their non-proletarian ideology. It is regrettable that this erroneous, extreme attitude towards inner-Party shortcomings and mistakes should still be found to a greater or lesser extent among quite a few comrades, although it is harmful to the Party, to other comrades and to themselves.<br />
<br />
Inner-Party struggle is necessary not because we are subjectively addicted to struggle or partial to dispute, but because inner-Party differences of principle do arise in the growth of the Party and in the proletarian struggle. When they occur, “contradictions can be overcome only by means of a struggle for definite principles, for definite aims of the struggle, for definite methods of waging the struggle leading to the desired aim.”<sup>2</sup> Compromise is of no avail here. This means that when a dispute has developed into one of principle which can only be resolved through struggle, we should unflinchingly wage inner-Party struggle in order to resolve it. It does not mean that we should make a big fuss over small matters, conduct inner-Party struggle with stony faces and never compromise even on routine and on questions of a purely practical nature. “One can, and one should agree to any compromise with dissenters in the party on questions of current policy,, on questions of a purely practical nature.”<sup>3</sup><br />
<br />
When opportunist ideas and differences of principle arise in the Party, we must, of course, wage struggles to overcome those ideas and errors of principle. This defiantly does not mean that when there are no differences of principles and no opportunist ideas in the Party, we should deliberately magnify into “differences of principle” divergences of opinion among comrades on questions of a purely practical nature.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said: “The Party must on the one hand wage a serious struggle against erroneous thinking, and on the other give the comrades who have committed errors ample opportunity to wake up. This being the case, excessive struggle is obviously inappropriate.”<sup>4</sup><br />
<br />
It is necessary to make severe criticism of, or even to apply organizational penalties to, those comrades who, after committing opportunist mistakes or other mistakes of principle, turn a deaf ear to persuasion and Party criticism, wilfully and obstinately cling to their errors and resist Party policy, or double-faced in their attitude. But if these comrades do not cling to their mistakes but are willing to correct them and give up their previous point of view after sober discussion, persuasion and criticism, or if they coolly ponder over their mistakes or soberly discuss them with other comrades, we should welcome every small sign of progress on their part and not subject them to penalties undiscriminatingly. In criticism and inner-Party struggle, it is not true that the more stony-faced we are the better, or that the more comrades we punish the better; our highest aim is to educate the erring comrades to the best effect, help them to correct their mistakes, educate the entire membership and consolidate the Party.<br />
<br />
The “Left” opportunists are clearly wrong in their attitude towards inner-Party struggle. According to these almost hysterical people, any peace in the Party was intolerable—even peace based on complete unanimity on matters of principle an on the Party line. Even in the absence of any differences of principle in the Party, they deliberately hunted out targets, dubbed some comrades “opportunist” and set them up as “straw men” to shoot at in inner-Party struggle. They thought that such erroneous struggle and such shooting at “straw men” were the magic formula for developing the Party and achieving victory in the revolutionary fight of the proletariat. They considered that to stir up trouble out of nothing or to deliberately concoct inner-Party struggle was the only “Bolshevik” way. Of course, this is not serious and earnest inner-Party struggle; rather it is a mockery of the Party and the perverting of inner-Party struggle, which is a most serious matter, into a frivolous game. The advocates of such action are not Bolsheviks at all but are either people who are well-nigh incorrigible or careerists exploiting the name “Bolshevik”.<br />
<br />
We have been discussing the attitude to be adopted towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party. It is by combating all that is bad inside and outside the Party that we change the world and humanity and at the same time perfect the Party and remould ourselves. Inner-Party struggle is a reflection within the Party of existing contradictions in society between classes and between old and new. The Party tempers, develops and consolidates itself in the class struggle outside the Party (i.e., in the revolutionary struggles of the masses of the people) and simultaneously becomes consolidated and united through struggle inside the Party, and is therefore able to give more systematic, correct and effective leadership to the revolutionary struggle of the masses. Hence it would be utterly wrong, advantageous to the enemy, contrary to the laws of development of the class struggle and incompatible with our basic thesis of transformation of the world and humanity through struggle, if we were to adopt a liberal attitude towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party by flossing over internal differences of principle, covering up inner-Party contradictions, evading inner-Party struggle and just muddling along. Similarly, it would be wrong to isolate the struggle inside the Party from the class struggle outside the Party or the revolutionary movement of the masses and thus turn inner-Party struggle into empty talk. In fact, it is impossible to temper, develop and consolidate the party in isolation from the revolutionary struggle of the masses. However, it would be equally wrong and contrary to the laws of development of the Party, if we were to carry matters to the other extreme and adopt an extreme attitude towards all comrades who have shortcomings or have committed errors but who are not irredeemable, or if we were to fail to distinguish between them and the enemy, conducting mechanical and excessive inner-Party struggles against them and wilfully fabricating such struggles. We should not break with comrades who have committed errors but who are nevertheless loyal. Rather, we should show concern and sympathy for them, persuade and educate them and help them temper and reform themselves in struggle. We should not castigate or expel them unless they persist in their mistakes and prove incorrigible.<br />
<br />
Although there are still some shortcomings and mistakes, some isolated minor evils in our Party, we are fully confident that with the advance of the working-class movement we can and will get rid of them through the great revolutionary struggles of the masses. The history of nearly two decades of struggle and glorious progress by the Communist Party of China and the worldwide development of the working-class movement, thoroughly convince us of this.<br />
<br />
Inner-Party struggle is an indispensable component of the revolutionary struggle as a whole. Our comrades should therefore temper and cultivate themselves both in struggles outside the Party and in the struggle on two fronts inside the Party. Among many Party comrades, however, there is still no genuinely profound appreciation of such inner-Party struggle, and there is insufficient tempering and self-cultivation. This is manifested not only in the frequent unprincipled struggles carried on by some comrades but also in the fact that certain comrades, including even some with a fairly long history of militant struggle, cannot stand being criticized of misjudged. When fighting the counter-revolution, they never waver, complain or feel dejected, however ruthless the struggle, however bitter the conditions and however vicious the enemy’s blows. Yet in inner-Party struggle they cannot stand being criticized, attacked, misjudged or wronged, or tolerate even a single unpleasant word. Or they suspect people of making pointed allusions to them, and so they complain and feel very dejected. We must really five this kind of thing our attention.<br />
<br />
It must be stated that on the whole these comrades are very good because they wage resolute struggle against the counter-revolutionaries and look upon the Party as a most affectionate mother. After going out to fight hard battles against the counter-revolutionaries they should receive encouragement, consolation and caresses, and not blows and wrongs, when they return to their great mother’s embrace. It is only natural for them to expect such treatment. However, they fail to take one point into account, or fully into account—that our Party still has shortcomings and faults and that there are inner-Party struggles which every comrade must take part in. Our Party criticises and combats shortcomings and faults not because it is unfeeling but because such action is unavoidable in the course of revolutionary struggle. It is necessary for comrades in the course of inner-Party struggle to receive well founded criticism, for it is helpful to them, to the other comrades and to the whole Party. On the other hand, it is also unavoidable that at times some comrades will receive unfounded criticisms or be attacked on certain matters, or will even be wrongly judged and disciplined. Failing to allow for this, they become shocked and feel most miserable and dejected when it occurs.<br />
<br />
In this connection, it is my opinion that every Party member should pay attention to uniting with his comrades, be sincere and open,, refrain from hurting others by thoughtless or sarcastic remarks and, in particular, refrain from irresponsibly criticizing comrades behind their backs. The proper attitude to any comrade’s mistakes is sincerely to remonstrate with him and criticize him to his face., out of concern for the comrade and a desire to be of help. All of us, and especially those in more responsible positions, must bear this in mind.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, it is my opinion that comrades should be mentally prepared for inner-Party struggle, should open-mindedly accept all well-grounded criticism and be able to endure misunderstandings or attacks, or even unfairness and injustice; in particular, they should not get upset or excited over irresponsible and unjustified criticism or rumours. As far as irresponsible misjudgement and criticism are concerned—that is, excluding properly conducted criticism among comrades or through the Party organization—one can try and clear the matter up or offer some explanation when necessary, but if that does not help, one might just as well let others say what they please, provided there is nothing wrong in one’s thinking and behaviour. Let us remember the Chinese sayings: “Who never gossips about others behind their backs or is never the subject of gossip?” and “Never mind the storm, just sit tight in the fishing boat.” No one in this world can entirely avoid being misunderstood, but misunderstandings can always be cleared up sooner or later. We should be able to endure misunderstandings and should never allow ourselves to be dragged into unprincipled struggle; at the same time, we should be always vigilant and keep watch over our own thoughts and actions.<br />
<br />
That is to say, we should take care not to use words that wound other comrades and should be able to stand injurious language from others.<br />
<br />
We are radically opposed to unprincipled disputes in the Party. Since they are unprincipled, they are useless and harmful to the Party, and there is generally little of right or wrong, or good or bad, about them. In such unprincipled struggles, therefore, there is no point in passing judgement as to who is right and who is wrong, or estimating who is better and who is worse, because that is impossible. All we can do is radically to oppose struggles of that kind and ask the comrades involved unconditionally to stop them and get back to principles. This is the policy we should adopt towards unprincipled disputes and struggles. But what is to be done if unprincipled disputes do arise and if many of them get tangled up with struggles over principle? What should be done if such disputes knock at our door and we get dragged into them? All we can do in that case is, again, to put the stress on the questions of principle and avoid stressing those not involving any principle. Basing ourselves on the policy outlined here, we should handle such unprincipled disputes strictly and ourselves stand firm on the principle from beginning to end, refusing to be dragged into the unprincipled disputes. When something does go wrong to you, do not throw back something wrong at him. Always stand by the right to oppose the wrong. Some of our comrades find it very difficult to act in this way, which shows why special attention to self-tempering and self-cultivation is necessary.<br />
<br />
Let me briefly sum up the points discussed.<br />
<br />
The aim of ideological self-cultivation by members of the Communist party is to temper themselves to become staunch and utterly devoted members and cadres of the Party who make constant progress and serve as examples for others. What is required of us is the following:<br />
<br />
1. To build up our communist world outlook and a firm Party and proletarian class standpoint through the study of Marxism-Leninism and participation in the revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
2. To examine our own thinking and behaviour, to correct all erroneous ideas and at the same time to judge questions and judge other comrades on the basis of our communist world outlook and our firm Party and proletarian class standpoint.<br />
<br />
3. Always to adopt a correct attitude and appropriate methods in the struggle against erroneous ideology in the Party, and especially against the erroneous ideology which affects the current revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
4. To keep a firm control over ourselves in thought, speech and action, especially to take a firm standpoint and adhere to correct principles with regard to political ideas, statements and activities which are related to the current revolutionary struggle. In addition, it is as well to be careful even over “trifles” (in one's personal life, attitude, etc.). But as for making demands on other comrades, apart from matters of principle and major political questions, we should not be too severe or fault finding over “trifles”.<br />
<br />
In my opinion, the above is what we mean, fundamentally, when we talk about ideological self-cultivation by members of the Communist Party.<br />
[[Category:Library works by Liu Shaoqi]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:How_to_Be_a_Good_Communist&diff=63630Library:How to Be a Good Communist2024-03-03T19:17:17Z<p>RedCustodian: /* Why Communists Must Undertake Self-Cultivation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Library work|title=How to Be a Good Communist|author=Liu Shaoqi|written in=1939}}<br />
<br />
Comrades,<br />
<br />
The question I shall discuss us how members of the [[Communist Party of China|Communist Party]] should cultivate and temper themselves. It may not be unprofitable to the building and consolidation of the Party to take up this question at this present time.<br />
<br />
== Why Communists Must Undertake Self-Cultivation ==<br />
Why must Communists undertake to cultivate themselves?<br />
<br />
In order to live, person must wage a struggle against nature and make use of nature to produce [[Materialism|material]] values. At all times and under all conditions, his [[production]] of material things is social in character. It follows that when men engage in production at any [[Mode of production|stage of social development]], they have to enter into certain [[relations of production]] with one another. In their ceaseless struggle against nature, men ceaselessly change nature and simultaneously change themselves and their mutual relations. Men themselves, their social relations, their form of social organization and consciousness were all different from what they are today, and in the future they will again be different.<br />
<br />
Humanity and human society are in process of [[Historical materialism|historical development]]. When human society reached a certain historical stage, [[Social class|classes]] and [[class struggle]] emerged. Every member of a [[class society]] exists as a member of a given class and lives in given conditions of class struggle. Man’s social being determines his consciousness. In class society the ideology of the members of each class reflects a different position and different class interests. The class struggle constantly goes on among these classes with their different positions, interests and ideologies. Thus it is not only in the struggle against nature but in the struggle of social classes that men change nature, change society and at the same time change themselves.<br />
<br />
[[Karl Marx|Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]] said:<blockquote>Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary, an alteration that can only take place in a practical movement, a ''[[Proletarian revolution|revolution]]''; the revolution is necessary, therefore, not only the [[Bourgeoisie|ruling class]] cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because [[Proletariat|the class ''overthrowing'' it]] can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>That is to say, the proletariat must conscientiously go through long periods of social revolutionary struggles and, in such struggles change society and change itself.<br />
<br />
We should therefore see ourselves as in need of change and capable of being changed. We should not look upon ourselves as immutable, perfect and sacrosanct, as persons who need not and cannot be changed. When we pose the task of remoulding ourselves in social struggle, we are not demeaning ourselves; the objective laws of social development demand it. Unless we do so, we cannot make progress, or fulfill the task of changing society.<br />
<br />
We Communists are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history; to day the changing of society and the world rests upon us and we are the driving force in this change. It is by unremitting struggle against [[Counterrevolution|counter-revolutionaries]]<sup>3</sup> that we Communists change society and the world, and at the same time ourselves.<br />
<br />
When we say Communists must remould themselves by waging struggles in every sphere against the counter-revolutionaries,<sup>3</sup> we mean that it is through such struggles that they must seek to make progress and must enhance their revolutionary quality and ability. An immature revolutionary has to go through a long process of revolutionary tempering and self-cultivation, a long process of remoulding, before he cam become a mature and seasoned revolutionary who can grasp and skillfully apply the laws of revolution. For in the first place, a comparatively immature revolutionary, born and bred in the old society, carries with him the remnants of the various ideologies of that society (including its prejudices, habits and traditions), and in the second he has not been through a long period of revolutionary activity. Therefore he does not yet have a really thorough understanding of the enemy, of the people or of the laws of social development and revolutionary struggle. In order to change this state of affairs, besides learning from past revolutionary experience (the practice of our predecessors), he must themself participate in contemporary revolutionary practice, and in this revolutionary practice and struggle against all kinds of counter revolutionaries,<sup>3</sup> he must bring his conscious activity into full play and work hard at study and self-cultivation. Only so can he acquire deeper experience and understanding of the laws of social development and revolutionary struggle, acquire a really thorough understanding of the enemy and the people, discover his wrong ideas, habits and prejudices and correct them, and thus raise the level of his political consciousness, cultivate his revolutionary qualities and improve his revolutionary methods. Hence, in order to remould themself and raise his owl level, a revolutionary must take part in revolutionary practice from which he must on no account isolate themself. Moreover, he must strive to conduct self-cultivation and study in the course of practice. Otherwise, it will still be impossible for him to make progress.<br />
<br />
For example, several Communists take part in a revolutionary mass struggle together and engage in revolutionary practice under roughly the same circumstances and conditions. It is possible that the effect of the struggle on these Party members will not be at all uniform. Some will make very rapid progress and some who used to lag behind will even forge ahead of others. Other Party members will advance very slowly. Still others will waver in the struggle and, instead of being pushed forward by revolutionary practice, will fall behind. Why?<br />
<br />
Or take another example. Many members of our Party were on the [[Long March]]; it was a severe process of tempering for them, and the overwhelming majority made very great progress indeed. But the Long March had the opposite effect on certain individuals in the Party. After having been on the Long March they began to shrink before arduous struggles, and some of them even planned to back out or to run away and later, succumbing to outside allurements, actually deserted the revolutionary ranks. Many Party members took part in the Long March together, and yet its impact and results varied very greatly. Again, why?<br />
<br />
Basically speaking, these phenomena are reflections of our revolutionary ranks of the class struggle in society. Our Party members differ in quality because they differ in social background and have come under different social influences. They differ in their attitude, stand and comprehension in relation to the revolutionary practice, and consequently they develop in different directions in the course of revolutionary practice. This can clearly be seen in your institute as well. You all receive the same education and training here, and yet because you differ in quality and experience, in degree of effort and self-cultivation, you may obtain different or even contrary results. Hence, subjective effort and self-cultivation in the course of revolutionary struggle are absolutely essential, indeed, indispensable for a revolutionary in remoulding themself and raising his own level.<br />
<br />
Whether he joined the revolution long ago or just recently, every Communist who wants to become a good politically mature revolutionary must undergo a long period of tempering in revolutionary struggle, must steel themself in mass revolutionary struggles and all kinds of difficulties and hardships, must sum up the experience gained through practice, make great efforts in self-cultivation, raise his ideological level, heighten his ability and never loose sense of what is new. For only thus can he turn themself into a politically staunch revolutionary of high quality.<br />
<br />
[[Confucius]] said “At fifteen, my mind was bent on learning. At thirty, I could think for myself. At forty, I was no longer perplexed. At fifty, I knew the decree of Heaven. At sixty, my ear was attuned to the truth. At seventy, I can follow my heart’s desire without transgressing what is right.”<sup>4</sup> Here the [[Feudalism|feudal]] philosopher was referring to his own process of self-cultivation; he did not consider themself to have been born a “sage”.<br />
<br />
[[Mencius]], another feudal philosopher, said that no one had fulfilled a “great mission” and played a role in history without first undergoing a hard process of tempering, a process which “exercises his mind with suffering and toughens his sinews and bones with toil, exposes his body to hunger, subjects him to extreme poverty, thwarts his under-takings and thereby stimulates his mind, tempers his character and adds to his capacities”.<sup>5</sup> Still more so must Communists give attention to tempering and cultivating themselves in revolutionary struggles, since they have the historically unprecedented “great mission” of changing the world.<br />
<br />
Our Communist self-cultivation is the kind essential to proletarian revolutionaries. It must not be divorced from revolutionary practice or from the actual revolutionary movements of the labouring masses, and especially of the proletarian masses.<br />
<br />
Comrade [[Mao Zedong]] has said:<blockquote>Discover the truth through practice, and again through practice verify and develop the truth. Start from perceptual knowledge and actively develop it into rational knowledge; then start from rational knowledge and actively guide revolutionary practice to change both the subjective and the objective world. Practice, knowledge, again practice and again knowledge. This form repeats itself in endless cycles, and with each cycle the content the content of practice and knowledge rises to a higher level. Such is the whole of the dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge, and such is the dialectical-materialist theory of the unity of knowing and doing.<sup>6</sup></blockquote>Our Party members should temper themselves and intensify their self-cultivation not only in the hardships, difficulties and reverses of revolutionary practice, but also in the course of smooth, successful and victorious revolutionary practice. Some members of our Party cannot stand the plaudits of success and victory; they let victories turn their heads, become brazen, arrogant, and bureaucratic and may even vacillate, degenerate and become corrupted, completely loosing their original revolutionary quality. Individual instances of this kind are not uncommon among our Party members. The existence of such a phenomenon in the Party calls for our comrades’ sharp attention.<br />
<br />
In past ages, before the proletarian revolutionaries appeared on the scene, practically all [[Revolution|revolutionaries]] became corrupted and degenerated with the achievement of victory. They lost their original revolutionary spirit and became obstacles to the further development of the revolution. [[Republic of China|China]]’s [[History of China|history]] over the past century, or to speak of more recent times, over the past fifty years, has shown us that many bourgeois and [[Petty bourgeoisie|petty-bourgeois]] revolutionaries in the past and by the nature of earlier revolutions. Before the [[Russian revolution of 1917|Great October Socialist Revolution]] in [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1991)|Russia]], all revolutions throughout history invariably ended in the suppression of the rule of one [[Exploitation|exploiting]] class by that of another. Thus, once they themselves became the ruling class, these revolutionaries lost their revolutionary quality and turned round to [[Oppression|oppress]] the exploited masses; this was the inexorable law.<br />
<br />
But such can never be the case with the proletarian revolution and with the Communist Party. The proletarian revolution is a revolution to abolish all exploitation, oppression and classes. The Communist Party represents the proletariat which is itself exploited but does not exploit others and which can therefore carry the revolution through to the end finally abolish all exploitation and sweep away all the corruption and rottenness in human society. The proletariat is able to build a strictly organized and disciplined party and set up a centralized and at the same time democratic state apparatus, and through the Party and this state apparatus, it is able to lead the masses of the people in waging unrelenting struggle against all corruption and rottenness and in ceaselessly weeding out of the Party and the state organs all those elements that have become [[Corruption|corrupt]] and degenerate (whatever high office they may hold), thereby preserving the purity of the Party and the state apparatus. This outstanding feature of the proletarian revolution and of the [[Vanguard party|proletarian revolutionary party]] did not and could not exist in earlier revolutions and revolutionary parties. Members of our Party must be clear on this point, and—particularly when the revolution is successful and victorious and when they themselves enjoy the ever greater confidence and support of the masses—they must sharpen their vigilance, intensify their self-cultivation in proletarian ideology and always preserve their pure proletarian revolutionary character so that they will not fall into the rut of earlier revolutionaries who degenerated in the hour of success.<br />
<br />
Tempering and self-cultivation in revolutionary practice and tempering and self-cultivation in proletarian ideology are important for every Communist, especially after the seizure of political power. The Communist Party did not drop from heaven but was born out of the Chinese society. Every member of the Communist party has come from this society, is living in it today and is constantly exposed to its seamy side. It is not surprising then that Communists, whether they are of proletarian or non-proletarian origin and whether they are old or new members of the Party, should carry with them to a greater or lesser the thinking and habits of the old society. In order to preserve our purity as vanguard fighters of the proletariat and to enhance our revolutionary quality and working ability that is essential for every Communist to work hard to temper and cultivate themself in every respect.<br />
<br />
These are the reasons why Communists must undertake self-cultivation. I shall now discuss the criteria for Communist self-cultivation.<br />
<br />
== Be Worthy Pupils of Marx and Lenin ==<br />
The constitution of the party stipulates that membership is open to any member who accepts the Programme and [[Library:Constitution of the Communist Party of China (2022)|Constitution of the Party]] organizations, pays membership dues and works in one of the Party organizations. No one can be a Party member unless he fulfills these requirements. But no Communist should rest content with being a Party member who merely fulfills the minimum requirements; as laid down in the Party Constitution, he should strive to make progress ceaselessly raise the level of his political consciousness and diligently study [[Marxism–Leninism|Marxism-Leninism]], as manifested throughout their lives.<br />
<br />
Engels said of Marx:<blockquote>...Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being, to contribute to the liberation of the modern proletariat, which he was the first to make conscious of its own position and of its needs, conscious of the needs of its emancipation. Fighting was his element. And he fought with a passion, a tenacity and a success such as few could rival.<sup>1</sup></blockquote>Engels also said of Marx:<blockquote>None of us has the breadth of vision with which he, whenever it was necessary to act quickly, did the right thing and tackled the decisive issue.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>[[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] said concerning the necessity of our learning from the example of [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]]:<blockquote>Remember, love and study Ilyich, our teacher, our leader. Fight and defeat our enemies, home and foreign—in the way that Ilyich taught us. Build the new society, the new way of life, the new culture in the way that Ilyich taught us. Never refuse to do the little things, for from the little things are built the big things—that is one of Ilyich's important behests.<sup>3</sup></blockquote>On another occasion Stalin said:<blockquote>The electors, the people, must demand that their deputies should remain equal to their tasks, that in their work they should not sink to the level of political philistines, that in their posts definite as Lenin was, that they should be as fearless in battle and as merciless towards the complicated and some danger or other looms on the horizon, that they should be as free from all requiring a comprehensive orientation and a comprehensive weighing of all the pros and cons as Lenin did.<sup>4</sup></blockquote>These are the concise characterizations of Marx by Engels and of Lenin by Stalin. That is how all members of our Party should learn from the thinking and qualities of Marx and Lenin and strive to be their worthy pupils.<br />
<br />
Some say that the that the thinking and qualities of such great revolutionary geniuses as the founders of Marxism-Leninism cannot be acquired and that it is impossible to raise one's thinking and qualities to their high level. They regard the founders of Marxism-Leninism as born geniuses , as mysterious beings. Is such a view correct? I think not.<br />
<br />
True enough, the average Party comrade is far from possessing the great gifts and profound scientific knowledge of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, and most of our comrades cannot attain to their deep and broad erudition in the theory of proletarian revolution. But it is perfectly possible for our comrades to grasp the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism, cultivate the style of Marx and Lenin in work and in struggle, constantly heighten their revolutionary quality and become statesmen of the type of Marx and Lenin, if they really have the will. take a really conscious and consistent stand as vanguard fighters of the proletariat, really acquire the communist world outlook, never isolate themselves from the current deep and great revolutionary movement of the proletariat and all the labouring masses, and exert themselves in study, self-tempering and self-cultivation.<br />
<br />
There is a saying of Menicus: "Everybody can be a Yao or a Shun."<sup>5</sup> I think that was well said. Every Communist should keep his feet on the ground, seek the truth from the facts, work hard at tempering themself, work conscientiously at self-cultivation and do his best to improve his own thinking and quality. He should not regard the thinking and qualities of such great revolutionaries as the founders of Marxism-Leninism as beyond his reach, give up and be afraid to advance. For if he does so, he will become a "political philistine", a piece of "rotten wood that cannot be carved".<br />
<br />
We should of course adopt a correct attitude towards learning from the qualities of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and towards the learning of Marxism-Leninism itself. Otherwise it is impossible to learn anything, let alone to learn it well. In fact, there are different kinds of people in our ranks with different attitudes towards such learning.<br />
<br />
These are people who, when studying Marx and Lenin, fail to get to the essence of Marxism-Leninism, but only learn its terms and phrases superficially. Although they read Marxist-Leninist literature, they are unable to use its principles and conclusions as a guide to action and apply them to concrete, practical problems in real life. They are content ton learn isolated principles and conclusions by rote, and even to style themselves as "[[Dogmatism|the genuine]]" Marxist-Leninists; but they are certainly not genuine Marxist-Leninists and their actions and methods are diametrically opposed to Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
We have had not a few people of this type in the Communist Party of China. We had certain representatives of dogmatism at one time who were even worse. These people knew absolutely nothing about Marxism-Leninism and could only babble Marxist-Leninist phraseology, and yet they regarded themselves as China's Marx or China's Lenin, posed as such in the Party and had the impudence to require that our Party members should revere them as Marx and Lenin are revered, support them as "the leaders" and accord them loyalty and devotion. They went so far as to appoint themselves "the leaders" without being chosen, climbed into positions of authority, issued orders to the Party like [[Patriarchy|patriarchs]], tried to lecture our Party, abused everything in the Party, wilfully attacked and punished our Party members and pushed them around. Those people had no sincere desire to study Marxism-Leninism or fight for the realization of communism—they were just careerists in the Party, termites in the communist movement. Such people were bound to be opposed and eventually unmasked and discarded by the rank and file. And indeed they were discarded by our Party members. But can we say with full confidence that no such people will reappear in our Party? No, we cannot yet say no.<br />
<br />
Then there are people of exactly the opposite kind. They see themselves above all as pupils of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, conscientiously study the theory of Marxism-Leninism and strive to grasp its essence and spirit. They look up to the noble character and proletarian revolutionary qualities of the founders, and in the course of revolutionary struggles they conscientiously carry on self-cultivation and examine themselves to see if their handling of affairs, their dealings with people and their own behaviour conform to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism. They are well read in Marxism-Leninism but at the same time they make a special effort to investigate and analyse living reality, to study the characteristics of their own time and all aspects of the situation facing the proletariat of their own country, and to integrate the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the revolution in their own country. They do not content themselves with memorizing Marxist-Leninist principles and conclusions, but take a firm Marxist-Leninist stand learn the Marxist-Leninist method and act accordingly, giving spirited guidance in every revolutionary struggle, and thus they transform reality and at the same time transform themselves. Every one of their actions without exception is guided by the general principals of Marxism-Leninism and is devoted to the victory of the proletarian cause, the liberation of the nation and all humanity, and the triumph of Communism.<br />
<br />
The attitude of these people is the only correct one. It is the one attitude towards studying Marxism-Leninism and learning from the qualities of its founders that will enable us to become communist proletarian revolutionaries of the Marx and Lenin type.<br />
<br />
A person who really takes pain to cultivate themself and to be a faithful pupil of the founders of Marxism-Leninism will lay special stress on maintaining the Marxist-Leninist stand and using the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint and method to solve the problems arising in the revolutionary movement lead by the proletariat, as the founders of Marxism-Leninism did. He will give no thought whatsoever to his own position or fame in the Party, nor will he ever claim to be a Marx or a Lenin, nor require nor expect others to have the same high respect for him as for Marx or Lenin, for he does not think he has any right to do so. Yet such a person will enjoy the considered respect and support of the mass of the Party members just because he acts in this way, because he is always honest and loyal, brave and firm, and shows great ability in the revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
Of course it is not easy to model ourselves on the founders of Marxism-Leninism and to be their faithful and worthy pupils. But we can become their faithful and worthy pupils if we are strong-willed and determined to fight hard for the cause of communism, if we diligently study Marxism-Leninism amid the great revolutionary struggles of the masses and are good at summing up experience and if we temper and cultivate ourselves in every respect and devote our whole lives to the proletarian communist cause.<br />
<br />
== The Self-Cultivation of Communists and the Revolutionary Practice of the Masses ==<br />
In order to become faithful and worthy pupils of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, we must engage in all round self-cultivation in the course of the great and protracted revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and the masses. We must engage in self-cultivation in the Marxist-Leninist theory; self cultivation in applying the Marxist-Leninist stand, view point and method to the study and handling of all problems; self-cultivation in proletarian ideology and morality; self-cultivation in upholding unity in the Party, practising criticism and self-criticism and observing discipline; self cultivation in developing the style of hard work and persistent struggle; self-cultivation in building close ties with the masses; self cultivation in various branches of scientific knowledge, etc. We are all members of the Communist Party and therefore we must all without exception carry on self-cultivation in these respects. However, since Party members differ from one another in political consciousness, experience of struggle, field of work, cultural level and in the conditions in which they work, it is natural that comrades should differ to some extent in the various aspects of self-cultivation to which they must pay special attention of which they must stress.<br />
<br />
When Zeng Zi, in ancient times, said, "I reflect on myself three times a day,"<sup>1</sup> he was discussing self-examination. The ''Book of Odes'' in the famous lines, "As knife and file make smooth the bone, as jade is wrought by chisel and stone, <sup>2</sup> referred to the need for help and criticism among friends. What all this shows is that very hard work and very earnest self-cultivation are essential if one is to make progress. But the "self-cultivation" perused by many people in the past was generally [[Idealism|idealistic]], formalistic, abstract and divorced from social practice. They exaggerated the role of subjective intentions, thinking that so long as they had "good will" in the abstract, they could transform reality, society and themselves. Of course this is absurd. Our self-cultivation cannot be done that way. We are revolutionary materialists; our self-cultivation cannot be separated from the revolutionary practices of the masses.<br />
<br />
For us it is most important to never divorce ourselves from the current revolutionary struggle of the masses, but to identify ourselves with it, in order to study, sum up and apply the revolutionary experience of the past. This means that we must cultivate and temper ourselves in revolutionary practice and that in turn our self-cultivation and tempering are undertaken solely for the sake of the people and of revolutionary practice. It means that we must modestly learn the Marxist-Leninist stand, viewpoint and method, learn from the noble proletarian quality of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and apply all this in our practice, in our words and deeds, our daily life and work, constantly correcting or eliminating anything in our ideology contrary to it and strengthening our own proletarian communist ideology and character. It means that we should listen modestly to the opinions and criticisms of our Party comrades and of the masses, make a careful study of the practical problems in our life and work, carefully sum up and draw lessons from our experience in work, and that, in the light of all this, we should ascertain whether our understanding of Marxism-Leninism and our use of the Marxist-Leninist method are correct and check up on our shortcomings and mistakes so as to overcome them and improve our work. Furthermore, on the basis of new experience we should ascertain whether there are any individual conclusions or aspects of Marxism-Leninism that need supplementing, enriching and developing. In short, we must integrate the universal truth of Marxism- Leninism with the concrete practice of the revolution.<br />
<br />
This is the method of self-cultivation for us communists. It is entirely different from those methods of self-cultivation which are idealistic and divorced from the revolutionary practice of the masses.<br />
<br />
In order to persevere in this Marxist-Leninist method of cultivation, we must resolutely oppose and thoroughly eradicate one of the worst vices bequeathed to us by the old society in the field of education and study, namely, the separation of theory from practice. In the old society many people who studied thought it unnecessary, or even impossible to act upon what they had learned, and though they wrote and spoke abundantly of justice and morality, in fact they were out and out scoundrels. Although the [[Kuomintang]] [[Reactionary|reactionaries]] memorize the "Three People's Principles"<sup>3</sup> and recite [[Sun Yat-sen]]'s Testament,<sup>4</sup> in actual fact they bleed the people white with [[Tax|taxes]], practice corruption and slaughter, oppress the masses, are opposed to "[[Anti-imperialism|those nations who treat us as equals]]", and go as far as to compromise with or surrender to the [[Empire of Japan (1868–1947)|national enemy]]. An old ixucai<sup>5</sup> once told me that of all the teachings of Confucius he was able to observe only this one, "For him no food can ever be too dainty and no minced meat too fine"<sup>5</sup> and that he could not observe the rest and had never intended to. Since that is what these people are like, why do they run schools and study the "teachings of the sages"? They are after advancement and money, use the "teachings of the sages" to oppress the exploited, and deceive the people by paying lip service to justice and morality. This is typical of the attitude of the exploiting classes of the old society towards the sages they "worship". Needless to say, when we Communists study Marxism-Leninism an all that is best in our national heritage, we must never adopt such an attitude. What we learn we must practice. Being proletarian revolutionaries who are honest and pure in purpose, we cannot be untrue to ourselves, to the people, or to those who went before us. This is an outstanding characteristic as well as a great merit of Communists.<br />
<br />
Is it possible that the old society's separation of theory from practice can have no influence on us? No, it is not! It is true that none of you students are studying Marxism-Leninism for the sake of advancement and money and or oppressing the exploited. Yet is it possible to maintain that none of you ever entertains the idea that your thoughts, words, deeds and life do not necessarily have to be guided by Marxist-Leninist principles or that you do not intend to put all the principles that you have learned into practice? Is it possible that none of you ever thinks of studying Marxism-Leninism or going deeper into the theory as a means of getting ahead in life, of showing off and becoming famous? I cannot guarantee that none of you thinks along these lines. That kind of thinking runs counter to Marxism-Leninism and to the basic Marxist-Leninist principle of the integration of theory and practice. Certainly we must study theory, but we must also practice what we learn. And it is for the sake of practice, of the Party, of the people, and of the victory of the revolution that we study theory.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<blockquote>The great strength of Marxism-Leninism lies precisely in its integration with the concrete revolutionary practice of all countries. For the Communist Party of China, it is a matter of learning to apply the theory of Marxism-Leninism to the specific circumstances of China. For the Chinese Communists who are part of the great Chinese nation, flesh of its flesh and blood of its blood, any talk about Marxism in isolation from China's characteristics is merely Marxism in the abstract, Marxism in a vacuum. Hence to apply Marxism concretely in China so that its every manifestation has an indubitable Chinese character, i.e., to apply Marxism in the light of China's specific characteristics, becomes a problem which it is urgent for the whole Party to understand and solve. Foreign stereotypes must be abolished, there must be less singing of empty, abstract tunes, and dogmatism must be laid to rest; they must be replaced by the fresh, lively Chinese style and spirit which the common people of China love.<sup>6</sup></blockquote>Our comrades must study the theory of Marxism-Leninism by following the method Comrade Mao Zedong speaks of here.<br />
<br />
== The Unity of Theoretical Study and Ideological Self-Cultivation ==<br />
We Communists must not separate our study of theory from our ideological self-cultivation. We must remould ourselves and temper our proletarian ideology not only in the practice of revolution but in the study of Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
The view is current among some members of our Party that a firm and purely proletarian stand is irrelevant to a Party member's understanding a and mastery of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism. They believe that one can thoroughly understand and genuinely master the Marxist-Leninist theory and method even though one's proletarian stand may not be very firm and one's ideology not very pure (i.e., it may be tainted with the remnants of non-proletarian ideas). They believe that the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism can be mastered merely through book learning. This view is wrong.<br />
<br />
Marxism-Leninism is the science of proletarian revolution, the science by which the working class builds socialism and communism. It can be thoroughly understood and mastered only by those who have a firm proletarian stand and who have made the ideals of the proletariat their own. Without a firm proletarian stand and pure proletarian ideals it is impossible for anyone to thoroughly understand or master the science of Marxism-Leninism. The science of Marxism-Leninism is of little of no use to anyone who is not a genuine revolutionary, who is not a proletarian revolutionary to the core, who does not want to bring about socialism and communism throughout the world and emancipate all humanity, to anyone who does not want revolution or is unwilling to carry it through to the end and wants to stop half-way.<br />
<br />
We often come across very fine Party members from the working class who are not well grounded in Marxist-Leninist theory and who may not do so well as others in an examination in which Marxist-Leninist works and formulations have to be quoted from memory. Yet in studying Marxism-Leninism, provided it is explained to them in language they understand, they generally show much keener interest and far greater comprehension than some Party members from the [[intelligentsia]]. For example, the section in Capital concerning surplus value is difficult for some Party members, but not for those from the working class. The reason is that in the process of production and of struggle against the capitalists, the workers come to know all too well how the capitalists calculate wages and working hours, exploit the workers for profit and oppress them. Therefore, they generally understand Marx's theory of surplus value more profoundly than do some Party members from other classes. When we say that many Party members from the working class are readier to accept Marxism-Leninism, we do not, of course mean that their class-background makes them born Marxist-Leninists. We mean that provided they study Marxist-Leninist theory modestly and diligently and have a real grasp of the method of seeking the truth from the facts, those comrades who have a firm and purely proletarian stand and are free from personal prejudice of other blemishes are certain to be keener and more correct than the others in their observation and handling of practical problems. In the struggle, too, these comrades will prove more able to discern the truth and will uphold it more courageously and unhesitatingly.<br />
<br />
Also, we come across many Party members of non-proletarian origin who differ in their development owing to their differing attitudes towards the relation between Marxist-Leninist study and ideological self-cultivation. Generally speaking, when they join the revolution such people do not have a firm and clear-cut proletarian stand, are not very correct or pure in their ideology, and to a greater of lesser extent carry over various non-proletarian ideas from the old society. Obviously these ideas come into direct conflict with the principles of Marxism-Leninism, and since the people take different attitudes, the results of the conflict differ. In studying Marxism-Leninism, some people correctly combine theoretical study with their ideological self-cultivation, using Marxist-Leninist principles to fight and overcome whatever is backward in their thinking. In this way thy achieve a more truly proletarian stand and a more undiluted proletarian ideology, and learn how to apply Marxist-Leninist principles to the solution of practical problems. We have many such Party members. Others, however, go the opposite way; they have a lot of old junk accumulated in their heads and many stubborn habits, prejudices and selfish desires, but the lack of determination to remould themselves. In studying Marxism-Leninism they do not make use of its principles to criticize and repudiate whatever is backward in their own ideology, but employ it as a weapon to further their own private ends, and this is carried to the point where the principles of Marxism-Leninism are so distorted by their old prejudices that these people can neither reach a correct understanding of these principles nor grasp the spirit and essence of Marxism-Leninism. When they handle practical problems in the course of revolutionary struggle, the habits and prejudices which they have brought with them from the old society and their individualistic calculations led them to think in terms of personal gain or loss, to be hesitant and vacillating and incapable of going deeply into things in a free untrammelled way or of courageously upholding the truth , and they conceal or distort the truth unintentionally, or even deliberately.<br />
<br />
These people are absolutely incapable of guiding their lives by the principals of Marxism-Leninism, and hence incapable of dealing with practical problems promptly, correctly and realistically according to these principles; sometimes they even adopt a negative attitude when practical problems have already been correctly solved according to these principals by the Party organization, or by comrades other than themselves. Such things are neither rare nor unusual, but are quite common.<br />
<br />
Thus we can say that it is impossible for a Party member who lacks a clear-cut firm proletarian stand and a correct, purely proletarian ideology to achieve a thorough understanding and real mastery of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism as a weapon in the revolutionary struggle. In other words a Party member must have the noble stand of the proletariat in order to become versed in Marxist-Leninist theory.<br />
<br />
At the same time, we should add that no Party member can maintain a proletarian stand and express a proletarian ideology concretely in every revolutionary struggle unless he studies the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism diligently and guides his thinking and action accordingly.<br />
<br />
There are some Party members who think it quite enough to have revolutionary firmness and to fight bravely, and that it does not matter much whether they study and undertake self-cultivation in Marxist-Leninist theory. Some comrades even think that a good class origin or a good personal class status is all that is needed to make them vanguard proletarian fighters, thus obviating the need to study Marxism-Leninism. There are other comrades who never study it earnestly in the course of work or struggle, though they generally admit the importance of theory. All such attitudes are obviously wrong.<br />
<br />
The theory of Marxism-Leninism is our weapon for studying every phenomenon and dealing with every question, and especially for studying all social phenomena and dealing with all social questions.. If we do not know how to wield the weapon of Marxist-Leninist theory, we shall be unable correctly to understand and deal with the problems confronting us in the revolutionary struggle and shall be in danger of loosing our bearings and departing from the revolutionary proletarian stand, or even, whether consciously or unconsciously, of becoming opportunists of one kind or another, captives and yes-men of the bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
Revolutionary firmness and courage in the struggle are precious qualities which every Communist must possess. Besides these qualities, Communists must have the ability to find the right way to conduct the revolution and carry on the struggle in different historical periods and under different conditions of struggle, if they are to win the victory for the revolution and realize the highest ideal of communism. Only by applying Marxism-Leninism can we correctly solve such important questions in the revolutionary struggle as the question of whom to rely upon, whom to unite with and whom to overthrow, the question of who are our direct allies, who is the main enemy and who are the secondary enemies, the question of rallying all possible allies, including even secondary enemies under certain conditions, to defeat the main enemy, and the question of making timely changes in strategy and tactics to meet changing situations. Without mastering the weapon of Marxism-Leninism and attaining a high degree of self-cultivation in Marxist-Leninist theory, we cannot possibly maintain a firm, correct proletarian stand on every important question in the revolutionary struggle, or formulate the policies which are most advantageous to the cause of the proletarian revolution or champion the overall, long term interests of the proletarian revolutionary struggle amid the complex situations and sharp changes, when it is necessary for us to make detours and turns.<br />
<br />
Consider, for instance, our Party's experience in carrying out the policy of the national [[united front]] against Japan. Before the Incident of July 7. 1937,<sup>1</sup> certain comrades did not understand that the [[contradiction]] between the Chinese nation and Japanese [[imperialism]] had become the principal one while the contradictions among the different classes and political groups within the country had become secondary. As a result, they opposed the Party's policy of forming a national united front against Japan. of uniting all [[Patriotism|patriotic]] classes, strata, political parties and social groupings for joint resistance, and especially of uniting with the Kuomintang to fight Japan. Although these comrades thought they were taking a firm proletarian stand in opposing the Party's correct policy, they actually departed from it and plunged into "closed-doorism" and [[sectarianism]]. Had we acted in accordance with their wrong views, the proletariat and its political party would have been unable to unite and lead all the patriotic classes, strata, parties and social groupings for the purpose of defeating Japanese imperialism; instead, the forces of the Anti-Japanese National United Front would have been weakened and the proletariat and its political party would have been isolated to the detriment of the struggle to resist Japan and save China. After the July 7th Incident, when our Party had formed the Anti-Japanese National United front with the Kuomintang, certain comrades went to the other extreme, maintaining that since the Kuomintang had joined in the resistance to Japan, there was hardly any distinction between it and the Communist Party. They adopted a policy of capitulation by appeasing the big [[landlord]] and big bourgeois classes and the Kuomintang. and opposed the Party's policy of upholding its independence within the united front. While they over estimated the strength of and placed undue trust in the Kuomintang, on which they pinned all their hopes for resisting Japan and saving China, they had no confidence in the strength of the Communist Party and the people, did not place their hopes on the Communist Party and therefore did not dare freely to expand the Party and the anti-Japanese people's revolutionary forces and to resolutely fight against the Kuomintang's policy of opposing and restricting the Communist Party. The comrades with this approach styled themselves as the true representatives of the proletariat, but in essence their policy would have made the proletariat a vassal or an appendage of the bourgeoisie, and would have caused the proletariat to loose the leadership of the Anti-Japanese National United Front. These "Left" and Right mistakes are both striking examples of the failure to take a firm proletarian stand and to identify the correct path for advancing the revolutionary cause when major changes are occurring in the political situation.<br />
<br />
The proletariat cannot just emancipate itself alone; it must fight for the emancipation of [[The people|all the working people]], the emancipation of the nation and of all humanity, for only thus can it fully emancipate itself. The proletariat must rid the whole of human society of exploitation, oppression and class struggle once and for all, for only thus can it genuinely and finally emancipate itself. Hence a firm proletarian stand must be sharply differentiated from "closed-doorism' and sectarianism. In waging struggles the proletariat and its political party must establish close ties with the masses of working people, form revolutionary alliances with other revolutionary classes and parties and lead the working masses and all their allies forward together; they must represent the interests of more than ninety per cent of the population of the country. To have a firm proletarian stand is to represent at all times and in all circumstances the highest interests of the overwhelming majority of the people, which, we must understand, are also the highest class interests of the proletariat. On the other hand, a firm proletarian stand must be sharply differentiated from all appeasement and capitulation. In waging revolutionary struggles the proletariat and its political party must draw clear lines of distinction not only between themselves and the landlord class and the bourgeoisie but also between themselves and the revolutionary democrats of the petty bourgeoisie, and must even make some distinction between themselves and the masses of working people. In the revolutionary struggle they must at all times firmly maintain their independence and be free from any bourgeois or other non-proletarian class influence. In every stage of the development of the revolutionary struggle they must combine the interests of the part with the interests of the whole and immediate interests with ling-term interests. As Marx and Engels said of Communists:<blockquote>1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.<br />
<br />
2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>During his struggle to organize a political party of the proletariat at the end of the 19th century, Lenin said:<blockquote>The consciousness of the masses and of the workers cannot be genuine [[class consciousness]], unless the workers learn to observe from concrete, and above all from topical (current), political facts and events, every other social class and all manifestations of the intellectual, ethical and political life of these classes; unless they learn to apply in practice the materialist analysis and the materialist estimate of all aspects of the life and activity of all classes, strata and groups of the population.<sup>3</sup></blockquote>Further:<blockquote>The [[Russian Social Democratic Labor Party|Social-Democrat]]'s ideal should not be a [[Trade union|trade-union]] secretary, but a tribune of the people, able to react to every manifestation of tyranny and oppression, no matter where it takes place, no matter what stratum of class of people it affects; he must be able to generalize all these manifestations to produce a single picture of police violence and capitalist exploitation; he must be able to take advantage of every event, however small, in order to explain his [[Socialism|socialist]] convictions and [[Democracy|democratic]] demands to all and everyone the world-historic significance of the proletariat's struggle for emancipation.<sup>4</sup></blockquote>To fulfill the requirements cited by Lenin in these two passages, we Communists must of course unceasingly take part in the revolutionary practice and thus increase our perceptual knowledge and accumulate practical experience. But it must be pointed out, perceptual knowledge and practical experience alone are not sufficient. As Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<blockquote>Fully to reflect a thing in its totality, to reflect its essence, to reflect its inherit laws, it is necessary through the exercise of thought to reconstruct the rich data of sense perception, discarding the dross and selecting the essential, eliminating the false and retaining the true, proceeding from the one to the other and from the outside to the inside, in order to form a system of concepts and theories—it is necessary to make a leap from perceptual to rational knowledge.<sup>5</sup></blockquote>Therefore, while engaged in revolutionary practice, we must most conscientiously study the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism.<blockquote>The theory of Marxism-Leninism is the summing-up of the experience of the international working-class movement; it is a theory formulated in revolutionary practice and in turn serving revolutionary practice. If only we study this theory, apply it and master it in close conjunction with revolutionary practice, we shall be able to understand the inner connections of the changes taking place all around us and to know how and in what direction the various classes are now moving and will soon move, and we shall be able to determine our line of action and shall confidence in the future of the revolutionary movement.</blockquote>It is precisely because the theory of Marxism-Leninism plays such a great role that Lenin said, "The role of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory."<sup>6</sup> Members of the Communist Party must closely link their study of the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism with their own ideological self-cultivation and self-tempering; they must never divorce one from the other.<br />
<br />
Time and again Comrade Mao Zedong has emphasised the tremendous importance of cultivating oneself in the theory of Marxism-Leninism. He has said:<blockquote>From the Marxist viewpoint, theory is important, and its importance is fully expressed in Lenin's statement, "Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." But Marxism emphasises the importance of theory precisely and only because it can guide action.<sup>5</sup></blockquote>Comrade Mao Zedong has constantly urged all Party members who have some capacity for study to study Marxist-Leninist theory, study the actual conditions of the movement, study Chinese and world history and learn to guide their actions by Marxist-Leninist theory and also help to educate comrades with a lower cultural and theoretical level. The whole Party should at times bear in mind this injunction of Comrade Mao Zedong's.<br />
<br />
== The Cause of Communism is the Greatest and Most Arduous Undertaking in Human History ==<br />
Now let us continue with our discussion of ideological self-cultivation by Communist Party members.<br />
<br />
What does ideological self-cultivation mean? Fundamentally, in my opinion, it means that every Party member should use proletarian ideology to combat whatever non-proletarian ideas he has, use the communist world outlook he has and use the principle of the supremacy of the interests of the proletariat, the people and the Party to combat his individualism.<br />
<br />
This struggle is one of conflicting ideologies, and it reflects the class struggle in society. For a Party member, the result of this struggle should be that the proletarian ideology overcomes and ultimately eliminates any non-communist world outlook and that ideas based on the general interests and aims of the Party, of the revolution and of the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity overcome and ultimately eliminate all individualism. If the opposite happens, that is, if the latter prevails over the former, the comrade concerned will retrogress and may even loose his qualifications as a member of the Communist Party. For a Communist that would be a terrible and dangerous thing to happen.<br />
<br />
We Communist Party members temper ourselves ideologically in struggles of all kinds inside and outside the Party, constantly sum up and learn from experience gained in revolutionary practice, and examine our own ideas to see whether they fully conform to Marxism-Leninism and the interests of the struggle for the emancipation of the proletariat. It is through such study, reflection and self-examination that we eliminate all remnants of incorrect ideas and nip in the bud any ideas inconsistent with the interests of communism.<br />
<br />
As you know, a man's words and actions are guided by his ideology. And a man's ideology is inseparable from his world outlook. The only world outlook for members of the Communist Party is the communist world outlook. This world outlook is the philosophical system of the proletariat and also our communist methodology.. All this has been abundantly discussed in Marxist-Leninist literature, and especially in the philosophical works of the founders. As you have studied it, I shall not go into it today. Here I shall only talk briefly of our communist cause, of what it is and how Party members should advance it.<br />
<br />
What is our most fundamental duty as Party members? It is to achieve communism. As far as the Communist Parties of different countries are concerned, in each country it is for the Communist Party and the people there to transform it by their own efforts, and in that way the whole world will be transformed step by step into a communist world. Will the communist world be good? We all know it will be. In that world there will be no exploiters of oppressors, no landlords and capitalists, no imperialists and fascists, nor will there be any oppressed and exploited people, or any of the darkness, ignorance and backwardness resulting from the system of exploitation. In such a society the production of both material and moral values will develop and flourish mightily and will meet the varied needs of all its members. By then all humanity will consist of unselfish, intelligent, highly cultured and skilled communist workers; mutual assistance and affection will prevail among men and there will be no such irrationalities as mutual suspicion and deception, mutual injury, mutual slaughter and war. It will of course be the best, the most beautiful and the most advanced society in human history. Who can deny that such a society is good? But can this good communist society be built? We say that it can and will be. Marxist-Leninist theory has explained this scientifically and beyond all doubt. A factual testimony has been provided by the victory of the Great October revolution and the successes in socialist construction in the Soviet Union. Our duty is constantly to advance the cause socialism and communism in accordance with the laws of development of human society, so as to make socialist and communist society a reality as soon as possible. This is our ideal.<br />
<br />
However, the cause of socialism and communism still faces powerful enemies who must be thoroughly and finally defeated in every field; only then will the socialist and communist society be brought into being. Victory for the communist cause can only be won through long and arduous struggle. Without it there can be no victory. This struggle, of course, is not an "accidental" social phenomenon or an invention of certain Communists as some people assert. It is inevitable in the development of class society; it is unavoidable class struggle. The birth of the Communist Party and the fact that Communists participate, organize and guide this struggle are also inevitable phenomena conforming with the laws of social development. The imperialists, [[Fascism|fascists]] and landlords—in short, all exploiters and oppressors—are oppressing and exploiting the overwhelming majority of the people of the world to such an extent that the people are hardly able to survive and have to unite and fight against this exploitation and oppression, because they cannot exist, much less make progress in any other way. This struggle, therefore, is natural and unavoidable.<br />
<br />
On the one hand, we must understand that communism is the greatest cause in human history, which will eliminate exploitation and classes once and for all, emancipate humanity and bring humanity into a world of happiness, radiating with beauty, such as it has never known before. But on the other hand, we must also understand that the cause of communism is the most arduous undertaking in all history; that only through protracted, bitter and torturous struggle will we be able to defeat all the exploiting classes; and that for a long time after our victory we shall patiently have to carry out social and economic, ideological and cultural transformation, for only thus will all the influences, conventions and habits of the exploiting classes be eliminated from among the people, and only thus will a new social and economic system, a new communist culture and code of social morality be built up.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party will defiantly win final victory by relying on the proletariat and the masses of the exploited and oppressed people an by using Marxism-Leninism to guide the revolutionary struggle of the masses and propel society towards the great goal of communism. The reason is that the historical laws of social development make the progress of human society towards communism inevitable; that latent in the proletariat and the other exploited and oppressed masses of the world lie extremely powerful revolutionary energies which, once mobilized, united and organized, can triumph over all the reactionary forces of the exploiting classes and imperialism; and that the Communist Party and the proletariat are the new and rising forces and whatever is new and rising is invincible. This has been fully demonstrated by the history of the world communist movement and the Communist Party of China. The present situation is as follows. Socialism has already won a great victory in the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]], or on one sixth of the earth's surface; militant Communist Parties armed with the theory of Marxism-Leninism have been organized in many countries; the world communist movement is rapidly growing and developing; and the forces of the proletariat and the other exploited and oppressed masses of the world are being rapidly mobilized and united in the course of incessant struggles. The communist movement is already organized as a mighty and invincible world force. Beyond all doubt the communist cause will continue to develop and advance, and will win final and complete victory. However, we should also realize that the international reaction and the exploiting classes are yet stronger than we are, that they are temporarily superior in many fields and that only by protracted, torturous and bitter struggles can we defeat them.<br />
<br />
In a society in which [[Private property|private ownership of the means of production]] has existed for thousands of years, the exploiting classes through their rule have built up great power in all fields and have grabbed everything under the sun. Their long rule has given rise to backwardness, ignorance, selfishness, mutual suspicion and deception, mutual injury and slaughter in human society, which have persisted down the ages. It has exerted a most pernicious influence on the exploited masses and on other members of society. This is the inevitable result of the efforts of the exploiting classes to preserve their class interests and rule. For they cannot maintain their ruling position unless they keep the exploited masses and the colonial peoples backward, unorganized and divided. Hence, in order to achieve victory we must not only conduct a stern struggle against the exploiting classes but also carry on a struggle against their long-standing influence among the masses and the backward ideas and other backward phenomena found among the masses, for only thus can we enhance their political consciousness and unite them to defeat the exploiting classes. Here is the difficulty in the course of achieving communism. Comrades! If the masses were all politically conscious, united, free from the influence of the exploiting classes and free from backwardness, as some people imagine them to be, what would be so difficult about the revolution?<br />
<br />
Not only does this influence of the exploiting classes exist before the victory of the revolution, but it survives for a very long time after when the exploiting classes have been ejected from their ruling position. Think how torturous is the process and how arduous are the work and struggle that are needed to vanquish the exploiting classes and their influence among the people once and for all, to emancipate and change all humanity, to transform myriads of small commodity producers, finally to abolish all classes and gradually to transform humanity that has lived in class society for thousands of years and been influenced by all kinds of old customs and conventions until it becomes communist humanity, intelligent and unselfish, and with a high level of culture and skill!<br />
<br />
Lenin said:<blockquote>The abolition of classes means not only driving out landlords and capitalists—that we accomplished with comparative ease—it also means abolishing the small commodity producers, and they cannot be driven out, or crushed; we must live in harmony with them; they can (and must) be remoulded and re-educated only by very prolonged, slow, cautious organizational work. They encircle the proletariat on every side with a petty-bourgeois atmosphere, which permeates and corrupts the proletariat and causes constant relapses among the proletariat into petty-bourgeois spinelessness, disunity, individualism, alternate moods of exaltation and dejection. The strictest centralization and discipline are required within the political party of the proletariat in order to counteract this, in order that the organizational role of the proletariat (and that is its principle role) may be exercised correctly, successfully, victoriously....The force of habit of millions and tens of millions is a most terrible force....It is a thousand times easier to vanquish the centralized big bourgeoisie than to "vanquish" the millions and millions of small owners; yet they, by their ordinary, everyday, imperceptible, elusive, demoralizing activity, achieve the very results which the bourgeoisie need and which tend to restore the bourgeoisie.<sup>1</sup></blockquote>He also said:<blockquote>...the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by its overthrow (even if only in one country), and whose power lies not only in the strength of international capital, in the strength and durability of the international connections of the bourgeoisie, but also in the force of habit, in the strength of small production. For all these reasons the dictatorship of the proletariat is essential, and victory over the bourgeoisie is impossible without a long, stubborn and war of life and death, a war demanding perseverance, discipline, firmness, indomitableness and unity of will.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>Hence the proletariat has a very difficult task to perform even after the victory of the revolution. The proletarian revolution differs from all other revolutions in history. Bourgeois revolutions, for example, are largely completed with the seizure of state power. But for the proletariat, victory and political emancipation are only the beginning of the revolution, and a tremendous amount of work remains to be done after the victory, after the seizure of state power.<br />
<br />
The cause of communism is needed a "hundred years' task", as the saying goes, and it defiantly cannot be accomplished at one stroke. In different countries this undertaking has to go through different stages, and different enemies must be defeated, before a communist society can gradually be established. Take the case of our own country. China is still in the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and our enemies are imperialism, which perpetuates aggression against China, and the feudal and comprador forces, which are in collusion with imperialism. Only when we have defeated these enemies can we complete the bourgeois-democratic revolution in our country. Then, after the victory of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, it will still be necessary to make the socialist revolution and to carry on socialist transformation and socialist construction for a long period, and only so will the gradual transition to communist society be possible.<br />
<br />
Since the ultimate goal of our struggle is the achievement of communism, it is naturally our duty as Communists to overcomes all the difficulties arising in the process.<br />
<br />
Since the communist cause is so great and arduous an undertaking, some people who seek social progress are still sceptical and not convinced that communism can be realized. They do not believe that under the leadership of the proletariat and its party the human race can develop and transform itself into a communist humanity of the highest quality and that all the difficulties in the process of revolution and construction can be overcome. Either they do not forsee the difficulties or they become pessimistic and disappointed when confronted with them, and there are even Party members who waver and desert the communist ranks.<br />
<br />
We communists should be men of the boldest vision and revolutionary determination. Every Party member should gladly and solemnly shoulder the task of realizing communism, a task greater and more arduous than any in human history. We clearly see the difficulties in the process of realising communism, but at the same time we clearly understand that they cam undoubtedly be overcome by arousing millions of people to the revolutionary action, and no difficulties will ever daunt us. We have the masses of the people to rely on, and we have full confidence that a substantial part of the work of building communism will be accomplished in our town time and that the whole of this magnificent undertaking will be triumphantly completed by the coming generations. The heroes of no other class in history could possibly have had this great communist ideal and boldness of vision. In this respect we have every reason for pride.<br />
<br />
I recall the instance of the western European bourgeois biographer<sup>3</sup> who interviewed Comrade Stalin during a visit to the Soviet Union and brought up the comparisons between historical personalities. Comrade Stalin told him that Lenin was like the ocean while Czar [[Peter I Romanov|Peter the Great]] was only a drop in the ocean. Such is the place in history a proletarian leader of the communist cause occupies, compared with that of a leader in the cause of the landlord and the rising mercantile classes. From this comparison we can see how truly great is a leader who fights for the triumph of communism and the cause of the emancipation of humanity and how paltry is one who fights for the cause of the exploiting classes.<br />
<br />
We Communist Party members must have the highest goals in our struggle and the highest ideals, while at the same time we must have a practical spirit and do real practical work. Such are the characteristics distinguishing us as Communists. If all a person has is great and lofty ideas without having a practical spirit or doing real practical work, he is not a good Party member but only a dreamer, a prattler or a pedant. On the other hand, whoever is interested only in practical work but lacks great and lofty communist ideals is not a good Communist either, but just a routine plodder. Only by combining the great and lofty ideals of communism with real practical work and practical spirit can one be a good Communist. This standard for a good Communist has often been stressed by Comrade Mao Zedong, the leader of our Party.<br />
<br />
The communist ideal is beautiful, while the reality of the existing capitalist world is ugly. This is precisely why the overwhelming majority of the people demand the changing of that reality and why it must be changed. In order to change the world we must not divorce ourselves from reality, disregard it or escape from it, nor must we surrender to ugly reality. We must face reality squarely, study and understand it, live and grow in it, fight against the ugly reality and transform it, so that we can gradually realize our ideal. Hence we members of the communist Party must initiate and press ahead with our great communist task of changing the world, beginning with our immediate surroundings, with the people immediately around us and such work as we can immediately undertake. Here we should criticize those young comrades who frequently make the mistake of wanting to escape from or disregarding reality. It is good that they have lofty ideals, but they often complain about their place of work and the kind of work they are given. They are always looking for some "ideal" place or job so that they can "change the world" with ease. But no such place and no such job exist, except in their dreams.<br />
<br />
The cause of communism is our life work. Throughout our lives, our every activity is exclusively devoted to it and to nothing else.<br />
<br />
== A Party Member's Personal Interests Must be Unconditionally Subordinated to the Interests of the Party ==<br />
Personal interests must be subordinated to the Party's interests, the interests of the local Party organization to those of the entire Party, the interests of the part to those of the whole, and temporary to long-term interests. This is a Marxist-Leninist principle which must be followed by every Communist.<br />
<br />
A Communist must be clear about the correct relationship between personal and Party interests.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party is the political party of the proletariat and has no interests of its own other than those of the emancipation of the proletariat. The final emancipation of the proletariat will also inevitably be the final emancipation of all humanity. Unless the proletariat emancipates all working people and all nations—unless it emancipates humanity as a whole—it cannot fully emancipate itself. The cause of the emancipation of the proletariat is identical with and inseparable from the cause of the emancipation of all working people, all oppressed nations and all humanity. Therefore, the interests of the Communist Party are the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity, are communism and social progress.. When a Party member<nowiki>''</nowiki>s personal interests are subordinated to those of the Party, they are subordinated to the interests of the emancipation of the class and the nation, and those of communism and social progress.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said:<br />
<br />
At no time and in no circumstances should a Communist place his personal interests first; he should subordinate to the interests of the nation and of the masses. Hence selfishness, slacking, corruption, seeking the limelight are most contemptible, while selflessness, working with all one's energy, whole hearted devotion to public duty, and quiet hard work will command respect.<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
The test of a Party member's loyalty to the Party, the revolution, the cause of communism is whether or not he can subordinate his personal interests absolutely and unconditionally to the interests of the Party whatever the circumstances.<br />
<br />
At all times and all questions a party member should give first consideration to the interests of the Party as a whole and put them in the foremost and place personal matters and interests second. The supremacy of the Party's interests is the highest principle that must govern the thinking and actions of the members of our Party. In accordance with this principle, every Party member must completely identify his personal interests with those of the Party both in his thinking and in his actions of the members of our Party both in his thinking and in his actions. He must be able o yield to the interests of the Party without any hesitations or reluctance and sacrifice his personal interests what ever of the two are at variance. Unhesitating readiness to sacrifice personal interests and even one's life, for the Party and for the proletariat and for the emancipation of the nation and of all humanity—this is one expression of what we usually describe as "Party spirit", "Party sense" or "sense of organization'. It is the highest expression of communist morality, of the principled nature of the party of the proletariat and of the purest proletarian class consciousness.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party should not have personal aims which are independent of the Party interests. Their personal aims must harmonize with the Party's interests. If the aim they set for themselves is to study Marxist-Leninist theory, to develop their ability in work, to establish revolutionary organizations and to lead the masses in successful revolutionary struggles—if their aim is more is to do more for the Party—then this personal aim harmonizes with the interests of the Party. The Party needs many such members and cadres. Apart from this aim, Party members should have no independent personal motives such as attaining position of fame, or playing the individual hero; otherwise they will depart from the interests of the Party and may even become careerists within the Party.<br />
<br />
If a Party member thinks only of the communist interests and aims of the Party, is really selfless and has no personal aims and considerations divorced from those of the Party, and he ceaselessly raises the level of his political consciousness through revolutionary practice and through the study of Marxism-Leninism, then the following ensues.<br />
<br />
First, he has a high communist morality. Taking a clear-cut, firm proletarian stand, he is able to show loyalty to and love for all comrades, all revolutionaries and working people, help them unreservedly and act towards them as equals, and he will never allow themself to hurt a single one of them for his own interests. He is able to feel for others, place themself in their position and be considerate of them. On the other hand, he is able to wage resolute struggle against the pernicious enemies of humanity and persevere in the fight for the interests of the Party, the proletariat and the emancipation of the nation and all humanity. "He is the first to worry and the last to enjoy themself".<sup>2</sup> Whether in the Party of among the people, he is the first to suffer hardship and the last to enjoy comfort; he compares themself with others not with respect to the material enjoyment but to the amount of work done for the revolution and the spirit of hard endurance in the struggle. In times of adversity he steps forward boldly, and in times of difficulty he does his duty to the full. He has such revolutionary firmness and integrity that "neither riches nor honours can corrupt him, neither [[poverty]] nor lowly condition can make him swerve from principle, neither threats nor force can bend him".<sup>3</sup><br />
<br />
Second, he has the greatest revolutionary courage. Having no selfish motives, he has nothing to fear. Having done nothing to give themself a guilty conscience, he can lay bare and courageously correct his mistakes and short comings, which are like "an eclipse of the sun or the moon".<sup>4</sup> Because he has the courage of righteous conviction, he never fears the truth, courageously upholds it, spreads it and fights for it. Even if it is temporarily to his disadvantage and if, in upholding the truth, he suffers blows of all kinds, is censured by most other people and so finds themself in temporary (and honourable) isolation, even to the point where he may give up his life, he will still breast the waves to uphold the truth and will never drift with the tide.<br />
<br />
Third, he learns how best to grasp the theory of Marxism-Leninism. He is able to apply them in keenly observing problems and in knowing and changing reality. Because he takes a clear-cut, firm proletarian stand and is tempered in Marxism-Leninism, he is free from personal apprehensions and self-interest, so that there is no impediment to his observation of things or distortion of his understanding of the truth. He seeks the truth from the facts, and he tests all theories and distinguishes what is true from what is false in revolutionary practice.<br />
<br />
Fourth, he is the most sincere, most candid and happiest of men. Because he has no private axe to grind, nothing to conceal from the Party and nothing he cannot tell others, he has no problems of personal gain or loss and no personal anxieties other than for the interests of the Party and the revolution. Even when he is working on his own without supervision and therefore has the opportunity to do something bad, he is just as "watchful over themself when he is alone"<sup>5</sup> and does not do anything harmful. His work bears examination and he is not afraid having it checked. He does not fear criticism and at the same time is able to criticize others with courage and sincerity.<br />
<br />
Fifth, he has the greatest self-respect and self-esteem. For the sake of the Party and the revolution he can be most forbearing and tolerant towards comrades and can suffer wrong in the general interest, even enduring misunderstanding and humiliation without bitterness if the occasion so demands. No personal aims lead him to flatter anyone or to desire flattery from others. When it comes to personal matters, he knows how to conduct themself and has no need to humble themself in order to get help from others. He knows how to take good care of themself in the interests of the Party and the revolution and how to strengthen both his grasp of theory and his practical effectiveness. But when it is necessary to swallow humiliations and bear a heavy load for some important purpose in the cause of the Party and the revolution, he can take on the most difficult and vital tasks without the slightest reluctance, never passing the difficulties to others.<br />
<br />
A member of the Communist Party should possess the finest and highest human virtues and take a clear-cut and firm Party and proletarian stand (that is, possess Party spirit and class spirit). Ours is a fine morality precisely because it is proletarian and communist. It is founded not on the protection of the interests of individuals or of the exploiting few, but on those of the great proletariat and the great mass of working people, of the cause of the final emancipation of all humanity, and the liberation of the whole world from the calamities of capitalism, and the building of a happy and beautiful communist world—t is a morality founded on the Marxist-Leninist theory of scientific communism. As we Communists see it, nothing can be more worthless or indefensible than to sacrifice oneself in the interests of an individual or a small minority. But it is the worthiest and most just thing in the world to sacrifice oneself for the Party, for the proletariat, for the emancipation of the nation and all humanity, for social progress and for the highest interests of the overwhelming majority of the people. Indeed, countless members of the Communist Party have looked death calmly in the face and made the ultimate sacrifice without the slightest hesitation. Most Communists consider it a matter of course to die for the sake of the cause, to lay down their lives for justice, when that is necessary. This does not stem from any revolutionary fanaticism or hunger for fame but from their scientific understanding of social development and their deep political consciousness. There is no morality in class society to compare with this high communist morality. The universal morality which supposedly transcends class is sheer deceptive nonsense and in fact a morality designed to protect the interests of the exploiting few. Such a concept of morality is always idealist. It is only we communists who build our morality on the scientific basis of historical materialism and proclaim its purpose to be the protection of the interests of the proletariat in the struggle for the emancipation of itself and all humanity.<br />
<br />
The Communist Party represents the general and long-range interests of the proletariat and all humanity in their struggle for emancipation; the Party's interests are the concentrated expression of this cause. One must never regard the communist Party as a narrow clique, like the guild perusing the interests of its members. Anyone who does so is no Communist.<br />
<br />
A Party member has interests of his own, which may be inconsistent with or even run counter to the interests of the Party in certain circumstances. Should this happen, it is incumbent on him to sacrifice his personal interests and unconditionally subordinate them to the interests of the Party; under no pretence or excuse may he sacrifice the Party's interests by clinging to his own. At all times and in all circumstances, he should fight heart and soul for the Party's interests and for the Party's development, regarding every success and victory won by the Party and the proletariat as his very own. Every Party member should strive to increase his effectiveness and ability in the service of the people. But this must be done in the fight for the advancement, success and victory of the Party's cause, and there must be no striving for individual development divorced from the fight to advance the Party's cause. The facts prove that only by complete devotion in the fight for the advancement, success and victory of the Party's cause can a Party member heighten his effectiveness and ability and that he cannot possibly make progress of heighten his ability in any other way. Hence a Party member can and must completely merge his personal interests with those of the Party.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party are no ordinary people but the awakened vanguard fighters of the proletariat. They must conscientiously represent the class interests and class ideology of the proletariat. Therefore, their personal interests must never project beyond those of the party and the proletariat. It is all the more necessary for each cadre and leader of the Party to be a living embodiment of the general interests of the Party and the proletariat and to merge his personal interests completely in their general interests and aims. In present-day China, it is the proletariat that best represents the interests of national liberation, and therefore our Party members must be worthy champions of the interests of the nation as a whole.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party must subordinate personal to Party interests and are required to sacrifice them to party interests if necessary. But this by no means implies that our Party does not recognise, or brushes aside, the personal interest of its members or that it wants to wipe out their individuality. Party members do have their personal problems to attend to, and, moreover, they should develop themselves according to their individual inclinations and aptitudes. Therefore, so long as the interests of the Party are not violated, a Party member can have his private and family life and develop his individual inclinations and aptitudes. At the same time, the Party will use every possibility to help members develop their individual inclinations and aptitudes in conformity with its interests, furnish them with suitable work and working conditions and commend and reward them. As far as possible, the Party will attend to and safeguard its members' essential interests; for example,, it will give them the opportunity to study and to acquire an education, it will help them cope with health and family problems and, when necessary, it will even give up some of its work in order to preserve comrades working under the rule of reaction. But all this has no other purpose than the overall interests of the Party. For the fulfillment of its tasks the Party must ensure that members have the conditions necessary for life, work and education so that they can perform their tasks with enthusiasm and without worry. Comrades in responsible Party positions must bear all this in mind when they deal with Party members' problems.<br />
<br />
To sum up, on his side, each Party member should completely submit themself to the interests of the Party and self-sacrificingly devote themself to the public duty. He should forego all personal aims and private considerations which conflict with the Party's interests. He should not think of themself all the time, make endless personal demands on the Party or blame the Party for not promoting or rewarding him. Whatever the circumstances, he should study hard, try to make progress, be courageous in struggle and make ceaseless efforts to raise the level of his political consciousness and his understanding of Marxism-Leninism, so as to be able to contribute more to the Party and the revolution. On their side all Party organizations and comrades in responsible positions, in dealing with the problems of Party members, should see how they work, live and study. and enable them to work better for the Party, ceaselessly develop themselves and raise their level in the course of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. In particular, attention should be paid to comrades who are really selfless and who serve the people well. Only so, through combined attention and effort by both sides can the interests of the Party be well served.<br />
<br />
== Examples of Wrong Ideology in the Party ==<br />
In the light of what has been said, we can see that if an understanding of communism and a correct correlation between personal and Party interests are taken as the standard for evaluating Party members and cadres, many measure up to it and can serve as models, but some do not yet measure up to this standard and still have various wrong ideas to some degree or other. It may not be amiss if I outline these wrong ideas for our comrades' attention.<br />
<br />
What are fundamentally the wrong ideas to be found among comrades in our Party?<br />
<br />
First. The people joining our Party not only differ in in class origin and personal class status but also carry with them aims and motives of every description. Many, of course, join the Party in order to bring about communism and attain the great goal of the emancipation of the proletariat and all humanity, but some do so for other reasons and with other aims. For example, some comrades of peasant background used to think that communism meant "expropriation of local tyrants and distribution of the land". When they first joined, they had no understanding of the real meaning of communism. Today, quite a number of people join the Party chiefly because it is resolute in resisting Japan and advocates the Anti-Japanese National United Front. Others join our ranks because they admire the communist Party for its good reputation or because they realize in a vague way that it can save China. Still others are seeking a future for themselves, chiefly because they have no other way out—they have no fixed occupation, are out of work, lack the means of study, or want to escape from family bondage or forced marriage, etc. A few even join because they count on the Party to get their taxes reduced, or because they hope to "make their mark" some day, or because their relatives or friends have brought them in, etc. Naturally, such comrades do not have a clear-cut and stable communist world outlook, do not understand the greatness of the communist cause and the difficulties besetting it, and lack a firm proletarian stand point. Naturally too, some of them will waver or change somewhat in certain circumstances at certain critical turning points. Since they bring all sorts of ideas with them into the Party, it is most important that they should be educated and should train and temper themselves. Otherwise they cannot become revolutionary fighters of the proletariat.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, there is no terrible problem here. After all, it is not a bad thing that people turn to the Communist Party, enter it seeking a way out of their predicament and approve of its policy. They are not mistaken in coming to us. We welcome them—everyone except for enemy agents, traitors, careerists and ambitious climbers. Provided they accept and are ready to abide by the Party's Programme and Constitution, work in one of the Party's organizations and pay membership dues, they may be admitted into the Communist Party. As for deeping their study and understanding of communism and the Partys Programme and Constitution, they can do so after joining the Party and can temper and train themselves in revolutionary struggle on the basis of what they learn; in this way they have every possibility of becoming very good Communists. Indeed, for most people it is impossible to have a proufound understanding of communism and the Party's Programme and Constitution before joining the Party. That is why we can only prescribe acceptance, and not a thorough understanding of the Partys Programme and Constitution as a condition for admission. Although many people do not have a thorough understanding of communism before joining, it is possible for them to become active fighters in the communist and revolutionary movements of the time. They can become politically conscious Communists provided they study hard after joining the Party. Furthermore, our Party Constitution stipulates that members are free to withdraw form the Party (there is no freedom of admission). Any member is free to notify the Party that he is withdrawing from it if he lacks a profound belief in communism, or cannot live a strict Party life, or for any other reason, and the Party gives him the freedom to withdraw. It will do nothing against him unless he gives away Party secrets or engages in wrecking activities against the Party after he leaves. As for careerists and spies who have wormed their way into the Party, of course they have to be expelled. Only thus can we preserve the purity of our Party.<br />
<br />
Second. Fairly strong [[individualism]] and selfishness are still to be found in some members of our Party.<br />
<br />
The individualism expresses itself as follows. Some people habitually place their personal interests above those of the Party when it comes to practical matters; they are preoccupied with personal gain and loss and always calculate in terms of personal interests; they abuse the public trust, turning their Party work to private advantage of one kind or another; or they attack comrades they dislike and wreak private vengeance, on high-sounding pretexts of principle or Party interests. When it comes to status, material benefits and other questions affecting everyday life, they invariably try to get more than others, compare themselves with those at the top, diligently strive after greater personal benefits and crow when they get them. But when it comes to work, they like to compare themselves with those who are less capable. When there hard hardships to beat they make themselves scarce. In times of danger they want to run away. When it comes to orderlies they always want more. Their living quarters must be of the best, and they want to show off and bask in the Party's glory. They want to grab all the good things of life, but when it comes to the "unpleasant things", they think these are for others. The heads of such people are stuffed with the ideology of the exploiting classes. They believe that "every person is for themself or that Heaven and Earth will destroy him", person is a "selfish animal", and "no one in the world is genuinely unselfish, unless he is a simpleton or an idiot". They even use such exploiting class rubbish to justify their own selfishness and individualism. There are such people in our Party.<br />
<br />
This type of self-seeking individualism often manifests itself inside the Party in unprincipled quarrelling, factional struggle, sectarianism and departmentalism; it manifests itself in disrespect for and willful violation of Party discipline. Most unprincipled struggles originate in personal interests. Those who go in for factional struggle and are given to sectarianism usually place their own individual interests or the interests of a small minority, above those of the Party. Often, in their unprincipled factional struggles they deliberately undermine Party organization and discipline, making unprincipled and sometimes calculated attacks on certain people, while contracting unprincipled friendships to avoid giving offence, to cover up for one another, to sing each other's praises, etc.<br />
<br />
Departmentalism within the Party arises chiefly because some comrades only see the interest of the part, i.e., the work of their own department of locality, and fail to see the interests of the whole, i.e., the interests of the entire Party and the work of other departments and localities. Politically and ideologically, this resembles the guild outlook. Not all comrades who make the mistake of departmentalism are necessarily prompted by individualism, but people with an individualist ideology usually make the mistake of departmentalism.<br />
<br />
Third. Conceit, the idea of individualistic heroism, ostentatiousness, etc., are still to be found, to a greater or lesser extent, in the minds of quite a few Party comrades.<br />
<br />
The first consideration of people with such notions is their position in the Party. They like to show off and to have people sing their praises and flatter them. They are ambitious, they like to cut a dash, to claim credit for themselves and to get the limelight, and they like to keep everything in their own hands and lack a democratic style of work. They are extremely vain and unwilling to immerse themselves in hard work or do routine or technical jobs. They are arrogant, and whenever they accomplish something they throw their weight about, become overbearing and try to domineer, and they do not treat others as equals in a modest and friendly way. They are complacent, talk down to and lecture people and order others about, and they are always trying to tread on people's necks; they do not learn modestly from others, particularly from the masses, and do not accept even well-grounded opinions and criticisms. They can bear promotion but not demotion, they can bear fair weather but not foul, and they cannot bear being misunderstood or wronged. As their baleful yearning for fame has not yet been uprooted they try to dress themselves up as "great men" and "heroes" in the communist movement and stop at nothing to gratify their desire. When they fail to achieve this object, or when they are misunderstood or wronged there is a danger that they will vacillate. Quite a number of people have vacillated and left our Party for such reasons in the course of its history. Exploiting class ideas still linger in the minds of such people, who fail to understand the greatness of the cause of communism and who lack the communist breadth of vision.<br />
<br />
Communists must not be in the least complacent or arrogant. Granted that some comrades are very capable, have done some good work and have to their credit considerable achievements which may be reckoned "great" and on which they might well preen themselves (for example, our army comrades who have led thousands and tens of thousands of men in battle and won victories, or the leaders of our Party and mass work in various places who have brought about fairly significant changes in the situation). Yet after all, how great are these achievements compared with the communist cause as a whole?<br />
<br />
And for persons with a communist world outlook, what is there worth preening oneself about in these achievements?<br />
<br />
For a Communist to do his work properly and well is no more than his duty. He should guard against complacency and arrogance and do his best to make no mistakes, or as few as possible.<br />
<br />
What is there in personal position for a Communist to bother about? No one's position is higher than an emperor's, and yet what is an emperor compared with a fighter in the cause of communism? Is he not just "a drop in the ocean" as Comrade Stalin put it? So what is there in personal position worth bothering or bragging about?<br />
<br />
Yes, we need countless communist heroes and many mass leaders of great prestige in our Party and in the communist movement. At present we really have too few of them and have yet to train and temper large numbers of good communist revolutionary leaders and heroes in all fields. This is indeed very important for our cause and must not be neglected. Whoever takes it lightly is ignorant of how to advance the cause of communism. Its advancement requires that we should greatly enhance the revolutionary spirit of enterprise among our Party members and bring their vitality into full play. We have to admit that so far we have not done enough in this respect. This is shown, for instance, by the fact that some Party members do not study hard and have little interest in politics and theory. Therefore, while we are opposed to individualistic heroism and ostentatiousness , we are certainly not opposed to a spirit of enterprise in the Party members. The desire to make progress in the interests of the people is the most precious quality in a Communist. But the communist, proletarian spirit of enterprise is entirely different from the individualist "spirit of enterprise". The former means seeking truth, upholding it and fighting for it with the greatest effectiveness. It is progressive and opens up unlimited prospects of development, while the latter offers no prospects even for the individual, for people with an individualist ideology are usually driven by their personal interest into deliberately brushing aside, covering up or distorting the truth.<br />
<br />
Our comrades must understand that genuine leaders and heroes in the communist movement are never individualistic, nor are they ever self-styled or self-appointed. Anyone who styles themself a leader or reaches after leadership can never become a leader of the Party. The rank and file of our Party will not make leaders of people who are prone to conceit, individualistic heroism, ostentatiousness, personal ambition and vanity. No member of our Party has any right to demand that the rank and file should support or keep him as a leader. Only those who are entirely selfless and devoted to the Party, only those with an excellent communist morality and fine communist qualities, who have grasped the theory and method of Marxism-Leninism, who have considerable practical ability, who can direct Party work correctly and who study hard and make constant progress can win the trust of the Party and the confidence and support of the rank and file, and so become leaders and heroes in the communist movement.<br />
<br />
Our comrades must also understand that a member, or a leader and hero, whoever he may be, can only do part of the work, can only carry part of the responsibility, in the communist movement. The communist cause is an undertaking which requires the collective efforts of tens of millions of people over a long period of time and which cannot be encompassed by any one individual alone. Even such great men as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin could only perform part of the work needed by the communist cause. The cause for which they worked requires the joint effort and sustained labour of tens of millions of us. We ordinary Communists are also doing part of the work of the communist cause and carrying part of the responsibility. Of course, our part is much smaller than that of Marx, Engles, Lenin or Stalin. Nevertheless, we have a small part. Big or small, it is all part of the great cause. Therefore, if only we do our part of the work well, we can consider that we have done our duty. Naturally we should try our best to do more, but if we cannot and can only do a little, that is also useful and just as honourable. In any case, we should at least not hamper the progress of the communist cause, but should do our part, whether big of small, and perform our work well, be it heavy or light; that is the correct attitude for every member of our Party. Comrades who are unwilling to undertake technical work think that it stifles their talents, that it prevents them from becoming famous (actually it does not, as witness the technical worker [[Alexei Stakhanov|Stakhanov]]<sup>1</sup> and from giving full play to their abilities and that it kills some of the enterprising spirit which all Communists should have. This view is wrong. Technical work occupies a very important place in our Party work, and comrades engaged in it are doing their share in the communist cause no less than comrades engaged in other jobs. The proper attitude for a Communist is to do whatever work the Party requires of him and do it happily and well, whether it suits his inclinations of not.<br />
<br />
Naturally, in assigning work to members, the Party organization and the responsible Party comrades should, as far as possible, take their individual inclinations and aptitudes into consideration, develop their strong points and stimulate their zeal to go forward. However, no Communist must refuse a Party assignment on the grounds of personal preference.<br />
<br />
Fourth, A small number of comrades are deeply imbued with the ideology of the exploiting classes. They are usually unscrupulous in dealing with comrades and in handling problems inside the Party, and are utterly devoid of the great and sincere proletarian communist spirit of mutual help and solidarity.<br />
<br />
People with this ideology always want to climb over the heads of others in the Party and, to this end, resort to attacking others and doing them harm. They are jealous of those more capable than themselves. They always try to pull down those who are moving ahead of them. They cannot bear playing second fiddle and think only of themselves and never of others. When other comrades are suffering difficulties of setbacks, they gloat or secretly rejoice and have no comradely sympathy at all. They even scheme to injure comrades "drop on one who has fallen into a well", and take advantage of comrades' weaknesses and difficulties to attack and harm them. They "crawl through any crack" and exploit and exacerbate any weakness in Party organization and work for their personal advantage.. They love to stir up trouble in the Party, speak ill of others behind their backs and engage in intrigues in order to sow dissension between comrades. They love to join in any unprincipled dispute that may occur in the Party and take great interest in unprincipled quarrels. They are especially active in stirring up and aggravating such quarrels when the Party is in difficulties. In short, they are thoroughly crooked and lack all integrity. Would it not be absurd to describe such people as being able to grasp the Marxist-Leninist theory and method and give expression to proletarian ideology? It is only too clear that all they express is the ideology of the declining exploiting classes.<br />
<br />
All exploiters must do harm to other people in order to expand. To increase their wealth, or to avoid bankruptcy in an economic crisis, bigger capitalists must squeeze many smaller capitalists out of existence and drive countless workers to starvation. To enrich themselves, landlords must exploit peasants and deprive many of them of their land. In order to expand, fascist Germany, Italy and Japan must devastate other countries; they have subjugated Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Abyssinia<sup>2</sup> and are committing aggression against China. Exploiters always harm and ruin other people as a necessary precondition for their own expansion; their happiness is founded on the suffering of others. Among the exploiters, therefore, genuine firm unity, genuine mutual help, and genuine human sympathy are impossible; they inevitably engage in intrigues and underhand activities in order to ruin others. Yet they have to lie and pose as saints and pillars of justice before the people. Such are the distinguishing characteristics of all declining exploiting classes. These person be models of "fine" ethical conduct for the exploiters, but they are most criminal from the point of view of the proletariat and the masses.<br />
<br />
The proletariat is the complete antithesis of the exploiting classes. It does not exploit others but is itself exploited. There is no conflict of basic interests within its ranks or between it and the other oppressed and exploited working people. Far from needing to harm other working people or impede their development for the sake of its own development and emancipation, the proletariat most forge the closest unity with them in the common struggle. If the proletariat is to emancipate itself, it must at the same time emancipate all other working people and emancipate all humanity. There can be no such thing as the separate emancipation of a single worker or section of workers. The proletariat must carry the cause of the emancipation of humanity through to the end, fighting step by step for the liberation of all humanity, and there can be no giving up or compromising half-way.<br />
<br />
As a result of this objective position occupied by the proletariat, the ideology of the politically conscious workers is the diametrical opposite of that of the exploiters. Communists are vanguard fighters of the proletariat, who arm themselves with Marxism-Leninism and are ruthless towards the people's enemies but never towards the toilers, their class brothers and comrades. They differentiate clearly and sharply between the attitudes and methods to be adopted against the enemy and those to be adopted towards their comrades and friends. They cherish great and sincere friendship, warmth and sympathy for other members of their own class and for all oppressed and exploited working people, towards whom they show a fine spirit of mutual help, firm unity and genuine equality. They are absolutely opposed to privileges of any kind for anyone, consider it impermissible to think in terms of privilege for themselves, and would deem it unthinkable and even a disgrace, to occupy a privileged position among the people. If they themselves are to develop and improve status, they must develop others and improve the status of all the working people at the same time. They are anxious not to fall behind, whether ideologically or politically or in their work, and they have a sturdy spirit of enterprise, but at the same time they esteem, cherish and support those who are ahead of them in these respects and, without any jealousy, do their best to learn from them. They are deeply concerned with the sufferings and privations of their own class and of all working people, they are concerned with all the struggles of the working people for emancipation anywhere in the world, regarding every victory or defeat for the working people anywhere as their own victory of defeat, and therefore displaying the greatest solidarity. They consider it wrong to be indifferent to the struggle of the working and oppressed people for liberation and criminal to gloat over their set-backs They cherish their own comrades and brothers, whose weaknesses and mistakes they criticize frankly and sincerely (and this shows genuine affection); in matters of principle they never gloss over and accommodate, let alone encourage mistakes (to accommodate or even to encourage others' mistakes does not betoken genuine affection for one's comrades). They do everything possible to help comrades overcome weaknesses and correct mistakes and never exploit or aggravate these weaknesses and mistakes to get comrades into trouble, let alone cause the mistakes to develop beyond correction. Not harbouring any desire to settle old scores, they can return good for evil to their own comrades and brothers and help them straighten themselves out. They can be strict with themselves and lenient with others. The stand they take is firm, strict and principled, their attitude is frank, upright and responsible, they do not give way on matters of principle, they do not tolerate anyone who harms the Party, they do not permit anyone to insult them and are particularly contemptuous of adulation and flattery as contrary to all principle. They oppose all unprincipled struggles; they do not let themselves become involved in such struggles and are not swayed or affected by irresponsible or casual criticism made behind their backs as to depart from principle, become incapable of thinking calmly or lose their composure. Such are the proletarian qualities in the most concentrated, exemplary and concrete form. These qualities represent everything of integrity in present-day society. Indeed it is the Communist Party that represents human integrity. We must foster and enhance such proletarian integrity and overcome all that is crooked and evil.<br />
<br />
Fifth. Pettiness, fussing over trifles and ignoring the general interest are faults still prevalent among some Party members. These comrades lack the nature and breadth of vision of Communists and are blind to the bigger things; they relish only the immediate and petty. They do not take much interest in the great problems and events in the Party and the revolution, but are always fussing over the merest trifles about which they enter into ponderous and endless arguments and become highly disturbed. Such people are also easily led by the nose when they receive some small favour or kindness. They have the petty-mindedness characteristic of small rural producers.<br />
<br />
There are other people who do not seem to have a clear-cut and definite attitude in their Party life, people who shift and hedge. They are actually of two kinds; for one kind the question is one of understanding and for the other, of moral character. The latter are always opportunistic in their personal behaviour, curry favour with all sides and try to please everybody. They tailor their words to the person and the circumstances, tack with the wind and show no principle whatsoever. Such are their characteristics. Sometimes, they wait and see what will suit the occasion, like the bat in Aesop's Fables,<sup>3</sup> and then move over to the winning side. Such-double faced creatures, who are neither fish nor fowl, are not altogether unknown in our ranks. They have the traits of the old-fashioned merchant. In addition, there are some individuals who, unable to resist the lure of the old society's exploiting classes, with their glittering world, their money and their women, begin to waver, go wrong and eventually to betray the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
Finally, the ideology of some of our Party comrades often reflects the impetuosity and vacillation of the petty-bourgeoisie and the destructiveness of the lumpen-proletariat and certain bankrupt peasants, but I shall not go into this question here.<br />
<br />
To sum up, our Party represents the great and powerful proletarian communist ideology, but it must be noted that all kinds of non-proletarian ideology—including even the ideology of the declining exploiting classes—are still reflected to a greater or lesser degree in the minds of certain comrades. At times such ideology is dormant in the Party, revealing itself only in insignificant matters of everyday life; but at other times it becomes active, systematically revealing itself in a whole variety of questions of Party principle, in major political questions and in problems of inner Party struggle. Certain sections of links in the Party organization may come to be dominated and corroded by such erroneous ideology, and in extreme cases in may even temporarily dominate key links in the Party leadership, as in the periods when people like [[Chen Duxiu]]<sup>4</sup> and [[Zhang Guotao]]<sup>5</sup> were in control. In normal periods, however, it is held in check by the correct proletarian ideology. These are all manifestations within the Party of the struggle between the proletarian and non-proletarian ideology. Similarly with some individual Party members. At times what is wrong in their ideology lies dormant and under control, but at other times it may grow and even dominate their actions. This is a manifestation among individual Party members of the contradiction and struggle between proletarian and non-proletarian ideology. For our Party members, ideological self-cultivation means that they must conscientiously use the proletarian ideology and the communist world outlook to overcome and eliminate all the various kinds of incorrect, non-proletarian ideology.<br />
<br />
== The Source of Wrong Ideology in Our Party ==<br />
The Communist Party, representing the brightest and most progressive aspects of contempory human society, is the bearer and disseminator of Marxism-Leninism, the acme of human thought. The most politically conscious, progressive and developed people in the world, people with the highest sense of morality and justice, are gathered in the communist Parties, fighting unswervingly against all the forces of darkness and for the bright future and final emancipation of humanity. The Communist Party of China is one of the best Communist Parties in the world. Guided by our leader Comrade Mao Zedong, our Party is armed with the powerful weapon of Marxist-Leninist theory and, at the same time, is carrying forward the fine traditions of progressive thinkers and revolutionaries in Chinese history. It represents the most progressive and brightest aspects of Chinese society, and the finest sons and daughters of the Chinese nation are gathered within its organized ranks. It has been fighting the forces of darkness in Chinese society for a long time, has gone through an arduous process of tempering and has accumulate rich experience in revolutionary struggle. In all this we Communists can justly take pride. There is every ground for absolute confidence that we shall finally be successful and victorious. However, we cannot say yet that everything in our organization is perfect, or that there are no shortcomings and faults. Nor can we say that our ranks are free from unsound and even bad elements, who might be quite capable of any sort of nastiness. In other words, our glorious Party contains some undesirable phenomena, some dark spots which I have already enumerated.<br />
<br />
Now when a family acquires an ugly son-in-law or daughter-in-law, it can not always keep him or her away from the guests. Even if we wanted to do so by taking the attitude of trying to "conceal the family shame", it would be impossible to hide such unpleasantness. The masses of the people are in constant contact with our Party, sympathisers come here to visit us and people who look up to us including many young men and women, come here to study or to join our Party. When they arrive, besides the progressive, fine and attractive things and "members of the family", they will naturally see the ugly sons- or daughters-in-law who might publicly say or do something unpleasant or make a spectacle of themselves, to the perplexity or our guests and new Party members. The newcomers may ask, "Does not the Communist Party stand for all that is just? Are Communists not the finest people? Why are there still such bad people and ugly things in the Communist Party? How strange!" Before joining the Party, some young comrades were bitterly dissatisfied with existing society, saw no way out and turned to the Communist Party as to a beacon of light. They thought that everything would be satisfactory and would work out well once they joined. Yet after doing so, or after arriving in our revolutionary base area, they find there are shortcomings and mistakes in the Party, too, and in real life not everything is satisfactory (much that would satisfy them would not be in the interests of the revolution and the Party), and so they feel reality is not entirely as they pictured it, and some begin to have doubts and feel puzzled. They ask, "Why are such things to be found in the Communist Party as well?" Before coming to Yan'an or before enrolling in the Anti-Japanese Military and Political College, some people imagined Yan'an and the College would live up to their dreams, but after their arrival and enrollment they do not find everything to their satisfaction and are perplexed. They ask, "How can such things happen even in Yan'an and the Anti-Japanese College?" And failing to find answers, some even become pessimistic and disheartened.<br />
<br />
Their questions should alert our Party members and cadres and be a lesson to them so that they will give serious attention to guiding and taking care of all new Party members and all who are moving in our direction and to ensuring they are not adversely affected. But, quite apart from this, we should explain things clearly to comrades inside and outside the Party.<br />
<br />
Why are there still such undesirable things in our splendid Party? The reason, I think, is rather simple. Our Party has not fallen from the skies, but has grown out of Chinese society. In general, our Party consists of the finest sons and daughters of our country, the vanguard of the Chinese proletariat, but they come from all strata of the old society, and in China today there still exists exploiting classes and the influence of these classes—selfishness, intrigue, bureaucracy and various types of filth. We have many excellent Party members who are not easily affected by such influences. But it is so strange that certain members bring some of the filth of the old society with them into our Party of reflect it there? Is it so strange that a person that has just crawled out of the mud is covered with slime? Of course not. It is only to be expected. It would be strange and indeed incredible, if the ranks of the Communist Party were absolutely free from such filth. It may be said that so long as such filth exists in society, so long as classes and exploiting class influences exist in society, there is bound to be some filth in the Communist Party. It is precisely because there is such filth in society, and in the Party, that it is the duty of the communist Party to change existing society, and it is necessary for Communists to remould, cultivate and temper themselves. In addition to carrying on a struggle in society at large against everything evil and backward,, it is imperative for us to carry on a struggle inside the Party against every social evil and backward influence as mirrored in the Party by vacillating and unsteady elements. This is the source of inner-Party contradiction and struggle. Through struggle, both inside and outside the Party, we seek to change society and gradually rid it of its evils and backwardness, and at the same time seek to perfect our Party and remould our Party members, and to resolve our inner-Party contradictions, so that our Party and its membership will become healthier and stronger.<br />
<br />
Stalin said:<blockquote>The source of the contradiction within the proletarian parties lies in two circumstances.</blockquote>What are these circumstances?<br />
<br />
They are firstly the pressure exerted by the bourgeoisie and bourgeois ideology on the proletariat and its party in the conditions of the class struggle—a pressure to which the least stable strata of the proletariat, and hence the least stable strata of the proletarian party, not infrequently succumb. It must not be thought that the proletariat is completely isolated from society, that it stands outside society. The proletariat is a part of society, connected with its diverse strata by numerous threads. But the party is a part of the proletariat Hence the Party cannot be exempt from connections with, and from the influence of, the diverse sections of the bourgeois society The pressure of the bourgeoisie and its ideology on the proletariat and its party finds expression in the fact that bourgeois ideas, manners, customs and sentiments not infrequently penetrate the proletariat and its party through definite strata of the proletariat that are in one way or another connected with bourgeois society.<br />
<br />
They are, secondly, the heterogeneity of the working class, the existence of a different strata within the working class....<br />
<br />
One stratum is the main mass of the proletariat, its core, its permanent part, the mass of "pure blooded" proletarians, who have long broken off connection with the capitalist class. This stratum of the proletariat is the most reliable bulwark of Marxism.<br />
<br />
The second stratum consists of new comers from non-proletarian classes—from the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie or the intelligencia. These are former members of other classes who have only recently merged with the proletariat and brought with them into the working class their customs, their habits, their waverings and their vacillations. This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for all sorts of anarchist, semi-anarchist and "ultra-Left" groups.<br />
<br />
The third stratum, lastly, consists of the labour aristocracy, the upper stratum of the working class, the most well-to-do portion of the proletariat, with its propensity for compromise with the bourgeoisie, its predominant inclination to adapt itself to the powers that be, and its anxiety go "get on in life". This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for outright reformists and opportunists.<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
Here we see the source of the various kinds of non-proletarian ideology and the various errors, shortcomings and undesirable phenomena that exist in our proletarian party. Here, indeed, is the source of the various contradictions that are present in our Party.<br />
<br />
== Attitudes Towards Wrong Ideology in the Party and Towards Inner-Party Struggle ==<br />
The influences exerted by the exploiting classes and the petty bourgeoisie, the existence of different strata within the working class and the differences in the class background of our Party members give rise to different ideas among them, to certain differences in viewpoints, habits and sentiments, in world outlook and moral values, and differences in the way they look at and think about things in general and the problems of the revolution in particular.<br />
<br />
Some people in our Party are able to view issues as developing and interrelated, but others habitually view them statistically and in isolation. The former are able to grasp matters comprehensively and objectively and hence to draw correct conclusions that can serve us as correct guide lines to action. As for the latter, some of them only see or over emphasize this side of a thing, while others only see and over emphasize the other side; both fail to view problems comprehensively and objectively in accordance with the laws of the development and interrelationship of objective phenomena, and both take a one-sided, subjective view of problems. Hence, they are unable to arrive at correct conclusions or chart the right course for our actions.<br />
<br />
The differences among Party members in their approach to problems lead to different ways of handling problems, to divergences and controversies are bound to become especially acute at turning points in the revolution, or when the struggle grows in intensity and hardship mount.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the crux of the matter is not whether there are differences of thought and opinion within the Party, since such differences always exist. The crux of the matter is how to resolve contradictions, settle differences and overcome all kinds of incorrect, non-proletarian thinking. Obviously, it is only through inner-Party struggle that such contradictions can be resolved, differences settled and incorrect thinking overcome. As Engels put it, “In the long run the contradictions are never slurred over, but always fought out.”<sup>1</sup><br />
<br />
Different people hold different views and take different attitudes with regard to shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in our Party.<br />
<br />
People of one kind do not or will not see shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in our Party, but blindly believe that there is scarcely anything wrong in it; hence they relax their vigilance and slacken their struggle their struggle against these phenomena. People of another kind see nothing, or hardly anything, except these undesirable phenomena and fail to see how correct and glorious our Party is; hence they become pessimistic and loose confidence, or they become alarmed and bewildered in the face of such phenomena. The views of both are wrong and one-sided. Our view is different.. On the one hand, we know we know that our Party is the political party of the proletariat, the most progressive and revolutionary party in China. On the other, we know clearly that there are still shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena, major and minor in our Party. Moreover, we clearly understand their source and how to correct and gradually eliminate them, and we are making constant efforts to temper ourselves, improve our work and wage the necessary struggles in order to promote the progress of the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
Since people differ in their class stand and their views, they take different attitudes towards what is undesirable in our Party. One attitude is that of alien class and hostile elements who have wormed their way into our Party. A second attitude is that of Party members who lack a firm proletarian stand and have a wrong way of thinking. A third is that of Party members who firmly uphold the principles of Marxism-Leninism.<br />
<br />
The alien class and hostile elements who have worked their way into the Party are glad of its shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena. Gleefully seeking their opportunity, they use every possible means to exploit and magnify some of these undesirable phenomena for the purpose of wrecking our Party. Sometimes they even make a pretence of opposing certain mistakes and supporting the Party line in order to cause an opposite kind of mistake to be committed. People with the second type of attitude fall into the following distinct categories:<br />
<br />
1. Some Party members sympathize with and accept certain erroneous ideas, or follow the bad example of certain people in the Party, so as to further their personal ends and desires. They consider the existence of certain short comings and mistakes in the Party to be to their advantage and therefore, whether intentionally or unintentionally, aggravate these failings and exploit them. This is the attitude of careerists of bad characters in the Party.<br />
<br />
2. Some Party members do nothing about the shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party and allow them to grow. They just muddle along and are unwilling to fight these evils. They fear inner-Party struggle and self-criticism, considering them harmful to the Party, or they are insensitive or shut their eyes to the undesirable things, or they are perfunctory and compromising in the struggle against them. This is the attitude taken by Communists who have a weak sense of duty towards the Party, are extremely liberalistic, or are guilty of bureaucracy.<br />
<br />
3. The attitude of some Party members towards these shortcomings and mistakes and towards those comrades who have incorrect ideas is one of “bitter hatred and gall”. They lightly sever all relations with comrades who have committed some mistake and whom they attempt to expel from the Party outright. If they fail in this and need rebuffs, they give up and become pessimistic and down-hearted, or they keep aloof, “preserve their purity” and even put a great distance between themselves and the Party. This extreme attitude is also shown in some comradesÕ mechanical conception of inner-Party struggle and self-criticism. People with this attitude believe that inner-Party struggle must be launched under any and all circumstances—the more frequently and bitterly, the better. They magnify every trifle into a matter of “principle” and brand every tiny fault with such labels as political opportunism. They do not carry on inner-Party struggle properly and specifically in accordance with the objective needs and objective laws of development, but instead “struggle” mechanically, subjectively and violently, regardless of the consequences. This is the attitude taken by Party members who do not understand the source of inner-Party contradictions, who lack skill in dealing with inner-Party differences and who have a mechanical conception of inner-Party struggle. For a time, this extreme attitude towards inner-Party struggle was exploited by the “Left” opportunists in the Party. They intensified mechanical and excessive struggles to the point of deliberately hunting for “targets of struggle” within the Party, deliberately creating inner-Party struggles, punishing comrades by abusing Party disciplinary measures and even employing against them measures applicable to struggles outside the Party; and it was by such “struggles” and “disciplinary measures” that they tried to push the work ahead.<br />
<br />
The attitude we should adopt is the proletarian Marxist-Leninist one. Contrary to the erroneous attitudes described above, we advocate the following.<br />
<br />
1. First of all, get to know the various phenomena, ideas, views and opinions in the Party and distinguish those which are correct and beneficial to the interests of the Party and the revolution from those which are not, or, in the case of a dispute in which both sides are wrong, perceive this and be able to point out the correct view or opinion. After sober analysis and consideration, decide on a clear-cut attitude and take a correct stand. Do not follow blindly or drift with the tide.<br />
<br />
2. Profit by every good example, promote and spread a spirit of integrity in the Party and vigorously support all correct views and opinions. Do not follow any bad examples or be influenced by any wrong ideas.<br />
<br />
3. Do not take a liberalistic attitude or flinch from any necessary inner-Party struggle. Carry on an irreconcilable struggle in the Party against ideas and views which are wrong in principle and against all other undesirable phenomena, so that we can constantly move to overcome them; they should never be allowed to develop unchecked to the detriment of the Party and the revolution.<br />
<br />
4. Do not take a mechanical and extreme attitude. Properly combine irreconcilability and clarity in matters of principle with flexibility and patient persuasion in methods of struggle; in thecourse of prolonged struggles, educate, criticize, temper and remould comrades who have committed errors but who are not incorrigible. Such inner-Party ideological struggles on matters of principle as are necessary at different periods should be waged in a concrete and proper way; inner-Party struggles should not be waged indiscriminatingly, subjectively,, mechanically or on shadowy pretexts. Do not become “struggle addicts”.<br />
<br />
5. Strengthen the unity and discipline of the Party and enhance its prestige through inner-Party struggle. Organizational penalties, ranging all the way to expulsion, should be applied to the incorrigible elements of the Party. We should regard it as our supreme duty to safeguard the Party’s unity, preserve the purity of its ideology and consolidate its organization.<br />
<br />
Such is the attitude of all good Communists in the Party and indeed the only correct Marxist-Leninist attitude.<br />
<br />
It is not strange that our enemies should seek to make use of our every shortcoming and mistake to undermine our Party. Besides constantly sharpening our vigilance, we should do everything possible to give the enemy as little opportunity as possible to exploit shortcomings and mistakes in the Party whenever they occur; this is the duty of every comrade who cherishes the Party. If a Party member ignores this consideration in inner-Party struggle, if he only seeks to vent his feelings, or goes to the length of joining up with bad elements instead of rejecting their assistance, or even makes use of outside forces to help him attain some private ends within the Party, he will be making an unpardonable breach of discipline.<br />
<br />
Members of our Party should be the embodiment of correct ideology and should follow good examples in the Party; they should not follow but oppose wrong ideas and bad examples. But what actually happens is that some comrades that are generally correct in their ideology and follow good examples, sometimes reflect certain wrong ideas and follow certain bad examples. Other comrades seem to find it easy to learn from bad but hard to learn from good, and this merits our serious attention. When mistakes occur in the Party, they are apt to encourage or aggravate them, intentionally of unintentionally. In inner-Party struggles they are apt to take the wrong side or to go along with whichever side is currently in vogue., irrespective of right and wrong. These comrades will hardly make progress unless they receive strict criticism and rigorous tempering.<br />
<br />
Of course comrades who adopt a liberalistic or bureaucratic attitude towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomenon inside the Party are also wrong. This, I think should be quite clear to you as students of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism. For in the Party building course which you have studied, the necessity of self-criticism and ideological struggle within the Party is clearly and thoroughly discussed; you can go into it again, and I need not well on the matter further. However, I do want to point out that quite a few comrades have this liberalistic attitude. We often do not have enough really responsible and sincere criticism and self-criticism conducted in keeping with the Party’s organizational principles, for the purpose of exposing, correcting and eliminating the undesirable phenomena in the Party, and more particularly we do not have enough criticism from below and self-criticism, both of which would be greatly encouraged. On the other hand, there is quite a lot of criticism that is irresponsible and not in keeping with the Party’s organizational principles, of talking behind peopleÕs backs and gossip about this or that person or thing. Both are manifestations of liberalism in the Party. They show that some of the comrades are insufficiently mature politically and are not courageous enough in revolutionary struggle; they also indicate that inner-Party democracy has not been properly developed. Some comrades dare not dispense with face-saving, and fear to offend others lest they themselves incur complaints and counter-criticism. They would rather leave the shortcomings and mistakes alone, taking the attitude of “getting by” and “the less trouble the better”, but at the same time they talk about comrades behind their backs. All this harms the Party and does it no good. Irresponsible criticism and talk are not likely to overcome the shortcomings and mistakes in the party but will lead to unprincipled disputes and disunity. We stand for inner-Party criticism and self-criticism which is responsible and beneficial to the Party and is in keeping with its organizational principles.<br />
<br />
Shortcomings and mistakes exist in the Party and so do incorrect non-proletarian ideas. Any of these may at certain times develop into a trend, giving rise to differences of principle and imparing the PartyÕs unity of action. Hence it is impossible to educate the Party, the proletariat and the masses correctly if we do not unfold criticism and self-criticism, constantly expose and correct short comings and mistakes, overcome wrong ideas and conduct inner-Party struggle to resolve inner-Party differences, but instead take a compromising attitude and follow a “middle” line, or try to muddle through in inner-Party struggle.<br />
<br />
Liberalism in inner-Party struggle is manifested in yet another way. Thus when a dispute breaks out in the Party, many comrades put aside their work and indulge in aimless debate for days and months on end or let themselves go without restraint; as a result, the unity of the Party becomes the looser, Party discipline is weakened, the Party’s prestige is impaired and our militant Party organizations turn into debating societies. Such things have occurred more than once in certain Party organizations. They have absolutely nothing in common with the kind of criticism and self-criticism we advocate. We need criticism and self-criticism, not in order to impair the Party’s prestige, undermine its discipline and weaken its leadership, but in order to promote the Party’s prestige, consolidate its discipline and strengthen its leadership.<br />
<br />
Hence, it is wrong to adopt a liberalistic or bureaucratic attitude towards the various shortcomings and mistakes in the Party. In order to fight against all undesirable phenomena and resolve differences, we must promote criticism and self-criticism and conduct inner-Party struggle correctly. Only then can the party be strengthened, grow and advance.<br />
<br />
Comrades who take an extreme attitude in inner-Party struggle are also wrong.<br />
<br />
The extreme attitude is the exact antithesis of the liberalistic attitude. It arises because these comrades fail to understand that wrong ideas in the Party have deep social roots and cannot possibly be eliminated at one stroke. At various times and in varying degrees, many of our Party comrades may reflect certain incorrect ideas existing in society and may commit some mistakes in their work under the influence of non-proletarian ideologies; no comrade can entirely avoid this. If the Party were to refuse to retain or tolerate all comrades who reflect non-proletarian ideologies in some degree, or who have committed some mistakes and yet are not incorrigible, and were to reject them categorically and even expel them, then the tasks of educating the comrades and consolidating the Party’s organization would be nonexistent. Were our Party to follow such an extreme policy, the comrades promoting such actions would eventually have to be expelled themselves. In particular, these comrades fail to understand that the achievement of communism involves the tremendous and difficult task of transforming all humanity into the selfless citizenry of a communist society, the task of converting men with their many weaknesses into communists with a high level of culture through a long process of tempering and education in the course of struggle. If they did understand this, then they would understand that our Party has the important and constant duty of educating and remoulding people who are already members but whose ideology is not wholly proletarian.<br />
<br />
Naturally, the education and remoulding of such Party members is a most arduous task requiring prolonged and patient effort. Yet if we are unwilling to tackle this difficult task and shrink from it, how can we talk about changing the world and all humanity? Since we are determined to undertake, and not to shrink from, the unprecedentedly arduous task of changing the world and all humanity, what other task in the world today can daunt us? Party members who have the communist world outlook are dauntless, fear no difficulty or hardship, and understand that the process of development is torturous. Comrades who take an extreme attitude do not understand that the achievement of communism is an arduous and torturous task, they fear difficulties and crave a straight road, they want to eliminate everything unpleasant at one stroke and leap immediately into the world of their ideals. Thinking and acting in this way, they inevitably run their heads against a brick wall. And after banging and bruising their heads, they quite often become disheartened and loose their confidence in the future of communism. Thus they swing between extremes, from “Left” to “Right”, thereby revealing the essence of their non-proletarian ideology. It is regrettable that this erroneous, extreme attitude towards inner-Party shortcomings and mistakes should still be found to a greater or lesser extent among quite a few comrades, although it is harmful to the Party, to other comrades and to themselves.<br />
<br />
Inner-Party struggle is necessary not because we are subjectively addicted to struggle or partial to dispute, but because inner-Party differences of principle do arise in the growth of the Party and in the proletarian struggle. When they occur, “contradictions can be overcome only by means of a struggle for definite principles, for definite aims of the struggle, for definite methods of waging the struggle leading to the desired aim.”<sup>2</sup> Compromise is of no avail here. This means that when a dispute has developed into one of principle which can only be resolved through struggle, we should unflinchingly wage inner-Party struggle in order to resolve it. It does not mean that we should make a big fuss over small matters, conduct inner-Party struggle with stony faces and never compromise even on routine and on questions of a purely practical nature. “One can, and one should agree to any compromise with dissenters in the party on questions of current policy,, on questions of a purely practical nature.”<sup>3</sup><br />
<br />
When opportunist ideas and differences of principle arise in the Party, we must, of course, wage struggles to overcome those ideas and errors of principle. This defiantly does not mean that when there are no differences of principles and no opportunist ideas in the Party, we should deliberately magnify into “differences of principle” divergences of opinion among comrades on questions of a purely practical nature.<br />
<br />
Comrade Mao Zedong has said: “The Party must on the one hand wage a serious struggle against erroneous thinking, and on the other give the comrades who have committed errors ample opportunity to wake up. This being the case, excessive struggle is obviously inappropriate.”<sup>4</sup><br />
<br />
It is necessary to make severe criticism of, or even to apply organizational penalties to, those comrades who, after committing opportunist mistakes or other mistakes of principle, turn a deaf ear to persuasion and Party criticism, wilfully and obstinately cling to their errors and resist Party policy, or double-faced in their attitude. But if these comrades do not cling to their mistakes but are willing to correct them and give up their previous point of view after sober discussion, persuasion and criticism, or if they coolly ponder over their mistakes or soberly discuss them with other comrades, we should welcome every small sign of progress on their part and not subject them to penalties undiscriminatingly. In criticism and inner-Party struggle, it is not true that the more stony-faced we are the better, or that the more comrades we punish the better; our highest aim is to educate the erring comrades to the best effect, help them to correct their mistakes, educate the entire membership and consolidate the Party.<br />
<br />
The “Left” opportunists are clearly wrong in their attitude towards inner-Party struggle. According to these almost hysterical people, any peace in the Party was intolerable—even peace based on complete unanimity on matters of principle an on the Party line. Even in the absence of any differences of principle in the Party, they deliberately hunted out targets, dubbed some comrades “opportunist” and set them up as “straw men” to shoot at in inner-Party struggle. They thought that such erroneous struggle and such shooting at “straw men” were the magic formula for developing the Party and achieving victory in the revolutionary fight of the proletariat. They considered that to stir up trouble out of nothing or to deliberately concoct inner-Party struggle was the only “Bolshevik” way. Of course, this is not serious and earnest inner-Party struggle; rather it is a mockery of the Party and the perverting of inner-Party struggle, which is a most serious matter, into a frivolous game. The advocates of such action are not Bolsheviks at all but are either people who are well-nigh incorrigible or careerists exploiting the name “Bolshevik”.<br />
<br />
We have been discussing the attitude to be adopted towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party. It is by combating all that is bad inside and outside the Party that we change the world and humanity and at the same time perfect the Party and remould ourselves. Inner-Party struggle is a reflection within the Party of existing contradictions in society between classes and between old and new. The Party tempers, develops and consolidates itself in the class struggle outside the Party (i.e., in the revolutionary struggles of the masses of the people) and simultaneously becomes consolidated and united through struggle inside the Party, and is therefore able to give more systematic, correct and effective leadership to the revolutionary struggle of the masses. Hence it would be utterly wrong, advantageous to the enemy, contrary to the laws of development of the class struggle and incompatible with our basic thesis of transformation of the world and humanity through struggle, if we were to adopt a liberal attitude towards shortcomings, mistakes and other undesirable phenomena in the Party by flossing over internal differences of principle, covering up inner-Party contradictions, evading inner-Party struggle and just muddling along. Similarly, it would be wrong to isolate the struggle inside the Party from the class struggle outside the Party or the revolutionary movement of the masses and thus turn inner-Party struggle into empty talk. In fact, it is impossible to temper, develop and consolidate the party in isolation from the revolutionary struggle of the masses. However, it would be equally wrong and contrary to the laws of development of the Party, if we were to carry matters to the other extreme and adopt an extreme attitude towards all comrades who have shortcomings or have committed errors but who are not irredeemable, or if we were to fail to distinguish between them and the enemy, conducting mechanical and excessive inner-Party struggles against them and wilfully fabricating such struggles. We should not break with comrades who have committed errors but who are nevertheless loyal. Rather, we should show concern and sympathy for them, persuade and educate them and help them temper and reform themselves in struggle. We should not castigate or expel them unless they persist in their mistakes and prove incorrigible.<br />
<br />
Although there are still some shortcomings and mistakes, some isolated minor evils in our Party, we are fully confident that with the advance of the working-class movement we can and will get rid of them through the great revolutionary struggles of the masses. The history of nearly two decades of struggle and glorious progress by the Communist Party of China and the worldwide development of the working-class movement, thoroughly convince us of this.<br />
<br />
Inner-Party struggle is an indispensable component of the revolutionary struggle as a whole. Our comrades should therefore temper and cultivate themselves both in struggles outside the Party and in the struggle on two fronts inside the Party. Among many Party comrades, however, there is still no genuinely profound appreciation of such inner-Party struggle, and there is insufficient tempering and self-cultivation. This is manifested not only in the frequent unprincipled struggles carried on by some comrades but also in the fact that certain comrades, including even some with a fairly long history of militant struggle, cannot stand being criticized of misjudged. When fighting the counter-revolution, they never waver, complain or feel dejected, however ruthless the struggle, however bitter the conditions and however vicious the enemy’s blows. Yet in inner-Party struggle they cannot stand being criticized, attacked, misjudged or wronged, or tolerate even a single unpleasant word. Or they suspect people of making pointed allusions to them, and so they complain and feel very dejected. We must really five this kind of thing our attention.<br />
<br />
It must be stated that on the whole these comrades are very good because they wage resolute struggle against the counter-revolutionaries and look upon the Party as a most affectionate mother. After going out to fight hard battles against the counter-revolutionaries they should receive encouragement, consolation and caresses, and not blows and wrongs, when they return to their great mother’s embrace. It is only natural for them to expect such treatment. However, they fail to take one point into account, or fully into account—that our Party still has shortcomings and faults and that there are inner-Party struggles which every comrade must take part in. Our Party criticises and combats shortcomings and faults not because it is unfeeling but because such action is unavoidable in the course of revolutionary struggle. It is necessary for comrades in the course of inner-Party struggle to receive well founded criticism, for it is helpful to them, to the other comrades and to the whole Party. On the other hand, it is also unavoidable that at times some comrades will receive unfounded criticisms or be attacked on certain matters, or will even be wrongly judged and disciplined. Failing to allow for this, they become shocked and feel most miserable and dejected when it occurs.<br />
<br />
In this connection, it is my opinion that every Party member should pay attention to uniting with his comrades, be sincere and open,, refrain from hurting others by thoughtless or sarcastic remarks and, in particular, refrain from irresponsibly criticizing comrades behind their backs. The proper attitude to any comrade’s mistakes is sincerely to remonstrate with him and criticize him to his face., out of concern for the comrade and a desire to be of help. All of us, and especially those in more responsible positions, must bear this in mind.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, it is my opinion that comrades should be mentally prepared for inner-Party struggle, should open-mindedly accept all well-grounded criticism and be able to endure misunderstandings or attacks, or even unfairness and injustice; in particular, they should not get upset or excited over irresponsible and unjustified criticism or rumours. As far as irresponsible misjudgement and criticism are concerned—that is, excluding properly conducted criticism among comrades or through the Party organization—one can try and clear the matter up or offer some explanation when necessary, but if that does not help, one might just as well let others say what they please, provided there is nothing wrong in one’s thinking and behaviour. Let us remember the Chinese sayings: “Who never gossips about others behind their backs or is never the subject of gossip?” and “Never mind the storm, just sit tight in the fishing boat.” No one in this world can entirely avoid being misunderstood, but misunderstandings can always be cleared up sooner or later. We should be able to endure misunderstandings and should never allow ourselves to be dragged into unprincipled struggle; at the same time, we should be always vigilant and keep watch over our own thoughts and actions.<br />
<br />
That is to say, we should take care not to use words that wound other comrades and should be able to stand injurious language from others.<br />
<br />
We are radically opposed to unprincipled disputes in the Party. Since they are unprincipled, they are useless and harmful to the Party, and there is generally little of right or wrong, or good or bad, about them. In such unprincipled struggles, therefore, there is no point in passing judgement as to who is right and who is wrong, or estimating who is better and who is worse, because that is impossible. All we can do is radically to oppose struggles of that kind and ask the comrades involved unconditionally to stop them and get back to principles. This is the policy we should adopt towards unprincipled disputes and struggles. But what is to be done if unprincipled disputes do arise and if many of them get tangled up with struggles over principle? What should be done if such disputes knock at our door and we get dragged into them? All we can do in that case is, again, to put the stress on the questions of principle and avoid stressing those not involving any principle. Basing ourselves on the policy outlined here, we should handle such unprincipled disputes strictly and ourselves stand firm on the principle from beginning to end, refusing to be dragged into the unprincipled disputes. When something does go wrong to you, do not throw back something wrong at him. Always stand by the right to oppose the wrong. Some of our comrades find it very difficult to act in this way, which shows why special attention to self-tempering and self-cultivation is necessary.<br />
<br />
Let me briefly sum up the points discussed.<br />
<br />
The aim of ideological self-cultivation by members of the Communist party is to temper themselves to become staunch and utterly devoted members and cadres of the Party who make constant progress and serve as examples for others. What is required of us is the following:<br />
<br />
1. To build up our communist world outlook and a firm Party and proletarian class standpoint through the study of Marxism-Leninism and participation in the revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
2. To examine our own thinking and behaviour, to correct all erroneous ideas and at the same time to judge questions and judge other comrades on the basis of our communist world outlook and our firm Party and proletarian class standpoint.<br />
<br />
3. Always to adopt a correct attitude and appropriate methods in the struggle against erroneous ideology in the Party, and especially against the erroneous ideology which affects the current revolutionary struggle.<br />
<br />
4. To keep a firm control over ourselves in thought, speech and action, especially to take a firm standpoint and adhere to correct principles with regard to political ideas, statements and activities which are related to the current revolutionary struggle. In addition, it is as well to be careful even over “trifles” (in one's personal life, attitude, etc.). But as for making demands on other comrades, apart from matters of principle and major political questions, we should not be too severe or fault finding over “trifles”.<br />
<br />
In my opinion, the above is what we mean, fundamentally, when we talk about ideological self-cultivation by members of the Communist Party.<br />
[[Category:Library works by Liu Shaoqi]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Big_Bill_Haywood&diff=63624Big Bill Haywood2024-03-03T18:26:31Z<p>RedCustodian: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Message box/Copiedfromwiki}}<br />
<br />
'''William Dudley Haywood''' (also known as '''Big Bill Haywood'''; February 4, 1869 – May 18, 1928) was a founding member and leader of the [[Industrial Workers of the World]] (IWW) and a member of the executive committee of the [[Socialist Party of America]] before being expelled by Opportunists. He blamed the executive committee of the SPA for influencing Reactionary law of the [[United States of America|Statesian Government]], with the SPA's amendments to Party constitution forbidding direct action, which in his view lead to the Criminal syndicalism laws. During the first two decades of the 20th century, Haywood was involved in several important labor battles, including the Colorado Labor Wars, the Lawrence Textile Strike, and other textile strikes in Massachusetts and New Jersey.<br />
<br />
Haywood was an advocate of industrial unionism, a labor philosophy that favors organizing all workers in an industry under one union, regardless of the specific trade or skill level; this was in contrast to the craft unions that were prevalent at the time, such as the AFL. He believed that workers of all ethnicitic groups should be united, and favored direct action over political action.<br />
<br />
Haywood was often targeted by prosecutors due to his support for violence. An attempt to prosecute him in 1907 for his alleged involvement in the murder of Frank Steunenberg failed, but in 1918 he was one of 101 IWW members jailed for anti-war activity during the First Red Scare. He was sentenced to twenty years. In 1921, while out of prison during an appeal of his conviction, Haywood fled to the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet Union]], where he spent the remaining years of his life.<br />
<br />
Despite the impression of Haywood being uneducated and uninterested in theory, Haywood actually took the effort to educate himself in classical literature, Revolutionary writings and most critically, the writings of Marx and Engels. Haywood even described the IWW of his time as being fundamentally "Marxian" in nature.</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union&diff=63619Communist Party of the Soviet Union2024-03-03T17:35:50Z<p>RedCustodian: /* Russian Social Democratic Labour Party */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Infobox political party<br />
| colorcode = red<br />
| name = Communist Party of the Soviet Union<br />
| native_name = Коммунисти́ческая па́ртия Сове́тского Сою́за<br />
| native_name_lang = Russian<br />
| logo = [[File:CPSU.svg|frameless|175px]]<br />
| abbreviation = CPSU<br />
| founded = May, 1917<br />
|banned=6 November 1917| dissolved = 6 November, 1991<br />
| newspaper = ''Pravda''<br />
| think_tank = Central Policy Research Office<br />
| youth_wing = Young Communist League </br> Vladimir Lenin All-Union Pioneer Organization<br />
| political_orientation = [[Marxism–Leninism]]<br />
}}<br />
{{Communist parties}}<br />
[[File:CPSU organizational diagram.png|thumb|351x351px|Diagram of the structure of the CPSU]]<br />
The '''Communist Party of the Soviet Union''' ('''CPSU'''),<ref name=":0" group="lower-alpha" /> was a [[communist party]] tracing back to the [[Russian Social Democratic Labor Party]] (RSDLP), which was established in its second congress in 1903.<ref>{{Citation|author=Central Committee of the CPSU|year=1938|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=Formation of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. Appearance of the Bolshevik and the Menshevik groups within the party|quote=Notwithstanding the fact that the First Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Party had been held in 1898, and that it had announced the formation of the Party, no real party was as yet created. There was no party program or party rules. The Central Committee of the Party elected at the First Congress was arrested and never replaced, for there was nobody to replace it. Worse still, the ideological confusion and lack of organizational cohesion of the Party became even more marked after the First Congress.<br><br>[...]<br><br>Iskra linked up the scattered Social-Democratic circles and groups and prepared the way for the convocation of the Second Party Congress. At the Second Congress, held in 1903, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party was formed, a Party Program and Rules were adopted, and the central leading organs of the Party were set up.|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/index.htm}}</ref> The party brought together the [[Vanguard party|vanguard]] of the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)|Soviet]] peoples in the construction of [[Socialism|socialist]] society.<br />
<br />
Its predecessor, the RSDLP, had split into [[Bolsheviks|Bolshevik]] and [[Mensheviks|Menshevik]] factions in 1903. The CPSU emerged in continuity with the Bolshevik political line.<br />
<br />
The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party of Russia (Bolsheviks) in 1918, the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in 1925, and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) in 1952.<br />
<br />
== Names== <br />
<br />
*1917–1918: Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks); RSDLP(b)<ref group="lower-alpha">Russian: Российская социал-демократическая рабочая партия (большевиков); РСДРП(б)</ref><br />
*1918–1925: Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks); RCP(b)<ref group="lower-alpha">Russian: Российская коммунистическая партия (большевиков); РКП(б)</ref><br />
*1925–1952: All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks); AUCP(b)<ref group="lower-alpha">Russian: Всесоюзная коммунистическая партия (большевиков); ВКП(б)</ref><br />
*1952–1991: Communist Party of the Soviet Union; CPSU<ref group="lower-alpha" name=":0">Russian: Коммунистическая партия Советского Союза; КПСС</ref><br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
<br />
=== Russian Social Democratic Labour Party ===<br />
In 1898 the [[Russian Social Democratic Labor Party]] was created, uniting the several communist study groups scattered around Russia. Among its founders were people like [[Vladimir Lenin]] and [[Julius Martov]]. It established itself as a Marxist party that had the task of overthrowing the monarchy and bring about socialism. However during the course of the struggle there was a lot of disagreement about when this goal was to be implemented and how. In 1903 emerged a ''de facto'' split in the party, and two factions were formed: the [[Mensheviks]] led by Martov and the [[Bolsheviks]] led by Lenin.<br />
<br />
Although Lenin and many others first anticipated the two groups could merge again, the split ended up worsening and the two factions became separate parties: the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (Mensheviks) and the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks).<br />
<br />
The main differences between the groups were the following:<blockquote>1. The Bolsheviks wanted an organisationally united party of serious revolutionaries while the Mensheviks wanted a more loose [[Reformism|reformist]] party.<br />
<br />
2. Both parties agreed that the next course of action was to overthrow the monarchy and carry out the so-called “[[Bourgeois revolution|bourgeois-democratic revolution]].” This would make Russia a capitalist [[Bourgeois democracy|parliamentary democracy]]. However the Mensheviks argued that the class to lead the revolution was the [[bourgeoisie]], the capitalist class, as the bourgeois class served this function in the [[French Revolution]]. The Bolsheviks disagreed, they thought the [[Bourgeoisie|capitalists]] couldn’t be trusted to carry out the democratic revolution: they were weaker than the bourgeoisie in [[French Republic (1792–1804)|France]] at the time, they allied with the monarchy, and they feared the workers and peasants. In fact, Lenin argued that the Russian [[proletariat]] was much stronger and more developed than the French proletariat of the late 1700s and therefore should lead the democratic revolution, and not merely support it.<br />
<br />
3. Lastly, the Mensheviks didn’t think Russia was ready for socialism, in their opinion the workers could never take power in Russia until after a long time of capitalist and parliamentary development. Even though the debate about workers revolution and socialism would only come about fully later, this attitude relates to the Menshevik position that the workers shouldn’t lead the democratic revolution, but only support the capitalist class against the monarchy.</blockquote>In the 1907 London Congress (the Fifth Congress of the RSDLP) for example, the Mensheviks advocated for a liquidationist program that would see the RSDLP dissolved in favor of a Bourgeois democratic 'Labor Congress', branding the RSDLP a 'petty bourgeois intellectual' organization. This was in stark contrast to the member compositions of the pro-Party group (Bolsheviks) and anti-Party group (Mensheviks), where the Bolsheviks in percentage and in total numbers possessed a higher degree of Proletarian elements as opposed to the Mensheviks' petty bourgeois composition. The blatant fabrication and liqudationist line advocated by the Mensheviks was opposed by even their own Proletarian elements and denounced as Opportunist by Rosa Luxembourg, a visiting delegate of the SPD. <ref>{{Web citation|author=Joseph Stalin|newspaper=Bakinsky Proletary|title=The London Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party|date=1907-06-20 / 1907-07-10|url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:The_London_Congress_of_the_Russian_Social-Democratic_Labour_Party|retrieved=2024-03-03}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== Split with Mensheviks ===<br />
<br />
=== October Revolution ===<br />
The party grew from 10,000 members in April 1917 to 500,000 by the time of the [[Russian revolution of 1917|October Revolution]].<ref>{{Citation|author=[[Vijay Prashad]]|year=2017|title=Red Star over the Third World|chapter=Red October|page=28|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacecu7gb2ei65us6ip3r2ugcgkblneqcftbm456mb6bzvprkbqk55qm?filename=Vijay%20Prashad%20-%20Red%20Star%20Over%20the%20Third%20World-LeftWord%20Books%20%282018%29.pdf|city=New Delhi|publisher=LeftWord Books}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== Civil War ===<br />
The party reached 600,000 members in 1921. Lenin conducted the first purge of the party in 1921 and expelled 25% of its members including 45% in the countryside. This purge was the largest in the party's history. Party members could be expelled for the following reasons:<br />
<br />
* Being former [[Kulak|kulaks]], [[White Army|Whites]], or [[Counterrevolution|counterrevolutionaries]]<br />
* Being [[Corruption|corrupt]], [[Bureaucracy|bureaucratic]], or overly ambitious<br />
* Rejecting [[Democratic centralism|party discipline]] or disobeying the Central Committee<br />
* Committing crimes or sexual misconduct or being drunk publicly<ref name=":02">{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=The struggle against bureaucracy|isbn=9782872620814|publisher=Editions EPO|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|page=102–105}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== Internal struggles ===<br />
[[Leon Trotsky|Trotsky]] and [[Grigory Zinoviev|Zinoviev]] formed an anti-Party bloc in 1926, leading the Central Committee to organize a general party discussion. 724,000 party members voted for the Central Committee and only 4,000 voted for the [[Trotskyism|Trotskyists]].<ref>{{Citation|author=[[Joseph Stalin]]|year=1939|title=History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)|chapter=The Bolshevik Party in the Struggle for the Socialist Industrialization of the Country|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch03.htm|chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch10.htm}}</ref><br />
<br />
The Central Committee purged Trotsky and his followers from the party in December 1927. In June 1928, several Trotskyists, including Zinoviev, [[Lev Kamenev|Kamenev]], [[Yevgeni Preobrazhensky|Preobrazhensky]], and [[Alexei Rykov|Rykov]], returned to the party after recanting their views. [[Nikolai Bukharin|Bukharin]] and the Right Opposition soon formed an alliance with the Trotskyists against [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]].<ref name=":022">{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=The Great Purge|isbn=9782872620814|publisher=Editions EPO|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|page=116–117}}</ref><br />
<br />
Between 1928 and 1931, the CPSU accepted 1.4 million new members, including many who lacked [[Theory|theoretical]] knowledge. 11% of the party was purged in 1929. Another purge began in 1933 and lasted two years. It was difficult to tell who was a party member because 250,000 party cards were lost or stolen.<ref name=":02" /> Zinoviev and Kamenev were purged a second time in the early 1930s.<ref name=":022" /><br />
<br />
=== 17th Congress ===<br />
The 17th Party Congress was held in 1934 following the success of the First Five-Year Plan. Opposition leaders were invited to make speeches.<ref name=":022" /><br />
<br />
=== 1937–38 purges ===<br />
278,818 people were expelled from the party during the [[Soviet purges of 1937–1938|purges of 1937 and 1938]]. The number of expulsions was lower than in previous years, but a much higher proportion of those purged were active cadres. Many wrongfully purged members appealed to rejoin the party, and 54% them were readmitted. Out of 182,000 Old Bolsheviks (party members before 1921) in 1934, 125,000 remained in the party by 1939.<ref name=":022332">{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=The Great Purge|isbn=9782872620814|publisher=Editions EPO|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|page=167–170}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== 19th Congress ===<br />
At the 19th Party Congress in 1952, the last congress before the death of Stalin, [[Georgy Malenkov|Malenkov]] upheld Marxism–Leninism, [[self-criticism]], and party discipline. Stalin criticized [[Anastas Mikoyan|Mikoyan]] and [[Lavrentiy Beria|Beria]] and worried that the party would not be able to recognize enemies without him.<ref name=":02233232">{{Citation|author=Ludo Martens|year=1996|title=Another View of Stalin|chapter=From Stalin to Khrushchev|isbn=9782872620814|publisher=Editions EPO|pdf=https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceab64vxtxpqt2cdl4zsrsftmedqidn4foq74gr25qkd35z5nwogdi?filename=Ludo%20Martens%20-%20Another%20View%20of%20Stalin-Editions%20EPO%20%281996%29.pdf|page=253–260}}</ref><br />
<br />
=== Perestroika ===<br />
The CPSU held its 19th Conference in June 1988, and [[Mikhail Gorbachev|Gorbachev]] and [[Alexander Yakovlev|Yakovlev]] implemented parliamentary policies. Gorbachev purged non-revisionists, including [[Andrei Gromyko]], from the Politburo, and changed [[Yegor Ligachyov|Ligachyov]] from head of ideology to head of agriculture. Party membership began dropping, and the party lost more than 250,000 members in 1990.<br />
<br />
The 28th Party Congress in July 1990 weakened the Central Committee and made the entire Congress instead of just the CC elect the General Secretary. It allowed the formation of factions within the party.<ref name=":032">{{Citation|author=Roger Keeran, Thomas Kenny|year=2010|title=Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union|chapter=Crisis and Collapse, 1989-91|page=180–187|pdf=https://ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzaceaj5ucph44bjwyhlhsbycckr3ts76zbucn2hbrea32tltcd4s5ekg?filename=Roger%20Keeran_%20Thomas%20Kenny%20-%20Socialism%20Betrayed_%20Behind%20the%20Collapse%20of%20the%20Soviet%20Union-iUniverse.com%20%282010%29.pdf|publisher=iUniverse.com|isbn=9781450241717}}</ref><br />
<br />
== Demographics ==<br />
In 1922, [[Judaism|Jews]] made up 5.2% of party membership, roughly five times their total proportion of the population. From the late 1920s through the 1940s, the percentage of Jews in the party was about 4.3%.'''<ref name=":023">{{Citation|author=Albert Szymanski|year=1984|title=Human Rights in the Soviet Union|chapter=The European Nationalities in the USSR|page=88|pdf=https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceazdmtb2y3qq27fve5ib3gk7uv2unt6ae2xss74xmfpur7k5uhl5m?filename=Albert%20Szymanski%20-%20Human%20Rights%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union_%20Including%20Comparisons%20with%20the%20U.S.A.-Zed%20Books%20Ltd.%20%281984%29.pdf|city=London|publisher=Zed Books Ltd|isbn=0862320186|lg=https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=C597B1232D9EA6B0F3DCB438D7E15A81}}</ref>'''<br />
<br />
In 1972, the majority of CPSU members were [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1991)|Russians]], but [[Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic (1921–1991)|Georgians]] made up the highest ratio of party members per capita, followed by Russians and then [[Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic (1936–1991)|Armenians]]. [[Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic (1940–1991)|Moldovans]] were the most underrepresented nationality in the party.<ref>{{Citation|author=Albert Szymanski|year=1984|title=Human Rights in the Soviet Union|title-url=https://archive.org/details/HumanRightsInTheSovietUnion/page/n37/mode/1up|chapter=The Asian Nationalities in the USSR|page=59|city=London}}</ref> The percentage of women in the party rose from 7.4% in 1920 to 26.5% in 1981.<ref>{{Citation|author=Albert Szymanski|year=1984|title=Human Rights in the Soviet Union|title-url=https://archive.org/details/HumanRightsInTheSovietUnion/page/n37/mode/1up|chapter=Women in the USSR|page=118|city=London}}</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
===Notes===<br />
<references group="lower-alpha"/><br />
[[Category:Communist parties]]<br />
[[Category:History of the Soviet Union]]<br />
[[Category:Politics of the Soviet Union]]</div>RedCustodianhttps://en.prolewiki.org/index.php?title=Library:The_London_Congress_of_the_Russian_Social-Democratic_Labour_Party&diff=63618Library:The London Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party2024-03-03T17:33:15Z<p>RedCustodian: Created page with "(Notes of a Delegate) The London Congress is over. In spite of the expectations of liberal hacks, such as the Vergezhskys 33 and Kuskovas, 34 the congress did not result in a split, but in the further consolidation of the Party, in the further unification of the advanced workers of all Russia in one indivisible party. It was a real all-Russian unity congress, for at this congress our Polish comrades, our comrades of the Bund, and our Lettish comrades were for the first..."</p>
<hr />
<div>(Notes of a Delegate) <br />
<br />
The London Congress is over. In spite of the expectations of liberal hacks, such as the Vergezhskys 33 and Kuskovas, 34 the congress did not result in a split, but in the further consolidation of the Party, in the further unification of the advanced workers of all Russia in one indivisible party. It was a real all-Russian unity congress, for at this congress our Polish comrades, our comrades of the Bund, and our Lettish comrades were for the first time most widely and fully represented, for the first time they took an active part in the work of the Party congress and, consequently, for the first time most directly linked the fate of their respective organisations with the fate of the entire Party. In this respect the London Congress greatly contributed to the consolidation and strengthening of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party.<br />
<br />
Such is the first and an important result of the London Congress. But the importance of the London Congress is not confined to this. The point is that, in spite of the wishes of the liberal hacks we have referred to, the congress ended in the victory of “Bolshevism,” in the victory of revolutionary Social-Democracy over the opportunist wing of our Party, over “Menshevism.” Everybody, of course, is aware of the disagreements among us on the role of the different classes and parties in our revolution and of our attitude towards them. Everybody knows, too, that in a number of pronouncements the official centre of the Party, which is Menshevik in composition, took a stand in opposition to the Party as a whole. <br />
<br />
Recall, for example, the case of the Central Committee’s slogan of a responsible Cadet ministry, which the Party rejected in the period of the First Duma; the case of the same Central Committee’s slogan of “resumption of the session of the Duma” after the First Duma was dispersed, which was also rejected by the Party; and the case of the Central Committee’s well-known call for a general strike in connection with the dispersion of the First Duma, which was also rejected by the Party. . . . It was necessary to put an end to that abnormal situation. And to do this it was necessary to sum up the actual victories the Party had achieved over the opportunist Central Committee, the victories which fill the history of our Party’s internal development during the whole of the past year. And so the London Congress summed up all these victories of revolutionary Social-Democracy and sealed the victory by adopting the tactics of that section of Social-Democracy.<br />
<br />
Consequently, the Party will henceforth pursue the strictly class policy of the socialist proletariat. The red flag of the proletariat will no longer be hauled down before the spell-binders of liberalism. A mortal blow has been struck at the vacillation characteristic of intellectuals, which is unbecoming to the proletariat.<br />
<br />
Such is the second and no less important result of the London Congress of our Party. The actual unification of the advanced workers of all Russia into a single all-Russian party under the banner of revolutionary Social-Democracy—that is the significance of the London Congress, that is its general<br />
<br />
character. We shall now pass to a more detailed characterisation of the congress.<br />
<br />
=== THE COMPOSITION OF THE CONGRESS ===</div>RedCustodian